Menu

Your Questions

Using Hymns with Children

Ihave been asked on occasion how we can get teen-agers to appreciate and sing the great hymns and gospel songs of the church. There are many ways to encourage this, but the most basic principle of all is: Don’t wait to start this until they’re in their teens!

Each children’s program in the church, Sunday School, Children’s Church, week-day clubs, if you have these, should be regularly introducing and using hymns. Using hymns with children prepares them to have a fuller part in adult worship later on. Conversely, to use only children’s songs and choruses in children’s programming may handicap their later integration into the adult services of worship.

Instead of Heavenly Sunshine or some shallow contemporary song, why not use the first verse of a good hymn as if it were a “chorus” (or perhaps the refrain of a hymn as a chorus, if it can stand alone)? Later, other stanzas could be explained and added.

In some cases, you might have to define a word or explain a concept or two. But so much the better. How often have we taken a moment to do that with the adults? You could also tell a story about the author, or tell how the hymn came to be written. (Many such stories appear on this blog.) If this is done consistently, what children learn will help to prepare them for more meaningful worship with the whole congregation.

And there should be some system to it. Make a list of the hymns you want to introduce in a particular children’s program of the church. Solid hymns, ones that they will treasure in years to come. Then give some thought to how they are to be taught and used. Perhaps you could have a “hymn of the month,” or play a good video of the hymn. Or if you have a gifted soloist or instrumentalist in the congregation, perhaps he or she could drop in on the children’s program and sing or play the song. Or you could involve the children in a little drama, acting out the story of the song.

In addition to fine children’s hymns such as Jesus Loves Me, and Philip Bliss’s Jesus Loves Even Me, here are a few hymns for which the first stanza is sufficiently clear on its own:

My Jesus, I Love Thee (explain “follies”)
Ye Must Be Born Again
Wonderful Words of Life (explain “duty”)
O How I Love Jesus
Jesus Is the Joy of Living(refrain only)
The Light of the World Is Jesus
Amazing Grace (explain “wretch”)
Trust and Obey
What a Friend We Have in Jesus (explain “griefs” and “forfeit”)
Praise Him! Praise Him! (by Fanny Crosby)
Constantly Abiding (refrain)
Blessed Be the Name (explain “majesty supreme”)

With a little study of the hymn book, you will be able to think of many more, and you’ll find using hymns with children very profitable. It builds each child’s repertoire for time to come.

Reasons Why I Don’t

Some weeks ago, a Christian friend suggested that I include articles on contemporary gospel songs on my blog site. I suppose I could, but there are reasons why I hesitate to do so.

  1. I don’t know many of them that well, since that has not been my area of study. And, though some are fine, the exposure I have had to them has not greatly impressed me overall. They tend to have less depth of insight, and less theological “meat” than many of our older hymns.
  2. It’s not really in keeping with my purpose. My goal is to reawaken interest in the traditional hymns of the church. I’m sure there are others willing to promote the contemporary songs. But meanwhile the hymn books are often gathering dust in the pews (if they are not removed altogether). This is, in part, because leadership is largely unaware of their contents, and younger ones in the congregation have been taught to avoid anything “old.” My hope is to make some small contribution to the reversal of that trend.
  3. I have a goal in mind: to cover as many as possible of the hymns found in the most common hymn books published over the last few decades. (This keeps me busy enough!) When I’m done with the almanac portion of this blog, I’m hoping to have it published as a volume that can be used by pastors, worship leaders and others, to promote a greater understanding of hymns and an appreciation for hymn singing.
  4. Copyright concerns can be a problem with newer songs. (And it is sometimes tricky to get permission to use them.) Most of the older hymns are in the public domain, which means they are free from copyright restrictions and easier to reproduce.
  5. I like to feature historical incidents and background where I can, and these seem less available with many newer songs. Granted there are some things of interest reported in this area, but not as commonly.
  6. Questions about contemporary songs come in occasionally, and I try to dig up information and reply to the questioner. It is often hard to find data, but at least I do my best to cover interest in these newer songs that way.
  7. I am trying to speak for the disenfranchised. I have heard more than once of churches that have suddenly gone “contemporary” and taken the attitude, “If it’s too loud, you’re too old.” I have preached in churches where all the longsuffering crowd to the very back pews in order to keep as far away as possible from thundering speakers. There are other churches where folks simply leave, because the music they love is never used. I want them to know there are others that love our traditional hymnody too.

True Stories or Not?

,

A friend chatted with me skeptically one day about the history of our hymns. His view was that most of the stories he’d read came from someone’s imagination. Or that they were at least full of inaccuracies. He pointed out that sometimes several conflicting accounts were given about a particular hymn. His conclusion: Since they can’t be relied on, why bother with them?

Was he right? Perhaps in part–and occasionally. But we need to think a bit about the source material for books and articles written by people like me.

Some information we have comes from journals and autobiographies, written by the authors of our hymns themselves. (They should know!) Other data comes from the reminiscences of people who knew them, and talked with them. (My Life and the Story of the Gospel Hymns, written by Ira Sankey in 1905, is an example of both, since he not only worked with many hymn writers but was one himself. The same can be said for the writings of men such as Oswald Smith and Al Smith.)

But certainly there are times when memories fail, and details get mixed up. Incidents recorded years after the fact have that weakness. The best we can do is cross-check various resources, as far back as possible.

In a few cases I have met the hymn writers themselves (Robert Harkness, Oswald Smith, Lance Latham, Don Hustad and Margaret Clarkson come to mind). In addition, I have dozens of hymn history books, as well as hymn books, in my library, going back into the 1800’s (and even a reprint of a book from the 1700’s). To augment the information there, I work at tracking down data with letters, e-mails and phone calls, trying to confirm what I know, and find new details.

As an example of the latter, Dion De Marbelle wrote the gospel song When They Ring the Golden Bells for You and Me in 1887. An unusual character, De Marbelle was the first circus clown employed by James A. Bailey (of Barnum and Bailey Circus fame). Later, he assisted Buffalo Bill Cody in setting up his spectacular Wild West Show. Knowing this, I contacted a circus museum, and the historical society in the town where De Marbelle died. I came up with information, confirmed by newspaper clippings and official records of the time, of a touching story about the man I’ve never seen written elsewhere.

Bottom line: In most cases, we can have reasonable confidence in the history that has been preserved for us. When some point is in serious question, I will try to indicate it. And these stories are definitely worth reading. Many times they grew out of a personal experience with God, and are a testimony to His providential care for His children–and much more. Knowing some of the background of the songs we sing gives us new insight into their meaning.

“Carnal” – “Flesh” – “Old Man”

,

Question: Richard asks, “What’s the difference, if any, in the terms ‘carnal’, ‘flesh’ and ‘old man’?”

Answer: Thanks for the good question, Richard. The terms you have listed certainly are related, though not necessarily synonymous. And we could add some others, such as worldly, sensual, the natural man, and the Adamic nature. These words and phrases represent key spiritual truths about the desperate plight of the unsaved, and the dangerous potential for believers who are not living as they should. Let’s see if we can sort it all out a bit.

1) The Natural or Sensual Person

“The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Cor. 2:14). (“Natural” translates the Greek word psuchikos, from which we get our word psychology. It refers to the soul–the mind will and emotions–of the person, as opposed to his God-energized spirit. We could call this individual a soulish person.) The natural man is one who was born naturally (i.e. physically) but who has never been born again, and therefore is still “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1, 5). He is severely limited when it comes to understanding and applying spiritual truth, since this ability is given to those indwelt and taught by the Holy Spirit (vs. 12-13).

The word “sensual” is also used to translate psuchikos. It refers to that which pertains to the old, unregenerate nature. “The apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ…told you there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts, these are sensual [psuchikos, or soulish] persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit” (Jude 1:17-19). And if they do not have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, they are not Christians (Rom. 8:9). But it is possible for a born-again believer to yield to temptation and sometimes act in a soulish way. James warns, “If you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual [psuchikos], demonic” (Jas. 3:14-15, and see the context, vs. 13-18).

2) The Old Man

The Old Man is an expression used three times in the New Testament. (It is sometimes described as the Adamic Nature by theologians.) These terms speak of the corrupt fallen nature we inherited from Adam. When we put our faith in Christ, the “old man” is considered to have been crucified in Christ. “Our old man was crucified with Him” (Rom. 6:6). “You died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God….You have put off the old man with his deeds” (Col. 3:3, 9).

As to our legal position (or standing) before God, the old man has been dealt with. But as to our condition (or state) in daily experience, the old man or Adamic nature continues to be an active force that can only be controlled as we reject its promptings and walk in the Spirit. Each Christian has a responsibility to “Put off…the old man…and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and…put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph. 4:22-24; cf. Rom. 12:2).

This conflict in the Christian between the old Adamic nature, and the new nature energized by the Holy Spirit, will continue until we go to be with Christ and are transformed into His likeness (I Jn. 3:2; cf. Col. 1:27). The struggle is captured in Paul’s words, “What I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do” (Rom. 7:15). “The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another; so that you do not do the things that you wish” (Gal. 5:17).

The answer, if the Christian is to live a victorious life, is submitting to the ministry of the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is described by the twin terms of walking in the Spirit, and being filled with the Spirit.

¤ “Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfil the lust of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16). This “walk” refers to daily and habitual steps of faith and obedience toward God. That is our responsibility, by His enabling grace.

¤ The word “filled” is perhaps better translated “fulfilled”–another meaning for the Greek word pleroo. (Cf. “He who loves another has fulfilled [pleroo] the law,” Rom. 13:8.). Thus, “Be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18) could be paraphrased, “Be being fulfilled by the Spirit, allowing Him to fulfil His sovereign purpose in you, by His divine power.”

These two realities of the Christian life are expressed in a little different way in Philippians 2:12-13. “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling [live out what God has equipped you to be, by an ongoing walk of faith and obedience], for it is God who works in you [filling and fulfilling] both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”

3) Flesh and Carnal

The Greek word (sarx) is most often translated “flesh,” though occasionally it is rendered “carnal.” Sometimes physical flesh and blood (the physical body) necessarily is in view. (For example, we are told that Christ “was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,” Rom. 1:3.) But when it is used in an ethical or theological sense, it refers to the human nature, or earthly nature of man, apart from God’s intervention and influence. The flesh in that sense is spiritually impotent, and prone to sin. Further, it tends to be self-centred and opposed to God. Paul recognizes that when he says, “In my flesh nothing good dwells” (Rom. 7:18).

When we are saved, through faith in Christ, we are no longer living in the sphere of the flesh but in the sphere of the Spirit (Rom. 8:9). However, the flesh (the old, sinful human nature) is still within us, and we have a choice whether to respond to the flesh, thus walking according to the flesh, or to respond to the Holy Spirit, walking in the Spirit. This is the difference between a spiritual Christian and a “carnal” (sarx) Christian. To be saved is to be rightly related to Christ. To be a spiritual Christian is to be rightly related to the Holy Spirit. “Walk in the Spirit [controlled and guided by the Holy Spirit], and you shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16; cf. Rom. 8:4).

Paul condemns some in the church at Corinth because of their carnality. He does not deny that they are born again, but labels their behaviour as spiritually infantile. “I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ [i.e. as to those who are still spiritually immature]. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it…for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men [i.e. acting as unsaved individuals would]?”(I Cor. 3:1-3).

4) World, Worldy

This is another word (kosmos in Greek) that can be used in a physical or spiritual sense. It can refer to the earth, or to the people living on our planet (“God so loved the world… ” Jn. 3:16). But in the spiritual and ethical sense, it speaks of this corrupt world system, dominated by Satan. In that usage we are warned, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world–the lust of the flesh [sarx], the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life–is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever” (I Jn. 2:15-17). Instead, we should be those who, “denying ungodliness and worldly lusts…live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age” (Tit. 2:12).

Debate: Jephthah’s Vow

,

Question: In the book of Judges, a judge named Jephthah makes a vow that seems to result in him offering up his daughter as a burnt offering! Did he actually do that?

Answer: Jephthah called upon God to give him and the Israelites victory over the Ammonites. He rashly vowed that if they were victorious he would offer up whatever came out of the door of his house first. The relevant text is, “Whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me…I will offer it up as a burnt offering” (Jud. 11:31), and “he carried out his vow” (vs. 39).

Some commentators seek to soften the outcome, suggesting the girl was, instead, committed to lifelong virginity, and devoted to ministry in the tabernacle–the way Anna later served in the temple (Lk. 2:37; cf. Exod. 38:8). But this is not the most natural reading of the text. Martin Luther’s opinion was, “The text is too clear to admit of this interpretation.”

That being said, there are points which seem to support one side or the other. And there will likely never be a satisfactory resolution to the question of whether Jephthah actually killed his daughter. Arguments against it can be explained, and those for it are inconclusive. My personal view is that the human sacrifice did take place–though it was certainly not done with God’s approval.

It is important to keep the promises we make to God (Deut. 23:21). However, if a vow was foolish–and, therefore, possibly sinful to make–we are not under obligation to keep a vow that would involve us in sinning further against God. That would simply add one sin to another! In my view, we should seek God’s gracious forgiveness for our foolish pledge (I Jn. 1:9), and determine to be more careful in making such promises in the future.

Here are the counterarguments regarding Jephthah’s vow, discussed, one by one.

1) The Law forbad human sacrifice (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5). And Jephthah appears to have had some knowledge of the Law (vs. 12-28).

¤ But these were lawless days, not always characterized by Law-keeping (17:6; 21:25). This weakens the argument that no priest would ever officiate at a human sacrifice.

2) There was an option in the Law of monetary redemption of human beings devoted to God (cf. Exod. 13:11-16; Num. 3:44-48).

¤ But Jephthah may not have known the Law well, since he grieved that he must do as he had said (vs. 35).

3) His vow was, clearly, that he was going to offer up something as a burnt offering (vs. 31). Surely he intended it to be an animal.

¤ (But see #4) There is no law or precedent for commuting such a vow to tabernacle/temple service, and we read “he carried out his vow” (vs. 39).

4) Animals may have been kept in the courtyard. In some ancient homes, they were even brought into the house itself, especially overnight, to protect them from thieves. And Jephthah must have had good reason to believe his daughter was elsewhere at this time (perhaps visiting a friend).

¤ But he was horribly mistaken. His daughter was at home.

5) Some suggest that God would not give victory on the basis of such a vow.

¤ But there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the vow itself. Jephthah did not vow to offer up his daughter.

6) Others object that there would hardly be an annual commemoration of a gross sin (vs. 40).

¤ But the memorial was of the death of Jephthah’s daughter, not of his sin in sacrificing her.

7) Jephthah’s daughter “bewailed her virginity” for two months–that it meant she could give her father no heir (vs. 38). That is what concerned them. Later, four days of mourning for her became an annual practice (vs. 40).

¤ But the memorial was rather an extreme measure to remember one who had simply gone to serve the Lord at the tabernacle (and could likely visit with her father from time to time). If such service was the custom in Israel, as it may have been (cf. I Sam. 2:22), it hardly seems to merit the extreme reaction of vs. 35-40.

8) What saddened her father was not her death, but the fact that she would remain childless, and his family line would come to an end (she being his only child, vs. 34).

¤ But her death would also mean she died childless!

9) The idea of child sacrifice was surely repugnant to the Israelites.

¤ But child sacrifice happened many times in Israel, certainly later (II Kgs. 3:27; 16:3; 17:17; II Chron, 33:6; Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35). Jephthah, the son of a prostitute (vs. 1), lived in a semi-pagan environment, in a time of great lawlessness, and he was associated with a band of “worthless men” (vs. 3). This kind of “honour code” is what we might expect from cruel and violent men.

10) Jephthah had a measure of faith in God (cf. Heb. 11:32), and the Spirit of God is said to have worked through him (vs. 29).

¤ But the same can be said for immoral Samson whom God used.

“I will cut him off…”

Question: What is the meaning of God’s warning that He would “cut off” the Israelites that disobey His Law?

Answer: The Lord uses that particular phrase in the Old Testament Law with reference to the punishment of sinners. The words “cut off” are employed many times. For example, in Leviticus 17:10, God says, “Whatever man…who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person…and will cut him off from among his people.”

The phrase is a warning of judgment or punishment to come, but exactly what does it mean? There is uncertainty about that. Possibly there were several options and alternatives, depending on the particular case. As to whether the cutting off invariably took place following sinful behaviour, and whether it was permanent and irrevocable, are further issues. This too seems to have depended somewhat on the situation.

In some instances the “cutting off” involved physical death (Exod. 9:15; 31:14; cf. Gen. 9:11). In Leviticus 20:2-3, for the terrible sin of child sacrifice, the guilty one was to be stoned, and the Lord says “I will…cut him off from his people.” Some suggest that implies eternal punishment following his execution. But that need not be so.

Such a step (i.e. a cutting off) is also involved in what would seem to be a much lesser offense: A man having physical relations with a woman during her menstrual period (Lev. 20:18), which surely did not result in eternal damnation. It more likely has to do with ceremonial uncleanness which rendered them temporarily unable to participate in religious activities.

Another possibility, depending on the situation, is that the cutting off referred to the ending of the family line. In such cases, it would mean that the individual would have no descendants, and his name and memorial would be cut off from Israel (Ruth 4:10; I Sam. 24:21).

Other times, what is implied seems to be ostracism and excommunication– that the one who is “cut off” would be excluded from the community, at least for a period of time, and be unable to worship and fellowship there. Note the wording in Leviticus 22:3. The Lord says, “…that person shall be cut off from My presence.” Under the Law, the camp of Israel was uniquely the place of the manifest presence of God. To be cut off from Israel was to be excluded from the one place on earth which God had ordained for sacrifices to be made. This punishment might also imply the removal of the person from under the protecting umbrella of God’s covenants with Israel. In such a state, he faced continuing peril (Lev. 22:3; Num. 19:13, 20).

Compare David’s plea, “Do not cast me away from Your presence” (Ps. 51:11). There is no exact equivalent of this under Grace. God’s presence is not localized in a temple, and every true believer is indwelt by the Spirit of God forever. Also, there are no continuing sacrifices to be made for sin at some central altar. But a partial parallel might be the breakdown of fellowship with God when a Christian sins, which is to be remedied by confession of that sin (I Jn. 1:5-10).

Perhaps ostracism and loss of fellowship in the community of Israel is similar to what Christ describes in Matthew 18:17, “If he [the unrepentant sinner] refuses to hear the church [the assembly of believers] let him be to you like a heathen [a Gentile] and a tax collector [men viewed as traitors to their nation]” (cf. I Cor. 5:9-13). And there may be a parallel to Paul’s reference to delivering an individual to Satan that he may be prompted and prodded to change his ways (I Cor. 5:5; I Tim. 1:20). The umbrella of blessing and protection is removed. There is danger of temporal chastisement as a result, but it is not a hopeless situation if there is repentance and an appeal is made to the grace and mercy of God.

“If You Forgive The Sins Of Any…” (John 20:23)

,

Question: Carol asks, “What is the meaning of John 20:23, (Jesus, speaking to the disciples) ‘If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’?”

Answer: Rather than answering this question myself, I have provided quotations from a number of commentaries. This manner of response, a little different from my usual, will serve, I hope, a couple of purposes. It will show the general consensus among conservative evangelical scholars as to the meaning of the text. Not that we decide on a proper interpretation by some kind of majority vote. But it is helpful, and surely significant, when reputable students of the Word agree. My other reason for approaching the answer this way is to recommend the volumes I have quoted. They would be valuable additions to any library.

  1. “This verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins. Jesus was saying that the believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner’s forgiveness by the Father because of the work of His Son, if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel. The believer with certainty can also tell those who do not respond to the message of God’s forgiveness through faith in Christ that their sins, as a result, are not forgiven.” (The MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997)
  2. “Jesus was giving the apostles (and by extension, the church) the privilege of announcing heaven’s terms on how a person can receive forgiveness. If one believes in Jesus, then a Christian has the right to announce his forgiveness. If a person rejects Jesus’ sacrifice, then a Christian can announce that person is not forgiven.” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Vol. II, SP Publications, 1983)
  3. “Since only God can forgive sins (Mk. 2:7), the disciples and the church are here given the authority to declare what God does when a man either accepts or rejects His Son.” (The Ryrie Study Bible, Expanded Edition, Moody Press, 1986)
  4. “It was not the work of the disciples to forgive sins, but the work of the Holy Spirit through the disciples as they fulfilled the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). Christ gave the disciples authority to state that forgiveness of sins was possible.” (The Parallel Bible Commentary, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1994)
  5. “The disciples were given the right to declare sins forgiven….The disciples go out preaching the gospel. Some people repent of their sins and receive the Lord Jesus. The disciples are authorized to tell them that their sins have been forgiven. Others refuse to repent and will not believe on Christ. The disciples tell them that they are still in their sins, and that if they die, they will perish eternally.” (The Believer’s Bible Commentary, by William MacDonald, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995)
  6. “The commission to forgive sins is phrased in an unusual construction. Literally, it is: “Those whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgiven have not been forgiven….God does not forgive people’s sins because we decide to do so, nor does He withhold forgiveness because we do not grant is. We announce it; we do not create it.” (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Abridged Edition, Zondervan, 1994)
  7. “It has been claimed by some that these disciples were the first bishops of the Church, and the Lord was giving them the authority to remit [forgive] sin and retain sin, and that they were to go out into the world and people were to confess sins to them, and they would tell them what penance to do and thus obtain remission of their sins. I do not find anything like that here.
    One of the most important of the group, the Apostle Peter, was there that day, and Peter went forth in the name of the Lord to proclaim remission of sins. How did he do it? Did he say, “You come to me and confess your sins to me and I will forgive them?” Did he say anything like that? Let us see. In Acts 10 we find Peter preaching the gospel in the household of Cornelius. He tells of Christ’s wonderful life. “The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (He is Lord of all)….To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever”–confesseth his sins to a priest–“shall receive remission of sins.? Is that right? Do you have your Bible open? What does it say? “That through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.”
    Believe on Jesus and you will get remission. That is the commission that every servant of Christ has. We go out to the world and say, We are commanded by Jesus Christ to offer you remission of sin if you will believe on Jesus. And when they do, we dare to say, “Your sins are forgiven or remitted.” And if they do not believe, what then? We say to them, “Your sins are retained.” How do we know it? Because He said so.” (John, a commentary by Harry Ironside, Loizeaux Brothers Incorporated, 1971)
  8. “John 20:23 must not be interpreted to mean that Jesus gave to a select body of people the right to forgive sins and let people into heaven….As the early believers went forth into the world, they announced the good news of salvation. If sinners would repent and believe on Jesus Christ, their sins would be forgiven them….All that the Christian can do is announce the message of forgiveness; God performs the miracle of forgiveness. If sinners will believe on Jesus Christ, we can authoritatively declare to them that their sins have been forgiven; but we are not the ones who provide forgiveness.” (The Bible Exposition Commentary, Vol. I, by Warren Wiersbe, SP Publications, 1989)

Newspaper Article: Unbelief

Question: The following is a response to an article which appeared recently in a local newspaper. It invites others to contribute, but not quite as I have! The writer mocks and derides the Bible, calling on others to do the same. “Come out of the closet,” he says. Write and tell us what in the Bible you are unsure of, or do not believe.” I have written instead to defend the Word of God. How would you have answered him?

Answer: On April 12, 2007, an article appeared in The Lloydminster Source written by Norman Laird of Grace United Church. The writer presents a rambling attack on the Bible, making a number of sweeping and unsubstantiated claims. They deserve a response.

Mr. Laird begins, “To say, ‘The Bible is the word of God’ is a statement of faith, not of fact. To say ‘the Bible is not the word of God’ is also a statement of faith, not of fact.” Very well. Then let me be counted as one who believes the Bible to be, in its entirety, the inspired, infallible Word of the living God. (And I convinced this is a “fact.”)

The Bible certainly claims to be the revelation of God. Over 2,000 times in the Old Testament alone we read phrases such as “and God said,” or “thus saith the Lord.” And the Bible declares that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God [literally, it is God-breathed]” (II Tim. 3:16). And that, “Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (II Pet. 1:21).

But having positioned himself among those who dismiss (or doubt) the divine origin of the Scriptures, the author makes this absolute assertion: “There is no one who believes everything in the Bible is true.” What? No one? Has Mr. Laird questioned all six billion of us to find out? Hardly! Many individuals I know personally would reject his claim. But he goes on, “Even those who say the Bible is the inerrant word of God ignore certain passages.” Again, has he questioned us all on this? Obviously not. But rather than put words in the mouths of others, and if I may be forgiven for the personal references, let me speak of my own experience.

I have been studying the Bible intensively for about half a century, and have read it through from Genesis to Revelation many times over. I have written my own (unpublished) commentary on all 1,189 chapters of the Bible. (It is now at about 250,000 words, and still growing daily.) I have preached thousands of sermons, and taught the Scriptures for years in the college classroom. I write a devotional newspaper column that has appeared for years in several newspapers, and a have website through which I receive and answer Bible questions from all over the world. No verse or passage has been “ignored.” Yet all those years of study have only served to confirm the trustworthiness and divine authority of the Bible over and over.

Mr. Laird next proposes to give us proof of how fallible the Bible is, citing First Corinthians 15:22 as his “clearest example.” The verse says, “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” The writer comments, “I have been told that the word ‘all’ in the first part of the verse means every person that has ever lived and will ever live. There are no exceptions. On the other hand, the same word later in the verse means only those people who have accepted Jesus as saviour. Many exceptions. The definition of the word ‘all’ changes mid-sentence to suit the believer.”

This mishandling of the text is both sad and silly. Sad, because it totally misses a wonderful truth that affects the eternal destiny of each human being–including Norman Laird. And silly because it fashions an argument using mere smoke and mirrors. “All” means all! It translates precisely the same Greek word (pas) in each case. It is the two phrases–all in Adam, all in Christ–that are in contrast, not the word all.

Let us turn to the Book. The Bible records how the Lord formed Adam of the dust of the earth, and breathed life into him (Gen. 2:7). He was the first human being, the crown of God’s creation (Ps. 8:5-6). All of humanity comes from him. In Eden, God tested Adam’s willingness to believe and obey Him. But he sinned against his Maker and reaped the promised judgment (Gen. 2:17; 5:5). Not only did Adam begin to age and die physically the moment he sinned, but in his fallen state he was in danger of eternal separation from God. This is true of all of us, since sin’s corrupting effects have been passed on to the whole human race through Adam (Rom. 5:12).

That is the bad news. But the text so maligned by Mr. Laird also gives us the good news–that God, in His amazing grace, has provided a remedy for sin. God the Son took on our humanity and walked among us (Jn. 1:1, 14). His purpose in coming was “to give His life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45). Norman Laird says he does not believe “that Jesus’ death was a sacrifice for sin atonement.” That is his choice. But “what if some [do] not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:3-4).

Of the work of Christ the Word of God says, “Christ died for our sins” (I Cor. 15:3). “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Eph. 1:7). “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God” (I Pet. 3:18). That is the gospel (a word meaning good news!)–that God has provided an answer for all who will receive it by faith. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16). “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).

Each one who trusts in the saving work of Christ is placed into Christ as to his legal standing before God. That is, God views him as having been “in Christ” when He paid sin’s penalty, just as surely as he experienced sin’s corruption “in Adam.” Those who are “in Christ” are credited with His righteousness. “For He [God the Father] made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”(II Cor. 5:21). And “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold all things have become new” (II Cor. 5:17). This is “the righteousness of God, through faith in Christ Jesus, to all and on all who believe” (Rom. 3:22).

Norman Laird’s article includes a dozen other things in the Bible which he says he does not believe. I cannot take the time to respond to them all here, but have tried to deal with his “clearest example.” A careful handling of the text, and a diligent comparing Scripture with Scripture, will answer every one of his concerns. The problem is not with the Bible, but with the spiritual perception of the one who purports to explain it away.

Isaiah 9:3 (textual question)

,

Question: Glenn asks, “In the King James translation, verse 3 [of Isaiah 9] includes the word “not.” ‘Thou has multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy; they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.’ In my New King James Version and other more modern translations, the word “not” is omitted. What is the correct translation according to the original Hebrew?”

Answer: Good question. While I am confident in the absolute accuracy of the original manuscripts of the Scriptures, that is no guarantee that every copy made is free from mistakes. But having said that, we have enough manuscript evidence and other tools that can help us arrive at what God’s Word originally said with precision.

In the case you mention, with the word “not” in there, the verse actually seems to contradict itself, since it goes on to say “they rejoice”! It contradicts the context too–that the people have “seen a great light” (cause for rejoicing). The passage concerns the coming of the Messiah, and particularly His future glorious reign (Isaiah 9:6-7).

The correct rendering, I believe, omits the word “not.” It is a small difference in the Hebrew text, one easily missed by a copier. “Not” = lo’ but the Hebrew lo = to him (i.e. “You multiply the nation, You increase to him joy.”) Another possibility seems to be that the Hebrew word haggil’o was wrongly divided into two words by some copier, with the last syllable, lo, being treated as a separate word. Even a tiny space left by a copier could result in that difference.

Both because of the context, and because of the possible technical transmission problems, it seems best to omit the word “not.” Concerning the Messiah’s millennial kingdom, the Lord later speaks of multiplied joys, “Be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing, and her people a joy. I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in My people; the voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, nor the voice of crying” (Isa. 65:18-19).

My Shepherd Will Supply My Need (Resignation)

,

Question: Gloria asks, “Do you have a story for Resignation also known as “My Shepherd Will Supply My Need”? We are using it throughout Lent. Thanks.”

Shepherd with his sheep

Answer: There is not much information available on the hymn itself. I’ll give you what I know, and also tell you a bit about the author. “My Shepherd Will Supply My Need,” is a paraphrase of Psalm 23. It was written by Isaac Watts and first published in 1719, when he was 45 years old. “Resignation” is not the name of the hymn, but a name given to the tune frequently used with the song. It is a traditional American melody whose origins are obscure.

Isaac Watts (1674-1748) was both a pastor and a brilliant scholar, authoring some 60 books. He was also a hymn writer who has given us about 700 hymns. Considering that he died 260 years ago, it is a measure of the quality of his work that many of his hymns (around 25) are still in common use. Watts is called “the Father of English Hymnody,” because it was by his efforts that the church of his time broke away from singing only the words of Scripture (chiefly psalms). It was believed that to sing anything else in the house of God was a heresy tantamount to adding to the Word of God! But young Isaac argued with his father (a deacon in the church) that to focus on the Psalms meant they were missing important New Testament truths, particularly about the saving work of Christ.

Deacon Watts said sternly, “That old hymnal was good enough for your grandfather, and your father, so I reckon it will have to be good enough for you!” But the son was not to be so easily discouraged. He responded, “Father, I have [a hymn] which is better. Will you listen to it?” And his father was willing to hear what his son had composed. The words were indeed prophetic. The hymn begins, “Behold, the glories of the Lamb, / Amidst His Father’s throne; / Prepare new honours for His name, / And songs before unknown.” History records that Deacon Watts rose from his seat, put his arm around Isaac, and apologized for his hasty words. The congregation sang the hymn the next morning. It was such a blessing the people asked for more. The year was 1692–when Isaac Watts was only 18. But he began turning out one new hymn a week for them, a practice he kept up for years.

A compilation of these (including the hymn you ask about) was published in 1719 with the descriptive title, The Psalms of David, Imitated in the Language of the New Testament, and Applied to the Christian State and Worship. (They went in for long titles back then!) But the title is helpful, because it clearly explains the purpose behind Watts’s work. He had published Hymns and Spiritual Songs a few years earlier (in 1707, and a re-edited version in 1709). I mention that work because it contained the author’s masterpiece, still considered among the greatest two or three hymns in the English language–“When I Survey the Wondrous Cross.”

Watts lived to the age of 75, which was exceptional in that day. But in 1712 he had to retire from pastoral ministry, due to failing health. He went to live with the family of Sir Thomas Abney, and became a tutor to his children. Perhaps the hymn in question was written during his time of infirmity and suffering, which would give it particular poignancy. We know the author laboured from 1700 to 1719 on the book which first contained the hymn in question. When the volume was completed he wrote, “May that God, who has favoured me with life and capacity to finish this work for the service of His churches, after so many years of tiresome sickness and confinement, accept this humble offering from a thankful heart.”

Load More