Truly Unifying, or Separation

We Christians separate over truth.

We deny, for instance, Mormons the label “Christian” because we do believe in propositional truths, that terms are defined, that meaning is sure: Thus by “Christ” we mean someone different from who they describe, for instance.

But something else is troubling me. What about defining “soteriology”? Now, I know many may not know that term, so I’ll put its definition simply: “about how to be saved”, or “about salvation”. With such a large landscape of those eager to get the word out about “Jesus” (define it) and so the world may here “how you can be saved” (define salvation), that should be near and dear to the heart.

Obviously this simple essential should be easily defined from Scripture, and held as one truth, one meaning, among all Christians, right? It also involves other components of consideration:

Theology: about God.
Christology: about Christ.
Anthropology: about Man.
etc.

And these, in turn, have other components that go by other fancy, but very useful, facilitating terms. Now, however, we turn to the situation: in reality, there’s a wide disparity of believe in regards all these areas: even among the group that calls itself “evangelical”.

Normally, in the event of diversity of beliefs, we should all be able to approach scripture together, strive after the same mind as commanded, contend for the faith, and conform to God’s word in all these matters, so that we may, as Paul commanded, “speak the same thing”. Not by just adopting this or that position just because, to present a united front that really isn’t there in the soul of those professing it, which would be dishonest, right? After all, Colossians tells us we’re to learn and come to a true/right/accurate knowledge of God (see the NASB’s marginal notes on “knowledge”, and also you might cf. the notes from the commentary of Jamiesson-Fausset-Brown, available online).

Yet, this pretensious political front is exactly what has happened: “Statement of Belief” you will find at Church after Church, repeating practically the same terms, but all vague: leaving the definitions up for grabs to all who adopt them, like diplomatic documents forged not out of unity of the mind, but by avoiding particulars allowing anyone they want to sign it: a political front, but no true, essential, spiritual and doctrinal unity. (Yes, “doctrine” can be applied to the world’s affairs: the declarations made by the world are also doctrines, that is, doctrines, dogmas, undergird and are implied by such docs, for example, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: there are ideas behind, imbued in, represented and expressed by such documents.)

What has become of the highly visible, preaching-itself, “Christianity”? It’s motto is “Unity in Diversity”: antithetical to biblical teaching; the same is the motto of the Bahai religion, for Indian Society (anything but united with its demeaning and wicked caste system), for practically every major socio-liberal organization on earth today. The old Christian application of that motto?

Unity despite various backgrounds.

A unity of origins, not beliefs, not opinions (the definition of “heresies”). It was once believed that the word dictated Christian belief/doctrine and practice, and was applicable and powerful for every area of life, inward and displayed (outward). Today these are speciously acknowledged, but implicitly and practically denied. It is not convenient: if we exegete Scripture accurately (draw teaching out of it, rather than using it at our own convenience, through sound hermeneutics) it is not so accomodating to modern liberal ideals of social justice and dogma; it is not so sentimental and fluffy: it neither castes humanity in the light of a poor victim of its own sin, nor God as one who is desperately awaiting the permission of those poor murders, adulterers, harlots, coveters, self-lovers, and so on, to come upon them with sweeping gushy love; it does not speak our “heart language”; nor fail to dare confronting almost every modern, well-beloved/dear, notion and pillar of the modern mind.

It does not present itself as to be desired in order to obtain intellectual and emotional fulfillment; a loving and wonderful, stronger, united family (actually Jesus warns He casts division into families); it does not promise anything but hardship, persecution, and suffering for Christ’s sake (“tribulations”). It does not downplay any of its truths as non-essentials, as if the love of God which Jesus says is evidenced by obedience, involves only assent to what is deemed by the modern so-called Christian as “essentials” because they are seen as the bare minimums required for genuine salvation, though Scripture would contend the Christian will grow in the knowledge of the Lord and be brought into conformity, rather than stagnating and protesting further teaching when it comes to challenge what they hold dear, require what brings discomfort, ridicule, humiliation, and suffering.

Today wolves teach we must “make Christ attractive”, and methods to “show how cool it is to be a Christian”. Gone is the humble and unnoticed Christian who by virtue brings hatred upon him or herself despite being upstanding: being the stench of death so that without any prompting, the weight of damp heat the dislike is so intense, that even the unbeliever’s smile and manners can’t hide their seething dislike. Gone are the days that without trying to provoke anyone, the Christian yet brought upon himself persecution, merely by purity, in action, and profession: these days being provocative is seen as a virtue to “evangelize”, while the biblical condemnation of needless offense of anyone is thrown under the bus (with Jesus) for not drawing and keeping large enough crowds. “Take this ordinary life”, they sing to God, as if He is to be commanded, as dissatisfied and ungrateful as the world-in-general, evidencing their hatred for Paul’s teaching to “remain in your present condition” (that of where one was found and saved), and to pray for the rulers “that we may lead a tranquil (or, peaceable) and quiet life in all godliness (or, piety) and gravity (or, dignity)” (1 Tim 2:2).

Rare is the humble and contrite spirit who serves the Lord with joy even when burdened with suffering, while common nowadays is the unending multitude that has no joy unless through another conference, another “Christian” concert (groups that avoid God’s and Christ’s name, and “Christianese” do to try to attract unbelieving audience…and evidence their shame, not proclamation, of Christ: often evidenced when they actually start talking about it, and preach other doctrines and gospels foreign to Scripture), or event, another “exciting” undertaking.

How awful to have millions upon millions of mouths crying “Jesus”, and so few who know the one of which the Bible is talking about, at least, that is, from what we can see by comparing all this to Scripture.

I wish, that rather than trying to correct it all, that truly Christian believers would give-up their greeting of those who hold to other gospels and christs, and do as the word commands: separate, that they be not partakers, nor lend any legitimacy to the false prophets, goats, deceived, and so forth: let them hear our preaching of the truth from without, and if God so wills, be converted, and also therefore urged themselves to come out from among them.

PC: The NT and the Jews.

A comment on Amazon.com:

In the Gospel of John the translator often inserts “leaders of” in front of “the Jews” when John fails to do so ^{source: see footnote 1}

I just want to ask this commentator, How arrogant are you? If John didn’t insert “leaders of” that should indicate to you HE DIDN’T “fail” to do so.

Now back to everyone else. The NT doesn’t “fail” not to insert “Leaders of”. Even the OT foretells the Messiah’s rejection, that He will be “cut off”: it indicates both the people and general, and the “builders” (religious authorities) will not accept him. Among the politically correct, but more especially among modern Judaizers and the mixed-up with them, there’s this idea that the Jews were fine and dandy (in fact, among Messianic Jews it seems there are plenty who think the same still of unbelieving Jews–”knowing” so and so in one’s family had to be okay because of how nice, pious, or how much they were loved by the new Messianic: this is mocking and denying Christ).

When Jesus speaks to Jerusalem, he does not say “Oh leaders of Jerusalem”, but “Jerusalem”, and goes on to say it’s the city that murders the prophets. The people rejected him: not when they wanted to make Him king, but when He told them they must believe, eat His blood, drink His flesh, etc., He was not use to their earthly ambitions, as Jesus remains among Jews for their ambitions for Israel.

And we needn’t forget, the NT authors, minus Luke & Acts, are written by…you guessed it: Jews. The OT prophets, Jews: condemn the Jews (whenever they reject the prophets). The NT prophets, Jews: condemn the Jews (when they reject the prophets, which includes Jesus and his messengers–the literal translation of “apostles”). If one wants the most anti- faithless-semitic book: read either the old or new testament.

We know, from both the Bible and corroborating history from without it, that the Jews became zealous persecutors of the Messianic strain of early first century Judaism: even seeking them across the Roman Empire to return them before the religious authorities, and then (illegally–Rome had removed this authority from Israel, “the sceptor” to kill) stone them. The NT’s condemnation of this unbelieving strain of Judaism is no accident: not in the least John’s gospel, which is though to be written for an Alexandrian community of Messianic Jews!

Did Paul fail to qualify that the unbelieving Jews were a “synagogue of Satan”? No. He did not go on to say this synagogue was composed of only leaders. The OT condemns (utterly) anyone who rejects any true prophet of God. The NT even quotes that verse, and polemically, unapologetically, affirms Jesus is Messiah, Prophet, King-Priest, Savior, God.

Amen.

On this subject, from Michael Marlowe’s review on the CEV, “the most sensitive” translation^{source: see footnote 2} for Jews:

__The CEV also makes an attempt to tone down the anti-Judaism of the New Testament by avoiding the word “Jews” wherever it is used in reference to opponents of Jesus. In a 1993 article David G. Burke, the director of the ABS translation program, says that the purpose of this was to combat anti-semitism; and so instead of “Jews” they give “the people” or “the religious leaders.” In his article Burke acknowledges that the use of the expression “the Jews” in the New Testament is significant in that it “carries a bias that was born of the increasingly heated struggle for credibility between two strains of first century Judaism,” but as a translator he cares more about “its effect on the poorly informed modern reader” than about accurate translation of the phrase:

__The problem is not how well the English locution reflects the Greek text or the escalating polemical realities of the first century situation, but rather its effect on the (poorly informed) modern reader. Few modern readers are equipped to sort out that “the Jews” opposing Jesus and the Jesus movement are in many cases just other Jews who happen not to have accepted Jesus’s identity as Messiah—whether these are individuals, groups, local leaders, or religious or political authorities. Given the way the overall picture is painted, it is difficult for the modern reader to think this through in terms of real-life ambiguities that would have applied then as now; that is, to consider that many of these “enemies” may have been acting, in the events of the early (pre-synagogue expulsion) years, in order to be responsible and faithful to the tradition as they understood it by resisting and being suspicious of what they may have perceived as another of those Messiah claimants that get everyone worked up then fade away. ⁽³⁾

__Burke’s apology for those who “happen not to have accepted Jesus’ identity as Messiah” is understandable in the context of a modern inter-faith dialogue, but it must be said that this muffling of the antagonistic language of the New Testament is a deliberate attempt to play down a meaningful element of the text. In the New Testament we do not see Jews who “happen not to have accepted Jesus’ identity as Messiah,” but rather mobs of Jews who were determined to kill the Christians if possible. It was not long before the Christians became so disaffected and alienated from the Jewish community in general that it made no practical difference to anyone that most of the Christians were Jews by birth. They had been cast out of the community, just as Christ foretold. In these circumstances it was appropriate enough for the apostles and their disciples to begin speaking of “the Jews” as if they were not of that people. In a very real sense they were no longer Jews, but now children of the God who is Creator and Father of all men. They were an Israel of God that transcended the old Jewish bonds of blood and soil. That is apparently how they understood themselves, having repudiated the narrow ethnic identity which was so much a part of Judaism in the first century. ⁽⁴⁾ In short, the use of the expression “the Jews” in John’s Gospel and in the book of Acts is perhaps the most telling indication of how deeply separated from Judaism the Christians had already become in the first generation of the [edit by this blogger: Christian] Church [(edit by this blogger: the faithful in both the OT, and the NT--who believed Christ, are both called the Lord's "congregation", the same word in the LXX is that used in the NT; but this is also why "Church" is convenient for distinguishing the congregation before and after Christ's "advent")], and it is not right to remove this from the Bible, because it has great theological significance.
__As a matter of principle we must object to the tendency to avoid offending non-Christians in a translation of the New Testament. There are, after all, many other things in both the Old and the New Testament which are bound to offend someone or other. Most of the Old Testament, in fact, is probably quite offensive to Muslims and Arabs in general, because it makes mention of their ancestors in some very unfavorable ways, and foretells their ultimate prostration before the sons of Israel. We might mention hundreds of potentially offensive texts along this line, such as Psalm 137:9 (quoted above), in which a blessing is pronounced upon those who will massacre the infants of Babylon. It is impossible to remove the potential for ethnic offense in such verses while remaining true to the original. We cannot become expurgators of the Word of God while claiming to be faithful translators of it. If we are concerned to help children to avoid misunderstandings and misapplications, the best course would be to present them with such curriculum materials that will achieve this without expurgating the Bible itself. ^{source: see footnote 3}

For an uncensored edition of the NT translated into Hebrew, see that composed by Franz Delitzsch, originally made on the basis of critical texts though conformed later to the TR⁴, which I might add could be a good thing with the insobriety of some of the earlier text-critical practices when what the KJV-onlyists call the “Alexandrian” texts (some who’s readings happen to be found in editions of the TR and in the KJV!) took some time to sober-up. His translation of the NT into Hebrew is even available online here, The Hebrew New Testament of the British and Foreign Bible Society. It is remarkable enough that it is still consulted even though it was wrought prior to the advent of modern Hebrew.

¹ http://www.amazon.com/review/R2GL3688T3JE7Y/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm retreived: 2009-03-02 at 7:25pm MST
² http://www.bible-researcher.com/burke1.html retrieved 2009-03-02 7:30 MST
³ http://www.bible-researcher.com/cev.html retrieved 2009-03-02; 7:40pm MST.
⁴ http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/heb.asp retrieved 2009-03-02 7:45pm MST

The ESV

I’m not partial to the ESV: I have a campus edition wide-margin reference of the version, and I think I’ll get some use of it. With reference to the popular paraphrases, it is a big improvement (in most terms), over such translations as the NIV: I’m very glad for the ESV in that respect. Generally it is a fine version. A great and fair review, with due praise, and criticism of certain particulars of the translation, its translators and some background on peripheral scholars, can be found here: agreeing with the careful words of that review (Michael Marlowe), I would hesitate to recommend the ESV, however, for very close study, as it’s not quite as literal or careful as versions such as the NASB and NKJV: the NASB may be hard to love, but it’s well worth studying from; the NKJV may use the TR, but its margins contain the variations that matter: just look at the NA text they contain. Both are more careful, both are more considered, both had more devotion of time and energy and particulars than the ESV.

Several issues with the ESV are pointed-out by Marlowe’s review. One, the translation, (using my words), accommodates teachings of Grudem and Co., rather than overriding them. Grudem has this “little” problem with trying to be PC to make Christ more appealing to a world, he doesn’t seem to understand, that utterly abhors true Christianity. It is possible to make a middle-position between them, which many to do in order to “build bridges”, but at that point one has already left the small space within which we are to abide, and left “Christianity” for a counterfeit that poses as such. His kind of “apologetics” seems to be truly apologizing for essential Christian teaching, rather than proclaiming them: apologetics as defined from the Greek term whence we get “apologetics”, is not an apology in the sense of being wrong. When Grudem explains-away 1 Cor 11, for instance, (“it’s a sign, just a sign, and only about married women, so here we recognize things like wedding rings”), he ignores Paul’s words there, the Greek, and the historical ensample left us by the Church and interpreters (even the earliest ones) through the ages.

Throughout, the ESV can be counted upon to remove (through re-interpretative renderings) or minimize (through less precise words) offensive teachings with regards to women, slaves, and other such topics according to early twentieth century liberalism, theologically and secularly: however those groups abused Scripture for their causes, it is not uncommon to see Grudem (and evangelicals in general) doing the same; only this time there are not only liberals preaching that Christ came to make utopia, (contrary to His explicit words), but it is seen even by supposedly conservative Christians as a way to get people to “accept Christ”, “look, we hold the same ideas about social justice, so you don’t have to be opposed to Jesus and He gets you into heaven”. I want to put it bluntly: liberal social justice ideals and goals and practical works to obtain them are usually founded upon principles, and pursued through actions, diametrically opposed to Christian ones and ways: those who hold to them practically hold to another faith, (not that there’s never no points of common interest, but nonetheless, this is often the case).

Think I’m too serious about this? Let’s take 1 Cor 11 for an example, now read the last few verses thereof: Paul was a zealot on that point. A stupid fundy, I guess.

Bad Form.

[Lightly edited 4 March, 2009]

Modern translations, usually for reasons of style rather than translation, alter “and” into many other terms, but, for, so, then, etc., as they put it, as context seems to require. Frequently “and” is also dropped altogether.

But a good translation needn’t do this: context will give the sense; if there even is one: these alterations often seem to color the translations and imply what is not original, whether consecutive order, or specificity, or introductions to what appears to be a conclusion, for instance “so” as in “therefore…”. There are plenty of situations where using different words to render an underlying word is fine: “flood” vs. “deluge”? Doesn’t matter, but often the “simple” things elude such choice without altering the text, and “and” is quite simple to render; so again, let the context indicate anything if it’s there to be indicated.

The frequent dropping of “and” also leaves a jarring, disconnected, horrid text to read. There’s no narrative flow, no appreciation of a progressing thought: instead of a train, we have a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam: disconnected thoughts in a series. I’m trying to read more modern versions in the OT, and it. jars. me. and. feels. like. I’m. grinding. my. teeth. for. ev.er.y. si.ng.gle. se.nt.tence. Like modern punctuating¹ that oversimplifies the situation rather than being literary and grammatical, [instead] all for style: thought is go–in…gng…..STOP. Okay thought is contin-u-ing STOP. Okay re-picking STOP up the STOP though. Picking-uSTOPp. thouSTOPougSTOPht.

Many of the changes seem made just because a few people don’t like repetition of the use of “and”, or because “authorities” protest using conjunctions at the beginning of sentences or too frequently (they don’t now historical English, I suppose, or appreciate literature or device), though using them at the beginning, if such a problem, just suggests we ought not slovenly punctuate an originally unpunctuated text: punctuate for utility of conveying the text accurately, not stylistic tastes. And the specificity or nuances forced into the text by swapping something else in for “and” often just isn’t there. The dropping of words is inappropriate: style be damned. I’ll repeat: style be damned.

I’m not cursing: I’m using the hardest word of condemnation I know. Read the KJV sometime: it’s not afraid to be so bold with such good-ol’ terms, either. To hell with style when it interferes severely with accuracy.

¹ punctuating, not punctuation, indicating the act of punctuating, not the signs themselves.

Interesting: flood vs. deluge

Literally, “flood” is related to “flow”, and it’s defined as merely a flow of water (connoting a lot, of course); “deluge” is from the verb “to wash away”, “de”=”away, “luge” is from “lavar”=”to wash”. The event referred to as “Noah’s flood”, with these in mind it tips my opinion in favor of using “deluge” rather than flood, particularly “God’s deluge” rather than invoking “Noah”, who was just a witness and obedient servant to build a ship and wait on the Lord’s promised coming action.

I know I’m being very literal here, but something about “deluge” rings with me. The BBB and more liberally-minded “we should translate-for-the-uneducated/lazy” crowd would probably hate me for suggesting “deluge”, but hey! My preference here comes from linking the etymological meaning of the word to the symbolism the flood embodies, namely, that God was washing-away the wickedness that so grieved Him. It’s just artsy, not dogma.

It’s like the guy who took-up complaint with the ESV Study Bible for linking some notes to certain used words rather than the context, which would be correct. I agree with the fellow on that point, but it is useful to note that linking certain words to certain teachings can also be a great way to help people remember something, and it’s something people do naturally. Like when people remember the story by the words “Noah’s flood”, or like myself wanting us to invoke the significance behind recording that event in the Bible, by using the words “God’s deluge”. For one thing, with more accurate terminology and a little explanation, it ought (we’d hope) have those who would make God into a homeboy and a lovy-dovy sentimentalist who’s just enamored with the poor helpless victimized-by-their-own-wickedness-people quake and repent of their false god. Yes, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son: the same God is also aggrieved, angered, and full of wrath for that world, however: and the next deluge, His word promises, will be not with water, but fire.

A "Joking" Wedding.

Two teens in Israel made a “joke” wedding and were found recognized as married (in Israel) under the law. The boy recited a vow over the girl and handed her is ring, which she accepted. They also consummated (what they thought was) the “joke” wedding. Courts ruled the vow and acceptance were valid. They’ve been granted a divorce.

What’s tragic in all this is that they took the vow seriously for recognition, that is, the state, but not holding them accountable any further. They recognized they can’t “joke” a vow, but not that it should be enforced. As bad as the system in Israel, with its established religion not only unpopular, but hyperzealous, and man-founded (and Rabbi-centered), as it is, I would have thought (and applauded) that they might have had some measures in place to maintain marriages, that is, bind people to their vows who would disavow them, and not so easily grant divorces.

It’s a far cry from the Israel (or should we say its ancestors) that once took maidenhood seriously, such that when Dinah was raped Abraham tried guaranteeing her marriage (so she could be married, rather than left defiled and seen by others as ineligible); or who’s sages declared little was worse than the he who took virgins. Or who worshiped God who hated those who broke covenants, as Israel did even toward Him, (repeatedly).

Eastern Orthodoxy

Eastern-Orthodoxy at Berean Beacon.

“

In recent years interest in the Eastern Orthodox Church among Christians has grown steadily and there have been a number of converts to this religious body. A prime reason for this interest has been the growing fascination with mysticism and ancient tradition which has permeated Western societies. Increasing numbers of Christians are coming into contact with Eastern Orthodox mysticism via the Emergent Church and the writings of the Orthodox “Church Fathers”. There are many strands to Eastern Orthodox mysticism; this paper briefly examines a few significant areas such as Theosis, Hesychasm, the “Jesus Prayer”, Spiritual Fathers and Light Mysticism. Yours in the grace of the precious Savior, Richard Bennett

1. The Seven Pillars of Orthodoxy 2. Orthodox Bishops High Priests 3. Just Say No 4. Icons Visions of a Spiritual World 5. Evangelical Issues for the Eastern Orthodox 6. Eastern Orthodoxy The Mystical Trap

“

<!–Through Western Eyes by Robert Letham at Exiled Preacher. Not a very discerning, but an informative, post: it seems to prevent a soft spin on EO, however, in light of EO doctrines and practices.–>