Matt Postiff's Blog

Today's question:

Romans 3:30 says that one God will justify the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Why are two different prepositions used?

First, let's double check that there are in fact two different prepositions in the Greek text, and there are: the first is "ek" faith and the second is "dia" faith.

Now to the question of why this is. Bottom line: this is most likely a stylistic variation and the prepositions are not conveying any difference at all.

This conclusion is supported by the truth gleaned from our systematic theology studies that there is only ONE way of salvation, by grace through faith. There is not one way for Jews and a different way for Gentiles. There is no such thing as a dual covenant or "automatic pass" for Jews because they are "God's people." Today, if they do not exercise faith in the Messiah Jesus, they cannot be saved. And if Gentiles do not exercise faith in the Messiah Jesus, they cannot be saved either.

Douglas Moo points out that there are two other places where these prepositions are neighbors to each other with the same object (The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, p. 252):

Romans 11:36 ESV For from (ek) him and through (dia) him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

2 Peter 3:5 ESV For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out (ek) of water and through (dia) water by the word of God...

In these verses, context demonstrates that the different prepositions do mean different things, that is, they are not used as synonyms. But in the context of Romans 3:30, they are used as synonyms.

This reminds me of an important principle of interpretation: you have to be VERY sure if you are building a big theological point on a small preposition (or two). Prepositions are outsized in their importance in language in general, and in Scripture particularly, in that they modify and connect ideas together to create larger and more significant ideas. But they are not that outsized whereby you can undermine a clear theological truth with an argument based on a dubious distinction between what can most easily be explained as synonyms.

You are saved by faith. You are saved through faith. Those two sentences mean the same thing. And thank God for them, otherwise we would not be saved at all!

There are probably many definitions of expository preaching out there, but let me give you mine:

Expository preaching is that method of preaching where a portion of the Bible text is explained and applied. Its goal for the audience is understanding and obedience.

To expand just a bit: The pastor carefully studies the text of Scripture in order to clearly explain the text and show how its truths can be applied to the audience. The pastor aims for the audience to actually understand what he has explained, and obey how the text should be applied. Explaining should lead to understanding, and application should lead to obedience.

In normal usage, the phrases "expository preaching" and "expositional preaching" refer to the same thing. Attempts to distinguish these two phrases seem unnecessarily picky.

How shall we interpret James 4:1-10? The entire book of James seems to be directed toward believers, at least generally so. But there is some very strong language in chapter 4 that seems to indicate readers who were heavy into sin, so much so that they might seem like unbelievers:

• Wars
• Fights
• Desire for pleasure
• Lust
• Murder
• Covet
• Not asking God
• Asking amiss
• Spending on personal pleasures
• Adulterers
• Friendship with the world
• Enmity with God
• Spirit that yearns jealously
• Proud
• Sinners
• Double-minded

This sounds suspiciously like the worldly wisdom mentioned in James 3:14-16. Where does this stuff come from? James identifies the source in verse 1: an internal heart problem where desires for pleasure are in control of the person's behavior.

Whether this is a description of a believer or not, none of this is good or acceptable. If a member of the church behaved consistently like this and without repentance, what would the church do? It would have to conclude that the person is not acting like a believer should act. It should then call the person to repent. The call would look something like this:

• Submit to God
• Resist the Devil
• Draw near to God
• Cleanse your hands
• Purify your heart
• Lament
• Mourn
• Weep
• Turn laughter into mourning
• Turn joy into gloom
• Humble yourself before God

If the person responds properly with humble repentance, all will be well. If the person does not, then they are giving off strong evidence that they are not genuine in their profession of faith.

Today's question:

What does it mean in Matthew 11:12 that the kingdom of heaven suffered violence, and the violent take it by force?

Here is the text from three modern English translations:

And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. (Matt. 11:12 NKJV)

From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. (Matt. 11:12 NIV-2011)

From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. (Matt. 11:12 NIV-1984)

Initially, I find it interesting to note that the 2011 NIV changed the 1984 NIV translation, albeit with a footnote mentioning the earlier translation.

A careful study of three key words in the verse seem to me to be determinative that the NKJV and NIV-2011 are in fact correct.

The verb "suffers violence" is a passive verb that seems to follow BDAG's first definition, namely to inflict violence on, dominate; or, in the passive, to be afflicted with violence or to be dominated. The second semantic domain, "to gain an objective by force" seems only to fit in a triumphalist interpretation of the verse and the kingdom of God. The problem with this interpretation is that the kingdom of God is not, at Matthew 11, in triumphant mode. It is being rejected by many in the nation of Israel, and its leaders. By chapter 12, it is clear that the leaders want nothing to do with Jesus and His kingdom announcement; and in chapter 13, the Lord adopts the parable method of teaching in order to conceal truth from the unbelieving in his audiences.

The noun "violent" (really, "violent ones" or "violent men") is a fine translation, and most modern English versions render it this way. Unfortunately, this is a hapax, but given the negative things happening to the kingdom proclamation in Matthew at this point, the connotation is not good. Violent people are doing something bad to the kingdom.

The next verb, "take it" or "have been raiding it" fits this negative connotation. The verb is harpadzo, the same verb used for the rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. It means to seize, steal, kidnap, snatch, to (attempt) to take control of something. Of course at the rapture, the snatching up of believers is a good thing. But it doesn't seem so here with the kingdom. The national leaders of Israel have been and will continue to attempt to shut up the kingdom of heaven to potential entrants (Matthew 23:13). They are, by their actions, effectively taking the kingdom away from the generation present during Jesus' public ministry. They would soon kill John the Baptist, and not long after, they would kill Jesus as well. The murder of John the Baptist puts him squarely in the line of prophets in the Old Testament, which often suffered similar fates at the hands of the rebellious houses of Israel and Judah throughout Old Testament history.

In addition to the above, it is important to consider that believers are not well described with words such as "violent" and "seize."

The parallel passage in Luke 16:16 presents somewhat of a difficulty for this view, but perhaps Jesus said something in addition to what Matthew 11:12 records. And I think it could be argued that instead of "everyone is pressing into it," a valid translation would be "everyone is (trying to) dominate it." It it obvious that not everyone is trying to enter the kingdom, for there are a large number of people who are rejecting Jesus' teachings. But neither is everyone trying to destroy the kingdom either. Perhaps pessimistically, I assume that there were more who were against Jesus and His kingdom than for it; in that case, everyone would be a bit of a hyperbole, meaning "basically everyone is against it."

For full disclosure, let us hear the opposing viewpoint from John MacArthur in his study Bible:

But the kingdom can never be subdued or opposed by human violence. Notice that where Matthew says, "the violent take it by force," Luke has "everyone is pressing into it" (Luke 16:16). So the sense of this verse may be rendered this way: "The kingdom presses ahead relentlessly, and only the relentless press their way into it." Thus again Christ is magnifying the difficulty of entering the kingdom..."

In response, I would say that the kingdom was in fact opposed by human violence. Humans killed its first messenger—John the Baptist. They also killed its second messenger—Jesus Christ. They did much the same to the apostles. This happened because God permitted it to be so for His own good purposes, not because it was out of His control. In the end the kingdom cannot be opposed, but along the way, it in fact has been opposed.

In addition, MacArthur lets Luke 16:16 control the interpretation of Matthew 11:12, whereas I advocate for the reverse.

In the big picture there is little difference in our theology of the kingdom, at least in its future manifestation, for I agree that the kingdom will eventually take over the whole earth--not in a postmillennial way, but suddenly when Christ returns. And the way of entry is narrow into this kingdom. We can learn this much from a synthesis of other Bible texts. I'm convinced that we don't learn it from Matthew 11:12.

Today's question:

I have heard that there is a chronological Bible in a number of versions. I know little about it. What do you think about a chronological Bible vs the "regular" one? I am concerned about the change. Should I be?

And my response:

I don't own a chronological Bible, but I don't have a problem with the idea of a chronological Bible.

What is a chronological Bible? It presents the contents of the Bible in the order in which the events occurred. So, after you read a certain portion of Acts 20, then you would read Romans, because that's when Paul wrote Romans. Or, since Isaiah ministered to such and such Israelite kings, you would place his prophecies during the narrative of those kings in Kings and Chronicles.

Such a Bible can be helpful to put together the Bible's history, which is important for us to understand things properly. After all, we believe in a *historical*, grammatical, literal principle of interpretation. So, we need to get the history right.

The order of books in the Bible is not inspired. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible's order of books is different than the English Bible's order. I don't lose any sleep over that issue, but it is interesting to know that fact and why.

I have a slight concern if a particular chronological Bible splits a book in pieces and rearranges those pieces into various locations. The reason for the concern is that the Holy Spirit superintended the authors to write the books in a certain order. Splitting sections may have an important contextual impact on the study of certain sections.

As long as the chronological Bible is a supplemental tool in your "study tool box," we need not worry about the above concern.

You don't need a special chronological Bible. You can find a chronological reading schedule and just read your regular Bible in a different order than you normally do.

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary has just released its latest recommended book list. I recommend it!

For some years, but especially since his passing away, we have been working on a project to scan (but not OCR!) the sermon notes of Dr. Raymond H. Saxe, our church's founding pastor. The result is available here. The sermons are indexed by the Bible passage that they cover.

There are almost 1200 sermons, covering much of the Old and New Testaments. We believe there are more "extant manuscripts" but we are working on finding them. This is a difficult task because he ministered in Ann Arbor from 1963 until 2006. If you have any that we do not have, we would welcome you to send us a copy or help us scan it into the computer to add it to this collection.

These notes may be a helpful resource for you for personal study, ideas in your own sermon preparation, or as a basis of research into either the theology of Dallas Theological Seminary graduates, or Chaferian dispensationalism. Dr. Saxe was a student of Lewis Sperry Chafer in the 1940s at Dallas Seminary, and used the KJV Scofield Bible for his entire ministry.

Dr. Saxe had two earned doctorates (Dallas Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), as well as other advanced degrees. His beliefs and ministry could be characterized this way: Biblical, conservative, evangelical, dispensational, moderately Calvinistic, pro-Israel, expositional, with a strong emphasis on Bible teaching, favorable to the majority text and textus receptus, and somewhat baptistic.

I recently was asked a question raised by an article that claimed to be able to figure out the date of 1948 for Israel's restoration using a mathematical prophecy in Ezekiel 4. It uses a multiplier that it calls the prophetic '7X' factor.

I get jumpy when I see stuff like this. (I think I picked up that phrase from Dr. Rolland McCune at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, but I may have a faulty memory on that.) Here are some problems:

1. Hermeneutics. How does the normal reader figure this out from the text of Scripture? It is not at all clear!

2. Mathematics. There is a judgment period of 430 years. The authors multiply 360 of those years by seven, but they do not multiply the rest (70) by seven. Why not?

3. Eschatology. Israel is not entirely gathered into the land today, nor since 1948 has that been true. Even worse, those who are gathered there remain almost entirely in unbelief.

4. Interpretation. The article assumes "awon" = punishment, but it can also signify the acts for which punishment is due, that is, the iniquity that brought about the punishment. In the NKJV, Ezekiel is lying on his side for 390 years, representing the years of Israel's sin (northern kingdom), probably computed backwards in time to the start of their ill behavior in the kingdom. The forty years would be the same kind of thing, but for the southern kingdom of Judah. In this interpretation, the years would not be looking forward to restoration, but looking backward to the reason for their punishment by Babylon.

I believe Israel is in the land again now because they have to be there in order to be scattered again during the Tribulation.

Kevin DeYoung has written on the identity of the 144,000 servants of God in Revelation 7:3-8. He starts this way:

The 144,000 are not an ethnic Jewish remnant, and certainly not an Anointed Class of saints who became Jehovah’s Witnesses before 1935. The 144,000 “sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel” (Rev. 7:4) represent the entire community of the redeemed. Let me give you several reasons for making this claim.

I have no argument with Pastor DeYoung's second denial--that the 144,000 are "certainly not...Jehovah's Witnesses." But I have to take issue with his assertion that these are not an ethnic Jewish remnant.

Let us suppose for a moment that God will in fact seal a certain number of ethnic Jews for a particular purpose or mission during the Tribulation period. Just how could God express this fact in writing through John if He could not convince the modern reader with the words that He used in Revelation 7:4? Perhaps something like this would have been sufficient:

Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel. I. Mean. Jews! And. I. Mean. One. Hundred. Forty. Four. Thousand! (hypothetical Rev. 7:4)

The hermeneutical contortions that DeYoung forces upon the text are just too much. The text is clear as it is written. If God means what DeYoung says, why did He not simply say it plainly that way?

Now for a brief critique each of DeYoung's supporting arguments.

First, whether or not it "makes sense" that God would seal all of His followers, the text only mentions these 144,000 Jewish ones being sealed. Satan's action in chapter 13 is irrelevant.

Second, using a text from Ezekiel 9 to support a seemingly "similar distinction based on who worships God" and denying any Jewish connection is tenuous. This is particularly so since those who were sealed in Ezekiel were Jews.

Third, DeYoung says, "the 144,000 are called the servants of our God…There is no reason to make the 144,000 any more restricted than that." What he means is that the only descriptive phrase that is allowed to be taken literally is "servants of God." The number and the ethnicity are not allowed to be taken literally. When John heard the number, what he heard was not significant, DeYoung implies. So why didn't John just say, "Then I heard that those servants were sealed," and dispense with the remainder of verses 4-8? In fact, the phrase servants of God, the number, and the ethnicity all contribute to the meaning of the text.

Fourth, DeYoung argues from the descriptions "redeemed from the earth" and "purchased from among men" that this language is generic, applying to everyone. Again the question must be asked—why didn't God just leave out the extra descriptions, and make explicit that this was all the redeemed that were on the earth at that time in the prophecy? He asserts that the number is symbolic of the redeemed "drawn from all peoples, not simply the Jews." He adds that it must be symbolic, because "not defiled with women" (14:4) cannot mean celibate Jewish men…in spite of the fact that the text affirms that they are virgins.

Fifth, DeYoung states that the tribe list and their numbers are highly stylized, so they are not to be taken literally. This reminds me of the framework hypothesis of the creation account, which argues in part that the account is highly stylized, so it cannot be understood as a literal narrative of the events of the creation week. To the contrary, though both passages display wonderful literary quality, this does not mean that it cannot be understood literally.

In sum, the bottom line of DeYoung's argument is that he cannot make sense of the text literally within his theological framework, so it makes more sense to take it to mean something other than what it says. Granted, there is much symbolic language in Revelation. But, for example, an angel whose "face is like the sun, and his feet like pillars of fire" is quite a bit different than a number and a list of tribes of Israel. There is a distinction between symbolic language and plain language, and Revelation 7:3-8 is definitely on the plain side of that divide.

I would add one more argument in favor of taking the text literally to refer to Jews. Read on to verse 9:

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. (Rev. 7:9 NIV)

John refers to tribes of Jews in 7:3-8, and then immediately mentions "every nation, tribe, people, and language." This strengthens our understanding that the 144,000 are in fact ethnic Jews whom God sets apart for special protection and service during the Tribulation. Why would God refer to "all the redeemed" as 144,000 of the Jewish tribes, and then immediately repeat Himself but using the broader language of "every nation"? It makes more sense that Scripture means Jews when it says Jews, and it means "every nation" when it says every nation.

Ultimately what is at stake in this debate is how we read the Bible. Someone like DeYoung reads the exact same passages I do; but he reads at least this one a whole lot differently than I do and, I would argue, he reads it incorrectly.

Clint Archer also defends a literal reading of the 144,000. He follows up with a good article on why the 1000 years of Revelation 20 is to be taken literally.

Introduction

Maybe you are new to reading the Bible and aren’t quite sure what it is all about. The Bible is a library of 66 smaller books compiled into one larger book. It describes important events in world history. In it, God also tells us what he wants us to know about ourselves, Himself, and everything that has to do with life and death. This document summarizes what God has said using 11 words that begin with the letter 'C' (adapted from a shorter list at the Christian ministry Answers in Genesis).

Creation

Genesis 1-2 God created everything out of nothing in six days, and ceased from creation on the seventh day. That is why our week is seven days long. The very pinnacle of creation was man and woman, Adam and Eve. God made Adam out of the dust of the ground and made Eve out of Adam. They were real people whom God directed to keep the Garden of Eden, manage the entire world, and fill it with people. He gave them one prohibition, namely to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Corruption

Genesis 3-5 Whether the fruit of this tree was really an apple or not we do not know. Adam and Eve chose to disobey God by eating the forbidden fruit. Their disobedience caused a major disturbance in the world. First, Adam and Eve started down the path of physical death: dust began to go back to dust. Second, they were separated from God because they had rebelled against Him. Third, they had to leave the utopian Garden of Eden and fight the elements to win an existence from the ground by farming and tending animals. Fourth, it changed their nature so that they were now ‘sinners’ and their offspring were also sinners. That’s us! We are feeling the effects of that disaster down to the present.

Catastrophe

Genesis 6-10 As the population of the world grew, people put their heads together to do evil things on a huge scale. This was distressing to God, so much so that he decided to destroy the world with a flood. Only the man Noah and his family survived by taking refuge in a large boat called the Ark. This flood was a catastrophe that changed the earth’s geography forever. We can see the effects of it today all around us. God promised that he would not judge the world again in this way, and signified that promise with the rainbow.

Confusion

Genesis 11 After the flood, Noah’s sons and their wives had families and began to multiply the earth’s population. Once again, the people turned their attention to their own pursuits instead of re-filling the earth as God had commanded. So, when they took on a huge building project at a place called Babel, God stirred things up by changing their single language into multiple languages. This divided the people into language groups and they began to move apart and settle into different regions of the world. As they became geographically isolated, they gradually developed identifiable physical and cultural characteristics, such as variations of skin color, shape of eyes, and various religions.

Covenant

Genesis 12-50 Out of these many people groups, God chose a man named Abraham from a place in the Fertile Crescent called Ur. He began to believe in the true God. God promised Abraham a nation and personal blessing. His descendants are the Jews/Hebrews as well as the Ishmaelites. God’s promise to Abraham extended through his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. Jacob had 12 sons who became the fathers of the 12 tribes of Israel. Why did God choose Abraham? Simply because he wanted to do so. There was nothing special or worthy in Abraham or his future descendants that warranted God’s choice. God set his love on them as an illustration of how he chooses the things of the world that are despised, and the things that don’t amount to much, in order to bring honor to God.

Commandment

Exodus to Malachi In the next four books of the Bible (Exodus through Deuteronomy), the Bible tells us about Jacob’s family that went down to Egypt to avoid starvation in a famine. God turned that family into a nation of hundreds of thousands of people over a period of 400-odd years. The Hebrews left Egypt and God gave them a constitution that we call the Law of Moses. They were to follow this constitution, with God as their king and Moses as their prince. They immediately had trouble with this assignment, showing that man’s sinful nature, inherited from Adam and Eve, continued to be very troublesome. About 1000 years of their history is covered in the remainder of the books of the Old Testament. They often failed and God sent them prophets and priests and some good kings to exhort them to live under the Law of Moses. The story is a sad tale of repeated failure. The Law, including the 10 commandments, could not rescue the people from their sinful condition caused by the corruption of Genesis 3–5.

Christ

Matthew to John God then sent his Son to take a human body and nature in order to reveal God to humanity and to stand in our place as a substitute, taking the penalty for our sin. That happened on the cross (next section), but before that occurred, His Son Jesus spent several years doing public teaching and private training of his followers to prepare them to start a new phase in God’s program for the world: the church (see below). Jesus is God-in-the-flesh, truly God and truly man in one Jewish man. Christians call him Lord.

Cross

Matthew to John Remember that Adam and Eve began immediately to suffer separation from God and physical degradation that led to death. Apart from God rescuing them out of this terrible predicament, they and we would remain forever separated from him. God’s rescuer is Jesus, who died for our sins to provide forgiveness and life. He asks that we truly turn from our affinity to sin and trust in Him. By so doing, one “believes” in Jesus and is thus saved (from death) and born again to a new life. This rebirth is spiritual, not physical.

Church

Acts to Jude The church was planned to be a distributed, decentralized body that would proclaim the same truths that Jesus did, and encourage people to believe in him and live life with godly character. We can see what this life should look like by reading the teachings of Jesus. These teachings were carried forward by his followers, called apostles, and they wrote the teachings down in the books of the New Testament. Many of their teachings they conveyed in the written form of letters to churches like those of the Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, Romans, and the others. Christians follow these instructions.

Coming

Revelation Jesus Christ is coming back a second time. Just before that happens, God will take all Christians, dead and alive, to heaven. Then, there will be a time of difficult tribulation that will consume the entire earth, after which Jesus will return and inaugurate a time of world peace. But even this will be sullied by sin. At the end of this time, God will judge the unsaved dead and consign them to a place called the lake of fire. Sinners and sin will be confined to that place forever, unable to do damage to the rest of God’s creation.

Completion

Revelation Finally, God will do a total cleanup of the universe by burning it all up and creating a new heaven and new earth. In this new earth he will take up residence and his people will live there with him in perfect harmony. This is what Christians call “heaven.” It will be a never-ending perfect society with no sickness, pain, or death.

The list is expanded from a similar list used by Answers in Genesis.

I think that most Americans would agree that Dylan Roof's killing of nine black church-goers last week qualifies as a hate crime, particularly because of his white-supremacist background and racist rant while he slew his victims. His act demonstrates the worst sort of depravity. But what is a hate crime and why is it a special kind of crime?

What most Americans do not understand is that all crimes are hate crimes, and that in God's sight, hate itself is a crime.

Let me address the latter assertion first: hate itself is a crime under divine law.

Leviticus 19:17 - You shall not hate your brother in your heart.
1 John 2:9 - He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now.
1 John 3:15 - Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
1 John 4:20 - If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?
Matthew 5:44-45 - But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

The Christian God commands that all people love God and love their neighbors as themselves. Hatred is the same as breaking this "great commandment" and God's assigned punishment for this crime is eternal death (Romans 6:23).

Now for the assertion that all crimes are "hate crimes."

Google shows the definition of hate crime to be "a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence."

My definition of crime is broader than the secular definition because I count a true "crime" as an act against the law of God. Some things fall into this category which are legal but are not right in God's eyes.

My definition of hate crime is also broader than the secular definition because the motivation of all crime, whether directly or indirectly, is hate. Looking at it from another angle, crime arises from the self-love of the perpetrator rather than love for the victim.

• Did Dylan Roofs love his victims?
• Regardless of the skin color of the perpetrator or victim, does a mass shooter love his victims?
• Does the abortion doctor love his victim—or his pregnant patient?
• Does the gay couple who sues a cake maker (for not making a cake for them) love their victim?
• Do followers of the homosexual movement love their opponents when they send them death threats?

Obviously the answer to the above questions is a resounding NO in each case. Unfortunately, in an age where boy means girl and white means black, it is not certain that this obvious conclusion will be accepted.

Undoubtedly someone who opposes what I've said above will ask about a minister refusing to perform a gay wedding or a pastor preaching against homosexuality—aren't those hate crimes? Absolutely not! Under God's law, they are acts of love, not hate. To share with someone that their conduct and beliefs are ultimately destructive is not to hate them; it is rather to show love and compassion.

Under United States secular law as construed for the entire history of the nation, such actions (or lack of action) are protected as free exercise of religion and speech; they are not criminal acts; and they certainly don't involve violence. These acts are not motivated by sexual prejudice, for the Christian motivation is not a mere preconceived opinion. Rather, the motivation is love for God and love for neighbor.

Judging the internal motivations is a very slippery task. I think we should forget about categorizing crimes into different types by motivation, and simply punish crimes uniformly.

Murder is murder—whether it it arose out of personal malice or impersonal prejudice. It took a life, no matter what the color, gender, sexuality, etc. Murder is a hate crime, and all hate is a crime too.

This post came out of a study of 1 John 3:10-24.

I applaud Ken Ham for reminding us tonight that the human race is ONE race, not many, not black and white, not brown and yellow, but one race, from Adam and Eve. He wrote some helpful comments in his related twitter posts @aigkenham:

There is only one race of people biologically—Adam's race. Everyone has the same skin color, brown. There are no black or white people—all are shades of brown. Next time you fill out a form that asks what race you are, write "Adam's"

Unfortunately, his post was briefly sullied by a commentator named Gary (full name not included here) who says that God cursed Noah's son Ham (not to be confused with Ken Ham), sent him to a tropical climate, and darkened his skin in punishment for what he did to his dad.

I wrote to Gary directly on his Facebook page, and also tried to write a reply to challenge his comment on Ken's post. My reply was disallowed, I believe because either he himself or Facebook quickly deleted his racist comment. That happened, by the way, less than 25 minutes after he made the remark at about 10:30 eastern time. So, I am copying what I wrote here in my blog so that others searching online will be able to find yet another refutation of this deplorable interpretation.

Gary, yours is an old and very bad interpretation of Genesis 9:21-27. This interpretation is especially odious because it was used to justify the enslavement of black people. I challenge you to review the passage and show us from the text (1) that Ham uncovered Noah; (2) that God sent Ham to a tropical climate; (3) that God miraculously darkened Ham's skin; and (4) that God cursed Ham at all. I don't find those assertions anywhere in the text, yet you make all of them in your three lines of false teaching. Here are the facts: (1) Noah became uncovered by himself because he was drunk; (2) The text doesn't say God sent Ham to a tropical climate; (3) The text doesn't say that God darkened Ham's skin; and (4) God did not curse Ham—the text says that God cursed Canaan!

The Christian pastor's job description includes silencing those who are empty talkers and deceivers (Titus 1:11). This is just such a case. Hopefully the truth will embarrass Gary into silence. It is impossible to make an apologetic for racism out of Genesis 9.

Divorce is sinful because it is against God's design for marriage (Mark 10:9). Furthermore, it (and all the events leading up to it) is harmful because it leads to all kinds of heartache for the spouses, devastation for the children, and often poverty. So: work hard to avoid it; make choices to avoid it; conduct yourself so as to avoid it.

For Christians divorce is wrong for another reason. It is wrong because divorce is basically implemented by one spouse suing the other spouse, placing both of them under a secular judge to divide their marriage, their children, and their material possessions.

Divorce amounts to "going to law before the unjust" (1 Cor. 6:1).

Have you ever wondered why young couples go to a church for counseling and marriage, but then they run to the secular judge to be divorced? Why don't they run to the church where they were married and ask the pastor to divorce them? "That's crazy," you reply, "because the pastor doesn't have the power to divorce them." And why is that? Why did he have the authority to marry them, but then can have nothing to do with their divorce? Why do we accept the status quo as if it is the most righteous thing there is? Couldn't there be another way?

Don't you know that the saints will judge the world? Don't you know that saints will judge angels? Isn't there anyone in the church wise enough to settle problems between believers, even spouses? Why do we ask to be judged by the unrighteous? Shameful! (See 1 Cor. 6:1-8).

Of course the couple doesn't want to go to the church and have to face up to their sin and repent of it, or be told they cannot legitimately divorce. They want what they want because of the hardness of their hearts (Mark 10:5).

I know, I know...there are some situations that are "difficult or exceptional." I just do not believe those adjectives allow us to ditch God's word.

If you have a problem in your marriage, your attorney should not be your first stop. Run to your God, and to your church!

Examples of a bad hermeneutic:

1. That all birds in the Bible represent the devil.
2. That all leaven in the Bible represents sin.
3. That all fig trees in the Bible represent Israel.

In some places in Scripture, birds, leaven, and fig trees may indeed represent those things, but not always. If the context says so, fine. But if you are importing the meaning of a symbol from a remote context to your local context, you will almost certainly make the local context say something that its author never meant to say.

When you take care to avoid this interpretive error, you will find that:

1. The birds in the mustard "tree" (Matthew 13) do not represent Satan and thus the kingdom of heaven is NOT necessarily populated with a bunch of sinners. The idea that the birds represent evil in the kingdom of heaven has been used to distinguish the kingdom of heaven from the kingdom of God, a distinction which is unsustainable because of many other texts of Scripture.
2. The leaven mixed into the lump of dough (Matthew 13) does not represent sin making its way throughout the kingdom of heaven to sully it, even though leaven represents sin elsewhere in Scripture.
3. The fig tree does not always refer to the nation of Israel in symbolic form (see Revelation 6).

This past week, I received a question through our website as to why not all Christian churches observe the Sabbath. Here is my answer to the inquiry.

Not all Christian churches observe the Sabbath because they believe quite differently about the Law of Moses than other Christians who say it still regulates us. The following briefly outlines our beliefs.

1. We believe the Lord's day is the first day of the week, when our Lord arose from the dead, which is Sunday. Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, 20:19; Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Revelation 1:10.

2. We do not believe we are under the regulative regime of the Law of Moses. Romans 6:14-15, Galatians 4:21, 5:18. Rather we are under the Law of Christ. 1 Corinthians 9:21, James 2:8.

3. The Sabbath command has been explicitly set aside by newer revelation. Colossians 2:16.

4. Some Christians esteem one day to be more important than another, and other Christians esteem every day alike. Each of us must be fully convinced in our own minds, and live accordingly in light of the coming judgment. Romans 14:1-13.

5. Some of us believe a valid principle revealed by the Sabbath command is that man needs rest one of every seven days.

I trust you will consider the Scripture shared above. If nothing else, it would be good for you to hold your position with full faith, and permit others to hold their view, without passing judgment upon them as the Romans 14 passage directs.

Our church's Bible reading plan has us in Luke 15 today. A few key statements (from NKJV) seem to summarize the chapter well:

And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, "This man receives sinners..." (15:2)

I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents... (15:7)

I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents. (15:10)

When he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion... (15:20)

And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry, for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found. (15:23-24)

It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found. (15:32)

Personal note: I am very glad that Jesus receives sinners!

Last Thursday the United States Supreme Court narrowly upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its decision in NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. (11-393c3a2.pdf).

Frankly, I was disappointed by the majority opinion in the case. Don't get me wrong--I believe that providing health care to those who need it is a good thing. My disagreement with ACA has to do primarily with how it accomplishes its goal. The act is contrary to the principles of liberty that underlie the founding of our constitutional republic.

I found the dissent by justices Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia to be a very coherent, constitutionally rigorous, and convincing defense of their opinion that the entirety of the ACA should be struck down.

There were three portions of their dissent that particularly caught my attention regarding the issue of textual interpretation. The dissenting justices provided some helpful thoughts that we can profitably ponder in our own reading of the Bible.

I have believed for years that the disagreement in constitutional interpretation between the liberals and the conservatives is very closely paralleled by the disagreement between Christians over Biblical interpretation. To be sure, more conservatives and evangelicals are embracing what they call 'literal' interpretation, but they do not share the entire range of meaning of that term when they thus speak. The difference in interpretive approach is even more pronounced between conservatives and liberals.

The ACA case points out three areas that are critical when interpreting a text.

1. Double Meaning and Textualism

"What the Government would have us believe in these cases is that the very same textual indications that show this is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act show that it is a tax under the Constitution. That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists." (Dissent, pp. 27-28).

The dissent points out that the solicitor general, representing the Obama administration, seeks to benefit from both sides of a patent contradiction. Normal readers would understand that either the financial obligations laid on a non-insured person under the ACA are a tax or they are a penalty, but they cannot be both at the same time. The government argued on the one hand that the law was a penalty, so the case could be heard by the court, and on the other hand it argued that the law was a tax, so that the law could be upheld as constitutional. Apparently Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the court were convinced.

The dissent correctly points out that we must look at the textual indications in the bill itself to see whether the financial obligation is a penalty or a tax. Along with that, they argue that it is 'verbal wizardry' to take the exact same text and make the bill mean two different things from the same text. Court precedent has a very plain understanding of the term 'tax' and another and different understanding of the term 'penalty.' The law, as written, uses the term 'penalty' and the penalty is in fact structured as such. The language and meaning are consistent that the bill imposes a penalty on someone who will not purchase an insurance policy.

For those of us busy interpreting the Bible for our churches in sermons or commentaries, we need to be keenly aware that a text has a single meaning. We have often heard that a text may have many implications or applications; but it has only one meaning. Some interpreters have opted for a double-meaning or multiple-referent approach that I cannot embrace. But what we must all agree on is that even if you believe in double meaning, you cannot take a text and make it mean, at one and the same time, two things that are opposites of one another! To do so would be nonsense.

2. Original Meaning, Authorial Intent, and the Larger Context

When discussing the issue of severability and whether some portions of the law could be struck down while others are upheld, the dissenters write:

"The question is whether the provisions will work as Congress intended. The 'relevant inquiry in evaluating severability is whether the statute will function in a manner consistent with the intent of Congress.'” (Dissent, p. 50).

Certain provisions of the ACA rely on other key provisions (namely the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion). The question is this: if you strike down the two key provisions, can the remainder of the provisions make sense as intended by Congress? The dissent says 'no' because of the intertwining of the minor provisions with the major provisions. Even if some minor provisions could make some kind of sense without the major ones, the dissent suggests that their effect would be different than the effect intended by Congress. The court should not get into the business of upholding some parts of a law which now have a new meaning apart from the major provisions. That would have the effect of striking down one part of the law and rewriting the other part because the context of the other part has changed.

This is a helpful concept for us to consider in Biblical interpretation. We can easily fall into a compartmentalized view of the Bible in which we believe our interpretation of one part does not affect another part. Readers of this blog know that I have expressed major concerns over the doctrine of creation held by many evangelicals--a doctrine which, in their view, must be harmonized with science to be relevant and sensible. But, I ask, does such a harmonization agree with authorial intent? It doesn't seem to. And, does harmonizing with science affect our interpretation of other texts in the Bible? Absolutely it does. If the author's intent is overridden in one area, it can easily change the context in significant ways that affect the interpretation of other portions. When authorial intent is discarded in the interpretation of one portion of a text, there is no telling what happens to the interpretation of another portion of the text, even if authorial intent is supposedly upheld in that other portion.

3. Changing the Meaning

Toward the end of the dissent, the justices argue against what the majority has decided. They convincingly claim that Roberts, et al., deal not with the Law that Congress wrote, but rather with the law that Congress could have written. Their argument is that the text of the Law is before the court, and it is the court's job to decide on the law as written, not on a variation of the law that could have been written and could have been before the court had Congress written it differently.

"The Court’s disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them." (Dissent, p. 64).

The dissent thus says that the majority opinion has invented a meaning for the ACA that is not in the ACA itself. The ACA imposes a penalty for an individual who does not obey the individual insurance mandate. The majority has decided to construe that penalty as a tax in its desire to find some way in the constitution to uphold the law. The 'atextual' interpretation of the law has resulted in a messy decision that creates more problems than it solved.

Concluding Thoughts

There is a real battle in the area of interpretation today. People who are our leaders now (in government and in churches) grew up in a philosophical environment that allows multiple contradictory meanings without any apparent cognitive dissonance in the person holding those contradictory meanings; an environment that allows the reader to determine the meaning of a text rather than the author; and an environment that permits a person to change or dismiss an authoritative source if it conflicts with their own self-authority.

Given this kind of thinking, I wonder if we really know how to read. Sure, we can sound out the words or spit them out from memory if we learned the look-say method, but do we really read and understand them? Do we understand that we cannot find two contradictory propositions from the same words? Do we understand that God is not the author of contradiction and confusion? Do we understand that meaning does not reside in us, but in the text as intended by the author? Do we understand that we are not the authority, but an external authority is, whether the constitution or the Bible?

The Christian ought to understand that contradiction, reader-centrism, and modification of the plain meaning of the Bible are not consistent with godly interpretation. May God help us to approach His authoritative text very carefully so that we do not make the errors we have discussed above.

Are you mystified by the book of Revelation? You're not alone! A few years ago I taught through Revelation for our church on Sunday evenings. I made a lot of effort not to get bogged down in a lot of details so as to preserve the big picture of the book. Very shortly thereafter, I taught the same series to a group of senior citizens. They had a great interest in the book. Perhaps this is not surprising in the sunset years...the desire to know what is on the horizon, which grows nearer and nearer for those in retirement. Whatever stage of life you are in, the things coming in the future are relevant for our conduct now, as 2 Peter 3:11-14 exhorts.

The notes are available in this PDF file.

I received a question via email as to what the lamp in the tabernacle represents (Leviticus 24:1-4). The inquirer suggested that it may represent the work of the Holy Spirit.

My response was as follows:

The lamp has been variously identified. I believe the oil has been identified with the Holy Spirit, and the light of it has been identified with the Word of God (Psalm 119:105, for instance).

At best, however, these are only analogies. Now, analogies are often helpful for understanding and I don't discard them entirely. But I am unable to think of a Bible text that teaches any typological relationship between the tabernacle lamp and some other New Testament person, idea, or event.

The question really boils down to a hermeneutical question. In the absence of a specific revelatory proposition that makes an identification, I cannot identify a relationship between the lamp and anything else. In other words, when Leviticus 24:1-4 talks about the lamp of the tabernacle, it represents...the lamp of the tabernacle! That's what plain, literal, normal hermeneutics would guide us to realize. The words do not represent a hidden spiritual truth. The meaning of the words is plainly written. Now, if Hezekiah 14:45 were to say, "Christ is that lamp of the tabernacle," then I would have to deal with that revelation. Absent that, I am not required to hunt for a deeper meaning.

Why should we believe there is no hidden meaning? Because, first of all, God intended to communicate something, and hidden truth does not communicate well. In Lev. 24, God desired to tell the priests how to arrange the operation of the tabernacle. If God had wanted to teach something about the Spirit, He would have done so openly and plainly (I leave room for parables and so forth here). Second, hidden meanings (if there were any) can only be extracted by certain "interpretation experts," yet these experts often differ as to their conclusions. Who is right? Third, if you (generic use of 'you') make a specific identification of what the lamp represents, then you are going beyond what Scripture explicitly teaches. How could you then stand in front of the church and say "this means that, and this is the application of what is represented..." with any level of certainty? The person listening would have to wonder where in the world you got the idea from. This brings up a fourth objection to hidden meanings, and that is that preaching them provides a bad example of Bible study to the Christians listening to the preaching.

Hope that is helpful. --MAP

Romans 15:1 - We then who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak, and not to please ourselves (NKJ).

Romans 15:1 - We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves (ESV).

In my reading this morning I paused at this verse. A few thoughts came to mind. What struck me first is that believers have a moral obligation to be patient with those who are weak. The previous chapter discusses the specific kind of weakness Paul has in mind.

Whatever kind of weakness or failing that some believer or church has, we have an obligation to bear with them. Our first reaction may be to leave the church (read: separate), but that approach is not in accordance with the spirit of this passage. (I assume we are not talking about a matter of heresy or failure to carry out basic Biblical duties.) Someone may say, "Those people are unspiritual, weak Christians. I'm going to find a better church." I do not believe that approach fits what Paul has in mind here. "Bearing with" does not equal "writing off." "Bearing with" requires spiritual maturity and hard work. The goal of edification is not easily achieved (15:2).

Sometimes the "writing off" approach comes from a deep seated attitude that the church has to provide what I need/want, or what my kids need, or whatever. "If this church is too weak to get that done, then I'm going somewhere better." A better approach would be to dig in and use your spiritual gifts to help provide some ministry that fills a gap rather than leaving the church in the same state you found it. "Ask not what your church can do for you. Ask what you can do for your church."

I haven't read on the Lordship salvation controversy in a while, but I recently picked up Lou Martuneac's In Defense of the Gospel and have read through most of it.

I'm not planning to do a full review of it here, but I have to ask at least one question about the interpretation of Romans 10:9-10 he offers on page 203. There, Martuneac writes, “From the above quotations and the biblical evidence the consensus is confession with the mouth of Christ's position as Lord is required for salvation, not a promise of future obedience to Him as Lord.”

This portion struck me as odd. It seems he is not dealing very carefully with the text, in that his statement could easily be construed as an addition to receiving the gospel by faith. Is he teaching a way of salvation that requires a work—public verbal confession—in order to procure salvation?

Don't get me wrong: I am convinced that the Bible demonstrates that faith without some kind of fruit is dead. But given that Martuneac is trying to press the case that Lordship salvation is a faith plus works message (p. 229), he should give a more clear explanation as to what he is saying about this verbal confession. What Martuneac has written reminds me of gospel invitations given with a call to step forward and confess Christ publicly, seeming to make it sound like such an act is a requirement in order to be saved. We need to be very clear to our listeners as to what is required and what is not required. We should not leave them wondering if they need to stand up and give a public word on the Lordship of Christ, or not. Martuneac's statement is clear enough, but it seems to contradict the overall thesis of his book.

An interesting conversation on seeing Christ in the OT started with Mark Snoeberger's post, with a response at the paleoevangelical blog, and some more by Snoeberger in the comments of the post here.

In light of this conversation, we are faced with at least three choices, the main ones being: reading the lines, reading between the lines, or a combination of both. I am voting for "reading the lines."

It is not at all necessary to read between the lines to find most of what Ben and Chris and the other commentators see in the OT about the Messiah. Furthermore, it is hermeneutically dangerous to read between the lines. Why? First, the meaning of the text of the Bible is in the text, not the whitespace. Second, the text, not the whitespace, is inspired. Third, between the lines gives away too much of the idea of progressive revelation.

Perhaps I am taking "between the lines" a bit too literally (!), but it seems that the propositions communicated in the OT are clear enough without having to hunt behind or under the Scriptural text.

Now, the above is not a full endorsement of what Mark has written, particularly the idea in his original post that Christ is not a theme in the OT. I would beg to differ...ideas such as God raising up an ideal prophet/priest/king (Deuteronomy 18:15 / 1 Samuel 2:35, Psalm 110:4 / 2 Samuel 7, Psalm 2:7, Amos 9:11) and the servant motif (Isaiah 53) are very important forward-looking ideas in the OT that are clearly Messianic. But, that said, I think Brother Snoeberger has made a helpful, if slightly overstated, point.

This post is about the sometimes puzzling texts Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27 "... there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

One important rule of Bible study to keep in mind is this: don't let the chapter divisions fool you. They are not inspired.

Matthew 16 ends abruptly with this announcement. Chapter 17 would initially seem to leave the reader dangling as to what Jesus means with those words. But actually we should read 16:28 and continue into chapter 17 as if there is no chapter division at all.

As with many Bible difficulties, the answer to the question about who and when this "not taste of death" will be fulfilled is right in the text. In this case, chapter 17 gives the fulfillment of 16:28. Peter, James, and John were the "some standing here" who did not die before they saw a glimpse, albeit very brief, of the glorified Jesus with Moses and Elijah. What they saw is how Jesus will be in His kingdom, with dazzlingly white clothing and shining face, and interacting with resurrected saints of past ages.

The idea that we should not let chapter divisions fool us is backed up by the Mark and Luke passages, where there is no chapter division between the "not taste death" and transfiguration passages.

By the way, in 2 Peter 1:16-17 the apostle reflects on this transfiguration experience. He uses some "kingdom" language when he refers to Christ's power and coming, His majesty, honor, and glory.

First, let us be sure we understand the term "Law." The Law (capital L) refers to the Mosaic Law given at Mount Sinai to Moses. It started with the 10 commandments in Exodus 20 and has many other elements to it. Some say there are 613 specific commandments. In any case, the whole Mosaic Law is what we are referring to. Second, we must understand that no one has or could fulfill that Law, apart from Jesus Christ. All people find even the 10 commandments impossible to follow, particularly when considering Christ's high standard given in the Sermon on the Mount.

So this brings us to the question of how Jesus fulfilled the Law. He said He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17-18). There are two ways that He did so. First, he perfectly kept all the commands and did fall short in any one of them. From the very beginning, at His birth, until the end of His life, he did no sin (1 Peter 2:22), he knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21), in Him was no sin (1 John 3:5), and He was totally without sin (Heb. 4:15). This is sometimes called Christ's "active obedience."

The second way in which Christ fulfilled the Law was by taking upon Himself all of the penalty of breaking the Law. The Law also has penalties in it for any infraction of the Law. Now despite the fact that the Lord Jesus did not have any infractions, He still took upon Himself the penalty of being cursed by hanging on a tree (Gal. 3:13). This is sometimes called Christ's "passive obedience."

In other words, the Lord fulfilled the Law as to its positive demands (actively doing all of them), and He also fulfilled the Law as to its penalties (passively taking them).

There is a third way in which Christ fulfills the Law today, and that indirectly is through believers. Romans 8:4 says that "the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." This does not mean that believers keep the Law directly, for Christians are not under the law per se (Rom. 6:14), and Rom. 10:4 says "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes." Putting these facts together, we understand that while believers are not keeping the Law directly, and they are not trying to do so in order to attain a righteous standing before God, they are, by their very nature as Spirit-indwelt Christians, fulfilling the righteous standard of the Law in their behavior (albeit imperfect) and also because of their perfect standing in Christ. He fulfilled the Law so that we, who could not and cannot perfectly do so, might be seen by God as in Christ and so fulfilling the righteous requirement of the Law.

The issue of the forgiveness of sins is obviously dear to all Christians. But some believers have found it difficult to understand how a Christian's sins can be said to be completely forgiven (Col. 2:13, 1 John 2:12) and yet at the same time that confession of sin is a necessary element of the Christian's life (1 John 1:9, James 4:8, 5:15-16; see also Lev. 5:5, Num. 5:7, Ezra 10:1, Neh. 9:2-3, Psalm 32:5, Prov. 28:13, Daniel 9:4, 9:20). They might ask, "Why should I confess my sins when they are all forgiven already?"

The answer is that there are two aspects of forgiveness: the initial and the ongoing. All of the Christian's sins have been totally forgiven at the point of salvation (Eph. 1:7, Rom. 4:6-8, Heb. 10:17). God will not deal with us according as our sins deserve (Psalm 103:10-13).

Sins are committed in a believer's life, however, and affect the believer's communion with God. Though sin does not sever the relationship (Heb. 13:5), it does disturb or unsettle things in that relationship. These sins do not expose the believer to eternal punishment, but God calls us to deal with them seriously (1 Cor. 11: 31) and may chasten us in order to make us more holy (1 Cor. 11:32, Heb. 12:5-11). In so doing, God deals with us as children, and this gives us assurance that we are indeed His children.

Note carefully that both types of forgiveness do have to do with the believer's relationship to God. The initial aspect of forgiveness deals with the establishment of the relationship, and the ongoing aspect of forgiveness deals with the temporal harmony of the relationship.

It cannot be denied that sin does affect the relationship that a person has with God. It does not void the relationship, but it does have an impact on it. This is evident from the passage in 1 Peter 3:7, in which husbands are told to live with their wives in an understanding way, lest their prayers be hindered. The hindrance obviously refers to sin in the marriage relationship, and such sin causes a breach in the believing husband's prayers with God.

Burdick explains it this way: "The forgiveness and cleansing which follow [confession] are necessary for a person to be in fellowship with God. It must be remembered that this epistle was written to those who already are forgiven (2:12). John is not here speaking of the initial forgiveness of sin which occurs at the point of salvation. At that time the guilt of all one's sins--past, present and future--is forgiven. The forgiveness of this verse, however, is an experience which comes after salvation. Its function is to remove that which has disturbed the believer's fellowship with God. Whereas the former is a legal remission of guilt, the latter is the Father's forgiveness of His child to restore undisturbed communion. To those who confess their sins, this forgiveness, like initial forgiveness, is assured by the faithfulness and justice of God." (Donald W. Burdick, The Epistles of John [Chicago: Moody Press, 1970], p. 26-27, in the Everyman's Bible Commentary series).