Enabling Jerusalem-based Ogen to grant government-backed loans will enable financial assistance characterized by a higher level of risk than the traditional banking system is willing to accept.

Prof. Shai Izraeli says ‘When you talk about specific cancers, like Hodgkin lymphoma and standard-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the rate of survival is more than 90%.’

“Today we live in a water-stressed world. It’s not just Africa and India that are suffering from a shortage of water – it is all over the world.”

The diplomatic visit will be the first since Israel closed its borders to foreigners in light of the coronavirus pandemic.

While Singer said there is “nothing new about Evangelical fundamentalist Christians seeking to convert Jews to Christianity,” he noted that the method that GOD TV is using is “completely novel.”

The man, who drowned on Friday in the Sea of Galilee, tested positive for coronavirus soon after and was moved in critical condition to the coronavirus care unit in the hospital.

The Malta Chamber of Commerce has pledged its support to government in the formulation of a new Iindividual Investor Programme to ensure the new scheme is compatible with good governance

In many markets, the MGA license is most respected by players and many new regulatory frameworks are modelled after it

Maltese government to inform EC it will no longer provide boarding team to Operation Irini, which is attempting to stop Turkish weapons to Libyan GNA

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expresses ‘deep concern’ over reports of failure to assist and coordinate pushbacks of migrant boats in the central Mediterranean

Murder suspect Alfred Degiorgio does not want to appear in court after COVID-19 lockdown prevented him from seeing family 

A message from the President of the European Parliament David Sassoli, the President of the European Council Charles Michel and the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen 

The 39 year old man was taken to hospital, where he was certified as suffering from grievous injuries 

'Many mistakes showed that this regime is nothing but a propaganda machine and oppression machine.'

This has not been a good year for Iran in Syria.

A weekly selection of opinions and analyses from the Arab media around the world.

The IRGC aerospace command takes credit for the achievement and says that it builds on legacies dating back to 1988.

We will never fully know what Iran and Russia actually think of Assad or each other’s historic role in Syria.

Health protocols relating to the coronavirus pandemic will be put in place to deal with he new traffic.

The drawdown would come as Egypt battles an Islamist insurgency in the desert peninsula

The pandemic has led to a series of changes, including the separation of US and coalition forces from locals.

The Iranian Foreign Minister mentioned that the Parsis are in fact Zoroastrians who migrated to India centuries ago.

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said that the Iranian regime continues to divert its national resources in favor of its terror ambitions.

Bank branches attacked with gunfire, petrol bombs.

The global pandemic has brought Israel and Hamas closer than ever to a long-awaited prisoner swap.

The Iranian islands of the Persian Gulf will be turned into residential areas, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy Chief Alireza Tangsiri announced on Wednesday. Tangsiri said the decision came according to an order issued by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The announcement was made as Iran marked the National Persian Gulf Day on Wednesday.

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. Of our previous blog series, none better embodies that emphasis than Frequently Abused Verses. The following entry from that series originally appeared on October 7, 2015. -ed.

Just as a single cell of cancer can metastasize until it spreads throughout the physical body, a single false doctrine can multiply itself and spread throughout a body of believers. A great forest fire can be started by one spark.^[1] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Galatians (Chicago: Moody Press, 1987), 140.

Throughout this series on Scripture’s “Frequently Abused Verses,” we’ve seen how God’s Word has been misunderstood and misapplied, as well as instances when it is intentionally twisted to accommodate blasphemous lies and spurious doctrines. Today we’re going to consider how the misappropriation of one verse—3 John 2—triggered a heretical movement that has been a scourge for God’s people and blight on the testimony of the church for more than half of a century.

The Roots of the Prosperity Gospel

Not long after Oral Roberts’s death—and amidst a tidal wave of glowing praise for the pioneering televangelist—John MacArthur wrote this summation of the preacher’s life and ministry:

Oral Roberts’s influence is not something Bible-believing Christians should celebrate. Virtually every aberrant idea the Pentecostal and charismatic movements spawned after 1950 can be traced in one way or another to Oral Roberts’s influence.

One of his primary legacies is the prosperity gospel. As John explains in the article quoted above, the prosperity gospel “is the notion that God's favor is expressed mainly through physical health and material prosperity, and that these blessings are available for the claiming by anyone who has sufficient faith.”

Roberts might not have been the first person to teach that false doctrine, but through his television ministry he served as its chief herald and the primary catalyst for its rapid growth and widespread acceptance.

And according to Roberts’s biographer, David Edwin Harrell, Jr., the televangelist’s commitment to the prosperity gospel was born out of a crisis of faith and a new perspective on an overlooked verse.

Out of this period of spiritual trauma came a sequence of instantaneous insights, revelations as Oral viewed them. The first occurred one morning as he read III John 2: “I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as they soul prospereth.” Oral had rushed out of his house one morning to catch the bus to class when he realized he had not read his Bible as was his custom. He returned, hastily grabbed his Bible, opened it “at random,” and read III John 2. He had read his New Testament, he reported, at least a hundred times, but this verse seemed brand-new. He called Evelyn and read it to her. “That is not in the Bible,” she challenged. “It is,” Oral replied, “I just read it.” “Evelyn,” he said, “we have been wrong. I haven’t been preaching that God is good. And Evelyn, if this verse is right, God is a good God.” The idea seemed revolutionary, liberating. They had been nurtured in a belief system that insisted “you had to be poor to be a Christian.” Perhaps it was not so. They talked excitedly about the verse’s implications. Did it mean they could have a “new car,” a “new house,” a “brand-new ministry?” In later years, Evelyn looked back on that morning as the point of embarkation: “I really believe that that very morning was the beginning of this worldwide ministry that he has had, because it opened up his thinking.”

Oral’s new-found insight was soon put to a practical test. The agent was a Mr. Gustavus, a neighbor who owned the Buick automobile dealership in Enid. Mr. Gus liked Oral, and, although he was a “nonreligious” man, he listened to his neighbor’s preaching occasionally and liked his emphasis on the “here and now.” One morning Mr. Gus noted that Oral’s car looked “pretty bad” and suggested that he buy a new one. It seemed a preposterous idea. Cars were still “practically unobtainable” in these postwar months, and there was no slack in the Robertses’ tight budget. But Mr. Gus showed them a way; he sold their old car for the “highest ceiling” price and acquired a new Buick for Oral at “dealer’s cost.” Mr. Gus, Oral, and Evelyn drove together to Detroit to pick up the car. As they drove back to Enid in their “brand new . . . long, green slick Buick,” Oral and Evelyn pondered the significance of this seemingly impossible turn. Evelyn asked Oral to stop: “We have just got to hold hands and praise the Lord for this car.” For Oral, the “new car became a symbol to me of what a man could do if he would believe God.” Nor was Mr. Gus through. He kept egging Oral on. “Son, the message you are preaching is too big for one town,” he told Oral, “the country is waiting for it. . . . Preach it, son. And you will stir this generation.” ^[2] David Edwin Harrell, Jr., Oral Roberts: An American Life (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985) 65-66.

Of course there are plenty of other Bible verses that have been contorted by prosperity preachers to support their false teaching—we looked at one of them earlier in this series. But 3 John 2 is the textual soil that sprouted Roberts’s prosperity gospel, and the massive family tree of prosperity preachers who have carried on his heretical legacy.

And when you consider how the lies of the prosperity gospel have permeated and poisoned the church, you understand why the details matter, and the damage that can be done when we play fast and loose with God’s Word. The careless reading and application of this one verse has spawned multiple generations of false prophets and fraudulent healers who have feasted on the spiritually naïve and theologically shallow. And by continuing to perpetuate Roberts’s false teaching, they further tarnish the testimony of God’s Word and His people. In many parts of the world, the face of Christianity is a sneering charlatan with his hand out, preaching the get-rich gospel of health and wealth to people who have neither.

When it comes to biblical interpretation, the details are vitally important.

True Prosperity

And in the case of 3 John 2, the details make the true meaning of the verse abundantly clear. In his short letter to a man named Gaius, the apostle John wrote, “Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers.”

The reality is that the apostle’s words are not a prophecy of blessing. As John MacArthur explains in his commentary on 3 John, “The phrase ‘I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health’ was a standard greeting in ancient letters.” ^[3] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1-3 John (Chicago: Moody Press, 2007) 245.

The salutations of the epistles are rich with doctrinal truth (cf. Romans 1:1-7; Galatians 1:1-5; 1 Peter 1:1-2). But it’s not theologically safe or hermeneutically sound to turn a greeting to a specific audience into a promise for all believers.

Moreover, the apostle’s words here don’t support an emphasis on physical blessings like health and wealth, since that’s the opposite of the point John was making. He was praising God for the good report on the quality of Gaius’s character. As John MacArthur explains, the apostle’s focus was spiritual prosperity.

“Prosper” translates a form of the verb euodoō. The term, used only here, Romans 1:10, and 1 Corinthians 16:2, means “to succeed,” “to have things go well,” or “to enjoy favorable circumstances.” The first use of prosper in verse 2 refers to Gaius’s physical health, as the contrast with the last part of the verse makes clear. The apostle’s wish was that Gaius’s physical health would be as good as that of his spiritual.

John’s concern for Gaius is a pastoral desire that he be free from the turmoil, pain, and debilitation of illness so as to be unrestricted in his service to the Lord and His church. . . .

But [in contrast to his physical condition] Gaius’s healthy soul brought far more delight to John. He knew he had a vibrant spiritual life. To borrow from some other apostles, Gaius was among those who are “sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13); constantly “grow[ing] in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18); “walk[ing] in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God” (Colossians 1:10). ^[4] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1-3 John, 245-246.

When considering how the Lord might bless us, we need to keep in mind that His blessings are not merely for our benefit. As long as He grants us breath, He has use of us for the work of His kingdom. It stands to reason then that even the physical blessings we enjoy have eternal purposes—and for the sake of His glory and His church, we need to pursue those purposes.

God is in the business of building His church, not handing out Buicks.

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. Of our previous blog series, none better embodies that emphasis than Frequently Abused Verses. The following entry from that series originally appeared on August 17, 2016. -ed.

Most of us have heard of faith healers. They exist almost exclusively within the charismatic movement and claim to be divinely gifted to supernaturally heal the sick.

For these miracle workers to have any longevity—some of them have thriving ministries that last for decades—they need to develop the illusion of legitimacy. Sensational claims and spectacular crusades certainly play a role in drawing an enthusiastic crowd. But enthusiasm only gets you so far; they also require a façade of biblical authority. And for many of these false teachers, Isaiah 53:5 is the go-to verse, ripped from its context and contorted to fit their self-serving interpretation.

But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5, NKJV) 

Isaiah 53 is the most renowned Old Testament passage on Christ’s atoning work. John MacArthur refers to it as “the first gospel” or The Gospel According to God. It contains vivid and precise prophetic imagery concerning Christ’s suffering and crucifixion. And the “stripes” mentioned in verse five refer to the lashes Christ received at the hands of Roman soldiers.

Word-Faith charismatic teachers routinely claim that Isaiah 53:5 is proof that physical healing is inherent in the atonement—that it was won by Christ’s physical suffering. For example, Joseph Prince argues that physical healing is the right of all believers—something they can simply “confess” into reality:

But what came on [Jesus] was not just the whip stripping the flesh off His bare back, but your sicknesses and diseases. Each time He was whipped, every form of sickness and disease, including arthritis, cancer, diabetes, bird flu and dengue fever, came upon Him. “The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.”

Today, healing is your right because Jesus has paid the price for your healing. So if the devil says, “You cannot be healed,” just declare, “Jesus has paid for my healing. Disease has no right to be in my body. I am healed in Jesus’ name!”

Every curse of sickness that was supposed to fall on you fell on Jesus instead. He bore every one of those stripes, so that you can walk in divine health all the days of your life. The price has been paid so that you can rise up and get out of your bed of affliction! ^[1] http://www.josephprince.org/daily-grace/grace-inspirations/single/by-jesus-stripes-you-are-healed

Prince’s view of the atonement is really only a potential atonement. It doesn’t actually deliver you from sickness but rather gives you the ability to “rise up and get out of your bed of affliction.” And how do you activate the atonement to receive the healing that’s rightfully yours? Kenneth Hagin’s testimony provides the answer.

Hagin staked the credibility of his healing ministry on 1 Peter 2:24—a New Testament quotation of Isaiah 53:5—and his claims regarding his personal experience of divine healing:

Some years ago, I was awakened at 1:30 A.M. with severe symptoms in my heart and chest. I knew something about such symptoms because I had been bedfast and given up to die with a heart condition as a teenager.

The Devil said to my mind, “You’re going to die. This is one time you’re not going to get your healing.” I pulled the covers over my head and began to laugh. I didn’t feel like laughing, but I just laughed anyway for about ten minutes. Finally, the Devil asked me what I was laughing about.

“I’m laughing at you!” I said. “You said I wasn’t going to get my healing. Ha, ha, Mr. Devil. I don’t expect to get my healing! Jesus already got it for me! Now, in case you can’t read, I’ll quote 1 Peter 2:24 for you.” And I did.

After quoting the last phrase, “By whose stripes ye were healed,” I said, “Now if we were—I was! So I don’t have to get it. Jesus already got it! And because Jesus got it for me, I accept it, and claim it, and I have it. Now you just gather up your little symptoms and get out of here, Mr. Devil!” ^[2] Kenneth E. Hagin, Faith Food Devotions (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1998) Page unknown.

For Hagin, and countless other Word-Faith preachers like him, supernatural healings need only to be spoken into reality. Joyce Meyer expands on that idea, arguing that Satan is involved in the illegal activity of inflicting “sickness on us, and there is no good reason to let him do it.”

How do you stand against sickness? For starters, plead the blood of Jesus against the sickness and over every part of your body—your immune system, your organs, your blood cells and so on. Then speak the Word over your body. You can pray, “Father, I believe it’s Your will that I be in health. I believe that by the stripes of Jesus, I am healed. Your Word is health and life to my body, and it will accomplish that which You please and purpose.” ^[3] http:/www.joycemeyer.org/OurMinistries/Magazine/0703/Healing+and+Wholeness.htm

So according to Joyce Meyer, healing is a right but it isn’t always fait accompli for the Christian. It’s something that’s been provided for believers, but they need to successfully claim it. It needs to be confessed into reality—spoken into existence through the power of faith. Like Joseph Prince, Meyer describes a potential atonement that requires our activation. That’s a cruel doctrine to inflict on Christians who have sought healing but continue to spend their lives in wheelchairs, on respirators, and under medication.

The belief that Christ’s physical suffering somehow guarantees our physical healing in this life isn’t merely an abuse of Scripture—it’s a form of mental and spiritual torture to those who sit under such false teaching. It’s a lie that has left many churchgoers disappointed with the gospel. Rather than longing for their heavenly home, they are gripped by unrealized expectations in the here and now. The sickness they struggle with leaves them feeling like failures who lack the necessary faith to claim the healing that’s rightfully theirs.

The fact that everyone still dies should be proof enough that on this side of eternity all people are still subject to Adam’s curse. Sickness is a very real part of life in this fallen world, and no amount of claiming divine health is going to change that. Even the disciples of the early church didn’t rebuke their physical ailments into oblivion—they dealt with them as best they could like everybody else.

Paul left Trophimus behind during one of his missionary journeys because of illness (2 Timothy 4:20). He recommended wine to Timothy for his “stomach and [his] frequent ailments” (1 Timothy 5:23). Epaphroditus got so sick he nearly died (Philippians 2:25–27). And sometimes God sent sickness to discipline members of His church (1 Corinthians 11:29–32).

So what does Isaiah 53:5 promise Christians if it’s not an offer of immediate, unblemished health for all Christians? John MacArthur sheds clear light on the matter in his commentary on 1 Peter 2:24 (which, noted earlier, quotes from Isaiah 53:5):

Christ died for believers to separate them from sin’s penalty, so it can never condemn them. The record of their sins, the indictment of guilt that had them headed for hell, was “nailed to the cross” (Colossians 2:12–14). Jesus paid their debt to God in full. In that sense, all Christians are freed from sin’s penalty. They are also delivered from its dominating power and made able to live to righteousness (cf. Romans 6:16–22).

Peter describes this death to sin and becoming alive to righteousness as a healing: by His wounds you were healed. This too is borrowed from the Old Testament prophet when he wrote “by His scourging we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5). Wounds is a better usage than “scourging” since the latter may give the impression that the beating of Jesus produced salvation. Both Isaiah and Peter meant the wounds of Jesus that were part of the execution process. Wounds is a general reference—a synonym for all the suffering that brought Him to death. And the healing here is spiritual, not physical. Neither Isaiah nor Peter intended physical healing as the result in these references to Christ’s sufferings. Physical healing for all who believe does result from Christ’s atoning work, but such healing awaits a future realization in the perfections of heaven. In resurrection glory, believers will experience no sickness, pain, suffering, or death (Revelation 21:1–4; 22:1–3). ^[4] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1 Peter (Chicago: Moody Press, 2004) 171–72.

To be fair, Matthew’s gospel does seem to make a connection between Isaiah 53:5 and physical healings that occurred during Christ’s earthly ministry:

They brought to Him many who were demon-possessed; and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were ill. This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: “He Himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases.” (Matthew 8:16–17)

But was Christ’s healing ministry His end game, or did it point to an eternal cure? After all, the people he healed still died. Lazarus was raised from the dead, but he still eventually died again. People were healed but the curse wasn’t reversed. Jesus died for the sins of men, but men still continued to sin. He defeated death but His followers continued to die. There is an ultimate fulfillment of Christ’s atoning work that will not be realized this side of eternity (Romans 8:22–25). That’s why John MacArthur rightly observes:

Those who claim that Christians should never be sick because there is healing in the atonement should also claim that Christians should never die, because Jesus also conquered death in the atonement. The central message of the gospel is deliverance from sin. It is the good news about forgiveness, not health. Christ was made sin, not disease, and He died on the cross for our sin, not our sickness. As Peter makes clear, Christ’s wounds heal us from sin, not from disease. “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24). ^[5] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 8–15 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1987) 19.

There is healing in Christ’s atonement but it’s obviously not fully realized in the present. Christians and non-Christians alike still feel the effects of the curse, and will ultimately die. Our ultimate perfect healing is certain, but it awaits us in the same way that we still await our resurrection bodies. And that shouldn’t bring disappointment to this present life. Rather, it is a glorious future reality for us to anticipate with great joy.

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. Of our previous blog series, none better embodies that emphasis thanFrequently Abused Verses. The following entry from that series originally appeared on April 3, 2017. -ed.

If you wanted to find one verse that encapsulates the glorious truth of the gospel, you couldn’t do much better than the words of the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:21. Describing God’s reconciling work Paul writes, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

That verse gets to the heart of the good news of the gospel—Christ’s substitutionary death on our behalf. And it gives us the confidence that Christ’s righteousness will be imputed to us. It depicts the blessed reality of both those great doctrines—that when God looked at Christ on the cross, He saw us; and when He looks at us now, He sees His Son. Can you imagine a greater promise or a richer blessing?

And yet, buried in that verse is a short phrase that often trips up Bible students. Worse, this phrase has become a playground for heretics and charlatans. By manipulating these few simple words, they pervert the character and nature of Christ, and pollute the gospel.

Here’s the phrase, in its context: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

Those three little words seem innocuous. But in the hands of a man like Kenneth Copeland, they can unleash a world of blasphemous error. Copeland is effectively the leader and the face of the Word-Faith movement, which is the primary proponent of the prosperity gospel. Copeland was the chief disciple of Kenneth Hagin, and has expanded Hagin’s family tree of heresy through his mentoring relationships with Benny Hinn, Joseph Prince, and many others.

Copeland and many of his acolytes teach that the short phrase “to be sin” in 2 Corinthians 5:21 indicates that Christ actually became sinful on the cross. They say it wasn’t merely the penalty for our sins that He took on Himself, but all the sins themselves, exchanging His divine and righteous nature for the nature of Satan.

Here is Copeland in his own words:

The righteousness of God was made to be sin. He accepted the sin nature of Satan in His own spirit, and at the moment He did so, He cried, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”

You don’t know what happened at the cross! Why do you think Moses, upon the instruction of God, raised a serpent upon that pole instead of a lamb? That used to bug me! I said, “Why in the world do You have to put that snake up there, the sign of Satan? Why don’t you put a lamb on the pole?”

The Lord said, “Because it was the sign of Satan that was hanging on the cross! I accepted in My own spirit spiritual death, and the light was turned off . . . made to be sin.” ^[1] Kenneth Copeland, “What Happened from the Cross to the Throne, Part 2” March 31, 2015.

Benny Hinn holds to the same erroneous doctrine. Hinn has declared that Jesus “did not take my sin; He became my sin. . . . He became one with the nature of Satan.” ^[2] Benny Hinn, quoted in Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), 155-156. Hinn embellished the point further one night on TBN:

He [Jesus] who is righteous by choice said, “The only way I can stop sin is by me becoming it. I can’t just stop it by letting it touch me; I and it must become one.” Hear this! He who is the nature of God became the nature of Satan when he became sin! ^[3] Benny Hinn, Trinity Broadcasting Network, December 1, 1990.

Even Joel Osteen—who reigns in his Word-Faith proclivities just enough to maintain his mainstream popularity—teaches this spurious doctrine:

Not only did Jesus pay for the punishment for your sins, the Bible says He actually became sin. He took sin upon Himself and into His being so that you could take God’s righteousness upon yourself and into your being. It’s the great exchange. ^[4] Joel Osteen, “The Great Exchange,” December 19, 2013.

Over and over these charlatans corrupt the nature of Christ and poison the gospel with these repulsive lies. Make no mistake—these are not small or insignificant errors. Accusing the Son of God of becoming a sinner is a direct assault on His divinity. Moreover, it’s an attack on the very aspect of His nature that made Him a suitable sacrifice for our sins in the first place: His righteousness.

In the Old Testament, the Lord specifically demanded a spotless, unblemished lamb as the sacrifice for sin (Exodus 12:5). Those sacrifices pointed ahead to Christ, who would serve as the one, true sacrifice for our sins. But His sacrifice would be worthless if He became sinful during His crucifixion. Not only would He have ceased to be a fitting sacrifice, He would have completely ceased to be God.

In his commentary on 2 Corinthians, John MacArthur explains that all of God’s Word testifies to the crucial truth of Christ’s sinlessness.

The impeccability (sinlessness) of Jesus Christ is universally affirmed in Scripture, by believers and unbelievers alike. In John 8:46 Jesus challenged His Jewish opponents, “Which one of you convicts Me of sin?” Before sentencing Him to death, Pilate repeatedly affirmed His innocence, declaring, “I find no guilt in this man” (Luke 23:4; cf. vv. 14, 22). The repentant thief on the cross said of Jesus, “This man has done nothing wrong” (Luke 23:41). Even the hardened, callous Roman centurion in charge of the execution detail admitted, “Certainly this man was innocent” (Luke 23:47).

The apostles, those who most closely observed Jesus’ life during His earthly ministry, also testified to His sinlessness. Peter publicly proclaimed Him to be the “Holy and Righteous One” (Acts 3:14). In his first epistle he declared Jesus to be “unblemished and spotless” (1 Peter 1:19); one “who committed no sin” (2:22); and “just” (3:18). John also testified to His sinlessness, writing, “in Him there is no sin” (1 John 3:5). The inspired writer of Hebrews notes that “we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15), because He is “holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens” (7:26). ^[5] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 2 Corinthians (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2003), 214.

John goes on to explain that the most powerful testament to the sinless nature of Christ comes in His unbroken fellowship with the Father, summed up in the simple statement, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). John writes,

It is equally unthinkable that God, whose “eyes are too pure to approve evil” (Habakkuk 1:13; cf. James 1:13), would make anyone a sinner, let alone His own Holy Son. He was the unblemished Lamb while on the cross, personally guilty of no evil. ^[6] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 2 Corinthians, 215.

So how should we understand the idea that God made Christ “to be sin on our behalf”? Isaiah’s prophetic words give us the answer:

Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him. (Isaiah 53:4-6)

On the cross, the Lord bore the punishment of our sins, not the sins themselves. He did not exchange His divine nature for Satan’s, or accept any blemish that would render Him as anything less than our spotless Lamb and perfect sacrifice. As John MacArthur explains,

Christ was not made a sinner, nor was He punished for any sin of His own. Instead, the Father treated him as if He were a sinner by charging to His account the sins of everyone who would ever believe. All those sins were charged against Him as if He had personally committed them, and He was punished with the penalty for them on the cross, experiencing the full fury of God’s wrath unleashed against them all. It was at that moment that “Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, . . . ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?’” (Matthew 27:46). It is crucial, therefore, to understand that the only sense in which Jesus was made sin was by imputation. He was personally pure, yet officially culpable; personally holy, yet forensically guilty. But in dying on the cross Christ did not become evil like we are, nor do redeemed sinners become inherently as holy as He is. God credits believers’ sin to Christ’s account, and His righteousness to theirs. ^[7] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 2 Corinthians, 215.

Imputation is the key; if Christ was not fully righteous in His sacrificial death, we can’t be considered fully righteous in the eyes of God. If Christ wasn’t completely sinless, there is no hope of reconciliation for us.

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. One of our previous blog series, Looking for Truth in All the Wrong Places, strongly emphasizes those doctrines. The following entry from that series originally appeared on June 12, 2017. -ed.

You have undoubtedly heard people say things like, “God is calling me to the mission field,” or “God led me to attend this college,” or “We feel God wants us to get married.” Perhaps you have even said such things yourself.

Christians who use expressions like those often mean they have had an impression or a strong feeling that they interpret as a disclosure of the divine will. Even people who believe prophecy and divine revelation have ceased sometimes fall into the trap of thinking God speaks directly to us through subjective means.

Normally people who make such claims have no intention of equating their mental impressions with divine revelation. They regard the subjective “leading of the Lord” as something far less than prophetic. Yet they believe God somehow communicates His will personally to individuals through inner promptings, signs, feelings of peace or uneasiness, strong impressions on the mind, or other similar means.

For reasons we shall examine, it is not wise to seek divine guidance through subjective impressions like these. Nowhere does Scripture encourage us to attempt to discern God’s will through such means. As we shall see, that sort of decision making can lead to confusion, disappointment, and sometimes spiritual tragedy.

And the truth is that treating subjective impressions as messages from the Holy Spirit is not really much different from claiming to receive divine revelation. Though most Christians who follow subjective impressions would not dream of listening to extrabiblical “prophecies,” in effect they are doing the same thing.

In fact, some advocates of modern prophetic revelation want to erase any distinction between subjective impressions and the gift of prophecy mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12–14. Professor Wayne Grudem, for example, who has produced the most thorough theological defense of the modern prophecy movement, believes God is giving revelation today chiefly through mental impressions. He even defines revelation as “something God brings to mind.” ^[1] Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 42, 115. He suggests that when God providentially brings a thought to a believer’s mind, that is the New Testament gift of prophecy in operation. Thus he has elevated mental impressions to the level of prophetic revelation.

Grudem’s work has had widespread influence. And it is in many respects a fine study. He shows biblically why important distinctions must be made between Old Testament prophecy, apostolic prophecy, and the New Testament gift of prophecy. In places (but not everywhere) his exegesis of the pertinent texts is very helpful. He includes a crucial appendix on the sufficiency of Scripture which, if heeded by his friends in the modern prophecy movement, would provide a remedy against the serious abuses that have so plagued the movement. And he offers another important appendix showing that the canon of Scripture is closed.

But it is at this very point that Grudem’s position seems most inconsistent. If the canon of Scripture is really closed; if (as Grudem rightly suggests) “it is in Scripture alone that we are to search for God’s words to us”; ^[2] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 299. and if, in his words, “the Bible is sufficient to equip us for living the Christian life” ^[3] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 300. —then what point is there in seeking additional “revelations” like the prophetic messages Grudem advocates? It is unfortunate that Grudem relegated his thoughts on the canon of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture to the book’s final appendixes. If this had been the starting point for his study of prophecy, perhaps he would have reached very different conclusions.

Grudem’s defense of prophetic revelation has opened the door to a host of bizarre and misleading “prophecies” that have plagued evangelical Christianity over the past several years. Scores of churches worldwide have implemented Grudem’s theology and are encouraging people to share mere mental impressions as if they were prophetic messages from God. Ironically, Grudem’s work is frequently summoned to defend even the most outlandish aspects of a movement that has utterly ignored his many clear warnings against abuse of the prophetic gifts.

To his credit, Grudem appeals for a view of prophecy that “would still include a strong affirmation of the closing of the New Testament canon (so that no new words of equal authority are given today), of the sufficiency of Scripture, and of the supremacy and unique authority of the Bible in guidance.”^[4] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 15. He writes, “I am asking that charismatics . . . stop calling [prophecy] ‘a word from the Lord’—simply because that label makes it sound exactly like the Bible in authority.” ^[5] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 14. Elsewhere he writes, “Remember that what is spoken in any prophecy today is not the word of God, but is simply a human being reporting in merely human words something which God has brought to mind.” ^[6] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 262. He also warns that modern prophecy

should not be thought of as “God’s very words,” nor should the speaker preface his or her remarks with words which would give that impression, such as, “Thus says the Lord,” or, “Hear the words of God,” etc.—those statements should be reserved for Scripture alone. Something like, “I think the Lord is showing me that . . .” or, “I think the Lord is indicating that . . .” or, “It seems that the Lord is putting on my heart a concern that . . .” would all be much more appropriate, and far less misleading. ^[7] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 133.

If those warnings were consistently heeded, charismatic “prophets” could save their churches much grief and confusion.

But even in the denomination Grudem himself once identified with—the Association of Vineyard Churches—his words of caution are frequently ignored in the prophets’ actual practice.

James Ryle is himself a Vineyard pastor [Ryle passed away in 2015, Ed.]. He does give lip service to Grudem’s caution. He writes,

How often have you heard someone say casually, “The Lord spoke to me,” or “The Lord told me” to do this or that?

. . . Many within the church use these terms to justify their own desires and opinions. Possibly they feel that this puts what they are saying beyond challenge. After all, how does one argue with a “word from the Lord”?

In light of this problem I have found it a good policy to avoid such expressions and simply say, “It occurred to me” when I am sharing some insight which I’ve received in prayer or devotions. This removes unnecessary stumbling blocks and allows more people to hear the message without being distracted with the way the word is being presented. ^[8] James Ryle, Hippo in the Garden (Lake Mary, FL: Creation House, 1993), 30-31.

But note the significant difference between Grudem’s position and Ryle’s. Grudem believes prophecy is merely “something God brought to mind”—not “God’s very words.” He seems eager to avoid confusion on this point. Ryle’s perspective is markedly different. He says he employs terminology like “It occurred to me” to avoid “unnecessary stumbling blocks.” But he clearly does think of prophecy as God’s very words. After analyzing the dangers of saying things like “God spoke to me,” he states, “Nonetheless, the Lord does speak to us today.” In practice he cannot avoid placing modern words of prophecy on the same level with the written Word of God.

Ryle does this perhaps without even realizing it. He repeatedly cites Matthew 4:4 in defense of modern prophecy: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” ^[9] Hippo in the Garden, 32, 39, 62 (emphasis added).—taking a verse that clearly speaks of Scripture and applying it to modern words of prophecy.

Furthermore, despite his stated preference for expressions like, “It occurred to me,” Ryle never once uses that expression or any like it in his book. Instead, the book is filled with statements like, “I heard the voice of the Lord,” “The voice of the Lord spoke to me,” “God was speaking to me again,” “The Lord Himself was standing before me . . . speaking directly to me,” “Again I heard the voice of the Lord. . . . The Lord continued [speaking]. . . . The Lord seemed to pause. . . . Then He delivered the knockout blow,” “The Lord was saying to me,” “The Lord spoke to him, telling him to call [me],” “He speaks to me,” “I received a word from the Lord,” “I sensed the Holy Spirit say to me,” “I treasure these words from the Lord, holding them in my heart with the deepest regard,” “These were the exact words I was given,” “The prophetic word from the heart of the Lord was spoken,” “This is what the Holy Spirit showed me,” and similar expressions. ^[10] Hippo in the Garden, 13-14, 15, 18, 20, 25-29, 83, 91, 113, 115-116, 142. All Ryle’s interpretations of his own dreams and visions are stated with dogmatic conviction.

Ryle continually uses terminology that suggests he has canonized modern prophecy—at least in his own mind. “The Holy Spirit inspires us to speak through any number of means,” he says, referring to his prophecies as “inspired utterance.” ^[11] Hippo in the Garden, 99.] At the end of the book, Ryle suggests that when the hippo of modern prophecy comes into the garden of mainstream evangelicalism, “the church will be found in the midst of the world, speaking forth the words of God to a crooked and perverse generation, among whom we will shine as light, holding forth the word of life.” ^[12] Hippo in the Garden, 292 (emphasis added).

So in practice, Ryle finds it impossible not to equate his own prophecies with the words of Scripture, even though he appears to be trying to avoid this error. (In one place, Ryle says, “We must stop putting our own words in the Lord’s mouth. . . . Scripture alone is our sure foundation.” ^[13] Hippo in the Garden, 54-55. To that I add a hearty amen.)

He is not alone in this failing. Anyone who is truly convinced that God is speaking fresh words of revelation will inevitably view the later prophecies as somehow more relevant and more personal than the message of Scripture, which is more than two thousand years old. Inevitably, wherever personal prophecy has been stressed, Scripture has been deemphasized. Two thousand years of church history confirms that this is true.

(Adapted from Reckless Faith.)

Hunger for God’s Word is incompatible with the desire for sin. That’s why the apostle Peter calls us to reject sinful desires—they are deadly obstructions to a healthy biblical diet. He writes, “Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word” (1 Peter 2:1–2).

Peter says we must take a look at our lives and start shedding sinful thoughts and activities. The Greek verb he uses here (apotithēmi) refers to stripping off soiled garments. It conveys the same idea Paul had in mind when he wrote: “But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices” (Colossians 3:8–9). In the early church, believers would be baptized in their old clothes, and when they came out of the waters they would be given new clothes to put on. The process was symbolic of the fact that salvation marked the shedding of all that was old and the putting on of all that was new. Peter depicts a similar idea in the language he uses here.

Having begun our new lives in Christ, we must shed whatever is still hanging on from our residual fallenness. We need to identify these lingering elements of the old life as direct hindrances to our desire for God’s Word. They spoil our spiritual appetites, as the stench of the old contaminates the fragrance of the new.

To help with the shedding process, Peter identifies several sinful categories that might linger in our lives. The first he mentions is “all malice.” This isn’t malice in the narrow sense we usually think of; it’s not merely evil intentions directed toward another person. The word here (kakia) serves as an all-inclusive term for wickedness. It encompasses everything base, disgraceful, and wretched. It is the general, pervasive malignancy of the flesh, out of which evil behaviors emerge. Peter is referring to the generic, inherited wickedness common to all people. First and foremost, that is what believers must eliminate if we are going to have a proper desire for the Word.

To that, Peter adds “all deceit.” The Greek word dolos was used to describe the bait on a fishhook. Here it refers to all forms of deception, dishonesty, guile, treachery, and falsehood. Whereas wickedness speaks to general, open sin, deceit is by nature more discreet. Peter is describing the secret, hidden ways we sin against and take advantage of others. Believers must not traffic in such deceptions. Duplicity is incompatible with a hunger for God’s truth.

Continuing on the theme of secret sin, Peter also charges believers to put off “hypocrisy.” This refers to any pretense or insincerity, anything phony or inconsistent. Believers must be genuine in all they say and do. God’s Word has no tolerance for those who practice hypocrisy.

Peter points to another sin believers must eliminate: “envy.” Believers must not resent the prosperity of others or covet their possessions. This category also includes the hatred, bitterness, grudges, and conflicts that corrupt relationships in this ruined world. Peter is talking about the kinds of interpersonal sins that inhibit our usefulness to the kingdom and stifle our appetite for God’s Word.

Finally, Peter commands his readers to put aside “all slander.” He uses an onomatopoeic word (katalalias) to describe slanderous whispers and tattling behind another’s back. It also includes defamation, disparagement, malicious gossip, or any other attempt to tear down others.

There is a natural progression to the sins Peter describes. He starts with the broad sense of general wickedness and corruption that produces deceit and deception. Deceit leads to hypocrisy, while hypocrisy, in turn, masks envy. And festering envy will inevitably lead to slander.

Peter wants the opposite for God’s people. In the previous chapter, he urges his readers to “fervently love one another from the heart” (1 Peter 1:22). In order to do that, Christians have to weed out the wickedness that lingers from their former, sinful selves. They need to look inside at the nature of their hearts, uncovering the secret sins of deceit and hypocrisy. And they must bring an end to the sins that poison and corrupt their relationships with others, like envy and slander. Peter wants believers to identify and eliminate all the filthy rags of the flesh. God’s people must faithfully confess and repent of the sin that remains in their lives, pleading with Him to remove it.

If you don’t have that kind of hunger for the cleansing, refining work of the Word, you need to carefully examine your life to see if there is sin hindering your desire.

We understand that true repentance is the work of the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit does not perform that work in the lives of unwilling people; we have to cry out for Him to bring about repentance in us. And an essential element of that cleansing, refining work is the Word of God (John 15:3). We need to cultivate a desire for Scripture and the work it accomplishes in us. We need to hunger to learn its truths, to receive its joys and its convicting realities. We need to eagerly and attentively sit under its teaching and study it for ourselves as though our spiritual lives depend on it—because they do.

(Adapted from Final Word)

Have you ever attended a church where public prophecies are allowed, or even encouraged, during the service? Have you heard professing believers claim to have special prophetic insights or words of knowledge directly from God? Such behavior is commonplace in charismatic circles, even in many churches that would verbally affirm the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.

It’s easy to take God’s blessings for granted. It’s even easier to be unaware of many of them. But Scripture calls all believers to regularly take inventory.

Today the shelves of Christian bookstores sag under the weight of devotionals, guidebooks, and manuals purporting to help you hear and understand what God has to say to you personally. Wildly popular books like Experiencing God and Jesus Calling encourage believers to look beyond the confines of Scripture for fresh words from God.

Biblical sufficiency has been the heartbeat of John MacArthur’s teaching—he has continually used Scripture to interpret, defend, and illustrate itself throughout his five decades of ministry. With the conference fast approaching, we recently asked John why he remains so relentless in his defense of the absolute sufficiency of Scripture.

Most of us are familiar with politicians who obfuscate simple questions with complex political answers. Who can forget Bill Clinton’s “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”? Unfortunately, obfuscation exists in the realm of theology as well. God may not be “a God of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33), but there are scores of biblical scholars, theologians, and pastors who insert plenty of it into the first few chapters of Genesis.

What you believe about the opening verses of Genesis forms the foundation for your view of Scripture. That was the point John MacArthur made recently when we asked him about the importance of the Genesis account.

The language of therapy has a stranglehold on our culture. Children don’t lie anymore, they tell stories. Serial adulterers have been re-branded as sex addicts. Drunkenness is now an alcohol disorder—in fact, addiction itself is treated like a disease. Even the gross perversion of pedophilia is listed as a psychiatric disorder in the ever-expanding Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).

Does an unregenerate man bear a spark of the divine that draws him to a relationship with God, or is he utterly lost in the total depravity of his sin nature? While that might seem like an obscure theological question, don’t dismiss it as merely fodder for academic debates. It’s an immensely practical question—with implications for the church and for your own life. And it’s at the heart of the consumer-driven movement in the church, commonly known as seeker sensitivity.

Someone has said that God plus one equals a majority. The truth is that God alone makes a majority. If every creature in the material and immaterial universe combined to oppose God together, still He would not be defeated. He is infinitely greater, and holier, and wiser, and more powerful than the aggregate of all His creation.

If you’re like most Christians, you probably have a consistent Sunday morning routine. Maybe you rush to church in time to greet your friends, grab some coffee, make your way to your regular seat, and settle in just in time for worship. Your pattern may look different, but it’s fairly certain you have one you stick to.

Why pray to God if He sovereignly rules and reigns over our lives—isn’t His mind already made up? And if God is orchestrating every event in the universe for His glory, does that mean our choices and decisions are nothing more than pre-arranged manipulations by our Creator? Many Christians wrestle with these questions as they try to grasp the implications of God’s sovereignty over all that He has created.

God is absolutely sovereign in the calling and conversion of His elect. As we have seen previously, the apostle Paul makes that cardinal truth inescapably clear in Romans 9. But why preach the gospel if God is sovereign over His redemptive work? Why call on sinners to repent and believe if the work belongs to God? The apostle Paul explains why in Romans 10 and 11.

Grup Yorum's Ibrahim Gokcek died two days after suspending his “death fast."

The Pentagon is set to pull Patriot missile defense systems from Saudi Arabia amid internal pressure to transfer military assets to counter China.

In nationwide demonstrations over the last few days, Israeli women are demanding help with the spike violence against women during the COVID-19 crisis.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet warned of a "ticking time bomb" in Syria amid an uptick of civilian attacks and human rights violations.

The Donald Trump administration stepped up its criticism of Russia’s role in Libya’s civil war on Thursday.

Israel would rather have the United States keeping its 400 soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula, especially on the backdrop of growing tensions there and increased jihadist activity.

Turkey supports the embattled Tripoli government against rebel forces from the east led by Gen. Khalifa Hifter.