Redeeming God

Liberating you from bad ideas about God

Learn the MOST ESSENTIAL truths for following Jesus.

Get FREE articles and audio teachings in my discipleship emails!


  • Join Us!
  • Scripture
  • Theology
  • My Books
  • About
  • Discipleship
  • Courses
    • What is Hell?
    • Skeleton Church
    • The Gospel According to Scripture
    • The Gospel Dictionary
    • The Re-Justification of God
    • What is Prayer?
    • Adventures in Fishing for Men
    • What are the Spiritual Gifts?
    • How to Study the Bible
    • Courses FAQ
  • Forum
    • Introduce Yourself
    • Old Testament
    • New Testament
    • Theology Questions
    • Life & Ministry
You are here: Home / Archives

John 6:44 is a key text for Total Depravity. Too bad it doesn’t teach it…

By Jeremy Myers
27 Comments

John 6:44 is a key text for Total Depravity. Too bad it doesn’t teach it…

does draw mean drag in John 6:44John 6:44 is a popular Calvinistic verse for numerous reasons. While John 6:44 is often used to defend Total Depravity, this verse (and the surround passage) is also used to defend three of the other points of TULIP. It says this:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:44).

draw to Jesus John 6:44

John 6:44 and TULIP Calvinism

When Jesus says โ€œno one can come to meโ€ Calvinists see the idea of Total Depravity (and specifically, total inability).

When Jesus speaks about the drawing of the Father, Calvinists see this is as evidence of Unconditional Election.

Calvinists infer Limited Atonement from the contexts of these verses.

And when Jesus says that no one can come to Him unless it was granted to him by the Father, this is seen as proof for Irresistible Grace.

So although this verse could be discussed under any of those other sections, it will be discussed here because Total Depravity forms the foundation for those other doctrines. Besides, Calvinists tend to primarily use these verses to defend Total Depravity.

John 6:44 and Total Depravity

Here, for example, is what R. C. Sproul writes:

This statement is a universal negative proposition. It states a universal inability. The word can does not describe permission, but power or ability. To say no one can do something is to say they are unable to do it. The stark truth expressed by Jesus is that no person has the ability to come Christ on his or her own. For a person to be able to come to Christ, it must first be granted or โ€œgivenโ€ to that person to come to Christ. God must do something for us to overcome our moral inability to come to Christ. We cannot embrace Christ in the flesh. Without the aid of the Holy Spirit, we cannot come to Christ (Sproul, Grace Unknown, 136).

Refuting the Calvinistic Understanding of John 6:44

Several things can be said against the Calvinistic understanding of John 6:44.

First of all, what Jesus says is absolutely true: no one can come to the Father unless the Father draws him. However, later in the Gospel of John, Jesus states that the Father draws all people (John 12:32; 16:8).

The work of God drawing people to Jesus Christ through the convicting work of the Holy Spirit is necessary. Nobody denies that. On our own, without this drawing work of God, no person would ever seek God or turn to Him.

But saying that God draws all people is not to say that God regenerates all people, or even that, as a result of Godโ€™s drawing, people are unable to believe in Jesus for eternal life. As a result of Godโ€™s drawing work, any person can believe in Jesus for eternal life, as Jesus Himself states (John 6:40, 47).

Does Drawing Mean Dragging? NO!

One will occasionally also run into Calvinists who try to say that the word Jesus uses for โ€œdrawingโ€ (Gk., elkล) means โ€œdragging.โ€

Based on this, they may argue that sinners are dragged to Christ against their sinful will.

Of course, this sort or argument is rarely used by Calvinists because it contradicts their teaching that once a person has been regenerated by God, their will has been irresistibly changes so that they come willingly to faith in Jesus Christ.

Regardless, this sort of idea is not backed by the Greek either. While it is true that elkล can be used to drag someone against their will (cf. Acts 16:19; 21:30; Jas 2:6), when elkล is translated as โ€œdragโ€ it is always with malicious intent. When used in this way, it carries the connotation of mistreating someone or dragging them away for punishment (BAGD, 251).

Clearly, Jesus is not referring to any sort of punishment or mistreatment by God in John 6:44, and so it cannot mean โ€œdrag.โ€ Furthermore, this sort of dragging away for punishment is only when the word is used of a literal action.

When elkล is used figuratively, as it is John 6:44, it refers to โ€œthe pull on manโ€™s inner lifeโ€ (BAGD, 251).ย So the word โ€œdrawโ€ in John 6:44 refers to Godโ€™s pull or persuasive influence upon the heart and mind of the unregenerate.

To Draw Means to Attract or Woo

Support for this understanding is found right in John 6:45 as well where Jesus says that all will be taught by God. This is another way of explaining the work of God to draw people to Himself.

This teaching from God is carried out through conscience, creation, the convicting and convincing work of the Holy Spirit, and through special revelation such as that found in Scripture. Of course, not all who are drawn or taught by God respond positively to God.

Those who hear what God teaches, and learn from it, will respond by coming to Jesus in faith. This idea is supported by both Peter (1 Pet 1:23) and James (James 1:18), both of whom write that hearing and responding to Scripture is part of the process which leads up to the new birth.

In response to this, Calvinists will sometimes argue that if all are drawn by God, then all will receive eternal life from God. But to say that all who are drawn by God are also regenerated by God is to confuse offer of eternal life with the actual reception of it.

Just because God draws, calls, woos, or invites all people to believe in Jesus for eternal life, this does not mean that God universally and irresistibly regenerates all people. Though all are drawn, eternal life is given only to those who believe.

Does All Mean “All Children of God”?

Furthermore, some argue that the โ€œallโ€ of John 6:45 refers only to โ€œall children of Godโ€ (Piper, Five Points, 27-30).ย They often go on to say that Jesus can only be referring to the children of God since Jesus says in John 6:46 that no one sees God except him who is from God.

Of course, this is reveals a terrible misunderstanding of this text as well. Jesus is not referring to the children of God in John 6:46, but to Himself! It is He who has come down from God, just like the manna in the wilderness (John 6:41, 48), and therefore, His words can be trusted, and in His words are life.

John 6:44 then, far from being verses about exclusion and inability, are staggering statements from Jesus that in Him, all are accepted, all are invited, and all are welcome.

Jesus has come down from heaven, not to start another religious club for a secret set of special chosen ones, but to throw open the door to God for all people.

Jesus has come to reveal Him Whom no man has ever seen, so that through Jesus, God might draw all men to Himself.

God desires that all people have life, and so God sent His Son, Jesus, into the world, so that in Jesus we might see God, and might believe in Jesus for everlasting life.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Books by Jeremy Myers, Calvinism, John 6:44, sin, Theology of Salvation, Theology of Sin, Total Depravity, total inability, TULIP

John 3:3 Does Not Teach Total Inability

By Jeremy Myers
8 Comments

John 3:3 Does Not Teach Total Inability

John 3:3 is one of the verses used by Calvinists to defend the idea that regeneration precedes faith.

Jesus answered and said to him, โ€œMost assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of Godโ€ (John 3:3).

According to Calvinists, when Jesus says that โ€œunless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,โ€ this means that unbelievers are spiritually blind, and cannot even see the offer of the kingdom of God, or see their need for grace and everything else that comes with the kingdom of God, unless and until they are born again.

In other words, according to Calvinists, one must be born again before he or she can see anything related to the kingdom of God, including the gospel, the forgiveness of sins, and Godโ€™s offer of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ.

John 3:3

What Did Jesus Mean in John 3:3?

From the statement of Jesus in John 3:3 about people not being able to see the kingdom of God,ย it would be difficult to know what Jesus meant.

Certainly, as Calvinists claim, He could mean that people cannot even observe their need of grace and forgiveness, or see anything at all related to spiritual matters. The Greek word for โ€œseeโ€ (Gk., eidon) can refer to seeing, perceiving, or understanding something.

Yet this is not the only way this Greek word can be understood. It can also refer to experiencing something (1 Pet 3:10; Luke 2:26; Heb 11:5), or of visiting a place or person (Luke 8:20; Acts 16:40, 1 Cor 16:7) (BAGD, 220-221). With these various interpretations, how can we know what Jesus meant when He said that unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God? By looking in the context.

John 3:3 in Context

John 3:3 is found near the beginning of a conversation Jesus has with Jewish religious leader named Nicodemus about how to be born again. After Jesus makes the statement in John 3:3 about being born again, Nicodemus gets confused, and asks Jesus to clarify (John 3:4).

So in John 3:5, Jesus rephrases His statement. He tells Nicodemus that there are two births, the first birth is physical, and consists of being born of water, that is, from a motherโ€™s womb. The second birth is spiritual, which requires being born of the Spirit. We have physical life from our mother by being born of water, but we also need spiritual life by being born of the Spirit.

But Jesus does not stop with clarifying what it means to be born again. He also clarifies His statement about seeing the kingdom of God.

Following this clarifying statement about being born again, Jesus says that unless one is born again, they cannot โ€œenter the kingdom of God.โ€ In this way, Jesus clarifies exactly what He meant earlier when He spoke of seeing the kingdom.ย Jesus meant that only those who are born again may enter the kingdom.

John 3:3 Does Not Teach Total Inability

In other words, John 3:3 is not a verse at all about humanityโ€™s total inability to understand, comprehend, or even see anything related to the kingdom of God, but is rather a statement about humanityโ€™s inability to enter into or experience the rule and reign of God in the life (which is what the kingdom of God is) unless they have first been born again (BAGD, 221).

John 3:3 is not a verse which defends the Calvinistic teaching that regeneration precedes faith, but is rather a verse which teaches the biblical idea that regeneration precedes life in the kingdom of God.

To enter into the kingdom of God, we must first be born of God. To experience the life of joy, fulfillment, satisfaction, and purpose that God wants for us, we must first be born of the Spirit so that Godโ€™s new life dwells within us.

Jesus goes on to explain this very clearly to Nicodemus in John 3:15-18. Jesus does not say that unless a man is born again, he cannot believe in Jesus for eternal life (Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, 225).ย He says that unless a man is born again, he cannot โ€œsee the kingdom of God,โ€ that is, he cannot enter into and experience the rule and reign of God in his life.

So there is nothing in John 3:3 about mankindโ€™s inability to see or comprehend anything about the gospel or the kingdom of God unless they are first regenerated by God.

To the contrary, as seen by Jesusโ€™ own example with Nicodemus in this very text, the call of the gospel and the offer of life with God in His kingdom is one of the primary ways by which we can point unregenerate people to Jesus so that they might believe in Him and find life.

It is because people can understand the hope, grace, love, and mercy found the gospel of Jesus Christ that so many people find the gospel compelling.

It is because the biblical teaching about the kingdom of God promises joy, contentment, and significance to those who live under the rule and reign of God that the invitation to enter into the kingdom by faith in Jesus Christ has such persuasive power.

When the gospel, the kingdom of God, and the offer of eternal life are rightly proclaimed, they have great drawing power to all who are unregenerate, for they contain the light and life that people have been searching for, but not finding.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Books by Jeremy Myers, Calvinism, John 3:3, sin, Theology of Salvation, Theology of Sin, Total Depravity, total inability, TULIP

Does Jeremiah 17:9 teach Total Depravity?

By Jeremy Myers
6 Comments

Does Jeremiah 17:9 teach Total Depravity?

Jeremiah 17:9 is frequently used by Calvinists to defend the idea of Total Depravity.

The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9).

According to Calvinists, this means that the human heart can do nothing but evil, and even when we think we are doing good, we are only deceiving ourselves, for even that which our sees as good is actually wicked.

Once again, I generally agree with the Calvinistic interpretation of this passage about the general message it contains. Nearly all people know how easy it is to justify our own sinful actions and deceive ourselves into doing things that we normally would not do, or that we know to be wrong. But again, as with the other Calvinistic proof texts, I am just not sure we can extrapolate total inability from this text. It is true that the heart is deceitful, but this does not mean that we are unable to believe in Jesus for eternal life.

Jeremiah 17 9 heart is deceitfulCalvinists will occasionally argue that a deceitful heart means that a person cannot even think reasonably about what is right and wrong. Yet I find it ironic that many Calvinists will then try to reason with unbelievers about how they need Jesus, and also reason with non-Calvinists about the rationality of Calvinism.

Regardless, even Jeremiah himself explains in the surrounding verses that a deceitful heart does not mean that people cannot do any good. Prior to Jeremiah 17:9, Jeremiah pronounces a curse upon those who trust in man and whose hearts depart from God (Jeremiah 17:5). In other words, Jeremiah states that our hearts can choose whether to trust in men or God.

Immediate following Jeremiah 17:9, Jeremiah says that God searches the heart, and gives to every man according to his ways, that is, according to what he has done (Jeremiah 17:10). So when the entire context is considered, what Jeremiah means is that we should choose to trust in God rather than men, but we often fail in this. When we do, nobody can fully understand the thoughts and intentions of their own heartsโ€”let alone the heart of others!โ€”except God Himself.

Far from being a text about the total inability of mankind, Jeremiah 17:9 is a text of encouragement.

There is great hope in this text.

After calling people to trust in God rather than men, Jeremiah admits that sometimes our hearts deceive us. But when we look around and realized that our hearts have led us astray, we can know that God searches our hearts, observes the intentions of our mind, understands what we were trying to do, and leads us in His ways.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

God is z Bible & Theology Topics: Books by Jeremy Myers, Calvinism, Jeremiah 17:9, sin, Theology of Salvation, Theology of Sin, Total Depravity, total inability, TULIP

Isaiah 53:6 and Isaiah 64:6 Do Not Teach Total Depravity

By Jeremy Myers
1 Comment

Isaiah 53:6 and Isaiah 64:6 Do Not Teach Total Depravity

Isaiah 53:6 and Isaiah 64:6 are quite popular among Calvinists for defending the doctrine of Total inability. Here is what they say:

All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6).

But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away (Isaiah 64:6).

While these texts do teach that all people sin, and in fact, even the works which we believe to be righteous are viewed as filthy rags in Godโ€™s eyes, there is nothing in these texts which teach the idea of total inability.

In fact, the first verse, Isaiah 53:6, could be understood to teach the opposite.

Isaiah 53:6 Does Not Teach Total Depravity

wayward sheep Isaiah 53 6Isaiah 53:6 says that all of us have gone astray, that each of us has turned to his own way.

The Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity does not teach that each of us goes astray or turns away, but rather that we are born that way, that before we can even make a choice for good or evil, we are predisposed to only choose the evil.

Yet Isaiah 53:6 seems to teach that a genuine choice is made, that we choose to go astray and turn to our own way. In other words, we become this way. We grow into our sinfulness.

What about Isaiah 64:6 and Total Depravity?

Isaiah 64:6 also says that in Godโ€™s eyes, even our righteous acts are like filthy rags. Many have rightfully pointed out that the Hebrew term for โ€œfilthy ragsโ€ in this verse has been softened by our English translations. What the Hebrew really says is โ€œmenstrual cloths.โ€ This idea would have been particularly repulsive for Jewish people living according to the Mosaic purity laws.

filthy rags Isaiah 64 6Some point to Isaiah 64:6 and say that if even the works that humans view as righteous are like menstrual cloths in Godโ€™s eyes, then how much more filthy are the normal, everyday works in Godโ€™s eyes, not to mention the sinful deeds which we ourselves view with revulsion?

But I am not sure if this is the right way of reading this text. It seems more likely that Isaiah is saying that that the righteous acts are especially filthy to God.

Why?

Because people often perform righteous acts in an attempt to merit favor with God or to please and appease God. When works are righteousness are done with this as the motivation, they not only unrighteous acts before God, but are the worst kind of unrighteousness.

Righteous acts which are intended to merit Godโ€™s grace and favor are disgusting and filthy to God. His grace is given to us freely. We do not need to work to achieve, earn, keep, or prove the grace of God toward us.

Some might argue with this by pointing to the preceding verse where Isaiah says that God meets with people in their rejoicing and in their righteous deeds (Isaiah 64:5). So how can Isaiah say that God meets with him who does righteous, but in the very next verse, say that righteous deeds are like filthy rags?

Isaiah is actually contrasting what God does do for people who are truly righteous, with what God is currently doing for the Israelites as a result of their fake and feigned righteousness. For though God would meet with people who rejoice in Him and do what He desires, the people to whom Isaiah writes do not even call on Godโ€™s name or stir themselves to take hold of God (Isaiah 64:7).

Whatever righteous works they do perform is all a sham. They are going through the motions. Their heart is not in it. They are doing what they do because they think they have to and because they think it is the activity of sacrifice and singing that God wants, when in reality, God simply wants their hearts. God wants a genuine relationship with His people, not faked religious activity so that people appear righteous before others.

Isaiah 53:6 and Isaiah 64:6 are not really referring to the Total Depravity or total inability of mankind at all, but are rather teaching the important truth that while we are all sinners, the worst sin we can commit is the religious sin of performing empty and meaningless acts of righteousness which are intended to please and appease God and trying to make ourselves look holy and righteous in the eyes of others.

These verses then, and especially Isaiah 64:6, are not a blanket condemnation of all people around the world as being totally depraved, but are rather a condemnation of religious behavior that appears righteous, but is only outward and which tries to manipulate God.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

God is z Bible & Theology Topics: Books by Jeremy Myers, Calvinism, Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 64:6, sin, Theology of Salvation, Theology of Sin, Total Depravity, total inability, TULIP

Would you give $0.50 to a homeless man? How about to a business man?

By Jeremy Myers
12 Comments

Would you give $0.50 to a homeless man? How about to a business man?

I found this video interesting. Apparently, people are much more likely to give money to a business man than they are to a homeless man.

Why do you think this is? I suppose it is because people believe that the homeless man is more likely to spend the money on alcohol or drugs than the business man. But is that really true?

giving money to the homelessIn this video, we’re only talking about $0.50, but I sometimes look at the millions of dollars our government and our churches spend on helping the rich in various ways, and I wonder what would happens if we used that money to help the poor and the homeless.

And no, I am not talking about more handouts, food stamps, and welfare…

I don’t have any answers, just questions. I do know, however, that as more and more of our populations sinks deeper and deeper into poverty, what we are doing now is not working. I always wonder … if Jesus were President, how would He solve the growing poverty and welfare problem in the United States and around the world?

God is z Bible & Theology Topics: Discipleship, homeless, Jesus, welfare

Does Ecclesiastes 7:20, 29 teach Total Depravity?

By Jeremy Myers
3 Comments

Does Ecclesiastes 7:20, 29 teach Total Depravity?

Several verses from Ecclesiastes are often used to defend the Calvinistic idea of total inability, but all they really teach is that all people sin.

For there is not a just man on earth who does good And does not sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20).

Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, But they have sought out many schemes (Ecclesiastes 7:29).

This is an evil in all that is done under the sun: that one thing happens to all. Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead (Ecclesiastes 9:3).

Ecclesiastes 7 20In seeking to understand these verses, we must remember that the author of Ecclesiastes has a fairly pessimistic outlook on life, which is somewhat coloring his perspective on humanity. Nevertheless, this does not mean that what he says is not true. What he says is true: All people are sinners. Everybody sins. God has made us upright, but we seek out many schemes (Ecclesiastes 7:29). God made us inherently good, but each of us has turned away. We are sinful.

It could be argued, of course, that the statement in Ecclesiastes 7:20 says more than that people sin, for it also says that there โ€œis not a just man on earth who does good.โ€ In other words, not only do people sin, but all they do is sin. Many modern people would object to this idea, saying that most people perform all sorts of good deeds in their lives.

I would argue, however, that even when we do good things, there are always hidden agendas and secret ambitions of the heart which lie behind the good things that we do. In doing good, we often seek to stroke our pride, have other people praise us, look good to our friends, or gain love, affection, and recognition from others. Sometimes we do good simply because it makes us feel good. So in this sense, we can agree with the statement in Ecclesiastes 7:20 that no one does good, for even the good things we do are tainted with ambition, pride, and selfish motivations.

Ecclesiastes 7 20But nevertheless, this is still a far cry from the Calvinistic idea of total inability.

Believing in Jesus for eternal life is not something we โ€œdo.โ€ Faith is not a work. Believing in Jesus for eternal life is the opposite of work, and in fact, is founded upon the recognition that we cannot work for eternal life (Romans 4:4-5).

Faith in Jesus is required because of the fact that โ€œthere is not a just man on earth who does good.โ€ So passages like these in Ecclesiastes are not saying we cannot believe; they are simply saying that our works are not good.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Books by Jeremy Myers, Calvinism, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Ecclesiastes 7:29, Ecclesiastes 9:3, sin, Theology of Salvation, Theology of Sin, Total Depravity, total inability, TULIP

Psalm 143:2 does not teach Total Inability

By Jeremy Myers
2 Comments

Psalm 143:2 does not teach Total Inability

Sometimes verses like Psalm 143:2 are referenced by Calvinists to defend their doctrine of Total Depravity.

Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, For in Your sight no one living is righteous (Psalm 143:2)

all are guilty - Psalm 143:2There are other verses throughout the Bible that say similar things. But there is a vast difference between Total Depravity as defined by the Calvinist and not being righteous in Godโ€™s sight.

It is a biblical fact that no one is righteous before God. We are all sinners (Romans 3:23). We have all done what is wrong. No one has the positive righteousness of God, and no one can do enough good works or become holy enough in order to attain this infinite righteousness. This lack of righteousness is all that passages like Psalm 143:2 are teaching.

In and of ourselves, we have no merit, nor any basis on which to stand to gain favor with God. But this does not mean that we cannot believe in Jesus for eternal life, or cannot accept the good gift of Godโ€™s grace when it is offered to us. Such an acceptance of Godโ€™s gift is non-meritorious, and to the contrary, is based upon the fact of us not having any merit.

So we can affirm the truth of passages like Psalm 143:2, that before God there is no one who is righteous, without having to add to this core biblical idea the unbiblical concept of total inability.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Books by Jeremy Myers, Calvinism, Psalm 143:2, sin, Theology of Salvation, Theology of Sin, Total Depravity, total inability, TULIP

Are People Born in Sin? (Psalm 51:5)

By Jeremy Myers
31 Comments

Are People Born in Sin? (Psalm 51:5)

Psalm 51:5 is often used to defend the idea that humans are sinners before they are born.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me (Psalm 51:5)

In his commentary on this text, John Calvin wrote that this proves that David was a transgressor before he ever saw the light of the world (Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Psalms v2: 290).

in sin my mother conceived me Psalm 51:5

This sort of idea is then used to prove that people are totally depraved, even from conception, not because of what they do but because depravity is part of who we are.

There are, however, several other ways of understanding this statement of David in Psalm 51:5.

Born in Sin = Learn to Sin

First, David could be saying that since he was born as a human, he learned to sin, in the same way that infants and toddlers learn to talk. It is not uncommon for the Biblical authors to speak of being โ€œborn intoโ€ something in just this way.

For example, Acts 2:8 refers to people who were born into a language, but clearly, they were not born already knowing this language, but had to learn it just like everyone else. If this is how to understand Psalm 51:5, David is saying that since he was born in sin, he learned to sin just like everyone else.

Born in Sin = Born in a Sinful World

Second, it could be argued that what David meant was that he was born into a world of sin. The phrases โ€œin iniquityโ€ and โ€œin sinโ€ would thus be understood as metonymy for โ€œa world full of sin.โ€ Metonymy, where a word or phrase is used in place of a different word or phrase with which it is associated, is frequently used in Scripture, and even in modern everyday speech (e.g., โ€œthe White Houseโ€ is often used to refer to the President of the United States, his staff, and the decisions and policy that come from them).

So in the case of Psalm 51:5, David could be referring to the world of sin in which he was conceived and subsequently born.

Born in Sin = Poetic Exaggeration

born in sin Psalm 51 5Third, we could simply say that Psalm 51:5 is poetic hyperbole. David is, after all, confessing his sin of committing adultery with Bathsheba, and so in the midst of this confession, he my seek to exaggerate his own sinfulness by saying that he has always been sinning, even from conception.

The Psalms are full of such exaggeration, as are the rest of Scriptures. In one place, the Psalmist writes that he drowns his bed with a single tear (Psalm 6:6; the Hebrew word for โ€œtearsโ€ is singular), and even Paul writes that he is the chief of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).

Even today, people often use hyperbole in exactly the same way. It is not uncommon to hear a child who misses several problems on a math test to cry out in despair, โ€œI never get any problems right!โ€ In reality, they get most of the problems right most of the time, and in fact, got most of the problems right on that very test. So this is a possible explanation for Davidโ€™s statement as well.

Born in Sin = David’s Mother Was Accused of Adultery

One final possibility is based on a traditional Jewish reading of Psalm 69.

According to various Jewish historical writings, Davidโ€™s father and brothers thought that Davidโ€™s mother, Nizbeth, had committed adultery and borne him out of wedlock (See my post yesterday on David’s Mother Nizbeth for more on this).

They thought David was a bastard (the word โ€œstrangerโ€ in Psalm 69:8 has the same Hebrew root as muzar, meaning โ€œbastardโ€). The truly guilty one was Davidโ€™s father, Jesse, who, as a result of having Moabite blood (from Ruth) and due to some strange twists of Jewish law, believed that his marriage to Nizbeth was illegitimate and stopped having sexual relations with her to keep her from sinning. Yet he also feared that his seven sons were illegitimate, and so he had sought to gain a legitimate heir for himself by sleeping with his wifeโ€™s maidservant (Yes, it sounds strange, but you have to understand Jewish law for it to make sense).

Anyway, Nizbethโ€™s maidservant loved her mistress dearly, and so switched places with her before Jesse entered her bed, much like Leah and Rachel had switched places so many years before on Jacobโ€™s wedding night. So Jesse ended up sleeping with his wife, even though he thought it was his wifeโ€™s servant. Nizbeth became pregnant, but never told her family how she had become pregnant, because she wanted to protect Jesse from public shame. The result, however, was that Jesse, their seven sons, and the entire community came to believe that Nizbeth was an adulterer. The town urged Jesse to stone his wife for adultery, but out of love for her, he refused, and several months later, David was born.

So David grew up in a family in which he was despised, rejected, shunned, and outcast. He was treated with scorn and derision (Psalm 69:7-8). The community followed the example of the family, and assumed that David was full of sin and guilt (Psalm 69:11-12). If something turned up missing, they believed he stole it, and forced him to replace it (Psalm 69:4). He was often the object of jokes and pranks, filling his plate with gall and his cup with vinegar (Psalm 69:20-21).

There are numerous other details to this story, but the point for our purposes here is that this may be what David is referring to in Psalm 51:5. If this Jewish history is true (and we have no good reason to believe otherwise), then almost everybodyโ€”including Davidโ€™s own father and brothersโ€”believed that David was born as a result of adultery, which is why David writes, โ€œI was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin my mother conceived me.โ€

What does Psalm 51:5 mean?

No matter which of the views above we adopt, the view that is most unlikely is the Calvinistic idea that David is making some sort of theological statement in Psalm 51:5 about the universal total depravity of all humans.

This sort of theologizing was not Davidโ€™s intention and it does not fit the context of the chapter. There are numerous other explanations for this verse which make much better sense of the verse itself and the context as a whole.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Books by Jeremy Myers, Calvinism, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 69, sin, Theology of Salvation, Theology of Sin, Total Depravity, total inability, TULIP

Did David’s Mother Commit Adultery?

By Jeremy Myers
339 Comments

Did David’s Mother Commit Adultery?

Nizbeth mother of DavidAs I was researching a text for my book on Calvinism, I stumbled across the Jewish tradition that David was born as the result of an alleged adulterous relationship. Have you ever heard of this idea that David’s mother committed adultery? I hadn’t either. But I researched it, and checked with several of my Rabbi friends, all of whom said that this is the traditional Jewish history regarding David and David’s mother.

I am sharing it with you because it has many surprising parallels to Jesus.

The tradition is based on Psalm 69

David Was Despised by His Family (Psalm 69)

If you open up a Christian commentary on the Psalms and read the introduction to Psalm 69, you will see that most Christians cannot place the events of Psalm 69 in the life of David very well. They will say that there are numerous instances in the life of David during which he could have written this Psalm. They will usually go on to point out, however, that the Psalm contains many prophecies about Jesus Christ, His rejection by His family, and even how He was given vinegar to drink on the cross.

Curiously, I could find no Christian commentary that mentioned the traditional Jewish interpretation of Psalm 69, that it was written during Davidโ€™s youth. They say that the Psalm is full of pain, rejection, and hardship because David was an outcast among his family.

They say that David grew up in a family in which he was despised, rejected, shunned, and outcast. He was treated with scorn and derision (Psalm 69:7-8). The community followed the example of the family, and assumed that David was full of sin and guilt (Psalm 69:11-12). If something turned up missing, they believed he stole it, and forced him to replace it (Psalm 69:4). He was often the object of jokes and pranks, filling his plate with gall and his cup with vinegar (Psalm 69:20-21).

If this is true, it somewhat explains why Jesse did not have David present when the Prophet Samuel came to choose a man to be Godโ€™s anointed king (1 Samuel 16:1-13), and also why his oldest brother Eliab reacted the way he did when David later showed up at the Israelite camp when they were being mocked by Goliath (1 Samuel 17:28).

But why would David’s family reject him?

David’s Mother Supposedly Committed Adultery

The traditional Jewish answer to why David’s family rejected him is that they all thought that Davidโ€™s mother had committed adultery and borne him out of wedlock. They thought he was a bastard (in fact, the word โ€œstrangerโ€ in Psalm 69:8 has the same Hebrew root as muzar, meaning โ€œbastardโ€). The traditional Jewish story is stated briefly below.

Davidโ€™s father, Jesse, was the son of Obed, who was the son of Boaz, who married Ruth, the Moabite woman. The Jewish traditional law explicitly forbade Hebrew women from marrying Moabite men because of how the Moabites treated the Israelites when they were wandering in the desert after fleeing Egypt. But the law was unclear about whether or not a Hebrew man could marry a Moabite woman. Boaz believed that the law allowed such a marriage, which is why he married Ruth.

However, according to Jewish tradition, Boaz died on the night that he and Ruth were married (Midrash, Zuta, Ruth 4). Many believed that his death proved that God had condemned Boazโ€™ marriage to Ruth, and had punished him accordingly.

However, even though Boaz and Ruth had only been intimate for that one night, she conceived and gave birth to Obed.

Obed was then viewed as illegitimately born, as was his own son, Jesse. Nevertheless, both of these men labored hard in learning the Torah and loving God and so the conduct of their lives helped convince the surrounding communities that though Boaz had sinned, they themselves were accepted by God as part of the covenant community. Jesse married a Jewish girl named Nizbeth (Babylonian Talmud, Baba Batra 91a).

After Jesse had been married for many years, had fathered seven sons with Nizbeth, and had gained honor as a righteous man and spiritual leader in the community, doubts began to fill his mind about whether or not his line and seed were permanently polluted by his Moabite blood. It was at this point that he resolved to cease all sexual relations with Nizbeth. He did this out of love for her, because she, as a pure Israelite, would be sinning to be married to someone who was of impure Moabite ancestry.

Furthermore, Jesse began to doubt the legitimacy of his seven sons. If he was impure, then his children were illegitimate and impure as well.

So Jesse, wanting a legitimate heir, came up with a plan to have a son in the same way that his forefather Abraham had done: through relations with his wifeโ€™s Canaanite maidservant. Whether Jesse was viewed by God as a true Israelite or just as a Moabite convert to Judaism, the law allowed him to marry a female convert to Judaism. If he obtained a son from this union, this son would be recognized by all as a legitimate heir, thus securing Jesseโ€™s family line.

When the Canaanite woman was told of this plan, she did not want to participate, for she loved Nizbeth, and had seen the pain that she had gone through by being separated from her husband for so many years. So she told Nizbeth about Jesseโ€™s plan, and the two of them decided to do what Laban had done so many years earlier with Leah and Rachel. So on the night that Jesse was to have relations with the Canaanite maidservant, she switched places with her Nizbeth. On that night, Nizbeth conceived, and Jesse remained ignorant of what had taken place. (My wife says that for this to work, Jesse must have been drunk. Same goes for Jacob.)

But several months later, Nizbeth began to show that she was with child, and her seven sons, as well as her husband, all believed that she had committed adultery. The sons wanted to kill their adulterous mother by stoning (as the law called for) and her illegitimate baby with her, but out of love for his wife, Jesse intervened. Nizbeth did not reveal to her husband that the child was his, for she did not want to embarrass him by revealing the truth of what had happened. Instead, she chose to bear the shame of their son, much as her ancestress Tamar was prepared to be burned rather than bring public shame upon Judah, her father-in-law and the father of her child (Genesis 38:24-25).

David the ShepherdAs a result, David grew up in a family in which he was despised, rejected, shunned, and outcast as described in Psalm 69. He was treated with scorn and derision. The community followed the example of the family, and assumed that David was full of sin and guilt. If something turned up missing, they believed he stole it, and forced him to replace it. He was often the object of jokes and pranks, filling his plate with gall and his cup with vinegar.

It was said that all the great qualities of Boaz were to be found in Jesse and his seven sons, while all the despicable traits of Ruth the Moabite were concentrated in David. The tradition is that this is also why David’s family forced David to be the shepherd in the fields by himself … they were hoping a bear or lion might kill him.

This may also help explain why later in life, when David was fleeing from a murderous Saul, David asked the King of Moab to harbor his mother and father (1 Samuel 22:3-4, according to tradition, one of his brothers was also protected there). Of course, a couple of years later when David becomes king of Israel, he slaughters two-thirds of the Moabite army. Why? Well again, according to Jewish tradition, this was because after David left his three family members under the protection of the King of Moab, the King killed Davidโ€™s father and mother, but left his brother alive (The Pulpit Commentary, 2 Samuel 8:2). So when David becomes king, he retaliates by killing two-thirds of all the soldiers of Moab.

Finally, this may also explain why David, when he was confessing his own adulterous relationship with Bathsheba, he says “In sin my mother conceived me…” (Psalm 51:5). We will look more at this verse tomorrow.

Of final interest (at least to Christians) about the birth of David is the numerous parallels it has the birth of Jesus. He too, was viewed as one born of sin (John 8:41). Mary, his mother, conceived while she was betrothed to Joseph. And though people urged Joseph to stone her, he decided to marry her instead, thus taking her shame upon himself. But undoubtedly, there were always whispers, raised eyebrows, and sideways glances whenever Jesus and Mary walked by. Like Nizbeth protecting and defending David, Mary would have been the number one protector and defender of Jesus. Also, Jesus was not really accepted by his family until much later in life.

(To research this further, see Yalkut Makiri Tehillim 118,28; Sefer HaTodaah, Sivan and Shavuot; Pinter, Donโ€™t Give Up; Weisberg, Tending the Garden, 187f; Book 2 of Our Jewish Heritage. See also Nitzevet – the Mother of David)

What do you think?

Many Christians may reject this story simply because “It’s not found in the Bible.” But there are lots of things we believe that are not found in the Bible. The Bible cannot (and does not) contain everything. The Bible is all true, but it does not contain all that is true.

I am not saying that this is the way it happened, but at the same time, who’s to say it didn’t? Anyway, let me know what you think in the comments below!

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: adultery, Bible Study, David, Jesus, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 69

Poll: Would you get a microchip implant?

By Jeremy Myers
60 Comments

Poll: Would you get a microchip implant?

When the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 occurred, I was a pastor of a small church in Montana. My theology was somewhat different then than it is now, and so shortly after these attacks, I preached a sermon about prophecy and the End Times in which I said that the governments of the world would eventually use the threat of terrorism to force everybody to accept the “Mark of the Beast.”

I said at the time that the Mark of the Beast would probably consist of some sort of microchipย implanted into a person’s forehead or hand which would not only allow people to be tracked, but would also allow people to buy and sell.

microchip implant

While such microchip implants would initially be optional, I said that as the threat of terrorism rose, and as governments wanted to track what people bought and sold, these implanted microchips would become mandatory. They would completely replace credit cards and cash.

So anyway, I was interested to read last Saturday about plans to create and market implantable microchips. Here is a quote from the article at Fox News:

You can inject one under your skin and no one will ever notice. Using short-range radio frequency identification (RFID) signals, it can transmit your identity as you pass through a security checkpoint or walk into a football stadium. It can help you buy groceries at Wal-Mart. In a worst-case scenario โ€“ if you are kidnapped in a foreign country, for example โ€“ it could save your life.

Microchip implants like the ones pet owners use to track their dogs and cats could become commonplace in humans in the next decade. Experts are divided on whether theyโ€™re appropriate for people, but the implants could offer several advantages. For soldiers and journalists in war zones, an implant could be the difference between life and death. A tracker could also help law enforcement quickly locate a kidnapped child.

Interestingly, NFL players will all have RFID chips in their shoulder pads this year to help people track their movement, speed, and location on the field. I have often thought they should put one in the footballs so that they no longer have to bring out the chains to see if the teams got the first down or not. They could just track the ball’s precise location.

Some have even pointed out that an early version of the Affordable Care Act included a provision for RFID chips. This section was not included in the final draft of the law which Obama signed, but it does show that some people are thinking about it. Here is the NBC Report:

And while I cannot predict what will be in this new Apple iWatch which is rumored to be unveiled on September 9, I would not at all be surprised to learn that it has RFID (radio frequency identification) and/or NFC (near field communication) capability. Such RFID and NFC enabled devices can open locked doors as you approach them, start your car, communicate with your phone, instantly provided healthcare professionals with your health history, help you buy your groceries, or even accept payment from your customers.

The primary drawback to this, of course, is if someone steals your watch.

So what is the solution to this? Easy! Make it “unstealable” by implanting the microchip under your skin. It will not to be too much longer before Apple comes out with the iChip (or something similar). A company called VeriChip is already manufacturing and implanting similar chips.

The United Nations has a stated plan to issue Biometric IDs to everyone in the world by 2030ย … This plan isย backed by 193ย world leadersย and the World Bank.ย Hmm…

Anyway, all of this leads me up to my question… Please feel free to answer them in the comments below!

If a company produces an implantable microchip such as the one described in that Fox News article above, would you get one? Why or why not? If, in response to the threat of terrorism and the need for tax income, the government required all citizens to get an implanted chip, would you do it?

God is z Bible & Theology Topics: 666, end times, microchip, Theology of the End Times

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • …
  • 243
  • Next Page »
Join the discipleship group
Learn about the gospel and how to share it

Take my new course:

The Gospel According to Scripture
Best Books Every Christian Should Read
Study Scripture with me
Subscribe to my Podcast on iTunes
Subscribe to my Podcast on Amazon

Do you like my blog?
Try one of my books:

Click the image below to see what books are available.

Books by Jeremy Myers

Theological Study Archives

  • Theology – General
  • Theology Introduction
  • Theology of the Bible
  • Theology of God
  • Theology of Man
  • Theology of Sin
  • Theology of Jesus
  • Theology of Salvation
  • Theology of the Holy Spirit
  • Theology of the Church
  • Theology of Angels
  • Theology of the End Times
  • Theology Q&A

Bible Study Archives

  • Bible Studies on Genesis
  • Bible Studies on Esther
  • Bible Studies on Psalms
  • Bible Studies on Jonah
  • Bible Studies on Matthew
  • Bible Studies on Luke
  • Bible Studies on Romans
  • Bible Studies on Ephesians
  • Miscellaneous Bible Studies

Advertise or Donate

  • Advertise on RedeemingGod.com
  • Donate to Jeremy Myers

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!

© 2025 Redeeming God · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Knownhost and the Genesis Framework