Should True Churches Ascribe Perfection to the Apographa of Scripture?
Mark Ward and Ruckmanism
A friend of mine alerted me to a reference of me in a Mark Ward production. It came under a click-bait title: “10 Ways to Avoid Ruckmanism.” I would contend I’m further away from Ruckmanism than Mark Ward himself, and I’ll explain that.
In his first few sentences of a youtube video, Ward asserted Ruckmanism as a fringe of a group that would include me. What does this accomplish really, attempting to smear anti-Ruckman people with a label of Ruckmanism? To start, I reject that assertion. I repeat. I reject the assertion of Mark Ward that Ruckmanism is a fringe of a group that includes me and others like me.
Ward asserts Ruckmanism to be a friinge of King James Onlyism, which associates Ruckman with the men who hold a standard sacred text or confessional bibliology. I renounce Ward’s grouping. Ruckman fits with a group that denies the original language preservation of scripture. He is with their group. Perhaps on their fringe.
Ruckman and now his followers take a rather exotic variety of rejection of the preservation of the original language scripture that God inspired. Since God by His singular care and providence did not keep pure through all ages the scripture He inspired, He started over and reinspired new words in English.
Ruckman believed and taught that God breathed out an English translation long after the inspiration of the Old and New Testament books, something labeled “double inspiration.” Ruckman denied God kept what He inspired, which was Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. That cannot be a fringe of those who believe that God did keep what He inspired. That is a total disconnect from what I and others like me believe. I refuse the association with Ruckman that Ward makes to smear those with a biblical and historical position.
Deny God Kept Pure What He Inspired in Original Languages of Scripture
Who does not believe that God kept pure what He inspired? Modern textual critics. Multiple versionists. Peter Ruckman. Ruckmanites. Bart Ehrman. Daniel Wallace. The group with whom Ward associates.
I would include Ward with the names in the last paragraph. He should be in the list. Ward, however, I anticipate would say that He believes that God did preserve every Word of God in the mulitiplicity of the manuscripts (hand written copies). It is a nebulous position, because it never settles on what the words are that God preserved. In a face to face debate, I think it would take less than a minute to find that Ward does not believe that God preserved all His inspired words in the multiplicity of the manuscripts.
I have argued with enough Ruckmanites to know that they are not a fringe of what I and others like me believe. They reject what we believe because they do not believe in the perfect preservation of the original Hebrew and Greek text. God preserved His Words through the churches in copies. He inspired the original autographs (autographa) and then preserved them in the apographa. Ruckmanites disavow that.
Straw Man or Red Herring Logical Fallacy
In the same production, Ward begins talking about me at the 25:51 mark, which continues until 31:14. To equivocate our position with Ruckmanism, Ward uses an informal logical fallacy best known as either a “red herring” or a “straw man” argument. He labels the point of this section: “Don’t ascribe perfection to the King James translators’ text.”
At the end of the section Ward says that the vile Peter Ruckman ascribes perfection to the King James translation. Ward swaps “perfection of text” for “perfection of translation.” Ruckman does not ascribe perfection to the original language text of scripture. Maybe Ward thinks his uncritical audience will not see or know the difference. I assume Ward knows what he’s doing.
Are they really Ruckmanites who believe the following?
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic.
What’s Wrong with Ward’s Assessment of Thou Shalt Keep Them?
A translation is a work of men, but the preservation of scripture is the work of God. What’s wrong with what Ward says in the section on perfection of the text? Not necessarily in this order, but. . . .
- He compares the differences between editions of the textus receptus (TR) with the same significance as the differences between the TR and the modern critical text.
This kind of comparison is deceitful. The Wescott and Hort Greek New Testament (WH) is very close or about the same as the critical Greek New Testament of the Nestles-Aland 28th edition (NA), the most recent update of the critical text. They are 99.5% the same. There are 5,604 differences between the WH and Scrivener’s edition of the TR, which amount to 9,970 words. There are 190 differences between the Scrivener’s and the 1598 TR edition of Beza. The quality of those differences is also vastly different.
- He says that no one answers why the original language text behind the King James Version is a standard sacred text instead of other language translations of the TR.
Perfection of Text Behind KJV
Ward says that he looks and he looks and cannot find anyone who explains why the text behind the King James Version gets treated with perfection and the Dutch and Portuguese do not. When I hear Ward say this, I think he must be joking. In the quotation he himself uses from our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, we explained:
Although the words of the printed editions do vary, albeit seldom, there is a comprehensive testimony to the agreement among the churches over the canonicity of the Words as there was canonicity of the books. At this time the English speaking churches became a large majority of the New Testament churches, and they agreed on the King James Version and the text behind it. The obedient churches speaking the next most prominent languages also agreed on the Textus Receptus as the New Testament.
This paragraph, which Ward himself quoted, and the context of the chapter give the answer to Ward. Many other biblical principles apply, which our book covers. One was the reception of true churches. Churches received the Words of God. The Lord’s sheep hear His voice. They have the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Scripture promises that God would lead His saints into all truth, and that the Word, all of His words, are truth (Jn 16:13, 17:8, 17). Preservation of words also meant accessibility, “kept pure in all ages.” The Westminster divines did not view the original manuscripts distinct from the copies in their possession.
The Received Text
If churches expect a perfect text based on scriptural presuppositions, then they also receive that text. Scripture also teaches a settled text (Rev 22:18-19). Churches did not keep printing new editions of the TR in the 17th, 18th, and most of the 19th centuries. They were settled on the text.
Other language believers other than English ones translated the TR into their language. When we read the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession, we are not reading Dutch or Portuegese confessions. Christians today almost exclusively refer to English confessions. Those confessions reveal presuppositions for which we receive a perfect text of scripture. I suggest that believers of all languages who translated from the TR would not quibble with a belief in a settled, perfect text. Their reception of the TR came out of the same belief about divine preservation of scripture.
- He treats the editions of the TR and the unique edition of the TR behind the KJV as a product of modernistic textual criticism.
Distinct Methodology
The principles that distinguish the critical text from the TR differ from the principles that distinguish TR editions from each other. Mark Ward knows this. In an essay or video production, he treats their distinct methodologies as the same. He knows they are different. Copyists made errors in copying. That did not prevent perfect, divine preservation of scripture. An error made in one copy was corrected by another copy.
Eclectic or critical text or modern version proponents don’t start with scriptural presuppositions, which is the basis of the difference in methodology for their text versus the TR. The TR reveals its methodology in its name. Received Text. TR proponents are not attempting to restore a text as critical text advocates, never coming to the knowledge of a true text. TR supporters receive what God preserved. That is also the language they use to describe their method. They started with scriptural presuppositions and applied theological tests to their work.
Logic of Faith
My friend, Dave Mallinak, wrote the following to me in recent days:
I believe that the words God gave – the “breathed-out words” He inspired – are perfectly preserved, despite the difficulties in demonstrating perfection (due to variants). I approach preservation the same way I approach inerrancy. I can’t clear up every difficulty. I don’t believe I need to in order to hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, and I don’t believe I need to in order to hold to an every word preservation.
Perfection is a presupposition. The TR editions are homogenous unlike Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, old manuscripts the main basis of the critical text. Hoskier famously counted 3,036 variations between those two manuscripts in the gospels alone.
Believers do not ignore variations. However, these difficulties do not cancel the doctrine of preservation, just like difficulties do not eliminate inerrancy. Ward does not refer to this element of faith. Hills called it the “logic of faith.”
- He looks at inspiration as divine and preservation as human.
God used men to write scripture and He used men to preserve it. Believers’ ascription of perfection to preservation of a text of scripture arises from their belief in biblical teaching on preservation. In inspiration, “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21). Men spake. Men wrote. God used men for inspiration and preservation. The Apostle Paul says in Romans 3:2 that to the Jews “were committed the oracles of God.” Canonicity, a biblical doctrine, relates to God’s people agreeing by means of the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit what the books and the words were.
More to Come
Christians CAN learn Greek and Hebrew-they are not too hard! Part 5 of 7
The first four blog posts summarizing the argument in Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages explained the value of learning the Biblical languages. Clearly, knowing the languages is valuable. However, are they learnable? Aren’t Greek and Hebrew too hard to learn?
Actually, Greek and Hebrew are emphatically NOT too hard to learn. They are not too hard because of the following reasons, summarized from pages 40-51 of Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages:
1.) Christians have their Almighty Father to help them learn the languages.
2.) The self-discipline involved in learning the languages can contribute to their sanctification.
3.) Scripture is not God hiding Himself. The Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are God’s “revelation,” not God’s obscuring Himself.
4.) For century after century, Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek were the languages of the common man, not of the elite few.
5.) A very high percentage of Koine Greek speakers picked it up as a second language, while having a different native tongue. So can modern English speakers today.
6.) The Hebrew Old Testament was comprehensible to the simple rural folk that comprised the large majority of Israel.
7.) The Greek New Testament was comprehensible to the slaves and lower class people who constituted the large majority in the first century churches.
8.) It is harder to master modern English than it is to learn to read the Greek New Testament or Hebrew Old Testament.
9.) English speakers assume English is an easy language while Greek and Hebrew are allegedly difficult, but their assumption is invalid–because we have already mastered English, we do not think much about what was involved in learning the language. Someone starting from scratch would more easily learn to read Greek or Hebrew than he would learn to master modern English.
10.) The vocabulary of the average four-year-old child is larger than the number of words one must learn to gain a solid grasp of the Greek New Testament or the Hebrew Old Testament.
11.) The inspiring examples of those who learned the languages as children, or without grammar books, or despite extremely pressing work commitments, or in the face of other hardships, show that learning the Biblical languages is eminently attainable.
12.) Numbers of countries world-wide are officially trilingual, while fifty-five nations are officially bilingual. There is no reason why people in these countries can master two or three languages in order to make money and efficiently function, but Christians cannot learn Greek and Hebrew in order to better know God and His Word.
The facts above are important, both to encourage people who are contemplating learning the languages and to refute Ruckmanite notions that Greek and Hebrew are impossibly difficult, so one must simply stick to English, not even use Greek or Hebrew lexica, and ignore the treasures God has laid up for His people in the Hebrew and Greek tongues.
–TDR
The Gospel Is the Power of God Unto Salvation, pt. 7
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six
Not long ago in evangelicalism, the terminology “lifestyle evangelism” arose. Early in this series, I wrote that the lifestyle is part of the message, but cannot replace the gospel itself. “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).
In my encounter with lifestyle evangelism, I found it to mean living a life a Christian should live around an unbeliever. From the unbeliever’s experience with that life, he wants to know what caused it, and asks. Then a Christian can explain in a non-pressure kind of way. I believe the words “lifestyle evangelism” originated in the 1976 book by C. Bill Hogue, titled: Love Leaves No Choice: Lifestyle Evangelism. Many characterize this lifestyle as “nice.” Be nice to people. They want you to be nice to them. Then when they ask what’s different, you connect it to the gospel.
Instead of “Lifestyle Evangelism”
In a technical sense, I do not see lifestyle evangelism in the Bible. The life surely should accompany the gospel. It should not contradict the gospel. Salvation comes through the gospel, which means preaching it. That is what I see in the Bible. Many do not think you are “nice” when you preach the gospel to them.
You want to preach the gospel, because it is the power of God unto salvation. Salvation will not occur without the gospel and it comes through preaching. That does not mean that you keep preaching the gospel to those who refuse to hear it.
Based on Romans 1:16, getting the gospel out to people is getting the power of God unto salvation out to people. What the lost need for their salvation stays away from them, sometimes with the reasoning of lifestyle evangelism. They think they do not want the gospel. Usually they cannot know what they need and that they need the gospel, because they do not have the gospel. The gospel gives the power that begins working toward a desire for salvation.
The Effect of the Knowledge of Romans 1:16
When I get up in the morning, I begin thinking about preaching the gospel. Do I mean going door-to-door? I could mean that. I could ring a doorbell, wait for someone to open the door, and start to try to preach the gospel to someone. What if I do not go door-to-door, does that remove the possibility of preaching it?
I think it is easier to get into the preaching of the gospel by going door-to-door. It ensures I will do that. However, in very cold weather areas or during very cold weather times, not everyone will open the door to listen to you preach. I am not attempting to discourage you from preaching in the Winter in cold weather areas. What if people do not open the door because it is so cold or during a certain time of the year, you will not ring door bells or knock on the door because of the cold?
You have to look for and pray for opportunities to preach the gospel. I call this being aggressive. If I do not go door to door and I want to preach it to someone else, I cannot stay in my house. I have to leave the house to see that happen. I still must go to where people are, and then I give attention to possible opportunities. If it is even possible, I must take that opportunity.
Taking the Opportunity with the Gospel
My wife and I right now are living in a small studio apartment. We have no car, so we walk for what we need. We have a very small refrigerator, so we have to go there more often. As I get old (yes, I’m getting old), I have to stop more often. Sit. Rest. That might mean getting a hot beverage somewhere.
It has been very rainy, cloudy, and dark where my wife and I are. It was sunny yesterday for the first time in I don’t know how long. We both got a coffee and we sat outside of the coffee place in the Winter across from a man, who sat outside. I began talking to him and that turned into a gospel conversation with an explanation of the gospel. Opportunities are there for the one looking for them and taking them. I grabbed it, like reaching for something that I want and taking it off the shelf. I just did it.
When I preached the gospel, it was not forced. It is normal for me to bring the gospel into a conversation. I wasn’t going through the motions, like someone who must just get this done. No, I want to give the gospel, that is, to take opportunities. I do, because the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). I assumed that man across from me was lost and nothing was more important to him than salvation, and so, the gospel.
Know How To Start the Gospel
If you are going to preach the gospel to people, you will need to know how to start. At first, you need to plan that. You prepare for it. You think about that first sentence you will say and the direction you will take. The goal is to get from starting a conversation to preaching the gospel. All of this relates to the gospel being the power of God unto salvation.
Before you ever get to how you start a conversation that leads to the gospel, you must think about how you will encounter people. You will not preach to anyone if you do not see anyone. You have to leave the house to do that. Before you plan on how you begin a gospel conversation, you plan on where you will go to see people.
You may see people all the time. People have many different realms in which they meet people. How do they bring Jesus into those contacts? Very often it starts with the trouble for everyone without the gospel. People know they’re in trouble, which is how Paul begins the gospel in the book of Romans.
The gospel conversation could start earlier than the trouble of the lost person. It could begin with the true nature of mankind. He is not an accident. God made him for a purpose.
I like to say to someone, “When Darwin looked at a cell, he saw a blob.” Today when we look at a cell, we see irreducible complexity. Even on a cellular level, life did not arise from an accident.
More to Come
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 5
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
Evangelism itself is a form of mediation, what the Apostle Paul calls “the ministry of reconciliation.” An evangelist mediates between God and a lost soul toward salvation. The sin of a soul offends God, one estranged from Him, and the evangelist mediates with the gospel. When I write that, I do not mean that an evangelist is a mediator, like 1 Timothy 2:5 says that Jesus is. No man comes to the Father except by Jesus Christ (John 14:6).
Ambassadorship Mediation
2 Corinthians 5:18 gives the sense of mediation in evangelism, when it says God “reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ.” Then it follows, “and hath given unto us the ministry of reconciliation.” Jesus Christ reconciles to God as the Mediator. Still, however, God also gives believers the ministry of reconciliation. In the next verse, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,” but he has “committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” The mediation believers do is by “word.” We talk to people.
Verse 20 says that we are “ambassadors for Christ,” so this is like diplomacy. Ambassadors represent one nation to another nation. “We are ambassadors” is the Greek presbeuo, used only here and in Ephesians 6:20. Presbeuo is “to be a representative for someone” (BDAG). The way we participate in this mediation is through word, and the message of words that we speak as ambassadors Paul writes in verse 21:
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
That one sentence encapsulates the gospel. It’s something believers can speak as diplomats for God with total authority from Him. The goal is to bring someone in the kingdom of this world or the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God.
God then wants unity between those in His kingdom. The New Testament shows that to be in a true church. It also reveals that churches should want unity with each other too. These realities I wrote about earlier in this series.
Mediating Harry and William as an Example
The Situation
True reconciliation necessitates God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, each of the members of the Trinity. No true peace will come without the Lord. He provides the basis of peace, first getting right with God through Jesus Christ. Harry and William won’t have that without humble submission to God’s Word.
Much of the world knows about the rift now between the two brothers, sons of King Charles of England, William, the heir to throne, and Harry. Harry came out this weekend in anticipation of his published autobiography and said he wants his father and brother back. Is this to say, he wants reconciliation and mediation?
In accordance with true reconciliation, Harry cannot have it on his terms alone. He announced to the world that the relationship between him and his dad and brother did not have to be this way. On the other hand, Charles and William view the relationship a different way. If they were talking, I think they might say the same: “It didn’t have to be this way.” What would it take to restore a relationship, so it is no longer ‘this way’?
Mediating The Conflict
I use Harry and William as an example because they are a prominent conflicting relationship with an obvious barrier between them. Anyone can see both what the discord or dispute between them is and how reconciliation and mediation could occur.
Harry might not take take reconciliation or mediation. He receives his greatest income by telling family secrets. In mediation, if that could occur, I would confront both sides about keeping internal family disputes secret. They settle them in private only. If Harry chooses to leave his royal duties, he must give up his titles. Any money he makes must exclude public ties to the monarchy.
I would take Charles, William, and Harry through their grievances. Each would confess what I knew, what is proven, to be true. Both must repent, and then forgive. Each party must keep all listed ground rules for the future. As a result, both sides have their brother, their sons, and their father again.
Realities of Mediation
When I write about mediation, I am not writing about compromise, the wrong idea that two sides get together and come to some middle ground. It may seem like that, because the mediator listens to both sides. They both may have different versions of the same event. Both parties also might have their own set of grievances against the other party. When the mediator listens to one side and agrees with that side, the other side might view that as compromise, when it isn’t.
Sometimes what one side sees as a violation the mediator says is Christian liberty. He may identify it as a doubtful disputation. One side may think something is what it thinks it is, but a mediator says, “No, it isn’t.” Coming to some of those types of decisions is why two sides get a mediator. In general, a party does not want to see it a different way than what he or it sees it. He very often won’t. If he agrees to a mediator, he might have to do that. This is mediation.
A mediator very often sees what two conflicting parties do not or cannot see. He can point out inconsistencies on either side. If he does his job, he wants true, legitimate reconciliation between the parties, that is, biblical peace.
If a party only wants to hear its side, what some may portray as its echo chamber, it can choose to do that. It is choosing then not to reconcile. Mediation reveals or tests the desire for reconciliation. It provides that last plank or marker toward reconciliation. It follows the model of the Lord Jesus Christ and the example of the apostles.
Thomas Ross, February 18 Debate, Versus James White in Tullahoma, TN
Thomas Ross will debate James White with the proposition communicated in the above flyer for the debate. This relates to the historic doctrine of the preservation of scripture. Thomas Ross will defend the TR and King James Version and oppose the modern critical text and its methodology, especially with the underlying presupposition of the biblical doctrine of preservation. Pray for him as he prepares and then executes that preparation in a debate against James White. If you can go in support of him in that debate or help him in any other way, including financially, please do so!
How will Thomas Ross do against White? Does White supersede Ross in scholarship and knowledge? I don’t believe so. If you visit Faithsaves.net, I believe Ross writes as much as White and in scholarly fashion. White often questions his interlocutor’s abilities. If someone can’t read Greek, White often attempts to humiliate him, cast doubt on his abilities. This strategy should embarrass White, but it doesn’t. Thomas Ross has committed to memory huge portions of the Greek New Testament. He has his devotions often in Hebrew and Greek. I believe Ross will be more proficient at reading the Hebrew and Greek than White.
Let us all hope that the moderation for this Ross-White debate will improve over what occurred in the Van Kleeck-White debate. White ran over the biased moderators in very poor fashion.
Thomas Ross has now done several high level debates. He teaches very often, improving in his communication and rhetoric, which will help. Ross knows more than ever. He knows this subject and he will put hours and hours into this, I know. He will not underestimate James White.
I listened to a recent debate of James White with Chris Pinto on the issue of Vaticanus. Pinto believes it is a forgery. It was a very narrow debate. White had changed some in his usual offensive speech. Pinto is not a man even close as prepared as Thomas Ross in a text debate. Still in my assessment Pinto held up against White.
Recently Jeff Riddle and Peter Van Kleeck debated White on a similar subject as Ross will. I believe Thomas Ross will keep the momentum going in a positive manner. White operates counter to the historic and biblical position. He contradicts the position held by the Lord’s churches. Thomas Ross has the truth on his side.
500,000+ Page Views for Faithsaves.net!
I am thankful that the Faithsaves.net website recently passed 500,000 page views. I suspect that is a larger number than the number of people who live in many of the towns and cities that blog readers here live in. I am thankful that the website continues to impact people with God’s glorious truth. Lord willing, I look forward to 1 million views as the next significant milestone.
As discussed on the page here, one can get bumper stickers, car magnets, T-shirts, and shirts with collars promoting the gospel and faithsaves.net. We have appreciated the opportunity for our vehicle to be an instrument that gives people the opportunity to spread the truth. Many businesses have information all over their company vehicles; why should not those who are about their Father’s business do the same? (Of course, if your church already has decals or other information they recommend, by all means consider them.) (If you buy something on the link above–or practically anywhere else on the Internet–you can save by doing what this article says–click through a portal first, or, for Amazon, do this first.)
–TDR
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 4
The Superior Mediation of Jesus
Moses and the priests of the Lord mediated the Old Covenant, a revelation of God’s usage of mediation. Even though they were mediators God used, the author of Hebrews describes their inferiority to Jesus as a mediator. Jesus was better than Moses and the priests (Hebrews 4:14-10:18). However, He was still a mediator.
The author of Hebrews argues for the New Covenant because of Jesus’ superior mediation. In so doing, he explains why Jesus was better as a mediator. First, God uses mediation. Second, Jesus is the best. Third, Jesus is a model then for mediation. Hebrews then also gives qualities that hurt or harm mediation.
You want a mediator like Jesus. Look for the qualities of Jesus in a mediator of relationships. Hebrews manifests Jesus as identifying with those He represents in mediation. Jesus became like men. Mediators do not sit above the two parties. They identify with both parties. Mediation probably will not occur when one party sits above the other and dictates the terms.
The Qualities of Jesus’ Mediation
A mediator does not elevate himself above and talk down to either party in a dispute, and especially only one. He sympathizes with both. The goal isn’t a comeuppance for one party. He wants reconciliation between the two and a restored relationship.
The Lord Jesus Christ came to earth as a man to reconcile man to God. He loves both the Father and men. Jesus shows compassion to men. Hebrews shows Him as an approachable high priest (Hebrews 4:6). 1 John portrays him as an advocate. In Luke 15, Jesus is the good shepherd, who goes out searching for the lost sheep.
In the relationship between man and God, man repents and confesses to God. Man alone offended God, not vice versa. God has nothing to confess. God also has nothing for man to forgive. He forgives the repentant sinner.
Between Man and Man
Between man and man, very often both parties require repentance, confession, and forgiveness. It may be that only one side sees himself as the aggrieved and offended one. If both parties offended the other, reconciliation might not occur unless both sides will agree to have done that. The neutral mediator expedites a hearing from and for both sides.
Sometimes the process of reconciliation starts with only one party admitting wrong. The other takes the role of sitting in judgment and above the other person. Reconciliation most often will not occur when one side holds on to resentment with the other. He cannot admit wrong, because none of it was his fault.
One party may see forgiveness as a way to avoid accountability. The only terms for reconciliation are his terms. A mediator can and should bridge that gap. Maybe only one side really did offend the other. That would be like God and man. The mediator still helps the two sides come together. Philemon offended Onesimus and Paul initiated the path back for Philemon.
The Bible requires forgiveness for repentance. It is as serious in scripture not to forgive as it is not to repent. Except a man repents, he will perish (Luke 13:3, 5). Except a man forgives, he will perish (Matthew 18:21-35). In many places, forgiveness of man is a prerequisite for forgiveness from God (Matthew 6:12, 14-15, Mark 11:25-26, Luke 6:37).
The willingness to forgive is forbearance. Before that, I believe it is true that a willingness for mediation is forbearance. He so wants reconciliation that he will submit to the judgment of someone other than himself.
We Can’t Solve Every Problem
Early in my adult life, I thought I could solve every problem. I had God. I had the Bible. It did not take too long for me to understand that I could not do it on my own. I needed someone else to intervene.
Matthew 18:15-20, the church discipline passage, like others in the New Testament, works with a baseball analogy. Strike three and you are out. You tried three times to have a conversation for the purpose of reconciliation. With every conversation, the situation escalated. The two parties cannot talk without mediation.
Sometimes one of the sides will not submit to mediation. You might not be able to resolve that relationship. A believer can pray that God will work. He will. God will work, but a person still must acquiesce to the work of God in his life. Some will not.
I am less surprised now that men reject mediation. People you think would accept mediation very often will not. I want to mediate between two parties who want reconciliation. I am thankful for other men who will do the same. Blessed are the peacemakers.
More to Come
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 3
Whatever came between two parties that was a barrier for reconciliation most often continues to be why they need a mediator. Before they can reconcile, they must come together, but they cannot even come together without mediation either. The two sides need a mediator before a conversation can or will occur that could lead to a restoration in the relationship.
A first party says the fault is on the other side. The second party says the first party is the one at fault. Both sides dig in or stiffen their backs. They both at the same time say, “It’s not my fault! He started it!” Now they cannot even listen to each other. It’s possible that emotion and personal grievance disallows either side from seeing their own fault.
I grew up playing chess, but not enough to be any good. Even when I did, I played with a self-destructive myopia. I was so focused on my own pieces and where I would move them, that I missed what the other player was doing. I lacked perspective to see all that happened or was happening.
A mediator has an opportunity to see both sides and to call out either one. All each can see is his own side of the board, to go with the chess analogy. He does not see the big picture. He does not see his own offenses, only the ones of the other party. The other side is solely responsible for this break in relationship.
The Olive Branch
Real peace does not come through the threat of destruction or annihilation. It comes by offering what some people call the “olive branch.” The olive branch is a symbol that comes from the Bible, because the dove, which also symbolizes this peace, came back to Noah’s ark, signaling a future on earth for Noah and his family. Through the intermediary, the dove, God offered man an olive branch. Noah and his family offered God a sacrifice.
God had already offered man a way out, a way of salvation through the ark. Noah preached over a hundred years, warning man of his predicament. But man rejected reconciliation and the mediating work of Noah. Later in 1 Peter 3, Peter says that Jesus Himself preached through Noah to those people.
A mediator is an olive branch. The offer of an olive branch, a mediator, says, I want this relationship. I am even willing to sit under judgment, but it must be neutral, it must be just. When the mediator is rejected, that says, I do not want this relationship.
For my lifetime, I have always judged rejection of mediation as rejection of reconciliation. This is not in the nature of a good and loving God, who provided a mediator. It is the opposite of Him. Nothing characterizes God more than forgiveness and reconciliation. The opposite is also true.
Fear or Rejection of Mediation
I understand the fear of mediation. We like to be in control. We want a conversation to turn out like we want it to turn out. That might even seem right to us. “We know the truth and everyone else should believe it like we do. Others just need to kowtow to us, because we have an ethic and method that surpasses others. The mediator would just mess things us. There is a risk that the mediator will say that I have been wrong. I know I’m not wrong.”
Both parties may think the other is proud, both pointing their fingers at the other’s pride. Mediation is a tonic. The proud reject the mediator. He cannot submit to another authority than himself.
No doubt two sides must agree to a good mediator, a neutral arbitrator. True mediators are out there. This is the classic Elijah statement of 7,000 not bowing the knee to Baal. Not every possible mediator has yet bowed the knee to Baal. Some possible mediators have departed from the faith, but not everyone.
Mediation within the church should stay in the church. This is 1 Corinthians 6. When the two parties reside in different churches, however, then a third party comes in. True mediation, just and fair mediation, is very unlikely when the mediator comes from one of the sides. Mediation requires neutrality. No one should hand pick a mediator for his bias.
In my past, I have agreed to mediation from the other side. I just wanted a mediator. A hand picked mediator by only one side is not a good way to go, definitely not the best, but in my opinion it was better than nothing.
The Peacemaker
For my salvation, I trust Jesus Christ. I trust my advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. For earth, I trust someone who I do believe loves both sides. He will obey the truth. I would want him to know the Bible. Use it. He should be strong enough to stand up to either side, unlike the debate moderator I talked about earlier.
Reconciliation, mediation, forgiveness, and restoration are greater than the grievances, the felt personal wrongs. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath” (Eph 4:26). Jesus said, Turn the other cheek (Mt 5:39). Someone turned the other cheek after someone had slapped him. Cheek slapping produced a personal grievance. With mediation, a neutral arbitrator, two people can trade in their grievances for restoration.
The peace of reconciliation contradicts anger. Peace relates to at least two truths. One, peace erases the barrier. Two, peace is an effect of calm or tranquility. Anger keeps from peace and peace solves the anger.
As you read this, I hope you consider or reconsider mediation of a relationship for the purpose of reconciliation. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” Like all the other beatitudes, this is strong language. Children of God want a peacemaker. It characterizes them to want it. A tougher question is, what is a person who does not want a peacemaker? Peacemaking in the Bible means a mediator most of the time. May we consider or reconsider once again by the grace of God.
More to Come
Learn Greek and Hebrew? Reasons Christians Should, part 4 of 7
Is it valuable for Christians learn the Biblical languages, Greek and Hebrew? Continuing to summarize Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages, Christians should learn Greek and Hebrew because:
1.) Greek and Hebrew help the believer to practice God’s Word and be conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus Christ. The more closely one beholds Christ’s glory in the mirror of Scripture, the more conformed to His image the Christian becomes–and Greek and Hebrew help believers see that ineffable glory.
2.) Greek and Hebrew help the Christian teach God’s Word to others. Every one of the Greek and Hebrew words of Scripture is inerrant and infallible, and must be preached and taught to all of the Lord’s saints in true, Baptist churches.
3.) Greek and Hebrew help believers to compose quality Christian literature.
4.) Greek and Hebrew are essential for Baptists to make faithful translations of Scripture into the many world languages that still lack God’s holy Word. It may be tolerable for an evangelist / missionary to translate Scripture from English if he does not know Greek and Hebrew, but it is far, far better to translate from the original languages. The Ruckmanite / Riplingerite idea that one must translate foreign language Bibles from English rather than Greek and Hebrew is evil.
5.) Greek and Hebrew contribute to bold preaching.
6.) Greek and Hebrew powerfully aid in apologetics, evangelism, and in the refutation of error. Whether before crowds in a public debate or one-on-one at a door, knowing the Biblical languages helps in evangelism and in defending the faith.
7.) Greek and Hebrew help Christians defend the Authorized, King James Version. Attacks on the KJV by proponents of modern versions can be answered far more effectively if one knows Greek and Hebrew himself and so can respond much more effectively to allegations of mistranslation in the KJV.
Much greater detail appears in the first forty pages of Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages.
–TDR
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 2
Sin separates man from God and the only way back to regain that relationship comes through mediation. Man cannot get back to God on his own. He needs a mediator. You know that is Jesus, about whom the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
Reconciliation brings together two opposing or warring parties. A barrier separates them. Perhaps the two can reconcile without mediation. When it comes to God and man, the separation requires mediation for reconciliation to occur. Very often for two people to reconcile, mediation is also necessary.
Mediation is a means of reconciliation. Mediation must occur between man and God for reconciliation to succeed. Reconciliation very often requires mediation in order to succeed between other opposing parties: nations, tribes, families, and people. A rift can exist between two people impossible for them alone to eliminate. They need help.
The book of Philemon presents mediation by the Apostle Paul between Philemon and Onesimus. In so doing, it reveals many important components to successful mediation. Paul gives a master class on mediation between two conflicting people. It also provides the authority for the act of mediation. Mediation is scriptural.
Two churches, Jerusalem and Antioch, the first two churches in the world, came to a division between each other. They had to sort it out with one another in Acts 15. They were able to do so. In 1 Corinthians 11:18-19, Paul says that divisions will need to occur and for several reasons. Despite those, the divided sides should strive for unity.
Mediation and Neutrality
I like the way Thayer puts it in his lexicon: “one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or to form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant.” Friberg lexicon says, “basically, a neutral and trusted person in the middle (Gk, mesos). He continues, “one who works to remove disagreement, mediator, go-between, reconciler.”
When Moses called for witnesses (Ex 21:22-25, Dt 17:6-7), referenced by Jesus (Mt 18:16) and Paul (1 Tim 5:19), that meant neutral ones. Neutral ones stand under cross examination. Just because someone has two or three people who testify does not constitute biblical witness.
A legal component exists in mediation. The mediator, like a judge, ensures fairness in the process of reconciliation. He witnesses and weighs the speech and behavior between the two sides. Scripture illustrates this role in 1 Kings 3 with Solomon’s judgment of two women fighting for the same baby.
Real Desire for Reconciliation Wants Mediation Too
Both women claimed the same child as her own. Solomon said he would divide the child in two and give one half to each. The true mother deferred. She wanted the child to live. She would lose her own child to the other woman. Solomon knew the deferential mother was the true one. Her response to mediation told a tale, as it most often does in conflicts. The one who desires the relationship, really wants it, not just posing like the imposter mother did, also wants mediation.
You want a mediator to be just. He cannot judge in a biased way. Like Friberg said above, he must be a neutral party. Fair mediation requires equal justice. If you went for mediation and you found the mediator on the payroll of the other party, you might think him biased. Just courts prohibit this in their judges and juries because of potential prejudice.
Someone really wanting reconciliation will accept mediation. When a person does not want reconciliation, neither does he want mediation. He doesn’t want neutrality. He wants his way and a stamp of approval. This is not mediation. It is not even a witness in the arbitration of an event.
Pitfalls to Mediation
What happens in a broken relationship with friends, institutions, or family members and one side calls for mediation? The other party rejects. Maybe you reader too reject mediation. Think about it.
People very often want vengeance in an issue. Maybe they have a grudge. They coddle and nurture wrath. They prefer a biased judge with a biased handpicked jury, who will give them the decision they want. This is the government of North Korea. At a trial, you receive only the will the authoritarian leader. Mediation will require humility.
Judges cloister juries against corrupting outside influences. Information from outside the courtroom does not face cross-examination. Personal feelings and gossip shape opinions.
During the Cold War, what deterred two warring nations was called “mutually deterred destruction.” With the advent of nuclear weapons, nations would use their threat to take over as many other nations as they could. The United States needed nuclear weapons to deter such actions. Ronald Reagan called this “peace through strength.” Military power aided negotiations with a threatening enemy. Both sides need similar strength for fair judgment.
More to Come, Lord-willing
Recent Comments