Does believe mean believe?
Mar 1, 2014 15:30:25 GMT -5
Post by PrisonerOfHope on Mar 1, 2014 15:30:25 GMT -5
Making the Simple Difficult – Analyzing John 2:23-24
Posted on February 27, 2014
Dr. Randy White
There are a number of simple scriptures that are consistently made difficult because of a failure to rightly divide the Word. The chief culprit is when one approaches Scripture with a Covenant Theology lens, which fails to divide the Word into appropriate administrations, economies, or dispensations. Rather than these dispensations, Covenant Theology uses a system of three covenants (redemption, works, and grace) as the interpretive framework. Using this framework, a number of conflicts arise, conflicts that simply disappear when a dispensational framework is used.
One of these scriptures is John 2:23-24. “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men” (John 2:23–24, NKJV)
Those using Covenant theology begin to back pedal when they see this passage. How can some believe in His name (the Greek uses pisteuo, the common word for faith), but Jesus refuses to commit Himself (the Greek also uses pisteuo for Jesus’ action—literally Jesus doesn’t believe in them.) When passages like Acts 16:30-31 so clearly say, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved,” how do we excuse the lack of salvation for these who were “believing on His name?”
Dispensational theology understands that there it is not the Gospel of salvation being offered in John 2, but rather the Gospel of the Kingdom. The Kingdom Gospel had a salvation on earth, a political, economic, and ecological salvation (one that is still scheduled for the future). The Saving Gospel is about believing in Jesus as the crucified and risen Savior who will take us to heaven when we die. The Kingdom Gospel is about the victorious Messiah overthrowing the Kingdoms of this earth and establishing the Kingdom of God. They are two different Gospels, with two different requirements. What pain, turmoil, and doubt has come into the mind of so many believers because they fail to divide these two issues.
So that you are not confused, let me say first that those in this saving Gospel (revealed in Paul) will be part of the Kingdom. However, those prior to the church-age were not being offered the “neither Jew nor Greek but whoever calls upon the name of the Lord” Gospel. When we mix the two, we have to develop a works-based concept of “believe” in order to have any kind of continuity of thought.
When you come to John 2:23-24 with a dispensational perspective, there is absolutely no problem with the passage. Dispensationally, you understand that Jesus was presented as Messiah who would overthrow the Roman Empire and establish the Kingdom of God. The eternal life being offered was one on earth, after the resurrection and establishment of the Kingdom. It required belief, repentance, baptism, and Jewishness. This is vastly different from what Paul later preaches to a non-Jewish jailor who is simply told to “believe…and be saved.” In John 2, that jailor was still, “separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and stranger to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12). The jailor was “far off” and had not been “brought near by the blood of Christ” and the “barrier of the dividing wall” had not yet been removed (Ephesians 2:13). Only when we try to apply John 2:23-24 to the Philippian jailor (and to you and me and those around us), do we find conflict. If we would interpret the passage in its correct dispensation, the problem disappears.
Simply put, John 2:23-24 says that Jesus was not ready to be crowned as the Davidic King. Jesus “knew all” (v. 24), and this knowledge included the coming rejection of His Messianic reign and the subsequent insertion of the mystery age of the church into the history of God’s dealing with man.
Oh, if only the commentaries understood this! Rather, one after another, they create some scenario to explain away the plain language of the text.
For example, consider this from the New American Commentary:
“Jesus understood the nature of genuine believing and knowing, and he recognized a façade or pseudoknowledge when he encountered it…The real point is that Jesus did not believe their believing. For people who have been brought up on a regular evangelical dose of hearing that humans determine their own destinies and that people become Christians by their believing, it is indeed salutary to remember that Jesus had something to say about what is acceptable believing… Accordingly, we need to understand that the living Jesus does not believe everyone’s believing because he knows what is in them. Those words ought to stand as a warning to everyone.” [1]
If I believed what this commentary said, I would not be able to sleep at night. What if my belief is a “façade” or “pseudoknowledge?” What if Jesus does not believe my believing? What if I have bought into some supposed evangelical dose of teaching that “people become Christians by their own believing?” What if my believing is not “acceptable believing?” And further, who is able to tell me how I know the Philippian Jailor’s believing was acceptable but the John 2 believing was not…and what made the difference?
Here is another example, from the Holman New Testament Commentary:
The word believe does not always mean that a person has placed genuine faith in Jesus. The spectators in Jerusalem must have exercised only intellectual assent—perhaps agreeing that Jesus might be some significant prophet who has come among the people. But the Lord looked right into their hearts and saw their motives…. faith alone does not guarantee salvation (2:23–24; 6:64–66). Saving faith must center in Jesus himself, not just his miracles or some teaching about him. [2]
Here, the commentator develops different definitions for believe, leaving me with no option but to question my own belief. Is my belief just “intellectual assent?” Is my faith, “faith alone” or “saving faith?”
Each of these commentaries, and so many more, get dangerously close to heresy as they try to explain away what the text says: some had pisteuo (faith), but Jesus did not place his pisteuo (faith) in them.
It would be so easy to explain that while we live in a dispensation in which pisteuo (faith) alone is all that is necessary to receive the grace of eternal life, those in John 3 were in a dispensation in which the Kingdom (not a relationship with God through Christ) was being offered, and its full establishment required (and requires) the full acceptance of the Messiah by the Jewish nation, not by a handful of individuals.
Many hold tenaciously to Covenant theology, and in doing so, they make the simple difficult.
link
Posted on February 27, 2014
Dr. Randy White
There are a number of simple scriptures that are consistently made difficult because of a failure to rightly divide the Word. The chief culprit is when one approaches Scripture with a Covenant Theology lens, which fails to divide the Word into appropriate administrations, economies, or dispensations. Rather than these dispensations, Covenant Theology uses a system of three covenants (redemption, works, and grace) as the interpretive framework. Using this framework, a number of conflicts arise, conflicts that simply disappear when a dispensational framework is used.
One of these scriptures is John 2:23-24. “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men” (John 2:23–24, NKJV)
Those using Covenant theology begin to back pedal when they see this passage. How can some believe in His name (the Greek uses pisteuo, the common word for faith), but Jesus refuses to commit Himself (the Greek also uses pisteuo for Jesus’ action—literally Jesus doesn’t believe in them.) When passages like Acts 16:30-31 so clearly say, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved,” how do we excuse the lack of salvation for these who were “believing on His name?”
Dispensational theology understands that there it is not the Gospel of salvation being offered in John 2, but rather the Gospel of the Kingdom. The Kingdom Gospel had a salvation on earth, a political, economic, and ecological salvation (one that is still scheduled for the future). The Saving Gospel is about believing in Jesus as the crucified and risen Savior who will take us to heaven when we die. The Kingdom Gospel is about the victorious Messiah overthrowing the Kingdoms of this earth and establishing the Kingdom of God. They are two different Gospels, with two different requirements. What pain, turmoil, and doubt has come into the mind of so many believers because they fail to divide these two issues.
So that you are not confused, let me say first that those in this saving Gospel (revealed in Paul) will be part of the Kingdom. However, those prior to the church-age were not being offered the “neither Jew nor Greek but whoever calls upon the name of the Lord” Gospel. When we mix the two, we have to develop a works-based concept of “believe” in order to have any kind of continuity of thought.
When you come to John 2:23-24 with a dispensational perspective, there is absolutely no problem with the passage. Dispensationally, you understand that Jesus was presented as Messiah who would overthrow the Roman Empire and establish the Kingdom of God. The eternal life being offered was one on earth, after the resurrection and establishment of the Kingdom. It required belief, repentance, baptism, and Jewishness. This is vastly different from what Paul later preaches to a non-Jewish jailor who is simply told to “believe…and be saved.” In John 2, that jailor was still, “separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and stranger to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12). The jailor was “far off” and had not been “brought near by the blood of Christ” and the “barrier of the dividing wall” had not yet been removed (Ephesians 2:13). Only when we try to apply John 2:23-24 to the Philippian jailor (and to you and me and those around us), do we find conflict. If we would interpret the passage in its correct dispensation, the problem disappears.
Simply put, John 2:23-24 says that Jesus was not ready to be crowned as the Davidic King. Jesus “knew all” (v. 24), and this knowledge included the coming rejection of His Messianic reign and the subsequent insertion of the mystery age of the church into the history of God’s dealing with man.
Oh, if only the commentaries understood this! Rather, one after another, they create some scenario to explain away the plain language of the text.
For example, consider this from the New American Commentary:
“Jesus understood the nature of genuine believing and knowing, and he recognized a façade or pseudoknowledge when he encountered it…The real point is that Jesus did not believe their believing. For people who have been brought up on a regular evangelical dose of hearing that humans determine their own destinies and that people become Christians by their believing, it is indeed salutary to remember that Jesus had something to say about what is acceptable believing… Accordingly, we need to understand that the living Jesus does not believe everyone’s believing because he knows what is in them. Those words ought to stand as a warning to everyone.” [1]
If I believed what this commentary said, I would not be able to sleep at night. What if my belief is a “façade” or “pseudoknowledge?” What if Jesus does not believe my believing? What if I have bought into some supposed evangelical dose of teaching that “people become Christians by their own believing?” What if my believing is not “acceptable believing?” And further, who is able to tell me how I know the Philippian Jailor’s believing was acceptable but the John 2 believing was not…and what made the difference?
Here is another example, from the Holman New Testament Commentary:
The word believe does not always mean that a person has placed genuine faith in Jesus. The spectators in Jerusalem must have exercised only intellectual assent—perhaps agreeing that Jesus might be some significant prophet who has come among the people. But the Lord looked right into their hearts and saw their motives…. faith alone does not guarantee salvation (2:23–24; 6:64–66). Saving faith must center in Jesus himself, not just his miracles or some teaching about him. [2]
Here, the commentator develops different definitions for believe, leaving me with no option but to question my own belief. Is my belief just “intellectual assent?” Is my faith, “faith alone” or “saving faith?”
Each of these commentaries, and so many more, get dangerously close to heresy as they try to explain away what the text says: some had pisteuo (faith), but Jesus did not place his pisteuo (faith) in them.
It would be so easy to explain that while we live in a dispensation in which pisteuo (faith) alone is all that is necessary to receive the grace of eternal life, those in John 3 were in a dispensation in which the Kingdom (not a relationship with God through Christ) was being offered, and its full establishment required (and requires) the full acceptance of the Messiah by the Jewish nation, not by a handful of individuals.
Many hold tenaciously to Covenant theology, and in doing so, they make the simple difficult.
link
