May 2, 2008

Pastor John,

[In reference to your email to Maleah D] People like Moses and Abraham and all those OT people that were pleasing to God, would they not of been in Paradise rather than the lake of fire (hell)?

Steve

Hi Steve:

Yes. Without the sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world, every human who has ever lived would be cast into the Lake of Fire. Everything depended on Jesus. This is why, as Jesus said, Abraham rejoiced to see his [Jesus'] day.

Pastor John

May 1, 2008

Pastor John, Last night the Traughbers and I watched the DVD of your lesson on "pneuma" at Brother Hemphill's house. I loved it. It was a very conclusive study and well presented. I have already spoken to a couple students here attending seminary about what I learned. I'm curious to hear what they come back to say in response. (Naturally they assume there is a response by some theologian somewhere.)

I have not seen a logical response yet from a trinitarian, but I would welcome one. I will include with this email (at the bottom) the correspondence I had with the translator of a "literal" translation last year, to show you what I mean.

The night before I was reading your tract the Blood of Christ and cross referencing it with the portion of the Spiritual Light pertaining to the "True Communion of Saints". My mind was thinking heavily on translation since in the tract you site Acts 2:33 "hath shed forth this, that you now see and hear!" (Acts 2:33). Where in my Bible (NKJV) and others normally use "poured out". However, understanding that translation is not the reason why I'm writing, although it is about "the blood of Christ".

Tom and I pondered quite a bit on this last night and thought it would be worth writing you about. Firstly is blood a neuter word?

yes.

We deduced that it is. Now this may be a stretch here but for the sake of greater understanding, I'm guessing if the author of Hebrews felt that the Holy Spirit were a third person, could he used his liberty in Greek to use a mascline article before "blood of Christ" in Hebrews 9:14?

I don't think so. A thing is a thing. No one changed any feminine or mascuine word to accomodate a trinitarian view.

And is there anything we can take from it remaining neuter?

I don't think so. At least , I can think of nothing.

I know it's a stretch, but perhaps there is something else about the translation of the word blood you could elaborate on?

Sorry. What I have done with that study is just about all that I can do. It is an extremely simple concept and easy to follow. To pursue it much farther would certainly complicate the issue by becoming too cerebral (i. e., not staying in the Spirit).

Thankful for the opportunity to learn,
Michael

Thank you for your questions. May I pass them on to everyone? It may help somebody.

Pastor John

Correspondence:

My Correspondence with a Trinitarian Translator

April, 2007

Dear Sir,

I use your translation constantly while I am working on my own translation of the NT, and I have a question that puzzles me.

In the pronouns, verbs, and participles of the NT that refer to the Spirit, please help me understand your rationalization for translating the Greek it (or which) as he (or who). I have noticed as I am going through the NT that you do not usually translate neuter words referring to the Spirit as neuter (it) but as masculine (he).

Is there a Greek grammar rule that you can point me to that allows for this change, especially in a "literal" version such as yours.

I am publishing a study on the issue of words used by the NT writers that have pneuma as an antecedent, and I am very interested in anything you have to say concerning the translation of neuter Greek words relating to the Spirit, possibly to include in the book as a sort of Trinitarian defense of the practice.

Thanks beforehand for any help you might give me in this matter.

Sincerely,

John Clark

Translator:

Since I am reviewing the text for the Third Edition [of my translation] anyways, I reviewed how I rendered pronouns referring to the Holy Spirit. Below is a list of the only relevant verses I could find. Also included are a few comments from A. T. Robertson on the verses indicated, plus a notation where the pronoun can be either neuter or masculine. More comments after the list.

John 14:17: "The Spirit of the truth, whom the world is not able to receive, because it does not look upon [or, watch [for] Him, nor knows Him. But you know Him, because He dwells with you and will be in you."

JDC:

Yes, this is what I was asking about. In this verse from your translation, all the words translated Him are which in Greek. And the verb "dwell in" could be either he dwells" or "it dwells".

Translator:

John 14:26: "But the Counselor [or, Helper], the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, that One will teach you all [things] and will cause you to remember all [things] which I said to you."

JDC:

Yes, that is another case of changing the apostle’s word which to he.

Translator:

John 15:26: "But when the Counselor [or, Helper] comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of the truth, who proceeds from the Father, that One will testify concerning Me."

In John 15:26, the "which" (Greek: ho) is a grammatical neuter to agree with pneuma, and should be rendered "who" like the which (ho) in 14:26.

JDC:

But that is my question. Why "should" the which, the word that the apostle John used, be translated as if it were who – whether it be in 14:26 or 15:26?

Is there any rule of Greek grammar that would allow a translator to translate the original word like that?

Translator:

John 16:13: "But when that One shall come-the Spirit of the truth-He will guide you into all the truth. For He will not speak from Himself, but as many things as He hears He will speak, and He will announce to you the coming [things].

JDC:

Since the masculine word, "Comforter" (paraclatos), is the antecedent, this translation seems correct.

Translator:

Acts 13:2: "Now while they [were] ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work which I have called them to.’ "

Romans 8:16: "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God!"

[In Romans 8:16, in the phrase, "Spirit himself", note that the Greek pronoun auto refers to pneuma].

The grammatical gender of pneuma is neuter as here, but the Greek uses also the natural gender as we do exclusively, as in John 16:13 ekeinos ("that masculine one") [in reference] to pneuma (neuter). See also John 16:26 (ho – ekeinos).

It is a grave mistake to use the neuter it or itself when referring to the Holy Spirit.

JDC:

But, sir, why is it "a grave mistake"? The "himself" in your translation is not what Paul wrote. Are you saying that Paul made a "grave mistake" when he wrote itself?

The antecedent for ekeinos in John 16:13 is not actually the neuter word pneuma but the masculine word paraclatos, is it not?

Please help me here. I am trying to understand your logic because your logic is the logic of most Christian translators, and I know that you all must be capable men.

Let me try asking my question more clearly. Maybe there is something wrong with how I am phrasing it. . . .

Let’s say that we would approach the Greek of the NT without ever having been taught the doctrine of the Trinity; that is, without any theological bias at all, either for or against the notion that the Spirit of God is a person. What is there in Greek grammar itself that would make us think to change the words that the apostles used so that in English we make it appear that they referred to God’s pneuma as a person?

To be more specific about John 16:13, the phrase that ekeinos is in, is almost identical to 15:26, except for the absence of the word paraclatos, to which word ekeinos naturally belongs. "The Spirit of truth", as in 15:26, is set off by commas from the rest of the sentence, presumably to distinguish pneuma from paraclatos, as before. In other words, where is the grammatical basis for thinking that ekeinos referred to pneuma in this verse when paraclatos is hanging out nearby and has already been used by John as the antecedent of ekeinos?

Translator:

Rom. 8:26: "So in the same manner also, the Spirit helps our weaknesses; for what we will pray for, as it is necessary [for us], we do not know, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession on our behalf with inexpressible groanings."

JDC:

This himself is also itself in the original Greek.

Translator:

2Cor: 11:4: "For if indeed the one coming [to you] preaches another Jesus whom we did not preach, or you receive a different Spirit which you did not receive, or a different gospel which you did not accept, you may well put up [with it]!"

JDC:

This translation, it seems to me, is exactly what any good translator would write. Both spirit and gospel are neuter words; therefore, "which" is appropriate to each. I assume that in this case, you chose to refer to spirit as "which" (as Paul did) because Paul was speaking not of the Spirit of God but some other spirit. But if God’s Spirit is a person, would not some other spirit be a person as well? And if so, why not refer to that person as he or whom?

Translator:

Eph 4:30: "And stop grieving the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed [or, secured] for [the] day of redemption."

[The Greek word for "Whom" in this verse is can be either neuter or masculine.]

JDC:

Yes, the form of the Greek pronoun here can be either masculine or neuter, but on what basis, other than a personal faith in the personhood of the Spirit, does a translator justify translating Paul’s word as "whom"?

Translator:

1Peter 3:18-19: "For Christ also suffered once for sin for all [time, the] Righteous [One] on behalf of unrighteous [ones], so that He should bring you to God, [Christ] having been put to death on the one hand in [the] flesh [or, by flesh], on the other hand having been made alive in [the] spirit [or, by [the] Spirit], in which [or, by whom] also having gone, He preached to the spirits in prison,

[The Greek word for "Whom" in this verse is can be either neuter or masculine.]

JDC:

Yes, the form of the Greek pronoun here can be either masculine or neuter, but pneuma, its antecedent, is neuter. So, on what basis, other than a translator’s personal faith in the personhood of the Spirit, would a translator choose to use whom instead of which?

Translator:

1John 3:24: "And the one keeping His commandments abides in Him, and He in him; and by this we know that He abides in us, from the Spirit which He gave to us."

"Which" (Greek: hou). Ablative case by attraction from accusative ho (object of edôken) to agree with pneumatos as often [happens], though not always. It is a pity that the grammatical gender (which) is retained here in the English instead of whom, as it should be.

JDC:

But why is it a "pity"? Why "should" one use whom when John did not?

"Ablative case by attraction from accusative ho (object of edôken) to ho to agree with pneumatos as often [happens], though not always." = ? I understand the words of that sentence, but I don’t understand what you mean. Is that your answer to my question, your justification for translating a neuter pronoun as if it were a personal one? I cannot follow you here.

Translator:

Now, as you read [the above verses] and Robertson’s comments, you’ll see that the reason the pronoun is neuter is because pneuma is neuter. However, paracletos in John is masculine. So, pronouns referring to that word are masculine.

JDC:

Of course. That’s about as simple as Greek grammar can get. I couldn’t even be having this conversation with you if I needed to know that.

Translator:

I also included Acts 13:2 since personal pronouns are used there in reference to the Holy Spirit.

JDC:

I see the personal pronouns there ("me" and "I"). I take those words to mean that God was speaking by His Spirit to the saints there in Antioch. And since those words are never neuter words in Greek, as you know, simply because they are verbs, no one should ever have a problem with them being translated as "to me" and "I have called".

But how do those words, correctly translated as "me" and "I", give the translator liberty to translate the apostles’ it into he in other Scriptures? You obviously see the "me" and "I" of Acts 13:2 as suggesting that the Spirit is a person, one among three in the "Godhead". But what does your personal belief justify the altering of words used by the apostles in other verses throughout the NT?

Translator:

So the simplest answer to your question is for consistency sake. To refer to the Holy Spirit as "who" in some places and "which" in others would be confusing and inconsistent.

JDC:

I like simple. I can understand that answer. Here, now, is my question, based on that simple answer:

If a translator wants to be consistent, as you say you do, then isn’t it reasonable to base that consistency on the majority of examples instead of the minority? Consider these facts:

Of the 28 or so pronouns in the NT that are direct references to the word pneuma, not a single one of them is in a purely masculine form; they are all either in purely neuter form or in the either-or forms (genitive or dative of masculine and neuter). This indisputable fact would lead any unbiased person to assume that, since whenever the NT authors had a choice between masculine or neuter forms, they always chose the neuter form, then they must have been thinking neuter when they used those forms that could be either masculine or neuter. That is just plain common sense. Only a Trinitarian would not agree with that.

The only masculine pronouns that anyone could possibly think referred to pneuma are found in the verses you mentioned from John 14, 15, 16, where paraclatos ("comforter", a masculine word) is actually the antecedent. Those masculine references are referring to paraclatos, not to pneuma. And even in those verses, when it is obvious that the pronoun referred to pneuma (e.g. 15:26), John used a neuter pronoun.

If the apostles thought as you and most other Christian translators think, then why did the apostles not do with pronouns what you do with them? If I could find an answer to that, I would be perfectly satisfied and would not take up any more of your valuable time.

Translator:

Consider for instance, the pronouns referring to "the beast" and "the dragon’ in the Revelation. "Beast" is neuter while "dragon" is masculine. So I tried to render pronouns consistently in this fashion, i.e. "it" when referring to the beast and "he" when referring to the dragon. But I ran into a problem with Rev 17:11 "And the beast which was, and is not, is himself also an eighth, and he is out of the seven, and he is going away to destruction." Note "himself" where "itself" would be expected. In fact, the "himself" is only in the MT. The CT and TR have "that one" (neuter). But as it is in the MT, for [my translation] I added "itself" in brackets to try to keep the consistency. My point is that it is not always possible to render pronouns as their actual neuter or masculine form if a consistency is to be kept in translation.

JDC:

I respect your desire to get it exactly right. May God bless you and give you wisdom to do that.

Now (let’s cite the MT as the original for now) your point about the word "Beast" takes us to the heart of my question. The apostle John, using the neuter word, "beast", afterward referred to the beast as "him" because John saw the beast not as a thing but as a personal being, probably a man. However, when referring directly to the neuter word pneuma, John did not use a masculine him (Jn. 6:63; Jn. 14:17(3x); 14:26; 15:26)! What should that say to you and to me?

If no NT writer chose to use himself when speaking of the Spirit, then why should we, apart from a personal belief in the "holy Trinity"? There really is no grammatical reason to change the apostles’ words, is there?

Translator:

And secondly, in English, we would not use different pronouns to refer to a beast or a dragon. Both would be referred to as "it." But I followed the distinction as it helps in understanding which is being referred to in the text.

JDC:

That seems right to me because by following the distinction John himself made, you were translating his words – and therefore his thoughts – accurately; you were letting John speak for himself and were not putting words into his mouth. So, why didn’t you do that when translating John’s words related to the Spirit of God?

Translator:

Consider also, Matthew 24:29, "But immediately after the tribulation [or, affliction] of those days, 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall down' from heaven [or, the sky], and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. [cp. Isaiah 34:4; Joel 2:10; 2:31]

Technically, "its light" should be "her light." The pronoun is feminine. It is translated in the KJV as "her", but all modern-day versions have "its." The reason should be obvious; to refer to the moon as a female would be very confusing to modern-day readers. To Greek readers, it was perfectly natural to do so since grammar and not conceptions of personality versus non-personality determined the usage of pronouns; in this case, "moon" is feminine. But today, personality determines the usage of pronouns not grammar.

So since the Holy Spirit is a personal Being, then it would not be appropriate to refer to Him as "it", anymore than you would like to be called "it", or it would make sense to call the moon "her." So, as Robertson indicates, it is correct to refer to the Spirit as "He" or "whom" in these texts. So, for both consistency sake and for proper modern-day usage, the personal pronouns are used. This is true not just in my translation, but in most versions and even in all three interlinears I own; so all Greek scholars agree that this practice is appropriate even in something as literal as an interlinear.

JDC:

But with this example of the moon, you have argued my point! Yes, we English-speaking people are free to call the moon an it because in English, it is an it. What Robertson says about the Greek attitude is that those ancient people felt free to refer to neuter things with a personal pronoun, if they felt that they were speaking of a personal being. But the apostles never did that in reference to the holy Spirit. What should that indisputable fact tell you?

The following is an except from the book I just published (and since your version of the NT is included as an example of what Trinitarians do with the apostles’ neuter pronouns, etc., at your request, I will send you a copy of that study free charge):

Throughout the New Testament writings, the evidence shows exactly what Robertson says; to wit, "the personal pronouns are sometimes used freely according to the sense" rather than according to strict grammatical rules (p. 683). Robertson repeats this extremely important observation later, noting that in biblical Greek, changes in the gender of pronouns are at times "made according to the real gender rather than the grammatical [gender]" (p. 713). In other words, if the writer used a neuter word, but with a person in mind, he was at liberty to use a masculine or feminine pronoun instead of the neuter pronoun.

This being the case, my question should be expected. It is obvious (as Rev. 17:11 shows) that John and all other ancient Greek writers felt free to use masculine forms with neuter words when they referred to what they thought was a person. Then, what does it tell us about John’s understanding of the Spirit, as well as that of Paul, Peter, and others, when in spite of their liberty to do so, none of them ever chose to use a purely masculine pronoun or verb form when referring to the Spirit? Please give that question some serious thought and prayer.

And if we assume for the moment that the NT writers were being consistent (as you desire to be), they must have neuter in mind when they used forms that could be either masculine or neuter because whenever they had a choice, they chose the neuter. Based on that, we have every reason to say with perfect confidence that, judging by the words the original authors chose to use, no writer of any NT book made a single reference to the Spirit as a person.

Is it not obvious that there exists no objective rule of grammar that would allow an English translator to change the apostles’ neuter words?

You have told me that (because of your belief that the holy Spirit is a person) it is improper to refer to the Spirit as it. I understand that point of view, and I respect your choice of faiths. But what I hope you will see is that you are unable to provide me with any logical, grammatically sound reason for mistranslating the apostles’ references to the Spirit, other than your desire to show respect to the "person" of the holy Spirit. Even if the doctrine of the Trinity were true, sir, to intentionally mistranslate what the apostles wrote in order to make it appear that the apostles held your Trinitarian view of God is misleading and borders on deceit.

God’s people are depending on you to be honest with them. If your translation tells them that Paul said something, the children of God who read your translation are depending on that to be what Paul really said. Please reconsider, if not your choice of faiths, at least your choice of English words for your translation.

If the doctrine of the Trinity proves to be untrue, after all, will your altering of the apostles’ words survive the test of any objective grammatical standard, not to mention the righteous judgment of God?

Translator:

Now I understand that some disagree with the idea that the Holy Spirit is personal, believing that the Spirit is some kind of impersonal force. And that is why I had already marked some of these verses to decide if I should give both options, as I already did with 1Peter 3:19. But I haven’t decided yet how best to handle the situation.

God bless,

(Name withheld)

JDC:

Thank you so much for your open and honest response. God bless you in your work.

Before I close, I will ask you to consider this: Until you have read the information in my book, The Influence of Trinitarian Doctrine on Translations of the Bible, it might be best to play it safe and translate the apostles’ references to the Spirit as they are (it, which). If you do that, in my opinion, no one could possibly condemn your work, and it may result in you having the only truly literal translation on the market today.

Your humble servant in Christ Jesus,

John Clark

Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 10:45 AM

Subject: RE: Neuter words - reply

I don’t have the time to respond point by point to your comments. But to respond and to indicate the decisions I made in regards to ALT3, below are relevant entries from the Glossary in the forthcoming new edition of the "ALT Companion Volume."

Spirit: Greek pneuma.

This word is used for unclean spirits (i.e. demons; e.g., Matt 10:1), of the human spirit (e.g., Acts 17:16), and the Holy Spirit (e.g., Matt 1:18). The latter usage is capitalized since it referring to deity. The Greek word pneuma is neuter, and in Greek, pronouns must always agree with their antecedents in gender and number, hence why the pronouns referring to "spirit" in whatever sense the word is used are always neuter (e.g., it, its, which). But this does not mean a "spirit" is an impersonal force. In Greek, personality or non-personality is not determined by a noun or pronoun being neuter versus being masculine or feminine. This can be seen in Matt 5:15 where the Greek word for lamp (luchnos) is feminine, while the word for basket (modios) is masculine. But under no stretch of the imagination can it be said that Jesus, or anyone else at the time for that matter, considered lamps or baskets to be female or male personal beings.

More to the point of this discussion, in Matt 24:29 it is said literally that "the moon will not give her light." This does not mean Jesus is teaching the moon is some kind of personal being or goddess. It is simply due to the word "moon" (selene) being feminine. In ALT3, the literal "her" is given first, but then "its" is given in brackets to prevent any misunderstanding and since today we would not refer to the moon as a "her" but as an "it."

Similarly, the use of "it" to refer to an unclean spirit does not mean demons are impersonal forces (e.g. Matt 12:43). It is simply due to pneuma being neuter. In this case, no alternative is given as it is normal for us today to refer to a demon as "it." This is not because we consider demons to be impersonal entities but because they are considered to be asexual.

Also similarly, when "which" is used in reference to the Holy Spirit this does not mean the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force (e.g. John 14:26). It again is due to pneuma being neuter. Since "which" is the literal rendering, it is given first, but so no one wrongly draws the conclusion the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force based on the pronoun being neuter, "whom" is given in brackets. It should also be noted that in John 14:26, the Holy Spirit is referred to as "Counselor." This word is masculine, so the demonstrative pronoun "that One" referring to this word is masculine. To bring out this point of the grammar, the alternative of "He" is given.

In Romans 8:16, 26, most versions have the phrase "the Spirit Himself." But the reflexive pronoun is neuter since again, pneuma is neuter. So "itself" would be more literal, but again, possibly misleading. It was considered using "the Spirit Itself [or, Himself]" for ALT3. However, the construction can also be rendered as "That very Spirit." This was chosen as it better brings out the emphatic demonstrative force of the pronoun. The same type of translation for the same type of construction can be seen in Luke 13:1 ("that very time" - Dana and Mantey, p. 130; NRSV). Given all these points, no conclusion on the personality or non-personality of the Holy Spirit can be drawn from the nouns or pronouns being masculine or neuter.

But what is relevant is that the same word is used for the personal human spirit and personal unclean spirits as for the Holy Spirit, and that the word "Counselor" is used to refer to the Holy Spirit and to Jesus, as seen in the discussion on that word. See also the discussion on "Beast/Dragon."

For more Scriptural evidence of the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit, see this writer’s Scripture Workbook (see Appendix One).

Beast/ Dragon: Greek: therion/ drakon.

These words occur in the Revelation (e.g., 13:2). The word for "beast" is neuter while the word for "dragon" is masculine. Since in Greek, pronouns must agree in gender and number with their antecedents, pronouns referring to the beast (with one exception) are consistently neuter and translated as such (e.g., it, its), while those referring to the dragon are always masculine (e.g., he, him). But this does not mean the beast is an impersonal entity while the dragon is a personal entity. In Greek, the gender of a noun or pronoun does not determine personality or non-personality. Both could be taken as symbolic of either personal or impersonal entities.

The one exception is in 17:11 where the masculine reflexive pronoun "himself" refers to the beast. Why this is the case is hard to say, but to keep the consistency, "itself" is given in brackets. But it should be noted that the demonstrative neuter pronoun "this one" is an alternate reading in the Byzantine Majority Text and is the reading followed in Hodges and Farstad’s Majority Text (see the chapter

"Alternate Byzantine Text Readings"). So it is possible that the neuter "this one" is the original rendering while the masculine "himself" is incorrect. Given the textual uncertainty, no implications should be drawn from the use of "himself" in this verse.

Counselor: Greek, parapkletos.

A reference to the Holy Spirit in John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7 and to Jesus in 1John 2:2. The basic meaning of the Greek word is "one called alongside to help." The provided help can be encouraging or consoling or it can be acting as an advocate or mediator (Friberg). The English word "counselor" has both senses of referring to one who provides advice or guidance and as referring to a trial lawyer (American Heritage Dictionary).

The word is capitalized in all occurrences in the translation since it is referring to deity.

It is important to translate this word the same in the Gospel of John and in John’s first epistle. By doing so, it shows the Holy Spirit is "another Counselor" (John 14:16) whereas Jesus is the first Counselor. The word "another" is allos which means "a person or thing of the same kind" (Friberg). This means the Holy Spirit is "of the same kind" as Jesus. Since Jesus is Person who is God, the Holy Spirit must be so also.

God bless,

(Name Withheld)

May 1, 2008

I read last night the thought of the day on the ''incorruptable blood of Christ''. My question is what led you to think the apostles wanted to use the anology between 'blood' and 'God's spirit' for the purpose of continually reminding us of Christ's death on the cross? Is there [more] to it than that? Surely Christian theologians would say it's much more than a clever use of words?

MD

Hi Michael:

It just makes sense to think the apostles had that reason for doing so. Also, they would have understood that natural blood gives life to the natural body because the OT told them that (Lev. 17:11), and it is the Spirit that gives life to the spiritual body of Christ. As for Christian theologians, I do not recall any of them mentioning it.

jdc

April 24, 2008

Hi,

Here is something I have wondered: Where do you think the different races of the world came from? What do you think Adam and Eve might have looked like? I guess I'm not asking as if you actually know the answer! But like sometimes I think that since we all are people, our physical (and sometimes genetic, e.g., sickle-cell anemia) differences are like slight differences in family members. But then I think of black people's hair or east Asian people's eyes; and how come northern Europeans look different from southern or eastern, and where do American "Indians", Australian aborigines and southeast Asians get their distinct looks from? Wasn't this all just one big piece of earth (Gen. 10:25)? Maybe God just had things altogether set up differently back before the Flood, and folks building the Tower of Babel all looked very different from each other! I assume, too, that the huge dudes mentioned in the Bible (Goliath, 9'6"?!) have just died off, period.

But then again, we probably just mutated over loooong periods of time to fit our environments. Africans were sunburnt until Mother Nature evolved them darker skin.

-Brittanie

Yes, there was only one huge continent in the beginning (Gen. 1:9). From what I can remember of the Hebrew, Adam's name suggests a reddish tone for him. As for the rest of us creatures, there is no biblical answer as to the origins of our colors and other physical differences. Interestingly, there are different colors of earth (dirt), just as there are different colors of people. Here in NC, we have areas of reddish soil, and areas of black soil, and areas of whitish soil, and all shades in between. Adam being made of dirt means that he probably had all those colors built into his genes start with! And since he and Eve had many sons and daughters over the hundreds of years they lived, there is no telling what variety of colors their children were.

Pastor John

Oh yeah, I do remember that about Adam being "ruddy" (from "reading" Paradise Lost in high school, for some reason). And that makes sense about him having all those genes in him from being made of earth. It's kinda cool to imagine him and Eve having children that might have varied GREATLY in appearance, since at that time for them it was entirely normal. *hahaha*

-Brittanie

The variety would have been to the glory of God, and to the amazement of Adam and Eve.

jdc

April 23, 2008

Dear John David Clark, Sr,

I would like to tell you how much I enjoyed your article on marriage and divorce. It articulates so very well what has always resonated within my spirit.

As a Pentecostal pastor in WA State, I also agree with you article on speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of the new birth, however I would like to ask you about another situation that I come across from time to time.

I often talk with people who are sincere, devoted people who have faced the issue of divorce. They are trying to operate their lives by the bible and yet they are not born again but have only believed (acts 19:2). What guidance can I give them concerning remarriage?

Hi Brother Mark! Thank you for writing. I really don't know what I could tell anyone in that case except what the Bible says to everyone not yet born again: "Repent!" After that is done, and the holy Ghost is received, then God's biblical instructions apply to those people, and we can pass that info on to them.

Also, if a Christian did remarry when their Christian ex-spouse was still alive, I understand that to be a sin. Is there forgiveness for that sin available to that person for the one time act of remarrying, or do they continue to live in sin each day for being remarried while their Christian ex-spouse is alive?

Thanks,
Mark D

I assume that by the term, "Christian", you are actually referring to a born-again person who has divorced his or her born-again spouse and has re-married, and I will reply on that assumption.

There certainly is forgiveness with God for any error, short of blasphemy of the holy Ghost. But as to any specific case, there are a number of factors that must be weighed before any definite counsel is given. In this case, there are too many factors unknown to me for me to offer an opinion. Why did the divorce happen to begin with? Has there been any immorality on the part of the divorced spouse? Has the divorced spouse renounced the faith and become reprobate? etc., etc.

Wish I could be more helpful, but then, you have the Helper there within you, and the best I could ever do anyway is to say "Amen" to whatever the Spirit is already telling you.

Thanks again for writing, and God bless. your servant,
jdc

April 23, 2008

Before I forget to ask you again, I'm just going to email it. In the verse in Daniel that says, "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

Does "the Son of God" refer to Jesus? What did Nebuchadnezzar mean by that phrase?

Bekah

Nebuchadnezzar believed, as almost the entire ancient world did, that there were human sons and daughters of the gods. As you know, in ancient mythology, there were many stories told of gods, both male and female, mating with earthlings and producing offspring. Nebuchadnezzar knew nothing of Christ, the Son of God. That verse from Daniel 3:25 should have been translated as "like a son of the gods" instead of "like the Son of God." The word "the" is not used in the original text, and "gods" is correct, not "God", in this instance.

Daddy

April 22, 2008

Hey Pastor john,

I was wondering - can you truly be forgiven of your sins without having the holy Ghost since without the holy ghost the lord says we are none of his?

Terri

Hi Teri:

In this New Testament, the holy Ghost baptism washes sins away. So, no, a person is not forgiven before he is cleansed from sin by the holy Ghost. For one example from the Bible, you can read Paul's story in Acts. It is told in three places in that one book, and in them, you will see that his sins were not washed away until he was baptized with the holy Ghost.

Pastor John

April 22, 2008

I believe everything you say about the Holy Ghost and the need for him and have been filled with him for 48 years this coming June. The question I have is about the Kingdom Of God, Paul had said the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. And so if the baptism in the Holy Ghost is being born again, why did Jesus say in John 3:3 except a man be born again he can not "see" the Kingdom of God. The word see meaning see, perceive, grasp, or understand the kingdom of God. In verse 5 he said he cannot enter into the Kingdom which Paul said was the Holy Ghost. This I believe, being filled with and led by the Holy Ghost is the Kingdom Of God.

The way I see it one must be born again to see or enter into the kingdom of, John 3:3 and 3:5. which Paul said was righteousness peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost. Before one is born again this is impossible, but if one does not enter into the kingdom, that is be filled with the Holy Ghost after he is born again he will revert back to type and or become religious and blind and continue in Spiritless Christian religion and become an anti-christ which means so called believers who oppose (anti) the anointing (christ)

Would appreciate a reply, I have done much study after the Lord spoke to me about this, I was really encouraged to hear people speaking about the Truth which John said, "the Spirit Is Truth" we do need a Holy Ghost Revival in this country and the world and not only speaking in other tongues but also casting out of devils, especially religious devils and healing the sick confirming the word of God with these signs following, AMEN! God bless you. Brother Russell T*****.

Dear Russell.

Thank you for writing - it is always good to hear from one of God's children!

Concerning the kingdom of God: A person enters the kingdom of GOD when he is Spirit baptized because that is what happens at Spirit baptism. You already stated that in your question, but just so you understand the import of the truth God has shown you, Jesus said his kingdom "was not of this world" - so entering his kingdom has to be an experience that comes from heaven, and what other experience comes to us from heaven but Spirit baptism? Russell, you really have been shown something wonderful by Jesus - that entering the kingdom of God is being Spirit baptized. Thank God for that understanding. It came from Him.

But the greater truth Jesus wants to show you is that people are not born again until they DO enter the kingdom of God!

I think the easiest way to resolve the "meat" of your question is to get the "AND" out of it.

We do not "get born again", AND "receive the holy Ghost baptism". These are not TWO experiences - they are one. Likewise, we do not "get born again" AND "enter the kingdom of God" - these two things are ONE and the same experience.

Paul said that "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body..." (1Cor.12:13). It is Spirit baptism that PUTS us into the body of Christ (which is God's kingdom). We are put into the body of Christ (or born again) when we have believed and Jesus baptizes us. Spirit baptism is Jesus' response to repentance, faith, and obedience. And "God gives the holy Ghost to all who obey Him" (Acts 5:32).

I am enclosing a gospel tract on "The Kingdom of God so you can grow in understanding on that issue, and I am attaching our booklet, "Speaking in Tongues at Spirit Baptism" to encourage your faith in the experience you have received! These will keep you growing in your knowledge and your faith, and I am glad that you are asking questions... wise men do that. And they love the answers when they come!

God bless you, and should you have questions, feel free to write again.

Gary Savelli

February 21, 2008

Before I forget to ask you again, I'm just going to email it. In the verse in Daniel that says, "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

Does "the Son of God" refer to Jesus? What did Nebuchadnezzar mean by that phrase?

Bekah

Nebuchadnezzar believed, as almost the entire ancient world did, that there were human sons and daughters of the gods. As you know, in ancient mythology, there were many stories told of gods, both male and female, mating with earthlings and producing offspring. Nebuchadnezzar knew nothing of Christ, the Son of God.

That verse from Daniel 3:25 should have been translated as "like a son of the gods" instead of "like the Son of God." The word "the" is not used in the original text, and "gods" is correct, not "God", in this instance.

Pastor John

February 21, 2008

Hi Pastor John,
Well, I know you are busy right now, but I've got some more questions, I hope that's okay.

1 - I've noticed that in Genesis it says that Jacob struggled with the angel at Mahanaim, but in the OT tests and material it says the place is Penuel. On the maps the 2 places are near each other, but not the same place. I guess there is a reason it is this way. So why is it so?

Genesis 32:30. Jacob named the place Penuel, or Peniel (in Hebrew, "face of God"), because that was the place Jacob said he "saw the face of God".

But since Mahanaim is mentioned as part of the story, let's just compromise and say Jacob wrestled with an angel somewhere near where Penuel and Mahanaim are.

2 - I've also noticed (and I think I've heard you say so) that there's a connection with groves and altars. Is that so? If so, what is that about? Abram planted a grove at Beersheba where he also built an altar.

Groves were very pleasant and impressive places, especially if they had old-growth or large trees there. Have you ever had the pleasure of walking through an old-growth forest? There is a very peaceful feeling in the midst of those trees. In the ancient world, as mentioned in the OT in several places, that made the people imagine that gods were involved.

3 - Why was Ephraim rejected at the Fall of Shiloh when it was the priests, who were Levites, who caused Israel to despise going to Shiloh for sacrifices etc? Perhaps I don't fully understand what a Levite is. It makes wonder if they were "Levites of Ephraim". So the Levites were no longer a tribe, such that if you were a Levite living in Ephraim, you were an Ephraimite, but you were also a Levite, set apart for the service of the Lord. Maybe.

No, the Levites were still a definite tribe, even if they had no large tract of land as did the other tribes in Israel.

The priests were a reflection of the people, or rather, vice-versa. Read Psalm 78. It describes how the people were, and why God rejected Ephraim.

I love this OT stuff. I was thinking today, how it helps you know the Lord, how He acts and how He thinks, how He feels and I don't think you see that in the NT like you do in the OT. It's wonderful.

I loved hearing what you said in a 1 Samuel CD: What has the Lord done that people don't love His ways and don't want His truth? (I can't remember exactly what you said but it was good.) He only wants good for us, and His ways are not hard. Praise God!

Many thanks,
Jenny

Many "You're welcome's"! Keep up the good work, Jenny. It will benefit you the rest of your life.

Pastor John

February 2, 2008

Hi Pastor John,

I've got a question if it’s okay: In Joshua 22 v 25 the Reubenites and Gadites say to the tribes on the west of Jordan, “the Lord hath made the Jordan a border between us” (paraphrased). That seems untrue to me; the Lord didn’t make the Jordan a border for them, they made it a border when they wanted to live on the other side of Jordan rather than go into the Promised Land with the rest of the Israelites. Isn’t that right? – that it was not God who made the Jordan a border, but themselves?

I’ve always felt sad about that; that they didn’t go in with everyone else. That wasn’t the land God chose for them; Canaan was. Why didn’t they want what God had for them. I just feel sad about that... or maybe I make too much of it?

I pray the Lord would give me a heart to always want what he has for me.

Jenny

Hi Jenny:

Your mind is in the right place, the rich place of considering carefully the works and the words of God, and really thinking about what you are reading. Congratulations! You are blessed by God with the desire heart to do this!

I always felt that those men from Reuben and Gad (and Manasseh) were referring more to the creation of God. They knew that God created the Jordan and that it served as a border between their trinbes andthe nine others on the other side of the river. The Jordan was not an artificial border, as in the case of some other borders between the tribes of Israel. Some of them were just lines on a map, so to speak. Still, all of the borders that divided the tribes were decided by casting lots -- and the lots were controlled by the Spirt of the Lord in the lap of the high priest.

Another border like the Jordan, one that God made, which separated two of the tribes of Israel was the Kanah river. It was a border that God had created, and it divided Ephraim and Manasseh on the west side of Jordan, near the Great Sea.

Keep up the good work! You are enjoying one of those places where the heart stays happiest.

Pastor John

November 18, 2007

Hi Pastor John,

When Daniel with the other three were brought to Shinar, they were put under the charge of the prince of the eunuchs. Were Daniel and his friends made eunuchs by Nebuchadnezzar? It doesn't say, but they were there three years being trained and taught by the chief ofthe eunuchs. It would lead me to believe they were.

Love,

bro. Billy M.

Yes, Billy, in all likelihood, Daniel and his three Hebrew friends were made eunuchs by the king so that they would qualify, if they passed their examination at the end of three years, to stand in the king's presence. By the way, I have read that this was often done to male servants of a king in order to protect the king's harem, as well as to make sure their minds were on the king's business instead of desiring to pursue marrying and raising a family.

Pastor John

November 8, 2007

Sir. John,

1. Can you tell me what is your take on the Jewish religion since it is the religion that Jesus belonged to until his last day?

I don't believe that the religion practiced by the Jews today is the religion Jesus belonged to. The religion that Jesus belonged to included animal sacrifices, ceremonial cleansing rituals, temple worship at the place where God showed David to build Him a temple, and to which temple all males in Israel were required by God's Law to gather three times a year, where there were ritual purification rites using animal blood, etc., ceremonial meals, and many other things commanded of the Jews by the Law of Moses. The religion Jesus belonged to ended, to the extent that it could be observed as God required, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70.

The city of Jerusalem that exists now was built by the Muslims about 1,000 years ago. It sits on the hill where Jesus' Jerusalem stood, and it has the name of the city that Jesus loved, but it is not the same city. So it is with the religion of the Jews. It is still called the religion of the Jews, and the same people whom Jesus loved practice it, but it is not the same religion.

The Old Covenant no longer exists, except on paper. It is no longer a means of access to God. Jesus said "No man comes to the Father but by me." And Paul wrote, "By one Spirit we have access to the Father." This New Covenant was established by God, not to stand beside the old as an additional avenue to God's grace, but to replace the old (Heb. 8:13).

2. Do you think its still appropriate for us to observe the Sabbath?

If we observe it in a new Testament way, yes.

Regards,

SANDILE SIBIYA
South Africa

November 4, 2007

Hi John,

Hello there, wanted to ask a question if you had time. I have been reading through Genesis, and noticed something this morning that stuck out to me. It seemed to me that all through Abraham's time that God would speak to him, and encourage him, with instruction or things that were going to pass.

I read in Chpt.17

vs.17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old bear?

vs. 18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live! - It seemed he had no idea what God was saying.

vs. 19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son in-deed;

I thought to my self reading those sentences, Abraham heard directly from God, had the faith like no one else, and still some what could hardly believe what he was hearing from God. God spoke to him more directly to get the point across. How we have to hear from God directly, and be encouraged from him today too. God has spoke many things to us, and we need it more every time he speaks.

I didn't know if I was reading those lines right. What do think was happening there?

Thanks,

Paul C.

No, Paul, you are seeing it rightly. God has the ability to speak things to us that are impossible to believe. He loves us too much to do that, and so He leads us on, and feeds us a little at a time, until we can take in what He has to say. Look at how many years He had to teach me, a little here and a little there, before I realized that He was telling me that I was to come out of Christianity, and after that, that church religion is not of God!

It makes me wonder how long it took God to prepare Abraham to hear His voice and believe it when He sent Abraham away from all his earthly kindred.

May God help us believe the next thing He tells us.

Pastor John

October 31, 2007

Pastor John

What do you understand about the second half of Is 28:6?

Isaiah 28:5-6 "In that day shall the LORD of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people, and for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate."

It seems to me that the gate is where God's people should be able to receive godly counsel, but instead it is occupied by christian ministers and their wrong ideas about God. We sure need strength to even get a seat in that place, let alone retake it completely. Verse 8 is so true, "For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean." We are blessed to have the clean place we already have and God is making it cleaner yet!

Damien

Only God can give us the wisdom to "turn the battle to the gate"; that is, to drive the enemy back to where they came come. That can only be done with light.

I hope that we are strong enough in Christ to overcome with God's goodness this latest cruel assault. We are being defamed as I have never seen anything of God defamed before. But Jesus said, "Resist not evil" , but "turn the other cheek". It takes real strength from God and faith in God to do that.

Yes, we do have a clean place. The devil envies it and abhors it. Until now, Jesus has kept us from having to face fiery persecution such as is happening now, but if he has decided it is time for us to suffer for his name's sake, then may we do so with grace and truth.

Pastor John

October 31, 2007

Pastor John

Heb 6:1 from the Blog - A Greater Is Here

Is there any reason you know of why the verb translated "let us go on ...", ferwmeqa, which is present passive subjunctive, is not translated as such by any translation I have checked? It appears to be translated as a hortatory subjunctive, but why not translate the passive voice along with it? Perhaps like, "Let us be carried on to perfection". This would suggest that it is the natural course of events to go from the first things of Christ onto perfection or completion, like floating down a river, or, in this case, being led by the spirit of God.

Damien

I agree. I have looked, and I can find no reason for not translating that word as you said, Something like "may we be brought to perfection" would be good, too.

Pastor John

October 12, 2007

Pastor John,

I was reading how Saul received letters to persecute God's people. Could Saul (Paul) have studied with Nicodemus to learn the law?

If so, it would only have been that Saul studied under Nicodemus. Saul was a young man at that time, and Nicodemus was an elder in Israel. But since Saul was one of Gamaliel's students, even that is unlikely.

I feel sorry for Nicodemus. He heard the message about being born again, rose to Jesus' defence one time (then was angrily asked if he was from Nazareth), probably watched Jesus being crucified, brought a 100lbs of ointments & linens to help prepare Jesus' body to be burried; then, after all of that, saw people like Saul willing to put down (even unto death) people who believed in Jesus, and so, he came to Jesus "by night" and hear what he had to say.

Sometmes, when I think of the pressure of living back then, it makes me very sorry for any hurt I have caused Jesus in our time. People have been tortured and killed to pass this on. Some of us have simply walked away from the Lord. Now, all we have to do is ''live in the Spirit'' as Sandy has said in her email. There is no time in History where we can pass this on with the liberty we have to do so. I pray I be found faithful till the end. I want to be able to look into the eyes of those who went before me and hug them with confidence, and they can feel I was found faithful.

Your Servant,

Billy

Hi Billy:

We assume that Nicodemus came by night to Jesus because he was afraid, or ashamed, to be seen with Jesus in the daylight. That makes perfect sense, considering the enormous pressure someone like him, who secretly believed in Jesus, would have been under. But we cannot say for certain that was the case. The Bible does not say why Nicodemus came by night, and unless the Spirit reveals the reason, then we really do not know.

Still, there were certainly many who were very afraid to be seen with Jesus, even if Nicodemus was not. Why, I have even known people who were ashamed to be associated with me/us in public, but who secretly believed what the Lord has taught us. So, it is not unusual for people who are not walking in the Spirit to be ashamed of those who are in the light, even if they do know in their hearts that those saints are telling the truth.

Pastor John

I have always thought highly of Nicodemus. He made the effort to come to Jesus to find out for himself (John 3); he stuck up for Jesus at a council (John 7:50-51); and he came with Joseph of Arimathaea to bury Jesus (John 19:38-39). At least the latter two acts would have made him at odds with the ones who hated Jesus.... so in his situation, I thought that was pretty good. John never says anything negative about him.

If we had a roll call of the 120 at Pentecost, I wonder if Joseph and Nicodemus were among them...or maybe among the 3000 to first receive the Spirit among the Jews.

Gary

Hi Gary:

I believe that Nicodemus was there. At least, George Clark quite often preach about him being there. :)

Preacher Clark also taught that Joseph of Arimathea was there, inasmuch as one of the gospels tells us that he, too, "waited for the kingdom of God".

jdc

October 8, 2007

Hello John,

Well, I am jealous, very jealous (with love) for what I am sensing you all experienced today, based on what Gary wrote. I sure wish I was there to witness that kind of glory from God, and experience it too. I feel blessed just to read Gary's description and imagine my sisters getting such a blessing, such a liberating touch from Jesus. I am so happy that I'm able to enjoy it, albeit vicariously.

Consequently, my question will seem very insignificant compared to the level you're at after such a gathering.

In the wonderful tract, STIR UP THE GIFT OF GOD, your father stole away to the woods to pray, and confessed to God that he couldn't pray. his spiritual fire had gotten low and he felt empty and/or unable to pray fervently. As he poured out his heart with tears, "little foxes" and "no-harms" began rolling up in front of him, and he "saw" his trouble, which brought out a confession to God.

John, what does he mean by foxes and no-harms? Am I really missing something here? I just want to know if there's a hidden or implied meaning to "foxes" and "no-harms" that I don't understand.

Brother Brad

Greetings, Brother Brad!

Those "little foxes" (see Song of Solomon 2:15) and "no-harms" are things we may do which we do not really feel good about doing. As my father told us many times, "If you have a doubt about it, leave it off." That way, our hearts can never condemn us.

jdc

October 8, 2007

Good evening!

What a liberating and wonderful gathering this morning. That was truly an example of Jesus giving us "rest" and removing a burden that I am sure at one time or another we have felt - thinking to try to attain to something we already are in the Spirit.

I do not think I will ever be able to read the new testament the same way again after the message today. Nor do I think that I can ever feel the way I once did about what I saw as "commandments" in the NT! TOP notch food from Jesus all the way.

And what a joy to see Ellen, and Amy M., and Cathy Tuck and others "being themselves" today too. That was rich... Wow.

And another of this world's songs has a brand new meaning: "It's your thing - do what you want to do." Ha ha - love it!

My what the holy Ghost is doing.....It's getting better, and cleaner and stronger. Hallelujah.

See you Wed night or so. :)

Gary

Hi Gary:

I agree. God really did visit us today, didn't He? When I remember the faces of people whom God was especially touching -- LeeAnn, Amy M., and others, especially Kathy T., I feel privileged to have been here in their presence when He came to bless them. I was so touched by Kathy T's blessing that I couldn't even ask God to let me feel what she was feeling. I tried, but all I could do was thank God for blessing her like that! How precious to me it was to watch her be so blessed!

One thing I forgot to mention this morning. In reading Paul's description of the new nature that we have in Christ (in Ephesians 4:17, etc.), we are reading about what Paul Curtsinger called God's "minimum requirements" for salvation. When Brother Paul said that to me, it struck me that I could not think of a single person who is now astray from the truth of Christ who met those minimum requirements of God while they were here among us.

jdc

Alright, I give - I was gonna wait until I got the meeting CD to figure it out, but what are the "minimum requirements" that you guys read? I read Eph. 4:17 which you mentioned,

but I am curious about "etc.".

Will searching on the new nature show me or was there other stuff too? Thanks.

luv,

b

Hi Brittanie:

I meant that, starting at Ephesians 4:17 and continuing to the end of the book, those things can be found. Paul mentions the difference between the old and new natures ("old man" and "new man") in 4:17-24, and then what follows is a detailed breakdown of the "righteousness and true holiness" that Paul mentions in verse 24. One should not read the commandments that follow as commandments. They really are not. They are merely descriptions of what you already are, descriptions of the nature that you have now within you by the Spirit. Peter said that, in Christ, we become "partakers of the divine nature". Paul describes that nature in the last half of Ephesians. These are God's moral laws written in our hearts by the Spirit. Another way to say it: these are a summary of God's will, which is injected into our hearts by the Spirit. They are not foreign, outward commandments, as the moral laws of the Old Testament Law were foreign to the nature of man, imposed upon them until Christ came (Heb. 9:8-10). By living according to the "minimum requirements", I mean simply to live faithful to the pure and good nature we now have in Christ, to be true to ourselves now, the way Jesus has made us by the Spirit.

A person baptized with the Spirit and given God's nature within has to rebel against his own new nature in order to commit sin. Sin is no longer natural to a child of God, as it was before he was born again. When I hear Christian ministers warn their congregations that they cannot live the way they want to live, but must obey God instead, it gives me a sick feeling inside. My whole function, my whole purpose in life, is to get the children of God to live as they now want to live! Their new nature wants "righteousness and true holiness", so why should we not live the way they now really want to live? That is why I said, as Gary mentioned, "Do what you want to do!"

Paul knew what it was like to restrain one's old nature and try to serve God with that old nature still intact. He decribes that miserable existence in Romans 7. But at the end of Romans 7, he wrote, "O Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from theis body of death? I thank God, through Jesus Christ my Lord!" Then, he proceeds to describe the joy and peace of living with a new nature in Chapter 8, ending that chapter with a flourish of great joy and confidence. The difference between Romans 7 and Romans 8 is the difference between the old nature and the new, the "old man" and the "new man".

It was because he had experiecnced the transformation that Paul could write so convincingly, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" We could also translate that, "If any man be in Christ, there is a new creation". Either way, the point is made; in Christ, "all things become new."

Pastor John

Hi,

Would you happen to know how some Xns have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not only not a sin but a blessing from God "to those to whom it has been given"? This Xn group on campus, Progressive Xns, has fliers everywhere saying this as a topic for their next discussion meeting, and I find them quite upsetting. I just searched for an answer to this online but have only found the sentence, not an explanation of how one would come to this very wrong conclusion.

Thanks,

Brittanie

Hi Sister Brittanie:

Such opinions come from lust of the flesh, grown to the extent that it dominates the life of individuals.

What those people on your campus have really been given from God is human intelligence, and when lust grows so much that it completely dominates the heart, humans have this tragic ability (unlike animals) to make their intelligence serve that lust by devising all sorts of justifications for it. The more intelligent the person, the more elaborate the explanations can be invented to justify wickedness. When the mind and the body both become slaves to lust, their is no more shame, and sin is then promoted with a cloak of righteousness. It has happened a lot through the years of man's fall from purity in the Garden of Eden.

Have you read my tract on "Homosexuality and the Bible"? In it, I show every verse in the Bible that speaks directly about that subject.

Pastor John

Hey Brother Billy,

I have a question, if you can answer it. What does it mean when people say prepare your heart to seek the Lord? How do you do this? Hope you had a great day!

Love,

Sister Donna

Billy's reply:

Hi Donna,

Before any Field Hockey game you have to be prepared to play. Conditioning, the right equipment, the proper plays, and so on. It's the same before I prepare for a song. I first have to learn the music , memorize the words, then practise what I have learned before I ever play that song to anyone. But before I play, I seek God to show up in the song, or it's just another billionth song without God. It doesn't matter if it has words about him or not. It's only about God if he is in it.

It's ther same with one's heart. You have to guard it by watching what wants to get in there. There is a certain spot, I have learned, in a heart that was created for NO ONE but for God. Nothing else will satisfy your soul as when God touches the certain spot he created for himself. Not Greg, Judy, your girls or my boys will be able to cleanse us like God can when we prepare our heart to let him in there.

That certain spot wants God as much as God wants to live in it. We can prepare our hearts firstly by asking God what his will is for us, by prayer, by denying our flesh, by having an attitude of a servant, staying faithful, available, and most importantly having humility to change.

God uses his tools (us) when ever he chooses and whomever he chooses for his perfect will to be done. If we are preparig our Spirit to receive God, then we are in a condition to be used for honor for His purpose. But remember, there are vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor. God will and has used both for examples as you already know.

May I ask you a question? How would you prepare your house to receive company for dinner? Maybe clean your house, or shop for food; maybe if they stay overnight you know if your company would have any special needs.

We are the house of God, we have to keep our temples clean so God would want to spend some time with us. So whatever it takes for God to want to spend time with us is what we have to do to prepare our hearts for him to do that. Only the ones who are walking in the Spirit can know how to do that.

I hope this helps.

Love Billy

Hi Pastor John,

Our little group is studying Nicodemus and we are reading up on the people Jesus was brought to, through Judas. Were the Pharisees Levites (New Testament speaking)? Was Caiaphus a Levite, or were they just people who gained authority after the captivity?

Thanks

Billy M.

Hey Billy:

The Pharisees were the equivalent to modern, hard-core, fundamentalist Christians in temperament and in attitude toward the Scriptures. The Sadducees were more like the wealthy, upper class Christian sects (Catholic, Lutheran, upscale Methodists, etc.), and so, understandably, they held most of the highest religious and political offices among the Jews in Jesus' time. The Herodians, as I understand it, were collaborators with the Romans, and the Zealots were the equivalent to Islamic terrorists, encouraging assassination of all foreign occupiers on Israelite soil.

Being a Levite had less to do with obtaining the priesthood in Jesus' time than did political connections. Aaron's line was lost by then (I think King Herod killed off the last of them), but some men must have known they were of the tribe of Levi, and I suspect that Annas and Caiaphas (they were Sadducees, too, I believe) probably did.

Pastor John

Hey Daddy,

I have something that I have wondered about for a long time and it came up in the conversation with Jason the other night so I thought I would like to see what you thought about it. In the parable that Jesus tells of the man who gives three servants one talent, two talents, and five talents, and the servant with one talent buries his talent because he knows the Master is an austere man, but when the accounting was made, the Master is not impressed with that idea (excuse?) and casts him into outer darkness. Then the servant who had been given five talents and made five more talents with them was given the other servant's one talent as a bonus.

This parable always made me more afraid that I would, out of too much fear of God, bury my talent, and so I try to at least let him get the interest on it by DOING some good for people.

But my question has always been this: What do you think Jesus would have done if the servant with one talent had made a bad investment with the King's money and lost his only talent? The impression of the parable might leave some to believe that the King would have been doubly angry, but I wondered if the King would have instead given the man another chance, which is much better than being cast into outer darkness.

te.

Hi Token:

That sounds right. It probably is true that any effort made with that one talent he received from his master would have produced a gain. God did say once that His word would not return to Him void, but that it would accomplish that for which He sent it. That may hold true for anything we receive from God. Passing it on always produces acceptable fruit to God.

Dad

Wow then if that is the case...that anything we invest our talent in will produce gain...what is there to be afraid of?

Reading that parable with that in mind, changes the meaning. And changes how we are supposed to fear God.

There is no bad investment, except just not investing at all. Let's get to work! We have more than just permission to work in the kingdom; we will be cast into outer darkness for doing nothing. Do something good today!

te.

I had a question. Does the bible say anything about what happens to little children when they die?

I saw a billboard on the way home today, and it made me think. I had a thought about what I think I've heard you say before about the Book of Life. I believe you've said that anyone who's name is in that book will receive the Spirit before they die. It seems like that would still be in force here, and that would be the simple answer to my question.

JD

Hi John David.

The Bible does not specifically say how God will handle babies and small children in the Final Judgment, but Jesus does speak very highly of children in general on several occasions. He told his disciples they would have to "become as little children" or they would never see the kingdom of God (Mt. 18:1-3). And Jesus became very angry with his disciples for harshly rebuking some who brought little children to see him. He rebuked those disciples sharply and said, "Let the children come to me, for of such is the kingdom of God" (Mt. 19:13-15).

That's really all we can say about little children, if we stick only to what the Bible reveals.

I just rest in the knowledge that in the Final Judgment, however God handles that and any other situation will be perfect. I know that when we see His decision, we will all have to say, "Of course! That is perfect!"

jdc

why the difference in deut. 12:21 and 14:24-26?

JD

Hey John David!

Good question.

The two portions of Scripture are dealing with the same issue; namely, what an Israelite should do with the tithe of his herds and flocks if the place God chose for Israel to worship Him was too far from his home to travel with animals. The wording is almost identical is places, but that "almost" is the key. I had to read both places slowly and carefully a couple of times to see the difference.

Chapter 12, verse 17, specifically says that Israelites could not eat within their gates the tithe of herds, flocks, or field but that they must take them to the place God had chosen (v. 18).

Verse 21 tells Israel that if the place God chooses for Israel to worship Him is too far from a man's home, then he is to kill the tithe of the herd and eat it within his gates. This commandment does seem, at first, to contradict what God said later in 14:24-26, but it does not. The added information in chapter 14 is that after eating those animals which should have been brought to the Lord as tithes of the herds and flocks, the price for those animals must then be brought to the Lord in place of the animals, and there at that place, new animals must be purchased and then given to the Lord as their tithe (vv. 21:25-26).

It appears to me that the Lord is trying to impress Israel with the holiness of His tithe. "If you want to bring money instead of bringing the actual animals that are the tithe of the herd," He seems to be saying, "you must then eat within your gates those animals which would have been brought to Me." So, the animals which would have been God's tithes, but could not be brought because of the distance to God's chosen place, were apparently regarded by God as too holy to remain within the herds and flocks from which they were taken, even though they were never brought to God's chosen place. They had to be killed and eaten "within your gates".

Putting the details of the two places in Deuteronomy together would have filled out the picture and made it easy for the Israelites to know exactly what to do when they had to travel too great a distance with animals to the place God had chosen for worship.

Dad

PS I learned years ago, by trial and error, that it is easy to read the Law too quickly. We really have to slow down and consider every word of God carefully to be able to see His order and His wisdom.

Ok, so it stands to reason that those animals, who were set apart for the Lord, could not remain the flocks of the owner, and I guess that means they could not be kept with the flocks of another (except maybe a Levite I guess). So, they had to eat these animals before they left. But 14:25 says they turned it into money as well. Did they sell it to a Levite before they ate it?

JD

They had to bring the money to the place God chose instead of the animals. That was their tithes. But the animals still had to be slaughtered and eaten.

Actually, it does not say that the animals were sold. God just told the Israelites to turn the animals into money if it was too far to bring them. How that was done is not made clear. If not sold, that would kind of make it hard, wouldn't it, for someone to decide to change the animals into money and still slaughter their animals and share it with the Levites, and maybe the poor and needy also!

Hey Pastor John,

In July I copied you a Facebook correspondence between me and a guy on campus, a Seventh-Day Adventist, where I had commented on a "Note" of his and he commented back. The note asked several questions, but I picked out the one about the holy spirit to answer. (I had trouble picking through what else he was getting at with all the writing involved.) Almost every day he writes a note on a couple verses in the Bible - he's still in Acts right now - and tags me and several other people in it (i.e., clicks our names to "mention" us, or attract our attention to read it). I untag myself from them at times because of the Xn overtones that I don't agree with.

Basically, he does not believe that speaking in tongues is anything more than a gift, and that one can have the holy spirit without ever speaking in tongues. The first time I commented on that note Bekah and I agreed that there seemed no need for me to respond to his opinion but that I could for "practice" and for the other people, basically Xns, reading. I finally responded last night; it was bothering me some. I'm not great at bringing up points when I "know" something, but I feel I did it out of loving concern and his responses were those of someone rather unmoved.

One thing I'm learning is that Xty really doesn't care what the Bible clearly says! The writers didn't need to legally explain things because the saints back then weren't so confused. It's scary that a person could think they have the holy ghost when they don't; it seems like it'd be "safer" in a way to think that the holy ghost isn't essential (if you're going to believe a lie) but that it does involve tongues.... I don't know. The last things he said were:

"We, as we journey through Acts, have seen many converted, and only on occasion has there been speaking in tongues. The bottom line is that I am confident in my salvation and I know many Christians who I am fairly confident that they will be saved as well; we have all been baptized by the Holy Spirit, and yet I personally know no one who has spoken in tongues. Does that mean we are without Christ? God forbid. Why am I confident? Because of some gift I have? No, because of what Christ has done for me.... Haha, yes, we both seem to have dug in our heels. This is not the first time I have considered, and then rejected, the proposition that glossalia is always the initial evidence of baptism by the Holy Ghost. It's not that I don't want the gift of "speaking in tongues," I would certainly praise God if He blessed me with it; but I know that this gift is not, both biblically and experientially, the necessary outward sign of a believer. It is true that the Spirit does not enter mutely, but speaking in tongues is not the only way that Christ speaks through a believer: is it not the Spirit speaking through us when we preach the Gospel, act in love, and glorify the Lord? Finally, I really don't put much stock in Mark 16:9-20, because all the earliest manuscripts of that Gospel do not include it; it was only found in later manuscripts. However, even if it were true, does your interpretation of the necessity of speaking in tongues also mean that a believer must also "pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them"? Does that mean that if I don't handle snakes and drink cyanide that I *really* don't have the Spirit? Again, even if v. 9-20 were truly part of the Gospel, I do not believe that the signs listed in v. 17-18 are necessarily exhibited in all true believers. But maybe I'm wrong and am still an unrighteousness sinner who rejects the sacrifice of Christ..."

I replied finally, hoping to end the conversation - hoping it's not too harsh (is it?), because I felt it sincerely: "Perhaps you are, but that is between you and God. I hope He has mercy and blesses you.

Sincerely,

B"

P.S. I want to be more thankful for what God has done for me. I never got to actually "dig in" to Xty (e.g., attend church), but I tried, and I don't doubt that there are still numerous distinctly Xn assumptions in me about God. "He didn't have to" keep me from believing something as scary as that. I'm sure you deal with this kind of stuff all the time, but it's a new terrible thing to me.

With love,

Sister Brittanie

PP.S. I just noticed he said he's "fairly confident" that he and other Xns will be saved, but he mentioned at another time that there are saved Xns. Oy.

Hi Brittanie:

You have done your part. Thank you for that. Now, just be the light. And stay free and happy.

I was pleased to see that you understand this: (You wrote) "One thing I'm learning is that Xty really doesn't care what the Bible clearly says! The writers didn't need to legally explain things because the saints back then weren't so confused." That is very true, Brittanie.

Your friend's comments on Mark 16 should be commented upon.

Mark 16 is, as Jesus said, a description of "those who believe", not of each person who believes. It describes the community of believers, not each believers. I belong to that community of believers who handle snakes in the mountains of West Virginia; they are my family, and I respect them as a necessary part of the body of Christ. I belong to that community of believers that includes miracle workers and healers, and I respect them as a necessary part of the body of Christ. A community of the miraculous is the real community of faith in Christ. That was Jesus' point in Mark 16, and your young friend is very foolish to shrug off that portion of Scripture. Jesus wasn't listing all the miraculous things that had to be everywhere in every person who believes. Nor was the Lord listing all the miraculous things that would happen to among God's people. He does not, for instance, say that God's people will have visions, or that they would interpret tongues, etc., etc. Jesus was describing for all men the kind of community to look for, if they are searching amid man's confusing and confused religions for the true people of God. If your friend was sincerely searching for the place God really is, he could not have shrugged off Mark 16 so easily.

I think that what Jesus has taught me is miraculous, too, and gives me a respectable place in the community of believers, but not many of God's children see it that way. They think I am in error, but I know that is only because they are persuaded to judge me by Christian standards. If they would obey the Father's voice and come out of Christianity, they would see me differently. But that is out of my control. God's will be done.

Just pray that God would make all His children one in Christ, and let's work toward that worthy goal. It may be that you will live to see God at last unite His precious, divided people on earth.

Pastor John

PS If your friend has not yet received Christ (the baptism of the holy ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues), he has indeed rejected Christ's sacrifice, as he himself says may be the case. It is a matter of the heart, Brittanie, not of doctrine or claims of men. You have made sure your friend knows enough to bring out what is in his heart. Leave him alone; he is joined to his idols.

Comments from several viewers concerning the emails above are as follows:

The statement written by the guy Brittanie knows is exactly how another young guy I met felt when we talked with him this past Friday night. We read in Acts and in Hebrews about the need for getting the holy Ghost, but he had no problems with that. He was looking for a scripture that basically said, "You don't have the holy Ghost if you don't speak in tongues."

What scriptures are best when talking to someone who doesn't see how tongues is a sign of receiving the holy Spirit? Is there one verse that really nails it down?

te.

No, there is not one verse that nails it down, that I know of.

I think Jesus' words from John 3 to Nicodemus are best, taken with what happened to the disciples in Acts 2. Also, Isiaah 28:11-12 with Matthew 11:28 is excellent. Or Paul's teaching in Romans 8 about the Spirit bearing witness. Or John in 1John 5:6, or ....

Oh well, that's enough for now.

jdc

and . . .

Hi John:

"The sin of silence". That phrase stuck out to me in a different way today. Silence IS sin as far as the Spirit is concerned. But Christianity is the biggest endorser of the "sin of silence". They encourage people to confess they already have the Spirit when the Spirit has been silent. It is sin to receive a silent spirit - we have not received a "dumb spirit" - God's Spirit will confess when it comes in! :)

Gary

That's what Paul said in 1Corinthins 12:1-3.

My father pointed out that Jesus cast out the dumb spirits he met; he doesn't give one.

jdc

and . . .

Hey, John:

I wanted to just send something that's been going through my mind recently on all of this (i.e., speaking in tongues being the witness, and the responses that you've sent me to my emails, and some testimonies I've witnessed since then.) To go along with this, the "sin of silence" tract and testimonies about that have been really hitting on something with me - namely, to be more vocal with the truth, in some cases. There is a time to be an example of love, but there's also a time to tell what you know...it has been good to realize that I may need to step up in some things there. And I am looking for my opportunities to do that.

But you said something in one of the emails about not giving in to the pressures of this world...pressures of millions of people saying that they are saved...with regard to that confusing our understanding...(you didn't say it quite like that, but this is how I was looking at it, for me). Have I been letting something...pressures of the world confuse me...even just a little? (I didn't try to analyze it...it was just a question rolling around for me.)

And in a couple of testimonies that I've heard lately, including Coy's, Sister Willie, and Glen Bartow's, the understanding that God can show you what is true with your experiences...like Sister Willie feeling who her brother was when she was holding that Preacher's hand, and Coy's sure testimony, regardless of his education, and Brother Glen's experience on the railroad tracks...it just stood out to me how you don't need a Bible to go by to get understanding from God. (Not that the Bible isn't important...but the testimony.) Well, I have the understanding in my heart and in my own personal experience that I have the holy ghost, by the evidence of other tongues...I don't have to be able to use the Scriptures to definitively show anything to anybody...myself included. (I hope that makes sense, the way I mean it....I have my testimony. Not that the scriptures aren't important or that we don't need to know whats there...but like you said here about no one verse nails it down...but its still the truth, and I know that! Jesus showed it to me!)

This has just been good. Good learning. I have my testimony, and I intend to hold onto it, with help from the Lord, of course!

Love you,

Lyn

That is good, Lyn. Personal experience with God is always better than simply reading the Bible and trying to decide what is right. The Pharisees had the Bible, and knew it well, but they had no knowledge of God, no relationship with Him. I am of the opinion that without a personal relationship with God, which is created by personal experience with God, one cannot possibly value the holy Bible as one should; it is too foreign to seem relevant to a person's life who has had no personal experiences with Christ.

In Revelation, we are told that the saints overcome the world "through the word of their testimony and the blood of the Lamb", not by their knowledge of the Bible.

If you are wise, you will thank God for every experience you have with Him and pray that such things never end. Those holy experiences are more valuable than anything written with pen and ink.

Pastor John

Hi,

Maleah and I had an exchange on ways to take a spiritual "bath", based on the email she sent you last week, but I want to understand what it means to stay full. I want to keep salted, aside from having homework and other daily, social activities to take care of - I know that how I handle all those is part of pleasing the Father, but I want to always feel connected. Seriously, I think being there over Labor Day weekend spoiled me (in the best way)! I see and hear about "staying full" but how?

Thanks,

Sister Brittanie

Hi Brittanie:

You can be "spiritually minded" regardless of how busy you must be. When we do the things that please God, He keeps us "washed". Remember, being spiritually washed is something God does for us as we walk in His ways; it is not something we do for ourselves. Sometimes, God will use a sermon to wash a whole body of saints, but it can also be a one-on-one experience, with just you and Jesus.

If our minds are distracted from the things of God by the "cares of this life" as we pass by this world, some of the dust of this world's spirit can sometimes settle down on our souls. Tinges of attitudes, fears, desires for worldly things, etc., that may not be wicked but are not perfect and clean, can be felt. That's when we need a bath. Sometimes, getting alone and praying will wash off the dust of this world. Sometimes, a good conversation (or email) with a brother or sister will do it. And, as I said, sometimes, an entire body of believers can be "washed by the water of the word" of God when it comes through a man. There are other ways to be washed as well: reading an anointed message or testimony, going for a walk and "considering the lilies", etc. Our God is not limited to just a few ways to keep us clean before Him.

Keeping our minds on God is key, for He promised us, "I will keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed (that is, anchored) on me."

Pastor John

Hey,

I have a question on sensing things. If someone has the holy spirit, can you sense it even if you don't know that's what it is, even if they're not really living like it? I was thinking about someone's house I was in a couple years ago that gave me a strangely calm, familiar feeling almost like when I visited you all, and apparently they've had the holy ghost for some time. (I'm not sure. I might explain that later.)

Yes, that happens frequently. The holy ghost is very, very jealous over the ones in whom it lives. It will reveal to your spirit what is around you, to protect you and to comfort you. If you trust God, you will receive secret information about the people in your life, and around it.

Also, I think I felt something a little while ago that wasn't from me, but since I thought it was just my flesh warring I pushed it off and it didn't really bother me. Later, however, I found out someone who was physically close to me was thinking that thing. Is that how it's gonna be, and will it be that easy to shove it off?

Yes, that is exactly how it will be, many times. Of course, God hides things from us, for our good, too.

It is difficult for many of God's children to learn not to condemn themselves when they feel bad things, but it is actually a wonderful, holy thing that is happening: they are discerning the spirits around them! In time, you will learn not to condemn yourself for what the Spirit enables you to discern in others who are in your presence (and, occasionally, not even in your presence).

Thanks,

Sister Brittanie!

Good night! My! "Sister Brittanie" sounds mighty good! Praise God!

Pastor John

August 22, 2007

Hey,

I was just reading something where you said this.

"Moses did not lose his soul, of course, but God did not forgive him for hitting the rock God told him to speak to. For punishment, God refused to allow Moses to enter the Promised Land, and when Moses pleaded with God to change His mind, God sternly commanded Moses to stop praying about it."

How is that possible - I mean, how is someone not forgiven a sin and still admitted to paradise (or now, heaven)?

Thanks,

bj

Hi:

Good point. But the Bible does say, "There is a sin not unto death" (1Jn.).

What I meant was that God didn't just accept Moses' repentance and let it pass. There was a heavy price that had to be paid, even if Moses was forgiven. It is as if Moses' punishment was his forgiveness.

Thanks.

Pastor John

August 1, 2007

Hi Pastor John,

Do you know where "going to church on Sundays” (or any other day) came from? Who decided that people should get together once a week? Was it Christianity? Or did the real people of God start doing it first? Also, how often did the earlier saints get together, like in Paul’s time, if there is an answer.

Stuart

Dear Stuart:

The Roman Emperor Constantine invented the doctrine that the day designated by Romans as the day of the Sun god (our "Sunday") was a holy day for the Christian church. He worshiped the sun God and confused him with Jesus. This is the origin of the halo often seen in Christian paintings of the Lord. The Roman sun god had a halo or light around his head.

The origin of gathering once a week for worship is, thus far for me, unknown. The holy Sabbath day instituted by God in ancient times was not set apart by Him for man as a day of worship but as a day of rest. Certain other Sabbaths under the Law were specified by God as days of worship, but not the weekly Sabbath.

It is impossible to know if the earliest saints met regularly or not, and it really doesn't matter. If it mattered, the Bible would contain that information. The important thing is to meet whenever we are led by the Spirit to meet. Paul mentioned in 1Cor. 16:2 that he wanted the saints to gather some money together for the poor, persecuted saints in Jerusalem on "the first day of the week", but that is a long way from saying that the saints held regular meetings on the first day of the week. The Bible is silent on the subject, as I said, because it just doesn't matter. There are no holy days in Christ; only holy people.

Pastor John

In 1 Corinthians 11 NKJV Paul refers to something as the Lord's supper - a dinner with drinks. He also talks about "keeping the traditions". Water Baptism is in Acts all the way up to at least chap 19. I don't see any clear word of revelation to cease from it in the scripture? Do you believe the ministries from Eph5 (Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor, Teacher) are still for today? Peter used the term "Christian"- I don't see why some are so oppossed to using it (as well as "church" which is commonly used as the term for the gathering of the believers with ministry usually). My initial personal thinking is that I do well to stick with the clear examples as seen in the NT.

On what basis do you feel that things should be different now?

Thanks for your help.

Sheshan

Hi Sheshan:

If we walk in the Spirit, we will find ourselves walking in perfect harmony with everything that the apostles, prophets, patriarchs, and the Lord taught and commanded. They listened to God, and if we listen to God, our lives will be in sync with the lives of those holy men. Hearing from God and obeying Him is the only real tradition that they left for the saints to follow.

As for water baptism being practiced in Acts 19, I could point out to you that the whole Law of Moses was still kept by thousands of God's people as late as Acts 21:20. Are you suggesting that we should do that, too? If not, then why not? It is in the Bible, and it was a sacred tradition kept by thousands of saints at that time.

The offices listed in Ephesians 5 are only a few of the offices available in the kingdom of God. They are no more a complete list of ministries than the nine gifts mentioned in 1Corinthians 12 are a complete list of all God's gifts. The much-acclaimed "five-fold ministry of Ephesians 5" is a gimmick used by Christian teachers to impress the simple-minded. How about the 20,000,000,000 - fold ministry of the holy Ghost? Doesn't that sound more like our God?

Don't be sucked down the tube of Christian propaganda, Sheshan. Life in the Spirit is better than that, my friend.

The answers to your other questions are more than fully answered on my web site. If you have any questions concerning specific statements or explanations I have posted there, I will be glad to answer them.

Pastor John

Hey In Genesis 1:26,27 it says, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

And then in 2:7: "And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

My question is wasn't Adam created first (I know he was ), but why are there two references in the Bible about God creating man? The first reference is when God is creating everything.

Steven

I don't know.

Pastor John

Hi Pastor John,

Earlier this week I had been reading the same scriptures in John, Colossians, Hebrews that you covered in the Bible study this morning. In John 1:1, I had written a note about Revelation 19:13 saying "his name is called The Word of God." As I read in Revelation 19, though, I had a question about verse 10 and was wondering if you would explain the scripture "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

Thank you,

Bro Randell

Hi Randell:

There are several equally true possibilities here. It could mean that the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit that was prophesied about (by the OT prophets and by Jesus himself). Or it could mean that the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit that causes the children of God to prophesy. Jesus did say to his disciples the night before he was slain, the Spirit would come and "show you things to come." Another possibility is that the testimony of Jesus is the same Spirit that moved on the OT prophets to prophesy. All of these things are true about God's Spirit, and since we know that God's Spirit is also His testimony, or witness that Jesus is His Son, I suggest we just say that the correct interpretation of that verse is that all of the above is what God meant, and probably even more.

Pastor John

Pastor John:

It's me again. I'm scratching my head on this one: "for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall compass a man." Is the woman referring to the nation of Israel returning from the captivity?

Bob

Hi Bob:

The Hebrew word used in this verse does mean to encompass (other examples - Ps. 32:7, 10; Jonah 2:3, 5), but what God is saying here is difficult to know for certain. It could mean that God will bring about a situation on earth where women become men's protectors. However, since whatever it is here that God is foretelling is a bad thing, the result of "backsliding" (Jer. 31:22a), it more likely will be something like women becoming rulers over men. In other words, sin will lead to the upsetting of God's natural order of life, to the detriment of mankind.

One OT translation has an interesting translation: "A woman will woo the man!" We certainly see a measure of this ("liberated") female pursuit of males in this "adulterous and sinful generation". That's about as good a job as I can do with that one.

Pastor John

July 1, 2007

Hi, Pastor John!

I have a question about paradise.

Okay. When some people die, they go to hell, which means they will end up in the Lake of Fire. So when other people die... they go to paradise, which means they will end up in the new earth (?).

Yes. That is correct.

So, in any case, where is paradise, are there any specific things in the Bible you could point me to? I looked for paradise in the Bible on a Bible search engine and basically got to what Jesus said to the dying man beside Him. You know, "Today you will be with me in paradise."

Thanks:

Brenda

Brenda:

The repentant man who was crucified with Jesus did enter into Paradise that same day. They both descended into the heart of the earth, where Paradise was, at that time.

Later, after Jesus had been raised from the dead by the power of God and then ascended into heaven by that same power, Paul said that he was "caught up" into Paradise (2Cor. 12:4). Paul called this place where Paradise is, the "third heaven" (2Cor. 12:2). The first heaven is the atmosphere around earth; the second is the realm of the physical universe, the planets, and the sun and moon and stars. The third heaven is the invisible dwelling place of angels and the place of God's throne. Thanks to Paul's testimony in 2Corinthians 12, we can say with all certainty that we know where Paradise now is: heaven.

Also consider this: In Revelation 2:7, Jesus said that the Tree of Life was in the midst of the Paradise of God. That Tree of Life is preserved in the presence of God (Rev. 22:2, 14). It is not in the heart of the earth, and it never has been. If the Tree of Life is in the presence of God in heaven and is also in Paradise at the same time, then simple logic places Paradise in heaven.

It is obvious, just from these few verses, that Paradise is now in heaven and is no longer in the heart of the earth, as it was before Jesus ascended into heaven.

Thanks for the question. Keep 'em comin'!

Pastor John

July 1, 2007

Hello Pastor

i was richly blessed by the TFT': "overcoming the world". i've came across many Xtn preachers that preaches about this very topic. they say a lot of sillies that any body with the Spirit would not enjoy hearing it. but being inside Xtnty, i've nothing to do but to sit and hear the sillies. It gave me a big encouragement after reading it, i'm really full hope. thanx to God.

i will like to ask, is there any portion of the world that is own by the Devil that he wanted to offer Christ during the temptation?

thanx for going through my testimonies.

Frank,

Lagos, Nigeria

Brother Frank:

Psalm 24 says that "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." It has puzzled me in times past, as apparently it also has puzzled you, that during Jesus' temptation, the Devil could offer Jesus the world. If "the earth is the Lord's", one must ask, then how could the Devil offer it to Jesus?

But then again, Brother Frank, the Bible does say that the Devil had certain power and authority (given to him from God, of course). For one example, before Jesus came, Satan had the power of death (Heb. 2:14). But after Jesus' resurrection and ascension into heaven, Jesus said that the keys of death were in his hand (Rev. 1:18). Whatever power and authority Satan has ever had, he received it from God and was limited by God in his use of it. If God gave Satan control over the kingdoms of men, it was only to the extent that it pleased God. God has never been out of control of His creation. And the power over the nations that he offered to Jesus could only have been the power that God had given him, with all its limitations. Jesus refused his offer because he loved his Father too much to resort to sin to obtain anything. Besides, he knew that his Father had something far better waiting for him than Satan could ever offer.

Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil (1Jn. 3:8), and I feel certain that destroying his works includes overcoming Satan's power to do evil with God's incomparable power to do good. So, while the Devil might well have been given authority over the earth, as he claimed during Jesus' temptation (Lk. 4:6), but that power had been GIVEN to him, and the One who gave him that power sent Jesus to take it away. Praise God! He did it!

Thanks for the inquiry, Brother Frank. It is good to pause to consider such things. Stay in touch.

Pastor John

Hi, Pastor John:

Something has been bothering me lately. There are things I want to get over concerning other people. John was reading me things from the Gospels last night (because that's where he is and certain verses came to mind) to help me forgive a certain person, but as he was reading over the phone I asked questions. I noticed that, with the exception of "The Lord's (Disciple's) Prayer", other instances of forgiving someone to be forgiven by God involved the other person asking for forgiveness in some way.

My question was, if God requires changes from us to forgive us, how are we to forgive people who don't change, and who go on doing the same things, especially if the person refuses to admit wrong or blames all kinds of things on - well, me, when I have spent time changing? I've been asking God to forgive me for what I have done wrong, to bless both me and the other person, etc., but part of me remains angry, especially at their arrogance. Please help me understand this. Talking to John really helped but I am baffled at how to actually "forgive" when the other person doesn't "repent".

Thanks,

Brittanie

Hi Brittanie:

There is no such thing as forgiveness when repentance has not been done. Men can only pretend to forgive those who do not repent. In fact, that is what Christianity teaches people to do.

Forgiveness is created by repentance and the mercy of God. Those who know me know that I use that word "create" very carefully becuase the creation of anything is only the work of God. Because He is not a fool, God has never forgiven a soul that refused to repent, and neither does any wise person. Christian forgiveness (i. e., forgiveness with no repentance) is nothing but an encouragement to sin, and a participation in it. God's forgiveness is God's response to our obedioence to His demand for repentance. No repentance, no forgiveness.

Now, you can be willing to forgive before a person repents. You can greatly desire to forgive. It can be your heart's earnest desire to forgive, but you cannot commit the actual act of forgiving without repentance on the part of the transgressor.

When you love the person you want to forgive, the flesh will always tempt you to forgive whether that person repents or not, just so you can be close again and go on with life together. But you must deny your flesh and do things God's way if you want true peace and fellowship. No such thing exists, in the real world of the heart, as forgiveness without repentance. It's as if all the ingredients are in God's heart for forgiveness except one - repentance -- and those who have sinned must supply it. Don't ever give in to the flesh and offer a sinner Christian forgiveness. If you do, you're just setting yourself up for another hurt.

Pastor John

Well thank you.

And yet another question!

"...and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matt. 6:12-15)

That's one of the things my friend John read me, and it makes a lot of sense (and at the time I figured that my inability to forgive is why I couldn't stop thinking about the matter)! Does this passage speak of not refusing to forgive someone when they repent,

Yes.

or is there some other meaning of what is translated to "forgive", as in "cease to be constantly angry at the person, and treat them with love"? *haha*

No. The Greek word for "to forgive" means, literally, "to release". When you are done wrong, you "have something against" the evil doer (using KJV language), and you cannot change that. It is in your soul. It is your God-given sense of justice, of what is right and wrong. Even little children have it. You may want the hurt of bearing it to go away, but your conscience (a gift from God) alone will tell you when it is fixed. You are able to release that "something" against the transgressor only when the sinner asks for it -- and the asking for it is his repentance.

For some reason it feels that understanding what you told me this morning makes me stop steaming over the issue as I had been for about a week, maybe because I was confused as to why it seemed that God had let her "triumph" by being mean, while at the same time I was trying to forgive someone.

I think that is the bulk of my confusion on this for now. Oh, and the fact that sometimes "brother" is used (e.g., the lesson about leaving one's gift at the altar to make right), and I was like, "But she's not my 'sister'!"

Brittanie

In that parable about the gift at the altar (I thought about pointing this out earlier, but decided against it . . but since you mentioned it . . .), you will notice that Jesus said "If your brother has something against you." That means if you really have done something wrong to another, not if they get mad at you for nothing. Only in that case does someone "have something" against us. We are not supposed to run after every pouty spirit on the planet, trying to make them like us.

Pastor John

Hi, Pastor John:

I imagine this to be a question tough to answer, but I was wondering if you could tell me how to read the Bible. I want to read Jesus' words and all the things that are after the Gospels, but at the same time I see that the people being spoken to have great knowledge of the Old Testament; that is who Jesus is talking to. But as I am trying to read the OT, I am like, "But I want to know what Jesus is saying!"

Thanks,

Brittanie

Hi Brittanie:

The only way I know to read the Bible and learn it is to believe what you are reading. I had a student ask me once how I got to know the Bible so well, and I had no answer. I had to think about it. In the following class, I told her that after giving it some thought, I had concluded that I came to know the Bible as well as I do simply by believing what I read. That is how I learned it. It is not complicated. I sincerely believed that if I found anything within the pages of the Bible that contradicted what I thought, then I was wrong, and I repented of having that wrong idea. That, Brittanie, is how to read the Bible.

So, just patiently read the book, study the book (Do Not Use Commentaries! Study the book itself), and stay humble. Jesus will take care of the rest. That is my advice because that is my experience.

Pastor John

Hey Pastor John,

I enjoyed the RT-Differences Between the Two Gospels. Some of us were discussing that issue just the other day. Yesterday, I think it was, I read in Acts 6: 13-14 where Stephen was before the council. "And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us." Do you think that the false witnesses were telling the truth about what Stephen was preaching? [What they were accusing Stephen of] sounds like Paul's gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts 21: 21 when Paul had come to Jerusalem to James and the elders, they speaking of the believing Jews, said "And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs." It just makes me wonder if God had given Stephen some revelation of the gospel to the Gentiles. If so, the Jews didn't like it no matter who was telling it. And Stephen probably would not have known that it was a different gospel, else he wouldn't have been teaching it to the Jews.

Billy H.

Hi Billy,

Both the false witnesses who testified against Stephen and the men who reported Paul's teaching to James were wrong. It would have been sin for Paul or Stephen to teach Jews to forsake Moses and to live like the Gentiles, just as it was sin for Jewish believers to go out and teach Gentiles to live like Jews. Paul said that even he, when among the Jews, lived like the Jews. He certainly would not have taught Jews to cease to live like the Jews they were.

Pastor John

Hey Pastor John,

Thank you for your answer. It sounds so right and obvious that I feel like I should have known that for myself. However, after giving it some more thought, it gendered another question.

As Peter's gospel was dying out, leaving only Paul's gospel for both Jews and Gentiles, wouldn't there have been someone, surely a Jew, to teach the Jews that the ceremonies were no longer required? In Galatians 2:14, where Paul withstood Peter to the face, Paul told Peter "If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" It seems here that Peter already had the understanding of his gospel to the Jews dying out, leaving only Paul's gospel for both Jews and Gentiles, though at this point it was either not a well-known truth, or at least not widely accepted by the believing Jews, which would explain why Peter feared them. Paul on the other hand, being held responsible by God for the care of the Gentiles, was pressed in the Spirit to rebuke Peter in front of the Gentiles so that their liberty in Christ wouldn't be compromised. So, if Peter was aware of the change that God was getting ready to do, then James and the other elders would have known as well, and it seems reasonable that they would have taught it to the Jews. We also have to remember that Paul was not rebuking Peter for simply living as a Gentile, but for living as a Gentile only when other Jews were not present.

Thank you for the correspondance. The Lord knows I love to discuss the things of God and its comforting to know that you're there to nudge me back on the right track if I stray off course. I love you John.

Billy H.

Hi Billy:

There is no indication that the believing Jews, Peter and James included, ever imagined that Peter's gospel would cease, even though they certainly understood that there were two gospels. I think that time proved to be the cure for their ignorance. As time passed, and fewer Jews submitted to the Messiah, the Jews who believed would have been squeezed out of the ordinary course of life among their fellow Jews. In AD 70, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem completely and, later, drive every single Jew, permanently, out of the land which God had given to their fathers, and those major events would have greatly accelerated the process of ending Peter's gospel forever.

If Peter and James, or anyone else among those elders in Jerusalem, knew that God intended to bring Peter's "gospel of the circumcision" to a permanent end, we have no record of it -- even if we do have John, Peter, James, and other Jewish apostles acknowledging Paul's "gospel of the uncircumcision" as legitimate. I think Paul understood that his gospel was the only one that would stand the test of time. Some of his letters condemn the ceremonial worship included in Peter's gospel as satanic, and that was extraordinary for the time. I marvel at his courage and wisdom.

Let me add one more thing before I close. If God ever did decide to send a man to the Jews to tell them that Peter's gospel for them was ended, the Jews probably killed him, or at least drove him away from the nation.

Pastor John

Pastor John:

Jeremiah 1:2 reads, "To whom the word of the LORD came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign."

According to 2Kings22:3-8 and 2Chronicles34:8-9, Hilkiah found the book of the law during the 18th year of Josiah's reign. This seemed like a discrepancy at first but I noticed that Josiah "did that which was right in the sight of the LORD" before the book of the law was found. So does this mean that when the word of the LORD comes to a person, it refers to when a person hears from God and responds by living right in the sight of God?

Bob

Hi Bob:

You asked if the word of the LORD coming to a person "refers to when a person hears from God and responds by living right in the sight of God?" I hate to sound like a Trinitarian minister, but the answer to your question really is yes and no. Yes for the first part ("when a person hears from God"), because there is no such thing as someone hearing from God without the word of God coming to him. But the answer is no to the second ("and responds by living right in the sight of God") because a person may or may not live right after hearing from God, but the word of God has still come to him, no matter how he lives after hearing it.

Pastor John

Pastor John:

I reckon a person could not live right in the sight of God without first having the word of the LORD come to him. So we are told that this happened to Josiah when he was 21 years old (8+13). Do we know how Josiah lived before he was 21 years old?

He started seeking the God of David at the age of sixteen.

He certainly had to get beyond the influence of growing up around his daddy who probably did not tell him of the wonderful things of God. I think it interesting that we are told he "walked in all the way of David his father". David (long dead by the time Josiah was born) was more of a father to him than his own dad. Wow.

By the way, I had forgotten that Jeremiah was Hilkiah's son. I can just imagine seeing Josiah, Hilkiah and Jeremiah together and the conversations they must have had. Do you think they went beyond the social King and high priest relationship and felt more like family?

Bob

I don't know that Hilkiah the priest was the same Hilkiah who was Jeremiah's father, but I suppose he could have been. It has been quite a while since I looked at that in depth, but I know that when I was heavily into that part of the Bible, there was no obvious connection between the two Hilkiah's. Also, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that indicates that King Josiah knew Jeremiah personally, or ever even spoke to him, even though it seems impossible but that he would have known who Jeremiah was.

jdc

Hi there.

Can you please explain this verse in the New Birth tract: "It is the 'deep' which 'calls unto deep' in times of trouble (Ps.42:7).

I am almost done with this tract, I just want to make sure is understandable what is in it. :)

Thank you very much.

Manny.

PS God is good!!!!

Amen, Manny. God IS good!

When the Spirit speaks from God's heart to ours, or when the holy Ghost prays out of our hearts to God, that is the "deep" calling unto "deep". God's deepest part speaking to our deepeest part, and our deepest part speaking back to His, "making intercession for the saints accoring to the will of God."

By the way, "the noise of thy waterspouts" that David also mentioned in Psalm 42 is the noise of those "rivers of living water" that Jesus (Jn. 7:38) said would burst forth from our deepest part. There is no such thing as rivers of water flowing anywhere with out making noise! So, no one need be surprised if they hear noise when the holy Ghost is moving!

Pastor John

Whew John,

I just had to reply to this email. Thank you for answering Manny for me. Some days I just may pray to the Lord; some days I just may want to listen to some music; some days I just may want to read; and this day, I knew I wanted to read in Psalms. I was feeling a little sad in my spirit, and I told the Lord, "Lord I don't want to read about you; I want to read YOU". Well, I opened my Bible to Psalms 40 and started reading. I knew it was going to be good because the very first verse was, I waited patiently for the LORD; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry." What a good God!

I read and read and kept getting blessed and more blessed. I got to 42:7 "Deep calleth unto deep . . ." I said, "I'm calling to you Lord."

I loved what you said about God's deepest part speaking to our deepest part. It is just wonderful. Thank you Jesus. He always hears us, John. I loved it and thank you too for such a good answer.

Lou

By the holy Ghost, God even helps our "deep" call upon His "deep", Lou. That's how good He is to us who trust in Him!

jdc

Hm...

Hello. I am curious as to why the English standard version differs (what I feel is) so greatly from the King James Version on this:

Matthew 20:22-23

KJV: But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

ESV: Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?" They said to him, "We are able." He said to them, "You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father."

I noticed this just now when I was reading your Question of the Week on whether or not Jesus spoke in tongues (http://www.isaiah58.com/questions/q_oftheweek99.html). I've been thinking that the English Standard Version is such a good translation.

Thanks,

Brittanie

Hi Brittanie:

The ESV, along with many modern versions, chooses to trust the United Bible Society's version of the biblical Greek text. This text is the product of extreme left-wing theologians and scholars, which in my judgment is perhaps a little less reliable than the "Byzantine" or "Majority Text" of the Greek NT, which texts are endorsed by extreme right-wing theologians and scholars. The Majority Text is basically the one that the King James translators used.

The parts of Matthew that provoked your question are rejected in the UBS Greek Text. Those scholars refused to include them because they think that the phrases you asked about were added by editors a long time ago in order to make those verses sound like Matthew 10:38 f. It is typical of these skeptical scholars that they cannot conceive of Jesus ever saying the same thing twice.

I think that everyone would agree that this UBS text cannot possibly be the original text; it is piece-mealed together using various ancient manuscripts, and employing a methodology that is based on unbelief. Still, it is used by a majority of Christian scholars world-wide.

On the other hand, the very conservative-Christian Byzantine Text of the Greek NT does seem to have been "polished up" by those who made copies of it over the centuries; not too much polished, but it does seem suspiciously smooth in many places. ( I am not speaking as an expert, just as an observer.)

The UBS guys do not esteem the Byzantine text at all (much less the Majority Text), and sometimes even ridicule it. And the Byzantine/Majority Text guys dismiss the UBS text out of hand. This vici