Thru the Bible - Questions & Answers

Guest (Male): For many, the issue of capital punishment is taboo, while others are vehemently for or against it. What does the Bible say about this issue, particularly the New Testament? Stay with us and find out.

You're listening to the Question and Answer program with Dr. J. Vernon McGee, and this is a ministry of the Thru the Bible Radio Network. Without delay, let's get to our first question from a listener in Arkansas. He writes, "I'm passing on to you a question that came up during the midweek Bible study I teach. How does one know when to interpret a scripture literally as given to the original audience or when to take a spiritual or practical application to be applied to our own lives? For example, Deuteronomy 5:5-9, you gave a literal and practical application to verse five and eight, but a spiritual application to verse nine. The class wanted to know why and when to know the difference. I responded by telling them to search the New Testament for a similar passage which applies to us today. Could you please elaborate on this issue of interpretation of scripture?"

Dr. J. Vernon McGee: Very frankly, I would like to make this preliminary statement: that this is part of the law that God gave to Moses for the children of Israel, so that all of it should be taken literally and should be taken as applying to the nation Israel. I frankly think there's no other way of interpreting it.

Now, may I say that in my haste to get through this section, because as you well know, we're moving on a schedule of going through the Bible in five years, I actually took the first part and made the interpretation as applicable to that day and how it fitted in with the nation Israel. Now, very candidly, I should have done the same thing with verse nine because it is given directly to these people. In my haste, I passed over that because I did want to make this a spiritual application there for us today, and it was I felt rather pertinent for today.

The principle should have applied to that verse, and I should not have made it separate from the other. I feel like that now I should read this, and I'm not going to go over it again by way of interpretation, but merely read it and maybe make one comment on each verse. Verse five says, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord thy God." God made them man and woman and they're different. God intended them to dress differently.

In that day, He intended that a woman should dress like a woman and a man like a man. I still feel that that holds good. Now, a great many today finding fault with women wearing these pantsuits. Well, first of all, let me say that as far as the pantsuits are concerned, I don't think that they're men's garments at all. I never seen one of them yet that I want to wear that they're selling to the women.

I think they're women's garments. It isn't the fact that one's wearing pants and the other's wearing skirt. I don't think that is the important thing at all, and we need to recognize that. Now, in that day, it had a direct interpretation for people in that day—the man to dress like a man, whatever that was.

We're given the impression today, especially from pictures, that the men wore the skirts in that day and women did too. It wasn't a question of women wearing pants; it was a question of men wearing skirts in that day, but there was a difference in the garments. It's not a question of skirts and pants. I wish we could get away from that today. Now, I've commented on that more than I should, but you can see the interpretation was for that day. It has an application for us today.

"If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young." There was a care for bird life, actually. God was concerned about the ecology in that day. After all, He's the one that made it, and He wanted man to take care of it. Remember when He put man in the Garden of Eden, it was to care for the garden and watch over it. So this was a great principle God put down for His people in that day and as we said, it certainly is applicable to today.

"But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days." In other words, the idea is that you shouldn't take the mother bird away from the little ones. It was a care for bird life. It would apply to animal life. It would apply to plant life. It would apply to fish, of course. It's a great principle God put down for His people.

Verse eight was, "When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence." You see, the front porch or the patio of that day was up on top of the house. There were many reasons for that, but that's the way they built, and the man might, you know, want to save a little lumber and a little labor and so he wouldn't put a railing around and God said that this was part of the building code that He gave to His people.

That has application for us today. A young might fall off, so you're to protect the young. You're to protect someone maybe in ignorance or in the darkness up there would step off, break his neck. Today, the same care should be exercised in a spiritual way regarding the young, put up bulwarks to protect them. My, we could go into that today, couldn't we?

Let me pass on now to verse nine. "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled." The point is that you're not to mix the seeds and that was—I should have made a direct application in that day. You see that you plant, say, barley and maybe sunflower seed. I don't know if they even had sunflower seed in that day.

You can well understand that when they grow together, why are you going to harvest the barley at one time and the sunflower at another time? If you've got a third seed in there, still at another time, you're going to tramp down your vineyard. There should be care exercised to take care of your vineyard when you're planting seeds in there. I noticed as I drive up through the San Joaquin Valley, I see that they're planting now even cotton in the vineyard. I take it that they have a way of staging that that they gather their grapes before they pick the cotton. I suspect that's the way it is. I don't know that, but that was the thing that God was getting at for His people.

Now, I made a spiritual application of that of separation today. We need to recognize that as an application that is spiritual. Now, I would say that all of these have the same background: they're laws for that day and then we make application of them to life today and make a spiritual application of them to life today. I think that there is a literal application. I don't own a vineyard, but I would think if I did, I ought to be very careful about what I planted in between the rows of the vines.

It has an interpretation, it has an application, and I think that that is a rule that should apply all the way through scripture. Now, I think many times you need to consider the context. The book of Revelation, so many people say it's just symbols. That's not true. A great deal of the book of Revelation is to be taken quite literally.

There is symbolic language, but the symbolic language is actually more literal than the literal language because the symbol is a symbol of that which is literal and the Lord used the symbol because the reality was something that actually is so strong that He couldn't describe it to us because of our feeble minds and our lack of understanding and He gave us a symbol. Symbols are not to be dissolved into thin air. They are symbols of reality. I personally think that the Bible should be taken literally unless we're told very clearly. I think when Nathan came in and told David a little story about two men that had flocks, that is, one man had a flock, in fact he had many, and the other man just had one little lamb. I don't know whether that was true or not. I rather think it really was true in the kingdom, but that's not the point. We know that he was telling that story to David to make application to David.

Guest (Male): Let's turn now to a question from a listener in Los Angeles. She says, "Why do we use the expression 'ask Jesus into your heart'? I've never read that expression in the Bible, yet I hear it all the time."

Dr. J. Vernon McGee: May I say that we today, especially in evangelistic circles, have adopted several practices that actually have no scriptural foundation. That is merely one of them, but to say that they're inaccurate because we do not have a chapter and verse for doing this thing and some of these other things, I'm confident that doesn't mean they're wrong. Let me illustrate by one that you have not mentioned. We ask people to come forward in a meeting, or maybe we ask them to put up their hands.

Well, would you tell me where that is found in the Bible? But are you prepared to say that is wrong? And I'm sure you're not because you wouldn't want to say that it is wrong. Now, may I say that to ask children or grown people for that matter to let Jesus come into their heart is not exactly wrong, although I do think we could be a little bit more exact in our scripture.

I know that it is wrong to ask folk to give their hearts to Jesus. After all, what does He want with the old dirty, filthy thing that is incurable? He wants to give us a new heart. But let's look at your question for just a moment. Didn't the Lord Jesus say, and it's His last message to the church, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock"? Now, what door is that? Well, it must be the door of the heart, must be the door of human personality, and the heart is as good an expression as any for it.

That, of course, is a scriptural expression—is the heart—for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness. So that we're not too far afield when we use an expression like that. He does stand at the door and knock. Then He says, "If any man'll open the door, I'll come into him." So evidently, Jesus can and will come into our hearts. I do not think that's too far afield, although I do recognize that we have dropped into several practices today that have no scriptural foundation. But I find that I use them also, but I don't think they're unscriptural just because we can't quote chapter and verse.

Guest (Male): Here's a question from a Kenwood, California, listener who writes, "Deuteronomy 23:3 says, 'An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord forever.' In your messages in Deuteronomy, you don't mention Ruth, who was a Moabite. Could you explain her position in the congregation of the Lord?"

Dr. J. Vernon McGee: Well, apparently, you say you heard my message when I was teaching Deuteronomy, but you do not say that you heard my messages when I taught the book of Ruth. If you did listen, I cannot understand how you missed the whole teaching in the little book of Ruth. I made it very clear that the Mosaic Law shut Ruth out.

The only way in the world that she could ever be brought in would be that somebody would redeem her, would pay a redemption price to bring her into the congregation of Israel. Now God also has another law, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Now God hasn't changed that, but you see Christ died for us and He paid the penalty. I stand guilty before God and He bore that judgment, and now I will not die eternally, I'll not be separated from God.

That is the thing that I think very important here and something for you to note, because it's very important to the understanding of it. In the book of Ruth, Ruth was redeemed by Boaz. That's the message in this book. The law shut her out, but this man loved her. The other kinsman didn't love her and he very frankly said he'd jeopardize his estate and he would have, but Boaz was willing to pay the price and be the kinsman redeemer of Ruth. That's the whole message about the book of Ruth. In fact, that's what salvation is all about—removing the death penalty from sinners who would be lost.

Guest (Male): From a listener in Honolulu comes this question. "Ezekiel 42:20 speaks of a 'profane place' in the temple. Why is there such a place in the temple? Is it an analogy to Satan sinning in heaven and marring its holiness?"

Dr. J. Vernon McGee: Well, now, let's turn over to Ezekiel 42:20 that reads like this, and it's the measurement of the temple, it's the description of the temple that will be built during the millennium. It says, "He measured it by the four sides: it had a wall round about, five hundred reeds long, and five hundred broad, to make a separation between the sanctuary and the profane place." Now, the word "profane" has come in our day to mean something a little different than it did at one time.

It comes from two Greek words: "fanus" is the temple and "pro" means in front of the temple and it also can mean against the temple. "Profane" is used in both ways in our Bible like that. Here, the profane is that which is in front of the temple. If you read it there, it says, "between the sanctuary and the profane place," that is, that which is in front of the sanctuary.

That's all in the world that it means here and you don't need to read anything in it. It would be called today that which is holy, that which is secular, and this would be a secular place, that which is in front of the temple, and that is all that it means here.

Guest (Male): Our next question comes to us from a listener in Alabama who writes, "Could you please explain what the New Testament has to say about capital punishment?"

Dr. J. Vernon McGee: Well, the New Testament doesn't change it because of the fact that we are to obey the powers that be and we are to be subject to them. The ones that Paul was talking about, of course, they believe very much in capital punishment and Paul is urging believers to be obedient to the higher power and that if you resist the power, you're actually resisting the ordinance of God. They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil. Paul lived under the reign of bloody Nero. In fact, he was executed by bloody Nero.

I do not think it is changed. Now, I think the best way that I can answer this, I have a little booklet—and this gives me a chance for getting in promotion—I have a little booklet entitled "Is Capital Punishment Christian?" That booklet has been very effective in the past. Of course, it kept capital punishment in here in California. It was used to keep it in for a while, but finally the other group broke down the barrier as it's being broken down in every area today—law and order is—and as a result, why, today capital punishment has been demanded by the majority, but the legislators have avoided putting it back in.

We're seeing the group of liberals, whether they be theologians or politicians, are preventing actually the will of the majority to be put in force and as a result, we have the situation in our nation today, and we don't need it, not at all. I recommend you get the little booklet I have because that would give you the full outline, and very candidly, I do not have the time to go into all the details. I believe that there is a philosophy of government that is so basic that goes all the way through the Word of God and looks into the future. God is going to judge mankind and God is going to use capital punishment, by the way.

This recent ruling that it is inhumane, may I say that it's not ungodly. It may be inhumane according to a certain judge and brutal, but when I think of the way that a woman was raped and then her head bashed in, I think that was rather brutal. To prevent that from happening again and again, the man who did it should pay with his life, and that'll stop that sort of thing. But you see, liberalism today approaches this problem from the other side, and as a result, we have the lawlessness abroad in our land today, and we don't need it, not at all.

Guest (Male): Well, our final question comes to us from Waynesboro, Georgia. The listener asks, "Could you please give me the scripture which teaches the age of accountability?"

Dr. J. Vernon McGee: Well, may I say to you that the reason that we make that statement, others have made it, I'm sure, is because it is assumed today that the age of accountability comes around anywhere from about five years old to 10 years old. The scripture doesn't seem to give that viewpoint. We find in the book of Leviticus, especially, and in other places in the Old Testament, that a person was 20 years old at least before they were held to anything.

For instance, in the 27th chapter of Leviticus relative to a vow that a person makes, let me just read a couple of verses here that will make this I trust clear to you. It says, "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old." God put an age limit on a man making a vow to Him, that is, he was not qualified to make the vow until he was 20 and God didn't want him to make it after he was 60.

In that day, the age of retirement was not 65, but 60, because by that time a man's powers had waned and God didn't want to hold him to a vow. Therefore, that age limit was set. So it would seem to me to be an age that would be nearer the age of accountability—I'm not saying 20 is the age—I do not think it was set in the Old Testament at all, but it's just interesting to note this.

Now, over in the book of Numbers, the first chapter, verse three, for going to war: "From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies." A man was not required to go into military service until he was 20 years of age. It would seem to me that the age of accountability in those days was much older than we look at it today. I'm not saying it's 20, and I'm certainly not saying that it's five years to 10. I do not really know.

I do believe that there is a time comes that when a person passes from an age when it's not an age of accountability to an age when he's a responsible individual. It's interesting to note that psychology today is coming back to that viewpoint, that every individual is responsible for his conduct, and even a young person, you're responsible for that. A few years ago, psychology said the reason that little Willie was a twerp was because his mama didn't love him as much as he should have been loved. Well, now they say the reason that little Willie is a twerp is because little Willie is a twerp and that he's responsible for his conduct.

I wish our judges today on the bench would get the message now that a young person is to be held accountable for his conduct. So that somewhere in there is the age of accountability, but I wouldn't take any chances. I think that Child Evangelism has done a marvelous job of getting the Word of God to children and asked for decisions. Now, a great many people say when a child makes a decision, it doesn't amount to anything. Well, I don't know that that's true. I know that there are many today that could testify that when they were in Child Evangelism, they made a decision.

Guest (Male): Well, that brings us to the close of another wonderful question and answer program. If you've been stimulated to look into these issues further yourself, then we suggest that you contact us for our resource catalog, which includes many of our available materials by Dr. McGee. Simply call us at 1-800-65-BIBLE and leave a voicemail message with your name, address, and the call letters of this station. Or shop for our resources in our online bookstore at ttb.org. While visiting our website, we encourage you to click on the links to our Facebook and Twitter pages. Be sure to join us this week as we continue Dr. McGee's five-year journey through the whole Word of God. You can hear him every Monday through Friday on this station. Contact us today so you can be added to our mailing list for the notes and outlines. Our address is Questions and Answers, in the US, Box 7100, Pasadena, California, 91109; in Canada, Box 25325, London, Ontario, N6C 6B1. Now until this same time next week, we pray that God will answer all your questions and solve all your problems.

[Music]

Guest (Male): This program has been brought to you by the faithful friends and supporters of Thru the Bible Radio Network.