A Response to a Candian Religious Pundit

http://www.vancouversun.com/columnists/douglas_todd.html

There are many blogs and opinion articles that constantly flow out of nations with a free press. But for me, one comes along every now and then that grabs my attention and serves as representative of popular sentiment. And so comes to the scene opinion columnist Douglas Todd of the Vancouver Sun.

The Vancouver Sun reports in his biographical sketch, “Although he was raised in a family of staunch atheists, Douglas Todd has gone on to become one of the most decorated spirituality and ethics writers in North America. He has received more than 50 journalism honours for his features, analyses, news stories and commentaries. Vancouver Magazine recently referred to him as "arguably Vancouver's most thoughtful journalist."

So, according to many, he is regarded as an honored and revered opinion writer. So who am I to be commenting and critiquing a blog of his? Well, because Mr. Todd is writing about me. He is opining on my friends and family. And while some may regard me as another bombastic American Christian and armchair theologian, something needs to be said in response to his October 29th blog entitled, “The State of North American evangelicalism.” By North American he means the United States and Canada.
And who is the subject of Mr. Todd’s article? Well, evangelicals. To those of us living in “North America” who may characterize ourselves or be regarded as evangelicals, we might be surprised at the attributions given about us in this opinion piece. Here are the highlights:

1. Evangelicals are often controversial
2. They are behind the “pugnacious”, anti-tax Tea Party.
3. They elected George W. Bush, which of course, led to wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.
4. Our “generals” in the culture wars are Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Benny Hinn, Sarah Palin, and Canada’s Charles McVety.
5. We have led the charge against homosexuality.
6. We are the main opponents to Darwin’s theory of evolution.
7. We are the most antagonistic toward Muslims.
8. We are intellectually weak.
9. We have a persecution complex…

As a North American evangelical/fundamentalist (fundamentalist meaning, in the main, that I hold the infallibility and perspicuity of the Bible) I am a bit surprised by Mr. Todd’s assessment. His call is clear:

“But it's time for non-evangelicals to take a deep breath. Away from the headlines, let's find out who these evangelical folks are, especially the ones in Canada. After all, they are among our neighbours, office colleagues and sports teammates.”
I chuckled at this comment as it reminded me of the scene from X-Men where Senator Kelly remarks to Dr. Jean Grey, “Ladies and gentleman, the truth is that mutants are very real, and that they are among us. We must know who they are, and above all, what they can do!”

Mr. Todd’s rhetoric leaves this evangelical wondering what his intentions are. What is the motivation for the inquiry? Why is it wrong for me to oppose homosexuality or regard it as a sin? Who appointed Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Sarah Palin, and Benny Hinn as my generals? Perhaps Mr. Todd will think that my questioning is just my persecution complex starting to kick in?

Mark A. Noll is hailed by Todd as the voice of reason and balance for the evangelical/fundamentalist. Yet, this voice is telling us to bring a balanced approach to issues in the arts, politics and science. Well, it seems to this “layman” that the balanced approach Noll is calling for and Todd applauds amounts to giving up biblical truth. Or should I say, fundamental biblical truth.
Mr. Todd isn’t all negative on evangelicals. He has some nice things to say about us. And just what does Todd praise evangelicals for? He names two: attendance and mega-churches. Evangelicals apparently have kept their position of 8-10% of the Canadian population while other groups have declined. Basically… numbers.
So, according to one of the leading Canadian religion pundits, evangelicals are a mixed breed of controversial, pugnacious, anti-intellectual war mongers who hate gays and Muslims. But hey, the good part is they are growing like weeds!
Methinks Mr. Todd needs to leave the office more often.

So Douglas, I have a few things to say on which you are critical of men like me.
I am indeed controversial. But if you will permit, it was not my doing. “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and a rock of offence (skandalon): and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” Romans 9:33. So, the Apostle Paul tells us that Christ Himself is a scandal. “But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness.” Are you still with me Douglas, or is the Scripture part annoying you? Perhaps this is the problem you have with us? Because we echo the voice of Scripture in telling the Jews that their Messiah has come and the Greeks (shall we say, intellectuals?) that the wisdom of God is displayed in crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. And so we are counted as fools? This doesn’t surprise us. Are you offended at the notion that God Himself desired to set aside the wisdom of the world?

Have my evangelical brethren not read the Scriptures? That Christ was crucified, according to the Scriptures, was buried and raised from the dead, according to the Scriptures? The very foundation of Christianity being Christ and Him crucified rests on the integrity, preservation, and perspicuity of the Bible. And, on the controversial issues mentioned, the Bible is not unclear on those matters either. If Adam was not the first man, then who is the Second Adam? If mankind’s common ancestor was not Adam, and that the human race fell in him in the garden, so that by one man’s disobedience all sinned, then who is the Second Man by whose obedience many are made righteous? You see, the same Bible that is the foundation of the knowledge that Christ was crucified and raised from the dead, is the foundation for understanding the fall of humanity in Adam and the redemption that is in the Son of Man.

As for our political involvement or non-involvement I think if you spent some time with real evangelicals you will find political activism at a very low ebb. Yes, there are some groups heavily involved in politics. But their influence on evangelicals at large is rather small. Did I vote for George W. Bush? Well, yes I did. Sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils. While most evangelicals vote their conscience, we also vote on civil and economic issues. We look for men of integrity, honesty, courage, honor, righteous, and just. And such men are hard to find these days outside of true Christianity.

There are several political and social trends in North American society today that do not square with the plain teaching of Scripture. Homosexuality is one of them. It is without a doubt against the Law of God given by Moses and the teaching of the Apostles. The same may be said of Darwin’s theory of evolution. The Bible never hints at the idea of the human race sharing a common universal ancestor brought about by natural processes and selection. Darwin wrote in his book, Origin of the Species, “"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." Pp.490

Those of us with the most elementary education, basically those of us who can read or hear, can easily discern the difference between Darwin’s idea and the Genesis account in Scripture. They are not saying the same thing, now are they? Yet you want me to lay aside the law of non-contradiction to try and square Charles Darwin’s idea with the Bible?

As in many of such circumstances where the cultural norms and societal morals change with time, it sometimes occurs that such changes run against the plain teaching of Scripture. Some of us (evangelicals) will change with the culture and adopt new ideas and reinterpret old ideas. Those of us who remain with the old foundations and the plain teaching of Scripture might at times be thought of as odd, strange, or dangerous. This is not a persecution complex Mr. Todd, it is a fact of human history as it relates to true Christians.

If at this time in world history I am considered to be a dangerous ignorant nave, an intolerant bigot who is against all sound reason because I hold to the doctrines of Holy Scripture ahead of recent ideas, then so be it.

All I would request is that you actually connect with those to whom you criticize and negatively characterize. And if a no name guy like me doesn’t meet your standards, then give Dr. John MacArthur a call. There is one “general” you left out of your list. Oh, and call Albert Mohler too for a second opinion.

Interpretation of Parables

Parables are a near universal figure of speech used by most nations. They appear especially prominent in the East and are used both in the Old and New Testaments. While some proverbs, types, and symbols are sometimes called parables in Scripture (Luke 4:23; Hebrews 9:9) the biblical parable is a unique figure of speech in a class of its own. The parable shares the elements of simile, but differs from it in that a parable is limited to that which is real. Parables are not like fables which make use of trees taking council but represents by its narrative that which is true to the facts and experiences of real life. While parables may be an enigma or riddle to the minds of many, they are not designed to be such. When properly understood, the parable’s purpose is to unveil the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Parables also can be compared to allegories, but here an allegory is an extended metaphor with its interpretation contained within itself, a parable requires the interpreter to move beyond the narrative to discover its meaning. Thus, the parable, as especially seen used by the Lord Jesus Christ, may contain the elements of enigma, type, symbol, and allegory yet differs from them all by operating in the tangible world of men.

The use of parables is not lost to the ancient or modern world. Like other figurative speech they serve to teach truth and mysteries with vivid and absorbing forms. This type of speech is seen to impress the memory that straight didactic teaching or rebukes cannot. The purpose of Jesus’ parables do not need to be guessed at. The disciples of Jesus asking Him plainly why He spoke to the people in parables to which He answered, “Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.” Matt. 10:11 From this we can immediately perceive the Lord’s design in speaking in parables to both conceal, and at the same time, reveal, the great truths of the kingdom. It is evident from Scripture that parables test the character of hearer. Those who hear and persevere to apply themselves to discover the meaning while have what they seek for. But those who hear and do not apply themselves or are lazy in their pursuit to uncover the meaning will have nothing.

It helpful when interpreting parables to understand the three common elements to them: the occasion and scope, the similitude to the real narrative, and the moral and religious lessons. The Lord has given us two examples of interpreting parables that is extremely useful. It is not denied that some parables are difficult to explain, but this is exception and not the norm. In fact, employing three basic principles of hermeneutics while serve greatly to discover the meaning. When interpreting any parable, we should first take notice of the historical circumstance and aim of the parable. We should also observe the things used as imagery and similitude to be accurate regarding the subject. Finally, the interpreter must gain a sense of the general scope and design of the whole parable to illuminate the central truth that is being taught. The several parts should be understood in relation to the whole.

The parable of the sower, being interpreted by the Lord Himself, as a sure guide and example, are seen the aforementioned principles. What was the historical occasion of the parable of sower in Matthew 13? Sitting in a boat by the sea a great multitude had come out to hear Him. Jesus then begins to speak to them a parable consisting of a sower who sows seed, all the while preaching the word of the kingdom to them as the true Sower. Throughout the parable the Lord laid meaning to the various parts as to the soil in which the seed fell and how the seed was received in each kind. Each kind part is explained by the Lord to His disciples culminating in the central truth of the parable, “Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.” v.9

We can compare this parable with that of the wheat and tares spoken seeing the same historical occasion, but carrying a different focus. It would be improper to automatically assume that this parable is picking up where the other left off. Rather, while the imagery is similar, taking notice of the various parts, new imagery is introduced. While there may be said to be a connection between the two and the rest in Matthew 13, we should be careful to interpret each according to the general truth being taught by each parable. Furthermore, caution should be exercised not to go too far in our interpretation of the parts. The Lord ascribed meaning in the parable of the wheat and tares to the sower, the field, the good seed, the tares, the enemy, the harvest, and the reapers. But He did not take notice of the men who slept or the servants of the householder, for example, when He explained the meaning to His disciples. By taking notice of what the Lord emphasizes and what He does not we can guard ourselves from fanciful interpretation of the various parts of a parable that may simply be incidental to fill in the story, and not related to the general scope and design of the whole. This is not to suggest that no meaning at can be gleaned from the parts not given particular meaning, but that we ought to exercise caution.

The three hermeneutical principles mentioned should not be taken rigidly and applied with mathematical precision in every parable. They are general principles to be used in interpretation. The examples we have of the Lord’s interpretation show that most details of a parable have meaning. By careful study and comparison of all the parables we can with confidence understand their meaning and uncover the truths they hold for the learned disciple. Any false interpretation may be noticed from the disharmony it presents to the various parts and the force needed to make such an interpretation stand. As seen in the Lord’s explanation of the sower and the wheat and the tares, there is unity both in the general scope and idea of the parable as well as the parts.

A variety of interpretations have been applied to the parable of the workers and vineyard found in Matthew’s gospel. Some have placed the emphasis on the amount of money the landowner gave to the workers. Others, such as Origen, held that the different hours in which the workers are hired and sent are different epochs of human history. By carefully applying the aforementioned principles we can avoid such varied interpretations. We first take notice that the historical occasion and scope of the parable is found in Matthew 19 in Jesus’ encounter with the young rich man. Jesus told the young man that he must sell all his possessions if he would have treasure in heaven, upon which he went away sorrowful. Jesus then declared to his disciples the great difficulty of the rich to enter the kingdom of God. Upon hearing this Peter said to Jesus, “See, we have left all and followed you. Therefore what shall we have?” He was asking the Lord, since such a promise was offered to the rich man who refused what their treasure would be in heaven. The parable of the workers in the vineyard follows this interchange. The historical occasion which preceded this parable to Jesus’ disciples helps us understand that the scope of the parable is directed to them. While Peter’s question did not receive a rebuke, but an answer, the parable shows that it was necessary to address the spirit in which the question was asked. It may be understood that the disciples are those who are first hired. The central idea of the parable is made clear by recognizing the historical occasion as addressing the motives and attitudes of the different workers. Jesus is admonishing the twelve by this parable not to think to themselves that because they were the first to leave all things and follow Him, that somehow this should afford them a greater honor and recompense than others whom the landowner would hire into His service. By making this clear analysis of the subject matter we can avoid interpretations that make prominent that which is irrelevant to the central idea. Lengthy expositions as to the money paid or who exactly the landowner is serves to distract from the real subject at hand. Now that we do have the central idea and general scope of the parable, we can examine and interpret the several parts. It may be justly noted that the first workers agreed to their wages before going into the vineyard while the last went to their work without regard of payment but only on the promise of “whatever is right you will receive.” Milton Terry rightly summarizes this point, “That is not the noblest spirit which asks, What shall I have? It is better to ask, What shall I do? He who follows Christ, and makes all manner of sacrifices for his sake, confidence that it will be well, is nobler than he who lingers to make a bargain.” P.296-297

The Parable of the Unjust Steward

I must, for the moment, postpone my next chapter summary to give you a quote from one who is likely little known today. Cunningham Geikie was a scottish clergyman born in 1862. He pastored several churches in Canada becoming a recognized author in his time.I happened upon a commentary of his in my text regarding the interpretation of biblical parables.

Geikie is quoted to show an example of setting forth the scope and purpose of the parable of the unjust steward. This quote shed so much light upon the parable for me, that I wanted to share it here both for the reader who may happen upon it, but also for my benefit that the truth of Christ's words may burn into my heart.

The parable of Jesus is found in Luke 16:1-13. Here is Geikie's comment with regard to the scope and purpose of the parable:

"By becoming my disciples you have identified yourselves with the interest of another master than Mammon, the god of this world--whom you have hitherto served--and have before you another course and aim in life. You will be represented to your former master as no longer faithful to him, for my service is so utterly opposed to that of Mammon, that, if faithful to me, you cannot be faithful to him, and he will, in consequence, assuredly take your stewardship of this world's goods away from you--- that is, sink you in poverty, as I have often said.

I counsel you, therefore, so to use the goods of Mammon--the worldly means still at your command--that by a truly worthy distributor of them to your needy brethren---and my disciples are mostly poor--you may make friends for yourselves, who, if they die before you, will welcome you to everlasting habitations in heaven, when you pass thither, at death. Fit yourselves, by labours of love and deeds of true charity, as my followers, to become fellow citizens of the heavenly mansions with those wants you have relived while they were still in life.

If you be faithful thus, in the use of your possessions on earth, you will be deemed worthy by God to be entrusted with infinitely greater richers hereafter... Be assured that if you do not use your earthly riches faithfully for God, by dispensing them as I have told you, you will never enter my heavenly kingdom at all. You will have shown that you are servants of Mammon, and not the servants of God; for it is impossible for any man to serve two masters." -Geikie, Life of Christ, chap. liii

May the Lord by His Spirit breathe life into the words of Jesus Christ and make them to sink down into our minds and hearts, that we may rightly test ourselves to see if we be servants of Christ or Mammon. How freeing the Word of Christ is to the soul!

Fables, Riddles, and Enigmas

Some of the most prominent figures of speech used in Holy Scirpture are fables, riddles, enigmas, allegories, parables, proverbs, types, and symbols. Gaining an understanding of these special forms of thought is imporant to biblical interpretation. It would be improper to recognize, for example, the use of a fable in Scripture as a figure of speech and conclude that the Bible itself is a fable. It would also be an error of interpretation to fail to recognize the use of fable as a figure of speech and take it as literal. The basic character of the fable used in Holy Writ depicts something in nature, such as trees or animals, as if they possess intellect and speech. The objects are presented as acting contrary to the natural laws of their being.

This trope was used by Jotham in Judges 9:7-20 where trees are described as going forth and anointing a king as well as speaking to an olive tree. The olive tree is said to speak back. This is an obvious use of fable to give and vivid picture of the foolishness of accepting a worthless leader. The imagary is at once seen to be fanciful and imaginary. It would be an error in judgment to suggest that such fugures of speech have no place in Scripture and so cast doubt upon the Word of God. God has spoken to men in the realm of earthly life and human thought. Why should we suppose that He would not employ the common use of language and all its nuances to convey His eternal truths?

Riddles are another figure of speech used in Scripture. The purpose of such speech is to excite the mind to inquirey and the search for truth. In Psalm 49:4 we read, "I will incline mine war to a parable: I will open my dark saying (riddle) upon the harp." The purpose of the riddle is to hide the meaning. In contrast, an enigma serves both to conceal and enhance sacred thought. There is an enigmatic element to Jesus words spoken to Nicodemus in John 3:5 when He said, "Verily, Verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." This came as an anwer to Nicodemus' question as to who Jesus was. Jesus knew exactly what Nicodemus needed to hear because He knew what was in his heart. Jesus knew that Nicodemus was trying to understand who He was, but Nicodemus did not need new information but a new life. Nicodemus needed a new birth if he was to percieve the kingdom. Such engimatic speech perplexed him that both concealed the matter and enhance was Christ was communicating to him.

Chapter 11: Simile and Metaphor

Similes and metaphors are figures of thought found in the Bible. A simile occurs when two different things are compared. In Isaiah 55:10-11, rain and snow and their effect upon the earth in bearing fruit and bringing a blessing to mankind is compared to the Word of God. This vivid simile leaves a beautiful and lasting impression that is not easily forgotten. The Bible sometimes groups several similes together likely because of Hebrew parallelism. There is little difficulty in interpreting biblical similes. The main thought being conveyed is only enhanced by the imagery. The Bible also uses figures of speech related to similes, but contains elements of metaphor or parable. In 2 Timothy 2:3 the Apostle Paul exhorts Timothy to endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. The exact simile is not drawn but expanded upon. It is assumed that both Timothy and the reader will make application to their own lives. Such figures of speech contain elements of both simile and metaphor.

Metaphors are common to all languages. A simile makes a comparison with regard to what something is like while a metaphor turns a word from its literal use and meaning to a new use. In Genesis 49:9 we read that Judah is a lion’s whelp. This is clearly a metaphor. The metaphors of the Old Testament are largely drawn from the natural landscape of Israel, their manners and customs, and practices related to the worship and rituals of the Hebrews. This is also carried into the New Testament Scriptures such as is found in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 where the Passover is used metaphorically until they make an allegory. Metaphors that are extended in this manner become allegories. Some metaphors may seem uncertain. In Psalm 45:1 the Hebrew literally reads, “My heart boils up with a goodly word” and is difficult to determine what the allusion is referring to. Nevertheless, the meaning is clear: the heart was overflowing with a pleasing theme, and the imagery is that of some liquid boiling or bubbling over. Even when the exact metaphorical object may be obscure, the meaning is not.

Chapter 10: Figures of Speech

There is not a language in the history of the world that has not employed the use of figures of speech. It is natural to the way we think to make comparisons and analogies. It should not surprise us that we find within the biblical text the frequent use of figurative language used convey, illustrate, and teach the truth of God. It has been suggested that there exists a divine harmony between the natural and spiritual world. Is it not reasonable to understand that He who created childbearing would draw upon His handiwork to explain the mystery of the new birth to Nicodemus? God, who orders all things according the counsel of His will, certainly took particular care in what has been made and is seen, to illustrate and excite our minds to such things as are not seen.

The primary sources for figurative language found in the Bible are the physical features of the land of Israel, the manners and customs of her people, and the worship of God by them. Nothing is dispensable. From mountains to valleys, animals and men, the text of Scripture makes use of all things seen to furnish the world with language in the explanation of that which is unseen. Because figurative language is readily recognizable, it is not necessary to lay strict rules for making a determination. An axiom of biblical interpretation is that words should be understood in their literal sense except when a literal interpretation results in contradiction or absurdity. The problem with this axiom is that it is highly subjective to the perception of the interpreter. In light of this, the same general principles in determining the grammatico-historical sense should be employed with the interpretation of figurative language. We should also begin with the understanding that God intends to communicate with us. And if done by metaphor, allegory, parables, and symbols, their use is not to obscure meaning but rather to illumine. It is possible to be careless in our interpretation of the Scriptures, but careful study and attention to the author’s context, scope, and plan will safeguard our understanding.

The figurative language of Holy Scripture can be divided into two camps: figures of words and figures of thought. Figures of words are confined to a single word. Figures of thought require several words or sentences. This chapter deals with figures of words.

Metaphors and metonymy are figures of words. Similes, allegories, and parables are figures of thought. An example of a metaphor can be found in Luke 13:32 where Jesus said, “..Go ye, and tell that fox…” A metonymy is a figure of speech whereby one entity is used to stand for an associated entity. A well-known example is “The pen is mightier than the sword” where writing is represented as military force. In Job 34:6 the KJV reads, “..my wound is incurable..” where the Hebrew gives arrow (chets) for what is translated wound. The word arrow is used to mean a wound caused by an arrow. In Luke 16:29 we see Moses and the prophets being used to stand for the writings which they authored. In Hosea 1:2 we read, “…the land hath committed great whoredom” where land is used in metonymy for the people living in the land. Metonymy may also be used to signify something. In Isaiah 22:22 “…the key of the house of David...” is used to signify control or authority over the house of David.

A synecdoche is classed with figures of words where a part stands for the whole, or an individual for a group. In Luke 2:1 we learn that Caesar Augustus sent out a decree to “tax all the world” where only the Roman Empire is meant. Personification and apostrophe are similar figures of words found frequently in Scripture. Jesus instructs us in Matthew 6:34 to “…take no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for things of itself.” We can see in this example that “tomorrow” is being pictured as a living, thinking person. Personification is most frequently found in the poetic books of the Bible as might be expected. Apostrophe is similar, but differs in that the author directs speech to an imaginary or abstract idea. In 2 Samuel 28:33 we see King David in deep grief over the death of his son Absalom speaking to him in his lamentation.

Other forms of expression that ought to be recognized in Scripture are interrogatory forms, hyperbole, and irony. These all have their place in the Word of God being used to bring the force of truth upon the hearer and reader. Who is not deeply impressed by the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:33-34 where interrogating questions are brought to the mind, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, and yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” Hyperbole exaggerates an object or idea beyond reality. This ought not to be thought of in the negative. It is a style of speech used to engender strong emotion or leave an indelible impression. Consider John 21:25 where we read, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that event he world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” Finally, irony where a speaker or writer is saying the very opposite of what is being communicated, can leave a lasting impression. Elijah’s ironical mockery of the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18:27 certainly left an impression upon on all who heard.

The Subjunctive Mood argument of “Calvinism Strongholds” by Kerrigan Skelly examined

http://www.youtube.com/refutingcalvinism

The above link to Youtube is a video, and website, dedicated to trying to refute Calvinism. A friend of mine taken in by this man sent me the above link to learn 'the truth' about Calvinism. I love the truth. And it may be possible that the author of the video has valid and true points.

The video is 45 minutes long. To view a video like that and respond to all the points and arguments takes a very long time. What I have done is listened to the first 5 minutes, taking notes, and then researched some of his points. The author built his first arguments on the subjunctive mood of the Greek language from John 5.

I am not professionally trained in the Greek language, yet I know that what he shared was too brief and simplistic. Therefore, I researched the subjunctive mood. The following is my conclusions. It appears to me that Mr. Skelly is also not professionally trained in the Greek language, otherwise he would not have made the mistake he did in the uses of the subjunctive mood.

I also intially touch on the use of words.

The Subjunctive Mood argument of “Calvinism Strongholds” by Kerrigan Skelly examined

1. The first argument in the video Mr. Skelly highlights John 5:34 and zeros in on the Greek Sozo being in the subjunctive mood. The word means to keep safe, rescue from danger or destruction, et. It can be used in the sense of being saved from a disease that will cause death, meaning to heal, or in the sense we commonly understand to be salvation from sin/death/hell.

a. Ex. Mark 5:34 “And he said unter her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague. This phrase is rendered sozo se sozo. The context is describing an action that has taken place, so the tense then is in the perfect, active, indicative. Perfect means it has happened, active shows that the daughter is the one the action applies to, and the indicative means a simple statement of fact. It has happened. It is obvious from the context of this passage that the word sozo is not referring to salvation in the sense of being born again, but of healing from a physical illness.

b. The point is this: Most words have a wide range of meaning. This is called the semantic range. It is the context of the passage that determines, or narrows, the meaning and is quite often clear.

c. Mr. Skelly’s argument is that the subjunctive mood of the word refutes the concept of predestination. His argument also rests on the verse being salvific in the biblical sense. That is, predestined unto eternal life. So, his suggestion is that the mood of the word refutes the historic Calvinistic doctrine of predestination.

d. Mr. Skelly correctly identifies the mood of the Greek word. He also correctly identifies to whom Jesus is referring to and why the Jews took issue with Jesus.

e. His argument against Calvinism is that because the mood is subjunctive means possibility, or potentiality, then the Calvinist understanding is wrong and God has not chosen men to salvation. The action being described may or may not occur, and Mr. Skelly’s argument is that if this is the case, that these Jews may or may not be saved, then their salvation is not determined or chosen by God.

f. Like me, Mr. Skelly may not be thoroughly trained in Greek. The use of a lexicon or dictionary, or the use of an interlinear is not enough to gain the meaning of the tense and meaning of the Greek language. To the untrained in the Greek language Mr. Skelly’s argument may appear valid. After a little research with regard to the use of the subjunctive mood in Greek, here is what I found:

i. There are various uses of the subjunctive mood in Greek. For example, there are Horatory Subjunctive, Deliberative Subjunctive, Subjuntive of Emphatic Negation, Subjunctive of Prohibition, Purpose Clause, Indefinite Relative Clause, Indefinite Temporal Clause, Third Class Conditional Sentences, et. Souce: ntgreek.org.

ii. It appears to me that the subjunctive use in John 5:34 is the Purpose Clause. As stated on the ntgreek.org site, “If the subjunctive mood is used in a ‘purpose’ (or in a ‘result’) clause, then the action should not be thought of a possible result, but should be viewed as the stated outcome that will happen (or has happened) as a result of another stated action. The use of the subjunctive is not to indicate that something “may” or “might” result from a given action, but it is stating the “purpose of” or “reason for” an action.

iii. The example given on the site is John 1:7 “The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.”The phrase “might believe” is in the subjunctive mood. The site points out, “Notice that this verse has two purpose clauses, emphasizing the ultimate reason for John’s coming as a testimony to Christ.

iv. Notice in our text of John 5:34 is also a purpose clause. “…But these things I say, that ye might be saved.” The purpose of Jesus’ saying the things he said, His testimony, the testimony of John concerning Him, and Jesus’ miracles, have a purpose. The Scriptures referenced by Mr. Skelly are written as a purpose clause.

v. The subjunctive mood used in a purpose clause “..actually functions more like a verb in the indicative mood rather than in the optative mood. It is not stating the possibility of an action, but instead telling the intention of the primary action.” Remember, the indicative mood is a simple statement of fact.

vi. While Mr. Kelly is correct in identifying the meaning of the subjunctive mood, he has failed to show the use of it in the passages he cites. I am not one to believe that Mr. Skelly is doing this maliciously, but rather out of a lack of knowledge of the Greek language.

vii. That John 5:34 is using the subjunctive in a purpose clause the argument that this verse is teaching that salvation is possible for all men does not stand. Jesus is not teaching here that it was possible that these Jews could be saved if they were willing. What Jesus is teaching is that the testimony of John, Jesus’ miracles, and His sayings are for the purpose of saving souls.