Verse by Verse

The apostle Paul must have been an egomaniac, right? Consider these points:

• In his gospel, the apostle John never refers to himself by name and only once by the personal pronoun “I.” Paul, in his letters, refers to himself by name about 30 times and by personal pronouns a few hundred times.

• Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus is told in detail three times in Scripture (Acts 9:1-18; Acts 22:6-16; Acts 26:12-18).

• Three times, Paul refers to his message as “my gospel” (Romans 2:16; Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 2:8).

• Three times, Paul refers to his message as “our gospel” (2 Corinthians 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; 2 Thessalonians 2:14). The three letters in which this phrase appears are signed by Paul and Timothy and, in the case of the Thessalonians letters, Silas.

• In two places (1 Corinthians 15:1 and Galatians 2:2), Paul refers to “the gospel which I preach(ed). And once to “the gospel which was preached by me” in Galatians 1:11.

• Extensively (Ephesians 3:1-12; Colossians 1:24-29; 1 Timothy 1:12-16) Paul talks about how God chose him especially to take a new message to the Gentiles.

• Paul does something no other apostle dares to do — he tells his readers to pattern their behavior after his (1 Corinthians 4:16; Philippians 3:17; Philippians 4:9).

• Paul uses the word “mystery” 17 times to refer to doctrines that God gave him that had never been given to anyone else.

• Frequently, Paul uses the term “but now” to refer to things revealed by God through him that were previously hidden. For example, Romans 16:25-26.

No other writer of Scripture ties his message and his ministry so closely to his own person. It almost seems like Paul himself is part of the message. That can’t be a good thing, right? Paul must have been conceited.

OR, as is the case, Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to make it very clear that his particular message was new and important and that Paul himself was the key to understanding it.

However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life (1 Timothy 1:16).

Some say that’s Paul message was simply that Gentiles could now be saved as Jews were saved. That is certainly part of it, but just as certainly not all of it. After all, the Old Testament prophets foretold that the Gentiles would someday be blessed (Isaiah 49:6 for example). But those prophecies look to a time, still future, when the Gentile nations will be blessed through Israel during the millennium. Paul’s message — a mystery that was not foretold — is that Gentiles can be saved apart from Israel.

Jesus Christ, when He was on earth, ministered only to Jews (Matthew 10:5-6). The Gentiles were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world (Ephesians 2:12).

Now Jesus Christ, through Paul, makes salvation available to all, Jews and Gentiles alike (Romans 15:8-12).

For Gentiles to be saved during the Old Testament period, they had to become Jews. Now there is no longer a distinction. Both are joined together in the Body of Christ, another revelation given only to Paul. He says: I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God, the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints (Colossians 1:24-26).

Peter spoke of the resurrection of Jesus Christ at Pentecost, but apart from the basic fact of the resurrection, his message wasn’t much different from that of Christ Himself before the cross. It was through Paul that the Lord revealed exactly what Christ’s death and resurrection mean (Romans 5:6-11).

So, a new audience, a new body of believers, a new emphasis on the cross. But that’s not all. Paul also was the messenger of a new way to live.

Salvation, since Adam and Eve, has always been by faith. But prior to Paul’s ministry, that faith had to be demonstrated. In the Old Testament, God made it clear: You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the LORD (Leviticus 18:5). The law was still in effect when Christ was on earth: For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:20).

And for those Jews saved under the kingdom gospel, the law was still in effect after the resurrection, which is why James, in his book to the Jews says, faith without works is dead (James 2:20).

Yes, the purpose of the law was to teach us that we couldn’t be saved by obeying the law but only by trusting in Jesus Christ. But it wasn’t until Paul that this was revealed. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (Galatians 3:23-25).

Now, Paul explains, instead of trying and repeatedly failing to keep a law we are incapable of keeping, we are simply to walk in the Holy Spirit. I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Galatians 5:16).

There are many other aspects of Paul’s ministry. We’ll get to them in a future post on the “mysteries” that he mentions.

The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write the book of Galatians to explain the differences between law and grace. For much of the first two chapters, Paul points to the differences between himself—the apostle of grace—and the twelve, who were still preaching the law as part of the kingdom gospel. The particular law that caused the tension was circumcision, but Paul makes it clear that the issue involved the entire Old Testament law.

Paul had traveled throughout the region of Galatia, a Roman province in what is now Turkey. He had preached his message of salvation by grace through faith and started several churches. After he moved on, Judaizers visited the Christians in Galatia and informed them that they couldn’t be saved unless they were circumcised and observed the Jewish feasts and ceremonies. The Galatians were beginning to waver in their faith. Paul wrote them this letter. He wasn’t happy with the Judaizers or with those who had so soon forgotten his teaching.

Here’s a quick survey of the first two chapters.

1:1 — Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through men, but through Jesus Christ) — Already he’s setting the tone. He didn’t get his authority from men, not even from the other apostles, but personally and directly from Jesus Christ.

1:6 — a different gospel — The word “gospel” means “good news.” It isn’t specific to one message. There are several gospels mentioned in Scripture. (There’s a post on this coming soon.)

1:7 — which is not another — In other words, this other gospel that the Judaizers were preaching to the Galatians was not good news for them (or for us). For the Galatians, this other gospel was a false gospel because it would put them under the law, which would not be good news.

1:8 — But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. — Another reference to there being more than one gospel. Angels frequently delivered messages from God to Israel. They were, in fact, closely tied to the covenant of the Law made between God and Israel only, which was given to Israel by angels with Moses as mediator (John 1:17; Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19.) But Paul was saying that, for the Gentiles, his message is more important than any other message, even if the other message is brought by angels because he was the one God chose to bring the message of grace to the Gentiles. In addition, what we have preached to you puts specific emphasis on Paul as the messenger. Paul repeats this warning in verse 9, but this time puts the emphasis on the hearers — what you have received — referring to what they heard from him.

1:11-12 — But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. — Here is the answer to the question posed at the beginning of my last post as to whether the words of Jesus Christ are more important than the words of Paul. This is just one of many places where Paul makes it clear that his words ARE the words of Jesus Christ. Paul is making it clear that his message came by direct revelation from Jesus Christ. He didn’t hear it from others, including the apostles. The “I” in the statement For I neither received it from man is emphatic in the Greek, suggesting a contrast with the Judaizers who probably professed to come from James (Galatians 2:12). If Paul’s message was not different from that of the twelve, there would have been no reason for separate revelation and no reason why he couldn’t have learned it from them. And, there would be no reason for him to be so adamant when he made this statement.

1:15-16 — But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles … — A clear statement that God called Paul to preach a specific message to Gentiles. In Greek, the word “reveal” means to uncover or to unveil something hidden.

1:16-17 — I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. — Ask yourself why the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write this. Why would it be important for the Galatians to know that Paul didn’t discuss his revelation with the twelve apostles or anybody else? Wouldn’t you think the wise thing for him to do would be to sit under the teaching of others who had sat under the ministry of Jesus Christ Himself and who had been preaching the message for several years IF it was the same message? Paul recognized the authority of the twelve apostles, but declares his independence from them.

1:18-19 — Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.) — Again, why tell us this? Paul says he went to Jerusalem to “see” Peter. That’s a word that is generally used to indicate a visit for the purpose of getting acquainted. (This James wasn’t one of the twelve, but his association with them, by this time, was so great that he was referred to as an apostle in a greater sense. This James had become a leader in the Jerusalem church and wrote the book of James.) The point that Paul was making in these verses about the short duration and limits of his visit to Jerusalem were so important that he followed it up with a strong statement, before God, that he wasn’t lying. This was to counter the claims the Judaizers were making to the Galatians about Paul’s ministry, but also to demonstrate the uniqueness of his gospel.

2:1 — Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. — After fourteen years of ministry, Paul went to Jerusalem. He went to talk to the apostles, and he brought along Titus, who wasn’t circumcised, to show the distinction of his message. Barnabas was a Jew and had been circumcised as a child.

2:2 — And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles … —  “That gospel which I preach” was different from the gospel they were preaching, otherwise there would be no reason for him to communicate it to them. And he didn’t go to make sure he and the twelve were on the same page. He went to tell them what he was preaching.

2:2 — But privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. — Paul knew that the twelve were well known and well regarded for their ministry (and rightly so) to the Jews. If they were to openly oppose his message, his ministry would be less effective. So he traveled, by God’s guidance, to Jerusalem to talk with them privately.

2:3 — Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. — But notice that Titus was set forth as the exception (in Jerusalem). The Holy Spirit had never told the twelve that circumcision and adherence to the law was no longer necessary for Jews saved under the kingdom message. That was still part of their gospel.

2:6 — But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. — This, at first look, was a startling thing to write. Paul seemed to be demeaning the twelve apostles. That wasn’t the case. He was simply making an unequivocal statement that the twelve weren’t the ultimate authorities, and especially not on this issue. Paul was probably refuting the Judaizers who were using the twelve as their authority for undermining Paul’s ministry. Whatever they were has the sense of “what they once were.” At Pentecost and following, until the rejection of the risen Christ by the Jews and the start of Paul’s ministry, the twelve did have ultimate authority. But Paul’s authority came directly from Christ, and the twelve had no authority over him. Paul ended the verse with a clear statement that the twelve added nothing to his message or his authority.

2:7 — But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter — Rather, the twelve recognized Paul’s authority. And note the clear statement that there are two gospels in play here — that for the uncircumcised (Paul’s gospel for the Gentiles) and that for the circumcised (Peter’s gospel for the Jews) Note: the time was not far off — Acts 28:25-28 — when the gospel for the circumcised would be set aside entirely until after the Rapture of the Body of Christ. During the period (which continues today) between Acts 28 and the Rapture, there would be no distinction between Jew and Gentile.

2:9 — And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. — This is a very important verse. Read it carefully. Then read it again. James, Cephas (Peter), and John agreed that their ministry would only be to the Jews. Why is this significant? Because these three men wrote almost all of those New Testament books that appear at the end of the Bible after those written by Paul. This verse makes it clear (because nowhere in Scripture is this information updated, changed, or cancelled) that the books written by James, Peter, and John are for the Jews. Don’t misunderstand me. All Scripture is profitable (2 Timothy 3:16-17). But we have to read it with understanding. This verse, although definitive, doesn’t stand alone. There is plenty of evidence in the General Epistles that support this point. Look at the first verse of James, for example, or 1 Peter 1:1-2.

2:11 — Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. — Even after Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, there continued to be tension. James was zealous for the law (and continued to be so much later—see Acts 21:20) and was apparently encouraging the Judaizers to preach the law. Peter, and even Barnabas (v. 13) were persuaded. And this answers the other question at the beginning of my last post. Paul and Peter weren’t having a power struggle to see whose message would be taught. They were teaching different messages to different audiences, as directed by the Holy Spirit. The problem here is that Peter, for a moment, got the audiences and messages mixed up, and Paul had to set him right.

Paul goes on in the rest of this book to point out the differences between his gospel and the gospel of the circumcision. But our point here is that the Holy Spirit thought it important to take two chapters to explain the separation between Paul and the twelve in clear, decisive language. If it’s that important to Him, we believe we should pay attention and remember the lesson as we read and interpret other Scriptures.

The ministry of the Apostle Paul is, we believe, greatly misunderstood. Coming to grips with his message may be the largest hurdle for most people as they try to understand Scripture.

Some people try to lump Paul with the twelve apostles by claiming that it was wrong for them to choose Matthias to replace Judas — they should have waited until God chose Paul.

Others relegate Paul to secondary status by saying that the things Jesus said are more important for us to follow than anything Paul might have said.

And there are those who see Paul’s ministry essentially as a power struggle with Peter.

Paul can’t be dismissed that easily — or at all. He was given a special ministry to a group of people who, prior to that point, had no connection to God (Colossians 1:21). Those people are Gentiles — anyone who isn’t a Jew. Those people are us. Paul is our apostle. More on this in future posts, but first a look at the twelve apostles.

The twelve apostles were chosen by Jesus to minister with Him to Israel, and only to Israel (Matthew 10:5-7). Their ministry was to preach the kingdom of heaven—the term Matthew uses for the Millennial Kingdom when Christ will be on the throne in Jerusalem and the nations will be blessed through Israel. The apostles will sit on twelve thrones over the tribes of Israel during that kingdom (Matthew 19:28).

Even after Jesus Christ died and rose again, the ministry of the twelve was still about the kingdom (although that message now included the resurrection). In the last conversation that the eleven (minus Judas) had with the Lord before He ascended to heaven, they asked if the kingdom was going to be restored to Israel at that time (Acts 1:6-8). The Lord only told them that the timing wasn’t for them to know, but that they should continue witnessing as they had been — about the kingdom — with the Holy Spirit to empower them. Their ministry was to begin in Jerusalem. Why start in the city that had just days before crucified the king? Because the kingdom message they were preaching made it clear that the world couldn’t be reached until Israel repented. From Jerusalem and Judea, the apostles were to go to Samaria. Why? Because the Samaritans were the remnants of the 10 “lost” tribes, and the rest of the world couldn’t be reached until Israel was reunited.

To jump ahead a bit, the fact that the ministry of the twelve apostles was for Israel explains why you don’t see anywhere in Scripture that they got more than a handful of miles away from Jerusalem. When the Jews in Jerusalem rejecting the kingdom message again — as demonstrated by their stoning of Stephen — the kingdom couldn’t begin, and the rest of the world couldn’t be reached through Israel at that time. That’s why you hear very little about the twelve apostles after Acts 11. Peter gets mentioned a few times, and we hear about the death of James in Acts 12, but that’s about it. (Don’t confuse the apostle James with James the half-brother of Jesus who wrote the New Testament book and shows up in Acts several times.) Peter and John later wrote New Testament books, but the audience for those books was also Israel (Galatians 2:9).

At Pentecost, the twelve apostles were in the Jewish capital, for a Jewish feast, in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, in front of an audience made up entirely of Jews. Their message was completely and totally about the kingdom. Peter explained (Acts 2:16-21) that the prophecies of Joel regarding Israel were being fulfilled that day. He went on to prove that Jesus Christ, whom they had just crucified, was their Messiah (Acts 2:36). He called on the Jews to repent for their sin of rejecting their Messiah and instructed them to be baptized to have their sins forgiven. There was nothing in Peter’s message about grace, nothing about Christ dying in their place, nothing about the blood of Christ.

Pentecost wasn’t the beginning of the Body of Christ, the church of today. It was a message for Israel about the kingdom. It was about the ministry of the twelve.

As for whether the apostles should have waited until the Lord added Paul to their number to replace Judas… When Matthias was chosen, the apostles first prayed and asked for the Lord’s guidance. He demonstrated His will when they cast lots — a common Old Testament method that God used to reveal His will — and He chose Matthias. The apostles didn’t make the choice, the Lord did. In the very next verses, at the start of Acts 2, we read that they were ALL gathered, and the Holy Spirit came upon ALL of them. This could not, and would not, have happened if they had been wrong in choosing Matthias.

Why was a replacement for Judas needed? There had to be twelve apostles because they will reign over the tribes of Israel in the Millennial Kingdom—and there are twelve tribes (Matthew 19:28).

Add to that all the evidence that Paul had a different ministry — which (along with answers to the other questions at the beginning of this post) we will get to in our next posts.

Having determined that the Bible is true and that the truth is knowable, the next question we should ask is how can we know that truth?

We believe this comes down to hermeneutics (from a Greek word meaning “interpretation” or “expert in interpretation”). It basically means the method you use for interpretation.

There are various methods. The one we think makes the most sense is generally called the “literal, historical, grammatical” method. In other words, the text of Scripture is taken to mean what it says literally, the events in Scripture are considered to have happened historically and the words themselves are used in their normal grammatical sense.

How can we be sure this is the correct way? For starters, if something doesn’t mean what it says, it isn’t truth. God can’t claim that His Word is true if He tells us one thing but means something entirely different. (For example, If He tells us that the world was created in seven days each of which had a morning and an evening when what He actually meant is that the “days” were really long periods lasting millions of years during which evolution took place, then He isn’t telling the truth.)

Then there’s the fact that God tells us to stand for the truth, defend the truth, and preach the truth. How can we possible do those things if we can’t know what the truth is — or if the things God Himself tells us aren’t true to begin with?

And if the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, who gets to decide what it does mean? There are those who claim that the gift of interpretation is only given to some — priests or pastors or theologians — and that the rest of us should rely on them to tell us what Scripture means. This was a popular view in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. The Bible was only printed in Latin so that only priests could read it. There are two pretty obvious problems with this approach.

First, if it were true that priests and pastors and theologians have a special insight into biblical truth, there would be a large degree of consensus among them in regard to truth. There is virtually no consensus at all.

Second, there’s Scripture itself.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 — Test all things; hold fast what is good. Context is always important. This verse is at the end of a string of exhortations in which Paul instructs Christians regarding prayer, the will of God, the leading of the Holy Spirit, and the correct approach to prophecy (in this context, Scripture, which includes Paul’s letters to them).

Acts 17:10-12 — Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed.

There are a lot more instructions on studying Scripture, including Psalm 119, 2 Timothy 2:15, and many of the verses we included in our previous post on truth.

We are to search Scripture for ourselves to find the truth. Yes, we should listen to pastors, read commentaries, and talk to other people. Yes, they can help us understand. But ultimately, we as individuals, are responsible for checking what we hear against Scripture to see if what we’ve heard is true.

“But,” many say, “the Bible is filled with figures of speech and allegories and parables that can’t be taken literally.” We believe, for many people, this is just an excuse not to study. For others, it’s a way of “explaining away” uncomfortable verses instead of explaining them.

We all use figures of speech and illustrations in everyday talk and we never have any trouble understanding each other. If someone told you that they found a “boatload” of coins under the cushions of their couch, you would know they were using a figure of speech and that they didn’t actually find enough coins to fill a boat. But you would also know that they had — literally — found a large number of coins.

Not only that, but in most cases in Scripture where visions, allegories, or parables are used, the Bible almost immediately explains them or explains how to interpret them.

One final point. The Bible takes itself literally, which should be our pattern for understanding it. Micah 5:2 says that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. The Messiah was born in Bethlehem. Zechariah 9:9 says that the Messiah would enter Jerusalem riding on a colt. The Messiah entered Jerusalem riding on a colt.

It’s true that a lot of people in Scripture didn’t understand things in Scripture, but in many cases, the Lord made it clear that they should have (John 3:10, for example).

Again, please hear us—we’re not claiming that we do understand everything in Scripture. And we believe that we can’t understand it completely without the help of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:14 — But 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.

To sum up, we believe that Scripture can be understood (with the help of the Holy Spirit) and that the way to understand it is to believe that it means what it says.

The Bible tells us that creation and our consciences clearly prove to us that there is a God. From that evidence, we can know a lot about God. But using those sources alone, we can’t know God. For that, He gave us the Bible. If you don’t accept that statement, than what follows will mean nothing to you.

(To keep this post a reasonable length, we are only going to post a selection of the verses that back up our points. There are many more we could use.)

God inspired men to write the Scriptures. In those Scriptures, He says, unequivocally that His Word is true.

Psalm 119:160 — The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 — For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

God wants all people to know the truth.

1 Timothy 2:4 — Who [God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

God says that we should study the truth.

1 Timothy 4:13, 15-16 — Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Meditate on these things; give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all. Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.

God says that we should obey the truth.

Galatians 5:7 — You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?

God says that we should stand fast for the truth and defend the truth.

Ephesians 6:14 — Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 — Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

God says that we should tell others the truth.

2 Timothy 2:24-25 — And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth.

God says that we will be held accountable for not knowing and believing the truth.

2 Thessalonians 2:12 — That they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

It makes no sense that God would instruct us to stand fast for something we could not know or hold us accountable for not knowing something we can’t understand.

Based on these few verses, we can absolutely, definitively know three things:

1. Scripture is truth.

2. That truth is knowable.

3. We are accountable for knowing it.

Several times in the past year, my wife and I have been talking to others about some point of biblical doctrine and have had them look at us blankly and say, in essence, “There are so many different views. Can we ever know for sure?”

We find this sad.

These are Christians saying this. People who believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose again and that, because of their faith, they are saved and will spend eternity with Him. But that’s about all they believe. They aren’t willing to take a stand on any other point and get very uncomfortable when we do.

We’ve responded with this: “If you tell me I don’t understand Scripture, I am challenged to study more and learn so that I do understand. But if you tell me I can’t understand Scripture, I have no incentive to study at all.” But that doesn’t convince them because a lot of Christians don’t study Scripture. Or at least they don’t study it for themselves. They do packaged studies or go to groups where they hear somebody else read from a packaged study or they go to church and hear a preacher read his packaged seminary notes. For the most part, a lot of believers are afraid to study on their own. While there can be value in any message from Scripture, unless a person digs into the Word on a personal basis, there’s no way the can be sure that what they’ve heard is correct.

During one conversation on doctrinal truth with a young woman, she interrupted us and said “That’s too hard. I want to just go on believing what I’ve always believed.”

Why have so many Christians reached this point?

On the one hand, the cultural emphasis on diversity has crept into Christian circles in the guise of tolerance for others’ doctrinal views. We don’t want to offend anyone, so we don’t take any stand that somebody might take exception to. And anyway, “if they believe the important stuff, what does the rest of it matter?”

The typical church also bears a lot of the blame because the messages present a bad example of how to study and interpret Scripture. In the church we used to attend, the pastor once gave a message on the importance of being in the Word. As we listened carefully, we realized that “being in the Word” to him meant listening to him preach on Sundays — and that was it. We once heard him preach a message from Ezekiel on why the church should have multiple campuses. On another Sunday, the topic was why it was OK for the church to have a major fundraising drive to build a coffee shop — based on Psalm 92.

As people without a background in personal Bible study listen to these messages, they’re being conditioned to think that Scripture can be made to mean anything, or that only those who get paid to study can possibly know what a passage really means.

And we know several Christians who will come right out and say that major portions of Scripture — the creation account in Genesis, the entire book of Revelation, and even parts of Romans — can’t be taken literally. They say that we have to look to science for the facts. They say that much of the Bible has to be interpreted allegorically, or that much of it can’t be understood, or that there’s no way to know the truth.

Yet these same Christians will look to the very Bible that they just completely discredited and point to a few familiar passages, such as John 3:16, and announce, in essence, “This. This is truth. I will stake my eternal destiny on this.” We don’t understand how they can do that. If so much of the Bible can be so readily dismissed, how can they be sure about any of it? How do they know any of what they believe is true?

Please understand. We are not claiming that we have a full understanding of Scripture.

But we believe, as firmly as we believe anything, that we can understand Scripture. In future posts, we will do our best to explain why we feel that way and how we approach Scripture as a result.