Does the Gospel Guarantee Physical Healing?

I attended a Pentecostal church for a number of years. One of the things that was done during the regular services was a prayer for those with needs physical, financial etc. A special emphasis was placed on those with sicknesses and physical infirmities. This is one of the unique distinctions of Pentecostalism, and a distinction that I agree with because this is something that Scripture mandates in James 5:14. I still believe that God can heal today.


My issues are not with healing but with the nonsense that is being preached by Pentecostal preachers and evangelists to justify healing. Further the way healing is preached makes it appear that God is somehow obligated to heal because I have said the appropriate "magic words" or "magic" Bible verses. Take, for example the following video from Victory Outreach.

I do not know if this was a real miracle or not. No one has placed a before and after x-ray of this young girl's back on the internet, that I am aware of. Because "leg lengthening" has been exposed as a fraud I have a hard time believing that this was an actual miracle. Further the lack of any documentation raises my suspicions even more. I would like to see the documentation, and since this is being labeled a true healing that documentation should be readily available.


However, I am not here to question the legitimacy of the healing, but rather the misuse of Scripture during this alleged healing. In the video, the healer invokes three Scriptures. One of them was Isaiah 53:4-5 which reads as follows in the English Standard Version:

4  Surely he has borne our griefs

and carried our sorrows;

yet we esteemed him stricken,

 smitten by God, and afflicted.

5  But he was wounded for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;

upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,

 and with his stripes we are healed.

 Pentecostals and Word-faith healers use this Scripture to show that physical healing is guaranteed in the Gospel. Further, there are those in the Word-faith movement who actually believe that a true believer in Jesus will never be sick. Further, they teach that it is up to the believer to appropriate this guaranteed healing by positive confession of the healing claims. Word-faith teachers also claim that any doubt is a sin and that can prevent the healing of a sickness in a believer. This is a great card to play especially when someone is not healed at one of their "deliverance" services.


There is a guaranteed healing in these verses. But it is not physical healing. In fact, I am not aware of a single verse in the bible that guarantees physical healing of the believer. The healing that is guaranteed in these verses is the spiritual healing that the cross accomplished. Why do I say that? Very simply the verses themselves. Verse five uses the words "transgressions" and "iniquities". What do they mean? The Hebrew word translated into English as "transgressions" literally means a revolt. Sin is a revolt against God. A revolt against His revelation as seen in Genesis chapter 3. The Hebrew word translated in English as "iniquities" literally means perversity or moral evil. These terms set the context of this verse not in the realm of the physical but in the spiritual. The healing spoken of here by Isaiah of the future Messiah is spiritual and focused on the redemption of humanity from the misery of sin.


There are a number of other verses which show that healing is something guaranteed to the Christian.

• Paul evidently could not heal Timothy's stomach problem, and instructed him to take advantage of medicinal remedies (1 Timothy 5:23).
• Paul was unable to heal Trophimus (2 Timothy 4:20) or Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25-27).
• Paul's own bodily illness was never healed (Galatians 4:13-15).
• There are many scholars that believe the issue that Paul referred to as his "thorn in the flesh" (2 Corinthians 12:7-9) was a chronic illness.
• God allowed Job to go through a time of sickness (Job 1 & 2).

In none of these cases was sickness said to be caused by sin or doubt in the peoples' lives. There is one exception to this statement, and that is the case of Job. In his case his sickness was said to have been the result of sin by the three false friends (Job 4:7). Further, Paul or any other apostle act as if they thought their healing was guaranteed in the atoning death of Jesus. Even more devestating to the Word-faith teachers is the fact that on two occasions Jesus said that sickness could be for the glory of God (John 9:3 & 11:4)!


Scripture does speak about the health of believers. It tells us that our bodies are weak and perishable (1 Corinthians 15:42-44), decaying (2 Corinthians 4:16), and subject to death and disease until we receive our resurrection bodies that will be immune from these issues (1 Corinthians 15:51-55).


One last point I want to make about the use of Isaiah 53 is that the clearest Old Testament prophecy about the purpose of the Messiah's life has been hijacked by unscrupulous Word-faith teachers and greedy pastors that are interested in cheeks in the church seats and checks in the offering plates. This verse is not about us, but about Him! His work made salvation possible. His work made it possible for our sin to be forgiven. He need salvation more than we need healing. Sin is the real problem. I would gladly suffer 70 or 80 years of sickness than an eternity of being punished for my sin!


Again, I do believe that healing is an active aspect of the work of God today. I do not believe, however, that the manner in which healing is preached by Word-faith teachers and most Pentecostal preachers is in line with Scripture, and it is Scripture that defines what we believe and how we behave. I hope and pray that those that are leaning towards the view of healing that is utterly unscriptural will move away from it and back towards the Bible. I also pray that those who preach this abomination repent of their false teaching and return to biblical teaching.

Veiled in Flesh the Godhead See

Christmas is a time that brings mixed emotions to me. I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, and I never celebrated Christmas until I was 22. That first Christmas was awesome. I felt something akin to what Ebenezer Scrooge felt after his awakening in Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. For the first time the joy, the peace, the reason for Christmas was very clear to me. Since then I have loved Christmas. But it is during Christmas that I also think of the family that is still lost in the Jehovah's Witness cult. Nearly all of my family is involved in that cult, and I feel so sad for them. I am trusting in God to rescue them from their servitude to that cult. It appears more and more that the Jehovah's Witness cult is crumbling. That, however, is the topic on another post.

What I want to talk about today is the theology of Christmas: the incarnation of Jesus. I want to do this using a portion of lyrics from Hark the Herald Angel Sings.

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; Hail incarnate Deity.

This lyric appears to be a distilled version of John 1:1-14; the Christmas story without the angels, the star, the magi, the shepherds, the manger, etc. This is the theology of Christmas. That Creator condescended and became His creation. I don’t know about you, but I find this jaw dropping! Why would God do this? Not only the condescension of incarnation, but the ultimate insult, allowing Himself to be nailed to a Roman cross some 33 years after the first Christmas! This is the miracle of Christmas. This is John’s Christmas story.

John tells in four simple words, “The Word became flesh”. In the most humble of surroundings of a barn, the Creator of heaven and earth entered time and space. This is what makes Christianity different from all other religions. Our God, in His effort to save His fallen creation, came to earth.

He did this because we can in no way establish a righteousness that is perfect. Our actions, our words and our thoughts are stained with sin. The Apostle Paul, in his magnum opus on the gospel of Jesus Christ, the book of Romans, quotes from the Old Testament with this stinging indictment on humanity:

There is no one righteous, not even one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, not even one. Their throats are open graves, they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood, ruin and misery are in their paths, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes. (Romans 3:10-18, NET).

Now, I realize that some of you reading this may be shocked to find out that this is what the Bible actually says about you (please don’t trip when I say “you”, because I am in the same boat with you). Perhaps you attend a church that doesn’t teach that you are a sinner. Perhaps they teach you that you simply have made bad decisions, and that if you simply follow the principles they will educate you with you can live your best life now? Or perhaps the pastor of your church teaches that your problem is not sin, but damaged emotions? Or perhaps you have been taught that the reason Jesus came to earth was to teach you how to have health and wealth in this life? If the church you attend does not teach you that you are a sinner in need of a savior then they are robbing you, and your eternal soul is in danger (Matthew 23:15).

The reason that God condescended into flesh, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth was to live the life that you could not live; a life of perfect obedience to God’s Law in action, word and thought. As an aside, Jesus did not accomplish this because he was devoted to prayer and fasting, as I once heard from the pulpit of a church. No, Jesus accomplished perfection because He was perfect. Jesus’ life was not an example for us to follow either. Jesus life was, no, is the life we receive credit for as a result of his resurrection (Romans 4:25). In return for His perfect life, Jesus was burdened with all our sin! It was on the cross that Jesus received the full punishment for our depravity. This punishment does not make salvation possible, but secures it for each and every person that believes.

God became flesh in order for Him to feel temptation. In the wilderness after his 40 day fast, from the desires of others, in the garden, and at other times Jesus felt temptation. Yet He was without sin (Hebrew 4:15). Yes, He knows everything about us. He faced temptation, stared it in the eye and vanquished it. He did this not as an example for his followers to emulate. He did not do it through the power of prayer and fasting. He did it because hidden in the flesh of Jesus was all the fullness of God (Colossians 2:9).

This is the theology of Christmas. It is simple, and to the point, but don’t let that fool you. The Gospel is simple. Yet within it there are some of the most profound and deep ideas that the human mind could never think up (2 Corinthians 2:9).

My message to you this Christmas is simple. Know who you are honoring today. He may have come the first time in a manger, but he will return again riding a warhorse and dressed in all-white. Why all-white? Because He’s not going to get bloody! So today, as you reflect on the birth of our Savior, do not just reflect on him as a baby in a manger, but as the Most High God wrapped in human flesh.

Hark! the herald angels sing, 

"Glory to the new born King, 

peace on earth, and mercy mild, 

God and sinners reconciled!" 

Joyful, all ye nations rise, 

join the triumph of the skies; 

with th' angelic host proclaim, 

"Christ is born in Bethlehem!" 

Hark! the herald angels sing, 

"Glory to the new born King!" 

Christ, by highest heaven adored; 

Christ, the everlasting Lord; 

late in time behold him come, 

offspring of a virgin's womb. 

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; 

hail th' incarnate Deity, 

pleased with us in flesh to dwell, 

Jesus, our Emmanuel. 

Hark! the herald angels sing, 

"Glory to the new born King!" 

Hail the heaven-born Prince of Peace! 

Hail the Sun of Righteousness! 

Light and life to all he brings, 

risen with healing in his wings. 

Mild he lays his glory by, 

born that we no more may die, 

born to raise us from the earth, 

born to give us second birth. 

Hark! the herald angels sing, 

"Glory to the new born King!" 

Music by Felix Mendelssohn. Lyrics by Charles Wesley

The Death of a Foe

I woke up this morning to discover that the noted essayist and "New Atheist" Christopher Hitchens has died. I am not happy at his passing. In fact, I am very sad. God said that He takes no delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23). Therefore, I am not here to gloat over his death, but rather to reflect on the impact Mr. Hitchens, one of the so-called "Four Horseman of Atheism". A moniker he shared with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

What was the impact of Mr. Hitchens? On me personally, I loved his later political views. He began as a Trotskyite, but later moved away from the Left and to the Right of the political spectrum. I loved the rhetorical flair that he often used to deliver his ideas. He was a master of rhetoric. He called former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, a rapist, Mother Teresa a fraud, and former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger a war criminal.

Hitchens also had a less than chivalrous side. He left his pregnant first wife for another woman.

What vaulted Hitchens to worldwide fame was his response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. He and the other "New Atheists" tarred all religion with every evil act committed on the face of the earth. He wrote with a vicious pen that ripped into anyone that believed in God, as well as God himself.

I read his book God is Not Great. I love his style. Direct, to the point, and filled with biting sarcasm, which I love! That said, I do recall in chapter one of God is Not Great, Hitchens reminisces of his first inclinations towards atheism at the age of nine. Sadly, most of those inclinations that later became a full blown world view were never reflected upon, and refined.

Much of Hitchens railings against God, like the railings of the three other Horsemen (Dawkins, Harris & Dennett) are simply warmed over 19th century rationalistic attacks on Christianity by atheists of that age. These arguments have been summarily refuted, and continue to be. What made the "New Atheism" new, however, was the caustic manner in which they attacked religion. Saying that religion is not only unbelievable, but it was not even worthy of respect or tolerance.

My thoughts, however, are not on his writings or his style, but instead with his family. They lost a husband and a father. Their pain is real. I pray for them. I also pray that perhaps, before he died, Hitchens realized the futility and foolishness of denying his Maker, repented of his sin, and accepted the work of Jesus on the cross.  That is my hope, the reality may be opposite.

In either case, Christopher Hitchens is no longer an atheist. The writer of Hebrews, said, "...[I]t is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement" (English Standard Version). He has faced his judgement, for better or for worse, a judgement that I leave to God. Based on what Mr. Hitchens believed, however, leads me to believe that his judgement was for the worse. Consignment to an eternity in hell, where he will recieve full punishment for his sin against the God he so vociferously denied.

You might be saying to yourself, "What an intolerant thing to say!" Well, I ask, why would God allow a man that not only denied His existence, but HATED Him for even being a figment of the collective imaginations of humanity to spend eternity with Him?

The ultimate question, though, is not what happened to Christopher Hitchens, but rather what will happen to you when you die?

You see, you are a sinner. You have lied. If you have ever told one lie, no matter how small or how white, you are a liar. If you have looked at a man or a woman with sexually charged thoughts, then you have committed adultery. If you have gotten angry at another for no reason, then you have committed murder (Matthew 5:27-29).

You have committed idolatry. Worshiping other gods. No, I'm not talking about lighting candles to saints, or that. Rather, you have taking a good thing that God has created for your enjoyment, and made it an ultimate thing in your life! You have taken something or someone, and devoted yourself first and foremost to that someone or something to the exclusion of God! This is the essence of idolatry.

No amount of good performance can ever tip the scales of God's justice to your favor, let alone get them to even! You will never be able to satisfy God's wrath over your sin! There is only one work that can ever satisfy God's wrath over your sin, and that is the death of an absolutely perfect man. That man was Jesus of Nazareth. He lived a perfect life. A life that you should have lived. He never violated any aspect of God's law.  It was not just that he lived a perfect life, but he died a death that you should have died. A violent and bloody death on a Roman crucifix. On that cross, Jesus became sin by receiving the full wrath of God for sin.

That death, however, is not the end of the story. If Jesus simply paid the penalty to God for our sin, then we would be forgiven, but still under the power of sin. This is why the resurrection of Jesus is so important. SO important that Paul said in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 that if Jesus did not rise from the dead then we might as well, party on, for there is no hope. So three days after Jesus died, he rose from the dead and presented himself alive to his closest followers! Jesus' resurrection was so potent, that it not only convinced Jesus' closest followers, but also a hardened skeptic, James (how was Jesus' own brother), and a zealous persecutor of the church (Saul of Tarsus, who later became Paul). Not only these, but many others on the 2,000-plus years since then have had there lives radically changed by the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

I do not want to eulogize Christopher Hitchens. Rather, I want to say that here is a man that spent his whole life railing against God, and at the end of it, he may be facing a eternity feeling the full wrath of that very God he mocked, scorned and denied. I want to tell you, the reader, that you do not have to face that same eternity. Today, you have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and I implore you to choose life!

Christopher Hitchens will pay for his sin for eternity. I am deeply saddened by his death, because as the English Reformer John Bradford said, "There but by the grace of God go I!" It is only God's grace that kept me from a path similar to Hitchens'. You to can join us in Bradford's sentiment by accepting the free gift of God for salvation. I pray that you will accept it.

The Religion of Him or the religion of him

You will notice, if you have an education that was not from a public school within the past twenty years that I have not capitalized the title of this post correctly. I have done so in order to make a point. You see the modern church has abandoned the Religion of Him for the religion of him, and in doing so has placed the souls of many in jeopardy.

First, let me define some terms. When I use religion, I don't mean religious acts designed to placate an angry God. no, when I use the term religion I mean a philosophy that tells one what to believe and how to live. Doesn't Christianity tell one what to believe and how to live? Further, when I use "Him", I am referring to Jesus, as he has been historically understood by the historic Christian faith. Lastly, when I refer to "him" I am referring to pastors that are exchanging their mission, vision, etc. for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So what is the Gospel of which I write? The Gospel is defined by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 (ESV):

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

This is the Gospel. The Good News. The thing that is ours to proclaim, not to edit.

What I want to write about today is men who exchange the Gospel for a vision, and the Savior for a founder. This is "the religion of him." In other words, exchanging the Religion of Him, for the religion of him. Understand that the use of the term vision came into vogue in the early 90s with the development of the "seeker sensitive" church. This term refers to the particular and subjective thought, burbling, or idea that motivated the pastor to found a church or movement.

So what is the "vision"? It comes in many forms. Usually in some pithy statement like "reaching the lost at any cost." What it really is, however, is law. It is do more, give more, follow these principles, etc. There is no rest, no trust, no grace, but only law. It is clearly the religion of him; the religion of the pastor. Many of these "vision-driven" churches are slavishly devoted to prayer, fasting and giving, and on the other hand pay lip service to God's word. This is demonstrated by whether or not the Bible is preached in a systematic and expositional manner. The "vision-driven" sermons are long in home-spun sentimentality and short on gospel truth.

Most of these "vision-driven" churches are mere fronts for "therapeutic moralistic deism". They teach that when you do for God, God is some how obligated to do for you. This is primarily taught to the church attenders through tithing principles. Many of these churches teach that your and your finances are under a curse if you do not tithe (pay 10% of your gross pay to the church). Now I have written on the tithe and why it is not applicable to the Christian on this blog in the past. Most of these churches over emphasize financial prosperity and health. These pastors teach their congregants to "lick the earth" as Blaise Pascal once said. In other words, these visionary pastors teach the congregants to get their sustenance from the world rather than from heaven.

The Religion of Him, by contrast, is not focused on what we can do for God, but on what He did for us. That everything we do to propitiate an angry God; a God that is rightfully angry at our sin. Jesus, on the cross, became us! He took on all of our sin, and the full measure of God's wrath came down upon Him on that Cross. He paid for every sin we have committed, and will ever commit has been atoned for on that cross. If you have placed your faith in that work, then there is no need for you to work in order to propitiate an angry God. The religion of him focuses on you and how you can live your best life now by applying various life principles.

Ultimately, the religion of him is about the pastor and what he has done, the miracles he performed, and his life spent for the church. The Religion of Him is about Jesus, His life, His work! Why would anyone want to exchange the Religion of Him for the religion of him? That is the question I leave you to answer.

The Door Scratching God

Recently someone whom I have as a "friend" on my Facebook posted a quote from Ezra LaTurco, Director of Victory Outreach's West Coast Urban Training Center. The quote was as follows:

God can only do what you believe he can do.

The problem with this statement is that God's ability is not limited by our belief about what He can or cannot do, but by His nature and character. God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18); God can never send a flood to destroy all life on earth (Genesis 8:20-22); God cannot get tired (Isaiah 40:28); God cannot take on a task too hard for Him (Jeremiah 32:17); God cannot be prejudiced (Acts 10:34-35); God cannot remember the sins of those forgiven by Him (Isaiah 43:25). I would ask Mr. LaTurco, based on his statement, if I believe that God can do one or all of the above, then does that mean He has to perform them?

I'm sure that Mr. La Turco would categorically deny that form of reasoning. Why then would Mr. LaTurco make a statement like this? More than likely it was in the midst of some emotional fund-raising rant. Something that Victory Outreach is especially good at, but that is another post.

What this statement demonstrates is a core problem with word-faith/prosperity teaching. The key error with word-faith teaching is that it makes God the servant of man. God is the cat scratching at the door of the human heart begging to be let in. What is stopping Christians from having the abundant life is the fact that we have not allowed God to do the impossible for God! That if we gave our tithes and offerings (in faith) then God could enter our lives and bless us. Note the key, we (humans) have the ability to allow or prevent God from acting! Where in the Bible is this taught? I am just asking for one clear and in context Bible verse!

Ultimately, this statement is bunk, and should disqualify anyone who utters such piffle from standing behind a church pulpit. What is more frightening, is that Mr. LaTurco is leading young people! This sort of triteness is being taught to a generation of young men and women in the guise of Christian education! If I had college age children they would not be attending any Victory Outreach youth group if this is an example of what they would be taught.

I pray that Mr. LaTurco would repent of this error.

Why Are There Four Gospels in the New Testament?

I recently heard a sermon by John MacArthur of Grace Community Church, located in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles, in which he made a very interesting statement about how Bible study is modeled to a church by the Senior Pastor or Teaching Pastor of a particular church. Pastor MacArthur stated (and I am paraphrasing) that whatever a pastor is interested in will be what is preached from the pulpit. Well, I have personally witnessed this in a tweet form my old pastor. He tweeted the following on Nov. 5:

My topic 4 Sunday am. is act 2:42-47 Why do we Have only 4 Gosples? Becouse there is only 4 Learning Styles all part of the body of Christ!!

The reason why this is a topic is because the pastor finds this interesting. This is a pastor that has spent thousands of dollars traversing the country trying to find the fastest way to grow a church. During my time at this church, we went from the Willow Creek method to the Saddleback method, to the learning styles, to the dimensional method. All with no success. I say that because that while there was a growth spike, there was no real lasting fruit. the church continually hovers around 200 core attenders. I do not say members, because this church does not have a membership roll. What is never used is the clear blueprint that Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit to record. It was always Acts 2 plus something else.

Now I had two questions regarding this tweet. First, what relationship does the four "learning styles" and Acts 2:42-47 have to do with each other? Second, why do we have four gospels in the New Testament?

First, let me briefly deal with the first question. Absolutely nothing! Why? Very simply the four "learning styles"  are based on the teachings of Ray Zacharias, who is now retired from active teaching. In his seminar, he speaks of four learning styles: Innovative, Common Sense, Dynamic and Analytical learners (a more comprehensive summary can be found here). Mr. Zacharias, then links these for styles to the Gospels:

Matthew = Common Sense
Mark = Dynamic
Luke = Analytic
John = Innovative

The problem is that these four learning styles are not the only measure of human learning styles available. In fact, I would say that there are as many different learning styles as there are people. Now as a general rule, I do find that most people tend to fit into one of these four categories. Let me be clear I am not refuting this method.

So what is my issue? The linking of these learning styles to Acts chapter two. I am sure that the pastor in question will magically transport this late 20th century idea back to the 1st century church, and how it was a key to the growth of the church. That the apostles used this idea to help grow the church.

Well, there are a number of problems with this view, but I will limit myself to three.

First, the idea of learning styles would have been completely foreign to the 1st century Jewish mindset. I say this because this idea was invented in the mid-20th century. The general teaching method in the 1st century was oral, in which the rabbi spoke and the disciples listened. Some bright young Jew got the idea to write the teachings of a rabbi down, giving birth to the Midrash and the Talmud. As a general rule, however, teaching was spoken and recited and not written and read.

Second, this idea would have been even more foreign to the apostles. These were men who were not educated in the Jewish religious tradition. As I have presented above, this idea was foreign to them. If this idea was foreign to them, then it would be even more foreign to the "unlettered" apostles.

Third, the Holy Spirit gives us the actual reason for the growth of the Jerusalem church. The first, and most important reason was "the apostles' teaching". These men were teaching the words of God to the people of God first and foremost because that was, and is, the key to making disciples. These men taught the "uncut" Word of God. Their commitment to the teaching, please note that the church is to be taught and not preached to, was so strong that when problems regarding the dispersion of food came up, they assigned deacons to handle that issue so that they could maintain their devotion to teaching the people of God (Acts 6:1-6).

So it is clear that the apostles did not utilize anything other than the Word of God to grow the church. Likewise, modern pastors must focus on the teaching of the Word of God as the key to church growth and not the modern humanistic musings of man.

Now, why are there four gospel accounts of the life of Christ? Why not three, or five, or many more? The answer to that is because each of these Gospels are directed to one of four audiences that made up the then known world. Each Gospel answers a particular question that each of the audiences would have regarding the life of Christ. The Gospel;s were not written because there are only four learning styles. Now I do agree that there are parallels between the learning styles and the Gospels, but that was not the assertion that was made. The assertion that was made was that there are four Gospels because there are four learning styles. This is incorrect and must be refuted.

First, Matthew was written primarily to the Jews. Matthew answers the question, "What did Jesus say?" If you had an edition of the New Testament with the sayings of Jesus in red letters, and removed the red letters from it you would eviscerate the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew gives us a genealogy of Jesus that establishes His right to the throne of David. It contains the fullest record of the parables and preaching of Jesus. Matthew gives us the fullest accounts of the Sermon on the Mount and the Olivet Discourses. Further, Matthew is arranged thematically and not chronologically. The miracles, parables and sayings of Jesus are clustered around various themes. The key term in Matthew is "Kingdom of Heaven" which is evidence that this Gospel was written by a Jew to be read by Jews.

Mark's Gospel was written to Romans. It answers the question, "What did Jesus do?" It emphasizes the the deeds of Jesus. You find no genealogies in Mark. The reason is that the Romans did not care about who Jesus descended from. The Romans were interested in power. They needed to be convinced that Jesus was more powerful than Caesar. The key words in Mark are "immediately" and "authority". These words demonstrate Jesus' power. Mark also converted monetary units to lira.

The Gospel of Luke was written to the Greeks. Greeks were not interested in what Jesus said or how much power Jesus had. They were interested in who followed Jesus. Luke answers that question by emphasizing the followers of Jesus, e.g., Simeon (2:22-35), Anna (2:36-38) and Mary (2:51). Luke interviewed the eyewitnesses (1:3). He gives us more detail than any other Evangelist. Why were the followers of Jesus so important to the Greeks? Because Jesus needed to be shown as a universal Savior.

The last Gospel is John's account of the life of Christ. This book was written to Christians. It answers the question, "Who was Jesus?" It emphasizes the deity of Jesus. The seven "I Am" statements are found in John. In John you find Jesus being called God explicitly, by both His friends and His enemies. I can go further, but that would go beyond the realm of my argument.

In conclusion, it must be repeated that the reason why there is four Gospels is because of the four core audiences in the world at the time of the writing of the Gospels. The learning styles were not an idea that even existed at in the 1st century in Jewish thought and by extension early Christian thought. The reason is that the learning styles were not invented until the mid 20th century. The learning styles has no place in building the church. Acts chapter two gives us the blueprint for that. Since the Holy Spirit authored that, and the Pentecostal movement is so big on the work of the Holy Spirit, then they should be the first to reject humanistic methods of growing a church. Lastly, the reason why there are four Gospels is because they answer four essential questions as to the identity of Jesus of Nazareth. I hope and pray that this educates people as to why the Holy Spirit gave us four gospels and how the Holy Spirit intends the church to be grown.

Context, Context, Context!

Today I came across a Facebook post that said the following:

People say respect is earned. I diagree its given. The word says give and it shall be given unto u. What have u been giving?

 Now this little blurb, in and of itself is not questionable. I believe that there is a certain amount of respect that should be given to others. There is also a certain type of respect that must be earned, but that is not the point I wish to focus on. What I would like to examine a little bit more is the use of Luke 6:38 as a basis for this statement.


I have been posting lately about how certain verses are taken out of context and turned into a pretext for heresy or heterodoxical ideas. By heterodox, I mean a departure from strict orthodox beliefs but are not heretical. In other words, I would call the Pentecostal baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues a heterodox doctrine because it departs from strict orthodoxy regarding the historical understanding of that doctrine.


This Facebook posting, however, is a little different in that it represents just how deep the post-modern literary idea has invaded the church. You see the post-modern literary model is the idea that no one can understand the intent of a writer, unless the reader personally knows the author. Therefore, the reader can read into the literary work any idea she wants. What we have here is a clear case of that post-modern idea.


Now part of the problem that we are addressing is caused by the chapter and verse divisions that he find in the Bible. These chapter and verse divisions are not part of the existing manuscripts. They were additions made by the French Protestant printer Robert Stephanus. Many of these divisions appear arbitrary and in many cases utterly random.  They also tend to confuse readers and to be the cause of much bad teaching. These chapter and verse divisions, however, have become so ingrained that to change them now would cause mass confusion. It is possible to read the Bible and to ignore the chapter and verse divisions because there are translations that indicate paragraphs which make interpretation easier.


What the person posted was a partial quote. Now I do not want it to seem that I am picking on this particular person. I have heard this verse used as a basis for generous giving during the receiving of the offering during a church service, particularly within the Pentecostal churches. She quoted Luke 6:38. I have posted it below from the English Standard Version for you to see:

give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”

 First, look at the word "give" and note that the letter g is lower case. This indicates that this word does not begin a sentence. Second, there is the pronoun "it". What does the word "it" refer to? Does it refer to the word give? If so, what are we to give? This verse, in and of itself, is very ambiguous. Since this is the case, we must look at the broader context of the verse so let's go back one verse to 37. I have posted both verses below:

 “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”

Now the overall context of the chapter is Luke's rendition of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. The particular paragraph in question is dealing with judging others. With this in mind, we can see that what is in question in verses 37 & 38 is mercy and forgiveness. It is clear from the literary context that neither respect nor money. The error demonstrated here is the the error of taking one verse out of its context and forcing it into a context that is completely foreign to the author and the audience. The point I am trying to make is that Christians must interpret the bible in a very consistent manner. We cannot play with the bible. It is a the book that God has given us, not as a guide to moral behavior, but as a guide to show us the grace, mercy & justice of God.


There is more I can say on this topic, and I will in future posts.