John 3:3 - If someone is not born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Did you choose to be born the first time? Did you make a personal decision to accept your parents so that they would become the temporal lords of your youth? Then how could being "born again" possibly involve any choice or decision of your own?
It is truly amazing that "evangelicals" so rarely quote Jesus' own explanation of this statement just two verses later: "if someone is not born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." The reason why they ignore this should be obvious: "by water and Spirit" refers to water baptism, whose importance they consistently minimize.
It is equally amazing that "Bible believing" Christians can speak so incessantly about altar calls and prayers of commitment, of which Holy Scripture knows nothing, and ignore the many apostolic testimonies on baptism: Acts 2:38, Galatians 3:27, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21, etc.
Revelation 3:20 - Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If someone hears my voice and opens the door, I will go in to him and dine with him, and he with me.
How can so many "evangelicals" quote this as a prooftext for how to make a "decision for Christ," when Jesus spoke it to someone who was already a Christian?
This sentence's real purpose was to encourage members of corrupt churches (in this case Laodicea, which was "neither hot nor cold," 3:15-16) to remain faithful. In context, "opening the door" clearly refers to welcoming Christ's presence in the church, not in an individual believer's heart.
The word translated "dine" in 3:20 is the same one used in the Lord's Supper accounts (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:25). Holy Communion, not personal decisions, personal experiences, personal prayer, or "accepting Jesus as your personal Savior," is the appointed means to keep us close to Christ.
Modern Protestantism's obsession with "personal" is its principal heresy.
Matthew 5:48 - Then you will be complete, as your heavenly Father is complete.
What outrageous burdens have been laid on Christians by this verse, as though it were up to them to make themselves acceptable to God! God doesn't expect anyone to be "perfect" (the traditional translation); indeed, it can't be done! Jesus himself was cursed by the Law (Gal. 3:13); does anyone really imagine they can do better than Christ himself? Paul employed the same Greek word (teleioi) to describe himself and various members of the Philippian congregation (3:15), thus it does not denote a characteristic unique to Jesus or deceased saints.
In context, what Jesus is actually discussing here is one essential kind of completion, namely, love for enemies as well as for friends (Matt. 5:44). Misunderstanding this concept is one of the most dangerous errors Christians can commit, given the prominence of love in basic definitions of the faith (e.g. John 3:16 and Mark 12:29-31). Most "conservatives" teach that agapé excludes sexual and romantic love (but see Gen. 24:67 and Song 2:4-7), and some have excused various forms of bigotry and prejudice. Most "liberals" demand toleration to the point of offering forgiveness without true repentance, and condemn any form of rebuke or discipline as "unloving" (but see 1 Cor. 13:6 and Heb. 12:6). Almost everyone winces at Psalm 139:19-24, which boldly commends hatred as a virtue. The seeming contradiction between the latter and the Sermon on the Mount is resolved when it is noted that David approved hating God's enemies, while Jesus condemned hating personal enemies.
In practicing the former, it is essential to note that Christian hatred does not take the form of revenge, but of disassociation (Matt 15:14; Rom. 16:17; 2 John 10). What a waste of time, as well as a distortion of the church's mission, it is when churches organize demonstrations and boycotts against, say, abortion or racism! God has given abortionists, racists, and other hardened sinners over to a depraved mind (Rom. 1:28), and we have permission to do the same. For everyone else, the simple rule is: treat everyone by the same standards, yourself as well as others, family as well as strangers, close friends as well as people who don't like you.
Exodus 20:7 - You will not receive the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Where did people get the idea that future indicatives are commandments to be obeyed by us? Does anybody believe that "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43) was a command to the thief, that he should do something to get himself into fellowship with Christ? The Decalogue is not a list of ten commandments, but of ten promises. Each states what happens to people who have been brought out of bondage of every kind, physical and spiritual (Ex. 20:2).
And in what dictionary does "take" (the traditional translation in place of "receive") mean "speak"? According to most modern Christians, this verse is primarily a prohibition of such expletives as "Oh my God!" or "Jesus H. Christ!" By extension, it is used to make the expunging of "dirty words" from the public media one of the chief tasks of the church.
God's name is not "G-o-d" or "J-e-s-u-s," and certainly not the various "four letter words," falsely called "swear words," concerning which even non-Christians are so paranoid. God's identity is the sum of his attributes, words, and deeds. "You will not receive his identity in vain" simply means that those who trust in his mercy, especially as displayed in the work of Jesus Christ, will receive much more than a set of theories. Forgiveness of actual sins, liberation from coercion and false expansions of "commandments," and confidence amidst life's darkest terrors really does change people, both now and forever!
Matthew 5:28 - Everyone who looks at a woman to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
How many people, especially males, have been falsely terrorized by this verse! Sexual fantasy, "girl watching," nudity in artwork, and sexually oriented literature (not just "pornography") are condemned as the most notorious of sins, and many church bodies view the enforcement of "decency standards" in society as a central part of their mission.
Textually, the problem with this verse is very simple. The word here traditionally translated "lust" (epithumeó) is the same word translated "covet" in the Tenth Commandment (Ex. 20:17; Deut. 5:21). In the past, these words were synonyms; "lust for power" meant the same thing as "coveting an office." But in modern English, lust has come to denote sexual desire, while coveting retains its traditional association with greed. As a result, whatever "to lust after her" would condemn that "to covet her" would not is contrary to Jesus' intentions.
No rational person calls it coveting when someone admires the beauty of his neighbor's automobile, imagines in his mind's eye what it might be like to drive or own such a vehicle, or even considers how by lawful transactions he might gain possession of such a vehicle. To covet a neighbor's car means to develop serious plans to steal the car outright or to obtain it fraudulently, as by filing a frivolous lawsuit to force him to sell it. If such plans succeed, the person is also violating "You will not steal," but even if he fails, the person will still have sinned in making the attempt.
The same principles apply to coveting a neighbor's wife. A plot to seduce her into bed is coveting; admiring her pretty figure isn't. If a man stalks a model or actress in order to coerce sex from her or break up her marriage, that is indeed coveting her, but simply enjoying her in a centerfold or a nude scene from a film isn't. "Love does nothing wicked to the neighbor, so love is the fulfillment of the law" (Rom. 13:10).
Judges 21:25 - In those days there was no king in Israel; each man would do what was correct in his sight.
Many modern readers assume that "in those days there was no king in Israel" (also Jgs. 17:6, 18:1, and 19:1) is an indication of an anarchic, lawless period, and thus conclude that "each man would do what was correct in his sight" describes the use of self-determined, and thus sinful, moral codes. But in fact, Israel's later desire to have a king was judged to be evil by the Lord and the prophet Samuel (1 Kgdms. 8:4-9). As a result, the last sentence in the book of Judges constitutes an approval of the social order of that era, in which people were personally doing what was correct, rather than doing what merely seemed correct to them personally.
This is demonstrated in the preceding story of the Levite's concubine. Here one finds an almost unparalleled account of unity in Israel, as they purged sin from their midst without any preceding admonition from a judge or prophet (20:8-11) and followed the Lord's guidance even at tremendous cost (20:18ff.). Humans claim to love liberty, but in practice are so afraid of it that they are constantly seeking the mythical benevolent dictator of state or church. The people described in the latter part of Judges were the rare exception. Ancient Greece may well have been the first democracy, but ancient Israel was the first "sweet land of liberty."
Matthew 10:29 - Not one [sparrow] will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
Literal English versions (such as King James) translate this verse as above, but most others find it appropriate to modify the concluding phrase.
The majority (such as New International and New King James) read "apart from the will of your Father." This reflects a Stoic or fatalistic view of life, according to which most if not all events are predetermined by a divine decree. Such a philosophy usually configures Christianity as obedience to a sovereign Lord who commands, rather than faith in a gracious Savior who permits.
A few (such as Revised English) insert a reference to God's knowledge rather than his will. Scripture clearly teaches that God knows all things (1 John 3:20); nowhere does it say that he predetermines all things. The fact that God is able to predetermine something does not mean that he actually predetermines everything. He certainly did not predetermine how Adam should name the animals (Gen. 2:19). Sadly, the latter event, a rare portrait of God's intended relationship to a person who at the time was neither a sinner nor a divine incarnation, plays virtually no role in the major Christian theological systems.
Matthew 16:18-19 - You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.
Most Christians get this verse wrong because they assume that "church" here means every believer of every place and time. Roman Catholics, correctly recognizing that something unique was given to Peter, conclude that he (and his alleged successor, the bishop of Rome) rules all Christendom. Protestants, in order to escape the papacy, assert that Peter represents every Christian, which would have the church impossibly founded upon itself. Protestantism is not the opposite of the papacy, but rather the papacy gone wild ("fearlessly pastoring themselves," Jude 12), with personal experiences, testimonies, and prayers superceding group sacraments, common creeds, and public liturgies.
In fact, at least 90 out of the 112 occurrences of ekklésia in the New Testament (including Matt. 18:17, the only other time Jesus used the word) refer to specific congregations. In Matthew 16, Jesus is simply establishing that congregation whose work is chronicled in the early chapters of the Apostolic Acts. This text explains why Peter, as opposed to any other apostle or believer, presided over the election of Matthias (Acts 1), delivered the Pentecost sermon (Acts 2), and disciplined Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5). What prevents Peter from becoming a pope is his necessary association with fellow ministers ("standing with the Eleven," Acts 2:14) and the entire believing community (Acts 1:15). Every "presiding elder" (1 Tim. 5:17) holds Peter's office in his particular congregation, established in imitation of the first one.
Let every Christian recognize that his clergyman is his spiritual supervisor (1 Pet. 5:2), not his equal, much less his slave. Let every clergyman recognize that he is the servant of his flock (1 Cor. 3:5), not its lord. And let everyone recognize that "the group in Christ's name" (Matt. 18:20) is above any individual.
1 Corinthians 6:19 - Don't you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is among you?
Paul cited this principle to condemn prostitution, a sin which primarily harms the individual who commits it (6:18), in contrast to rebellion, murder, adultery, stealing, and lying, which primarily harm others. An astonishing number of Christians have removed this verse from its context and employed it as an excuse to require or forbid all manner of physical activities. Many of their prohibitions (such as those against tobacco, alcohol, and high cholesterol foods) directly contradict Jesus' assertion that what goes into a man does not defile him (Mark 7:18).
Aiding in the misunderstanding of this verse is the failure to notice that "you" and "your" are plural. Paul's emphasis here is not on the individual human body, but the corporate body of Christ. Prostitution is the sexual equivalent of salvation by works; in both cases, love is not given freely, but only when some prerequisite payment is made. The prostitute mindset thus threatens to destroy the very essence of the Christian church. To teach that a person must perform some act of piety, personal reformation, or charity in order to be saved is nothing less than to make God into a whore, with the church as his (her?) pimp!
James 5:15 - The vow of the faith will save the weary one, and the Lord will raise him.
An incredible number of Protestants, who claim not to believe in salvation by works, teach exactly that by attempting to use prayer as a means of conversion (the ubiquitous "prayer of commitment") and of miraculous healing (the chief goal of what is commonly called "the power of prayer"). The main "prooftext" for the latter idea is the widespread mistranslation of the above verse as "the prayer offered in faith will heal the sick."
Few seem to have noticed that the word here translated "prayer" (euché) never has that meaning anywhere else in Scripture. Its only other NT occurrences (Acts 18:18 and 21:23) are exclusively translated "vow" in all major English versions; the Latin Vulgate is similarly inconsistent in rendering "votum" in the latter verses, but "oratio" in James. Both Acts texts refer to optional commitments made by Christians, rather than petitions for miraculous benefits. Those divine blessings which are mentioned as the basis for certain vows (e.g. Jacob's in Gen. 28:20) were overtly promised by God, not merely wished for by men.
Nowhere in Scripture are believers guaranteed physical healings or other temporal miracles. Virtually all miracles in the Bible occurred during three narrow periods: the careers of Moses and his successor Joshua, Elijah and his successor Elisha, and Jesus and his successors the apostles. The vast majority of biblical era believers received no personal physical miracles; on what basis do Christians today demand anything different? Jesus himself never prayed for the sick, nor indeed for any of his miracles, neither did he ever direct anyone else to do so. "Power of prayer" advocates consistently fail to explain why Christians continue to get sick, suffer from accidents and natural disasters, and die, if indeed miracles to overcome these conditions are as easily available as they allege. Tragically, many Christians who pray and don't receive the expected temporal blessing conclude that their personal faith or prayer technique must be inferior to that of the "prayer warriors" who claim miraculous experiences.
When rightly translated, James' intention should be obvious. Christians have constructed numerous "vows of the faith" throughout history, by the use of which their weary souls are relieved. Every creed, every liturgy, and every hymn which accurately presents the Christian Gospel is a vow of the faith. Like the vows in the Acts of the Apostles, specific creeds, liturgies, and hymns have not themselves been mandated by God; only "the faith" which these texts portray has been commended to us. Nevertheless, when a Christmas carol reminds us of Jesus' incarnation, by which our lives become linked to the eternal life of God, or an Easter hymn reminds us of Jesus' resurrection, through which our own resurrection is assured, the weariness of our supposedly meaningless lives is taken away, and we are lifted out of the various traps (sin, death, despair) into which we have fallen.
It must go down as one of Christian history's greatest ironies that prayers for conversion and unpromised miracles, of which the Bible knows nothing, are held to be essential by many "Bible believing" Christians, whereas creeds and liturgies full of biblical quotations and concepts are rejected by the same as mere opinions or traditions of men.
Matthew 22:30 - In the resurrection they neither marry nor give in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Modern Christianity doesn't have a clue as to what this verse means, since the words "marriage," "angel," and "heaven" have all been radically redefined. Biblical "marriage" was merely a custom, not a divine command, in which a father gave his daughter permission to cohabit with a man (Gen. 29:22-23). "To marry" was the groom's act of seeking such permission, and "to give in marriage" was the father's approval. Jesus is simply saying that, in the future, this custom will no longer be observed. In no way is he suggesting the cessation of physical intimacy.
The latter assertion has been enabled by an unbiblical definition of aggelos as a sexless, bodiless, winged, supernatural creature. Long ago, someone apparently got the aggeloi confused with the cherubim, and ignored or mistranslated passages which affirm the physicality and humanity of angels (Gen. 19:1; Mark 1:2; Luke 9:52). Many aggeloi may well be "glorified" human beings, returning to earth temporarily in the manner of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3), but they still look, talk, eat, and touch the way humans do. If the latter actions do not prove that the aggeloi are not disembodied spirits, how can they prove that the risen Christ is not similarly disembodied?
It is almost universal for modern Christians to employ "heaven" to mean "the afterlife," and that usually means a disembodied one. In fact, nowhere in Scripture do people "die and go to heaven." The meek shall inherit the earth, not "heaven" (Matt. 5:5). The kingdom of the heavens, according to the parables of Jesus, is the church here on earth. Or does anyone expect to find weeds (Matt. 13:24), unforgiving servants (Matt. 18:23), and foolish virgins (Matt. 25:1) in "heaven"? "Angels in heaven" thus actually means "messengers in the church."
The aggeloi to whom Jesus is referring may well include the first ones mentioned in Scripture, namely the "sons of God" who took the daughters of men as wives (Gen 6:2; in the oldest major Greek manuscript, Codex Alexandrinus, the reading is "the angels of God"). This text simply notes how the godly men at that time took wives by mutual consent, without additional permissions of families, churches, or states. The reduction of these people's life spans to the modern upper limit of 120 years is a blessing rather than a curse (who wants to live for centuries in a fallen world?). That the children of these unions became corrupt (indeed, they provided the occasion for Noah's Flood) no more testifies against the parents or their manner of union than the behavior of Esau testified against Isaac and Rebekah.
Hebrews 9:27 - It is reserved for men once and for all to die, and after that justice.
By a series of misentailments, "traditional" theologians have transformed this verse into a prooftext that God cannot return a soul to earth by the physical conception process. Such commentators assume that believers remain sinners or otherwise spiritually defective (contradicting, among other texts, Psalm 1), and then regard apostolic counsels to believers as though they are threats. The verb translated "reserved" is held to indicate some implacable fate, "men" means humans according to their "natural" or unsaved condition, "die" refers to physical death, and "justice" is rendered "judgment," based on the notion that Christians, regardless of such promises as Romans 8:1, will be prosecuted in the future by a wrathful deity.
In fact, "reserved" is the same verb employed by Paul when he asserted that "the crown of righteousness is now reserved for me, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will grant to me on that day" (2 Tim. 4:8). The author of Hebrews is referring to the same idea, that the Lord's judgment is in favor of his people, bringing them justice and vindication, not condemnation. In general historical accounts, "men" and "die" are indeed employed for all humans and physical death, respectively. However, in theological contexts, unbelievers are not really "men," but dogs (Matt. 7:6; Rev. 22:15), serpents (Matt. 23:33), and irrational animals (Jude 10). Similarly, the preferred terms for a Christian's physical demise are "fallen asleep" (Acts 7:60, 1 Thess. 4:13) or "sleeping" (Mark 5:39). The death reserved as a gift for Christians is that which takes place in baptism, when we are buried with Christ (Rom. 6:4) and die to sin, and that "once and for all" (Rom. 6:10).
The idea that God can return a soul to earth by the physical conception process is frequently confused with the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation. The latter returns humans to earth in order to endure punishments for mistakes in previous lives and to advance toward spiritual "enlightenment," which when complete allows them to enter a final disembodied afterlife. Ironically, the very "Christian" teachers who vigorously deny that a soul can be reborn on this planet end up agreeing with the purpose of Hinduism, namely, that God similarly enables a person to save himself by a long series of "spiritual" acts in the current age, a purgatory, or a "left behind" tribulation period, with a disembodied afterlife to follow.
"Traditional" Christian theology has always struggled to explain Jesus' blunt assertions that John the Baptist was Elijah (Matt. 11:4, 17:12-13). This can't merely mean "a prophet like Elijah" or "brave like Elijah," for John was compared to no other prophet or brave Old Testament character. John didn't consciously remember being Elijah (John 1:21), yet he had his spirit (Luke 1:17; compare Matt. 3:4 with 4 Kgdms. 1:8), that which leaves the physical body at death (Eccl. 12:7; John 19:30). Of course, even such a singular "conception from women" by itself means little compared to the conception wrought by God's spirit (John 3:5), thus "the least in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he" (Matt. 11:11). Yet imagine what having both citizenship in that kingdom and a physical resurrection (which no Scripture restricts to resuscitation of corpses) will mean for us!
1 Corinthians 15:19 - If we have hoped solely in this life in Christ, we are more pitiable than all men.
This verse provides another example of what happens when statements are disconnected from their contexts. In common parlance, many Christians use the phrase "this life" to indicate their present state of existence, in contrast to "the next life" following their physical deaths. When the former idea is read into this verse, it serves to condemn setting one's hope solely on one's current existence. It is certainly true that the Christian hope is directed at eternal life, but to disparage our current existence is not the intended sense of this passage.
The meaning of "this" or "that" in any sentence is governed by antecedent ideas in nearby (usually immediately preceding) sentences. For example, "this passage" at the end of the previous paragraph must mean 1 Corinthians 15:19, since no other passage has been mentioned in the adjacent context. "This life" thus does not automatically refer to existence prior to physical death, but to whatever phase of existence Paul has just discussed. The specific "life in Christ" Paul had in mind according to 1 Corinthians 15:18 was, ironically, the very phase of existence many modern Christians think is the proper object of their hope, namely, a disembodied afterlife. The estate of being "asleep in Christ" is hardly hell, but neither is it the proper Christian hope. If life in the age to come consists of a disembodied estate, we are indeed more pitiable than all men. Such a notion would mean that Christians, the very people who believe in the Lord, will never share his resurrection or use his creation as he intended. For what are we then believing in him?
"Those fallen asleep in Christ" simply means "Christians who have died." This phrase does not suggest that a person's soul exists for any period in a bodiless condition, whether consciously or unconsciously, whether in bliss, purgation, or damnation. Neither does Scripture know of anything called "the last judgment," which would imply that some preliminary judgment takes place at physical death followed by centuries in a disembodied afterlife. Whereas no text of Scripture flatly states the following, the scriptural data is consistent with the hypothesis that a person's soul at death moves to a different time (namely, the day of judgment and resurrection) rather than to a different place or realm. Of course, when the Last Day occurs, we will learn for certain. Let us hope that, if there is in fact no disembodied "heaven," those who have expected one will not come to believe that they have entered its opposite.
