...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
- We Must Recognise
Our Sins. To repent, we must admit to ourselves that we have sinned.
...
-
We Must Feel Sorrow for Our Sins. ...
-
We Must Forsake Our Sins. ...
-
We Must Confess Our Sins. ...
-
We Must Make Restitution. ...
-
We Must Forgive Others. ...
-
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
