Religion

...is a funny thing. Everybody has an opinion about it but not too many admit to having it. ‘Religion’ is what other people have. ‘Religious’ is what other people are. In other words, ‘religion’ is not a word or concept with which most people feel especially comfortable. To those without a particular ‘faith’ it is something to be despised as primitive, or superstitious. But even to earnest Christians, ‘religion’ can seem to be a kind of substitute for the real thing — an empty parody of the biblical faith ‘that was once for all entrusted to the saints’ (Jude 3). ‘Religion’ then, has become a bad word in the popular mind — to non-Christians and Christians alike, it represents what is wrong with human spiritual life.

So, when the theme of a New Testament Epistle is this thing called ‘religion’ — the book of James (1:26,27) calls it ‘pure’ religion — we inevitably have some explaining to do. We must define our terms afresh, in order to distinguish between “the religion that God our Father accepts” and the multifarious prejudices of men and women.

In the bible, religion that is acceptable to God is not explained in terms of institutions (churches and denominations), ritual (worship, liturgy), or books (Bible, hymnal). While these have a place, religion is in fact the application of faith to life. Thus, our collective worship on Sunday only has meaning as it reflects the practice of our faith carried out through the week (Romans 12:1).

According to James, we are never to think that the cultic aspects of religion — public worship, prayer, bible reading, pious vocabulary and giving to the Lord’s work — are the sum and substance of the outward, visible activity of religious devotion. The actions of true religion go beyond a punctilious — and sincere —observance of the properties of public and personal worship of the Lord. ‘Religion’ does not equal ‘ritual’. Biblical ‘religion’ encompasses all the actions of the believer. Their whole life must be subject to Christ. Not just what they do together at the meeting of the church every Sunday.

One very wise man told me about this simple equation:

Spirituality = Religion - Fear.

Take away all concepts of fear, should, should nots, retribution and hell from Religion and what is left is God with a sense of humour. That, simply, is spirituality.

What are the five attributes of God?

Five Attributes of God's Holiness

• God's Holiness is Providential. First, God is holy in His omniscience, or providential knowledge. ...
• God's Holiness is Present. Second, God is holy in His overwhelming presence. ...
• God's Holiness is Powerful. ...
• God's Holiness is Infinite. ...
• God's Holiness is Incomparable.

The five principles of Calvinism as formulated by the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) are summarised in "tulip," a popular acronym for total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistibility of grace and final perseverance of the saints.

4 Teachings of Jesus That His Followers (Almost) Never Take Seriously

There are hundreds of teachings contained in the 4 Gospels of the New Testament, teachings that, if we obeyed, would absolutely flip our lives and world upside-down for the glory of God and the good of all people.

By:

Brandan Robertson

Cultural Commentator, Activist, Pastor, and Author of "Our Witness: The Unheard Stories of LGBT+ Christians"

It's no secret that those of us who claim to follow Jesus Christ consistently fall short of living up to the way of life of our Rabbi. Being a disciple of Jesus is a lifelong journey towards conforming ourselves to the image and way of life that Jesus taught. However, so often, followers of Jesus chose to blatantly ignore some of the clearest instruction of our Rabbi and obscure it with vague theology so that we can get off the hook. Other times, followers of Jesus are taught something explicitly contradictory to the plain words of Jesus and then spend their lives obeying the instruction they received instead of the commands of Jesus.

However, we end up at the place of disobedience, all of us who claim to be followers of Jesus struggle to obey the commands of our Lord. One of the most transformative periods in my faith was when I took time to re-read the Gospels of the New Testament and get reacquainted with Jesus' himself, in his own words. As I studied the words of Jesus, I discovered that so much of what he asks of us as his disciples is incredibly clear and yet so much of it was new to me. I had never heard it in church or Sunday school or actually heard someone teach the exact opposite of the words of Christ. It was during that season of my life where I took inventory of how I lived and what I believed and aligned to the person and teachings of Christ that my faith was radically transformed for the better.

Below I have compiled a short list of 4 clear teachings of Jesus that most of us who exist within Evangelicalism have either never heard, refuse to acknowledge, or believe the exact opposite of. It's my hope that by rereading these teachings of Christ, you will be inspired, like I have been, to return to the Gospels and begin to reshape your faith and life around the way and teachings of our Master, Jesus. Get ready and buckle up because most of what Jesus says is pretty bold and potent. It'll shake up your faith!

1. JESUS, not the Bible, is God's living and active Word that brings life.

"You don't have His word living in you because you don't believe the One He sent. You study the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, yet they testify about Me. And you are not willing to come to Me so that you may have life."- John 5:39-40 HCSB

The Christian life is one that is fundamentally rooted in the reality that Jesus Christ is living and active. He interacts with us on a day-to-day basis and desires that we cultivate an intimate relationship with him. The more we commune with the Spirit of Christ, the more life and truth we are exposed to and can comprehend. However, for many Evangelicals, we rely more on the Bible than we do on the living and active Spirit of God within us. We fear that following the Spirit could lead to confusion and subjectivity and so we root our faith in the Bible. The problem is that a faith that is rooted in the Scripture alone is not sustainable. It will dry up and wither on the vine. While the Bible is an important and authoritative guide for Christian faith and practice, it isn't the foundation or centre of our faith- Jesus is. And if we truly believe that he is alive, we should also have faith that communing with him will produce spiritual life within us. He is the living Word that we can ask anything of and expect, in faith, to receive and answer. Sometimes he will speak through Scripture. Other times he will speak through our friends and family. Other times he will find unique and special ways to reveal himself to us. But in order to maintain a vibrant and living faith, we must not make the Bible our substitute for communion with the living Word of God. Studying Scripture is valuable, but nowhere near as valuable as cultivating a day-to-day relationship with the God incarnate.

2. The only way to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is through DOING the will of God.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 7:21 ESV

"An expert in the law stood up to test Him, saying, "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the law?" He asked him. "How do you read it? “He answered: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself. “You’ve answered correctly," He told him. "Do this and you will live."- Luke 10: 25-28 HCSB

"We are saved by faith alone, apart from works!" This is a very popular Protestant catch phrase. The doctrine of sola fide (faith alone) was developed by the Reformers in response to the Roman Catholic Churches corrupted teachings that emerged in the 16th Century teaching that one could gain favour with God and shave off years in Hell and Purgatory by giving money to the church or doing acts of penance. The intention of the doctrine of faith alone was very good- to correct the error that our salvation could be earned or that God's grace could be manipulated. But like most doctrines that are formulated in response to another group's doctrine, it often goes too far. One of the clearest teachings throughout all four Gospel accounts is that the way to enter the Kingdom of God is through living in obedience to the Law of Christ. Time and time again, Jesus makes very clear statements that condemn those who think that they will be saved because they believe the right things or do the right religious rituals. Jesus responds to people who believe they are religious and deserve heaven by saying that their outward religiosity is detestable to God and the only thing God desires is that they would exercise their faith by obeying the command of God- to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly. (Micah 6:8) Jesus says if anyone claims to be right with God but doesn't serve the poor, needy, oppressed, marginalised, sick, diseased, and sinful, then they do not have a relationship with God. No matter what they proclaim with their lips. No matter how religious they may appear. Jesus says those who don't obey will have no part in his Kingdom. He makes very clear that the way to "inherit eternal life" is through loving God and loving our neighbour. Isn't it astonishing, then, how many Christians today have been taught that salvation comes through right believing instead of right practice- a message that is fundamentally contrary to the words of Jesus. (And even more to his little brother James who says, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24 ESV)

3. Condemnation isn't Jesus' style. "I have not come to condemn the world, but to save it." 3:17 ESV

"Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."- John 8:11 ESV

Many modern-day Evangelical preachers spend a lot of time talking about the kinds of people that God is opposed to and who he condemns. They spend time talking about how to transition from a position of condemnation before God to a position of Grace through believing the right things about Jesus. They often talk about those who disagree or live contrary to their understanding of what is "righteous" as those who are under condemnation from God. But what's funny is that as one examines the teachings and life of Jesus, we find him not only befriending, loving, and affirming some of his societies most despised and vile people, but chastising the religious leaders who condemned them for their sin. Whether it is Jesus' conversation with Rabbi Nicodemus in John 3 where Christ explains that it is his mission to redeem the world and not to condemn it, or the instance where a woman is caught in the act of adultery and is taken outside to be stoned by the religious officials (as the law required) [while her adulterous partner gets away Scott Free] and Jesus steps in to stop the condemnation and proclaim freedom and forgiveness to the broken woman, it is clear that Jesus is not in the condemning business. Instead, it seems Christ is in the business of restoring humanity to the most broken and wicked of people. It seems that his passion is to see the weak, sick, and broken become strong, healthy, and whole in his Kingdom. It seems that he spends very little time (almost none) telling sinners why they're wrong or speaking words of condemnation over them, but rather practically loving and extending grace to the most screwed up of individuals. Maybe we Evangelicals, who are known for our condemnation of entire people groups with whom we disagree, could learn something from Jesus on this point.

4. You're supposed to sacrifice yourself and speak words of blessings for those you disagree with the most.

"Love Your Enemies and Bless Those Who Persecute You" 5:44 ESV

It seems like every week there is a new major controversy taking place within the Church. Most of the time, the situation revolves around one group of Christians disagreeing with another and then taking to the internet to write slanderous posts about the other. If it's not infighting, then it is Christians engaging in culture wars, working to defeat those whom we disagree with politically and socially by painting them as soul-less monsters. But that response is absolutely contrary to the way of Jesus. Jesus calls his followers to love the people they disagree with most and to speak blessings over them when all we really want to do is curse them out. No matter what the situation is or what kind of enemy we have, Christians are called to bless the people who hurt us the most. This includes in theological battles, political disagreements, national wars, and personal conflicts. Christians are called to a radical position of nonviolence and forgiveness, grace, and even blessing of our enemies. There is no way around it. And when Christians chose to ignore these clear teachings, our hypocrisy is glaringly obvious to the watching world.

The point of this post is to encourage those of us who claim to be followers of Jesus to re-examine how we are living our lives and practising our faith. It is so easy to get so caught up in the flow that we fail to recognise just how far away from shore we have been carried. The words of Jesus are pretty darn clear, but oftentimes in our zealousness for our faith, we often get pulled away from the basics and eventually end up living in a way that we believe is honouring to God but is actually contradictory to everything he has taught us.

In this post, I have offered just four examples. There are hundreds of teachings contained in the 4 Gospels of the New Testament, teachings that, if we obeyed, would absolutely flip our lives and world upside-down for the glory of God and the good of all people. What the Church as a whole and Evangelicals in particular desperately need in this age is a return to the plain teachings of Jesus. We need to be willing to set aside our theological debates and meanderings for a season and focus on simply reading, conforming, and obeying the will of Christ, both as revealed in Scripture and as we are led by his Spirit. The world is desperately longing to encounter Jesus through us and for far too long we have been giving them a cheap knock off that we have exported under his name. But it's clear to everyone that what is passing for Christianity today is almost totally divorced from the teachings of Jesus Christ.

My prayer is that we would all turn our faces towards our risen Saviour and seek to selflessly follow his commands. I am convinced that the Jesus' way is the only way that will heal our broken world. I am convinced that the whole earth is groaning as it waits for men and women to take up their crosses and follow in the way of redemption. I am convinced that when those of us who call ourselves "Christian" re-orient ourselves in Jesus, the power of God will flow through us in an unprecedented and miraculous way that will bring salvation to the ends of the earth. Oh, how I long for that day.

"Those who aren't following Jesus aren't his followers. It's that simple. Followers follow, and those who don't follow aren't followers. To follow Jesus means to follow Jesus into a society where justice rules, where love shapes everything. To follow Jesus means to take up his dream and work for it."― Scot McKnight

1 John 2:2-6

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know Him if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know Him” but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in Him, but whoever keeps His word, in Him truly the love of God is perfected.

By this we may know that we are in Him: whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked.

What can we learn from Samuel 12?

Samuel had lived with integrity, serving the Lord and the people his whole life.

• Treat others fairly.
• Treat others kindly.
• Speak words of correction.
• Speak words of instruction.
• God has great power.
• Serve God wholeheartedly.
• God has great love.
• Pray for those in need.

What are the 5 steps of repentance?

Principles of Repentance

1. We Must Recognise Our Sins. To repent, we must admit to ourselves that we have sinned. ...
2. We Must Feel Sorrow for Our Sins. ...
3. We Must Forsake Our Sins. ...
4. We Must Confess Our Sins. ...
5. We Must Make Restitution. ...
6. We Must Forgive Others. ...
7. We Must Keep the Commandments of God.

“But the Greek REALLY says…”: Why Hebrew and Greek are not needed in the pulpit, Part 1

Para la versión castellana, vaya AQUI.

Come with me to ESEPA Seminary in Costa Rica: we meet at night around a table, and with me are all my advanced students of Greek. Throughout four semesters we have studied the ancient dialect, koinē, and they have found blessings as they read the New Testament in the original.

Tonight we’ll take a different tack: “I’m about to impart something very important to you,” I alert them. Nodding, they lean forward.

“Here’s the mystical wisdom: (1) With almost no exceptions, whenever I preach, I study deeply the passage in the original language. But, (2) I almost never mention a Greek or Hebrew word from the pulpit. In fact, I go for years without making a peep in those languages.”

I let that sink in.

Then: “If you cannot state in plain, precise Spanish what you have found in the text, then you don’t really understand the passage and you shouldn’t be preaching on it.” Puzzled expressions! Then: “If you lard your sermons with Hebrew and Greek words, please do not tell your people that you studied with me, because I’ll deny that I know you!”

Is this reflective of some inner conflict on my part? Do I devote myself to teach Greek, only to sabotage my efforts? Do I have, linguistically, a “fear of commitment”? Not at all.

“I know in your Bible it says ‘Yes,’ but in the Greek it says ‘No’!”

Many people I know who are excellent students of the Word, some of whom are experts in the original texts, seem to agree that while the languages are vital for sermon preparation, there is little need of using them during the presentation of a sermon or teaching, unless the audience knows the language. [1]

Now, a confession: In my file cabinet I still have the notes I used to preach my first real “church sermons,” given in the summer of 1978. I recall how I made reference to the Greek in Phil 3:12-14, Gal 6:1-5 and James 1:5-10. I looked up how to pronounce certain words (baros, phortion) and used them in my messages. I also said that a certain verb was an “aorist” and thus meant a point action (that’s not true, by the way). I got these data from commentaries that I barely understood. The problem there was that I only began to study Greek in the autumn of 1978. I look at those notes now and blush to the roots of my hair, first because I used the Greek wrongly, but second because I had presumed to speak about matters I knew nothing about. I might as well have been trying to explain differential calculus to the congregation.

A lot of people say of their pastors that, “He gets right into the Greek words, and shows how the English translations can’t capture what the original says.” I’m sad to see a definition of “expository” preaching as sermons studded with ancient words, as if one cannot expound the Bible in modern English. Plus, my personal observation is that One’s use of Greek (or Hebrew) is inversely proportionate to one’s actual understanding of that language. I am no expert in Greek, but I can say that for me, the more years that I have studied the language, the less I find myself referring to them in a message.

In church, I am regularly put in a tight spot (not in the church I attend, by the way). A preacher will make some statement about the Greek language, one that makes me cringe because it’s incorrect or poorly applied – it’s like a chemist hearing that water is composed of helium and nitrogen atoms. But then the preacher will look at me for confirmation: “Professor Shogren, isn’t that correct?” What am I to do? I can’t say Yes, but I’m not going to say No either. Usually I give a mysterious, Mona Lisa smile and wait for it to blow over.

We are supposed to follow the example of the apostles when we preach, and they rarely used foreign terms. For example, in 1 Cor 1:30, Paul adapts the text of Jer 9:24, “Let the one who boasts, boast in this…” Can you imagine Paul saying, “Now in the original Hebrew, the verb for ‘boast’ is hālal, which in the Hithpa’el means ‘to boast, to make one’s boast in’”? And why doesn’t he do so? It’s because Paul’s goal is to explain in the language of his hearers what it means to boast about oneself and why we should center our existence on God instead. What kind of benefit could come from brandishing the Hebrew word, especially when it sheds no further light on God’s truth? (In a later post, we will consider when it might be useful to introduce an ancient term).

There are other, theological reasons, for preaching in clear English: the law of love; the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers; the doctrine of the reliability of Scripture.

1) The Law of Love. The second great commandment is that we love our neighbour as ourselves. People who are loving are not “arrogant, boastful” (1 Cor 13:4); they follow the precept, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” Using Greek or Hebrew in a sermon could be, in some cases, a signal that we are trying to elevate ourselves over the others of God’s flock; some humble people also refer to the original text, and this is between the individual and the Lord. Beyond this, we should remember that the more we speak in Greek, the less the congregation is edified: to paraphrase the apostle, “In church I would rather speak five clear words in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.” Why? Because to the extent that the reader doesn’t know the language, there is no communication, and the hearer is not “built up” (see 1 Cor 14:16-19). If we don’t build up the Other, then we are not acting in love. And love drives us to the sweaty mental and spiritual work of translating our findings into plain English.

2) The Doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer. (I have written on this topic HERE). Peter said that “you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 2:5); Paul said that for each believer “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God” (1 Cor 6:19). We do not have a priesthood as Israel once did. The pastor, then, must not signal by his language that he is “clergy” and the rest are “laypeople,” who should follow the message that he has brought up from some dark wells of learning. Another application of this doctrine is this: when he preaches, the pastor is not only teaching the congregation, he is also teaching them how to study the Word. We never want to leave anyone with the idea that, “I can never really grasp the Bible the way that the preacher does.” The purpose of original languages is to inform the preacher from Monday through Saturday, not to awe the audience on Sunday. [2]

3) The Doctrine of the Reliability of Scripture. want to instil in our people that the Word is inspired, reliable and meant to be understood and obeyed. When I preach, I will sometimes say, e.g., “I think the ESV captures this verse better than some other versions,” and point to the context or some other fact, and then leave it at that. But let us avoid the peril when we let the flock in on the “insight” that, “I know it says such-and-such in your English translations, but in the original it really means…” The subtext is, as in 2) above, you people need a “priestly expert” to interpret God’s Word to you. Even more dangerously, we might inject into the minds of the congregation a sense of  tentativeness about whether they should obey what the Bible seems to plainly teach.

I have people come up to me regularly to ask, “What does this verse or word really say in the original?” And you know what the answer is, 95+% of the time? “What it says in your translation is what it says in the original.” An anecdote attributed to the late Howard Hendricks is that he would say, “The word that is translated ‘joy’ here in our English Bibles comes from a Greek word that means…[wait for it!] ‘joy.’” Hats off to Dr. Hendricks; much of this is no more than a chasing of the tail that gets us nowhere fast. [3]

Note – yesterday I heard a very fine radio sermon on what it means to build up other believers. The preacher said “Build up – which in Greek is oikodomia – means that we, etc.” Those of us who have some knowledge of Greek already knew the word; most listeners did not. So why mention it at all?

Besides the original texts, I use about 20 English versions, 10 in Spanish, and some from other languages. And they capture the meaning of the original, some better than others, but all reliably. [4] When I wrote my commentary on 1 Corinthians, I invested years in the study of the Greek version, and they also asked me to base my comments on the Nueva Versión Internacional; the NVI is the Spanish version of the New International Version. In the end I concluded, “Wow, the NVI is really solid, I’m impressed with how it represents the Greek text of the epistle.”

The following will sound harsh, but let’s think through what is going on when a pastor constantly “corrects” the English translation: someone who perhaps has had a couple of years of Greek or Hebrew classes, in effect is saying that he could translate the original better than did the editors of the ESV, the NIV, or whichever. To show why that’s a problem, let’s take as an example of how a modern version is produced: a colleague friend of mine was one of the translators for the New Living Translation. He is an expert on the original languages of 1 Samuel, and he and two other scholars of renown worked just on 1-2 Samuel. [5] There was then an editor for OT Historical Books, another for the Old Testament, then style editors, general editors, that is, about 100 people working on the entire Bible: all had lifetimes of highly specialized study, these experts of international standing who were invited to participate in the NLT project. And all of them were committed precisely to this goal: to render in understandable English that which the original languages say! They weren’t ignorant of alternative interpretations; they didn’t “leave out” shades of meaning; rather, they wrote the best that they could determine, what the original really said.

I implore my fellow preachers to consider the erosion of confidence they cause when they imply that our Bible translations are not reliable; for many people, that will come across as “Therefore, the Bible is not reliable”. [6]

Let me close with a concrete example of a famous preacher, who every week it seems appeals to the Greek or Hebrew. With regard to John 14:16, “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever” he comments:

The Greek word translated “another” may provide a helpful clue in understanding Jesus’ meaning in John 14. There are two Greek words frequently translated “another”: heteros and allos. Sometimes the biblical authors used those words interchangeably, but sometimes they used heteros to speak of another of a different kind and allos to speak of another of the same kind… Allos is the word Jesus used to describe the Holy Spirit: “another [allos] Helper.” That could be His way of saying, “I am sending you One of exactly the same essence as Me.” He wasn’t sending just any helper, but One exactly like Himself with the same compassion, the same attributes of deity, and the same love for them. Jesus had been the disciples’ helper for three years. He had helped them, comforted them, and walked alongside them. Now they would have another Helper – One exactly like Jesus – to minister to them as He had.

What can we say about this?

First: Actually, Greek scholars say that the two words for “other” were differentiated in Classical Greek, but not the Greek of the time of Jesus.

Two: He says, correctly, that “Sometimes the biblical authors used them interchangeably,” or in other words, this might not apply here.

Three: He says, “This could be his way of saying, etc.” Could be? The proof seems slight.

Four: If the Holy Spirit is exactly like Jesus in compassion, deity and love, then these are truths that would have to be demonstrated from this and other passages; the word allos cannot in itself bear all this theological weight.

So, couldn’t a preacher make exactly the same point without all these extraneous data? Something like:

In John 14:16, Jesus says that “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever”. Notice that the Lord says “another Helper,” meaning that Jesus was a Helper and the Holy Spirit will be another Helper. This wasn’t just any helper, but like Jesus, he is God and he will treat them with the same compassion, love, patience and wisdom that Jesus did. And he would come not as a human being, limited to one space and time, but as Spirit living in each one of them, wherever they went. God would continue to guide and care for them.

With its clearer English, doesn’t this shed light, the same light, on the passage? Plus it avoids a lot of words the congregation doesn’t know and won’t remember and that really don’t advance their grasp of the Bible; and it opens up additional minutes for deeper application of the truth to our lives:

And today we have that very same Helper in each one of us. Do you get to dreaming once in a while, about how it would have been great to have lived in Galilee and heard and seen the Lord during his ministry? But do you know what? Jesus himself tells us that we have a better help than even the disciples had, one who is always present every minute of the day, every place we go.

In Part 2 we will see that a lot of what is said about the biblical languages, besides being a distraction, isn’t even true in the first place. In Part 3 we will see how the apostles judiciously used a handful of foreign words – e.g., Amen, Hallelujah, Maranatha, Abba; plus, are other crucial words that we might teach our people with great profit, e.g., echad; the names of God; Yeshua; logos; Shalom.

NOTES:

[1] I don’t believe that it requires any “special pleading” to point out that in this blog I regularly refer to Greek, and sometimes post highly technical articles, such as on the verb periergazomain Were Thessalonians “meddling in divine matters”? 2 Thess 3:11 [Studies in Thessalonians]" that is because I am taking into account the readership of OpenOurEyesLord.com.

[2] The most egregious example I know of is the ministry of “Greek expert” R. B. Thieme. He took some Greek courses and went on to build an entire movement based on faulty, fallacious thoughts about the Greek text, used for cultic ends. Those who study the languages, even for a couple of semesters, can overturn most of his so-called insights; see http://thiemite.blogspot.com

[3] An extreme example of using Hebrew terms is found in the messianic movement that is sweeping Latin America. Some of these groups are sound, but many are not. A friend told me that in group in Mexico, they don’t call their leader a “pastor” but “roe” (row-EH). Why? Because that’s the Hebrew term for pastor; one finds it in the opening of Psalm 23:1 – Yahweh roi, “the LORD is my shepherd.” The problem is that, no-one understands roe, and to make sense of it, someone has to say “roe means ‘pastor'” – it’s better in Spanish than in English, since the Spanish “pastor” may mean both a literal shepherd and Christian pastor. So, why bother using the term roem at all? My guess is that it implies that by calling the pastor roe my group  achieves a higher level of authenticity – We are more Hebrew than thou.

[4] At the far fringe of the King James Onlyists are those few who argue that the pastor should not bother studying the Bible in other versions nor in the original languages, since the KJV is the inspired, reliable version of God’s Word. The basis for this belief is a notion that God preserved only one version, and that the KJV is “the One.” Among these teachers one should mention Peter Ruckman, the fiery blog http://www.Jesus-is-Lord.com, Chick Publications. This is an error of so many facets that we cannot deal with it here.

[5] Click here to see the names of the NLT translation team: http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/05discoverthenlt/meetthescholars.asp

[6] The other side of the coin is that we must help our flocks understand the basics of textual criticism, to ease the dismay we feel when we read the footnotes of the Bible to find, “This verse is not in the best manuscripts.” But that is a theme for another post.

Related posts:

“But the Greek REALLY says…”: Why Hebrew and Greek are not needed in the pulpit, Part 2

But the Greek REALLY says…” Why Greek and Hebrew are not needed in the pulpit, Part 3

Strong’s Concordance – A Good Tool Gone Bad

My four decades in the Bible – Part III

Is the NIV 2011 a Satanic, Homosexual, PC Bible? Part I

“‘But the Greek REALLY says…’: Why Hebrew and Greek are not needed in the pulpit, Part 1,” by Gary Shogren, PhD in New Testament Exegesis, Professor at Seminario ESEPA, San José, Costa Rica