In the Halle attack, two people were killed near the synagogue when the alleged gunman could not enter the building.

'This is every parents' nightmare, right, that your child may actually be affected by this virus,' said New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

The assistant is the third White House staffer to be diagnosed with the coronavirus, after VP spokesperson Katie Miller and President Trump's personal valet were diagnosed earlier.

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

Six critically ill coronavirus patients in Israel who were considered high-risk for mortality were treated with Pluristem and survived.

News of Miller’s positive test delayed Pence’s scheduled departure Friday to Des Moines, Iowa, for more than an hour, and several staffers who had been in contact with her left the plane.

It was time for us to copy Sweden, right?

Don’t let Beijing exploit the coronavirus chaos to position itself at the center of a new global order.

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

The new guidelines focus on 13 principles that are designed to guide the decisions and planning of synagogues and communities throughout the United States.

Israeli doctors and scientists look back at how the country has handled COVID-19 and predict what might happen next

BirdLife video of illegal hunting in Malta sent to European Commission

Overnight testing recorded three new cases of coronavirus from 1,137 swab tests and six more people have recovered.

Commercial Court rules that St Philip's Hospital owner Frank Portelli cannot decide the hospital's fate on his own as HSBC Bank seeks repayment of €11.5 million in loans, appoints two provisional administrators

Court turns down alleged Caruana Galizia assassination mastermind's request to have compilation of evidence continue 

Says Bennett trying to take credit as leaves

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

Decisions taken by Middle Eastern governments in their fight against the coronavirus reflect differences in administrative capacities, infrastructures and specific national political preferences.

The low reporting in some countries and civil conflicts across the region mean that the number of cases is continually undercounted.

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

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

To date UNRWA has received only $586 million in pledges, of which a mere $400 million has been transferred to the organization from donor countries.

IDF commander: Coronavirus has united us

Turkey’s official coronavirus infections rose to more than 86,000 with 2,000 deaths on Monday.

With the aim of expressing appreciation for the medical staff from around globe, the Iran's National Instruments Orchestra performed ";The Avicenna Suite"; by maestro Farhad Fakhreddini. The work has been recorded and edited by cell phone at home.

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. Of our previous blog series, none better embodies that emphasis than Frequently Abused Verses. The following entry from that series originally appeared on September 16, 2015. -ed.

Love, don’t judge.

For many people in the church, that simple slogan has become the kneejerk defense in the face of criticism and confrontation. At some point, believers decided that careful discernment and agapē love are diametrically opposed; that judgment is always a threat to our unity in Christ. And with no regard for the quality or content of the exhortation, too many Christians speedily deploy Matthew 7:1 as an all-purpose, get-out-of-jail-free card: “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.”

Writing thirty years ago in his commentary on Matthew’s gospel, John MacArthur explained how that verse is routinely misapplied as a shield against confrontation and conflict in the church.

This passage has erroneously been used to suggest that believers should never evaluate or criticize anyone for anything. Our day hates absolutes, especially theological and moral absolutes, and such simplistic interpretation provides a convenient escape from confrontation. Members of modern society, including many professing Christians, tend to resist dogmatism and strong convictions about right and wrong. Many people prefer to speak of all-inclusive love, compromise, ecumenism, and unity. To the modern religious person those are the only “doctrines” worth defending, and they are the doctrines to which every conflicting doctrine must be sacrificed. ^[1] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 1-7 (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1985), 430.

In the intervening decades, the church’s appetite for criticism, conflict, and confrontation has only further diminished. And in that same time, the misunderstanding and misapplication of this verse and others like it (cf. Luke 6:37; John 3:17) has taken root in the church, skewing its perspective on discipline and judgment, and insulating its people from rebuke and exhortation.

In fact, many in the church today behave as if confrontation and discerning judgment are forbidden. Any confrontation—whether it’s a question of personal holiness or doctrinal disagreement—is seen as prideful overstepping and an attack on the unity of God’s people. As John MacArthur explains,

In many circles, including some evangelical circles, those who hold to strong convictions and who speak up and confront society and the church are branded as violators of this command not to judge, and are seen as troublemakers or, at best, as controversial. ^[2] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 1-7, 431.

But Matthew 7:1 has nothing to do with avoiding conflict in favor of unity, or ignoring doctrinal or moral error in the name of love. As with many of the abused verses we’ll examine in this series, a simple look at the context makes the original intent of Christ’s words abundantly clear.

The seventh chapter of Matthew’s gospel represents the end of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount—His most extensive teaching on living as a citizen of the kingdom of God. Woven throughout that sermon is an exposé of the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of His day. Jesus upends the system of works-righteousness they had inflicted on God-fearing people throughout Israel.

During Christ’s life and ministry, the Jewish faith had been reduced to a heavy-handed list of dos and don’ts. The religious elite had obliterated God’s original intent in giving His law to His people, replacing it with a burdensome system of works righteousness. And they held the entire nation to their corrupt, man-made standard.

In his commentary, John MacArthur explains how the focus of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount makes it clear that the Lord was not prohibiting judgment, but promoting discernment.

If this greatest sermon by our Lord teaches anything, it teaches that His followers are to be discerning and perceptive in what they believe and in what they do, that they must make every effort to judge between truth and falsehood, between the internal and the external, between reality and sham, between true righteousness and false righteousness—in short, between God’s way and all other ways. ^[3] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 1-7, 431.

With that in mind, the prohibition against judgment takes on completely different nuance. Christ was condemning a very specific kind of self-righteous judgment—the kind we see on display in His parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector.

And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9-14)

Like many professing believers today, the Pharisees put on a good show of public holiness, and loved looking down on anyone who didn’t. As John explains,

Jesus here is talking about the self-righteous, egotistical judgment and unmerciful condemnation of others practiced by the scribes and Pharisees. Their primary concern was not to help others from sin to holiness, but to condemn them to eternal judgment because of actions and attitudes that did not square with their own worldly, self-made traditions. ^[4] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 1-7, 432.

Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:1 were a reminder to the religious elite that they were not the final judges—that they too would stand before God, and that they would not want to be held to their own rigorous, self-righteous standard (Matthew 7:2). Believers today need to heed that warning as well, and avoid the same kind of hypocritical hubris regarding our own holiness, and how it corresponds to other believers’.

We also need to consider how to biblically discern, confront, and rebuke when necessary. Fortunately for us, Christ addressed that very issue in His subsequent statements.

Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:3-5)

Confrontation and criticism are not forbidden in the church, but they must be undergirded with humility and purity. We need to humbly submit to the Lord, shining the light of His Word into the dark corners of our own hearts instead of arrogantly pointing it in someone else’s face. It’s only when we’ve dealt faithfully and biblically with our own sin that we can help a brother see his own. And as John explains, even in the midst of confrontation, we need to maintain a spirit of humility.

All confrontation of sin in others must be done out of meekness, not pride. We cannot play the role of judge—passing sentence as if we were God. We cannot play the role of superior—as if we were exempt from the same standards we demand of others. We must not play the hypocrite—blaming others while we excuse ourselves. ^[5] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 1-7, 437.

We do a great disservice to the Body of Christ when we confront and judge one another in arrogance and self-righteousness. But, as John MacArthur writes, we also do damage to the church if we fail to exercise godly judgment and discernment when it’s warranted.

There is also danger, however, even for the truly humble and repentant believer. The first danger . . . is of concluding that we have no right to oppose wrong doctrine or wrong practices in the church, lest we fall into judgmental self-righteousness. We will then not be willing to confront a sinning brother as the Lord clearly calls us to do. The second danger is closely related to the first. If we are afraid to confront falsehood and sin in the church, we will be inclined to become undiscriminating and undiscerning. The church, and our own lives, will become more and more in danger of corruption. Realizing the impact of sin in the assembly (1 Peter 4:15), Peter made a powerful call for a confrontive, critical church when he said, “For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God” (1 Peter 4:17). Believers must be discerning and make proper judgment when it is required. ^[6] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 1-7, 437.

Discernment does not have to lead to division. If we faithfully follow the pattern Christ gave us, we will be able to confront one another out of love and humility, not arrogance and self-righteousness. And we’ll be able to humbly accept the input of others without rushing to defensive arguments and judgmental retaliation.

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. Of our previous blog series, none better embodies that emphasis than Frequently Abused Verses. The following entry from that series originally appeared on September 25, 2015. -ed.

What does this verse mean to you?

Most of us have heard that question before—it lurks inside countless Bible studies and Sunday-school classes. It is a postmodern mindset that has become pervasive in the church.

When reading a book, an article, or a blog post, we implicitly understand that its meaning is bound to the author’s intent. The same ought to be true for Scripture—God alone is the arbiter of what He means through what He has revealed in His Word. Yet Scripture is now subject to the whims of the reader, who is prone to read personal experience into the text instead of discovering—and coming under—its objective truth. The worst forms of this are when people think they’re helping God—improving upon His perfection, sanitizing His story, and smoothing out the sharp edges of His truth.

Life is not as subjective as we might like to think. We don’t get to decide what a red light means when we approach a traffic signal. Bank managers can’t arbitrarily determine your account balance. And, thankfully, airlines don’t hire pilots who take the liberty to decide what “runway” means to them. It is absurd to think that we can approach God’s Word with lower standards. God says what He means and means what He says, always speaks without error, and has been kind enough to speak to us with simplicity and clarity.

The tsunami of topical preaching we see today has scarred the evangelical landscape. A topical message is not wrong in and of itself, but problems are inevitable when that becomes the main diet of a congregation. Pastors who preach texts divorced from their context invariably beget congregations who interpret texts divorced from the Author’s intent. The result is that too many believers today have a propensity to treat God’s Word as their own private smorgasbord of theology.

Another place you see this trend—interpreting verses out of context—in action is in choosing of a “life verse.” Many Christians like to pick a verse that speaks to them and try to make it the theme for their lives. It’s no surprise that none of the passages concerning God’s judgment make the cut. Instead, the spectacular promises of blessing and success reign supreme.

And sitting on top of the mountain of verses evangelicals frequently misappropriate and misapply is Jeremiah 29:11, “‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.’”

It’s All About You

Unsurprisingly, Jeremiah 29:11 is a go-to verse for celebrity pastor, Joel Osteen. His takeaway is that “God desires to see you flourish in this life. He wants to see you come out of setbacks stronger, wiser, increased and promoted. He wants to give you hope in your final outcome and see you come to a flourishing finish.” ^[1] Joel Osteen, Today’s Word with Joel Osteen—May 29, 2012 (Devotional).

Andy Stanley, pastor of America’s largest congregation, says “We may not know for certain everything our future holds, but we know that God thinks good thoughts toward us, to give us a future and a hope.” ^[2] https://thekingdomcorner.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/andy-stanley-life-may-be-uncertain-but-god-isnt/

Rick Warren also typifies that me-centric approach in his book, The Purpose-Driven Life:

If you have felt hopeless, hold on! Wonderful changes are going to happen in your life as you begin to live it on purpose. God says, “I know what I am planning for you. . . . I have good plans for you, not plans to hurt you. I will give you hope and a good future.” ^[3] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012) 35.

One has to wonder if Osteen, Stanley, or Warren understand how badly they have misconstrued and misapplied God’s Word—and how they’ve misled their followers. They give zero acknowledgement to the Author’s original intent or His original audience when they rip this verse from its biblical setting. Reading Jeremiah 29:11 in context paints a starkly different picture and delivers a far more profound truth.

It’s Not About You

The nation of Israel had been taken by the Babylonians into captivity. The Temple, as well as the entire city of Jerusalem, was in ruins. Their king was in chains with his eyes gouged out. The glory of Israel as a nation was finished. But in the midst of that terrible situation, God spoke through His prophet Jeremiah:

Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, “Build houses and live in them; and plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and become the fathers of sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply there and do not decrease. Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare.” For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, “Do not let your prophets who are in your midst and your diviners deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams which they dream. For they prophesy falsely to you in My name; I have not sent them,” declares the Lord.

For thus says the Lord, “When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place. For I know the plans that I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you,” declares the Lord, “and I will restore your fortunes and will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you,” declares the Lord, “and I will bring you back to the place from where I sent you into exile.”

Because you have said, “The Lord has raised up prophets for us in Babylon”—for thus says the Lord concerning the king who sits on the throne of David, and concerning all the people who dwell in this city, your brothers who did not go with you into exile—thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, I am sending upon them the sword, famine and pestilence, and I will make them like split-open figs that cannot be eaten due to rottenness. I will pursue them with the sword, with famine and with pestilence; and I will make them a terror to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse and a horror and a hissing, and a reproach among all the nations where I have driven them, because they have not listened to My words,” declares the Lord, “which I sent to them again and again by My servants the prophets; but you did not listen,” declares the Lord. You, therefore, hear the word of the Lord, all you exiles, whom I have sent away from Jerusalem to Babylon. (Jeremiah 29:4–20)

In context, verse 11 is clearly not meant as a love letter or a promise of blessing to individual believers in the twenty-first century.

And here are a few other points to consider: How do Joel Osteen, Andy Stanley, and Rick Warren know that God is directly speaking to their congregants in verse 11 but not in Jeremiah 29:17–19, where God promises to send “the sword, famine and pestilence”? Have they considered that God’s soothing promises in verse 11 are delivered to Israel while He has His foot on their neck in judgment (Jeremiah 29:4)? What about the fact that those who received the promise in verse 11 would likely not live to experience its fulfillment seventy years later (Jeremiah 29:10). And in their egotistical exegesis, can they grasp the irony that Israel was in Babylonian slavery because they listened to prophets who tickled their ears (Jeremiah 29:8–9)?

There is something far greater and eternally significant that we learn from this story in its true context. God does not abandon His people! In spite of their sin, God was relentlessly faithful to His covenants regarding Israel’s future and His promised Messiah. Not even Babylonian captivity could prevent His promises from coming to pass.

Likewise His promises to us as New Testament believers concerning our calling and election are also unshakeable (John 10:27–29). And they provide far more lasting comfort than Old Testament verses plucked out of context and misappropriated for modern audiences.

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. Of our previous blog series, none better embodies that emphasis than Frequently Abused Verses. The following entry from that series originally appeared on February 10, 2016. -ed.

Next week will mark the second anniversary of Jamie Coots’s death. He was a father, pastor, and one of the stars of the National Geographic Channel’s reality series, Snake Salvation. The show followed Coots’s life and ministry as a prominent leader in a sect of Holiness Pentecostals who incorporate handling poisonous snakes into their worship in fulfilment of the promise of supernatural power and protection in Mark 16:17-18.

Coots died from a snakebite.

Snake handling—once popular throughout the Appalachian states—has dwindled to a tiny subculture of Pentecostals who believe in the practice of the extreme signs and wonders described in Mark 16:17-18. Specifically, they teach that they have the ability to cast out demons, speak in tongues, handle poisonous snakes, drink poison, and heal the sick (they also expose themselves to open flames, although that particular sign is not included in Mark’s gospel). And every couple years, the movement garners headlines because another pastor or congregant has died attempting to fulfill those supposed promises.

Virtually all other charismatics would disavow such extreme behavior, while holding just as tightly to the promises conveyed in the closing verses of Mark’s gospel—albeit more selectively.

For example, charismatic prosperity preacher Benny Hinn cites the passage in defense of his faith-healing ministry: “I knew the Lord had told me to pray for the sick as part of preaching the gospel, just as He told the disciples, in Mark 16:18: ‘They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.’” ^[1] Benny Hinn, The Anointing (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997) 49.

And in his book When Heaven Invades Earth, Bill Johnson—pastor of Bethel Redding, one of the most influential charismatic churches in the country—points to the end of Mark’s gospel as a promise of God’s ongoing miraculous work.

As our ministry teams travel around the world, we have come to expect certain things. Healing, deliverance, and conversions are the fruits of our labors. While healing is seldom the subject we teach on, it is one of the most common results. As we proclaim the message of the Kingdom of God, people get well. The Father seems to say, Amen! To His own message by confirming the word with power (see Mark 16:20). ^[2] Bill Johnson, When Heaven Invades Earth (Shippensburg, PA: Treasure House, 2003) 89.

We could go on with examples of how charismatics of various traditions lean heavily on the closing verses of Mark’s gospel, but you get the point. For many it’s a foundational passage—one that explicitly promises all believers the power to perform signs and wonders.

But is that really the point of the passage? And more importantly, do those verses even belong in your Bible to begin with? Even a simple reading of the text raises some significant questions about its Scriptural authenticity.

Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping. When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it. After that, He appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country. They went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either. Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed. [And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.] (Mark 16:9-20)

As you can see, there are actually two endings to Mark’s gospel contained in the above quote. Verses 9-20 are referred to as the longer ending, while the portion in brackets at the end of verse 20 is called the shorter ending—on its own it would appear immediately after verse 8. Both have appeared individually in a variety of translations—the NASB includes both.

But neither ending appears in the earliest and most reliable New Testament manuscripts. No ancient book has been more carefully preserved than the Bible—we have several thousand manuscripts, with some dating all the way back to mere decades after they were first written. And through the science of textual analysis, scholars have determined that the final verses of Mark were not in the original, inspired text.    

On top of that, as John MacArthur explains in his commentary on the passage, there are also several internal indications that Mark didn’t write either ending.

First, the transition between verse 8 and verse 9 is awkward and disjointed. The conjunction now (from the Greek word de) implies continuity with the preceding narrative, but the focus of verse 9 abruptly shifts to Mary Magdalene rather than continuing a discussion of the women referred to in verse 8. Moreover, it would be strange for Mark to wait until the end of his narrative to introduce Mary Magdalene, as if for the first time . . . when she was already mentioned three times in the prior context (Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1). A similar discontinuity regards Peter, who is singled out in verse 7 yet not mentioned again in verses 9-20. The “shorter ending” . . . attempts to rectify those incongruities by highlighting both Peter and the other women. . . . But this shorter ending has even weaker manuscript evidence to support it than the longer ending.

Second, the vocabulary, style, and structure of the longer ending is not consistent with the rest of Mark’s gospel. There are eighteen words in this section that are not used elsewhere in Mark. For example, the title “Lord Jesus” is used here (v. 19) but is never used anywhere else in Mark’s account.

Third, the inclusion of apostolic signs does not fit the way the other three gospels conclude their accounts of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Though many signs mentioned in this section parallel portions of the book of Acts (cf. Acts 2:4; 9:17; 10:46; 28:8), some are clearly without biblical support, such as being able to “pick up” venomous “serpents” (though perhaps loosely based on Paul’s experience in Acts 28:3-5) or “drink any deadly poison.” ^[3] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Mark 9-16 (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2015) 411-412.

Summing up the case against the scriptural credentials of Mark 16:9-20, John MacArthur writes,

The evidence, both external and internal, conclusively demonstrates that verses 9-20 were not originally part of Mark’s inspired record. While they generally summarize truths taught elsewhere in the New Testament, they should always be evaluated in light of the rest of Scripture. No doctrines or practices should be established solely on them. The snake-handling preachers of the Appalachians provide a prime example of the errors that can arise from accepting these verses as authoritative.

Nonetheless, knowing that Mark 16:9-20 is not original should give believers more confidence in the accuracy of the New Testament, not less. As noted above, the science of textual analysis makes it possible for biblical scholars to identify the very few passages that were not part of the original. Such places are clearly marked in modern translations, making it easy for students of Scripture to identify them. Consequently, believers can approach the rest of the text with the settled assurance that the Bible they hold in their hands accurately reflects the original. ^[4] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Mark 9-16, 412.

That conclusion then begs the question: Where did these verses come from?

Most likely, they were added in by a scribe who felt Mark’s original ending was missing something. However, it does not appear that he was so audacious as to concoct an ending from his own imagination. Instead, Mark 16:9-20 is a patchwork quilt of other biblical passages concerning the life of Christ after His resurrection, His commissioning of the apostles, and stories from their ministry in the founding of the church.

Time and space don’t permit me to break down the probable origin of each verse, but let me encourage you to listen to John MacArthur’s sermon on the passage, called “The Fitting End to Mark’s Gospel,” or consult his commentary on Mark 9-16 for more details on how this extrabiblical passage was likely assembled.

And what of Mark’s original ending? Why was it deemed so deficient in the first place? True, it is abrupt and to the point: “They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” (Mark 16:8). But as John MacArthur explains, that abrupt ending perfectly fits both Mark’s style and his purpose for writing at all.

Mark’s ending is abrupt but it is not incomplete. The tomb was empty; the angelic announcement explained that Jesus had risen; and multiple eyewitnesses confirmed those events. The purpose of Mark’s gospel was to demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1). Having amply made that point, no further proof was necessary.

Throughout his gospel, Mark consistently punctuated key events in the life of the Lord Jesus by emphasizing the wonder He evoked in the hearts and minds of others. Mark simply moves from one point of amazement about Christ to the next. So the narrative ends where it ought to end. It climaxes with amazement and bewilderment at the resurrection of the crucified Savior (cf. John 20:31). In so doing, it leaves the reader in a place of wonder, awe, and worship, centered on its glorious subject: the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. ^[5] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Mark 9-16, 417-418.

So while Mark 16:9-20 may be a significant proof text for many charismatics, their interpretation is invalidated when we understand that those verses never belonged in Scripture to begin with.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is Copeland in his own words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. Of our previous blog series, none better embodies that emphasis than Frequently Abused Verses. The following entry from that series originally appeared on April 10, 2017. -ed.

False teaching thrives in environments where it is unlikely to be questioned. Charlatans and heretics prey on uncritical minds, and work tirelessly to protect and preserve that gullibility. Their success depends on dismantling every challenge to their authority and accuracy.

John MacArthur describes why that problem is rampant in the modern church:

In a time like this of tolerance, listen, false teaching will always cry intolerance; it will always say you’re being divisive, you’re being unloving, you’re being ungracious, because it can only survive when it doesn’t get scrutinized. And so it cries against any intolerance. It cries against any examination, any scrutiny.

In recent decades, some of the most notorious charismatic church leaders have been doing just that. They continually warn their critics to back off or face the imminent danger of divine judgment. Claiming God’s stamp of approval, they wield Psalm 105:15 like a loaded gun: “Touch not [the Lord’s] anointed” (KJV).

And lest you think such a description to be hyperbole, the following clip from Benny Hinn is a spectacular example. 

Hinn’s handling of Psalm 105:15, as well as the story of Saul and David, is hopelessly wrong on too many levels to address in one blog post.

For example we could discuss how Hinn utterly fails to understand Judas’s role in God’s sovereign plan for the crucifixion, while woefully underestimating the deity of Christ. We could invalidate Hinn’s warnings against criticism by pointing out the time Paul rebuked Peter—or when Hinn has publicly rebuked Joel Osteen, among others. Then there’s the problem of Hinn basing his threats upon the extra-biblical revelation of another false teacher (Kenneth Copeland).

 What does it mean to “touch”?

But there is one simple, glaring error that explains all the other problems and exposes Hinn as the incompetent and unqualified Bible teacher that he is. When David says, “I will not stretch out my hand against [Saul], for he is the Lord’s anointed” (1 Samuel 24:10), he is explaining why he didn’t kill Saul, not why he didn’t criticize Saul. In fact, David was openly critical of Saul on numerous occasions. Moreover, 1 Samuel 24:10 is part of a larger discourse where David rebukes Saul face-to-face over his murderous scheming: “I have not sinned against you, though you are lying in wait for my life to take it. May the Lord judge between you and me, and may the Lord avenge me on you; but my hand shall not be against you” (1 Samuel 24:11–13). Even if Benny Hinn was “the Lord’s anointed”—he’s not—none of his critics are attempting to “touch” him in the sense described in 1 Samuel 24:10 (or Psalm 105:15; or 1 Chronicles 16:22).

Who are the anointed?

There is another fatal flaw in Hinn’s interpretation. He—and all those who follow this teaching—assume that only certain persons are “anointed.” They claim that pastors and self-appointed prophets and apostles have a unique anointing from God that immunizes them from criticism. But such a concept is foreign to Scripture. In short, the Bible teaches that all believers have an anointing from God.

In his first epistle, the apostle John explained what it means to be anointed as a New Testament believer. After warning his readers about antichrists who were coming to deceive them, John reminded them of their security because of Christ’s anointing:

These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. (1 John 2:26–27)

The anointing John refers to is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit—a reality for all true Christians. John MacArthur explains the context and meaning of “anointing” as it appears in 1 John:

The false teachers who threatened John’s readers employed the terms for knowledge and anointing to describe their religious experience. They arrogantly saw themselves as possessing an elevated and esoteric form of divine knowledge, and as the recipients of a special, secret, transcendent anointing. That led them to believe they were privy to truth that the uninitiated lacked. John’s response, which was both a rebuttal to the antichrists and a reassurance to the believers, was to assert that, in reality, all true Christians have an anointing from the Holy One.

Because believers have received that anointing, they have the true understanding of God that comes exclusively through Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6), “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). They do not need any secret, special, or transcendent understanding or esoteric insight. Anointing (chrisma) literally means “ointment” or “oil” (cf. Hebrews 1:9). In this text it refers figuratively to the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Corinthians 1:21–22), who has taken up residency in believers at the behest of Jesus Christ, the Holy One (cf. Luke 4:34; Acts 3:14), and reveals through Scripture all they need to know (John 14:26; 16:13; 1 Corinthians 2:9–10). ^[1] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1–3 John (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 2007), 102.

The anointing we have as believers reveals the truth and therefore exposes the lies of false teachers. How ironic that the “anointing” Benny Hinn evokes to extort and manipulate churchgoers is actually our warning system to expose the self-serving deception of wolves like him.   

The gospel of John has never been a prominent part of most Christmas celebrations. It contains no birth story, no manger scene, no shepherds or wise men, and Mary doesn’t appear until Christ’s first miracle—turning water into wine—at the wedding in Cana (John 2:1). We rely on the narratives in Matthew and Luke to piece together the actual events surrounding the Lord’s birth. Yet John’s account is crucial in order to understand the true meaning, significance, and implications of Christ’s entry into this world.

Gold, frankincense, and myrrh—those are perhaps the three most famous Christmas gifts ever given, for one historic reason. Matthew 2:11 records their delivery to Christ in His childhood by wise men from the East. And all three gifts have been memorialized by the many nativity scenes featuring them each Christmas. But what about the next time Jesus comes?

The Roman Catholic Church has committed the error of promoting a mere citizen of heaven to an improper place of authority and honor. Despite the overwhelming testimony of Scripture, the Catholic Church has elevated Mary—a self-described servant of the Lord (Luke 1:38)—to the same level as God, if not higher.

“All you need to do is love God and love people.” You’ve likely seen words to that effect on church websites, signs, and bulletins. Those words also often show up in social media and personal conversations with other believers. They capture a sentiment that is becoming increasingly popular in churches today: Let’s strip away the complexities of ministry in a modern world and focus on the basic biblical truth of loving God and man. It’s a goal that is clear, simple, and universally agreeable—it won’t generate controversy nor garner criticism. What could possibly be wrong with that? Plenty actually, if the terms aren’t biblically defined.

The church is currently awash with lamentations on the state of the Christianity. And there are good reasons for that. We see charlatans extorting people on Christian television. We witness professing believers exchanging hostilities on social media. We hear of endless scandals in the pulpit. And we are constantly confronted by competing theological perspectives. It can all seem so overwhelming. But what if we realized there is one fundamental problem fueling all the others?

Jesus never promised us lives free of tribulation and calamity. Indeed He warned His disciples, “In the world you will have tribulation” (John 16:33, NKJV). The current COVID-19 pandemic that has engendered so much fear and panic is not the first—nor will it be the last—crisis people will experience in this world.

You probably remember the “What Would Jesus Do?” trend from the late ’90s. It seemed everywhere you looked, plastered across T-shirts, hats, jewelry, and all kinds of other merchandise, the WWJD slogan was a blithe, shallow reminder to live up to Christ’s moral code...

President Donald Trump laid into some of his close Senate allies for siding with Democrats on an Iran war powers bill even as Congress failed to override his veto.

Kylie Moore-Gilbert is among the many foreigners held in Iran's notorious Evin prison on espionage charges.

The layoffs come amid global cuts as the coronavirus pandemic sees revenues drop.

The government on Friday reported eight new cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) from pre-emptive testing and among quarantined migrants in the far South, raising the total to 3,000, with no new deaths.

Would you go on the run with your ex?

MANSEHRA: Two persons were killed and three others sustained injuries when a pickup vehicle plunged into a ravine in Shahshi Gigal area of Lower Kohistan on Friday.The vehicle was on way to Kokai from Gijal when it met to accident while negotiating a sharp turn.The local rushed to scene and...

PESHAWAR: The media workers of the Jang Group on Friday continued the protest against the arrest of their Editor-in- chief Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman as representatives of the teachers organization visited the camp to express solidarity with journalists.Carrying banners and placards inscribed with...

Chinese ride-hailing giant Didi Chuxing’s core business has been profitable, president Jean Liu Qing said for the first time, as ride orders in its domestic market recover from the impact of the coronavirus pandemic.In a rare interview, Liu told the CNBC that Didi’s core business has been profitable, without providing specific figures or explaining how or when the company had measured its profitability. The company has no plans for job cuts or raising capital, Liu said in the interview that…

Blood thinners could improve the survival rate among the most severely ill Covid-19 patients, according to a hospital study in New York City.The finding comes as doctors have been observing blood clot disorders among coronavirus patients that can damage vital organs.The researchers found that intubated patients treated with anticoagulants – medicines that help prevent blood clots – had a mortality rate of 29 per cent.Of those who were not treated with blood thinners, 63 per cent died.And among…

China says it supports World Health Organisation efforts to investigate the origin of the Covid-19 pandemic, but rejects any “presumption of guilt”, after the global body said it was talking to Beijing about sending another delegation to the country.The remarks came as Beijing is under mounting international pressure – particularly from the United States – to allow an inquiry into how the pandemic started, and if it was linked to a laboratory in Wuhan, the city where the new virus strain was…

Criminal investigators in the United States have stepped up their pursuit of Covid-19 fraudsters selling unproven treatments and equipment online.The Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) has partnered with major health care and e-commerce companies to fight back against a deluge of fake goods being sold during the pandemic.There has been a rise in opportunists seeking to “capitalise and profit from the fear and anxiety” surrounding the Covid-19 disease, increasing sales of counterfeit…

The European Union remains central to the global fight against the Covid-19 pandemic, but the rivalry between China and the United States is doing little to help, the EU’s envoy to China said on Thursday.“We are seeing high levels of tensions – strategic, economic, political – growing day after day. It is our opinion that these tensions are not conducive to the cooperative spirit we need today,” ambassador Nicolas Chapuis told an online press briefing.“I am convinced that the EU voice is today…

Chinese researchers have found Covid-19 in the sperm of a small number of men, raising the possibility that the virus could be spread via sex.The study by physicians at China’s Shangqiu Municipal Hospital looked at only 38 men at the hospital who had tested positive with disease, and of that already small group found that a minority – only six – were found to have SARS-CoV-2 in their semen.Eyes are ‘important route’ for coronavirus into body, Hong Kong experts find“The virus responsible for…