Do Christians, Muslims, and Jews Worship the Same God?

Do Christians, Muslims, and Jews worship the same God? Obviously there are significant theological differences between Jews, Christians, and Muslims but should these be considered examples of groups that have different understandings about one God or are these three groups that worship different Gods?

Theism & Monotheism

All three groups are theists. Unlike atheistic materialism each of these faiths believes that there is a spiritual reality that transcends the physical world and includes some type of divinity. Beyond this we recognize that these three faiths have many important points of basic theological agreement. Unlike Buddhism each of these believes that the divine is a being in the fullest sense- having an individual identity and mind. In distinction to Hinduism the divine is considered to be a single being. In addition to simply being monotheistic each of them teaches that God is the creator and is distinct and unique from the creation itself. Each of them recognizes God as vastly powerful, as sovereign, and as judge. Likewise they all teach that wisdom and mercy are important characteristics of God and that as a result human relationships should be conducted in a certain way as well. They also share the belief that God works through angels, prophets, and reveals Himself through particular revelation in words. They even agree on the names of particular people through whom God has worked, such as Abraham.

Therefore, we can say that they all agree that a single God exists and that there are certain things true about Him. In terms of a concept of monotheistic creator-deity they would be classified together, however, this does not mean that they worship the same God. Before we could make that claim we have to look at a few other things.

Allah, Yahweh, & God

Since there is some similarity between the attributes of God between the faiths many people assume that they are all talking about the same god but differ on what is true about Him. As we saw above, if we simply mean by the term “god” the concept of divine being then we may say that this is true because at that point we are engaged in a theoretical conversation about the concept of divinity. However, when it comes to what people believe insofar as it informs their worship it is not that kind of vague conceptualization. For example, Yahweh is a personal name and other more generic words such as “god” or “elohim” are infused with all sorts of content when used in the context of faith that would prevent them from the kind of base conceptualization that would be restricted to simple monotheistic referents. There is a certain set of beliefs and a certain set of fundamental attributes and propositions that pertain to God in the theology of each of these groups and if those are different from each other then these groups are not worshiping the same God though they may use the same terminology.

For example, the word “allah” is simply the Arabic word for “god” and Arabic Christians use the term Allah when they pray. It is clear, however, that they do not mean the same thing when they use the term as do Muslims. The Christian (or Muslim) prayer is not limited to basic monotheistic creator-judge categories but includes a lot more. Let us assume that I know a man whose name is Bob. He is a 6’ tall dark skinned man who was born in New York, loves jazz music, and loves college football. Now let us assume that you also know a man named Bob. He is a 5’ 8” light skinned man who was born in New York, loves country music, and loves professional football. We can see how the following conversation could be possible:

Me: “I really like Bob, he is a great guy”

You: “Me too, he makes me laugh”

Me: “You know Bob?”

You: “I think we are talking about the same guy… he is from New York right?”

Me: “Yeah, he loves music and is always talking about football”

You: “Yes, that is him”

Obviously if the conversation were to end here both of us could walk away thinking that we were talking about the same person. If, however, we continued to talk it would become evident that we were not in fact talking about the same person. When a person uses the term “god” it is a linguistic shortcut for a series of attributes and propositions associated with a particular divine being. For example, all three groups believe that God created the world but Christians believe that it was through Jesus that this happened. Obviously the other two do not share this view so though all three worship creator gods they do not worship the same creator god.

Biblical Judaism & Modern Judaism

Many Christians would be quick to say that Muslims worship a different God but would be hesitant to make the same statement about Jews. After all, doesn’t the New Testament clearly tell us that “salvation is of the Jews” and isn’t the New Testament itself dependent upon the Jewish scriptures for its own claims?

Although there is no question that Christianity is reliant upon the Jewish scriptures it is extremely important that we distinguish between biblical and non-biblical Judaism. There are a variety of different perspectives within modern Judaism but none of them are examples of biblical Judaism. We already see in the New Testament a divergence between faithful Jews who correctly understood the scriptures and those who were following the teachings of men. Modern Judaism has developed in contradistinction to Christianity whereas the faithful Jews of the Old Testament were waiting in anticipation of the culmination of the promises in the Promised One who was to come. It is therefore anachronistic and incorrect to assume that the faith of the Old Testament is the same as the faith of modern Judaism. Jesus Himself teaches this when he says: “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me." (John 5:45-46 ESV)

The entirety of the Jewish scripture was intended to point to Jesus Christ. Any rejection of Christ is therefore a rejection of the Law and the Prophets as well.

The Centrality of Christ to Theology

This brings us to the crucial point. Since the divinity of Christ is the indispensable and most foundational element of the Christian understanding it is clear that Muslims and Jews do not worship the same God as do Christians. It is an indispensable element of the Christian faith itself that it is not possible to claim to have an understanding of the Father if we do not accept Christ. The scriptures do not give us the option to formulate our theology in any other way. A few examples should suffice to make the point:

Matthew 10:40: “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me.”

Luke 10:16: “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

John 5:22-23: “The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.”

John 15:23: “Whoever hates me hates my Father also.”

1 John 2:22-23: “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.”

2 John 1:9: “Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.”

Conclusion

The bible is clear that a rejection of Christ is a rejection of God. If, therefore, we attempt to develop some concept of God that excludes Jesus Christ what we are doing is engaging in a form of idolatry. The result is that instead of worshipping the one true God we worship some other false conception of him. It doesn’t matter if it a mental construction or a carved idol because in either case we have rejected His revelation of Himself and replaced it with something else. As Christians we cannot talk about God’s mercy, love, patience, or even His sovereignty and justice without including in our thoughts the fullest expression of those attributes in Jesus Christ. This is why when Philip asked Christ to show him the father “Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (John 14:9 ESV)

Therefore we have to conclude that Christians, Muslims, and Jews do not worship the same God though there are similarities and some of the same terminology is used. Regarding the worship of Muslims and Jews we would agree with what the apostle Paul wrote when referring to the unbelieving Jews of his day:

“Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”   (Romans 10:1-4 ESV)

Though Jews and Muslims are zealous theists they do not know the Christian God and do not worship Him. Our burden is that by His grace they come to see the excellencies of Christ who “is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.”

Bible Study Tips: Use Block Diagrams

The technique that I am introducing in this article takes the outlining process and extends it further so that the flow of an argument can be seen both in relation to the broader sections and how individual points function within a section. The technique is known variously as block diagramming, mechanical outlining, phrasing, and numerous other titles. It may have many different names but it is really a rather straightforward and useful tool that requires very little grammatical knowledge to use at a basic level.

You start by breaking up the text into singular phrases. This sounds as though it would require a lot of grammatical knowledge but it comes naturally to most people. A phrase is simply a group of words that function together as a unit (you will see more clearly what I mean when we get to the example). The technique involves writing or copying the text with the key phrases all the way to the left. These are phrases that introduce a new and independent point to the flow of the authors thought. You then indent any dependant phrases that modify or inform you about the initial phrase. Some people make sure that these dependant phrases are directly under the phrase or key word they modify. This process continues for each phrase so that what you end up with is a word picture of the logical chain showing the relative position of each fact or point in the overall flow. For a simple example let us look at the introduction to 1 Peter:

“1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood : May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.” (NASB)

The first phrase is “Peter, an apostle” so we will put this over to the left.

Peter, an apostle

The next phrase “of Jesus Christ” tells us something about “an apostle” so it is indented…

1 Peter, an apostle

of Jesus Christ,

The next phrase “to those who reside as aliens” doesn’t tell us anything about Peter or Jesus so it is not modifying anything we have yet seen so it also goes over to the far left…

1 Peter, an apostle

of Jesus Christ,

To those who reside as aliens,

The next phrase “scattered throughout” tells us something about “aliens” and so is indented again…

1 Peter, an apostle

of Jesus Christ,

To those who reside as aliens,

scattered throughout

We might have included Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, as part of this line but those describe the scattering so I have chosen to indent them under scattered…

1 Peter, an apostle

of Jesus Christ,

To those who reside as aliens,

scattered throughout

Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

The next phrase “who are chosen” tells us something about those who reside as aliens so it goes back out to the left but stays indented under the “aliens” phrase…

1 Peter, an apostle

of Jesus Christ,

To those who reside as aliens,

scattered throughout

Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

who are chosen

The next phrase “according to the foreknowledge of God” tells us something about the choice so it is indented under “who are chosen”…

1 Peter, an apostle

of Jesus Christ,

To those who reside as aliens,

scattered throughout

Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

who are chosen

2 according to the foreknowledge of God

You may have noticed by this point that you could have made a few different decisions about how small to break up the units. That is ok, you will develop a style of your own as you go but the important thing is to keep the dependant statements indented from the independent ones. The next phrase “the Father” tells us something about God so it is indented (or could have been included on the previous line)…

1 Peter, an apostle

of Jesus Christ,

To those who reside as aliens,

scattered throughout

Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

who are chosen

2 according to the foreknowledge of God

the Father,

The next phrase “by the sanctifying work of the Spirit” tells us about the choice so it gets moved back out in relation to “who are chosen”…

1 Peter, an apostle

of Jesus Christ,

To those who reside as aliens,

scattered throughout

Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

who are chosen

2 according to the foreknowledge of God

the Father,

by the sanctifying work of the Spirit,

The next phrase “to obey Jesus Christ” tells us something about the sanctifying work of the Spirit and so is indented…

1 Peter, an apostle

of Jesus Christ,

To those who reside as aliens,

scattered throughout

Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

who are chosen

2 according to the foreknowledge of God

the Father,

by the sanctifying work of the Spirit,

to obey Jesus Christ

The next phrase “and be sprinkled with His blood” begins with “and” and is therefore in connection with and within the argument parallel to the previous phrase and so is always indented the same amount. Some teachers will move the “and” out to the left and draw lines to indicate this but when working in word I just indent them the same amount.

1 Peter, an apostle

of Jesus Christ,

To those who reside as aliens,

scattered throughout

Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

who are chosen

2 according to the foreknowledge of God

the Father,

by the sanctifying work of the Spirit,

to obey Jesus Christ

and be sprinkled with His blood :

The next phrase “May grace and peace be yours” is a new main point because it is the message that is connected with the key word “to” and is therefore moved back to the left…

1 Peter, an apostle

of Jesus Christ,

To those who reside as aliens,

scattered throughout

Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

who are chosen

2 according to the foreknowledge of God

the Father,

by the sanctifying work of the Spirit,

to obey Jesus Christ

and be sprinkled with His blood :

May grace and peace be yours

The last phrase “in the fullest measure” tells us something about the possession of grace and peace and so it is indented…

1 Peter, an apostle

of Jesus Christ,

To those who reside as aliens,

scattered throughout

Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

who are chosen

2 according to the foreknowledge of God

the Father,

by the sanctifying work of the Spirit,

to obey Jesus Christ

and be sprinkled with His blood :

May grace and peace be yours

in the fullest measure.

Notice right away the main elements of this passage. If we bring them together we can rewrite the independent statements as “Peter, an apostle, to those who reside as aliens, may grace and peace be yours”. That is the core message of these verses. To be sure, there is much more in the passage but the main point is that Peter the apostle is writing to those who reside as aliens and he gives the customary blessing. We can also see quickly some important things that are emphasized about these aliens: Peter wishes them to posses grace and peace and they are scattered and are also chosen. We can easily identify certain important things about those who are chosen, namely that that are chosen by the foreknowledge of God and the sanctifying work of the spirit. Since these are emphasized in the greeting we might want to look carefully at how these truths are developed in the body of the letter. We also notice that the sanctifying work of the spirit is unto obedience to Christ and the sprinkling of His blood.

I selected an easy example to introduce this technique but even with this short introduction I pray that you can see the potential value of this tool particularly for longer or more difficult sections of scripture. By simply organizing the relationship between phrases we get a very effective way of seeing how the author develops and emphasizes his points. There are many other ways of formatting the text using this kind of approach but if you just get in the habit of asking at each point, “is this telling me about something that has already been mentioned? And then indicating it in a way that makes it jump out at you it will open up all sorts of insights into what the bible is teaching and how it is doing so. If you take the time to do this work, particularly with difficult passages, I believe you will be greatly blessed by it and your study will be enhanced.

May the Lord bless you greatly in your studies that you may bless many others.

Gordon Clark's Scripturalsim: A Few Considerations

In a previous post on Dr. Clark I mentioned that his work always forces me to think more carefully about my own positions regardless of if I agree or disagree with his position. A brother in Christ who appreciates Dr. Clark but who is still growing in his understanding of philosophy asked me what positions of Clark I disagree with. He pointed out that there are not many readily accessible resources for reading Clark critically from a sympathetic perspective. Most of the information available is either strongly for or strongly against his system. Like Dr. Clark I would be classified philosophically as a rational presuppositionalist and would fall into the “Clarkian” camp on many issues, however, great men are men nonetheless and Dr. Clark’s system, like the work of all teachers, must not be accepted uncritically.

Before I give any critique of Clark’s Scripturalism let me say again what a blessing his work has been to me and that I think it deserves far more consideration than it is usually given. I should also point out that each of the weaknesses that I mention below are worthy of a great deal more examination and explanation than I give. My intention is simply to provide some thought starters for those who are interested in Dr. Clark’s philosophical position that he called Scripturalism (perhaps I will address his theology at some other time).

1)      Clark’s scripturalsim is founded upon the premise that all knowledge is restricted to the propositions in scripture or valid deductions from the propositions in scripture. Unfortunately, this proposition itself does not meet the necessary criteria to be knowledge in his system. There is no verse in scripture that claims that all knowledge is exclusively found in scripture and I have found no biblical teaching which necessarily entail this. Dr. Clark pointed to biblical verses such as Colossians 2:3 which states that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Christ but the fact that all wisdom and knowledge are to be found in God (either Father or Son) is not surprising and it does not follow therefore that God chooses to impart knowledge solely through His Word. Clark pointed out many scriptural statements that extol the supremacy of the wisdom and knowledge found in the Word but the bible is not a philosophy textbook and any good exegete will recognize that these statements are not to be understood as technical epistemological pronouncements. They are better understood as arguing for supremacy as opposed to exclusivity. A case can be made that salvific knowledge comes exclusively through the Word (imparted directly or indirectly) but that does not exclude the possibility that knowledge of some things might be acquired through other means. Clark’s Scripturalism therefore does not clear the bar on its own first principal.

2)      If we can show that there is any certain, undeniable, knowledge that is not deduced from the axioms of scripture then Clark’s position would be defeated. Admittedly, he defines knowledge in such a way that would make this task extremely difficult. Nevertheless, I think that every person who is engaged in philosophical or theological thought necessarily, and undeniably, possess at least one type of knowledge of this sort, namely our knowledge of self. Augustine and later Descartes both arguing against skepticism famously demonstrated that one thing that can be proven without any doubt is ones own existence because it is impossible to question your own existence if you do not exist. Skepticism about ones own existence is self-defeating therefore, though we might each doubt if anyone else exists, we know that our own mind must necessarily and undeniably exist. I believe this is an issue for Clark’s Scripturalism because my existence (or yours) is neither a proposition of scripture nor can it be deduced from any proposition of scripture. Therefore, if I know I exist I must know it from some source outside of the bible. Dr. Clark addressed the question of self-knowledge by demonstrating (quite capably) that nobody really knows themselves. He points out that the collection of propositions that are attached to particular identities are not fully known even by those that they describe. This is all quite true, but also quite beside the point. Clark is correct that we do not possess perfect knowledge of self but whatever else we may not know about ourselves we can certainly know that our minds exist. If we know this, and it isn’t in the bible then Dr. Clark is wrong.

3)      Scripture itself appears to assume that certain types of knowledge are possible through observation (I am not arguing here for empiricism… the relationship of such observation and the rational processes are not detailed in the bible and warrant much more detailed discussion). The bible repeatedly talks about what we see and hear as the basis for knowing certain things. Obviously the text isn’t using the word “know” in a technical philosophical sense but the fact remains that certain conclusions are said to be drawn from certain observations. Dr. Clark often responded to this criticism by demonstrating that quite often the words “see” and “hear” in the bible do not refer to sensation. He is quite right about this and just like in modern English these terms usually mean to understand rather than having a reference to sensation (do you see what I am saying?). This being the case, however, it is not sufficient for him to demonstrate that in 20 or 30 examples this is the case and then claim that this must be sufficient for us to except that the hundreds of other instances follow the same pattern. If even a single example can be given that these words do in fact refer to sensory observation then Dr. Clark would have a problem. I submit that there are many such instances but I will give two. First is  2 Samuel 20:10, “But Amasa did not observe the sword that was in Joab's hand. So Joab struck him with it in the stomach and spilled his entrails to the ground without striking a second blow, and he died.” In this verse it was Amasa’s failure to know that Joab was armed due to a lack of observation that allowed Joab to get close enough to him to kill him with one blow. The second example is Matthew 24:32 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near.” Jesus often appeals to things that the people who heard him already knew in order to then point them to another truth. Those to whom these words were first spoken would not have been able to deduce the lesson of the fig tree from any previous scripture. They would have known what Jesus was saying because they had observed through nature what He was describing.

I believe that there are other issues that might be pointed out but I think that these three are issues that anyone who is considering Clark’s position must carefully think through. If the good doctor were still with us he would no doubt have a clever and formidable response to these criticisms. As it stands, however, I do not recall in any of his books or classes that he fully and satisfactorily answers these questions (If I have missed it or forgotten it please let me know).

We can affirm that the Lord is the source of all knowledge and that His revelation of Himself in the Scriptures is epistemologically supreme without being so narrow as to exclude the possibility of knowing in any other way. The propositions of scripture are canonical in the purest sense. They alone serve as the standard for all potential knowledge. Any reasoning that contradicts them is unsound. I believe that Dr. Clark demonstrated the unreliability of many other forms of supposed knowledge showing that only scripture can offer certainty regarding what can be considered justified true belief. His arguments should be carefully considered but his solution to the problem of knowledge is not without its own difficulties.

No Pain No Gain

The Lord has seen fit to make some adjustments to my schedule this past week that will result in a little more time between posts over the next month or so. Despite my busyness I finally had a chance to sit down this evening after bible study and do a little bit of reading. I picked up John Piper’s book Brothers, We are NOT Professionals. I am planning to post a review of the book in the near future once I finish it but while reading this evening I came across a statement that I thought was worth sharing.

I do not always agree with John Piper on every issue but there are many that I do and one of Piper’s goals which I share is to encourage people to think carefully about their faith and about God’s Word. One of Piper’s chapters is an encouragement to pastors to “show your people why God inspired hard texts”. We usually do not think carefully about something unless there is a difficulty. It is when there is some problem to be solved in our bible study that we tend to pay the kind of attention to the text and the theology that it really always deserves. Highlighting this truth Piper made the following statement:

If God has inspired a book as the foundation of the Christian faith, there is a massive impulse unleashed in the world to teach people how to read. And if God ordained for some of that precious, sacred, God-breathed book to be hard to understand, then God unleashed in the world not only an impulse to teach people how to read but also how to think about what they read- how to read hard things and understand them and how to use the mind in a rigorous way.

Paul said to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:2, ‘What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.’ Impart understanding to others, Timothy, in a way that will enable them to teach others also. In other words, the writings of the apostles- especially the hard ones- unleash generation after generation of education. Education is helping people understand something that they don’t already understand. Or, more accurately, education is helping people (young or old) learn how to get an understanding that they didn’t already have. Education is cultivating the life of the mind so that it knows how to grow in true understanding. That impulse was unleashed by God’s inspiring a book with complex demanding paragraphs in it.”

Piper makes a great point here. To encounter the Word of God and to study it is an education. If you are not educated but you commit yourself to reading the Word of God carefully you will, over time, become a very educated person. You may not speak the queens English or be able to do multivariable calculus but your critical thinking skills will be honed to a point that is rare to find in many college graduates. Not only will understanding increase (in multiple subjects) but also humility. This isn’t just a theory that I happen to agree with. I have witnessed it in the lives of real people.

We live in a culture that is rejecting the notions of truth and objectivity. The disciplines of education will continue to crumble in that kind of environment. As people who believe in an objective and unchanging Truth revealed in the propositions contained in a book given to us by God we cannot avoid those disciplines. If the bible is God’s truth then it is a single message and each part relates in some way to the others. I believe that one of the great opportunities for the Church in our age is to once again be a haven in the culture for those who are trained to read and think critically.

I pray that whether you are a teacher or a student that you would not avoid the difficult places in scripture. Meditate on them and think about them hard depending upon God to grant you understanding. If you do so God will stretch you and bless you. If you want a deeper relationship with God then spend time pondering the riches and depths of His Word. May God bless your study of the difficult passages!

Bible Study Tips: Translate the Pronouns

As I have touched on in a number of past articles the role of the bible teacher is not to give the answers but is rather to equip the students to engage the text of Scripture so that they might be taught of God. There is a world of difference between coming to a conclusion based upon your own study and learning something because someone else told you it was so.

A few months ago a dear brother in the Lord who was frustrated that his church did not have any classes that taught people how to study the bible for themselves decided to start his own study group (with approval of the elders of his church). He wanted the group to wrestle with the text themselves and be forced to think about what it said rather than relying on their study bibles or commentaries. He recognized, however, that there were certain basic study techniques that would be helpful in order to avoid just reading into the text everybody’s subjective interpretations. We discussed a few basic approaches that help to keep the study on track and focused on what the author is actually saying. That conversation has led me to introduce a new category to the blog that focuses on bible study techniques that I have found helpful and would like to share. Most (if not all) of what I share here is not new or unique but unfortunately these techniques are often not taught in many local church bible studies. My prayer is that this will be a category that will allow people to add a few more tools to their bible study toolkit that will allow them to go deeper in their study of God’s word.

The first tip that I would like to share is the technique of translating the pronouns. Often when we read we begin to move along at a quick pace which causes our minds to “fill in” information rather than carefully observing what is actually on the page. In order to understand what is being said we need to be clear on who is speaking, who is being addressed, and who or what is being talked about. This sounds like something that would be easy to keep straight but if more than one person or group is in view in the text then it can be easy to get the references mixed up. This can lead us to misunderstand the comparisons and contrasts that are often crucial to biblical arguments. This is particularly important in reading letters and epistles where the bulk of the material is logical argumentation. By translating the pronouns we can avoid confusion, be sure we are thinking through the argument, and can often see things in the text we had not previously noticed.

The technique is simple and requires no special training or knowledge. All that is required is to understand what a pronoun is and how it works. Pronouns are simply words that take the place of a noun. Examples of English pronouns include: he, her, hers, herself, him, himself, his, it, itself, myself, ours, ourselves, she, them, themselves, they, us, you, yours, yourself, etc. Once we are able to identify where the pronouns are all that we need to do is to stop every time we see one and fill in the “who” or “what” the pronoun refers to.

For example in the sentence “Sally has to go to work today because she has much to do.” The pronoun is “she” and refers to “Sally”. If we encountered this sentence in a study we would fill it in the following way: “Sally has to go to work today because [Sally] has much to do”.

Let’s look at an example from a biblical passage:  In Matthew Chapter 23 verse 37 Jesus says “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” This lament over Jerusalem is often interpreted to be a universal proclamation on the part of the Lord regarding his sorrow over His inability to save some people due to their unwillingness to come to Him. By translating the pronouns in this verse, however, we see that this verse doesn’t support that interpretation. Let’s take a look:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it [Jerusalem]! How often would I [Jesus] have gathered your [Jerusalem’s] children together as a hen gathers her [the hen’s] brood under her [the hen’s] wings, and you [Jerusalem] would not!”

The interpretation above doesn’t work well because if we look carefully we see that in this verse the group who “would not” is not the same group that Christ desires to gather. There must be something else going on here. He is addressing Jerusalem, the city that murders the prophets, and what he says is that He would often have gathered Jerusalem’s children under His wings. Lots of people read through this quickly and don’t catch that Jesus is speaking to one group (Jerusalem) about another group (Jerusalem’s children). By translating the pronouns we have highlighted a detail that requires us to dig a little deeper in order to see what Christ is intending to convey with these words.

It doesn’t seem right to leave this hanging like this so I will go ahead and give what I believe to be the solution even though it requires using a couple other tools that I will not introduce until future posts in this category.

Since Jerusalem is a city and cities do not kill people we know that Jerusalem is intended to represent someone or something. If we go back and look at the context of this verse we see that it appears right at the end of a scathing rebuke that Jesus delivers against the Scribes and Pharisees and right before His prophesy regarding the destruction of the Temple. All of this material is contained in a single teaching segment within Matthew’s gospel and so we see that the lament over Jerusalem supports broader themes that carry through from Christ’s rebuke to the destruction of the Temple. For a few different reasons the reference to Jerusalem would appear to be a reference to the Jewish religious leadership. If so, this lament should be understood as part of Jesus’ rebuke.

The very people who were responsible for guiding Israel (Jerusalem) and should have been pointing the people (their “children”) to Christ were in fact unwilling to do so. Jesus is pointing out that throughout the history of Israel the leaders killed the prophets of God and were often unwilling to provide God honoring leadership. The leaders at the time He came were no different even becoming an obstacle between the people and their messiah. The result was to be the destruction of the Temple and the overturning of the power structure upon which they relied. God would deal directly with the people through Christ and the Holy Spirit. He would gather where they would have prevented it. This passage is an important link between the rebuke of the leaders and the prophesy of the destruction of the Temple and without slowing down to identify the distinction between the groups addressed in the pronouns it is easy to miss.

May the Lord bless you in your studies and to Him be the Glory!