LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR

1
intended it to mean. The true meaning of a text resides in the authorial intent of the text.
PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION This leads us to the first primary and fundamental principle of interpreting the Bible.
James Davis 2013
General Principles of Biblical Interpretation
Introduction
Principle 1: Interpretation must be based on the author’s intention of meaning and not the
reader. This means we must get into the author’s context, historically, grammatically,
When it comes to making claims about what the Bible means, sometimes we hear
culturally and the literary forms and conventions the author was working in. To be able to do
comments from Christians or non-Christians like the following: “Well, that’s just your
this some good Bible study tools are needed since we are 2000 years or more removed
interpretation.” “The Bible can be made to say anything you want.” “You can’t really
from the biblical authors and their context is very different than ours. The first tool that any
understand the Bible. It is full of contradictions.” “No one can understand the true meaning
one should get is a good study Bible with notes that explain historical and cultural
of anything anyone says.” Or, someone sitting in a Bible study might say, “This is what the
background information. Most major Bible translations come in editions with these types of
Bible means to me.” All of these types of comments are about principles of biblical
notes but by far the NET Bible with its over 60,000 notes surpasses them all. Get the most
interpretation also called in theological jargon hermeneutics. Welcome to our postmodern
extensive Study Bible that goes with the translation you use. After this, good evangelical
world. Pilate’s question lives on: “What is truth? (John 18:38).”
commentaries are essential tools to study the Bible but make sure to look at a couple to get
a variety of perspectives. When someone in a Bible study states what the verse means to
Some issues that we as Christians face regarding the topic of biblical interpretation include:
him, we need to redirect and clarify that the meaning is what the author intended. After that
How does divine inspiration and human authorship affect biblical interpretation? What does
the question then is how that historical meaning applies to us today. The second principle of
a text mean? What are some general principles of interpretation? How do we interpret the
biblical interpretation should also be considered foundational.
Old Testament? How do we interpret the New Testament? These are all critical questions
for us to consider as we seek to become better interpreters of God’s word, the Bible.
Principle 2: Interpretations must be done in the context of the passage. What does the
following mean? “It was a ball.” Well, the answer depends on the context. Consider the
What Does a Text Mean?
following sentences: The baseball umpire saw the pitch drift to the outside and said, “it was
a ball.” We went to the dance last night, in fact it was so formal “it was a ball.” As I was
The last lesson looked at the topic of inspiration and found that the Bible is both a human
walking along the golf course I spotted something small and white in the tall grass, “it was a
book and a divine book. There are certain implications of this for biblical interpretation. The
ball.” I had so much fun at the game night, “it was a ball.” In each case the word ball means
first is that the human authors had a specific historical audience, context and purpose.
something different. Therefore, context determines meaning! The nearest context must
These authors used their own language, writing methods, style of writing and literary form of
given the most weight in interpretation. First, there is the near context of the sentence, then
writing. The divine authorship of the Bible gives it its unity and the ultimate source of all
the paragraph, then the section and then the book and even author. The interpreter should
interpretation is from God. In the book of Genesis Joseph was asked about the meaning of
look at all these circles of context to be able to correctly assess the meaning.
some divinely given dreams and he replied, “Don’t interpretations belong to God? (Gen
40:8).
Far too often people try to interpret a verse by itself in isolation without looking at the
context itself. For example, consider the verse Revelation 3:20 which is sometimes used as
So let’s just start with the most basic question. What does a text mean? The answer to this
an illustration for evangelism. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My
question is that a text means what the author intended it to mean. If there is only one thing
voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me (Rev
you learn from this lesson this is it. For a simple example, if you wrote a letter with some
3:20; NASB).1 If this is all you looked at, it would be easy to understand the verse in terms
statements in it that are a little ambiguous, then what does the letter mean? Does it mean
of someone asking Jesus into his or her life for the first time. But the context in the
what you intended it to mean or how the readers interpret it? Of course it means what you
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
preceding verse (v. 19) is talking about discipline of those whom Jesus loves, which would
most naturally refer to believers. Also, in looking at the larger paragraph the passage is to a
church
(Rev 3:14, 22). The verse is really addressed to believers who need to repent from their sin
and return to fellowship with God.
Principle 3: Interpret the Bible literally (or normally) allowing for normal use of figurative
language. Take the plain meaning of the text at face value. When the literal does not make
sense you probably have a figure of speech. For example, Isaiah 55:12 states the trees of
the field will clap their hands. Since trees do not have hands or clap this must be a figure of
speech. Look for words such as “like” or “as” which can also communicate a figure of
speech. Figures of speech and illustrations give the Bible a powerful and colorful means of
expression. They are an important part of the normal expression of language.
Principle 4: Use the Bible to help interpret itself. Interpret difficult passages with clear ones.
This is sometimes called the law of non-contradiction. Because the Bible is God’s word, and
God is true, the Bible will not contradict itself. For example, there are clear passages that
teach the doctrine of eternal security, that once a person is truly saved he or she cannot
lose salvation (John 5; Rom 8). Some passages in the Bible are very hard to interpret like
Hebrews 6:4-6.2 So I would let the overall and clear theology of the Bible influence me that
a very hard passage like Hebrews 6 is not teaching that someone can lose his salvation.
Also, use the New Testament to help interpret the Old Testament. This recognizes the
progressive nature of revelation, that is the Bible is giving more revelation on topics over
time. But one must start by interpreting the Old Testament text in its context before a New
Testament consideration is made.
Principle 5: Interpretation must be distinguished from application. While there is one
interpretation that is historical, there are many applications that can be carried over to our
modern context. Build an application bridge from the interpretation to the timeless principle
and then to the application now. For example in John 12, Mary anoints Jesus with very
expensive oil. The historical context records a historical event. The interpretation relates
only to what Mary did to Jesus. What about us today? An application might be that we are
willing to give sacrificially for the Lord’s work and give Jesus acts of worship as Mary did. Or
when Jesus states the principle in Matt 7 to love one’s enemies it is a general command
that I might apply specifically by loving a worker who undermines me or a neighbor who
offends me.
2
Principle 6: Be sensitive to distinctions between Israel and the church and Old Covenant
and New Covenant eras/requirements. Promises made to Israel in the Old Testament
cannot automatically be transferred to the church in which we are a part. For example, the
land promises were given to Abraham and his descendants (Gen 12:7) but that does not
include me, a Gentile Christian. Christians are not under the requirements of the Mosaic law
(Rom 6:14). For example, in Lev 19:19 there is a command “you must not wear a garment
made of two different kinds of fabric.” This was a binding command under the Mosaic law
but not under the terms of the New Covenant. It is true that certain Old Testament
commands repeated in the New Testament are still binding, but this is made clear by their
repetition in the New Testament. The church was formed in Acts 2 with the descent of the
Holy Spirit and most direct statements to and about the church occur after that. Also, there
is a future for national Israel (cf. Rom 11) in which many Old Testament promises will yet be
fulfilled and certain practices of the church age will come to an end at the second coming of
Jesus (such as the Lord’s supper 1 Cor 11:26).
Principle 7: Be sensitive to the type of literature you are in. The Bible contains many
different types of literature: law, narrative, wisdom, poetry, gospel, parable, epistle, and
apocalyptic. Each of these types of literature has specific features that must be considered
when interpreting a text. Some of these will be examined in the next section. For now we
need to understand that where we are in the Bible makes a big difference on how we
interpret and apply it.
Interpreting the Old Testament
Narrative Literature: Much of the Old Testament contains narrative literature. First, the
passage needs to be interpreted in its historical context and then applications can be drawn
from the characters and events. In the book of Judges, only one verse is given to the judge
Shamgar. It reads, “After Ehud came Shamgar son of Anath; he killed six hundred
Philistines with an oxgoad3 and he too delivered Israel” (Judges 3:31). Why did God
include this passage? Yes, it records an historical event. Also, the verse teaches God’s
delivering power can come in an unexpected way, not with a mighty army but with one man
wielding an oxgoad.
Law: Realize that Christians are not under the law as a legal system (Rom 6:14) but that we
are to fulfill the principles that stand behind the law of loving God and loving one’s neighbor
(cf. Matt 22:37-40)? Sometimes the teaching is carried directly into the New Testament
(e.g., Do not murder, etc). Other times, the New Testament takes a text and applies a
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
principle from it. For example, “You must not muzzle your ox when it is treading grain” (Deut
25:4). Paul takes this verse, which refers to feeding a work animal and applies the principle
of the Christian worker being worthy of tangible support. Paul states, “Elders who provide
effective leadership must be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who work
hard in speaking and teaching. For the scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is
treading out the grain,’ and, ‘The worker deserves his pay’” (1 Tim 5:17-18, cf. 1 Cor 9:9). In
general, if the Old Testament command in the law is not repeated in the New Testament,
look for the principle behind the statement in the law and then try to apply that.
Wisdom Literature: Realize that much of the proverbial type of wisdom in the Old Testament
is general truth based on observations but not absolute truths or promises. Two good
examples are seen in the following: “A gentle response turns away anger, but a harsh word
stirs up wrath” (Prov 15:1). Another one is, “Train a child in the way that he should go, and
when he is old he will not turn from it” (Prov 22:6). Christians should not take these types of
proverbial statements as promises of what will always happen but rather patterns that are
generally true outcomes based on observation. A gentle answer will not always prevent an
angry outburst but it is much more likely to than a harsh one. Christian parents who have a
child who has gone astray from the faith may have done their best to train the child the right
way but the child did not take it.
Poetry: Realize that poetry often has a greater use of figurate language than narrative or
law. Also, Hebrew poetry’s main characteristic is parallelism. For example, Psalm 24 says,
“The Lord owns the earth and all it contains, the world and all who live in it. For he set its
foundation upon the seas, and established it upon the ocean currents. Who is allowed to
ascend the mountain of the Lord? Who may go up to his holy dwelling place?” (Ps 24:1-3).
Here we have three sets of pairs in side by side fashion with the second reference restating
the basic idea of the first. The phrase “the earth and all it contains” is amplified by the
phrase “the world and all who live in it”. The phrase “he sets its foundation upon the seas” is
rephrased “established it upon the ocean currents.” The question of who is allowed to
ascend to the mountain of the Lord is restated “Who may go up to his Holy Dwelling place?”
Most English Bible translations will format poetry using indentation, which helps show the
parallel ideas.
Interpreting the New Testament
Gospels: Understand that each writer has a specific audience for whom he is writing, and
that he has selected his material for them. Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. Mark
3
was written for a Roman audience. Luke was written for a Greek audience. John was
written for a universal or Gentile audience. This can help us see nuances or explain
differences between accounts. For example, in Matthew 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12 Jesus
teaches on the hard topic of divorce. Both gospels state that a man who divorces his wife
and marries another commits adultery against her. Mark alone though adds the point that if
a woman divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery against him.
Why is this difference there? It probably has to do with the audience. Matthew is writing to a
Jewish culture in which a woman could not divorce her husband while Mark is writing to a
Roman audience in which one could.
Read the gospels not only vertically, that is, understanding what is said in each individual
account, but also horizontally, that is, considering why one account follows another. For
example, see Mark 2-3:6; what do these various accounts have in common? One can
notice that they are all different stories that relate to the conflict that Jesus had with the
Jewish leadership. Mark 3:6 reads, “So the Pharisees went out immediately and began
plotting with the Herodians as to how they could assassinate him.” The stories are grouped
in a way that gives an explanation as to why Jesus was rejected as strongly as he was.
Lastly, recognize that the gospels are in a transitional stage between Old and New
Covenants. Jesus lived in the context of Judaism prior to the birth of the church. For
example, Jesus is keeping the Old Testament prescribed feasts in many of his journeys to
Jerusalem. Also, he is introducing changes that will be inaugurated with the start of the New
Covenant. For example, in Mark 7 Jesus declared all foods clean which was a change from
the Old Testament dietary laws.4
Parables.5 Parables are a form of figurative speech. They are stories that are used to
illustrate a truth. There are parables in different parts of the Bible but Jesus was the master
of them and many are found in the gospels (e.g., Matt 13, Mark 4, Luke 15). How then
should we interpret the parables? First, determine the context that prompted the parable.
Parables always arise out of a context. For example the Pharisees disdain for Jesus eating
with tax collectors and sinners prompts Jesus to tell a parable about how God loves a lost
sinner who repents (Luke 15). Second, understand the story’s natural meaning which is
often taken from real life situations in first century Palestine. Third, ascertain the main point
or truth the parable is trying to give and focus on this. Only interpret the details of the
parables if they can be validated from the passage. Many details are there only for the
setting of the story. For example, what is the main point of the mustard seed parable? Jesus
stated: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
field. It is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest garden plant
and becomes a tree, so that the wild birds come and nest in its branches” (Matt 13:31-32).
The parable is an illustration of the kingdom of heaven which starts small but grows to be
very large in size. This seems to be the main point. The birds and the branches are
probably there only to illustrate how large the tree has become.
Acts. Recognize that Acts is a theologized history of the early church. Acts tells what the
church was doing from the human side of things and what God was doing from the divine
side of things. For example, consider these passages on the early growth of the church
which refer to the same event but from two different perspectives. “So those who accepted
his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand people were added”. . . .
(Acts 2:41) “And the Lord was adding to their number everyday those who were being
saved” (Acts 2:47). Here we see what God is doing in and through the church. Also, we
need to recognize that the church starts in Acts 2 with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The
baptism of the Spirit, the filling of the Spirit, church planting and gospel outreach
characterize the events of the book. In addition, some events in Acts are descriptive of what
happened not proscriptive of what is necessarily expected in the modern church. For
example, Samaritan believers did not receive the Holy Spirit in Acts 8 upon faith in Jesus.
They had to wait for Peter and John to get there. When Paul was bitten by a viper in Malta,
yet he miraculously lived (Acts 28:1-5). These are descriptions of what happened and are
not necessarily normative of what happens in the church today. So it probably would not be
a good idea to start snake handling services!
The book of Acts is also a book of transitions. First there are key transitions in biography.
This is especially true as the book focuses more on the ministry of Peter in the first portions
of the book then shifts to Paul. There is also a transition in ministry focus from the Jews to
the Samaritans and to the Gentiles. Lastly there is a geographical transition starting in
Jerusalem taking the gospel outward into Samaria, Asia Minor, Europe and eventually
Rome. In Acts 1:8 Luke gives us a rough outline of the progression emphasizing the
progress of the gospel. “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon
you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the
farthest parts of the earth."
Epistles. Since the New Testament epistles are directed to churches and individuals in the
church, they most directly apply to us today. Most commands given in the epistles are
general enough in nature that we need to obey them, or in the case of promises we can
claim them. For example in 1 Corinthians 15 there is a promise given for immortal bodies
4
and eventual victory over death. These promises are not just for those in the local
Corinthian church but the universal church of God.
In the epistles, pay special attention to logical connectors/conjunctions to explore
relationships of clauses and sentences. Look for these types of words: “for, “therefore,”
“but,” etc. For example Hebrews 12:1 reads, “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a
great cloud of witnesses, we must get rid of every weight and the sin that clings so closely,
and run with endurance the race set out for us.” The word therefore points back to the
previous chapter in which Old Testament saints were held up as people who had given a
good testimony or witness of faith. The phrase “cloud of witnesses” then would naturally
refer back to the people of the preceding chapter. In another example the author of
Hebrews writes, “So since we are receiving an unshakable kingdom, let us give thanks, and
through this let us offer worship pleasing to God in devotion and awe. For our God is indeed
a devouring fire” (Heb 12:28-29). Here the word for sets up a subordinate idea giving the
reason we as Christians should offer worship in devotion and awe to God.
Revelation. Revelation is the one book in the New Testament that is one of the hardest to
interpret. There are several reasons for this. First, there are substantially different
interpretative approaches on the overall timing of the book. Some see most of it as purely
historical. Some see most of it as yet future. Second, there are many Old Testament
allusions in Revelation. Allusions are phrases and references to the Old Testament without
an explicit statement by John that he is quoting the Old Testament. So when John refers to
the Old Testament he generally does not tell you he is doing so. Third, there is a greater
use of symbolic language in Revelation than in other parts of the Bible. Revelation is in a
form of literature known as apocalyptic.6
How can one get started? First, the book of Revelation promises a blessing to the one who
reads it (Rev 1:3). So we should read it even if we do not completely understand
everything. The basic thrust of Revelation’s message is clear. Jesus is coming again and
will defeat the forces of evil. We can be assured of this. Other interpretative helps that can
be given would be to interpret the seven churches as seven historical churches in existence
in the first century A.D (Rev 2-3). Interpret chapter 4 onward as primarily future events from
our perspective (Rev 1:18-19).7 Follow a generally chronological view of the book from
chapter 4 sequencing the bowls, trumpets and seals, second coming of Jesus, millennial
kingdom and eternal state. Use a study Bible with a good set of notes to help frame
common interpretations and Old Testament backgrounds. Lastly, become a student of the
book and keep working at it.
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
Conclusion and Summary
Biblical passages must be interpreted according to the intention of the author and in the
context in which the statement is made. Interpretation must be distinguished from
application. One must be sensitive to what type of literature one is in and how this may or
may not apply to a believer in the church age. Interpreting the Bible is sometimes hard work
but it’s always worth the cost. David reminds us of the value of God’s word, “They are of
greater value than gold, than even a great amount of pure gold; they bring greater delight
than honey, than even the sweetest honey from a honeycomb” (Ps 19:10).
COMMON ERRORS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
Bob DeWaay 2000
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be
ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth" (2Timothy 2:15)
The Bible, history's most published, studied, translated and quoted book, is also its most
misused and misinterpreted book. Cults and false religions use it to their own ends and
others simply misinterpret it. That this occurs so often leads many to assume the Bible has
no clear meaning. This is a false assumption. That any given passage is misunderstood,
purposely or otherwise, does not demonstrate that the author of the passage had no clear
meaning in mind. Nor does it follow that the readers cannot discern this meaning. In this
article we will expose common errors in Biblical interpretation and show how to avoid them.
After Jesus rose from the dead, one of His first recorded acts was to interpret Scripture:
"And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things
concerning Himself in all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27). The Greek word translated
"explained" in this verse is a form of the verb diermeno from which our English word
"hermeneutics" is derived.1 Clearly the proper interpretation of the Scriptures was important
to Jesus and His apostles. Conversely, the failure to interpret Scripture properly is
condemned in the New Testament: "[A]nd regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation;
just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as
also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to
understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the
5
Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2Peter 3:15,16). Notice that Peter addresses two
problems: being untaught and unstable. It is ironic that in our day many consider ignorance
to be bliss when it comes to studies such as hermeneutics. They mock Biblical scholarship
as if study were inimical to faith. These are the ones about whom Peter warns, and today
many of them can be heard preaching on TV.
The basic idea in hermeneutics is that the author's meaning is to control our interpretation.
God the Holy Spirit inspired the human writers of Scripture, who used their own languages
in their historical setting to convey their meaning. The job of the interpreter is to come to a
clear understanding of that meaning. This means, most importantly, that we love the truth
and have a heart to learn, even if what we learn is not what we hoped for or expected.
When Jesus explained the Scriptures on the road to Emmaus, he told these disciples what
they had not hoped for nor expected: that it was necessary for Messiah to suffer (Luke
24:26). Yet, properly interpreted, this is what the Scriptures taught.
Errors in Biblical interpretation have existed for centuries. Since they are common, we can
identify them, learn from them and thus avoid them in the future. Some of these errors have
spawned huge movements. For example, the allegorical method, promoted by Origen (who
taught many other errors), became the basis for the Roman Catholic church's use of
Scripture.2 At the other extreme, hyper-literalism is commonly used by Mormonism to make
claims such as that God has a literal body that looks just like a male person. Let us
examine some of these errors and consider how to avoid them.
Failure to Consider the Context
Imagine that someone read you one sentence out of the middle of a large book you had
never read before. How likely would it be that you could properly understand the author's
meaning? If it were a novel you would not know who any of the characters were, what had
happened to them previously, or what the plot was about. It would be an impossible task,
one that we normally would never do. Yet often this is how the Bible is read. Since it is laid
out with verse numbers (which have been added by editors, they were not in the original),
we often falsely assume each verse is a little literary work of its own, disconnected from
anything else. However, with no other information, it would be just as unlikely we would
understand a single verse pulled out of the Bible as we would understand a sentence taken
out of the middle of a novel. If we have a shared body of information, study the whole of
Scripture, understand the Jewish background of the Bible, and understand the setting of
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
each book of the Bible, then a verse quoted from a given book will make sense to us. Yet
many never gain this information.
The context of a verse exists at various levels - textual, literary and historical. The first is its
immediate textual context. A word is found in a sentence, a sentence in a paragraph and a
paragraph in a chapter, etc. Remembering that the chapter and verse designations were
not in the original, one must read the entire section, preferably the whole book, before
considering the meaning of a verse. This is merely treating the Bible as one would any
other piece of literature.
It does not follow from the fact that the Bible is God's inspired Word that it has some
mystical, non-standard way of communicating. For example, "You shall not steal," carries
the same meaning if God says it as it does if said by a proprietor of a store. The fact that
God's inspired Word says it lends the phrase more authority and assures its validity, but it
doesn't change the meaning of the phrase. People err in assuming that because the Holy
Spirit inspired the words of Scripture those words have some hidden, secret, mystical
meaning. This is not the case. The Bible follows the same grammatical and literary
conventions as other Jewish literature of its time. Its uniqueness is in its inerrancy and
divine inspiration, not in how it is to be read and interpreted. So we must always consider a
passage in its immediate grammatical context and not isolate it, looking for some obscure,
cryptic meaning.
Another factor is a passage's literary context. What I mean by this is that a verse from the
Book of Proverbs should be treated as the type of literature it is, wisdom literature. Whereas
a passage from Kings should be treated as historical narrative. The Bible is a collection of
different books, written over many centuries. It contains various types of literature. Just as
we would distinguish a written history of the United States from a technical journal on auto
mechanics, we must treat a gospel as a different type of literature than an epistle. Common
errors in interpretation result from a failure to do this. For example, when reading history, if
the Bible says that so and so did this, it does not necessarily follow that it was good or bad.
If the inspired account says that David arranged for Uriah to be killed, it follows that this
surely happened. That the Bible tells about this action is not an endorsement of it. In this
case the Bible makes it clear it was wrong. In many instances the historical narrative does
not comment on the moral quality of someone's act, but merely tells us about it. We may
have to look elsewhere in the Bible, for example in didactic (teaching) sections, to find out
whether such an act is good or evil.
6
For example Saul consulted the witch of Endor and Samuel was summoned (1Samuel
28:7-16). It does not follow that the Bible endorses necromancy or that those who practice
such things normally do contact the dead. On the contrary, the Bible forbids this practice
(Deuteronomy 18:10). The passage in 1Samuel gives us the historical record of Saul's sin.
The teaching section of the Bible tells us that it is a sin. Often the historical sections do
comment on the moral qualities of actions, but not always. The important issue is that we
recognize the different types of literature (genré) and give this due consideration when
interpreting a passage.
Another level of context is the historical context. A common error is to read contemporary
ideas and issues into a situation in which they did not exist. I recently read an article about
music for a Christian worship service. The articlewas based on this passage: "Let the word
of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms
and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord" (Colossians
3:16). The writer of this article took the passage to mean we should sing songs that are the
Psalms put to music, hymns such as found in hymnals, and contemporary songs and
choruses. The problem is, the only one of those categories that existed when Paul wrote to
the Colossians were Psalms put to music. They didn't have "How Great Thou Art" in the first
century! Paul could hardly have been suggesting that the Colossians sing some of their
music from 19th and 20th century hymnals.
The most blatant and common example of failing to consider the historical context is the
failure to acknowledge that the Bible, Old and New Testaments, is a Jewish book. It
contains many Jewish idioms whose meaning was clear to the early Jewish readers but
often misunderstood by contemporary readers. We need to educate ourselves about the
Hebrew background to Scriptures. For example, a common Jewish idiom used throughout
the Bible is the phrase "son(s) of . . ." Rather than use an adjective, as we would, the Jews
would say, for example, "sons of light" (1Thessalonians 5:5). This means characterized by."
An example of a heresy that arose from mis-understanding this usage is the "serpent's
seed" teaching of the Latter Rain movement of the late 1940's. The teaching was that Satan
had sexual intercourse with Eve and produced the human race, as taught by a man named
William Brahnam. Where do you get something like that? From passages such as this: "You
are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a
murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in
him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the
father of lies" (John 8:44). This is an example of the Hebrew way of speaking of being the
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
son of what one is characterized by. It was never meant to be taken that either the Jews or
people in general are literal descendants of Satan. It would be to say that when we lie we
are being "devilish." False teachers prey on ignorance and mislead the uninformed.
There are other historical matters that help us understand Scripture. These include
geography, political structures of the time, customs of other peoples with whom the Jews
interacted, etc. For an example of how this type of information helps us understand
particular passages, see Ryan Habbena's article in this issue of CIC.
A final word needs to be said about context. The Bible is a unity, though written by dozens
of authors over many centuries, the Holy Spirit inspired it all. The Bible has an amazingly
clear and consistent message. This serves as part of the evidence for its inspiration.
Therefore, when interpreting a passage, we must consider how our proposed interpretation
fits with the whole counsel of God as revealed throughout the Bible. For example, there are
many passages that make it clear that Jesus was human, and descended from the lineage
of David. Yet it does not follow from passages that teach this that Jesus was only human.
Many other passages teach that He is God. The whole counsel of God on the matter is that
Jesus is fully human and fully divine. This truth must inform our interpretation of any
particular verse that speaks to us about Christ.
Allegorizing Scripture
As mentioned in the introduction, allegorizing Scripture has a long and destructive history.
Though it was practiced by some early church fathers, it existed elsewhere in the ancient
world. Some Jewish writers, such as Philo, practiced allegorizing Scriptures. It was found
that the teachings of Moses and the Greek philosophers could be integrated by using this
method.3 The Greeks too had used allegorization of their own ancient texts.4 The main
"benefit" of allegorizing is the ability to remove real or apparent contradictions between
Scriptures and current beliefs.
The reason many have been sold on the allegorical method is the false assumption that
since the Bible is a spiritual book, inspired by the Holy Spirit, that it therefore contains
hidden or secret meanings. The idea is that the truly spiritual person can discern meanings
to passages of the Bible that are hidden from the unenlightened. There are even passages
of the Bible that can be cited to seemingly justify this idea, such as 1Corinthians 2:14.
However, it should be noted that the "things of the Spirit of God" that the natural man
7
"cannot understand" are clearly revealed in the context of this passage. They concern the
fact that central to God's plan of salvation was a crucified Messiah, foolishness to Gentiles
and an offense to the Jews (1Corinthians 1:18-29). The problem was not that a person
couldn't grasp the words that Paul preached - that Jesus Christ was crucified, died, and
rose from the dead. The claims of the gospel were clear enough. The problem was that the
natural man refused to accept God's wisdom. So this passage does not teach a secret
meaning to Scriptures that can be extracted by a clever allegorist. If so, then why not say
Jesus didn't really die and rise again, its just an allegory? Paul taught a literal cross with
literal words.
Many contemporary preachers are quite adept at allegorizing passages of Scripture.
According to them, Jesus can be found teaching modern success theories, positive
thinking, liberation theology (Marxism), Unitarianism, the New Age, or anything else.
Remember that the key reason for the allegorical method's existence was to integrate the
Bible with Greek philosophy or whatever other contemporary worldly ideas that seemed
popular and desirable. The resurrection can be allegorized into the new hope that springs
into being with the cycles of nature: bunnies, and green grass. Or it can be allegorized as
something analogous to ugly larvae changing through metamorphosis into butterflies.
Preachers are prone to more "benign" versions of allegorizing. What I mean is taking
passages that are not really about what we want to preach on, but lend themselves nicely
nevertheless. For example, I have before me the bulletin for a seeker sensitive church that
had a marriage enhancement seminar put on by psychologist for their Sunday morning
service. One of the passages cited was (John 10:10), "I have come that you might have life,
and have it to the full." The context of this passage is that Jesus claims to be the true
"Shepherd" of Israel as opposed to the false religious leaders who were motivated by self
interest and did not concern themselves with the welfare of the flock. It is quite a stretch to
take this passage as proof that we should use modern psychology to enhance our
marriages. This passage is not even saying, "come to Jesus so you can have a more
fulfilling marriage." This belittles the true claim of the passage. The claim is that Jesus
Himself is God, whom the Jews knew to be the only true Shepherd (Psalm 23:1). Only God
incarnate can lead us through the valley of the shadow of death into everlasting life. Modern
hearers rarely find out the true impact of powerful passages like this, they are merely
interested in listening to a modern man who can make their lives a little more pleasant.
Allegorizing the Bible lends itself to this end.
I do not mean that the Bible never uses allegory or that the Bible never uses non-literal
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
terminology. What I am addressing is the ignoring of the intent of the original author and
using mysticism or allegory to read one's own meaning into various passages. If the Bible
uses metaphor or allegory, it still has one meaning, the meaning of the author. An author
uses an allegory to make a particular point.
The same is true for parables. Parables are not allegories, but short stories that make one
or more points. For example, the "parable of the prodigal son" is not an allegory about
backsliding. It is a story that illustrates the hardness of heart of the Jewish leaders who
were offended at the fact that unworthy sinners were coming to Jesus (Luke 15:2). The key
person is the older brother, whose attitude was that of the Jewish leaders of the time.
Perhaps one could argue that allegorizing this into a sermon about backsliding does no
harm, people are motivated to come to Jesus. But think about this: whenever we fail to
show the author's intent when interpreting a passage, we show a lack of respect for the
Bible. If the Holy Spirit inspired the human writers to convey His meaning to us, how do we
improve on that by ignoring the Holy Spirit'smeaning and supplying our own? When we do,
we subtly create a disrespect for the Bible in the minds of our hearers.
Hyper-literalism
The "flip-side" of allegorizing Scripture is hyper-literalism. This means taking figures of
speech and making them literal when they were not meant so by the author. The possible
errors are numerous. "If your hand offends you cut it off." Imagine the misery if we thought
that was a literal command for self-mutilation. By the way, if we did, we would not solve any
sin problems, sin arises from the heart (Matthew 15:8).
I have talked to people who claim that God is a male person who looks just like us. This is a
Mormon heresy. They read passages such as Isaiah 53:1 and assume God has an arm.
They ignore clear passages such as John 4:24 and assume that God has a literal body with
all the attendant limitations. Yet, if they were to be consistent they would have to claim God
has wings and feathers: Psalm 91:4.
All human languages use figures of speech. Failure to understand this can be quite
humorous. For example, a couple of months ago I called a motel in a town in Iowa to get a
room for my wife and me for our stay there during a family reunion. I was told, "all the
motels in this town and the surrounding ones are full that weekend, we are having "hog
days." So, I gave up and made other arrangements. I called my mother in Iowa and told her
8
about this. A few days later she heard on the news that a hog convention in another nearby
town had been canceled due to a hog disease, and moved to Illinois. So she decided to call
the motel that I had called and see if any rooms had opened up. When she told the lady
about the hog disease, they lady said, "this is rally for Harley Davidson motorcycle
owners."These Harley motorcycles are figuratively called "hogs," but they don't get
diseases! Failure to realize that a figure of speach was being used led to this confusion.
The Bible uses many figures of speech, mostly based on Hebrew idiom. For example the
"evil eye" of Matthew 6:23 is a Jewish figure of speech for being stingy (see Proverbs
28:22). However, some have shown no willingness to learn about these, or else purposely
have ignored them in order to deceive many people. One famous, blatant example is Mark
11:23 in the KJV: "For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain,
Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall
believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he
saith." Kenneth Hagin and his many followers have created a huge movement based on a
hyper-literal interpretation of this passage. They suppose that we can have literally anything
we say, if we believe it, speak it, speak nothing but it, and have no doubts. They refuse any
limitations to "whatsoever" since we, like God, can create reality with our words.
This interpretation falls into several of the errors we are discussing. It fails to consider the
context, it fails to consider the whole counsel of God on the matter, it fails to consider
textual issues (the last phrase is not in the better Greek manuscripts), and it is certainly
guilty of hyper-literalism. Let me explain. Moving a mountain is a figure of speech for the
impossible. That God will do the impossible (from a human perspective) for His people of
faith is true, the passage teaches this. However, there is no incident in history where a
person literally spoke to a literal mountain and it was thereby thrown into the sea. None of
the faith teachers have done this, so if they really take this literally then they too must not
have faith. Secondly, the claim that we can literally have "whatsoever" we say if we have
faith is also patently false if taken literally. Laying aside the textual issue of whether this
phrase was in the original, clearly people do not have anything they say and believe.
For example, I have talked to people who were institutionalized who apparently literally
believed certain things, and consistently said them. I have talked to more than one who, as
far and anyone can discern, literally believed they were Jesus Christ and refused to say
anything different. Yet they were not Jesus Christ. So taking this phrase in Mark 11:23
hyper-literally and demanding that no limitation whatsoever be put on it creates an
absurdity. A person could believe that God promised him that he would be the King of
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
England, consistently say it, refusing all doubts, and not thereby become the King of
England. Even limiting it to the favorite topics of the "faith" teachers, health and prosperity,
does not solve the problem. The vast majority of the people who go to churches who teach
this and who apply it as best as humanly possible, are not always healthy and wealthy.
They would be better off to go back and examine the passage in its broader context
anddetermine the author's meaning.
Another example of hyper-literalism was discussed in the last issue of CIC - the claim that
God does not always know the future. This claim, as we saw, was based on taking certain
passages in a crassly literal sense when the context indicated that they were not intended
to be taken literally by the authors of Scripture.5
Loving the Truth
Perhaps the most important antidote to errors in interpretation is not a method, but an
attitude. Consider this sobering passage: "[A]nd with all the deception of wickedness for
those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. And
for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe
what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took
pleasure in wickedness" (2Thessalonians 2:10:12). The disciples on the road to Emmaus
burned in their hearts with desire to learn the truth as Jesus explained the Scriptures to
them. Love for the truth is the watershed issue. Those who love the truth will become
excited to hear it. They will avail themselves of any resource at that their disposal to learn
more about God's Word.
Sadly, many in our culture, even those going to Bible believing churches, have a distaste for
learning. This was brilliantly documented in David Well's book, No Place for Truth.6 There is
an anti-scholastic bias that prevails, causing people to only concern themselves with what
seems appealing. The passage quoted above tells us this can be fatal. It's one thing to
misunderstand, its another not to care. Once some people find out some study is necessary
to properly interpret Scripture they opt out immediately. They come up with excuses such as
"people in China don't even have Bibles." Maybe some don't, but Christians there would
give everything they had to have all the resources for Bible study we have. But we neglect
our precious provision from God and let false teachers on TV do our thinking for us.
Ignorance is not bliss. We have every opportunity, being English speakers in this era of
9
history, to be richly taught and powerfully equipped with the truth for the work of the
ministry. We have such tremendous resources right at our fingertips. In the last one
hundred and twenty years there have been great strides made in providing us with a rich
knowledge of the Jewish background of Scripture. For example Alfred Edersheim's Life and
Times of Jesus the Messiah was first published in 1883. It is still a fantastic resource. As
David Wells so powerfully showed, we are starving to death for the truth so needlessly.
Many American Christians are starving in a house of plenty - starving because of lack of
motivation, not lack of food.
The worst problem I have encountered is the "I don't care" attitude. You can sit down, and
provide clear, incontrovertible evidence for certain Biblical truths, and some people could
care less. They just want to keep their cozy ideas, gathered from the polluted streams of the
current culture, and remain comfortably undisturbed. This is no different from some
complacent people during Jesus' time. This was illustrated by the story of the rich man and
Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). The rich man when he died and ended up in torment thought he
could go back and warn his brothers. He was told it would do no good: "But he said to him,
'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone
rises from the dead'" (Luke 16:31). If we refuse to learn from the Scriptures, then our
experiences will not lead us to God either. Being too proud or too lazy to learn can be
spiritually fatal.
Conclusion
I conclude with this thought: are we disciples on the road to Emmaus, our hearts burning
with desire to learn, to have the Scriptures explained to us? Or are we complacent, having
the Scriptures but caring not what they really mean? If we truly love God and His Word,
then we will rejoice to learn the way of the Lord more perfectly. Week by week we will long
to learn more about the whole counsel of God, the meanings of Biblical terms, the historical
background of Scripture and the author'sintent for the meaning of various passages. We will
be like avid fishermen, knowing that there is more there in this ocean of truth than can be
caught in a lifetime, yet everyday venturing out to sea for the joy of the day's catch.
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
10
CONTRADICTIONS IN SCRIPTURE? different parts of the surface of the earth successively into and from under the solar rays;
and it was probably at this moment that God gave this rotation to the earth, to produce this
Richard Anthony 2003
merciful provision of day and night. For the manner in which light is supposed to be
produced, see Genesis 1:16, under the word sun.
The variations contained in the scripture actually indicate the Truth of the Scripture.
Is God both good and evil? Isaiah 45:7.
In a court today, if witnesses all testify precisely the same regarding an incident, the
Answer: Notice it does not say that God is evil but that He creates evil. What this is saying
conclusion is, not that they are truthful, but that they are perjurers. Why? Because
is that God has allowed evil to co-exist in this sphere in order to test man as well as to
experience teaches us that no two people see an event exactly alike. One point impresses
perfect him. It is in the midst of such opposition, unpleasant though it often is, that man
one witness; another point impresses another. Again, they may all have heard exactly the
grows spiritually the most. Therefore, as God gave Satan permission to afflict Job, so He
same words spoken in connection with the event, but each reports the words a little
permits the same with us, unless our affliction is of our own making or the collective fault of
differently. One witness may even report certain parts of a conversation that the other
unredeemed society. God creates evil, yes, but not the evil of sin, he creates the evil of
witnesses do not report. But so long as there is no clear contradiction in the thought or
punishment. He is the Author of all that is true, holy, and good, but evil, error, and misery
meaning of the variant statements, the witnesses may be considered to have told the truth.
came into the world by his permission, through the willful disobedience of man, but are
Indeed, apparently contradictory statements may often prove to be not contradictory at all,
restrained and overruled to his righteous purpose. Evil is the instrument which he employs
but actually complementary.
in his government, and is permitted by him in order to execute his wise and just decrees.
All experience, and especially the experience of the courts through the long years, leads to
The Gospel records Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane (John 17:1-26; Luke 22:39-46), but the
the conclusion that truthful witnessing need not be - indeed, should not be - equated with
writers were asleep when Jesus prayed. How do you explain this?
carbon-copy identity of testimony of the different witnesses to an event, including their
Answer: Some believe it was revealed to the apostle John by revelation after the event.
testimony as to what was said at the particular event.
This is a possible explanation but unlikely. We know the disciples were asleep whilst Jesus
prayed but what we don't know is how much of the prayer they heard, or didn't hear. Let us
How can the Bible say God made the world (Acts 17:24) and loves the world (John 3:16) on
remember these facts: (1) Jesus was only a "stone's throw away" from the disciples; (2) The
the one hand, and then turn around and tell us not to love the world (1 John 2:15) on the
silence of the night was around them; and (3) it is more than likely that Jesus prayed aloud
other? Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
because people did everything aloud in those days. Therefore, the disciples heard the
Answer: No, but it does need some explanation. The Bible uses the word "world" in three
opening words of the prayer before they went to sleep.
different ways. First, it can mean the material universe or earth which God created. This is
how the word is used in Act 17:24. Second, it can mean the world of mankind, as in John
Sit down and read Jesus' Prayer aloud for yourself and time how long it takes you (John
3:16. God loves all people. Third, it can mean the affairs and things of ungodly men. This is
17:1-26; Luke 22:39-46). I would estimate that this is a three minute prayer. I very much
how the word is used in 1 John 2:15-16, and this is the primary meaning of the word "world"
doubt that the disciples fell asleep instantly and that Jesus returned to them three minutes
throughout the New Testament.
later. What is more probable is that this prayer was the introduction to a much longer prayer.
The Comforter brought the part which they had heard back to remembrance after He had
In the first day of creation, God divided the light from the dark (Genesis 1:4), but the sun
ascended, this being a promise made to them (John 14:26 ). Thus the part of the prayer we
was not created until the fourth day (Genesis 1:16)! How do you explain this?
have recorded is that which the disciples could remember. It must be the part they heard
Answer: This does not imply that light and darkness are two distinct substances, seeing
whilst they were fully awake. No doubt providence intended that we hear no more, and no
darkness is only the privation of light; but the words simply refer us by anticipation to the
doubt the same providence had intended that they fall asleep too.
rotation of the earth round its own axis once in twenty-three hours, fifty-six minutes, and
four seconds, which is the cause of the distinction between day and night, by bringing the
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
Jesus said, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (John 5:31) and then claims,
"I am one that bear witness of myself" (John 8:18). Aren't these contradictory comments?
Answer: Jesus did not claim Himself as a witness. Jesus said His own witness agreed with
the witness of the Father (John 8:18), satisfying the Law's requirement of two witnesses
(John 8:17).
After Moses and Aaron turned all the waters that were in the Nile river into blood (Exodus
7:20), the magicians did the same (verse 22). But if all the water in Egypt was turned into
blood by Moses, where did the magicians get the water which they changed into blood?
Answer: This question is answered in Exodus 7:24. The Egyptians digged round about the
river for water to drink, and it seems that the water obtained by this means was not bloody
like that in the river. On this water therefore the magicians might operate. Again, though a
general commission was given to Moses, not only to turn the waters of the river (Nile) into
blood, but also those of their streams, rivers, ponds, and pools (Exodus 7:19); yet it seems
pretty clear from Exodus 7:20 that he did not proceed thus far, at least in the first instance;
for it is there stated that only the waters of the river were turned into blood. Afterwards the
plague doubtless became general. At the commencement therefore of this plague, the
magicians might obtain other water to imitate the miracle; and it would not be difficult for
them, by juggling tricks or the assistance of a familiar spirit, to give it a bloody appearance,
a fetid smell, and a bad taste. On either of these grounds there is no contradiction in the
Mosaic account, though some have been very studious to find one.
If God is full of love, why did he destroy nations?
Answer: He destroyed them out of love for the people. Just like the world interceded and
destroyed Nazi Germany to protect the people of the world from violence, God did likewise.
God destroyed the land in the time of Noah because of the violence it was filled with
(Genesis 6:13). God destroyed Sodom and Gomorra because of the violence that it was
filled with (Genesis 13:13), and the fact that there was not one righteous man living there
(Genesis 18:16-25). He threatened to destroy Nineveh because of the violence in their land
(Jonah 3:8), but Nineveh changed their ways and was spared (verse 10). God destroyed
Jerusalem because the city was full of violence (Ezekiel 7:23-25). God could not find one
righteous man in Israel, so he had to destroy it to save the people from their misery (Ezekiel
22:29-31). If God would have found even one man that sought God's Truth, God would
have pardoned it (Jeremiah 5:1).
For a chapter and a half, David has been Saul's personal musician, and in 1 Samuel 17:55-
58, Saul wants to know who David is? The Scripture is not reliable!
11
Answer: Saul never asked, "Who is this man", he didn't want to know who David was! He
asked, three times, the same basic question. He wanted to know whose son he was
(verses 55,56,58). He wanted to know who David's father was!
Did David buy it for fifty shekels of silver, or six hundred shekels of gold? 2 Samuel 24:24, 1
Chronicles 21:25.
Answer: In Samuel, David purchased the threshing floor and the oxen, and there built an
altar to the Lord. In Chronicles, David bought the whole place. Being much larger than the
threshing, he paid more. Solomon's temple could not have been built on a threshing floor (2
Chronicles 3:1). The fifty shekels of silver was the earnest payment, and the six hundred
shekels of gold the total price.
Why does Matthew attribute a quote about the potter's field to Jeremiah, when Jeremiah
has no such passage, and the closest one in the Old Testament is Zechariah (Matthew
27:9-10; Zechariah 11:12)?
Answer: Matthew 27:9 says this prophesy was "spoken by Jeremy (Jeremiah)." Some
prophecies were spoken and not written. Some others were not spoken but only written,
while some others were both spoken and written. When we read a quotation that says "as it
is written", we will find it 100% in the Scripture, since it is guaranteed that it is written.
However, when what is quoted is said that it was simply spoken, then we may find it written
but we may also not find it written. The Word does not guarantee that it was written. What it
guarantees is that it was spoken. This prophecy was only spoken by the prophets and it
was latter written down by Matthew.
There are sixteen quotations in the Scripture for which we are told that they were spoken.
These are Matthew 1:22, 2:15, 17, 23, 3:13, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 22:31, 24:15,
27:9, 27:35, Mark 13:14, and Acts 2:16. To see whether they were both spoken and written,
or whether they were only spoken, we have to search the Scripture to see if we can find
them. A search like this shows that most of the prophecies that were spoken were also
written, but not all of them (Matthew 2:23 and 27:10 for instance).
Matthew 2:23 is a cause of trouble since the spoken prophecy that the Messiah would be
called a Nazarene can nowhere be found written in the Old Testament.
Answer: Again, this is a prophesy that was spoken, so it is not necessarily written (see
above answer). However, you may also consider this:
First, you must understand that a "Nazarene" is not a "Nazarite." There's the Nazerite vow
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
(Numbers 6:13), Samson was a Nazarite (Judges 13:5,24), but a "Nazarene" simply means
a citizen of Nazarite. There are passages in the Old Testament which say Jesus would be
called a Nazarene, but it's a matter of what is meant by the term "Nazarene." A "Nazarene"
came to be a synonym for one who is contemptible or despised (John 1:46). We see similar
terms today dealing with racism and nationalism. But notice that the previous two
prophesies in Matthew 2; verse 15 says "the prophet, saying..." (singular) then he quotes
directly from the scripture; verse 17 says "Jeremiah the prophet, saying..." (singular) then
he quotes directly from Jeremiah. But notice how verse 23 is worded, "which was spoken
by the prophets,..." (plural) and there's no word "saying" indicating a direct quote, "He shall
be called a Nazarene." Notice the difference? It's because Matthew is using a summation
statement. He's using something that the people of his time would be familiar with which
would state the same thing that the prophets stated in Isaiah 49:7; 53:3, Psalm 22:6, that he
would be despised.
Then what about 1Corinthians 15:4: "Christ rose again the third day, according to the
Scriptures"? Where is it written in the Old Testament that Christ would rise the third day?
You may search the Old Testament for prophesies of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection
on the third day, but you will never find them!
Answer: Hosea 6:2 says, "After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us
up, and we shall live in his sight." This is antitypical language which refers to Messiah, the
ideal Israel (Isaiah 49:3; compare Hosea 11:1, Matthew 2:15), who was raised on the third
day (John 2:19; 1Corinthians 15:4; compare Isaiah 53:10). Compare the similar use of
Israel's political resurrection as the type of the general resurrection of which "Christ is the
first-fruits" (Isaiah 26:19; Ezekiel 37:1-14; Daniel 12:2).
Additionally, 2 Peter 3:16 says that the "epistles" are scriptures also. So, the "scriptures" in
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 could easily refer to the epistles from the new Testament books, many
of which were written prior to the writing of 1 Corinthians.
Matthew 12:30 says those who are neutral are against Jesus, but Mark 9:40 says those
who are neutral are for Jesus.
Answer: These two verses address two different situations. In Matthew 12:30, when it
comes to the critical point of accepting or rejecting Jesus, not being for Jesus amounts to
opposing Him (John 3:18). In Mark 9:40, when it comes to someone attempting to work in
Christ's name, but perhaps with less than a full knowledge of him (Acts 18:25), there is no
need to believe he is against Christ.
12
The Scripture tells us to seek and understand God (Psalms 53:2, Proverbs 2:5, Daniel
9:13 ), but at the same time says that God cannot be understood (Job 11:7; 37:23, Romans
11:33).
Answer: To quote from Job 11:7; 37:23 is misleading. It is like quoting from the Jews who
said Jesus was a sinner, and then quote from Jesus who said he was not a sinner, and
claim the Scripture contradicts itself.
Job 11:7 is a quote from what Zophar said, and Job 37:23 is a quote from what Elihu said.
These two people condemned righteous Job falsely. God condemned Zophar and Elihu for
what they said! God himself said of these 2 people that they spoke wrong: Job 42:7, "...for
ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right." Therefore, these 2 verses are not the
teachings of God, but of man.
As for Romans 11:33, this verse is saying how unattainable it is to have the same wisdom
and knowledge that God possesses, not how hard it is to understand God. The point is that
man, in a limited, physical body, cannot know the same knowledge that an infinite, spiritual
entity possesses. For example, someone can say they "know" someone, like their wife. And
they do! They know their thoughts, what they will choose to do, how they react to situations,
etc. They know them! But what that husband doesn't know is all the wisdom and knowledge
that she herself possesses. Only she knows that. And with God, it is impossible for a pea-
brained man to have the same amount of knowledge that an infinite God possesses.
"Those that seek me early shall find me" (Proverbs 8:17; Luke 11:9-10) contradicts "they
shall seek me early, but shall not find me" (Proverbs 1:28).
Answer: Proverbs 8:17 is in reference to only those who "love" the Lord. Proverbs 1:28 is in
reference to fools (verse 7) and sinners (verse 9), who do not love the Lord. In Luke 11:9-
10, only those who have a repentant heart can ask and seek God's knowledge. Proverbs
1:28 is dealing with sinners who are in calamity, distress, and anguish (verses 26-27) and
despise the knowledge of God (verses 29-30), who are seeking God out of selfishness, not
a repentant heart.
With God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26), God is all powerful (Jeremiah 32:27), yet
God "could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron"
(Judges 1:19).
Answer: It was not God, but Judah, who could not do this. God's spirit was with Judah, and
he approved of what Judah was doing, but it was not God's will, at that time, that the
inhabitants be driven out. Judah probably prayed, "Please help me drive these inhabitant
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
out, if it be your will". Just like Jesus prayed for the Father to "let this cup pass" from him,
and added, "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Matthew 26:39). Just like Jesus
placed God's will above his own will, Judah would not want to have done something
contrary to God's will.
Is God a Deceiver? Jeremiah says, "Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this
people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace" (Jeremiah 4:10)?
Answer: No. Jeremiah is the speaker of this passage. If one reads Jeremiah, he will find
that there were many false prophets that prophesied that there would be peace. In fact, the
only prophet that spoke the word of God, the only genuine prophet, was Jeremiah whose
prophecy was constantly a warning to the people of Israel for the destruction that would
come (and finally came) if they continued to disobey God.
Those prophets, through whom the deception came, prophesied by Baal. The Lord never
spoke to them. This is the literal truth. When Jeremiah 4:10 says that the Lord deceived the
people, this was only Jeremiah's opinion at the time he spoke this. He later came to the
truth that the Lord never spoke to these false prophets, and tells us by whom those false
prophets prophesied by:
Jeremiah 23:13, 16-17, 21, "And I (the Lord) have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria:
they prophesied by Baal ........ Thus says the Lord of hosts: Do not listen to the words of the
prophets who prophesy to you...... They continually say to those who despise me, The Lord
has said, you shall have peace......... I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran. I have
not spoken to them, yet they prophesied." (See also Jeremiah 2:8; 6:14; 8:11; 28).
Jeremiah complains and says "O LORD, thou hast deceived me" (Jeremiah 20:7), and
Ezekiel 14:9 says, "And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the
LORD have deceived that prophet.
Answer: Jeremiah's complaint was due to his infirmity in consequence of his imprisonment.
Thou didst promise never to give me up to the will of mine enemies, and yet Thou hast
done so. But Jeremiah misunderstood God's promise, which was not that he should have
nothing to suffer, but that God would deliver him out of sufferings (Jeremiah 1:19). Under its
pressure, the best of men are liable to lose their patience, and indulge in unbecoming
complaints concerning God's providence.
The prophet Micaiah says "...the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy
prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee" (2 Chronicles 18:22). How do you
explain this?
13
Answer: When read in context (2 Chronicles 18:18-22), this is basically what it says:
"Then the spirit of Naboth of Jezreel came out from the abode of the righteous, and stood
before the Lord, and said, I will deceive him. And the Lord said, By what means? To which
he answered, I will be a spirit of false prophecy in the mouth of his prophets. And the Lord
said, Thou mayest then. But although the power of deceiving them is given unto thee,
nevertheless it will not be lawful for thee to sit among the righteous; for whosoever shall
speak falsely cannot have a mansion among the righteous. Therefore go forth from me, and
do as thou hast said."
To those who would not believe the truth, God sent a strong delusion, that they would
believe lies:
2 Thessalonians 2:11, "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie:"
Jesus said, "…whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matthew
5:22). Since Jesus called people "fools" (Matthew 23:17,19) does that mean Jesus is in
danger of hell fire?
Answer: No. This verse is taken out of context. One key to understanding Matthew 5:22-24
is to recognize that it deals with a disciple's relationship to his "brother." "Brother" does not
refer to males having the same parent, but to those of the same spiritual family -- in this
case, to Jesus' disciples (Matthew 12:48-50). A brother is a member of the Christ's
assembly (Matthew 18:15-17; 28:10). The term is a general reference to the members of
the household of faith. Never to enemies.
In Mathew 23, Jesus was calling his enemies, the scribes and Pharisees, "fools". Matthew 5
is in reference to calling a "brother" a fool. To properly apply Matthew 5:22 to enemies,
Jesus must, at times, use "brother" to refer to an enemy. Yet, nowhere in Jesus' teaching,
nowhere in the New Testament, does brother ever refer to an enemy. Moreover, 2
Thessalonians 3:15 tells us that if we find it necessary to disfellowship a brother for moral
reasons, we are not to regard him as an enemy. An enemy is not a brother.
So when Jesus teaches against anger directed toward a brother, Jesus is teaching his
disciples to love one another. He is not commenting on their relationships with those
outside the faith, or with those who have departed from the faith, or with enemies. What he
would not stand for was for one of his disciples calling another disciple a fool.
The Old Testament says "an eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:24), but the New Testament has
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
the opposite! (Matthew 5:38-39) Why?
Answer: This "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, foot for foot" statement is no more to
be taken literally than when Jesus said we should pluck out our eyes (Matthew 5:29) or cut
off our hands (Matthew 5:30) to avoid sinning. We know that Jesus did not mean for us to
take Him in a literal fashion, for to dismember one's body would violate the Law of God. If
one were to maliciously cut off another's hand, it would not help the victim if the evil doer
simply had his hand removed. A criminal minus one hand could not very well repay his
victim for he would not be so readily employable.
The Old Testament standard of justice of an "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" was not intended
as a justification for revenge, as is popularly believed. When originally framed and set forth
by Moses, this code was intended to attain equal and consistent justice and to limit vengeful
retaliation. Under most ancient legal systems, noblemen and higher classes received less
punishment than did servants or slaves who committed similar offenses. It was also
common for a lower class person to be killed or seriously injured in retaliation for a very
minor injury caused to someone of a privileged class. As part of the law of retaliation, this
ordinance was meant to check passionate vengeance for a slight injury, and was meant to
limit retaliation only to the extent of the first wrongful act and to provide equal justice for
everyone.
When Jesus spoke in Matthew 5:38-39, He was attacking the common misconceptions and
misapplications of God's Law in His day. The Pharisees and their followers misused this law
as a principle of personal revenge, so that they could give "tit for tat" to those who harmed
them. A law which was meant to be a guide to judges rendering judicial decisions and
handing down sentences was never meant to be a rule of our personal relationships. The
function of civil government is to administer the vengeance of God upon evil doers
(Romans 13:4), but not so with individuals. Our duty is to love our neighbor as the Lord
Jesus has instructed us.
Luke tells the story of the taxation ordered by Caesar that forces Mary and Joseph to go to
Bethlehem where Jesus is born in a manger (Luke 2). Matthew assumes that Mary and
Joseph are residents of Bethlehem, living in a house (Matthew 2). Both cannot be correct.
Answer: Notice that while Matthew simply says that Joseph, Mary and Jesus were "in the
house" when the wise men came, they were not "residents in Bethlehem!" Jesus was born
in Bethlehem and placed in a manger because there was no room at the inn (Luke 2:7). The
shepherds visited Him there that night and left. Later, Joseph and Mary found more suitable
lodging "in a house." (Is it so unreasonable that although the inn had no vacancies on the
14
"spur of the moment," lodging could not be found later)? This is complementary, not
contradiction!
Luke has Jesus circumcised in a rather leisurely fashion on the eighth day of his life and
presented in the Temple on the 40th day—all in Jerusalem (Luke 2:21–40). Matthew says,
however, that at the same time this baby boy and his family were fleeing into Egypt to avoid
Herod (Matthew 2:13ff). Both cannot be right."
Answer: Luke's time-frame is correct. But Matthew's own account, when Herod figured out
he had been tricked by the wise men, he ordered the slaying of all the male children two
years old and younger "according to the time he had diligently enquired of the wise men."
(Matthew 2:16). According to Matthew's account, nearly two years could have elapsed from
the time of Jesus' birth until his escape into Egypt! Again, complementary, not contradiction!
Did God literally talk face to face with Moses or not? Exodus 33:9,11,20.
Answer: God didn't literally talk face to face with Moses, for no man can see God's face and
live (Exodus 33:20). This is a figurative expression intended to convey the intimacy of their
relationship that is captured in the phrase, "as a man speaketh unto his friend" (verse 11).
Exodus 33:11 intimates not only that God revealed himself to Moses with greater clearness
than to any other of the prophets, but also with greater expressions of particular kindness
than to any other. He spake not as a prince to a subject, but as a man to his friend, whom
he loves, and with whom he takes sweet counsel. The communications made by God to
Moses were not by visions, ecstacies, dreams, inward inspirations, or the mediation of
angels, but with familiarity and confidence with which the Divine Being treated his servant.
If God cannot tempt any man (James 1:13), how could God tempt Abraham (Genesis
22:1)?
Answer: The words "tempt" and "try" are used interchangeably in the Scripture. It's meaning
usually depends on who is doing it and for what reason. The difference between temptation
and trial is that temptation says, "Do this pleasant thing and do not let yourself be hindered
by the fact that it is wrong," whereas trial says, "Do this good and noble thing, and do not let
yourself be hindered by the fact that it is painful". Temptation leads us down the path of sin
and death, but trial leads us upward to a higher and nobler life. Simply defined: the Devil
tempts us to get us to fall; God tries us to strengthen us. God tries, the Devil tempts. For
this reason, the Devil is called "the tempter" (Matthew 4:3).
Did Jesus die at the 3rd hour (Mark 15:25), 6th hour (Luke 23:44-46; John 19:14-30) or at
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
the 9th hour (Matthew 27:45-50; Mark 15:26-37)?
Answer: 9th hour. These verses are complimentary, not contradictory. Luke is explained by
Matthew (the sun was darkened at the 6th hour, and Jesus cried the 9th hour). John has
the trial being held at the 6th hour, and it was 3 hours after the trial (Mark 15:25) when
Jesus was crucified.
The Gospel of John states that Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover (John 13;
18:28), the other three Gospels state that he was crucified on the Passover (Mark 14: 12-17
for example).
Answer: The word translated passover means properly the paschal lamb which was slain
and eaten on the observance of this feast. This rite Jesus had observed with his disciples
the day before this. It has been supposed by many that he anticipated the usual time of
observing it one day, and was crucified on the day on which the Jews observed it; but this
opinion is improbable. The very day of keeping the ordinance was specified in the law of
Moses, and it is not probable that the Saviour departed from the commandment. All the
circumstances, also, lead us to suppose that he observed it at the usual time and manner
(Matthew 26:17,19). The only passage which has led to a contrary opinion is this in John;
but here the word passover does not, of necessity, mean the paschal lamb. It probably
refers to the feast which followed the sacrifice of the lamb, and which continued seven days
(Numbers 28:16-17). The whole feast was called the Passover, and they were unwilling to
defile themselves, even though the paschal lamb had been killed, because it would
disqualify them for participating in the remainder of the ceremonies.
In 2 Chronicles 30:22 we read: "And they did eat the festival seven days" when the paschal
festival is meant, not the paschal lamb or the paschal supper. There are eight other
examples of pascha in John's Gospel and in all of them the feast is meant, not the supper. If
we follow John's use of the word, it is the feast here, not the meal of John 13:2 which was
the regular passover meal. This interpretation keeps John in harmony with the Synoptics.
That Jesus ate a passover supper this last year of his life is sufficiently evident from
Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-18; Luke 22:8-15.
Did Abraham have 2 sons (Galatians 4:22), 1 son. (Genesis 22:2, Hebrews 11:17), or at
least 8 children (Genesis 25:2,6)?
Answer: Abraham indeed had two sons (one by his wife and the other by his maidservant).
However, Isaac was his (only begotten) son of the promise (Genesis 21:12). Later, when
Abraham was about 140 years old, he married another wife, Keturah, who bore him 6
15
children. Abraham also had sons from his other wives of secondary rank (concubines).
Jesus said that he would not always be with his disciples, and then said, "Lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world." Matthew 26:11; 28:20.
Answer: The body of Christ left the earth at the ascension. But "the Spirit of Christ," or His
Word, is always with us.
There is a commandment "honor thy father and thy mother." Jesus later said "If you do not
hate your father and mother you cannot be my disciple." Exodus 20:12, Luke 14:26.
Answer: God speaks in absolute terms and sometimes he speaks in comparative terms.
Compared to our love for God, love and honor for our parents cannot interfere. Similarly,
because Jacob had less regard for Leah than he did for Rachel, that is called "hating her"
(Genesis 29:30-31). But the hate was only by way of comparison to his love for Rachel.
Who was the High Priest? Caiaphas (Matthew 26:3), Annas (Acts 4:6), or both (Luke 3:2)?
Answer: Caiaphas was the officially appointed high priest from about 18 AD to 36 AD
(during Christ's ministry and the early years of His assembly). John 18:3 records that Jesus,
after his arrest, was led "to Annas first; for he was the father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was
the high priest that same year." Yet the verses that follow immediately refer to Annas also
as high priest (verses 15, 19, 22). Later, Jesus is led to Caiaphas, the official high priest.
Annas had served as high priest until he was deposed by Rome in 15 AD. Yet his power
and influence continued over the high priestly office, with five of his sons occupying that
position. Hence, Annas could also be properly identified as high priest in that he was the
patriarchal head of this line of high priests. Caiaphas was the high priest responsible for
Christ's death and the severe persecution of His servants (Acts 5:17; 9:1).
Did Michal have 0 or 5 children? 2 Samuel 6:23; 21:8.
Answer: They where adopted children, from Merab, Saul's daughter (1 Samuel 18:19), the
wife of Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.
700 or 7000 horsemen? 2 Samuel 8:4, 1 Chronicles 18:4.
Answer: These are two different men. "Hadarezer" is the son from who David took 7000
horsemen. Hadarezer Rehob was the father of Haderezer from who David took 700
horsemen.
23,000 killed or 24,000 killed? 1 Corinthians 10:8, Numbers 25:9.
Answer: Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10:8, refers to the number of slain in one day. Numbers refer
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
to the total number that died. These numbers are given in approximate terms.
Did Ahaziah start his reign at 22 years of age or 42 years of age? 2 Kings 8:26, 2
Chronicles 22:2.
Answer: In the Septuagint, both verses read 22. However, there is a possible alternative.
This is a classic supposed "contradiction" in the King James Scripture. There are some
interesting things to consider if you compare scripture with scripture. In 2 Chronicles 22:9
Ahaziah is said to be "the son of Jehoshaphat" and Jehoshaphat is said to be "the king of
Israel" (2 Chronicles 21:2). But Jehoshaphat was king of Judah, was he not (1 Kings 22)?
Now, hold that thought for a moment. In addition to this, Ahaziah was also "son in law" to
the house of Ahab (2 Kings 8:27). Question: How does Ahaziah become a "son in law" to
the house of Ahab when he married Zibiah of Beersheba (2 Chronicles 24:1)? He didn't
marry any of Ahab's daughters or Omri's daughters. But now look over at 1 Kings 22:26 and
notice that there's a man named "Joash" who is waiting in Israel to take over the dual
kingdom if Ahab or Jehoshaphat gets killed (1 Kings 22:26,28,29, 34, 37). But he's only one
year old and won't ascend the throne until he's eight years old (2 Chronicles 24:1). Ahaziah
had a son named Joash before Ahaziah ever sat on the throne of Judah. When Ahab was
killed, a different Ahaziah took over the throne of Israel (2 Kings 1), not the Ahaziah whose
mother was the daughter of Omri and who was said to be the son of Jehoshaphat--not the
son of Ahab (2 Chronicles 22:9). Even his other name appears in the list of Jehoshaphat's
sons (2 Chronicles 21:2).
The Azariah in our problem, then, was not Jehoram's literal son, and obviously he was
intended for the southern throne (Judah) many years before he actually took the throne. His
mother was Athaliah, who was Omri's daughter; that is, she was Ahab's sister (1 Kings
16:29). If Ahaziah was her son and Jehoshaphat was his father, then when Jehoshaphat
"joined affinity with Ahab" (2 Chronicles 18:1), this was more than just a military move.
Jehoshaphat's title was "king of Israel" (2 Chronicles 21:2), and this signifies the ominous
alliance, for Jehoram killed "divers of the princes of Israel." So if Ahab got killed, one of
Jehoshaphat's kin could take over Israel; on the other hand, if Jehoshaphat died in battle,
then one of Ahab's kin could take over Judah when Jehoram was finished. And that's what
happened. Ahaziah, after the death of Jehoshaphat, is Ahab's nephew and a son in law to
his household. He had to have married one of Ahab's daughters or granddaughters.
Ahaziah is the step son or son in law to Jehoram. He was a favorite to Omri because his
mother was Omri's daughter. He was anointed, like David, years before he actually began
to reign, even though he was the king by anointing. He was undoubtedly anointed at age 22
16
and upon the death of his predecessor, assumed the throne and actual rulership at age 42.
Is lying evil or not? Proverbs 12:22, 1 Kings 22:23.
Answer: It is evil. In 1 Kings, Micaiah boasted of the Spirit (as those commonly do that know
least of the Holy Spirit's operations), and said the "Lord" made him lie, which is a mistake
on Micaiah's part. Micaiah later confesses, in 1 Kings 22:28, that the Lord did not speak
through him. God does not tempt man with evil (James 1:13).
Is Jesus equal to God (John 5:18) or is the Father greater than him (John 14:28)?
Answer: The term "better" refers to nature, not position. Here is a good example in
illustrating this passage. The President is greater than you or I, correct? Yes, as Chief
Executive Officer of the United States he is greater than you or I. But, is the President better
than you or I? What I mean is, is there anything about the President that makes him a
superior being to you or me? No. If Jesus wanted to say He was inferior to God in nature,
He would have said, "The Father is better than I."
Here is a biblical example of the use of the term "better" in Hebrews 1:4, "Being made so
much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name
than they." Here we see that Jesus is a being superior to the angels, so the term "better" is
used.
Therefore, the Father is greater than Jesus, His son, in power, but Jesus is equal to him in
spirit and in nature.
Of the 42 numbers given by Ezra, 18 differ from the corresponding numbers in Nehemiah.
Ezra 2:3-60, Nehemiah 7.
Answer: Your answer can be found in the following verses:
Ezra 2:1, "And these are the people of the land that went up, of the number of prisoners
who were removed, whom Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon carried away to Babylon, and
they returned to Juda and Jerusalem, every man to his city;"
As we can see, this is written as a FACT. It is written as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
However, the numbers found in Nehemiah are NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit, the numbers
in Nehemiah are based upon hearsay and are read from a piece of paper which was written
by man.
Nehemiah, 7:5, "And God put it into my heart, and I gathered the nobles, and the rulers,
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
and the people, into companies: and I found a register of the company that came up first,
and I found written in it as follows:"
Notice that Nehemiah is simply reading from a register. This register is not inspired by God.
It is a man made document, of which man is fallible.
Therefore, the numbers in Ezra, since they are not read from a man made document, but
are spoken as fact, and inspired by the Holy Spirit, are the correct and true numbers.
Whereas, since the numbers in Nehemiah are not stated as FACT, but are based upon
hearsay, and read from a piece of paper that was written by man, which is fallible, these
numbers are not accurate.
8 days or 6 days? Matthew 17:1, Mark 9:2, Luke 9:28.
Answer: Both. Eight days after "But I tell you" and six days after "Verily verily" when he
reminded them of His sayings.
Centurion alone or with Jewish Elders? Matthew 8:5, Luke 7:2-4.
Answer: The Jewish elders were his ambassadors.
7 years of famine (2 Samuel 24:13) or 3 years of famine (1 Chronicles 21:12)?
Answer: The Septuagint accurately states three years for both verses.
Jesus says John is Elijah, John says he is not. Matthew 11:14, John 1:21.
Answer: He was, in fact, not actually Elijah in the sense they may have been asking. John
had the spirit of Elijah, but did not physically look like him.
Did, or did not, the people hear at the conversion of the Apostle Paul? Acts 9:7; 22:9.
Answer: The Greek word for "hear" (#191 akouo) is used in two Greek cases in these two
verses. The genitive case is the sense of "being aware but not understanding", whereas the
other is in the sense of "you heard it."
Is Lot Abraham's nephew or brother? Genesis 14:12,14,16.
Answer: Nephew. Lot was of the seed of Abraham's brother.
Children to be punished for the iniquity of the fathers or not? Deuteronomy 1:39; 24:16,
Ezekiel 18:2-4,17,19,20, Exodus 20:5, Isaiah 14:21.
Answer: We know that it is contrary to the character of God to visit the iniquity of the fathers
upon those who are innocent (Ezekiel 18:19). Exodus 20:5, on the surface, does seem to
17
teach that God visits the iniquity of the Father on the children. However, by really reading it
in more depth, it actually says the opposite. Only the children who "hate God", and sin
themselves, are the ones who are punished, only the wicked and ungodly children who are
following the wicked example of their fathers are punished. The very next verse (Exodus
20:6) confirms that God shows mercy on the children who love Him and keep his Law. This
is in harmony with the teaching, "Each man shall die for his own sins" (2 Chronicles 25:4,
Ezekiel 18:4,20).
Then why did David's son die for the punishment of David? 2 Samuel 12:14,18-19.
Answer: King David saw a woman bathing and decided that he wanted her, but she was
Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite. David had no intention of being deprived of anything he
wanted. He sent for the woman and lay with her. For David, it was all over after that one
night of self-indulgence. Bathsheba conceived and eventually sent word to David that she
was pregnant. When David's efforts to deceive Uriah (and the people) into thinking Uriah
had fathered this child, he had Uriah killed in battle with the help of Joab. After she had
mourned for her husband, David brought Bathsheba into his home, taking her as his wife.
This thing which David had done displeased God, however, and God would give David no
rest or peace until he had come to see his sin for what it was and repented of it. After some
period of distress (Psalm 32:3-4), David confessed “I have sinned against the Lord” (2
Samuel 12:13). Based upon divine grace by God, David was forgiven for his sins and
assured that he would not die.
2 Samuel 12:13-14., "And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And
Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. However,
because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme,
the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”
The tragic death of David's son is a painful consequence of David's sin, but it is not the
punishment for his sin. The penalty for adultery and murder is death, on each count. David
deserves to die, on two counts: adultery and murder. But scripture has made it very clear
that the punishment for David's sin has been taken away. But God cannot allow His name
to be blasphemed by allowing it to appear that He does not care about sin. For God to allow
David's sins to have no painful consequences would enable the wicked to conclude that
God does not really hate sin, nor does He do anything about it when we do sin.
The Law of Moses was given to set Israel apart from the nations. It was given so that Israel
could reflect God's character to the world. When David sinned, he violated God's law, and
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
he also dishonored God. This hypocrisy was observed by the nations, and it resulted in their
dishonoring God. Paul would make this same charge against the Jews centuries later:
Romans 2:21-24, "Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou
that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not
commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit
sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest
thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is
written."
Elsewhere, the apostle Paul instructs Timothy that elders -- those spiritual leaders whose
lives are publicly under scrutiny -- who persist in their sin are to be corrected publicly, so
that all will learn (1 Timothy 5:19-20). God is very concerned about his reputation. He works
in such a way as to instruct not only men who look on, but also angels who do likewise
(Exodus 32:9-14; 34:10; Ephesians 3:8-10).
God could not look the other way when David sinned, for his disobedience to God's
commands was a matter of public knowledge. As his victories and triumphs were known
among the Gentiles, so his sins would be widely known as well. By taking the life of this
child, conceived in sin, God makes a statement to those looking on. If God does not deal
with the sin of His saints, they might reason, then He will not be concerned with mine,
either. Thus, they will mock God with the confidence that they can get away with their sin.
God could not allow David to come through this monumental sin without doing something
about it, something visible to all. This was for David's discipline, and to silence those who
would use David's sin as an occasion to blaspheme the name of God; it was to proclaim
and promote the glory of God.
2 Samuel 12:14 gives the reason for the death of this child. The purpose for the death of
this child was not to punish David. The appropriate punishment for David's sins under the
law would have been the death penalty. Nathan has not given David news of a reduced
sentence, but of complete forgiveness, because the guilt and punishment for his sins had
been taken away (2 Samuel 12:13). The purpose for this child's death was instructive. It
was meant to silence any blasphemy on the part of the “enemies of the Lord” (2 Samuel
12:14). Lest any might wrongly conclude that Israel's God was oblivious to David's sin in the
breaking of God's law, God made it apparent that He would not wink at sin, even the sin of
a man after His own heart. The death of David's son was an object lesson to the enemies of
God.
18
David's sin is to be understood as the exception, rather than the rule in his life:
1 Kings 15:5, “Because David did what was right in the sight of the LORD, and had not
turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the
case of Uriah the Hittite.”
Did Adam die that day or 930 years later? Genesis 2:17; 5:5.
Answer: That day spiritually, the second physically.
75 or 70 persons? Acts 7:14, Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5.
Answer: 75. The New Testament is quoted from the Septuagint mostly. Genesis 46:27 and
Exodus 1:5 in the Septuagint correctly read 75, which agrees with Acts 7:14. The Old
Testament books, in most bibles, is translated from a corrupted Masoretic Text, which is
why "70" is mistranslated at Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in most bibles.
Who killed Saul; Saul, Philistines, or Amalekites? 1 Samuel 31:4, 2 Samuel 1:8; 21:12.
Answer: Saul failed at suicide and died by the Amalekite, unless the Amalekite lied. After he
was dead his dead body was hung by the Philistines.
2000 or 3000 baths? 1 Kings 7:26, 2 Chronicles 4:5.
Answer: It was not full in Kings. It had more capacity then 2000, that of 3000 and then it
was drained down to 2000 so it would not spill over or birds would not drink out of it and
defile it.
40,000 or 4000 stalls? 1 Kings 4:26, 2 Chronicles 9:25.
Answer: 4,000 for [extra] and 40,000 filled.
3300 or 3600 overseers? 1 Kings 5:16, 2 Chronicles 2:18.
Answer: There were two classes of workers.
800,000 or 1,100,000 men of Israel that drew the sword? 2 Samuel 24:9, 1 Chronicles 21:5.
Answer: The first list has restrictions on younger men for military campaigns. The second
list includes every able bodied individual, in the case of a defense or war against
Jerusalem. Or perhaps it's due to the unofficial and incomplete nature of the census (1
Chronicles 27:23-24).
500,000 or 470,000 men of Judah drew the sword? 2 Samuel 24:9, 1 Chronicles 21:5.
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
Answer: See the above answer.
Did Nebuzaradan come on the 7th or 10th day? 2 Kings 25:8, Jeremiah 52:12.
Answer: He came twice. Once to persuade Jerusalem to surrender (the 7th day) and the
second time to wage war (the 10th day).
550 or 250 that bear rule? 1 Kings 9:23, 2 Chronicles 8:10.
Answer: These two numbers represent two different groups
Was Jehoiachin 18 or 8 years old when he began to reign? 2 Kings 24:8, 2 Chronicles 36:9.
Answer: Jehoachin's father, Madehim, became an unofficial co-ruler at the age of eight to
train him! This was followed with Jehoachin becoming officially the king at his father's death
at 18 years of age!
Did Jehoiachin reign 3 months or 3 months and 10 days? 2 Kings 24:8, 2 Chronicles 36:9.
Answer: Two different times
Order of events {A} and {B} is opposite in these 2 passages. Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:13-15.
Answer: Could be either. Does it matter?
Order of events {A} and {B} is opposite in the 2 passages. Matthew 4:5-8, Luke 4:5.
Answer: Does it matter?
All judgment is done by Jesus or Jesus judges no man? John 5:22; 8:15; 12:47.
Answer: Man's already guilty, doesn't need to be personally judged in the flesh by Jesus,
the Father has already judged man.
Christ first to arise from the dead or not? Acts 26:23, 1 Kings 17:17, 2 Kings 13:21.
Answer: Christ was the first to rise to life eternal from death. These others died again
physically. The life of Christ also represents more then merely physical life.
Do all people sin or not? 1 John 1:8; 3:6.
Answer: A saved man does not abide in sin and make it his end, or his goal. If you are in
Jesus you will not want to sin.
Did Judas hang himself or fall headlong? Matthew 27:5, Acts 1:18.
Answer: Both, in that order, the rope broke first.
19
Take staff and sandals or neither? Mark 6:8-9, Matthew 10:9 ff.
Answer: Two groups. One group had sandals and staff's.
Is Moses' father in law called Jethro, Reuel, or Hobab? Exodus 2:18; 3:1, Numbers 10:29.
Answer: The man was simply known by more than one name. Gibeah was also known as
Kirjath-Jearim and Baalah. All three place names refer to the same town. The same person
or same place may have more than one name.
If there were seven of each clean beast, how could they go in two by two? Seven is not an
even number. Genesis 7:1-8.
Answer: Put two groups of seven together and it is divisible by two. Seven plus seven
equals fourteen. Therefore, six deer could enter the ark in pairs with one deer left over. Six
elk could enter the ark in pairs with one elk left over. The leftover elk and the leftover deer
could go together to make a pair. Or their could be seven females and seven males of the
deer, elk, etc. This would equal fourteen of each clean animal which is divisible by two. This
theory is based on the verse where it says "the male and his female." This would also allow
for the re-population of the earth as each pair went their own separate ways to establish
their own territory apart from the other deer.
Does God see everything (Proverbs 15:3; Job 34:21-22) or doesn't he (Genesis 18:20,21)?
Answer: The eyes of the Lord sees everything. However, the eyes of the Lord are through
his angels (1 Corinthians 4:9, Hebrews 12:22; 13:2). Genesis 18:21 says that reports came
to God about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. It was not enough for him to destroy Sodom
and Gomorrah on hearsay. He said, "I am going to go down and I'm going to see for myself
in the flesh," so that his judgment would be right. Because he is a God of justice, and a
great leader will always face up to his problems and the things he has to deal with, and will
deal with them personally; he will not deal with them from a distance.
In reference to sinners, 2 Peter 2:11 says angels "bring not railing accusation against them
before the Lord." It does not say angels do not make accusations against sinners, but
"railing" accusations. The tern "railing" means blasphemous, slanderous, abusive,
reproachful, and to speak bitterly. However, angels do make true accusations with sorrow,
love, and a caring attitude (Ezekiel 9:4,11). These verses show how angels make reports to
God, and act as His eyes in the world.
Does this mean that God does not know everything?
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
Answer: When God left Abraham to go on to Sodom, God said, "I will go down now, and
see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me;
and if not, I will know" (Genesis 18:21). How come he didn't already know? Why did God go
down there himself, in the flesh, to find out?
Another example is when God tested Abraham in Genesis 22. He told Abraham to sacrifice
his son because God wanted to find out something. After God tested Abraham and stopped
him from slaying his son at the last moment, God said, "Now I know that thou fearest God"
(verse 12). The implication is that before that period of time, there was some degree of
uncertainty as to what Abraham would do. Would God have tried Abraham if he already
knew what Abraham would do?
Another example is Genesis 6:5-6, "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in
the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his
heart." How would you say it if you don't want to say, "I wish I hadn't done it"?
Genesis 6:7, "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of
the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it
repenteth me that I have made them." God was sorry he even made them! No wise person
would make a machine, if he knew before he made it, that it would be a failure . If God had
eternally foreseen all the wickedness of man, before he made man; why did he make him, if
he knew before his creation that he would repent afterwards ?
The Lord said to Jeremiah: Jeremiah 32:35, “And they built the high places of Baal, which
are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass
through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind ,
that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.”
2 Chronicles 32:31, "Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon,
who sent unto him to enquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try
him, that he might know all that was in his heart." Is it possible to harmonize such
Scriptures as these with the doctrine that God's foresight is "eternal and universal"?
The Lord said to Samuel in 1 Samuel 15:11,23 "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to
be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my
commandments...Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected
20
thee from being king." Did God eternally foresee just what Saul would do? If so, why did he
have him made king? Why did he not repent before he made him king? Would any sensible
person employ a man to do a piece of work, if he knew before he hired him that he would
be a complete failure?
Revelation 3:5, "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will
not blot out his name out of the book of life," Our name is written in the book of life. If God
knew ahead of time whose name would be written in this book and whose name would not
be written, why did God bother to write their name in the book in the first place? Just to
have the LORD "blot out his name from under heaven" (Deuteronomy 29:20) after He
already wrote it in the book?
When Paul addressed the qualifications for deacons and elders, he stated that they must
be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2,12; Titus 1:6). However, Paul himself was an
elder and was unmarried and he even encouraged it (1 Corinthians 7:7,8)!
Answer: A glance at Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon will reveal that 'unmarried' is
used to denote both 'bachelors' and 'widowers'. The parallelism thus suggests that in 1
Corinthians 7:8 'unmarried' refers only to 'widowers', and not to any bachelor or single
person. Paul himself could have been a widower. Paul's purpose in 1 Corinthians 7 was not
to give requirements and advice for the eldership, anyway! Due to the "present distress"
(verse 26) Paul advised "that it is good for a man so to be." This "present distress" was a
situation unique to the earlier church due to the persecution that was prophesied by Daniel
and Jesus.
It is recorded that there were two distinct purchases by Abraham and Jacob for the purpose
of burying their dead: one a field with a cave (Machpelah) at the end of it, which was bought
by Abraham of Ephron the Hittite for 400 shekels of silver (Genesis 23:16-18); the other, "a
parcel of a field" which was bought by Jacob of the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem,
for 100 pieces of money (Genesis 33:18,19).
Answer: In the former were buried Sarah (Genesis 23:19), Abraham (Genesis 25:9), Isaac
(Genesis 49:31), Rebekah and Leah (Genesis 49:31), and Jacob (Genesis 50:12,13).
In the latter were buried Joseph (Joshua 24:32), and the other sons of Jacob who died in
Egypt (Acts 7:16).
In Acts 7:15-16 Stephen referred to these events, well known to his hearers who were
seeking his life. These found nothing to stumble at in his statement that Abraham bought
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
the sepulcher of the sons of Emmor (the father) of Sychem, whereas Genesis 33:18,19
states that Jacob was the buyer of "a parcel of a field" from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.
The explanation is simple, -- Abraham was a rich man : rich men often buy, if they can,
"parcels" of land for some reason or other : why should not Abraham have had a second
place of sepulture assured, if he so desired?
As the Hittites were eager to oblige the rich and powerful sojourner among them, in the
matter of Machpelah, as we know; so he would have little difficulty in buying the parcel at
Sychem from the original holders in his time. Between Abraham's death and the
appearance of Jacob at Sychem, eighty-five years had passed. Jacob was a keen man of
business, but during his long absence "abroad" the title may have lapsed, or become
obscure. Hence, when he desired to resume possession of a piece of family property, so to
speak, he had to pay something by way of forfeit to make good his claim. The
comparatively small sum recorded strengthens this suggestion. Modern instances are
familiar to us. There is no reason why it should not be so in this case. And have we never
heard of two family burying -places? So here, Jacob was buried in the one, Machpelah;
Joseph and his brethren in the other at Sychem.
Acts 1:12 tells us that when the disciples came back from the place where our Lord had
ascended, they returned from mount Olivet, distant from Jerusalem a Sabbath day's
journey. A Sabbath days journey was seven and a half furlongs, but the town of Bethany
was about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem (John 11:18), and that is double a Sabbath day's
journey.
Answer: These things are all true:
That the mount of Olives lay but five furlongs distant from Jerusalem.
That the town of Bethany was fifteen furlongs.
That the disciples were brought by Christ as far as Bethany.
That, when they returned from the mount of Olives, they traveled more than five furlongs.
And,
Returning from Bethany, they traveled but a Sabbath day's journey.
Part of mount of Olives was known by that name to the length of about a Sabbath day's
journey, till it came to that part which is called Bethany. For there was a Bethany, a tract of
the mount, and the town of Bethany. The town was distant from the city about fifteen
furlongs, i.e. about two miles, or a double Sabbath day's journey: but the first border of this
tract (which also bore the name of Bethany) was distant but one mile, or a single Sabbath
21
day's journey. Luke 24:50 Lu 24:50
Verse 50. He led them out as far as to Bethany] The difficulties in this verse, when collated
with the accounts given by the other evangelists, are thus reconciled by Dr. Lightfoot.
"I. This very evangelist (Ac 1:12) tells us, that when the disciples came back from the place
where our Lord had ascended, they returned from mount Olivet, distant from Jerusalem a
Sabbath day's journey. But now the town of Bethany was about fifteen furlongs from
Jerusalem, Joh 11:18, and that is double a Sabbath day's journey.
"II. Josephus tells us that mount Olivet was but five furlongs from the city, and a Sabbath
day's journey was seven furlongs and a half. Antiq. lib. 20, cap. 6. About that time there
came to Jerusalem a certain Egyptian, pretending himself a prophet, and persuading the
people that they should go out with him to the mount of Olives, 'o kai thn polewv antikruv
keimenon, apecei stadia pente; which, being situated on the front of the city, is distant five
furlongs. These things are all true: 1. That the mount of Olives lay but five furlongs distant
from Jerusalem. 2. That the town of Bethany was fifteen furlongs. 3. That the disciples were
brought by Christ as far as Bethany. 4. That, when they returned from the mount of Olives,
they traveled more than five furlongs. And, 5. Returning from Bethany, they traveled but a
Sabbath day's journey. All which may be easily reconciled, if we would observe:-That the
first space from the city was called Bethphage, which I have cleared elsewhere from
Talmudic authors, the evangelists themselves also confirming it. That part of that mount was
known by that name to the length of about a Sabbath day's journey, till it came to that part
which is called Bethany. For there was a Bethany, a tract of the mount, and the town of
Bethany. The town was distant from the city about fifteen furlongs, i.e. about two miles, or a
double Sabbath day's journey: but the first border of this tract (which also bore the name of
Bethany) was distant but one mile, or a single Sabbath day's journey.
Jesus led out his disciples, when he was about to ascend, to the very first region or tract of
mount Olivet, which was called Bethany, and was distant from the city a Sabbath day's
journey. And so far from the city itself did that tract extend itself which was called
Bethphage; and when he was come to that place where the bounds of Bethphage and
Bethany met and touched one another, he then ascended; in that very place where he got
upon the ass when he rode into Jerusalem (Mark 11:1).
If a man sleeps with a menstrous woman, is the penalty death (Leviticus 18:19; 20:18) or is
the penalty that he will be unclean for seven days (Leviticus 15:24)?
Answer: If both the man and woman were acquainted with the situation, the penalty was
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
death. If it was a case where the circumstance was not known till afterwards, then he would
be unclean for seven days.
James says we are saved by works (James 2:14,17,26), and Paul says that we are saved
by faith (Romans 3:21,28; 4:4,5; 5:1, Ephesians 2:8,9, Titus 3:5). Which one is correct?
Answer: James is not saying that works alone save us. Paul is not saying that faith alone
saves us. They are both saying that one without the other is dead. James shows us that
faith without works is dead. Paul shows us that works without faith is dead. We need both.
In Genesis 1:26, God said he created man to be like "us," meaning to be like God. Yet, in
Genesis 3:22, God rebuked man for being like "us," like God.
Answer: In Genesis 1:26, the "image" of God is his Spirit. God created Adam and Eve with
a Spirit, because one is only in the image of God when one has His Spirit. When they
sinned, they "died" that day, and it was not their body or soul that died, it was their "Spirit"
that died that day. As far as Genesis 3:22, the sin Adam and Eve did was re-defining what
good and evil was. God said it was evil to eat the tree, but Adam and Eve justified
themselves in that evil and convinced themselves it was actually good. When man
redefines what is good and evil, they are becoming as gods, because only God defines
good and evil
Ezekiel 20:25 says God gave His children statutes that were not good, and judgments
whereby they should not live. I thought God only gave good laws?
Answer: What a foolish noise has been made about this verse by critics, believers and
infidels! How is it that God can be said "to give a people statutes that were not good, and
judgments whereby they could not live?" God never gave any such, at any time, to any
people. Let any man produce an example of this kind if he can; or show even the fragment
of such a law, sanctioned by the Most High! The simple meaning of this place and all such
places is, that when they had rebelled against the Lord, despised his statutes, and polluted
his Sabbaths-in effect cast him off, and given themselves wholly to their idols, then he
abandoned them, and they abandoned themselves to the customs and ordinances of the
heathen.
Psalms 81:12, "So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own
counsels."
Romans 1:24, "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their
own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:"
22
Ezekiel 20:39 and Isaiah 63:17 proves this view to be correct.
Ezekiel 20:39, "As for you, O house of Israel, thus saith the Lord GOD; Go ye, serve ye
every one his idols, and hereafter also, if ye will not hearken unto me: but pollute ye my
holy name no more with your gifts, and with your idols."
Isaiah 63:17, "O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our
heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance."
In Matthew 2:6, a statement identified as a prophecy of the birthplace of Jesus is quoted
from Micah 5:2, but Micah says Bethlehem is "little among nations" whereas Matthew
quotes him as saying that Bethlehem is "not the least among the princes of Judah." In other
words, a negative has been substituted for a positive.
Answer: Some manuscripts of very good note, among which is the Codex Bezae, have "Art
thou not the least?" This reconciles the prophet and evangelist without farther trouble.
According to Matthew, the Capernaum centurion spoke man-to-man with Jesus (8:5-10).
Luke, however, says the centurion sent some Jewish elders and friends to speak on his
behalf (7: 1-9).
Answer: As it is not unusual in all languages, so in the Hebrew it is peculiarly frequent, to
ascribe to a person himself the thing which is done, and the words which are spoken by his
messenger. And accordingly, Matthew relates as said by the centurion himself, what others
said by messenger from him. We learn from Luke 7:3, he came to Jesus, not in person, but
by Jewish elders, whom he supposed would have more influence with the Lord. An instance
of the same kind we have in the case of Zebedee's children. From Matthew 20:20, we learn
it was their mother that spoke those words, which, Mark 10:35,37, themselves are said to
speak; because she was only their mouth. This is very frequent in scripture, where what a
messenger says, is spoken as if the speaker himself has said it.
Scripture says God does not visit the sins of the fathers on the children (Ezekiel 8:14,17;
18:2,3,14,17,19,20, Deuteronomy 1:39; 24:16, II Kings 14:6, II Chronicles 25:4). But what
about the children of Israel who had to wander forty years in the wilderness because of the
sins of the fathers?
Answer: There is a difference between God visiting the sins of the fathers on their children,
and the consequences of the father's actions being felt by the children.
God punished the fathers in the wilderness, not the children. The fathers were prohibited
from entering into the promised land. The children are the ones who entered the promised
LCENWRD – SALCEDO HANDOUTS FOUR
23
land. The Fathers were punished, the children were blessed.

Think about this. How could God allow only the babies and children, at the time, to enter the
promised land, while taking all the fathers and mothers away from the children? How would
you feel if God ripped your mother and father from you when you were a child? Who would
take care of these children if no adult was allowed to enter the promised land?

God did the most merciful thing for these children. He allowed them to be with their mothers
and fathers, until they all died. When the children were all old enough to take care of
themselves, and when all the fathers and mothers died of natural causes, the children were
ready to go to the promised land. No family members were left stranded in the desert alone.
What a wonderful, loving Heavenly Father we have!

The wanderings in the desert were not a punishment on the children. On the contrary, they
were a true blessing. They learned obedience through the things they suffered. They were
humbled. They learned many great spiritual truths while in the desert.

God did not punish these children, and visit the punishment of the fathers upon the children.
The punishment of the fathers were that they were not to enter the promised land. The
children entered the promised land. The reason the children wandered the wilderness for 40
years was a consequence of their father's actions, it was man's fault. God blessed these
children, but punished the fathers.