Proverbs 30:11 There is a generation that...doth not bless their mother.
Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Realize that Eve is the mother of all living. God created Adam and Eve according to His divine specifications and for His pleasure. Eve was not from the head or foot of Adam; but from his side to be his companion, near his heart to be loved by him. Eve is uniquely qualified by God for her role a wife and mother. We should be content with the way God has made us.
Exodus 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Revive the honour of mothers, because God commands it (with promise), because it is right, and because they deserve it. In youth we should honour our mothers by obedience (Deut.21:18; Lev. 19:3). In our adulthood we should honour them with respect (). In their old age we should honour them with our watchcare (I Timothy 5:8). Even in death, we can honour their memories!
Genesis 38:24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying , Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom.
Realize that mother's should first be wives. What once was ideal is in this present age considered an option. Our society often makes it profitable to be an unwed mother. Mothers who are not wives occur for various reasons, including divorce and death of the husband. But there is a course that many are currently steering, wanting to have a baby -- for whatever reason -- without the accompanying "burden" of having a husband. Whatever the reason, it is still sin.
1 Timothy 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
Recognize that young mothers should nurture their children and take care of the home. God has uniquely created the woman to bear and nurture children in a way that men cannot. A young child is helpless and dependent. Its mother is its life. In cases of necessity, someone else may need to step in, but necessity should not trump natural affection. We should not trade this special design for a mess of porridge. We should extol and honour women, wives and mothers for the exalted position in which God has placed them.
Proverbs 31 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her...Her children arise up, and call her blessed...
Retain and exalt the example of the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31:10-31. Perhaps the pattern of the virtuous woman has fallen on hard times. Maybe she is too traditional for the egaltarian* and too liberated for the complementarian**. But for the simple Bible student she is just right. She is just what God describes and honours. Notice in his conclusion Lemuel says, "a woman that feareth the Lord..." The virtuous woman is not created by following to the letter certain actions praised in this section. She follows certain actions that she values because she fears the Lord, loves Him and His word. Proper actions flow from a proper relation to the Lord. The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
The virtuous woman, she shall be praised. Render honour to whom honour is due. Honour thy mother.
* believes that men and women are equal in all roles and responsibilities
** believes that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Saturday, May 11, 2013
The Origin of the Church
In his book The Doctrine of the Church,
Kenneth Good divides the different origin of the church theories into three
main categories.[i] These are:
- Covenant view. The church begins with Abraham, or some even go back to Adam.
- Dispensational view. The church begins with the ministry of Christ, either before or at Pentecost.
- Ultra-dispensational view. The church does not begin until the ministry of Paul.
Reformed/Covenant Theology teaches (with some variation in details) that the church is made up of the elect of all ages, and therefore the church must have begun with the first person who was saved. This is the common view, although some begin the church with the nation Israel.
Dispensational view
- The Church began with John the Baptist or at some time during the Lord’s earthly ministry.
- The Church began on the day of Pentecost, specifically on the first Pentecost after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.
The Church began after Pentecost (some say in Acts 13 and others in Acts 28).
In his book Churches and The Church, John R. Rice divides the different origin of the church theories in a slightly different way that Good. He sees “three principal and important theories.”[ii]
- At Pentecost.
- In the lifetime of Jesus.
- When the first soul was saved.
- When the first soul was saved.
- With the Abrahamic covenant.
- In the earthly ministry of Jesus.
- On the first Pentecost after Jesus crucifixion.
- Under the apostolic ministry of Paul.
After relegating other views’ origins to “a misunderstanding of the word church,” Rice writes:
“When, then, did this body, this household of God, this holy temple which is now growing by the addition of every convert—when did this body, the church, begin?
I suppose it would be when the first living stone was laid on the foundation. And that first stone, I suppose, was Adam who, cast out of the Garden of Eden for his sin, surely looked to God for mercy. Does not that coat of skin, which God made to hide Adam’s nakedness and Eve’s, picture the righteousness of God which covers the poor, naked sinner? If so, then Adam was saved, and became the first living stone built upon Christ, the foundation stone. Or if it were not Adam, then perhaps it was righteous Abel...[iii]
C. H. Spurgeon’s view agrees with Rice, though he
approaches the subject and arrives at his conclusion differently. Noting there
is “Only One Covenant of Grace” Spurgeon writes:
“Surely, beloved brethren, you ought not to stumble at the anachronism of comprising Abraham, David and others, in the fellowship of the Church! If you can understand how we, who live under the present economy and, unlike those Jews, have never been circumcised, are nevertheless accounted the true circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, and not in the flesh, you can have very little difficulty in perceiving that those Old Testament saints, who were participators in the faith of Christ’s death and resurrection, were verily baptized into Him according to the Spirit. Neither time nor circumcision founded the faith of Abraham. He rejoiced to see Messiah’s day; and he saw it and was glad. He believed in God who ‘Calleth those things that be not as though they were.’ It were well for us to walk in the footsteps of the same faith.”[iv]
With the Abrahamic covenant
Beginning the church with the Abrahamic covenant
is a common part of Protestant “Covenant Theology.” I have not found Baptists who move within Covenant
Theology – which posits continuity between the covenants and “churches” of the
Old Testament and New Testament – make a clear statement on when the church
began.[v] But this idea of
continuity possibly puts them in the camp of believing the church starts with
God’s promise to Abraham. They would acknowledge themselves as the true heirs
of the “Old Testament church” since the people of God are essentially one.
Consider the statement of Richard C. Barcellos:
“The Reformed Credos then say, ‘Now let us look at our New Testaments. What we should see is the inauguration of the same New Covenant promised in the Old Testament, one New Covenant community (not Israel and the Church but a transformed or New Israel, which consists of those only who know the Lord) and New Covenant privileges given to New Covenant citizens only.’ In others words, the Reformed Credos say that the Old Testament doctrine of the New Covenant prophetically rescinds automatic infant inclusion and the New Testament bears the fruit of that by reserving New Covenant ordinances to New Covenant citizens, that is, believers, those who are of faith, the seed of Abraham, all who know the Lord...It is interesting to note that in Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11, he makes a distinction between Israels (Romans 9:6). In other words, within Old Covenant Israel there were two groups: believers and unbelievers. All of the Israelites considered here by Paul were covenant members, however, the majority were cut off after Christ inaugurated the New Covenant. Why? Because of their unbelief. Why were others (Gentiles) grafted in? Because of their belief. Here we see both covenantal continuity and discontinuity. The believing Jews went from being Old Covenant citizens to New Covenant citizens-continuity; and the unbelieving Jews went from being Old Covenant citizens to those who were cut off- discontinuity.”[vi]
In the earthly ministry of Jesus
Ben Bogard and B. H. Carroll are representative of
Baptists who believe the church started sometime within the ministry of Jesus
Christ while on earth. All may not pinpoint the beginning the same as another,
but nevertheless agree on a beginning in this period and before the day of
Pentecost.
“When our Lord established His church He declared He would build it up, edify it, enlarge it, and the gates of hell should not prevail against it. (Matt. 16:18) The Greek word ‘oikodomeso,’ in Matt. 16:18, translated ‘will build’ means ‘will build up,’ ‘enlarge,’ ‘edify.’ His church was already in existence when He uttered these words, as can be proved by numerous passages, hence we are forced to so under this passage.”[vii]
“Was the church instituted, established, or organized on this Pentecost? There is not a syllable on that in Acts 2. Christ instituted the church. He established it in the days of his flesh. The church was this day accredited – received its credentials. It was a house complete, but empty. It then received its Inhabitant, but the church was not instituted, nor established, nor organized on this Pentecost.”[viii]
On the first Pentecost after Jesus’
crucifixion
Billy Graham’s comment summarizes an origins view
that is held by many Baptists:
“To summarize, it is my belief that Pentecost instituted the Church. Then all that remained was for Samaritans, Gentiles and ‘belated believers’ to be brought into the Church representatively. This occurred in Acts 8 for Samaritans, Acts 10 for Gentiles (according to Acts 11:15), and Acts 19 for belated believers from John’s baptism. Once this representative baptism with the Spirit had occurred, the normal pattern applied—baptism with the Spirit at the time each person (of whatever background) believed on Jesus Christ.”[ix]
“We believe that all who are united to the risen and ascended Son of God are members of the church which is the body and bride of Christ, which began at Pentecost and is completely distinct from Israel. Its members are constituted as such regardless of membership or non-membership in the organized churches of earth. We believe that by the same Spirit all believers in this age are baptized into, and thus become, one body that is Christ’s, whether Jews or Gentiles, and having become members one of another, are under solemn duty to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, rising above all sectarian differences, and loving one another with a pure heart fervently.”[x]
The House Mountain Church’s Doctrinal Statement
above provides further detail, while H. C. Thiessen succinctly states:
“The Church was born in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost with 3,000 converts.”[xi]
Under the apostolic ministry of Paul
I have not found any Baptists who believe what
some consider the “ultra-dispensational” view of the origin of the church, such
as held by Charles Baker or E. W. Bullinger. Perhaps such a view leads one away
from Baptist ecclesiology and does not exist among Baptists.
Multiple dates
For others, the date of the origin of the church
may not distinctly matter. Or, in some cases, an individual may posit different
origins for different “churches”. In other words, one might think the New
Testament church (congregation as an organization) begins in the Gospels, while
holding that the church as a body of redeemed persons began in the Old
Testament or on the day of Pentecost. Notice David F. Reagan sees one origin
for the local church, and another for the universal church:
“When did the Church Begin?...it depends on what you mean by the church. The institution of the local church obviously existed during the ministry of Christ, else how could He give the advice to "tell it unto the church" (Matthew 18:17)? However, if you refer to the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23) that includes all believers in heaven and in earth, this probably began after Christ left this world and sent the Comforter—the Holy Ghost—for it is the Spirit that places us into the body of Christ as per 1 Corinthians 12:13.”[xii]
Conclusion
[i] The Doctrine of the
Church, Kenneth Good, pp. 37-38
[ii]
Churches and the Church: a Convincing, Scriptural Study, John R. Rice,
p. 23
[iii]
Churches and the Church, John R. Rice, pp. 23-24
[iv]
Old Testament Saints: Members of the Church,” From Sword and Trowel,
March, 1867. Since the answer to the paper’s correspondent contains no
signature, the response is presumably by the editor, C. H. Spurgeon. Concerning
dispensations, he says, “…however various they may have been, His covenant has
endured the same through them all. It is a mere truism that Abel was not
circumcised, that Noah did not observe the Passover, and Abraham was not
baptized.”
[v]
This certainly doesn’t mean they do not exist.
[vi]
Paedoism or Credoism? A Reformed Baptist Argument for Believers’ Baptism
Based on Covenant Theology, Richard C. Barcellos, a pastor at Grace
Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA
[vii]
The Baptist Way-Book, Ben M. Bogard, p. 30
[viii]
An
Interpretation of the English Bible, Volume 12, Acts, B. H.
Carroll [Accessed 28 March 2013]
[ix]
The Holy Spirit, Billy Graham, Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 1978
[x]
Doctrinal Statement of House Mountain Baptist Church, Corryton, Tennessee [Accessed
27 March 2013]
[xi]
Introduction to the New Testament, H. C. Thiessen, Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans. 1955, p. 136
[xii]
When did
the Church Begin? David F. Reagan, Antioch Baptist Church, Knoxville,
Tennessee [Accessed 27 March 2013]
Friday, May 10, 2013
4 Objections to the Church Before Pentecost
Back in
March 2013, I gave 12 reasons for the church existing before Pentecost. This is a
minority view compared to those who believe the New Testament church began on
the day of Pentecost. Most objections to our position seem to distill down to
about four or five. For example:
If some kind of a church could exist in the Old Testament (Acts 7:38), it would be surprising that one could not exist in the Gospels before the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. An excessive dispensationalism foisted on the Scriptures renders the “Pentecost” conclusion inevitable, however wrong. The objections against a church existing before Pentecost belie the error of placing the Gospels in the Old Testament, a failure to understand that God began something new with the sending of John & the baptism of Jesus Christ, and the refusal to recognize that for a brief period in time the “Old Testament” and “New Testament” eras could overlap as God brought about His purpose within the constraints of the chronological time in which man dwells.
Charles
Henry Mackintosh gave four reasons:
1.
It was still future at Matthew 16:18
2.
It must begin after Christ's resurrection
3.
It must begin after His ascension and glorification
4.
It would begin when the Holy Spirit was sent down to baptize believers
Lewis
Sperry Chafer gave four reasons. There could be no Church in the world until:
1.
Christ's death
2.
Christ's resurrection
3.
Christ's ascension to become its Head
4.
the Holy Spirit's Advent
I have
tried to distill the objections I have read into the four listed below. After a
related Scripture and the stated objection, I will give my answer why I believe
the objection comes up short.
And I say also unto thee, That
thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:18
1.
Christ's building of the church was still future in Matthew 16:18: Jesus said, "‘I
will build My church’, not, ‘I have built My church’."
A: It is
correct that “will build” in the English and οἰκοδομήσω
in the Greek are future
tense verbs. Does this mean that it had no present application and merely
pointed to an event that was still future? My "country" way of
explaining this would be like taking a person out to a building I have already
started and saying, "On this slab I will build my house." It is still
future, ongoing, but I have already started. Compare to John MacArthur, who
believes in a universal church that began on Pentecost. Nevertheless he says
this regarding Matthew 16:18:
What
did they think when He said "I will build My church?"…It is not some
dispensational promise about a future entity that's going to come into
existence, though it is true the church did come into existence in its formal
sense on Pentecost.
The
future tense does not imply that God has not been doing it; it does imply
emphatically that He will continue doing it until its completion.[1]
In
contrast, George Zeller[2]
wrote, “In Matthew 16:18 the Lord Jesus said, 'I WILL build My Church.' The
future tense of the verb indicates that the building of the Church had not yet
begun when Jesus said these words. He did not say, 'I have built My Church.' He
did not say, 'I am building My Church.' No, the building project had not yet
begun and thus the Church was yet future. At the time Jesus spoke the words of
Matthew 16:18 the Church had not yet begun.” Zeller’s statement is an example
of a radical belief that a “building project” has not yet begun in the Gospels!
Why was Jesus wasting His time with the disciples? Strange indeed.
While we
would not agree with MacArthur on the day of Pentecost issue, we do agree that
the point of emphasis is not punctiliar – about an event that would happen at
one point in time – but rather is durative, expressing continued action. The
Lord is building His church, but He will keep on working and building until its
completion. He did not build a church on the day of Pentecost. He was already
building it, is now building it, and will continue to build it until He brings
to a close this present age.
Take heed therefore unto
yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you
overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own
blood. Acts
20:28
2. Jesus
bought the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28). If the church began before
Pentecost, it would not have had the blood of Christ.
A: The
context of Acts 20:28 is not about chronological establishment of a church, but
about ownership and worth. Obviously, the blood of Jesus Christ was not
literally shed in historical chronological time before His crucifixion – which,
nevertheless, occurred before the day
of Pentecost. But the reality and efficacy of the blood of Christ stood in
God’s time from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). This argument played
against a church existing before Pentecost also impugns the efficacy of the
salvation work of Jesus Christ for any sinner before the time of His
crucifixion. As surely as sinners existed and were bought with the blood of
Jesus Christ before the day of Pentecost (Ephesians 1:3-12), the church existed
and was also bought with the blood of Jesus Christ before the day of Pentecost.
Which he wrought in Christ, when
he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly
places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and
every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to
come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over
all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth
all in all.
Ephesians 1:20-23
3.
Jesus’ resurrection and ascension were necessary to His headship over the
church (according to Ephesians 1:20-23). If the church began before Pentecost,
it would not have had Jesus as its Head.
A: 1
Corinthians 15:27 and Hebrews 2:8 help provide some further context for
"hath put all things under his feet" as a chronological statement
related to the establishment of the church. God put all things under Christ from the
beginning (cf. Matthew 28:18), but many of the events related to it are marked
out in chronological time, not only including his resurrection & ascension,
but also the final destruction of the last enemy, death. Mark 12:10 and Luke
20:17 indicate that Jesus was the headstone which the builders rejected,
clearly before Pentecost. He was in fact already that head of the corner before
the “builders” rejected Him. The importance of the resurrection and ascension
in Eph. 1:20-23 is bona fide, and we do not reject their necessity. Ultimately,
though, these prove His headship over the church rather than limiting His
headship prior to these events.
Wherefore he saith, When he
ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now
that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower
parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above
all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and
some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers... Ephesians 4:8-11
4. The
Holy Spirit was not given until Pentecost. If the church began before Pentecost,
it would not have had the Holy Spirit and would have been operating without
functioning spiritual gifts.
A: Several
points should be noticed here. The church or disciples who were with Jesus did have “functioning spiritual gifts”
with their spiritual Head present. He gave to the twelve certain gifts, for
example, as recorded in Matthew 10:1-8 – "...he gave them power against unclean
spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of
disease...Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils:
freely ye have received, freely give." A like gifting to seventy others is
recorded in Luke 10:1-20. Also it must be noted that the Holy Spirit was in
some way given to – “breathed on” – these disciples after the resurrection of
Jesus Christ and before the day of Pentecost (John 20:22).
Thursday, May 09, 2013
Book recommendation, not a review
Are Baptists Reformed? Kenneth H. Good. Lorain, OH: Regular Baptist Heritage Fellowship, 1986. 394 pp.
Is the moniker "Reformed Baptist" a contradiction? What does it mean? Kenneth Good can help, with his book Are Baptists Reformed. This is not a review of Good's book, but simply a recommendation of it. I recently purchased it from Backus Book Publishers, Rochester, NY. I have not yet read it, but scanned a number of representative pages. With this scan, it is obvious that this book will be of great interest to me, even though it is equally obvious that there are some parts with which I will not agree.
The late 20th century and beginning of the 21st has seen a revival of Calvinistic soteriology among Baptists. Such revival offers some welcome contrast to theology that had become increasingly human-centered and even at times suggestive of Pelagianism. But that revival has brought with it the dilatory side-effect of some looking to the Reformers as the acme of theological wisdom -- and adopting some of the non-Baptist ways. Good's book is a deliberate attempt to contrast Baptist theology -- even such that is "Calvinistic" soteriologically -- with the theology of the Reformers. What is the difference?
Good highlights the differences in 4 categories. He says Baptists differ from the Reformed:
1. In their views of the Word of God
2. In their views of the church considered as an organism
3. In their views of the church considered as an organization
4. In their philosophy of history
Good apparently has no objection to learning from the Reformers where we can, but his book offers important corrections. Baptist distinctives should not be watered down by creating just one more slightly different version of Reformed churches. One reason that I am getting out this recommendation is that Backus Book Publishers is offering an overstock sale price for this worthy book. Finding a $24.95 retail book of 394 pages for only $5 is quite a deal! Is there any reason not to buy it? Strike while the iron is hot.
To order, go to Backus Books Special Offer.
Is the moniker "Reformed Baptist" a contradiction? What does it mean? Kenneth Good can help, with his book Are Baptists Reformed. This is not a review of Good's book, but simply a recommendation of it. I recently purchased it from Backus Book Publishers, Rochester, NY. I have not yet read it, but scanned a number of representative pages. With this scan, it is obvious that this book will be of great interest to me, even though it is equally obvious that there are some parts with which I will not agree.
The late 20th century and beginning of the 21st has seen a revival of Calvinistic soteriology among Baptists. Such revival offers some welcome contrast to theology that had become increasingly human-centered and even at times suggestive of Pelagianism. But that revival has brought with it the dilatory side-effect of some looking to the Reformers as the acme of theological wisdom -- and adopting some of the non-Baptist ways. Good's book is a deliberate attempt to contrast Baptist theology -- even such that is "Calvinistic" soteriologically -- with the theology of the Reformers. What is the difference?
Good highlights the differences in 4 categories. He says Baptists differ from the Reformed:
1. In their views of the Word of God
2. In their views of the church considered as an organism
3. In their views of the church considered as an organization
4. In their philosophy of history
Good apparently has no objection to learning from the Reformers where we can, but his book offers important corrections. Baptist distinctives should not be watered down by creating just one more slightly different version of Reformed churches. One reason that I am getting out this recommendation is that Backus Book Publishers is offering an overstock sale price for this worthy book. Finding a $24.95 retail book of 394 pages for only $5 is quite a deal! Is there any reason not to buy it? Strike while the iron is hot.
To order, go to Backus Books Special Offer.
Seven somewhat cynical political quotes
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." -- G. K. Chesterton
"The mightiest of weapons is truth. And everyone knows you're not permitted to enter a Government building with a weapon." - The Covert Comic
"Politicians and diapers have one thing in common---they both should be changed regularly and for the same reason!" -- - Unknown
"A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation." -- James Freeman Clarke
"Most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement of government." -- Milton Friedman
"A President needs political understanding to run the government, but he may be elected without it." -- Harry S. Truman
Concerning politics: "The American media is like a watchdog who has developed an affection for the burglar." -- Ronald Dart
"The mightiest of weapons is truth. And everyone knows you're not permitted to enter a Government building with a weapon." - The Covert Comic
"Politicians and diapers have one thing in common---they both should be changed regularly and for the same reason!" -- - Unknown
"A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation." -- James Freeman Clarke
"Most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement of government." -- Milton Friedman
"A President needs political understanding to run the government, but he may be elected without it." -- Harry S. Truman
Concerning politics: "The American media is like a watchdog who has developed an affection for the burglar." -- Ronald Dart
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
The "One-Woman Man" - Who is He? 7 Questions
In discussions in the past, I have heard people call attention to the fact that the words translated "the husband of one wife" in I Timothy 3:2 (Gr. mias gunaikos andra) should rather be translated one-woman man. I hear this mostly used negatively, as: it means "one-woman man"; it doesn't mean that a pastor can never be divorced. I have not heard a lot of positive identification as to exactly who this man is. This question, "the one-woman man - who is he", is directed to those of you who believe that "one-woman man" is the correct translation and interpretation of mias gunaikos andra.
1. Is a single man who is faithful in his abstinence a "one-woman man"?
2. Is a divorced and remarried man who is presently faithful to his current wife a "one-woman man"?
3. Is a man who has been married and divorced seven times but is presently sincerely faithful to his current wife a "one-woman man"?
4. Is a man who has had affairs but is presently faithful to his wife a "one-woman man"?
5. Is a man who commits adultery in his heart a "one-woman man"?
6. Is a man who has been married only once a "one-woman man"?
7. Would consistency require that I Timothy 5:9 be translated "one-man woman"?
I would be interested in direct answers to these questions, but they are put here also as food for thought and to give you an idea of what I am asking. Perhaps there are other answers to questions I failed to ask. I hope someone will put some meat on the bare bones phrase "one-woman man". Thanks in advance for your responses.
1. Is a single man who is faithful in his abstinence a "one-woman man"?
2. Is a divorced and remarried man who is presently faithful to his current wife a "one-woman man"?
3. Is a man who has been married and divorced seven times but is presently sincerely faithful to his current wife a "one-woman man"?
4. Is a man who has had affairs but is presently faithful to his wife a "one-woman man"?
5. Is a man who commits adultery in his heart a "one-woman man"?
6. Is a man who has been married only once a "one-woman man"?
7. Would consistency require that I Timothy 5:9 be translated "one-man woman"?
I would be interested in direct answers to these questions, but they are put here also as food for thought and to give you an idea of what I am asking. Perhaps there are other answers to questions I failed to ask. I hope someone will put some meat on the bare bones phrase "one-woman man". Thanks in advance for your responses.
Randomly blogged
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.
A Brief Thought on Using Church History in Preaching
Another Good Book
Have You Studied the Issue of Baptism?
Helpful Tips on Publishing Scholarly Monographs
Online dictionary of King James Version words
Petition to remake Confederate monument splits Georgians
Pillars of Orthodoxy reprinted
Quick Home Cures
Romans 5 and original sin
Why Bad Writing is Almost Always Mistaken for Good Writing
Why did the Jets want Tim Tebow in the first place?
A Brief Thought on Using Church History in Preaching
Another Good Book
Have You Studied the Issue of Baptism?
Helpful Tips on Publishing Scholarly Monographs
Online dictionary of King James Version words
Petition to remake Confederate monument splits Georgians
Pillars of Orthodoxy reprinted
Quick Home Cures
Romans 5 and original sin
Why Bad Writing is Almost Always Mistaken for Good Writing
Why did the Jets want Tim Tebow in the first place?
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
Easter in the King James Bible
In Acts 12:4 of the King James Version of the Bible is recorded: “And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”
This verse of Scripture has excited much discussion – often more than it should and of a nature that is not edifying. Now I add my voice to the discussion, but hopefully in soft rather than shrill tones that might edify the dear reader. Acts 12:4 has provided the anti-KJV-ist ample fodder to rail against the King James translation. It has incited the KJV-Onlyist to create tortured explanations of why “Easter” is correct and “Passover” would be incorrect (in this one verse). The whole of it is rather simple and could be dismissed rather easily were it not for the extremists.
First, barring finding some source where the King James translators have explained it, we don’t really know why they chose to translate “paska” as “Easter” in this passage while translating it as Passover in the other verses where it is used.
Second, a little knowledge of the development of the English language and the history of English translations apprises us that there is nothing sinister, secret or stupid going on with the translation. Rather, it is quite simple.
Englishmen had no Jewish background but were converted to Christianity from paganism. They had no word for the Old Testament feast of Passover, and identified the New Testament Passover with the resurrection of Jesus Christ and what they called Ester/Easter. The first English translator, Wycliffe, used “paske” here, basically transliterating it over from the Greek or Latin. On the other hand, nearly 200 years later when Tyndale translated the New Testament, he chose “ester”,* a word that was in common usage at that time. The word “Passover,” which is current in most modern translations, did not exist at that time. In fact, it was Tyndale himself who coined the word “Passover” when he translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into English. Possibly he felt that using “Easter/Ester” was taking something back from the New Testament and transposing it inappropriately on the old. Regardless, he is the source of the word “Passover”.
As translation and language progressed, the use of Easter for Passover in the New Testament dwindled. By the time of the 1568 Bishops’ Bible “Easter” is used only twice (here and John 11:55). With the coming of the King James, “Easter” was left with one solitary use.
Why did the King James translators not change it to “Passover” in Acts 12:4 as in all the other cases? Was it an editorial oversight? Did they see something that caused them to think it was better left in place? We’ll probably never know. Rather than worry over or fight about it, just know that the context indicates that Easter refers to the Passover season.
* my count using StudyLight.org is 26 times in 25 verses in the New Testament
This verse of Scripture has excited much discussion – often more than it should and of a nature that is not edifying. Now I add my voice to the discussion, but hopefully in soft rather than shrill tones that might edify the dear reader. Acts 12:4 has provided the anti-KJV-ist ample fodder to rail against the King James translation. It has incited the KJV-Onlyist to create tortured explanations of why “Easter” is correct and “Passover” would be incorrect (in this one verse). The whole of it is rather simple and could be dismissed rather easily were it not for the extremists.
First, barring finding some source where the King James translators have explained it, we don’t really know why they chose to translate “paska” as “Easter” in this passage while translating it as Passover in the other verses where it is used.
Second, a little knowledge of the development of the English language and the history of English translations apprises us that there is nothing sinister, secret or stupid going on with the translation. Rather, it is quite simple.
Englishmen had no Jewish background but were converted to Christianity from paganism. They had no word for the Old Testament feast of Passover, and identified the New Testament Passover with the resurrection of Jesus Christ and what they called Ester/Easter. The first English translator, Wycliffe, used “paske” here, basically transliterating it over from the Greek or Latin. On the other hand, nearly 200 years later when Tyndale translated the New Testament, he chose “ester”,* a word that was in common usage at that time. The word “Passover,” which is current in most modern translations, did not exist at that time. In fact, it was Tyndale himself who coined the word “Passover” when he translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into English. Possibly he felt that using “Easter/Ester” was taking something back from the New Testament and transposing it inappropriately on the old. Regardless, he is the source of the word “Passover”.
As translation and language progressed, the use of Easter for Passover in the New Testament dwindled. By the time of the 1568 Bishops’ Bible “Easter” is used only twice (here and John 11:55). With the coming of the King James, “Easter” was left with one solitary use.
Why did the King James translators not change it to “Passover” in Acts 12:4 as in all the other cases? Was it an editorial oversight? Did they see something that caused them to think it was better left in place? We’ll probably never know. Rather than worry over or fight about it, just know that the context indicates that Easter refers to the Passover season.
* my count using StudyLight.org is 26 times in 25 verses in the New Testament
7 more books along the Bible version trail
- Archaic Words and the Authorized Version, Laurence M. Vance (December 30, 1999) ISBN: 0962889865
- How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions, Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss (2007) ISBN: 0310278767
- Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views, David Alan Black, Editor (November 1, 2008) ISBN: 0805447628
- The Book and the Parchments, F. F. Bruce (1963) ISBN: 0720800706
- The Byzantine text-type and New Testament textual criticism, Harry A. Sturz (1984) ISBN: 0840749589
- The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text with Apparatus: Second Edition, Zane Hodges & Arthur L. Farstad, 2nd edition (January 1, 1985) ISBN: 0840749635
- The NIV Reconsidered: A Fresh Look at a Popular Translation, Zane Hodges & Earl Radmacher (March 1, 1990) ISBN: 0960757694
Monday, May 06, 2013
Didache, the Model Prayer and the Received Text
The Didache (aka The Doctrine/Teaching of the 12 Apostles) is an early Christian instructional text. There appears to be little dispute that its origin should be dated in the mid-to-late first-century AD. A manuscript of it was discovered in 1873, which copy dates to around AD 1050. The accuracy of this copy has been demonstrated by comparisons to much earlier quotations from it. The Didache (as well as many writings of early church fathers) stands as testimony of the early date of the Byzantine/Majority group of manuscripts. This is important in contrast to claims that this text type is of late origin and therefore inferior to the Alexandrian/Critical text type.
Beneath is an example of how the English translations of The Didache corresponds more closely to the King James translation from the Byzantine Received text than the New International translation from the Alexandrian Critical text. Below that is given a comparison of the Greek Didache text with the Stephanus Greek text of 1550.
KJV Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come . Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
NIV Matthew 6:9 "This, then, is how you should pray: " 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us today our daily bread. 12 Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'
Didache 8:2 Roberts-Donaldson English Translation
Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Thine is the power and the glory for ever.
Greek Didache prepared by Wieland Willker from the critical edition of Funk/Bihlmeyer (1924). Unicode version by Thomas Thackery.
8:2 μηδε προσευχεσθε ως οι υποκριται, αλλ' ως εκελευσεν ο κυριος εν τω ευαγγελιω αυτου, ουτω προσευχεσθε, πατηρ ημων ο εν τω ουρανω, αγιασθητω το ονομα σου, ελθετω η βασιλεια σου, γενηθητω το θελημα σου ως εν ουρανω και επι γης, τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον δος ημιν σημερον, και αφες ημιν την οφειλην ημων, ως και ημεις αφιεμεν τοις οφειλεταις ημων, και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον, αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου, οτι σου εστιν η δυναμις και η δοξα εις τους αιωνας.
Stephanus 1550 Greek New Testament Matthew 6:9 Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς· Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου·
10 ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου· γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς· 11 Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον· 12 καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν· 13 καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοῦς αἰῶνας ἀμήν
Beneath is an example of how the English translations of The Didache corresponds more closely to the King James translation from the Byzantine Received text than the New International translation from the Alexandrian Critical text. Below that is given a comparison of the Greek Didache text with the Stephanus Greek text of 1550.
KJV Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come . Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
NIV Matthew 6:9 "This, then, is how you should pray: " 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us today our daily bread. 12 Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'
Didache 8:2 Roberts-Donaldson English Translation
Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Thine is the power and the glory for ever.
Greek Didache prepared by Wieland Willker from the critical edition of Funk/Bihlmeyer (1924). Unicode version by Thomas Thackery.
8:2 μηδε προσευχεσθε ως οι υποκριται, αλλ' ως εκελευσεν ο κυριος εν τω ευαγγελιω αυτου, ουτω προσευχεσθε, πατηρ ημων ο εν τω ουρανω, αγιασθητω το ονομα σου, ελθετω η βασιλεια σου, γενηθητω το θελημα σου ως εν ουρανω και επι γης, τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον δος ημιν σημερον, και αφες ημιν την οφειλην ημων, ως και ημεις αφιεμεν τοις οφειλεταις ημων, και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον, αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου, οτι σου εστιν η δυναμις και η δοξα εις τους αιωνας.
Stephanus 1550 Greek New Testament Matthew 6:9 Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς· Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου·
10 ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου· γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς· 11 Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον· 12 καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν· 13 καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοῦς αἰῶνας ἀμήν
5 positions on original Bible manuscripts
In the “The Biblical Position on The KJV Controversy,” the Elders of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California identified 5 positions on choosing between textual variants and as most likely the original manuscripts. They are:
1. “King James only”. The “King James only” approach suggests that the English translation of 1611 is inspired of God. It equates the Word of God, in the very real sense of the autographs, with the King James Version Bible.
2. “Majority-Text only”. The “Majority-Text only” position advocates that God preserved His Word in the text which is found the largest number of manuscripts. Because the largest number of manuscripts are found in the Byzantine family, this family should then be considered the primary and favored external witness.
3. “Thorough-going eclectic”. These folks reject any consideration of external evidence such as manuscript families, date of manuscript and so on. They concentrate all of their energies on internal consideration for a literary analysis of the text.
4. “Westcott-Hort”. Westcott and Hort suggested that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts are the oldest and thus preferred. They also concluded that external evidence, that is, manuscript families, outweighs internal evidence and that the Alexandrian variant, all other factors being equal, is the one preferred.
5. “Balanced eclectic”. This “balanced” position holds that each text type is to be evaluated independently without premeditated bias. It also posits that internal and external evidences are to be considered equally. It basically suggests that each textual variant is to be investigated thoroughly and considered on its own merits.Do you think this is a complete and useful list?
Sunday, May 05, 2013
When God answers
Call unto me, and I will answer thee... Jeremiah 33:3
3 things that may happen to us when God answers:
We get what we want but find out we don't want what we got.
Numbers 11: And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick: But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes... And the LORD said unto Moses...say thou unto the people, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow, and ye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the LORD, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well with us in Egypt: therefore the LORD will give you flesh, and ye shall eat. Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days; But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the LORD which is among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt?...And there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp...And the people stood up all that day, and all that night, and all the next day, and they gathered the quails: he that gathered least gathered ten homers: and they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp. And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.
The Israelites exiting Egypt could hardly enjoy their new-found freedom for desiring the "privileges" they had in slavery. Tired of eating something supplied directly from the God of heaven, they "fell a lusting" for some flesh to eat, remembering their slave diet back in Egypt. Well, simply put, God gave them their desire. He gave it and gave it and gave it until they became sick of it. Not only that, He judged them in the midst of the whole situation.
We humans are sinful folk full of desires that don't satisfy once we have them. Nay, not only are we not satisfied, very often we find we don't even want what we got once we've got it. How much better to pray "give us this day our daily bread" than "sate us with all the things we desire." God knows what we need better than we know ourselves. Pity the poor fool who gets what he wants.
We can't believe we got what we asked for.
Acts 12: Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him...the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands... Peter...came to the house of Mary ...where many were gathered together praying. And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel...named Rhoda...when she knew Peter's voice, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate. And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel. But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened the door, and saw him, they were astonished.
God is a God who is "able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think (Eph 3:20)." Sometimes we must question whether we even believe that He is able to do what we ask. When Peter was cast in prison by Herod, the church in Jerusalem engaged in constant intercession on his behalf. Yet when an angel miraculously plucked Peter from prison, not only was he surprised, but the church that had been hoping for such a thing couldn't believe it. The messenger was first accused of being mad, then of being mistaken. When they saw the truth of the matter, they were astonished!
God is such as awesome God it is no surprise that we should constantly be amazed and astonished at His marvelous works and wonders. But when we are astonished that He does exactly what we asked, perhaps we should pause with wonder and say with the father whose son was possessed by an evil spirit, "Lord, I believe. Help Thou mine unbelief." The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
We don't think God answered.
Micah 3: Then shall they cry unto the LORD, but he will not hear them: he will even hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved themselves ill in their doings...Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine ; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them. Then shall the seers be ashamed, and the diviners confounded yea, they shall all cover their lips; for there is no answer of God.
Sometimes we pray and then think God did not answer. In a sense this is true, as with the false prophets that God "would not hear" but rather "hid His face". For all their supposed abilities, in the end "there is no answer of God." Yet in "no answer" there is a "no" answer. God was not literally unable to hear them, but He "will not" hear them; that is, their prayers are futile and God has no respect toward them for they are not His prophets. They will not receive what they ask.
Whether false prophets or sincere children of God, sometimes it seems like there is no answer from heaven. Let us learn to understand that in "no answer" there is a "no" answer. God is not off on a far journey, asleep, or hard of hearing. When we don't think God answers, know that God is answering. The answer is "no".
In these three compared situations, I see judgement, blessing and providence.
When Israel rejected God as their spiritual leader and asked for an earthly king like all the other nations, God gave them what they asked for. This gift included God's judgment on them as a people. In having an earthly king they would be one step further removed from God. The specific kings would exercise their own wills upon them, excise taxes, compel citizens into their service, declare wars, be an extra burden on the nation, and in the end be much more a force for evil than for good. Things would never go back to the way they were. God's answers to us sometimes include judgment.
Even in judgment God remembers mercy, and in His dealings with His people we can bountifully profess that the blessings we receive are "exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think." From the cake to the icing on top, God is good to us. Truly God is good. Every good and perfect gift comes from our heavenly Father above. God's answers to us include blessings, many we can't even imagine.
When we get a "no" answer from God, our first human instinct is to pout and complain. We want it. We should get it. But remember the wandering Israelites who got the meat they wanted and the wondering Israelites who got the king they wanted. How much better to not get what we think we want when we don't need it, than to get what we think we want and not want it after we've got it! This reveals the truth that in all God's answers we find God's providence. He knows what to answer and when and how. His answers are the best. Always. Whether judgement, blessing, or seemingly no answer at all. He is always working all things together for the good of them that love Him.
Praise God from Whom all blessings flow.
3 things that may happen to us when God answers:
We get what we want but find out we don't want what we got.
Numbers 11: And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick: But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes... And the LORD said unto Moses...say thou unto the people, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow, and ye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the LORD, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well with us in Egypt: therefore the LORD will give you flesh, and ye shall eat. Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days; But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the LORD which is among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt?...And there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp...And the people stood up all that day, and all that night, and all the next day, and they gathered the quails: he that gathered least gathered ten homers: and they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp. And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.
The Israelites exiting Egypt could hardly enjoy their new-found freedom for desiring the "privileges" they had in slavery. Tired of eating something supplied directly from the God of heaven, they "fell a lusting" for some flesh to eat, remembering their slave diet back in Egypt. Well, simply put, God gave them their desire. He gave it and gave it and gave it until they became sick of it. Not only that, He judged them in the midst of the whole situation.
We humans are sinful folk full of desires that don't satisfy once we have them. Nay, not only are we not satisfied, very often we find we don't even want what we got once we've got it. How much better to pray "give us this day our daily bread" than "sate us with all the things we desire." God knows what we need better than we know ourselves. Pity the poor fool who gets what he wants.
We can't believe we got what we asked for.
Acts 12: Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him...the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands... Peter...came to the house of Mary ...where many were gathered together praying. And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel...named Rhoda...when she knew Peter's voice, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate. And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel. But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened the door, and saw him, they were astonished.
God is a God who is "able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think (Eph 3:20)." Sometimes we must question whether we even believe that He is able to do what we ask. When Peter was cast in prison by Herod, the church in Jerusalem engaged in constant intercession on his behalf. Yet when an angel miraculously plucked Peter from prison, not only was he surprised, but the church that had been hoping for such a thing couldn't believe it. The messenger was first accused of being mad, then of being mistaken. When they saw the truth of the matter, they were astonished!
God is such as awesome God it is no surprise that we should constantly be amazed and astonished at His marvelous works and wonders. But when we are astonished that He does exactly what we asked, perhaps we should pause with wonder and say with the father whose son was possessed by an evil spirit, "Lord, I believe. Help Thou mine unbelief." The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
We don't think God answered.
Micah 3: Then shall they cry unto the LORD, but he will not hear them: he will even hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved themselves ill in their doings...Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine ; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them. Then shall the seers be ashamed, and the diviners confounded yea, they shall all cover their lips; for there is no answer of God.
Sometimes we pray and then think God did not answer. In a sense this is true, as with the false prophets that God "would not hear" but rather "hid His face". For all their supposed abilities, in the end "there is no answer of God." Yet in "no answer" there is a "no" answer. God was not literally unable to hear them, but He "will not" hear them; that is, their prayers are futile and God has no respect toward them for they are not His prophets. They will not receive what they ask.
Whether false prophets or sincere children of God, sometimes it seems like there is no answer from heaven. Let us learn to understand that in "no answer" there is a "no" answer. God is not off on a far journey, asleep, or hard of hearing. When we don't think God answers, know that God is answering. The answer is "no".
In these three compared situations, I see judgement, blessing and providence.
When Israel rejected God as their spiritual leader and asked for an earthly king like all the other nations, God gave them what they asked for. This gift included God's judgment on them as a people. In having an earthly king they would be one step further removed from God. The specific kings would exercise their own wills upon them, excise taxes, compel citizens into their service, declare wars, be an extra burden on the nation, and in the end be much more a force for evil than for good. Things would never go back to the way they were. God's answers to us sometimes include judgment.
Even in judgment God remembers mercy, and in His dealings with His people we can bountifully profess that the blessings we receive are "exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think." From the cake to the icing on top, God is good to us. Truly God is good. Every good and perfect gift comes from our heavenly Father above. God's answers to us include blessings, many we can't even imagine.
When we get a "no" answer from God, our first human instinct is to pout and complain. We want it. We should get it. But remember the wandering Israelites who got the meat they wanted and the wondering Israelites who got the king they wanted. How much better to not get what we think we want when we don't need it, than to get what we think we want and not want it after we've got it! This reveals the truth that in all God's answers we find God's providence. He knows what to answer and when and how. His answers are the best. Always. Whether judgement, blessing, or seemingly no answer at all. He is always working all things together for the good of them that love Him.
Praise God from Whom all blessings flow.
Singing in Nacogdoches
The East Texas Monthly Sacred Harp Singing will be held Monday May 6, 2013 from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at Westminster Presbyterian Church, 903 North Street, Nacogdoches, TX. Singing will be from both the 2012 Cooper Revision and the 1991 Denson Revision.
For further information, e-mail me / rl_vaughn -AT- yahoo.com \ or see the link below.
For a map and directions, click HERE.
Come join in and help us to sing.
His glories sing!
For further information, e-mail me / rl_vaughn -AT- yahoo.com \ or see the link below.
For a map and directions, click HERE.
Come join in and help us to sing.
His glories sing!
Renewed interest in Sacred Harp
Sacred Harp Singing
This short piece of about 7 minutes shown on PGTC (Pop Goes the Culture) is "about the renewed interest in Sacred Harp singing among younger singers." On one occasion narrator the says, "The strange sound couldn't survive out of context. Most of these voices would get booed off of American Idol in a second." Well, we don't all sound so bad. But the little documentary is pretty good and fairly accurate.
This short piece of about 7 minutes shown on PGTC (Pop Goes the Culture) is "about the renewed interest in Sacred Harp singing among younger singers." On one occasion narrator the says, "The strange sound couldn't survive out of context. Most of these voices would get booed off of American Idol in a second." Well, we don't all sound so bad. But the little documentary is pretty good and fairly accurate.
Saturday, May 04, 2013
A Master Painting by the Master Painter
"God often lays the sum of His amazing providences in very dismal afflictions; as the limner* first puts on the dusky colors, on which he intends to draw the portraiture of some illustrious beauty." -- Stephen Charnock
First, a brief summary of Acts 12
In the beginning of the chapter:
Herod is in charge and the church is persecuted.
James is dead.
Peter is in prison.
In the end of the chapter:
Peter is free.
Herod is dead.
God is in control and the word of God spreads.
Acts chapter 12 paints a portrait in the life of the early church. When the painting begins, it looks as if it will be no masterpiece. The wicked ruler Herod finds popularity in persecuting the church of God. He has James (an apostle, the brother of John) executed and then proceeds to arrest Peter. He expected to lavish on Peter the same fate when the Passover season was finished. As Peter languished in jail, the church prayed for him. Suddenly an angel appeared. Peter awoke, his chains fell off and they quickly exited the prison unnoticed. Neither Peter nor the church could believe it, but both rejoiced profusely.
Circumstances change. Guards were executed. Herod went to Caesarea to get away from it all. He finds opportunity to make peace with Tyre and Sidon, and offers a stunning public oratory, of which the people shout, "This is the voice of a god, not of a man." Suddenly Herod is struck down by God and dies. The enemy is defeated. God's providences shine through and the word of God spreads and grows.
Though we watch such portraits painted time after time, too often we forget that it is God who is painting and not Herod. No matter how often it appears that a Herod is having his way, remember it is God who rules and that all things work together for good to them that love God. Let the dusky colors be first put on, only remember there is yet illustrious beauty to come forth!
* a painter
First, a brief summary of Acts 12
In the beginning of the chapter:
Herod is in charge and the church is persecuted.
James is dead.
Peter is in prison.
In the end of the chapter:
Peter is free.
Herod is dead.
God is in control and the word of God spreads.
Acts chapter 12 paints a portrait in the life of the early church. When the painting begins, it looks as if it will be no masterpiece. The wicked ruler Herod finds popularity in persecuting the church of God. He has James (an apostle, the brother of John) executed and then proceeds to arrest Peter. He expected to lavish on Peter the same fate when the Passover season was finished. As Peter languished in jail, the church prayed for him. Suddenly an angel appeared. Peter awoke, his chains fell off and they quickly exited the prison unnoticed. Neither Peter nor the church could believe it, but both rejoiced profusely.
Circumstances change. Guards were executed. Herod went to Caesarea to get away from it all. He finds opportunity to make peace with Tyre and Sidon, and offers a stunning public oratory, of which the people shout, "This is the voice of a god, not of a man." Suddenly Herod is struck down by God and dies. The enemy is defeated. God's providences shine through and the word of God spreads and grows.
Though we watch such portraits painted time after time, too often we forget that it is God who is painting and not Herod. No matter how often it appears that a Herod is having his way, remember it is God who rules and that all things work together for good to them that love God. Let the dusky colors be first put on, only remember there is yet illustrious beauty to come forth!
* a painter
Worth reading
...especially if you have teens or pre-teens.
Underage Dating: The Elephant in the Social Conservative Living-Room by Bryana Johnson:
Underage Dating: The Elephant in the Social Conservative Living-Room by Bryana Johnson:
"I have a bone to pick with young, socially conservative Americans...The trouble with underage dating is that it presents an entirely faulty view of what interaction with the opposite gender should be about. Rather than placing emphasis on building one strong relationship with one person at a stage of life when a marital commitment is feasible, dating encourages young people to pour their energies into consistently seducing other young people at a time when neither of them are capable of making any long-term commitments..."
Friday, May 03, 2013
Rest
While I've been running around like a chicken with its head cut off, my old dog has been lying around like a head with its chicken cut off. Guess who's smarter?
"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28
"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28
Flesch-Kincaid and Bible versions
Every now and then I see the Flesch Reading Ease and/or the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level tests referenced in comparing different versions of the Bible -- someone usually trying to make the point that their version of the Bible is easier to read.
I sort of randomly* chose the second epistle of John to plug in to the Flesch-Kincaid Reading tests (using Microsoft Word). Here are my findings for 4 Bible versions.
New International Version
Words 291
Sentences 15
Passive Sentences 6%
Flesch Reading Ease 82.2
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.2
King James Version
Words 298
Sentences 15
Passive Sentences 0%
Flesch Reading Ease 81.4
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.2
New American Standard Version
Words 316
Sentences 12
Passive Sentences 8%
Flesch Reading Ease 82.3
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.6
Holman Christian Standard Version
Words 309
Sentences 15
Passive Sentences 0%
Flesch Reading Ease 83.5
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.1
The Flesch Reading Ease test rates text on a 100-point scale. The higher the score means the easier it is to understand the document.
The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test rates text on a U.S. school grade level. A score of 8.0 would mean that an eighth grader can understand the document.
All four Bible versions that I picked rated at sixth grade level for the epistle of 2 John. There was very little difference, with the New American Standard rating the hardest and the Holman Christian Standard rating the easiest.
The Flesch-Kincaid scale is a measure of sentence length/words-per-sentence, word length/syllables-per-word only. It does not measure vocabulary. Vocabulary and sentence structure, which Flesch-Kincaid does not measure, can change the readability of a document. The Flesch-Kincaid tests actually tell us very little about comparing the readability of various Bible versions.
* I picked this book because it is one of the shortest in the Bible and I knew it would be easy to copy and prep (check for errors and remove verse numbers).
I sort of randomly* chose the second epistle of John to plug in to the Flesch-Kincaid Reading tests (using Microsoft Word). Here are my findings for 4 Bible versions.
New International Version
Words 291
Sentences 15
Passive Sentences 6%
Flesch Reading Ease 82.2
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.2
King James Version
Words 298
Sentences 15
Passive Sentences 0%
Flesch Reading Ease 81.4
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.2
New American Standard Version
Words 316
Sentences 12
Passive Sentences 8%
Flesch Reading Ease 82.3
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.6
Holman Christian Standard Version
Words 309
Sentences 15
Passive Sentences 0%
Flesch Reading Ease 83.5
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.1
The Flesch Reading Ease test rates text on a 100-point scale. The higher the score means the easier it is to understand the document.
The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test rates text on a U.S. school grade level. A score of 8.0 would mean that an eighth grader can understand the document.
All four Bible versions that I picked rated at sixth grade level for the epistle of 2 John. There was very little difference, with the New American Standard rating the hardest and the Holman Christian Standard rating the easiest.
The Flesch-Kincaid scale is a measure of sentence length/words-per-sentence, word length/syllables-per-word only. It does not measure vocabulary. Vocabulary and sentence structure, which Flesch-Kincaid does not measure, can change the readability of a document. The Flesch-Kincaid tests actually tell us very little about comparing the readability of various Bible versions.
* I picked this book because it is one of the shortest in the Bible and I knew it would be easy to copy and prep (check for errors and remove verse numbers).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)