Are the last twelve verses of Mark supposed to be there?

Have you ever heard that Mark 16:9-20 are not in the oldest and best manuscripts? Is there a marginal reference in your Bible that says something similar? Has your pastor, teacher, or favorite theologian said so? On what do they base these claims and are they correct? In this brief clip Brother Jonathan goes over all the evidence against the passage and all the evidence for it.

Here are the notes for this question:

___________________________________________________

Are the last twelve verses of Mark supposed to be there?

1. So if we are to think about those copies of the Gospel of Mark, how could we discern the true form of the text? Well, we would first look at all the forms of the text that are shown in the manuscripts. Then we would look at each manuscript and examine its respectability—where was it copied, is there any signs of corruption, etc. That is, if we can determine those things. But we would look mainly at the outside evidence. Did any church fathers quote from the Gospel of Mark? What passages, and how did they reference them? In the early translations, or Versions, of the scriptures, how did they render the passages in question in those Versions? Also, check the lectionaries of the churches and see how they copied the passages in general for reading in the church services. Finally, consider the grammatical structure of the passages. There are rules in grammar, especially in Koine Greek, that can enable you to discern an incorrect copy mistake sometimes. Notice that none of this is left to the opinion of a man.
2. When you really look at these two methods of ascertaining the true textual reading it really does make you wonder why anyone would have any problem in seeing the difference in methodology. Perhaps it’s the people whose authoritative opinion would be undermined that have a problem.

An Example

Let’s consider, as an example, the issue of the last 12 verses of the Gospel according to Mark. Because in some early manuscripts the last 12 verses of Mark chapter 16 isn’t there some people have said that it is not supposed to be there at all. They allege that those 12 verses which appear later—practically everywhere else—were supplied by a scribe. The 12 verses we are talking about are the normal ending of Mark 16 that everyone is familiar with. This is a highly contested passage for some people, and others were unaware there was ever even an issue in the first place. I’ll briefly talk about some points brought up in the discussion.

James White says:

“Only the dreaded, hated [aleph and B] (and one other manuscript) do not have the passage, and even then room is left for it in B.”

So James White here admits that the only manuscripts that don’t have it are those two uncials we talked about at length: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; and also one other manuscript as well. That other manuscript not dating any older than the 12th century.

Just like I said about textual critics, James White says this:

“One must explain the existence of the shorter ending and the use of asterisks and obeli in some manuscripts to set off verses 9 through 20 and the long paragraph’s inclusion in W and the manuscripts that put both endings together. There simply would be no need for all these different endings if verses 9 through 20 were a part of the originally written gospel.” (James White, The King James Only Controversy, p. 318)

My question is WHY do we have to explain all the variations in how the passage is recorded? It has absolutely nothing to do with figuring out which form of the text is the original. Also, White falsely says that this would not happen if the passage in question was in the original. That doesn’t follow, and he bases that on nothing else but his opinion. If the passage was intentionally changed very early on, as we know the scriptures were, and no one else had the original to check either, what should we expect but people trying to patch the obviously missing text? The fact that some scribes tried to patch the ending proves that there was a longer ending there in the first place.

Instead of trying to figure out what led to what, let’s just see that at some point it all diverged into the variants. Because these aren’t variants like normal variants. These are endings several verses long made-up by people who saw that something had been taken out. Now, you read verse 8 of Mark 16 and tell me if you think that’s how God ended this account of the gospel. It wouldn’t have been Mark who screwed something up, unless you deny that God inspired its writing. For someone to say that some theorized different original ending has been “lost”, and many say that, that have to believe and teach that God’s originally inspired text has been lost. That is something that undermines the entire integrity of someone’s view of the preservation of God’s Word. For someone even to say that and to openly teach that God may have permanently “lost” a portion of the Gospel of Mark seems to me intentionally designed to cast doubt upon the written Word of God. And as you’ll see it’s completely without merit.

James White himself states that only 3 manuscripts don’t have an ending longer than verse 8—those MSS dating from the 4th century and the 12th century. Then he states that there are several early Versions that have different endings, and some have critical marks around the passage—none earlier than the 4th century I believe. Next he proceeds to discuss internal considerations (Which are simply people not liking how other people use words most of the time), because as he himself states it—there is no more external evidence.

So the earliest supposed evidence that the traditional passage is incorrect is no earlier than the 4th century. The two early uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus don’t have those verses of Mark. One of them doesn’t have the last 3 chapters of the book of Hebrews either though—but that’s a separate matter.

What is interesting though, is that the earlier of the two codices leaves a space just large enough for this entire passage to be there. It’s the only place in the entire manuscript where the scribe ends a book like that—the only place. Odd that a scribe would just happen to leave a space just large enough for a passage 12 verses long when that passage in question is supposed to have never existed before. It’s also a strange coincidence that the scribe never ends another book in the entire MSS like that anywhere else. It’s almost like it was intentional…odd.

Since that is ALL the evidence against these verses being there according to James White, and he has publicly stated that he believes they aren’t supposed to be there, let’s consider the evidence FOR this passage being there.

In the 4th century (the same century as the earliest against the passage) you have 5 Greek writers that quote from it, one Syriac writer that quotes from it, two Latin Fathers that quote from it (excluding the Vulgate), the Gothic and Memphitic Versions all testifying to this passage being there.

But let’s go earlier! In the 3rd century Hippolytus references from this passage, and both the Curetonian Syriac and the Thebaic Versions bear testimony that in these three different provinces there was no suspicion of this passage.

iii.        But let’s go earlier! In the 2nd century Irenaeus quotes from the passage, and the Peshito and the Italic Versions have it. That means that in Gaul, Mesopotamia, and Africa (a good geographical distance) this passage was received as scripture within 100 years of the original inspired autograph.

To summarize, the earliest Fathers, the most respected early Versions, and ALSO the lectionary evidence all bear witness to the legitimacy of this passage.

There is something very interesting to note at this point. It used to be claimed that a Victor of Antioch was an early source against this passage. John Burgon showed quite succinctly that that was not the case at all. Burgon quotes from Victor of Antioch, and then explains:

This is from Victor of Antioch’s commentary on the Gospel according to Mark: “Notwithstanding that in very many copies of the present Gospel, the passage beginning, ‘Now when (Jesus) was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene,’ be not found (certain individuals having supposed it to be spurious)—yet we, at all events, inasmuch as in very many we have discovered it to exist, have, out of accurate copies, subjoined also the account of our Lord’s ascension (following the words ‘for they were afraid’) in conformity with the Palestinian exemplar of Mark which exhibits the Gospel verity: that is to say, from the words, ‘Now when (Jesus) was risen early the first day of the week,’ &c., down to ‘with signs following. Amen’

Now listen to Burgons comments on this quotation: “And with these words Victor of Antioch brings his Commentary on St. Mark to an end. Here then we find it roundly stated by a highly intelligent Father, writing in the first half of the fifth century—

That the reason why the last twelve verses of St. Mark are absent from some ancient copies of his Gospel is because they have been deliberately omitted by copyists;

That the ground for such omission was the subjective judgment of individuals, not the result of any appeal to documentary evidence. Victor, therefore, clearly held that the verses in question had been expunged in consequence of the (seeming) inconsistency with what is met with in the other Gospels;

That he, on the other hand, had convinced himself by reference to “very many” and “accurate” copies, that the verses in question are genuine;

That in particular the Palestinian Copy, which enjoyed the reputation of “exhibiting the genuine text of St. Mark,” contained the verses in dispute. To opinion, therefore, Victor opposes authority. He makes his appeal to the most trustworthy documentary evidence with which he is acquainted; and the deliberate testimony which he delivers is a complete counterpoise and antidote to the loose phrases of Eusebius on the same subject;

That in consequence of all this, following the Palestinian exemplar, he had from accurate copies furnished his own work with the last twelve verses in dispute…” (Burgon, as quoted in Counterfeit or Genuine?, edited by David Otis Fuller, pp. 56-7)

iii.        Now may I ask, “Does the margin of your Bible mention any of that?” Just to prove a point, let me reread the marginal notes in a few Bible versions:

In my copy of the NLT the margin says, “The most reliable early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at verse 8.” In my copy of the ESV the margin says this, “Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8.” In my copy of the CEB the margin says this, “In most critical editions of the Gk New Testament, the Gospel of Mark end at 16:8.” In the NASB the passage is in brackets. In my copy of the NIV, the 2008 edition, they don’t even try to hide anything. It says in the margin, “Serious doubt exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style, and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost.”

Listen to that! The 2008 NIV says that there are “serious doubts” based upon 2 early uncials, a 12th century MSS, and “vocabulary, style, and theological content”. I want you to ask yourself what objective fact is there in determining another author’s choice of vocabulary or style of writing as being correct or incorrect? Or what gives someone license to say that something should not be there because they don’t believe that the “theological content” is correct? According to who, you? That rests entirely upon your opinion! Given the external evidence which is overwhelming I find myself scratching my head when I read things like this. Now let me ask you, given the evidence that I just went over is there any doubt in your mind about which tips the scale?

Here's our new episode:

Pleading for Truth

In this episode Brother Jonathan talks about pleading for truth, what the scriptures say about truth, the importance of pleading for truth, his testimony of correction on this matter, the Holy Spirit as the spirit of truth, why are people unwilling to be corrected, are we to continue seeking for truth after we've been converted, the question "doesn't the bible have multiple interpretations", answering a matter before you examine it is condemned in scripture, and grieving the Spirit of God.

____________________________________________________

Pleading for Truth

Remnant Bible Fellowship

Episode 21

 

I.                   Introduction

II.               What’s done with the truth:

a.      Serve God in truth (Josh. 24:14) with all your heart (1 Sam. 12:24) and with all your soul (1 Ki. 2:4)

b.      Walk before God in truth (1 Ki. 3:6)

c.       Speak the truth in your heart (Psa. 15:2)

d.      Be lead in God’s truth (Psa. 25:5)

e.       Declare truth (Psa. 30:9)

f.        Be preserved by truth (Psa. 40:11)

g.      Desire truth in your inward parts (Psa. 51:6)

h.      God’s truth is your shield and buckler (Psa. 91:4)

i.        You will be judged by God’s truth (Psa. 96:13)

j.        Choose the way of truth (Psa. 119:30)

k.      Call upon God in truth (Psa. 145:18)

l.        (by mercy) and truth iniquity is purged (Pro. 16:6)

m.   We are to plead for truth (Isa. 59:4)

n.      It is to be sought (Jer. 5:1)

o.      We ought to be valiant for the truth (Jer. 9:3)

p.      It is to be understood (Dan. 9:13)

q.      It’s to be loved (Zech. 8:19)

r.       We must “do” the truth (John 3:21)

s.       Worship God in truth (John 4:23)

t.        Bare witness to the truth (Jn. 5:33)

u.      Truth makes you free (Jn. 8:32)

v.      Abide in the truth (Jn. 8:44)

w.    Jesus is the truth (Jn. 14:6)

x.      The Holy Spirit of God is the spirit of truth (Jn. 15:26; 16:13) who will lead believers into all truth (16:13)

y.      The Word of God is truth (Jn. 17:17)

z.       We are sanctified through the truth (Jn. 17:17, 19)

aa.  The wicked hold, or suppress, the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18)

bb.  The wicked change the truth of God (Rom. 1:25)

cc.   Truth is to be obeyed (Rom. 2:8)

dd.  Truth is to be rejoiced in (1 Cor. 13:6)

ee.   Being sealed with the spirit is contingent on you hearing and believing the truth (Eph. 1:13)—It is a condition of the seal of the Spirit. Violate the condition and lose the Spirit of God.

ff.     The truth is in Jesus (Eph. 4:21)

gg.  The fruit of the spirit is in all truth (Eph. 5:9)

hh. Gird your loins with truth (Eph. 6:14)

ii.      You must receive the love of the truth (2 The. 2:10)

jj.      It’s to be believed (2 The. 2:12)

kk.  God has chosen us, in Christ, through the belief of the truth (2 The. 2:13)

ll.      The church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15)

mm.                    False prophets are destitute of the truth (1 Tim. 6:5)

nn. The truth is to be rightly divided (2 Tim. 2:15)

oo.  You can err from the truth (2 Tim. 2:18)

pp.  You can be ever learning and never able to come to knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 3:7)

qq.  You can resist the truth (2 Tim. 3:8)

rr.    The acknowledging of the truth is after godliness (Tit. 1:1)

ss.    You are to receive the knowledge of the truth (Heb. 10:26)

tt.     Believers are begotten of God by the word of truth (Jas. 1:18)

uu. You can lie against the truth (Jas. 3:14)

vv.  Purify your souls in obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22)

ww.                      The truth is in not in those who don’t acknowledge and confess their sin (1 Jn. 1:8)

xx.  The truth is not in those that do not obey God’s commandments (1 Jn. 2:4)

yy.  The anointing that believers receive of God is truth (1 Jn. 2:27)

zz.   The Spirit is truth (1 Jn. 5:6)

aaa.                      Love in the truth (2 Jn. 1:1)

bbb.                      We can be fellowhelpers to the truth (3  Jn. 1:8)

III.            The Importance of Pleading for Truth

a.      As you consider that lengthy list of things having to do with truth in the scriptures it is quite a sobering thing. This alone should show you the importance of pleading for truth.

b.      Many people quote Acts 17:11, which says, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Few people though seem to understand that just as the Bereans’ searching the scriptures was good to lead them to salvation, even so, after salvation all of us are to continue in the same mindset of examining all things by the word of God.

c.       The Lord said through Isaiah the prophet that in Israel at the time there was none that called for justice or any that were pleading for truth. Many newer translations render the words with a little less force, in my opinion. I don’t believe that it’s just a passing reference to bad court practices by people.

d.      In addition to Isaiah 59:4, in Jeremiah 5:1 it says, “Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.” The Lord here valued a man who sought after truth so much that He offered pardon if the prophet could find one such man in Jerusalem.

e.       The Lord delights in those who plead and seek after truth. Too many people in professing Christianity today have no understanding of what it is to plead for truth. It is a mindset, and an uprightness of heart, that values and desires what is true above all else. It abhors error and lying vanities, and the scripture tells us that no lie is of the truth.

IV.              My Testimony

a.      My grounding in the faith was in the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement—I have since left that denomination. I was deeply grounded in their doctrines, and I even attended a Bible Institute, and later I briefly attended a Bible College. All these were IFB in their statements of faith. If I am to be plain and honest, I value very little of anything that I was taught in these years. One thing I do though, I was taught that the scriptures were the only valid authority for a Christian; and though many groups profess the same thing, in practice they deny it. Every other supposed authority derives their delegated authority only as far as they are in agreement with the true authority of God’s Word. Everything, person, preacher, doctrine, practice, desire, etc., is to be examined by the authority of God’s Word. If it isn’t then it has replaced that God’s Word with itself. 

b.      Now the entire time I was in the IFB movement I was continually praying for God to teach me His truth. I wanted whatever God’s truth was—the problem was that in my mind I esteemed Fundamentalist doctrine to be synonymous with the truth. You see, whatever you hold to be your ultimate standard of truth is what you examine all other things by. This is why many people say, at least in their hearts, “Well I know that isn’t true because it doesn’t line up with what I’ve been taught.” And that thought takes many different forms.

c.       The proper biblical standard of truth, and therefore the proper biblical mindset, is that God is true and His Word is true. God cannot even conceive of a lie we’re told in Titus 1:2, therefore whatever God does, says, and is, is absolutely true. Since the Lord does not change, as He is the same from everlasting to everlasting, neither does truth change. It is not different between people or situations. There is no such thing as “situational ethics” where lying may be appropriate at a certain time in a certain place. If that were true then God could not say that all liars shall be cast into the lake of fire. A lie is a lie regardless of the intended purpose of its use—because the intended purpose is intentional deception.

d.      Neither can God say something through His Spirit that contradicts His written Word, when it is taken in context appropriately. God cannot contradict Himself, He is truth and the source of it. If He were to contradict Himself in any way He would be speaking an un-truth…a lie. The Lord cannot do this, and neither can those who themselves are partakers of His nature through Jesus Christ.

e.       But…after “x” number of years in this movement, through a series of events, I was provoked to go back and examine my doctrine. Not because I believed I was wrong, but because I saw that I had been unwilling to be corrected. IFB doctrine had been esteemed in my mind to be synonymous with truth and right doctrine so therefore it had never been examined by me. I saw the error in this and settled in my mind that though I believed I was correct in my doctrine I wanted to strictly go through the scriptures without presupposing anything and come to an understanding of Biblical doctrine. What could possibly go wrong with prayer, a willing mind for God’s instruction, and the study of the scriptures?

f.        What followed, very quickly I might add, was a very difficult correction. I consistently was seeing fallacies in my reasoning, errors of plain interpretation, errors of grammatical interpretation, things had been assumed as true that had never been proven, conclusions I had assumed to be true that did not follow the reasons that had been given to me. After a certain doctrinal question in particular I was so grieved that I almost couldn’t stop crying for 3 days. I would go to work and as soon as I would walk in I would just start crying. People could see it on my face and would pull me aside and say, “What’s wrong with you?”

g.      I was so unsettled in my mind and spirit towards the Lord because I realized that I had taught and preached before to people these things in Jesus’ name. I had put words, doctrines or teachings, into God’s mouth that He neither said nor intended. These things were so clearly not taught in the scriptures that the only mind that could receive them was either unconverted or unconcerned with the truth. That is a dangerous place to be. I had been unconcerned enough with truth to examine these things. I had not been willing to be corrected, and so therefore I never was.

V.                 The Spirit of Truth

a.      In John 14 we read, “If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you… But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:15-17, 26)

b.      And in John 15:26 we read, “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:” (John 15:26)

c.       And again in 1 John 5:6 we read, “This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.” (1 John 5:6)

d.      The Spirit of God, the spirit that a Christian is born of, is called the Spirit of Truth. We are told by the Lord Jesus that He teaches us the truth and shall guide us into all truth. What then can explain to us the reason why we have so many denominations that contradict each other? I think I can tell you.

e.       In John we read, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17) Now the immediate application of this is directly to Christ’s teaching while He was ministering on the earth and people were examining His doctrine if it was true.

f.        But there is a principle very clearly laid down here: there must be a willing mind in the person before they will receive instruction and discernment. People too many times trust in intuition or feelings and say things like, “As soon as you said that it greatly troubled my spirit,” or, “that doesn’t sit well with me.” While these things are not necessarily wrong in and of themselves, unless there is a SCRIPTURAL reason for these feelings it is foolishness. All conviction of sin and correction will make you feel uncomfortable. The question is whether or not the charge is correct and biblical.

g.      I can count on one hand the number of teachers, preachers, pastors, etc., that I have ever heard actually express a true willingness to be corrected. I say a TRUE willingness to be corrected. Many say that they will believe anything the Bible says but as soon as you point something out you receive hostility. You’ve threatened their pride, reputation, and the safe little kingdom of “their” ministry, by your desire for them to search the scriptures whether these things are so.

VI.              Why is it so difficult for people to be willing to be corrected?

a.      Now why is that the case? Why is it such a difficult thing for people to maintain a desire for truth? I believe I understand a few reasons why it is so:

                                                              i.      People seek comfort. Nowadays it’s very easy to join a church somewhere, get involved, feel the sense of community and belonging, and feel satisfied. Happy, fat, and lazy; without a care in the world. Keep up the status quo because it keeps us comfortable. This is completely contrary to the Acts church. They were constantly examining things, provoking unto greater love and holiness, denying themselves, giving up any claim to the right of a good reputation in the sight of men, and giving up any claim to control of their lives. They were constantly stretching themselves forth to please God more, and to be more zealous for His name and His gospel, to be more zealous for the truth. That is the exact opposite of the maxim today of, “sit back, relax, and enjoy your salvation.”

                                                            ii.      People want to be nice people or good people in the sight of the world, instead of desiring to be godly and holy people. You will find today an insatiable desire to not rock the boat. Church is done today to maintain church, not to glorify God. People want community instead of what the Bible proclaims: persecution. I’m guilty of it just as much as anyone else. We naturally want to avoid trouble. In the world, Christ said, you will have it if you follow Him. The only way to avoid trouble, and to be perceived as just a nice person, is to not follow Jesus wholly. It’s not a buffet, and you can’t pick which commandments or conditions of discipleship you want to act on. Jesus is the truth He said, and it’s either all of it or none of it. You must understand God has called Christians to be holy, not just nice. Not just good people. You see, because a nice person is not going to chase people out of the temple with a scourge of cords—but Jesus did. He was zealous for the truth of God’s name and person, and it moved Him to defend it.

                                                          iii.      I believe that all of these flow out of the same vein, which is pride; and I believe a strongly contributing factor is because they don’t want to be alone. We’ve been deceived today into the mindset that if you’re alone you’re wrong. That’s not what the Bible says. While we are a body of believers, we’re told that we are still members in particular. That is, we are still individuals. There comes a point of apostasy and sin that is necessary to separate from. I believe many churches have passed this point already, and it follows from having no real desire for the truth of God. Many ministers are unwilling to examine things that they might have taught for 25 years. That’s because they’ve exalted their ministry above God’s Word. They care more for their reputations than to please God. That’s why I have so much respect for the boldness of the ones who do receive correction. That’s a man, and ministry, that is founded truly in delighting in God. That’s a man who is walking in the Spirit of truth.

VII.          Why are we to seek for truth after already having been converted?

a.      Someone might think that since they’ve been converted and have already turned from sin to follow Christ that they have no need to seek for truth anymore. “God will tell me if I’m wrong” because “if I be otherwise minded he shall make it known unto me.” All things being equal that would be true. But those who say such things assume one thing: that they’re listening.

b.      How is it exactly that God is going to make known to you that you are in error? A voice? That’s dangerous. Any spirit can speak to you in a still small voice. How do you know its God. You’re told to test the spirits if they are of God. By what? By that which God has already said. Truth is consistent and in unity.

c.       Christ told the Pharisees to search the scriptures because they were that which testified of Him. Paul said the Bereans were more noble because they examined his words in light of scripture. I’ve talked a lot about this in other episodes so I won’t go in-depth now.

d.      The reason that we’re supposed to keep seeking truth is because truth is something that is acted on. It is something that is to be understood, learned, and taught. Any time there is information or principles that must be acted on, understood, learned, or taught, then there is the chance of corruption and error. And since it is your mind that is to understand these things and act upon them you must acknowledge that you are fallible.

e.       You are not complete in your understanding of the Bible, doctrine, or God. And again, every Christian will admit that, but very few act like it. You are fallible. You make mistakes just like me. God is infallible. He never makes mistakes. So which is going to be your ultimate standard of truth, God or man? It could be any man, or even a group of people. A church is nothing more than a group of fallible people. A pastor, teacher, preacher, evangelist, commentator, whatever, is nothing more than a man. That’s why every one of these people, or groups of people, are to be examined by that which is infallible.

f.        To not be examining all these people by God’s Word is to exalt them over God. This is exactly what Christ told the Pharisees. He said, “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:9) This is exactly what we do in churches nowadays. People don’t search the scriptures to see if what their pastor or church doctrines are what the Bible actually says. We’re taught to be immoveable stones for our church or denomination, and that’s wrong. We are to be immoveable servants of Christ, and those two things are not synonymous.

g.      I really challenge you to examine your thought processes when you read the scriptures, study them, or listen to your favorite teacher or minister: are you really testing them? Or is it that you are just receiving what they’re saying?

VIII.       Aren’t their multiple interpretations?

a.      At this point I’ll address a very common argument that comes up. People often say, “But the Bible can be interpreted any number of ways.” That’s true. Any written document can be interpreted any number of ways. This kind of philosophy is called “deconstructionism.” And I’ll tell you right now…it’s ridiculous. Someone who actually holds to deconstructionism is someone who really just doesn’t want to have be morally bound by anything, especially not God.

b.      Regarding this viewpoint, Dr. Jason Lisle says:

                                                              i.      “A given text has an unlimited number of potential interpretations, but it has only one meaning. Thus, it is reasonable for us to define the term ‘correct interpretation’ as ‘the interpretation that matches the meaning of a text’—the one that is faithful to the author’s intention. All other interpretations will be ‘faulty’—that is, they are not true to what the passage means. Since communication involves the transmission of an idea, and since communication is only achieved when the recipient understands the meaning, it follows that only a correct interpretation of a text accomplishes genuine communication. Anything else is merely introspection.” (Lisle, Understanding Genesis, p. 29)

c.       The fact of the matter is that though a passage can be interpreted any number of ways it has, by necessity of its design, only one correct interpretation: the one the author intended to convey to the reader. We are not free to say, “What does that verse mean to you?” I really don’t care what it means to you, what does it mean to God? The correct interpretation of the scripture will always be constrained by the rules of grammar, logical consistency, and the proper historical context. Let me briefly state why I chiefly mention these three things:

                                                              i.      Grammar is important because God chose language to convey His intended message and commandments to men. “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” Peter said. Since it is then God the Spirit speaking through men, and directing what they had written, grammar would then be expected to be followed accurately. When this is violated in interpreting scripture you get such results as the “now faith” movement.

                                                            ii.      Logic is important because God does not make any errors in reasoning. All true wisdom and understanding come from Him. Some people believe that the study of logic is a science man created, and this shows that they have never actually looked into the matter. Logic is the science of reasoning; it’s not rhetoric or homiletics. It is a science that was developed by observing things ordering things in a consistent manner so as to lead to a conclusion that follows properly from the arguments presented. If there is one thing that I wish would be required for all pastors, teachers, evangelists, and missionaries, it would be that they studied at least basic logic. Most false interpretations would be cleared up quickly in their minds if they actually applied them. Sadly though, even most of the men who have studied it don’t actually apply it to their own doctrine.

                                                          iii.      A proper historical context is absolutely necessary for understanding the Bible for a number of reasons. Some people take phrases like “Holy Ghost” and they look up in a modern dictionary the words. They see that ghost has something more to do with a spirit of a dead person. Then they say, “See, this Bible version is endorsing necromancy and teaching that God is dead!” Do you see the error? That’s a real example of someone’s bad bible study practices that I found on Youtube. You must interpret things first in their proper historical context. You see, if that person had simply checked to see how the word “ghost” was defined at the time it was written then they would have seen that it was merely synonymous with the word “spirit”. There are specific customs, cultural practices, terms, and figures of speech that were used in time past that if we interpret in modern terms would lead to foolishness. I’ve seen a History channel special try to say that the early Christians might have had some homosexual ceremony before because of ridiculous practices like this.

d.      Perhaps at another time I’ll do a series on Bible interpretation and study practices, but for right now you should get the basic idea that a lot of times people misinterpret the Bible because they don’t actually know what they’re doing. Even a well-meaning believer can do great damage because they don’t have the tools to understand their Bible. Some denominations, such as the one left, almost come to point of refusing to allow you to use such things. The reason being because if you did learn them you would probably see the error of the entire denominations statement of faith pretty quickly.

e.       But just remember this before we move on, if you hold fast to the true biblical mindset that God is true and His word is true then you will be more concerned with correctly interpreting it. You will be more motivated to understand the Bible’s truth than for preserving a reputation, a denomination, or a church ministry. Let all those things be cast away if they get in the way of you staying true to God’s Word.

IX.             One last thing

a.      Unfortunately I can’t spend endless time going into things. But I would like to point out one very important verse clearly before wrapping things up. Proverbs 18:13 says, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” You see in that verse is the majority of people who profess Christ. They don’t really want what’s true, they just want community or comfort.

b.      If you want what’s true, if you plead for truth and seek it, then anytime someone comes to you and says, “You know you’re doing this or believing that and it’s contrary to the Bible,” then your response is not a dismissive, “Well that’s your interpretation.” It’s not, “Well I’m glad that works for you and that the Lord has led you that way but it’s not what works for me.”

c.       Do you understand that in those statements is a denial of God’s very unchanging nature? Do you realize that it denies that God has given us His word to be our plumbline and our guide? The Psalmist didn’t write, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path…unless its contrary to what I want or believe.” Proverbs 23:23 says, “Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.”

d.      You see people may say that they don’t know everything but they act like it. Especially church people. Especially pastors, preachers, and teachers. I’m not trying to just be insulting but I’m just stating a fact. They answer a matter before they hear it. If you try to talk to people with this mindset at the best you get a quiet little nod and a smile on their face that says, “Oh poor little soul that has no understanding.” You know why I can say that’s exactly what’s going through their head? It’s because that’s why my mindset used to be. I learned it from them. Most people sincerely believe it too.

e.       They think that they’ve got a handle on the scriptures because they read so-and-so’s book on the subject whose book is sold through CBD so they’ve got it. They heard that series of sermons their pastor did so they got it. They went through a discipleship program so they got it. They went to Bible College so they got it. Let me relate an encounter I had some months ago to you, and this might make some people who are listening to stop listening. And before I relate it to you let me tell you that the proper response to a challenge of your doctrinal beliefs is not, “Well he’s wrong,” it’s, “Why does he believe that, and is he right?”

f.        But some months ago I was at work—I work in a big postal facility. A certain older fellow who had been through 4 years of Bible College of the denomination that I had left was working next to me. Now, I had intentionally been trying to avoid certain subjects because I don’t go looking for an argument usually…usually. This fellow, who is a very nice guy I’m not saying that the guy is someone you can’t get along with, he asked me the one question that I did not want to have a conversation about. He saw that I carried my Bible around, and he ascertained that I was someone who desired to study and understand things so he naturally would ask what I thought this or that. He just never got a normal churchgoer response from me. But the question that he asked me was, “Do you believe in eternal security?”

g.      What then ensued was 45 minutes of me trying to do my work while this fellow grilled me with arguments and reasons why it was true. What he was unaware of was the fact that I had once believed the doctrine much deeper than him and had been taught it better than him. I had, at that point, spent about 4 years studying out the issue from beginning to end and had quite simply reduced the arguments and supposed supports for the doctrine to nothing. He would give a small lecture or reason and I would refute it with a verse of scripture and a sentence. He would do another small lecture and reason, and I would do the same. Well, after about 45 minutes of this he stopped talking and was quiet for a minute. Then he looked me right in the eyes and said very soberly, “If that’s true…then it makes me very afraid.” I looked him right in the eyes and replied very calmly, “It’s supposed to.”

h.      Now do you think I made a lasting impression on him? Not really. You see, in the entire conversation there was not a single moment where he expressed a real desire to simply just be in the truth. What I have found is that most people who are backed into a corner by the scriptures, and they come to the point where they don’t have any more reasons to give…they simply just keep believing what they want anyways. Now can I ask you a question? Are you listening to what I’m saying and turning it over in your mind, or are you stuck thinking “he’s wrong about eternal security being unbiblical.” Are you seeking truth, or just what keeps you comfortable?

X.                 Grieving the Spirit

a.      Before I end this episode let me point out something from the scriptures regarding truth. I went over the passage in John 14 and 15 earlier where the Spirit of God is called by Jesus Christ the Spirit of Truth who will lead believers into all truth. If the Spirit of God is the Spirit of truth, who teaches believers the truth, leads us into all truth, and as John said in 1 John 5:6 He IS truth…what do you think happens when you refuse to be corrected?

b.      Consider these verses: “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” (Eph. 4:30) See, most people pay attention to only part of this verse. The question that came to my mind was why we are not to grieve Him, and upon what conditions was I sealed. You see all promises of God are conditional. Salvation is conditioned upon your exercising faith in God. If salvation wasn’t conditional then it would universal because there would no distinguishing between why should be saved and another shouldn’t be.

c.       So when is a believer sealed with the Spirit of God and upon what conditions? Well, thankfully, Paul answered that question. In Ephesians 1:13 we read, “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise…” and in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 we read, “But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.”

d.      What we see here is that after you hear the truth, and believe it, you are sealed with the Spirit of God, the spirit of truth. It is because you believe the truth that you are sealed with the spirit of God. Some people try to say that it is just the gospel that is being referenced ultimately. Well let’s consider some things:

                                                              i.      Paul said the Galatians had been removed from Christ unto another Gospel (Gal. 1:6) and that they had ceased to obey the truth (Gal. 3:1; 5:7) the result being that they had fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). And it is not just saying that they lost their blessing from God because it specifically states that Christ was become of no effect unto them. Christ’s sacrifice was no longer applicable to them as long as they continued believing a false teaching about salvation.

                                                            ii.      In 2 Timothy 2:18 Paul said, “Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” The Greek word for “overthrow” here is “anatrepo”, meaning, “to cause something to fall or be overturned.” What happens when a court verdict is overturned? It’s reversed and undone. Did you know that the term “justification” is a legal term? Here Paul is saying that your state before God can be overthrown, overturned, reversed, undone by believing a false teaching. This one Paul specifically mentions is denying the future resurrection of believers. He states very specifically that believing that there is no future resurrection of believers undoes your right state before God.

e.       This is just two such examples from the scripture that demonstrate how important it is for you to plead for truth. You must plead for truth. You must seek it from God in His word with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Not because of a checklist salvation that says, “If I do a-b-c then I’m right with God.” No, we’re right with God by a living confidence in Jesus Christ and His atonement—that’s called faith. But what you put your faith in is derived from the word of God; and if you get it wrong then you put your faith in that which cannot save you. The difference between those who plead for truth and those who don’t…can be the same as the distance between the Kingdom of God and Hell.

f.        I strongly urge you to make God’s word your true compass, and cast everything that tries to come between you away.