Opus 2025-361: Monday Pulpit: Just a Passing Fad?

I am often agitated by the way in which people interpret the Bible to reinforce the ideas they came loaded with.  It also makes me wonder how often I do the same thing.

My current radar blip is a reference to the passage in Mark 16 that might have been left out of your modern translation or at least put in brackets.  It contains some really strange ideas as well as standard truths.

Our pastor was commenting on it for some reason.  I don’t remember it having anything to do with whatever topic we were on.  He made two mutually exclusive statements.  The first was a response to this.

(Mar 16:17 KJV)  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

He said that these signs were only for the disciples.  They do not apply any more.  He says this because his theological system must put the power gifts in a category that has passed away.

For some reason he was okay with the next verse,

(Mar 16:18 KJV)  They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I cannot understand why one is no longer in effect but the other is in force.  There is no note in the text that says one applies and the other doesn’t.

It would seem to me that they are either both still in operation or they are both no longer in effect.

But that is just me.

homo unius libri

Opus 2013-365: Basic Beliefs: God Is..., Part 1 of 3

Years ago in a seminary class the professor stated that there are three categorical statements about God in the Bible.  These are in addition to the attributes stated or implied.  These are statements that begin, “God is....”  When I did a search for “God is” in my software I came up with 169 hits.  Most of them are simple statements like “God is giving to us.”  Those obviously don’t fit this category.  Others are more subtle like,

(Deuteronomy 4:31 KJV)  (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

I want to look at the three statements given by that professor.  Interestingly they are all from the writings of John, the last writer and the one with the most time to reflect.  This is not intended as a required doctrinal statement explaining God.  It is simply a look at some of the basics.

The first statement,

(John 4:24 KJV)  God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

First, lets deal with the translation.  In the KJV and other older translations this describes God as “a” Spirit.  Modern translations drop the indefinite article and simply have “God is spirit.”  Greek does not use the articles the way we do.  The definite article, “the,” is used sparingly and seems to indicate emphasis.  The indefinite articles, “a” and “an,” do not exist in Greek so anywhere you see them they are added on the opinion of the translators.

The theological point here is that the eternal God is not a physical being.  When the Son came to earth he was “incarnated.”  That means He crossed a line and took on the physical nature of human beings without giving up the divine nature.  In essence though, it means that we are not to think of God in physical terms. 

There are numerous figures of speech in the Bible that are used to teach us about God.  They help us to understand bigger lessons.  There are times when the word picture is clear in our minds and seems to indicate that God is physical.

(Mark 16:19 KJV)  So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

But if God is not physical, He does not have hands.  It is just as powerful to accept this as a metaphor and learn from it.  Everything is the Bible is not to be taken literally.  How do you know?  Paraphrasing the realtor who asked what was most important, “Three things:  Context, context, context.”Try to understand the Bible in the context of the Bible. 

For example.

(Psalms 91:4 KJV)  He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

Does that mean that God is a chicken?  If you insist that everything is totally literal that is your declaration.  If you accept that this is a metaphor, then don’t insist everything is literal.  Accepting the inspiration of the Word is not the same as demanding a literal interpretation.

More could be said but the first point is that God is Spirit, not material.

To be continued...

homo unius libri