Biblical Equality and the Societally Destructive Lie of Egalitarianism (part two)
As I grew up, I understood authority innately through the approach of my parents and everywhere I looked in the culture. In my experience, the inmates did not run the asylum. While this was all in scripture, it manifested itself to me through the various spheres of authority in the world, which scripture teaches. God operates through authority with Him at the top. Egalitarianism eliminates that and, therefore, distorts and debilitates everything. Satan wants this, because it is a way for him to get his way in the world.
God Designed Spheres
Related to the teaching of scripture, “sphere” typically refers to a distinct area of life or influence, calling individuals to live according to God’s principles, often associated with the concept of “sphere sovereignty.” This means each sphere (like family, government, church) has its own authority and should not overstep into other spheres, while still remaining under God’s ultimate sovereignty. The Bible declares everywhere the spheres and emphasizes this authority structure in many different ways. God is said to be the Highest.
The earth is the Lord’s (Psalm 24:1). Men are stewards. Paul uses the term for the galley slave or the under rower (1 Corinthians 4:1-2). Almost all his epistles start with “Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ.”
One hears authority structure right away in the Bible in chapter 1 with what some named “the cultural mandate.” Man subdues and has dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26-27). God does this Himself and creates man in His image to follow this same way of life.
Supremacy
A common biblical Christian concept is the supremacy of Christ. What does this mean? First, He is Lord. His lordship places believers under Him. Subordination is part of believing in Him. This is not an egalitarian relationship. What I’m communicating is how that the whole world operates in hierarchy. The Godhead itself models this, as seen in 1 Corinthians 11:3:
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
The head of Christ is God. Jesus portrays that willingly on earth, where repeatedly He says and does something seen in almost every chapter of John (5:30):
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
On the other hand, Jesus says in the same chapter (5:27):
And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
Not Inferiority
The hierarchy does not mean inferiority. It’s God’s design. Someone submits based on God’s design. He set up this system. Paul communicates this in Romans 13:1-7, here the first two verses:
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
God ordained and revealed this authority. What is it? These are the spheres. This was basic at one time. Egalitarianism seeks to destroy that and eliminate these institutions God uses to fulfill His moral will. Satan attacks on these, even as seen in the Garden of Eden, when he undermined Adam’s authority by targeting Eve. In a way, I think I’m insulting your intelligence with this information, except that the breakdown today occurs now everywhere.
God Set Up the Structure
What I’m explaining is about God. He set up this structure. It is part of His order. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:40: “Let all things be done decently and in order.” He lays this out in the chapter. Everything in God’s creation has an order and His creation follows it for His pleasure.
Part of the curse of sin is not following the structure, the hierarchy God created. This ruins a ruined earth even more than it is. Egalitarianism is a major feature of this. Now, you may ask, what if someone under the authority, below a person above him or her, is just not as good? I would answer, Good question! God requires trust, faith in the way that He laid it out.
Merit or Reward
What about a merit system? More than ever today, I hear, “Meritocracy.” In many ways, meritocracy itself is either a Trojan horse or a fools errand. It’s not a starting point. However, it is also not an excuse at all not to do your best. Scripture teaches a reward system, invented by God. However, it isn’t the intellectually dominant position that God rewards.
In the kingdom of Jesus Christ, positions will come because of faithfulness. The reward relates to the kingdom and positions in the kingdom, but it’s biblical (not voluntary — Colossians 2:18) humility and faith. Both of those do not clash with, actually correspond to, obedience and hard work. Some people have a lot of knowledge, but they are not obeying the truth. The wisdom of this world deceives and fools them. True wisdom comes from above and humility and submission are necessary to receive it (Proverbs 1-7).
Someone must trust God when he or she thinks he’s under someone less smart than him or her self. God has a plan and he very often doesn’t use the smartest person to do it. It reminds me of Edison’s credo, “Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.” You can make your inferior leader do better and he gets the credit. That sounds like a plan.
Choosing Leaders
When people can choose their leaders, they should pick wise ones, not necessarily the smartest ones. In Deuteronomy 1:13-15, God instructs the Israelites to choose wise, understanding, and respected men from each tribe to lead them. Psalm 72 describes the responsibilities of a righteous leader. Pastors are not perfect people, but they must meet qualifications. Deacons prove themselves by their diligent service.
Egalitarianism is not humble. It is proud. It rebels against the plan of God in this world. It’s not smart, because the wisdom of God is greater than men. Again the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:27 says, “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.” It is a paradox like so much of what God designed. Sometimes it is not the sharpest tools in the drawer that God uses to do great things.
Egalitarianism Unbiblical
The founders of America built it on biblical values. Egalitarianism is not a biblical value. Bernard Dobski writes:
The careful balance produced by our mixed republic is threatened by an egalitarianism that undermines the social, familial, religious, and economic distinctions and inequalities that undergird our political liberty.
He continues:
In America, equality it is not just left to political power; all aspects of human life fall under the homogenizing influence of our addiction to egalitarianism. Indeed, the democratic assault on our Constitution’s republican character does not begin its attack politically. It begins much more subtly, gradually replacing our taste of and appreciation for distinctions of any kind—be they within our familial, educational, civic, or religious lives—with a demand, more powerful by the day, for an equality of outcome.
Today, this is reflected in the participation trophies handed out at youth sporting events where everyone “wins” a trophy regardless of whether their team won or lost—that is, when the parents and coaches even bother to keep score.
More to Come
Biblical Equality and the Societally Destructive Lie of Egalitarianism
Right now I’ve got two major series still alive that I will continue, one on the one Bible doctrine (parts one, two, three, four, five) and the other on the crucial explanation of belief in evangelism (parts one, two, three, four, five). Feel free to click on the links and read these two series. I’m not done with them. They’ll continue, but today I’ll talk about something else. Enjoy.
*******************************
Terminology
When someone says equality and egalitarianism today, one most likely thinks of sex or gender, the relationship between men and women. This corresponds to the primary usage of the terminology. Egalitarianism became the contrasting word or philosophy to complementarianism. This traces back to the late 1970s and the new women’s studies departments in secular universities, as a part of “social science,” which also redefines science.
Complementarianism as a terminology did not emerge from Christians, as church leaders began borrowing the term to describe God’s design for men and women. It first arises in women’s studies to explain the dynamics of authority in a family, where complementarianism was also called conventionalism. Naturalist feminists would characterize complementarianism as the inferior complementing the superior.
Christians did not use “complementarian” until the 1990s, when theologians began borrowing the term from feminist literature. The theological writers used complementarian to project a Christian view of equality of roles between men and women. They thought even egalitarians would appreciate men and women complementing one another. At that point no one would claim that men and women did not complement one another. The original idea of complementarianism was communicating equality to women, that they are free and equal to men as wives and mothers.
Emergence of Complementarianism
I never grew up hearing the word “complementarian.” Such a term did not exist in churches. The first I heard it was when the 1991 Grudem and Piper edited book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, came out. I bought it, read it, and used material from it. Then I did not take the time to consider the history of this issue, which is important. Complementarianism made sense and I took it as a historical biblical position. It isn’t. In fact, it is, as the sub-heading indicates, “A Response to Evangelical Feminism.” Complementarianism is not historical biblical faith.
The original point of Christian complementarianism was not hierarchy in the family, but equality. The appropriation of complementarian terminology from feminist women’s studies intended to give women more freedom than they already possessed in families and churches. It emphasized equality. Naturalists could agree that nature gave the sexes more variety than inequality, that both sexes are equally sensible but in complementary ways.
Complementarianism and Egalitarianism
Professing Christian writer Rebecca Groothius backs what I’m writing, albeit for different reasons, with this paragraph in her 1997 book, Women Caught in the Conflict:
The confusion that can result when tradition collides with social change is exemplified by the effort to retain the tradition of male authority (hierarchy) by couching it in terms compatible with contemporary psychological and theological ideas about the equality of men and women (complementarity).
Theologians and preachers repackaged biblical marriage roles in secular feminist and psychological terminology. It sounded good, complementarianism, but it was actually deposing biblical patriarchy and sending a unique male role into oblivion. Things have digressed much further than these earlier iterations of complementarianism.
Displacing God
Egalitarianism is a much larger subject than marriage roles and hierarchy within family. It relates to complete elimination of a biblical or truly Christian view of authority. At a root level, it displaces God Himself in society.
As a part of his plan to overturn God’s will and way, Satan intervenes and corrupts through the family, but as a means overall he attacks God like we see in the Garden of Eden and the fall of mankind. He targets God using God’s highest creation. The world God created functions according to God designed hierarchy with God at the top of a gigantic flow chart. God made the institutions and intends for His creation to operate according to them.
Unity or Oneness
Scripture doesn’t use the terminology equality so in a sense equality itself is a misnomer. I started the title with Biblical equality. Scripture communicates “oneness” or two or more “are one” (John 10:30, 17:22; 1 John 5:7). The same idea comes with the expressions, “are one body” or “are one bread” (Rom 12:5, 1 Cor 10:17, 12:12). The English word “unity” is found three times in the King James Version, twice in the New Testament, both in Ephesians 4. It translates the word, henotes, which means, “a state of oneness or of being in harmony and accord.”
Perhaps you use or have used the words, “one in essence,” to communicate equality. I say, “Man and woman are equal in essence,” and I take that from Galatians 5:28:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
This is the only time this “one in Christ” idea is expressed, except for John 17:21, where Jesus prays, “that they also may be one in us.” The position in Christ makes people “one,” which is unified. God created both male and female in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27).
Hierarchy
The oneness is real, but it does not diminish the distinctions of rule, authority, and someone being “over you” (Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24). Many references communicate this idea of another person “over you.” The Bible expresses it in a number of different ways. It declares obedience and treatment of the employer, the parent, the husband, the government, and the pastor. In Genesis 3:16 God says, “he shall rule over thee.” When Jacob blessed Jacob, who impersonated his son Esau, he said in Genesis 27:29:
Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.
This was his mindset. Jesus says in John 15:20:
The servant is not greater than his lord.
Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:3, “the head of the woman is the man.” In John 10:29, Jesus says, “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all.”
Categories of Hierarchy
Oneness does not clash with the truth of authority, headship, obedience, submission, and subordination. Actually, when someone understands his God ordained position, either made in the image of God or one in and with Christ, he can and will submit. The security of the position gives confidence and strength to submit or obey authority or the head. This is the will of God.
Scripture provides two important categories of hierarchy. One, God places men in positions of authority that He lays out in scripture. He rules according to these positions. Rebelling against them rebels against God. Two, God stays above everything through His truth, goodness, and beauty. This is how we “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). If it violates His truth, His goodness, or His beauty, we obey that rather than the person in the position. This isn’t personal opinion, but the authority of the Word of God.
More to Come
Crucial to a Gospel Presentation: Explain Belief (part five)
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
Explaining Belief
In my experience, which includes a very large sample size over several decades now, people can understand a biblical explanation of belief. I say to a person, “Jesus did everything that needed to be done for you to be saved, but how do you receive the benefits of what He did? Scripture shows only one way and that is, you must believe in Jesus Christ.”
Many will and do say that they believe in Jesus Christ. A majority of Americans will say they believe in Jesus Christ, when asked. Yet, “What does it mean to believe in Jesus Christ?” First though, it is true that you must believe in Jesus Christ. Scripture teaches this requirement, “believe in Jesus Christ,” and I could go for thirty plus minutes showing verses that teach that.
What It’s Not
Before I explain what it means to believe in Jesus Christ, I make this point: “It is by belief in Jesus Christ, and not by works.” To understand belief in Jesus Christ, the evangelist must contrast belief from works, which scripture does all over the place. Belief and works are mutually exclusive. You are either saved by believing or by working, not both. If it’s works, then someone must live a perfect life, which he can’t. Someone will not understand belief in Jesus Christ unless he understands the relationship of works to belief.
Once I eliminate works as an option, I will ask again, “What does it mean to believe in Jesus Christ?” Not only is belief not works, but it is also not mere intellectual assent to facts, like putting a check in a box. This means that neither is it mindless repetition of words with or after someone, simply saying, “I believe in Jesus Christ.”
Aspects of Belief
When I explain belief in Jesus Christ, I don’t go into a long doctrinal dissertation, proving that belief is both intellectual, emotional, and volitional. It is those three, and you can prove that with various passages for each of those aspects. This is also the history of Christian doctrine of salvation. It is said, belief is, the Latin, notitia, assensus, and fiducia. Notitia is the knowledge, assensus is the volition or commitment, and fiducia is the trust or reliance. All three go hand in hand, not to be separated from one another, like truth and love go together.
As you read this, you might think, “You’re making this too hard. What about ‘God’s simple plan of salvation?'” Scripture doesn’t say salvation is simple. I’m not saying it isn’t. I think it is, but it isn’t less than what scripture says that it is. The evangelist should not leave out something indispensable to a scriptural understanding.
Scriptural Requirement for True Belief
The Bible does say that there is a belief that does not save. This is quite common that someone falls short of a scriptural requirement for true belief in Jesus Christ. I say that men purposefully leave out the hard part, the least popular aspects that are the biggest reason for not getting a desired response.
Imagine this: “They’re not going to like this about Jesus Christ, so I’m not going to say it.” What’s not to like about Jesus Christ? People are not saved by believing in a Jesus that’s just acceptable to them. He’s got to be who He is. Another aspect to the object of faith is the Deity of Jesus Christ. Jesus is God.
Deity of Christ
Usually when I explain the Deity of Christ, I do it at the point that I say, “Jesus died for you” or “Jesus paid the penalty for your sins.” I say, “Let’s say that I wanted to die for you, and I think I would, but my death wouldn’t do anything for you — it couldn’t save you. Why? Because I’m a sinner. I deserve the penalty for sin myself. I can’t pay for yours, because I deserve my own.”
Well, who could pay the penalty for sin? A perfect person. A sinless person. Who could do that? What man could do that? Only Jesus Christ, because He is God. He is sinless, because He is God.
I briefly explain the Trinity at this point in the conversation and quote or go to verses on Jesus’ Deity. If someone does not believe that Jesus is God, then He does not believe in Jesus Christ. I include with that modalists, like the apostolics. They have not the doctrine of Christ, so they have not God (2 John 1:9). An evangelist must go much deeper and further on this subject if he is talking to a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon, people like that.
Even if you are talking to a Hindu, you’ve got to differentiate a true belief in Jesus as God and the Hindu version that puts Jesus on the shelf with other gods. The true identity of Jesus Christ is that He is God. Again, saving belief must have the proper object and part of that is that Jesus is God.
More to Come
What Is the “False Doctrine” of Only One Text of the Bible? (Part Five)
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
So, no apology is necessary for saying there’s one Bible. Why? There’s one Bible. Is that Bible the King James Version? It is the underlying text. I recently heard someone say, the underlying text for the King James Version text didn’t happen until 1881. That’s someone not telling the truth. He’s at least not speaking to those who don’t believe that. He’s talking to his echo chamber or those who know little about the underlying text. It is not steelmanning the opposition, but purposeful misrepresentation — a work of the flesh. Call it what you want.
I’ve said again and again, the King James translators translated from something. They translated. The King James translators weren’t making the words up. The many English commentators for those centuries after the King James Version didn’t treat the translation like a text didn’t exist. They commented on that text, because they possessed it.
Men who didn’t write commentaries knew the original languages and they were preaching from a text they believe was kept pure through all the ages. They believed that because God promised it. So it wasn’t? By faith we understand that it was.
Recognition of Textual Variants
A fourth concern I’ve heard is the reality that church men have long recognized textual variants and acknowledged their existence. I don’t know who doesn’t know this. Since we know that variations exist between printed editions of the Greek New Testament, then we know scribal errors were made in hand copies. Come on! This is a red herring!
Our scriptural presupposition is not that individual manuscripts or printed editions are perfect. It isn’t even the ink or parchment, one perfect physical manuscript that survives from the beginning. The opposite. We believe in the perfect preservation and availability of the words of scripture. That’s what the Bible talks about. Godly church leaders called this, an error in one copy is corrected in another.
Error in One Copy Corrected in Another
Richard Capel wrote:
[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . .
As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.
Another presupposition is attack on scripture. Sometimes errors are purposeful. It took the providential handiwork of God to ensure preservation occurred through the means revealed in scripture.
Gaslit Arguments
Critical Text New Consensus, Voice of Holy Spirit
Certain various arguments seem like gaslighting to me. Here’s one: the critical text is or could be the consensus text among believers now, and this is the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking. I don’t think anyone really believes this. What’s wrong with it though, if anyone even takes it seriously?
Preservation means availability. A text not available isn’t preserved. The critical text isn’t a text that ever existed. It’s a “Frankentext” with hundreds of lines of text with no manuscript evidence. It was not available.
The church believed in perfect preservation and agreed on the text. It was settled. Modernism came up with a new text based on rationalism. That wasn’t the Holy Spirit or the church.
You don’t have something preserved, that’s the Holy Spirit, and then men replace it and now that’s the Holy Spirit. A close parallel would be restorationism. That means something is lost and the Holy Spirit returns it to what it was. The modern text doesn’t proceed from preservation or agreement of the church. It is an invention used just for what seems like gaslighting from people who don’t believe in any of what they’re saying.
English Prejudice?
Another faux argument considers an accused English prejudice. Again, these are all just reactions to already established scriptural presuppositions. Reformation era Dutch, German, Spanish, and French translations come from slightly different TR editions that some say belie a settled text or perfect preservation. Why English and not these other language translations?
Other major world languages have the similarity of all with long-time translations from the Hebrew Masoretic for the Old Testament and Textus Receptus for the New. None of them translated a critical text. That narrows it down to essentially the same text, but it’s true that each of them does not translate from an identical text. For some critical text supporters, this apparently opens a gap to drive through a critical text. To them, this must needs indicate some level of eclecticism or acceptance of it.
Again, I don’t think the critics are serious when they make the accusations of English prejudice toward an apparent bias toward the King James Version. English speaking people are embracing the King James Version. Those supportive of the King James Version also celebrate the availability of these Reformed era translations from essentially the same underlying text. They are happy about the similarity and the availability. They’re all much better than a modern critical text. There isn’t fighting between these various language translations all from the similar text.
Critical text supporters and King James critics are the ones highlighting the few differences in underlying text. They’re doing this only to undermine a doctrine of perfect preservation. They’re also trying to make it an issue of English prejudice, which there isn’t.
Why the King James?
I hate answering this question, because I doubt the sincerity of those asking. They don’t believe in the same presuppositions or even the same source for the contradictory presuppositions. I’ve been asked many insincere questions, especially teaching jr. high for decades in our school. Those kids liked asking the same type of questions to attempt to pit the teacher against their parents.
Maybe some KJV supporters have an English bias. Myself and many, if not most, don’t have one. I am just reading and calling what happened. Biblical Christianity took hold through the English and then the English sent missionaries to the whole world. English in fact became the lingua franca of the whole world. It would be like saying that there was a Roman bias for a thousand years. No, the Roman Empire ruled the then-known world. It’s just reality. The dollar is the world reserve currency. Neither is this an English bias.
Scriptural presuppositions require a settled text. To believe what God said on this, people have to bite down on what occurred. It’s like acknowledging fulfilled prophecies. What God said would happen did occur in the real world. Believing requires accepting this. If acceptance or reception (the canonicity argument) and the testimony of the Holy Spirit through believers direct to the very words, then there must be those words. It really isn’t a hard call to say it’s the English. This isn’t a prejudice. It is a conclusion. Faith requires a conclusion. Rejecting that is faithless.
More to Come
What Is the “False Doctrine” of Only One Text of the Bible? (Part Four)
Most of what we believe occurs like the following. One, we read the Bible with a grammatical, historical interpretation or hear right preaching of the Bible. Two, we believe what we read or hear and that becomes our beliefs. Three, we look for the fulfillment of scripture in the only world to live it, the real one here on earth. Four, we apply the Bible by practicing it according to the right thinking of and about it.
In its context, the Bible teaches its own perfect preservation in the language in which it was written. There really is no other kind of preservation in the Bible. Something less than perfect is in fact not preservation. If it is not the language in which God gave scripture, that’s not preserving what He gave. He gave it in that language for a reason. It would communicate what He wanted.
Preservation
Because scripture teaches the perfect preservation of this one Book and all of its individual Words, then we believe that. Then we look for its fulfillment. I am open to fulfillment of scripture that is not what I think, an alternative to it. I have not heard anything close to an acceptable alternative. The fulfillment I believe glove fits what I see in the Bible. It happened like God said. Sure, we’re missing some of the historical detail, but that’s normal in belief, which corresponds to faith is not by sight.
When I go to apply what I believe about the preservation of scripture, I can see that it is the Hebrew Masoretic for the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus for the New Testament, based on all the scriptural presuppositions. What Mark Ward says does not move me, because he never starts with scriptural presuppositions, even in his rare 1 Corinthians 14 exegesis, which would apply only to translation anyway, not the doctrine of preservation.
The List Again
For easier reading and review, this series left off covering the following five points, concerns expressed for awhile by Mark Ward, for which he prays for an apology:
- One, they don’t sufficiently acknowledge archaic English in the King James Version, semantic changes, the worst of which Ward calls “false friends.”
- Two, they say God preserved every Word in the original language text, but they won’t point out the preserved printed edition of the Textus Receptus that represents that.
- Three, they keep using the King James Version, so making the Bible opaque to the average reader, even though modern versions from the same underlying text are available.
- Four, they won’t admit that church men have long recognized textual variants and acknowledged their existence.
- Five, the underlying text behind the King James Version didn’t exist in a single edition until Scrivener in the late 19th century, who himself didn’t support the Textus Receptus.
This is not Ward’s official list. I’m making it his list from what I’ve read of him, and I’m now to number three.
Modern Versions of the Same Text as the King James Version Are Available
Ward concludes that unwillingness to embrace a modern version of the same text as the King James Version indicates some kind of deceit on the part of those who claim dependence on the underlying text of the King James Version. If underlying text is really the issue, men can and should switch translation to a more readable or intelligible one. Ward has a bit of a point here. What’s with these men still using the King James Version with a hundred or more unintelligible English words? He contends that using a definition list of the difficult words or marginal notes doesn’t cut it.
Misunderstood words is a problem for a translation. When translators work at translating, they do have the audience in mind. First, they try to translate exactly the meaning of the word and according to its usage in the context. The King James translators did that, but some of the words now mean something different to a contemporary English audience or they mean almost nothing at all.
An Explanation of Translation
As a preacher of the Bible to English speaking people, I explain to my audience what the original author intended for either the Hebrew or the Greek. Right now I’m preaching through three books: Sunday morning, Matthew, Sunday night, Genesis, and Wednesday night, Revelation. This is my second time in my life through Matthew, fourth through Genesis 1-12, and at least fifth through Revelation. I’m going to give you just one sample from the texts I preached on Sunday in Genesis 3. I talked about Genesis 3:8, which says this in the King James Version:
And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.
I mention just one word — the word “cool.” Isn’t it cool that this is the first use of the word “cool” in the Bible? So cool. “Cool” translates the Hebrew, ruach, which is almost always “wind.” It is also the Hebrew word that refers to the Holy Spirit. It does. So is “cool” the right translation of ruach? Did the KJV translators get it wrong with “cool.”
Ruach
The word ruach comes with an article, so it is “the cool.” It is not “a cool.” It isn’t just any cool at this juncture in the early history of the world. It refers to one particular time in the day when a breeze would blow through the Garden where Adam and Eve lived. That breeze made the temperature more cool at a particular time that Moses’ audience and people living on earth, reading this, would understand. The sun would set, which caused a breeze. It’s not so much to communicate the temperature though as it did to describe a time Adam and Eve would meet with God.
Shouldn’t people know that “cool” was a breeze or a wind? Is “cool” really better? The NIV, ESV, NASB, and the NKJV all translate ruach here “cool,” even though it is a very exceptional translation. Would an English reader, who doesn’t look at the Hebrew, know that “wind” was involved? I would say, “No, they would not.” They wouldn’t know that. This happens a lot too and far more times in an English translation than a hundred times. Is it is sin? Of course not.
The word God inspired is ruach, which is also what He preserved. That’s the major issue for me. Every translation will still require digging to understand it. I don’t think one hundred English words now with semantical changes change the dynamics enough to merit a new translation, especially in light of the glut of English translations. I want to explain that, as I have many times before.
Weighing Reasons
As much as semantical changes might give a reason for another translation of the same underlying text of the King James Version, reasons also exist for not doing it. Men weigh those reasons against each other.
One, the King James Version is a standard.
Two, churches accepted and accept the King James Version for centuries.
Three, the King James Version passed the test of time.
Four, it should not be easy to change the Bible.
Five, churches are familiar with the language of the King James Version and it becomes the lingua franca of a church.
Six, churches memorize the King James Version and a new translation would upend that to a large degree.
Seven, churches who believe in the underlying text of the King James Version would agree to do that among them or from their midst (not based on critical text supporters like Mark Ward goading them).
Eight, churches would need to cohere to a monumental task to provide a new standard.
A Conclusion
Having weighed reasons, I don’t believe King James Version churches are ready for a new translation or update. I think I would know that as well as almost anyone. The kind of talk I have in this piece is not something Mark Ward deals with. What I’m saying is real. It matters. Ignoring it is unhelpful and even condescending. It does not smack of Spirit control.
More to Come
Crucial to a Gospel Presentation: Explain Belief (part four)
Actual Lord Jesus Christ
For faith to be saving faith, the person must place the faith in the actual Lord Jesus Christ. This means He is the Christ, not an impostor. It is not saving faith if it does not direct toward the saving object, which is the Lord Jesus Christ. Accompanying this necessarily, the faith must attune to the Person of Jesus Christ. He is not Christ if the said “belief” does not acquiesce to the reign and lordship of Jesus Christ and relinquish the personal will and way. This is in essence the offering of “self” or one’s soul to God. Scripture explicates all of this paragraph.
Believing that Jesus is the Christ is not something arbitrary. He becomes the Christ to the person who believes in Him. That means the one believing in Jesus Christ abdicates his throne to Jesus Christ. The person who believes in Jesus Christ is not on the throne of his own heart, but Christ is. When the Apostle Paul received Christ, he said immediately, “What wilt thou have me to do?” (Acts 9:6)
Count One’s Life as Loss or Deny Self
When the Apostle Paul later testifies about his conversion, he says that he counted everything as loss and dung that he might win Christ (Philippians 3:8). Paul is saying that you do have to count you and the best of you as loss and dung. This is the denying self of Luke 9:23. You can’t believe in Jesus Christ and yourself. Jesus can’t be put on an altar with all someone’s other gods, including himself.
The way of Jesus Christ is in contradiction to the way of you. You’ve got to leave you in order to have Him. You can’t have both. This is the same challenge of the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:16-22 (Mark 10:17-22, Luke 18:18-30). You don’t need to give all of your money to the poor to be saved. No, but if you believe in Jesus Christ like he said he did, then you can give up everything for him. If you don’t, then you don’t believe in Him. You can’t serve idols and Jesus both.
People conflate what I’m explaining to “salvation by works,” even “frontloading works.” Works aren’t involved at all. This is just biblical faith. Saving faith is exclusive. It must be in Jesus Christ, so He must be Jesus Christ. If He is Jesus Christ, then He is Christ and He is Lord. Christ and Lord means control and ownership. You are giving yourself up, so that He is the owner. This is the commitment of believing that is the volitional aspect of faith.
More Than Intellectual Assent to Facts
Faith is more than intellectual assent to facts, essentially head knowledge alone. This is like the check in the box. As I explain the above and state that saving faith is not just intellectual or even worse, just emotional, what is different about faith that includes volition? This goes along with two things Jesus said that are parallel or synonymous with saving faith: (1) Follow me, and (2) Lose your life for my sake. Jesus said among other places in Matthew 16:25:
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.
“Lose it” or “shall lose his life for my sake” is not meaningless. It’s not that we can’t know what Jesus is talking about. We should assume we can know. This is that relinquishing of your will or your way. It dovetails with repentance. You can’t keep going your way and get to heaven. Anyone who comes after him must deny himself (Luke 9:23).
When Jesus talked about the gospel or salvation with the woman at the well in John 4, He told her that God the Father sought such to worship Him and to worship Him in spirit and in truth. What does worship have to do with salvation? The first act of worship is the offering of your soul to God, what Psalm 23:3 and Psalm 19:7 call the restoring of the soul or the converting of the soul. God takes the real you and restores you or converts you, but to do so, He must have you. He wants you. Faith offers the soul to God. This is believing He is Christ and Lord.
More to Come
What Is the “False Doctrine” of Only One Text of the Bible? (Part Two)
The average non-church going person and even church goers see the glut of English Bibles and often say, “There are different Bibles.” I’ve heard it dozens of times through the years. Is that true? Is there really more than one Bible? The answer is “no.” God inspired only one Bible, certain exact words, and then He also preserved one Bible with the same exact words in the same language in which they were written. The so-called existence of “many Bibles” undermines authority for the one and only Bible. Believing in one Bible doesn’t require an apology. That belief is a true one.
An Apology
Mark Ward just wrote the following:
One of my life’s long-term prayers is that someone of stature within KJV-Only circles will publicly apologize for promoting false doctrine.
Then he explained the reason:
Ultimately God only knows what moral culpability individuals bear for teaching things that aren’t true and thereby dividing the body of Christ. God only knows who is a victim and who is a perpetrator, or what proportions of perpetrator and victim a given person represents. But I just can’t imagine that all this untruth and division that’s been generated by KJV-Onlyism could occur without individual people sinning—sinning against the teaching of 1 Cor 14 that edification requires intelligibility, sinning against commands for unity and for sound doctrine, sinning against God’s providential opportunities for doing better study.
In part one, I examined Ward’s charge of division for which he prays for an apology. Above you can also see he charges men with not telling the truth. That I know of, I haven’t taught anything on this subject that isn’t true. No one has shown me one thing that I’ve said that is false, which is an important prerequisite for apologizing about saying something not true. That’s all I can say on that part as an answer to Mark Ward’s prayer. He’ll have to get more specific with me if he wants that particular apology. I’m a phone call away for any apology if he’s been praying for one.
Logic and Ambiguity
In recent days, Ward declared that KJVO leaders sin for having the KJV as their church Bible. For you reading, who don’t know much about Ward, this explains his use of 1 Corinthians 14. There is a kind of syllogism that with Ward gets this to the sin category for me and others. I’m trying to help you understand Ward’s thinking here. I’ve made his logic into a syllogism.
Major Premise: Knowing to do good and not doing good is sin.
Minor Premise: Edification is good and because unintelligibility prohibits edification, allowing or causing unintelligibility is not doing good.
Conclusion: Therefore, allowing or causing unintelligibility is sin.
I can agree with the soundness of the syllogism. What’s wrong? There’s an informal logical fallacy called, equivocation.
The equivocation fallacy refers to the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in more than one sense within the same argument. Because this change of meaning happens without warning, it renders the argument invalid or even misleading.
Intelligibility and unintelligibility of themselves are ambiguous. Like many other words and even concepts in scripture, someone can make them mean what he wants them to mean. A believer should define a word in scripture based on how the author uses it. Mark Ward defines intelligibility in a particular way that does not fit 1 Corinthians 14. Many people have explained that to him. I haven’t seen him listen on this and almost anything else. He has a bias toward his own thinking.
Language and 1 Corinthians 14
Paul portrayed a situation in 1 Corinthians 14 where someone spoke in an unknown language. People couldn’t understand it without a translator. Only with an accurate translation could someone understand a foreign language. The conclusion: stop speaking in an unknown or foreign language. There it is.
1 Corinthians 14 is in a three chapter section (12-14) on spiritual gifts. It especially deals with an abuse of the gift of tongues. The actual gift of tongues, as seen in Acts 2, means known languages. The point is understanding the language. Those chapters are not about semantical changes in the same language, but about reining in the abuse of tongues.
Semantic changes occur in the Bible itself and the Bible doesn’t sin when it does that or allows it. Words change in meaning as one reads through the Bible itself. Sometimes the progression of the biblical narrative results in some changes in meaning.
I’m not writing to protect semantic changes in an English translation of God’s perfectly preserved words. We want to know what those words mean and all the other ones too. 1 Corinthians 14 deals mainly with speaking in gibberish, that is, in a language that can’t be know at all. It’s not even a language. That doesn’t edify.
Real Concerns
Even if someone spoke an actual foreign language in a miraculous way, he wouldn’t edify the hearers if they didn’t know the language. That or unintelligible gibberish is the context of verse 9, when Paul says, “utter by the tongue words easy to be understood.” He is not talking about a word here and there of the same language as the hearers, which has endured a semantic change. Edification would still occur with that. I’m not saying it’s not a problem. It is. But it isn’t a sin.
Calling sin the continued endorsement of the King James Version as the English Bible for a church is such an exaggeration, so excessive, by Mark Ward, that it reminds me of the games Pharisees played with words, as recorded in the Gospels. It is blowing a concern way out of proportion.
I’ve written a lot about this through the years, but my bigger concern is a distortion of the gospel and perverted preaching. Many, many who use the King James Version for decades and longer have preached a false gospel and now for half a century at least have just used the King James. It’s not because of archaic words that they do this. They do it because of perverted theology and probably in many instances a lack of conversion. I hear almost nothing about that from Mark Ward. No. Even when he is with someone who massacres the true gospel, he says nothing as long as that person gives an inch on his false friend teaching.
More to Come
What Is the “False Doctrine” of Only One Text of the Bible?
Honest Discussion?
It seems we have to get basic here, like when one would interview someone to make sure his testimony is accurate or sure. Have you been in one of those situations before? I’ve been in them. You are working on a project with other people and someone is not fulfilling his part of the whole. When you talk to him, you can’t seem to get a straight answer. You know something is wrong.
Something is wrong in the discussion on the text issue, because the same flashing lights go off for me that do in any kind of dialogue. I know that some of you reading don’t like this assessment. I don’t want you to read between the lines. Something is dishonest in this discussion or conversation. I’ve seen and known this for awhile.
The two sides of the textual debate very often cannot get or come together because it’s not an honest conversation between two groups or two people. If you are on the other side of this, you can say that you don’t like to hear this, or “how dare someone question your honesty?” I’m not trying to take a cheap shot. The interaction on the issue of the text of the Bible reads like a shady situation based on my experience. The dishonesty bells go off.
We live in a day when people can represent something in a less than straightforward manner and yet call it straightforward. This environment makes it easier to continue in the shadow realm. I see it everywhere and it’s happening with this discussion on the biblical text too. Language and terminology has lost some of its meaning and in certain cases, all of its meaning. Philosophers and theologians are calling this today “a crisis of meaning.”
Prayer for Apology
The youtuber Mark Ward wrote a post this last week on his blog, entitled, “I Pray for an Apology from Leaders or Institutions in KJV-Onlyism.” I’ve never prayed for an apology like that before, so it’s foreign to me. It doesn’t even sound like a prayer request, even if it is just a desire that is stated as a prayer. It means, “I hope for an apology” or “I’d like an apology.” I often have a desire for repentance from someone and it is about God and His Word, but not a personal apology. “I pray for an apology” sounds more like a whine or complaint from someone whose feelings are hurt.
I’d be first in line to offer an apology to someone who wants it. Always, however, I need to know what it is I’m apologizing for or it wouldn’t be sincere. It could be one of those “I’m sorry you’ve been offended” apologies that really apologizes for nothing.
Ward started his post with this line:
One of my life’s long-term prayers is that someone of stature within KJV-Only circles will publicly apologize for promoting false doctrine.
KJVO False Doctrine
Depending on what “KJV-Only” means, a person could promote false doctrine. I join Ward in not liking that either, although I don’t yearn or pray for an apology. False doctrine would contradict or pervert what the Bible teaches and in this case what it teaches about itself. Certain KJVO doctrine is false doctrine.
Double inspiration is false doctrine. God stopped inspiring scripture in the first century. He completed that task. Even what I have called, “English preservationism,” is false doctrine. God didn’t promise to preserve His Words using a translation. He didn’t. There was no English Bible until Wycliffe in the 14th century. If someone wants to talk about doctrine, I’m thankful and happy to do that. I would welcome a doctrinal conversation with Ward or others, but I predict he would want only a very narrow one with only his pet edification-requires-intelligibility issue. Even that I would gladly talk about in an honest way with Ward.
Subject of Apology
Regarding doctrine, Ward mentions the following in his I-wanna-apology post:
Ultimately God only knows what moral culpability individuals bear for teaching things that aren’t true and thereby dividing the body of Christ. God only knows who is a victim and who is a perpetrator, or what proportions of perpetrator and victim a given person represents. But I just can’t imagine that all this untruth and division that’s been generated by KJV-Onlyism could occur without individual people sinning—sinning against the teaching of 1 Cor 14 that edification requires intelligibility, sinning against commands for unity and for sound doctrine, sinning against God’s providential opportunities for doing better study.
That’s it. This represents the false doctrine for which Mark Ward wants an apology.
I don’t know what I’ve said or taught on the version issue that is not true. For sure, I’m open to possibility, but I don’t know of anything of this nature. Just the opposite, I teach the position I do, because I see it in the Bible. Ward doesn’t take that same approach. However, before I address that fully, I want to respond to the accusation that men like myself are not telling the truth. I see that as the absolute opposite and have a difficult time not believing that Mark Ward already knows he’s not telling the truth about this. He at least, I believe, sets the truth on a sliding scale in his own dealings with doctrine and practice.
Racking the Brain for an Apology
The kind of things I hear from Ward in some of his videos, which count to him apparently as men not telling the truth, to me sound like actual straw men. Here’s what I’ve heard.
- One, they don’t sufficiently acknowledge archaic English in the King James Version, semantic changes, the worst of which Ward calls “false friends.”
- Two, they say God preserved every Word in the original language text, but they won’t point out the preserved printed edition of the Textus Receptus that represents that.
- Three, they keep using the King James Version, so making the Bible opaque to the average reader, even though modern versions from the same underlying text are available.
- Four, they won’t admit that church men have long recognized textual variants and acknowledged their existence.
- Five, the underlying text behind the King James Version didn’t exist in a single edition until Scrivener in the late 19th century, who himself didn’t support the Textus Receptus.
If I’m missing something, it’s not on purpose, but this is what I get when I read through Ward herbal tea leaves. I want to deal at least those five, but, first, to the ones in Mark’s above paragraph. I’ll probably come back to the five in my last paragraph in another post.
Practice Apology
First though, Mark Ward says KJVO need to apologize because they divide the body of Christ. Just as a thought experiment, I am going to practice a public apology, one that Ward would want from all the division causers, none of which has the name, Mark Ward. He is the source of heavenly unity, as someone might say, this side of glory. Here goes.
Everyone, listen up. I’ve got to say something. I want to make a public apology, a mea culpa of sorts. What I’ve done wrong is cause division on the KJVO issue. Whatsoever version anyone uses — whatever underlying text, translation philosophy, acceptance, or quality — should not result in separation, and yet I’ve said that someone should separate over that.
I’ve written it too. People at least have gotten a strong impression from me that the version issue is a separating issue, and it is not!! Use whatever version of the Bible you want with not a whit, a crumb, of judgement from me. My judgment-o-meter dial will not move, not even a tremor. I confess this under the category of the sin of causing division.
Could I or would I make that apology? No. I would not believe it.
Separation and Unity and Division
I’ve written about the subject of separation and unity for a long time and back before Mark Ward graduated from seminary. Division comes from those with the new doctrine, not those who held to the original position. In addition, separation in scripture is not heresy or causing division. The Bible teaches separation over more than just “gospel issues.”
Probably no one in the world or in all of history has written more on this subject than me. You have to understand biblical unity before you understand separation, but both harmonize. The unity between the Father and the Son in John 17 was on everything in scripture. They didn’t disagree on anything, and that’s the same unity God wants for His people. You don’t get biblical unity without separation over false doctrine and practice.
When the Bible warns against heresy, factions, or unscriptural division, it is a diversion off the biblical and historical position. When someone teaches something unbiblical and so men separate from that false teacher and his teaching, that is biblical separation, not heresy. Some of the new books that attack the one Bible doctrine or perfect preservation of scripture react to the already established doctrine. They are not presenting a historical belief and practice.
I would be happy to read the established historical, biblical doctrine that Mark Ward establishes on preservation. What I hear from him conforms biblical doctrine to naturalistic presuppositions, based on modern science so-called. His position is not the truth.
More to Come
Crucial to a Gospel Presentation: Explain Belief (part three)
Jesus is the Christ
John wrote his gospel, he says, so people would believe Jesus is the Christ and believing they would have life through His name (John 20:31). The object of belief is crucial to saving faith. I like to say that you might believe in Jesus, but if Jesus is a jar of peanut butter, he won’t save you. He isn’t, but who is He? Believing isn’t arbitrary. It doesn’t disappear into the ether. Saving belief lands somewhere and that is on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus does all the saving. He is Savior. However, He does not save the person that does not believe that He is the Christ. True, genuine belief couples together with Jesus as the Christ. This truth about Jesus and His identity also relates to the kingdom.
When one reads through the gospels and Acts to see what Jesus and the Apostles preached, you see the two truths woven together as one message. In Matthew 4:23 Jesus went through Galilee “preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (same in Matthew 9:35). Matthew 8 and 9 are a continuation of Matthew 4 with the Sermon on the Mount sandwiched in between (Matthew 5-7). In Matthew 24:14 again Jesus repeats, “the gospel of the kingdom” that he preaches. Jesus says in Mark 1:15: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”
Christ in Acts
Philip
Concerning the ministry of preaching of Philip, Acts 8:12 says:
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
In the same context, Acts 8:5 says that Philip preached “Christ,” which would be shorthand for the same thing. The kingdom of God dovetails with the name of Jesus Christ, inextricably connected. One sees the same with the Apostle Paul in Acts 28:31:
Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
Paul
Right when Paul started to preach in Damascus after his conversion, Acts 9:20 says “he preached Christ in the synagogues.” Two verses later, Acts 9:22 says:
But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
Acts 17:3 describes Paul’s gospel preaching:
Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
One chapter later, Acts 18:5 says:
And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
Furthermore, verse 28 of the same chapter says:
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
Preach Christ
Many times the New Testament represents preaching the gospel as “preach Christ.” In 2 Corinthians 4:5, Paul writes:
For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.
“Christ” (Christos) means “anointed one.” The verb chrio in the Greek is “to anoint.” The Greek chrisma means anointing, as does chrisis. “Christ” is the New Testament word or translation of “Messiah.” Everyone needs to understand that Christ fulfills the Messianic prophesies, which ties in the kingdom of Jesus Christ. He is that King.
Christ and the Kingdom of God
The church today is about the kingdom of God, given the keys to the kingdom. Entering the kingdom spiritually or in one’s heart is a reception of that kingdom now, as if one is entering now into it. In Luke 17:21, Jesus said:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Someone needs to know that. He must acquiesce to the kingdom of God now and what it represents, including persuasion that Jesus is the King over it and that having Him as King requires subservience. When Jesus preached, “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17), He was saying, “The King is here.” He preached repentance accompanied by the kingdom and He the King. A person must want the Christ and what that represents. The alternative is the prince of this world, Satan, and what he offers now and his kingdom.
When someone preaches the gospel, he explains it, and he persuades someone from the scripture that Jesus is the Christ. Someone needs to know that for salvation. John wrote His book, the Gospel of John, to do that so that the audience would believe Jesus is the Christ. That is still an integral part of the gospel, if not the gospel. Someone does not believe in Jesus Christ, when he does not believe that Jesus is the Christ.
More to Come
Recent Comments