What Is the Work of the Lord?
New Testament Phrases
The New Testament uses the following phrases these numbers of times:
- work of the Lord — 2 (1 Corinthians 15:58, 16:10)
- work of God — 2 (John 6:29, Romans 14:20)
- works of God — 3 (John 6:28, John 9:3, Acts 2:11)
- work of Christ — 1 (Philippians 2:30)
- work of an evangelist — 1 (2 Timothy 4:5)
- work of the ministry — 1 (Ephesians 4:12)
- thy works — 9 (James 2:18, Revelation 2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:1, 2, 8, 15)
The “works of God” above are definitely works that God does directly, if you read those in their context. I added those because they aren’t what I’m describing here. They provide a contrast. One could distinguish those from what I’m addressing. On the other hand, the work of an evangelist and the work of the ministry are both in the realm of what I’m covering here. They are works done by believers. What about the other four phrases?
Punishment and Reward
In my last post, I wrote about works and either their punishment or their reward. The evil works of unbelievers God will punish at the Great White Throne Judgment. The good works of believers God will reward at the Bema Seat Judgment. Then I said statements like the following (I will bold pertinent phrases):
In the age in which we live, God wants His work done in, through, and by the church. In the Old Testament, God used Israel. Also within Israel God regulated how He wanted His work done in, through, and by Israel.
The New Testament reveals God’s work done only through the church in this period, the church age. According to the New Testament, the church is sufficient to accomplish God’s work. Living by faith and pleasing God requires accomplishing His work in the way God shows to do it. The New Testament teaches only the church for doing His work. Doing it another way than the church is an invention of men and God isn’t pleased when someone does God’s work a different way. It isn’t obeying God, so it isn’t living by faith.
It is not obeying God or loving God to do what He said a different way than what He said. The church is the only way. All of the God’s work can be done through the church. God does not approve of doing His work a different way than what He said. Because God’s Word is sufficient, the church is sufficient for all of God’s work.
What Work Is God’s Work?
Is all the work of a believer God’s work? In one sense it is, but I don’t believe that is how the terminology reads in the New Testament. If I’m at home fixing my toilet, I should do it for God, but this isn’t a work of the ministry, like Paul describes in Ephesians 4:12. Whether you eat or drink or whatsoever you do, you should do it all for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31), but fixing the toilet is not in the category of a “work of the Lord” in the New Testament.
The Lord Jesus provided a good clue for the work of the Lord, when He said in Luke 9:60:
Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
The spiritually dead can do certain temporal, earthly works, but only those alive in Christ can do His works. Jesus also said in John 14:12:
He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Unbelievers cannot do those works, said to be “the works that I do” shall the believer do also. I like the idea of having a Christian doctor or lawyer, but it’s possible that an unsaved doctor could do a better job than a saved one. He might have more skill, knowledge, and better training. On the other hand, an unsaved doctor cannot do these works of God that Jesus references. These would include for sure, preaching the kingdom of God, like Jesus mentioned in Luke 9.
Usages through the New Testament
Corinthians
When Paul commands the Corinthian church, be always abounding in the work of the Lord, he speaks of the work done by the church. In the previous post, I was saying that God designated the church for that work and that it was sufficient for it. The New Testament doesn’t show parachurch organizations. Those doing that work are not operating outside the authority of the church anywhere in the New Testament. God uses the church to do it. Paul addresses the church at Corinth about abounding in that work.
Jesus
When Jesus says again and again in Revelation 2 and 3, “I know thy works,” He speaks of the ministry of the church, the work that He gave to the church to do, like that in John 14:12, the works that regenerate, immersed church members do that Jesus did also. In John 20:21, Jesus says, “As my Father hath sent me, so send I you.” What did the Father send His Son to do that His Son sent that group (plural “you”) to do? The work of God or the work of the Lord.
Ephesus
In Ephesians 4:12, pastors perfect or equip church members to do the work of the ministry for the building up of the church. In a technical sense, that is discipleship, which includes evangelism. Jesus designed that work for the church. He gave the church only the means of accomplishing that work. Jesus gave the church the New Testament, which is fulfilled by the church, which includes its offices, ordinances, and discipline. No other institution possesses those tools.
Paul and Epaphroditus
When Paul said about Timothy in 1 Corinthians 16:10, “he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do,” he wasn’t speaking of tent making. Paul made tents, but the work of the Lord was the church work that Paul did. When Paul wrote to the church at Rome, “For meat destroy not the work of God,” he addressed the undermining of evangelism and discipleship of new converts for the sake of eating meat offered unto idols. He differentiated the work of God from eating meat. For the sake of the former, eliminate the latter.
Paul told the Philippians that Epaphroditus “nigh unto death” for the “work of Christ” (Philippians 2:30). What work was Epaphroditus doing? He was near unto death from preaching and teaching the message of Christ in Rome, while Paul was imprisoned there. It was dangerous work to stand for Christ and proclaim His message in the capital of the Roman empire.
When I speak of the work of the Lord, I’m speaking of church work. God gave the work of the ministry to the church to accomplish, no other institution. The Holy Spirit divides severally to each church for the manifestation of Jesus Christ through His body (1 Corinthians 12:11ff). This includes all of the means God gave the church that He uses to do this, including the gathering or assembling of the church as His day approaches. The work of the Lord is the work of His church. That is the sufficient means or instrumentation by which Jesus ordained its accomplishment.
Faith in God and the Sufficiency of the Church
Pleasing God by Faith
In a now very familiar verse, James writes in James 2:19:
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Someone may say that he has faith, but what is the true measure of faith of what God said? It is doing what He said. When God says, this is how He wants something done, that’s how someone should do it and without exception. That is faith in God. And most of you probably already know that “without faith, it is impossible to please Him” (Hebrews 11:6).
Pleasing God is the purpose for mankind on earth (Revelation 4:11). Only from God’s Word do men know the standard or basis for pleasing Him. God will judge men based on what He says (John 12:48). The just shall live by faith (Romans 1:17) and faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Man lives by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).
Since the Bible is the source book, the veritable handbook, for how to live and to please Him, that is what He wants men to follow carefully and diligently. Solomon says at the end of Ecclesiastes that keeping God’s commandments is the whole duty of man (Ecclesiastes 12:12-13). Those commandments are in the Bible.
God’s Judgment
In the end, God at the least will judge everyone at two judgment seats: (1) the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15) and (2) the Bema Seat Judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 14:10). The former is for unbelievers or the unsaved and the latter is for believers or the saved. Both judgments are very important and do relate to obeying God and in particular how to do what God wants men to do.
God will punish unbelievers for their sin. Their works fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). God will reward believers for their works, so the Bema Seat Judgment means the gaining or the loss of rewards. Both relate to pleasing God. Romans 8:8 says that the unbeliever cannot please God (Romans 8:8). The believer can please Him and God will reward Him when He does.
Living by faith means living a life regulated by what God said: doing what He says to do and not doing what He says not to do. This means not just doing what God said, but doing it how He said. Scripture is replete with examples of men failing to submit to how God wanted it done and God punishing them for it.
How God Wants His Work Done
How God wants done what He wants done gets short shrift today most often. God cares how what He wants gets done. Not doing it how He wants will effect what He wants. He rejects things done in the wrong way or manner. What to do and how to do it feed off each other.
In the age in which we live, God wants His work done in, through, and by the church. In the Old Testament, God used Israel. Also within Israel God regulated how He wanted His work done in, through, and by Israel.
The Church, the Only Acceptable Means of God’s Work Today
The New Testament reveals God’s work done only through the church in this period, the church age. According to the New Testament, the church is sufficient to accomplish God’s work. Living by faith and pleasing God requires accomplishing His work in the way God shows to do it. The New Testament teaches only the church for doing His work. Doing it another way than the church is an invention of men and God isn’t pleased when someone does God’s work a different way. It isn’t obeying God, so it isn’t living by faith.
People who won’t do God’s will His way are not pleasing Him. Perhaps people will not do it like God said because they’re not saved. Scripture shows this to be the case. On the other hand, saved people will lose rewards for not doing what God said how He said to do it.
It is not obeying God or loving God to do what He said a different way than what He said. The church is the only way. All of the God’s work can be done through the church. God does not approve of doing His work a different way than what He said. Because God’s Word is sufficient, the church is sufficient for all of God’s work.
The Satanic Attack on Taking God’s Word Literally
Early in the Bible, God shows how that Satan attacks what He says. God wants men to anticipate this attack. Satan doesn’t want the audience of God’s Word to receive what God said. He tries to get the hearer to read something of his own opinion into it.
Without faith, it is impossible to please God, but faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). James admonishes against being swift to speak or argue against what God said (James 1:19). 2 Timothy 2:23 warns against foolish speculation regarding scripture, because that’s what Satan wants men to do, even as seen in his own example in the Garden of Eden and the Wilderness of Temptation.
Jesus and the Apostles took scripture literally. Taken literally, the Bible does not contradict itself. Everything in it fits together in a coherent whole. I say this having preached or taught in great detail through every verse of the Bible in my lifetime and several books multiple times.
The literal approach to interpreting the Bible asserts that the text should be understood according to its plain meaning, taking into account the grammatical structure and historical context in which it was written. God used human authors to convey specific messages that can be understood without allegorizing or spiritualizing them. A literal reading respects the integrity of the text of God’s Word and also agrees with historical theology. It’s not new to do this, that is, take the Bible literally.
A literal interpretation of the Bible gives clarity and certainty to biblical doctrine. Focusing on what scripture explicitly states avoids the confusion that proceeds from a subjective interpretation. Subjective interpretation means changing the meaning of the Bible often to something palatable to the audience. This isn’t hearing it. Instead, a literal interpretation allows an actual hearer to derive with confidence the unambiguous moral and ethical guidelines directly from scripture.
When readers apply the uniform method of literal interpretation—taking words at face value—they will not encounter contradictions between different parts of scripture. This consistency strengthens their faith by presenting a cohesive narrative that aligns with a correct understanding of God’s character and intentions.
No doubt scripture employs figurative language and literary devices. Still, a literal approach does not negate but enhances plain meaning of the Bible. Scripture itself clarifies the meaning of figures of speech and individual words with a multiplicity of usages and definitions. God does not allow history and culture to prevent men from an accurate understanding of what He said.
The world presents shifting views of the world with modern science and moral relativism. Taken literally, the Bible tells the truth about the world and addresses the vacillation of human philosophy. A literal interpretation provides a basis for readers of scripture to maintain their convictions even when faced with contemporary challenges. It brings clarity and consistency in doctrine and resilience against modern criticism of scriptural authority.
What Is To Separate People?
Separation
Most professing Christians ignore the biblical doctrine of separation. Scripture teaches separation, but a vast majority don’t know what the Bible says about it. By far, more people know the Bible teaches unity, but separation and unity go together in God’s Word. Truly, you can’t support unity without supporting separation.
In what I will call, the ultimate will of God, God wants total unity. We know He will get it too in the future. In the meantime, God requires separation.
Faux Separation
As much as people don’t know what God says about separation, they still practice, I would say, more than ever, some form of separation. Many different issues and causes divide the country and the world. Especially young people today are separatists. They practice an insidious form of cancel culture. In the last month or so, I heard someone call it “quiet quitting” when applied in the workplace, where an employee just disappears without notice. I’m guessing employers might be against that (said tongue in cheek).
God separates as an attribute of His nature. This is His holiness. God is holy. Yet, God did not create mankind to separate from him. He wants a relationship with men. God Himself is the perfect example of separation. He separates from men, at the same time seeking a relationship with them.
It’s easy to give up on people and decide to shun or ostracize them. In the recent presidential election, the Democrat Party candidate for Vice President, Tim Walz, and his siblings don’t talk to each other. I understand that people may never get along, but it is God’s will that they try in a particular manner.
What Should Separate People?
Lines in the Sand
What kind of issues, behavior, or problems should separate people? If separation should occur, how should it happen? This is the title of this piece: What is to separate people? Today especially what should separate people does not separate them. What shouldn’t separate people does separate them. Separation happens most often for the wrong reasons. It isn’t a doctrine of separation, but a personal preference of separation.
Showing a concern for what separates people is a recent book by Joel Tetreau, called Three Lines in the Evangelical Sand. Joel expands on a topic he would often address many years ago when he participated on an evangelical forum, SharperIron. He divides what he calls fundamentalism into various types, which he labels first A, B, and C type fundamentalists. However, he breaks those further down into A+, A, A-, B+, and C. I’m guessing there’s also a B-, and C- too. This got on my radar in part because Joel and I speak very friendly with one another, and he put a special footnote in the book about me.
Separating Issues
I haven’t read Joel’s book, but I don’t understand the scriptural basis for how he operates. Maybe he includes it in his book. He himself draws lines in the sand, so he believes in and addresses separation as a doctrine. Helping to summarize his thoughts, Joel recently wrote:
I still see Type A+ as the King James Only crowd coupled with those who have standards that are ….. hard to track in the Scriptures. Type A are still those Fundamentalist who see the world as either Fundamentalist or New Evangelical from Type A’s have a fairly black and white view of much – including authority that often times crosses the line into being Diotrephes-like. . . .
Type A-/B+ guys have almost the same theology as the rest of B’s and C’s but they are petrified of Conservative Evangelicalism because in their mind that represents entrance into New Evangelicalism…. or they know it doesn’t but it would cost them too much personally and so they are afraid to take the steps into that broader world. Type A’s are still movement fundamentalists – militant fundamentalist, cultural fundamentalists.
Case Study: Cultural Issues
Let me take one point that Joel makes and relate scripture to it. He says he sees Type A+ as having standards hard to track in the scriptures. One strong standard held by most evangelicals for most of history was the patriarchy, which scripture teaches. Should churches still be teaching the patriarchy? I believe they should. Someone wrote to show the difference between complementarianism and patriarchy:
The concept of Biblical Patriarchy centers around the principle of “rule by the father,” endorsing the divine mandate for men to lead families, churches, and communities. This belief is firmly anchored in the consistent narratives and directives found in both the Old and New Testaments, particularly the creation narrative in Genesis 1-3. It emphasizes the roles of patriarchs, prophets, priests, and kings as exclusively male in the Old Testament and apostles, scribes, and church elders as male in the New Testament. Unlike the complementarian view, which confines male leadership to the familial and ecclesiastical domains, biblical patriarchy is consistent by extending male authority to all societal aspects, including civil governance and social life.
Cultural issues have become non-separating issues and now we have same sex marriage in the country and world. Churches should preserve these doctrines in teaching and practice. They do that by separating over them. Where does this stop?
The church leader or church that separates over cultural issues could make them A+ extremists on Joel’s taxonomy. They want to preserve the doctrine and practice God gave. These churches want to honor God. They can’t do that when they won’t separate over cultural issues. This is just one example, but it relates to what is to separate people.
Answering Mark Ward’s Last Attack on Preservation of Scripture (part three)
In the last portion of the Mark Ward video to which I’ve referred in this series, he gives his view of the preservation of scripture. It has similarities to Adam in the Garden of Eden after the Fall in Genesis 3:12:
The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
For me to summarize, Ward’s view is that by his observation, God didn’t seem to choose to preserve His Word perfectly. Furthermore, since that’s what he observes God to have done, then that’s also the correct view of preservation of scripture. All those preservation passages in scripture then must conform to the observation and experience. He put it this way (I include this quote again, which was already in part one):
Now I told the pastor who sent me some of these examples that I don’t enjoy having to point out these difficulties and complexities. But let me build another bridge of trust, the one that I myself use all the time in my Bible study travels. Who gave us the situation in which we have incredible well preserved copies of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament, but there are numerous minor uncertainties and difficulties? Who gave us a world in which perfect translation between languages is impossible?
Who inspired the New Testament apostles to quote a Greek translation of the Old Testament rather than make new and doubtless perfect translations of the Hebrew? (And by the way I draw that last question directly from the King James Translators and their preface.) Who chose not to give us inspired translators, yeah, even a pope to give the best translation in each language his official imprimatur, the seal of divine approval?
Ward Continues
Who gave us a Bible that comes in two very different languages, Hebrew and Greek, and actually Aramaic, three, and would therefore require translation in the first place? Who gave us a Bible over the course of 1500 years instead of all at once? Who chose to commit His precious Word to fragile papyrus and sheepskin?
Who gave us the excellent but not perfect situation we’re in? But who told us that one day the perfect would come that we would know even as also we are known? I think you know the answer to my not so rhetorical questions. God did all of these things, and He is good. He is my refuge even when I don’t understand His choices.
Difficulties and Complexities
Ward sees “difficulties and complexities” and he forms his viewpoint based upon those. It is like a creationist saying, “The carbon dating method and the distance light travels from far away stars are difficult and complex for a young earth view.” What is going to be the basis of your faith? Faith is not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). Yet, Ward bases his view on observation and experience. I would surmise that he knows he’s doing this, and that’s what bothers him the most about my and others critique of him.
Mark Ward points to circumstances that are a bridge too far for his faith. This is why I often refer to Abraham and Romans 4:20 on this issue:
He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God.
Uncertainties
Ward does stagger at the promise of God. These circumstances, his lying eyes, cause him to stagger and then not believe. He lists off his reasoning for not believing. It starts with minor uncertainties and difficulties as a generality. Then, he ticks off the detail in staccato-like fashion, essentially blaming this uncertainty and difficulty on God:
- God gave us a world where a perfect translation is impossible.
- God inspired apostles to quote the Greek Septuagint for the New Testament rather than provide a perfect translation from the Hebrew to the Greek.
- Ward here says that the King James Translators in their preface agreed with his assessment that this is what the apostles did in the New Testament.
- God didn’t form and ordain a pope-like supernatural figure that would give a perfect translation of the Bible into everyone’s language.
- God gave the Bible in three different languages, guaranteeing the need of a translation.
- God used several different human authors to write the Bible spanning fifteen hundred years.
- Ward doesn’t explain what barrier this causes, but he seems to infer that this is another reality that implies the impossibility of a perfect Bible.
- God had his human authors use easily deteriorating writing materials like papyrus and sheepskin to certify that the originals and its copies would not last, becoming impossible again to preserve.
- God gave man an excellent but not perfect situation.
Odd Exegesis and Experience
Ward applies 1 Corinthians 13:10 to the above list, saying that the perfect is still to come, not here yet, which fits the imperfect circumstances and situation. I’ve never heard either this interpretation or application of 1 Corinthians 13:10. Ward is saying that this verse upends the idea of a perfect Bible for today. This is more odd exegesis from Ward. He’s saying, that which is perfect, which includes a perfect Bible, won’t come until we see Jesus Christ face to face. Part of seeing through a glass darkly in this Ward exposition is seeing by means of less than perfect scripture until the believer’s glorification.
Mark Ward ends by admitting his view of preservation, that God planned and then performed many imperfect acts. He made it so we would have a somewhat ruined Bible. Yes, that was God’s plan. How do we know that? Observation. Experience. Also, I would add, opinion. It’s a way that seems right to Mark Ward at least, because I haven’t read that explanation from anyone else. I’d be glad for him to point this view out to me from the Bible or from church history. Know the following: I don’t agree with him.
Assessment of God
I think that others are with Mark Ward on his assessment of God. They just might not say it out loud. It’s an inside voice that became Mark Ward’s outside voice. God said He would preserve every Word of scripture. He could have preserved every Word. But He didn’t. Bill Maher says abortion is murder and he’s fine with that. Ward says God didn’t preserve a perfect Bible and he’s fine with that too.
Apparently at least according to Mark Ward’s explanation, it was God’s intent that we don’t have a perfect text of scripture, based on the above list of reasons. Ward doesn’t have to understand why God didn’t actually preserve every Word. God must not have done that, but it’s not going to shake him, because God is his refuge.
The Knowledge of Refuge and Preservation
Neither do I have any doubt that God is my refuge. I believe that from scripture. It isn’t something I take from experience or observation. I believe God is my refuge because He says He is my refuge. A lot goes along with that, but that is why I would say God is my refuge. It’s because God says in HIs Word that He is my refuge.
For Ward, he can’t say God preserves His word perfectly. Scripture says that, but his experience and his observation betray him. He will say God is His refuge. What basis does He have for that though? It’s a good explanation, but how does he know it with certainty? He trusts what God says. May Mark Ward and others like him trust God on the perfect preservation of scripture.
Answering Mark Ward’s Last Attack on Preservation of Scripture (part two)
Modern Textual Criticism
In a recent video, Mark Ward again attacked the biblical and historical position on the preservation of scripture. He’ll surely have or find people who will support him. They use modern versions and many of them don’t understand the issue. He helps them stay in the dark on this. Ward says that we, who he calls the advocates of his MT/TR story, cause division with true believers. Division comes from a later, novel bibliology that contradicts the already established and believed position. When someone changes a biblical position, the right way is showing how that the former position rests on wrong or no exegesis. This isn’t what occurred.
What did occur was that modern textual criticism arose out of German rationalism. Modern textual criticism in its roots traces back to German rationalism, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries. A shift in theological thought characterized this period, where scholars began to apply rationalistic principles to biblical texts, leading to a more critical approach to scripture.
German Rationalism
German rationalism emerged as a philosophical movement that emphasized reason and empirical evidence over biblical exposition and theology. This intellectual climate encouraged scholars to scrutinize manuscripts of scripture with the same critical lens applied to other historical documents. The movement sought to understand the Bible not merely as a sacred text but as a collection of writings subject to human authorship and historical context.
The principles of German rationalism significantly influenced early textual critics such as Johann Griesbach, who is often regarded as one of the pioneers in this field. Griesbach’s work involved analyzing biblical manuscripts using methods that reflected rationalist thinking, which included questioning historical belief about divine inspiration and preservation of scripture. His approach laid the groundwork for subsequent textual critics like B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, who further developed these ideas in their own critical editions of the New Testament.
Continued Assessment of Mark Ward’s Attack
Perfect or Accurate Translation
Ward slants the MT/TR position to attempt to make it look like a joke and it’s advocates a bunch of clowns. Then when he does it, he doesn’t allow anyone to come and correct his statements. He next says that MT/TR supporters believe the King James Version (KJV) translators saved the Bible from Satanic counterfeits by making a “perfect translation” of “perfect Hebrew and Greek texts.” I’ve never called the KJV a “perfect translation.” The only time “perfect translation” occurs in my voluminous writings is when quoting and criticizing Peter Ruckman. Besides that, I wrote this:
God doesn’t ever promise a perfect translation. Turretin, like me, believes that preservation occurs in the original languages because that is what Scripture teaches.
This is the only usage by me for “perfect translation.” I use the language “accurate translation,” because I believe they could have translated the same Hebrew and Greek texts differently. Most of the other MT/TR men would say the same as I.
Perfect Hebrew and Greek Texts
Ward also gets the “perfect Hebrew and Greek texts” wrong. Mark Ward already knows this. He caricatures our position to try to make it look silly. That is mainly what he is doing. The MT/TR position expresses the doctrine of perfect preservation of scripture, but doesn’t say that all the preserved words are either in one manuscript (text) or even printed edition. The words are instead preserved and available to every generation of believer. God did perfectly preserve the text of scripture and providentially provided a settled text by means of the same method of canonicity, the inward testimony or witness of the Holy Spirit through the church.
True churches received God’s Words. They agreed on them. This is a position taken from biblical presuppositions. Just like churches agreed on Books, they agreed upon Words. What I’m describing is the historical and biblical way of knowing what are the Words of God. What I just described doesn’t sound as stupid as how Mark Ward characterized this part of his fabrication of a story.
Satanic Corruption
One thing Ward gets right is “spotting” the Satanic corruptions in other Bibles. If you have a settled text based on God’s promises, then whatever differs from it is a corruption. Two different words can’t both be right. The text of scripture isn’t a multiple choice question. If we are to live by every Word, then we must possess every Word. It’s true that I believe that Satan wants to confuse through the offering of all these different “Bibles” and presenting hundreds of variations of text as possible. This doesn’t fit scriptural presuppositions and it affects the authority of scripture.
Story of Ruckmanism
The second story Ward tells is his story of Ruckmanism. Many times Mark Ward has called Ruckmanism more consistent than the MT/TR position. Maybe he believes that, but it seems possible he says it to get under the skin of MT/TR people. Ruckmanism doesn’t operate with scriptural presuppositions unless one considers an allegorical or very subjective interpretation of passages, which read into the Bible, to be scriptural. Ward says that Ruckmanities originated their position as a reaction to lack of manuscript support in the MT/TR.
Peter Ruckman was born in 1921. Ruckmanism came to and from him no earlier than then 1940s. His view of the superiority of the King James Version arose from his presupposition that it was advanced revelation from God. No one held that belief until Ruckman. Peter Ruckman wrote in The Christian Handbook of Biblical Scholarship:
The King James Bible was ‘given by inspiration of God.’
Ruckman invented the position and then defended it by spiritualizing or allegorizing certain passages, reading into them his viewpoint on the King James Version. Ruckmanism did not come from his view of the inferiority of the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament as a further iteration of that.
Ruckman’s Position
Since Ruckman believed God reinspired the King James Version, he rejected all other versions. Even if they had the same textual basis as the King James Version, he would repudiate them. To him, the English words were equal to the original manuscripts of scripture. That view did not proceed from disagreement about underlying textual differences. Ruckman denied the preservation of scripture through original language manuscripts and editions.
Several times, Ward says the Ruckman story is the inspiration of the translator “to recover the right reading.” That’s false. Ruckman did not believe, as Ward says in his Ruckman story, that the textual choices and translation choices of the King James Version were perfect. To Ruckman and his followers, God didn’t inspire the right reading. No, God inspired the English itself. It wasn’t that Ruckman didn’t like the textual choices of Erasmus or that he relied on the Latin Vulgate. Based on his presuppositions, he took a novel double inspiration position.
Support of the Majority of Manuscripts
Unlike the critical text, which has support of either a small minority of manuscripts or none at all, the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts support almost the entirety of the Textus Receptus. Only in very few places does the Textus Receptus have support of few extant Greek manuscripts, even though there is large extant Latin evidence in those few places. In one place, one word has no extant manuscript evidence. However, that does not mean no manuscript support. TR editions are printed copies from sometimes a non extant manuscript. It is preservation of scripture.
Not all the manuscripts relied upon by Theodore Beza survived the religious wars in Europe. In one place where critical text advocates say he did conjectural emendation, he writes in Latin that he had the support of one Greek manuscript too. I believe in preservation in the original languages. However, people like Mark Ward are hypocritical in this, because they themselves support the best texts in many places rely on a translation. His and their Septuagint view says that Jesus Himself quoted from the Septuagint.
More to Come
Answering Mark Ward’s Last Attack on Preservation of Scripture
Mark Ward summarized almost all of his views on the issue of the preservation of scripture towards the end of his most recent video (here next is a transcript):
Stories?
King James Onlyists in my experience tend to tell themselves one of two neat and tidy stories: a Masoretic Text/TR story or a Ruckmanite story. The MT/TR story goes like this. Once upon a time God inspired the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament and He promised in Psalm 12 and Matthew 5 to preserve them perfectly down to the jot and tittle. Satan came along and produced counterfeits of the Greek New Testament, but thankfully the King James Version translators perfectly translated the perfect Hebrew and Greek texts once and for all. And it’s easy to spot the terrible Satanic corruptions in other Bibles.
When difficulties and inconsistencies are pointed out, however, in this MT/TR story, as I’ve done in this video, it tends to turn into the Ruckmanite story, which goes like this. Once upon a time God gave special blessings to the King James Translators so that all of their textual choices and all of their translation choices were perfect. If there are a few places in the King James that have no textual support in the Greek or the Hebrew manuscripts, that’s okay because God inspired the King James Translators to choose the right reading. If there are a few places in the King James Version where the translators actually followed readings taken from Erasmus that were translated from the Vulgate, that’s okay because God inspired the King James translators to recover the right reading.
The Ward Viewpoint
Now I told the pastor who sent me some of these examples that I don’t enjoy having to point out these difficulties and complexities. But let me build another bridge of trust, the one that I myself use all the time in my Bible study travels. Who gave us the situation in which we have incredible well preserved copies of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament, but there are numerous minor uncertainties and difficulties? Who gave us a world in which perfect translation between languages is impossible?
Who inspired the New Testament apostles to quote a Greek translation of the Old Testament rather than make new and doubtless perfect translations of the Hebrew? (And by the way I draw that last question directly from the King James Translators and their preface.) Who chose not to give us inspired translators, yeah, even a pope to give the best translation in each language his official imprimatur, the seal of divine approval?
Who gave us a Bible that comes in two very different languages, Hebrew and Greek, and actually Aramaic, three, and would therefore require translation in the first place? Who gave us a Bible over the course of 1500 years instead of all at once? Who chose to commit His precious Word to fragile papyrus and sheepskin?
Who gave us the excellent but not perfect situation we’re in? But who told us that one day the perfect would come that we would know even as also we are known? I think you know the answer to my not so rhetorical questions. God did all of these things, and He is good. He is my refuge even when I don’t understand His choices.
Overall Observations and Criticisms of Ward’s Statements
Ward’s little speech makes it easier to deal with what he thinks and says. First, I have some overall observations or criticisms. One, Ward caricatures and misrepresents especially the MT/TR position, and even gets wrong how Ruckmanism arose. He’s not telling the truth. Why do his followers give him a pass on this?
Two, Ward lumps the MT/TR people together with the Ruckmanites. I don’t know if he thinks this, or just conveniently tells it as a story. Either way, it is false. The MT/TR position arises from scripture like he says (albeit in a mocking way), but it also mirrors historic Christian doctrine as seen in creeds, confessions, and many other writings. His view did not exist among professing believers until the 19th century. This has been established, but Mark Ward and others like him just ignore it for a lie of a story. I will return to this point later.
Three, do consider that Mark Ward uses the word “story” to describe MT/TR people. Ward knows what words mean and he knows that the popular usage of “story” today is fiction. Notice then when he starts talking about his view, he calls it a “bridge of trust” and a “situation.” He doesn’t call that another story, a third story as the first two are stories.
Ward on Truth Serum
It seems to me that Ward has “lost it.” His primary target essentially rejects what he says, and he’s lost it, perhaps because of that. And then because he’s lost it, he did something I have not seen him do. I’m not saying he’s never done it, but I’ve never seen it myself. Mark Ward takes truth serum. He plainly states his viewpoint as I’ve never heard him. Ward acknowledges a lack of perfection of the Bible, based not on scriptural doctrine but on his experience. His stark confession reminds me of two examples.
In the last year, I saw a clip of Bill Maher in which he says that all pro-choice people know abortion is murder. He said he knows abortion is murder and he is fine with that. Maher’s two guest sat with jaws dropping at the sheer admission. In one sense, I can respect Maher because at least he tells the truth about his position on abortion. Another popular figure, Bernie Sanders, just comes out and in an obvious way supports socialism. He states his leftist positions without hiding them. Mark Ward does the same in this latest video like no other time.
I think it is important that someone hear what Ward says and understands what’s wrong with it. This is a teaching moment for a true bibliology. Ward admits what a big chunk of his side thinks. It is akin to neo-orthodoxy, not a biblical position. When Bart Ehrman came to this realization, it turned him apostate, which is a danger. I’m going to go through the above paragraphs by Ward and give a scriptural, truthful analysis to it. He’s wrong in so many ways.
First, what’s wrong with Ward’s MT/TR story?
“Neat and Tidy”
Mark Ward mocks the idea of a “neat and tidy” position. Don’t miss that. He would have his audience believe that the truth is not so neat and tidy. To him this is worth mocking with his articulation. The neatness and tidiness of the MT/TR position is that, one, God said He would preserve every Word He inspired and, two, He did it. That is neat and tidy. Modern version onlyists, critical text supporters are in a never-ending quest to improve the text of scripture. God didn’t preserve it perfectly — it’s really disorderly and messy. If you won’t embrace that, Ward will mock you for it.
“Tells Themselves”
Ward says that MT/TR people tell themselves a story. It’s as if they are repeating this story as a mantra, abracadabra and suddenly it will be true, because they keep telling it to themselves. It’s like spinning a talisman in one’s pocket or a lucky rabbit’s foot. “Just keep telling yourself.” He’s the nice guy regularly using this type of derogatory style. Yet, he won’t allow his opposition to comment on his constant youtube presentations on the subject. It gives the impression that everyone agrees. Just because someone tells himself something doesn’t make it true. When God says it, it is true.
“Once Upon a Time”
“Once upon a time” again is a reference to make believe or fantasy. It’s like opening up Cinderella as an actual book of history. He equates the truth with something that is a fable. Ward treats historical and scriptural doctrine like it is a fable.
It is difficult to separate some of what Mark Ward says from other of what he says. He bunches inspiration of scripture into his storybook mode. Is that a story too? I don’t think he means to do that, but it is the net result of this style of criticism he employs. Inspiration is supernatural. Our reason for believing inspiration is the inspired Bible itself. I believe Ward accepts this, but the attacks on inspiration from the neo-orthodox are the same as those on preservation. They question the veracity of inspiration based on so-called external evidence and reject the biblical teaching on inspiration.
Scriptural Presuppositions
Ward is correct that MT/TR folk presuppose perfect preservation based upon preservation passages in scripture. This wasn’t odd through Christian history and yet it is now, because of the attack on the doctrine mainly in the last thirty or so years. Ward is part of this attack. I’m using him here as a representative. He cherry picks two chapters for the simplicity of his storybook, Psalm 12 and Matthew 5. There are numbers of passages that teach preservation, as many or more than teach inspiration. This is presuppositionalism. We presuppose God fulfilled what He said. What’s wrong with that?
Is the teaching of preservation a story as in a storybook? True Christians have long believed it. The doctrine of the perfect preservation of scripture comes from the Bible. I and others didn’t invent this. Many people in the pews of churches believe this too. They see it in the Bible and it is not buttressed only by Psalm 12 and Matthew 5. There are many others (some of which we exposed in our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them).
Ward himself recently started taking on scripture to support his doctrine of “edification requires intelligibility,” teaching it on a level unprecedented in the history of biblical doctrine. People like myself and others support his notion, even if we question his reliance on 1 Corinthians 14, a passage on using the known language of the congregation rather than gibberish. In other words, it’s a stretch to make so much of that principle due to even fifty to one hundred of his “false friends.”
Satan Counterfeiting
Next Ward says that MT/TR people assert that Satan took on the strategy of counterfeiting the MT/TR. Nope. Not true. Satan attacks scripture, yes. You see that in classic passages like Genesis 3 and Matthew 4. It’s also something seen in 2 Peter 3, where false teachers wrest the scripture. Also, Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2, that false teachers spread a false epistle with teaching contradictory to his, feigning as though it was from him.
MT/TR people like myself would agree that the attack by Satan starts by attacking the doctrine of preservation. Satan also wants people to be unsure, have doubt, about the perfection of scripture. This takes away from authority. Rather than a settled text, it is a disorderly and messy one that is uncertain. Mark Ward calls this confidence. It is a relative term, meaning something like 95% to 98%, what I like to say is less pure than tide detergent.
More to Come
Utilitarianism As The Only Moral Law That Matters
What Standard?
As you look around the world in which we live, you may wonder the basis for moral choices. Why rampant abortion? Why pervasive foul language of the worst sort? How are all music types now acceptable? What is the basis for same sex marriage? How could ninety percent of teenagers justify their premarital sex?
Churches function in an all-new manner too based upon different guidelines. What changed? Dress standards have gone by the wayside. Everything is more casual, immodest, and worldly. Church activities and even worship orient more around worldly allure and entertainment. Service times decrease. Members are far less faithful than ever.
Sam Bankman-Fried Case Study
This week in the Washington Post Michael Lewis, who has a future book coming on the same subject, wrote an article entitled, “Sam Bankman-Fried, a personal verdict: A few thoughts on how Americans thought about the crypto trial of the century.” He introduced one portion of the trial testimony transcript with this paragraph:
Caroline explained to the jury how the crypto lenders had asked her for a quick and dirty picture of Alameda Research’s finances. And how, on June 18, on Sam’s instructions, she cooked up eight different balance sheets of varying degrees of dishonesty and presented them to Sam, who selected the least honest of the bunch to show his lenders.
Caroline referred to Caroline Ellison, the CEO of Alameda Research, the trading firm affiliated with Sam Bankman-Fried’s cryptocurrency exchange FTX. She pleaded guilty to fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy charges for her role in the crimes committed. She said in her testimony:
Q. In the course of working with the defendant, did he talk to you about the ethics of lying and stealing? A. Yeah. He said that he was a utilitarian, and he believed that the ways that people tried to justify rules like don’t lie and don’t steal within utilitarianism didn’t work, and he thought that the only moral rule that mattered was doing whatever would maximize utility — so essentially trying to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people or beings.
Utilitarianism
‘Creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people’ in not the ethic of utilitarianism, so he’s misrepresented it. His view of the world though, I believe, is very common. It might be mainstream. People are going to live for their best life now. And what they mean by that is the historical understanding of utility, which relates more to maximizing happiness and pleasure while minimizing pain and unhappiness.
Utility is not in and of itself goodness. The good thing is not inherently good, but good based on what brings the most immediate pleasure. It corresponds to a rejection of God and moral absolutes. What gives the maximum number of people pleasure and happiness is in accordance with conventional wisdom.
What pleasure did a maximum number derive from Bankman-Fried? He used his swindled money to donate to Democrat causes across the United States. His money helped put Democrats in office. Bankman-Fried himself was the beneficiary short-term of utility and emblematic of what anyone could receive without biblical morality.
A Comparison
Among many similar reasons, people miss church because of a sports league that brings pleasure and happiness. They work on Sundays because the money pays for pleasure and happiness. Children lie to their parents because the truth would freak them out. That would prohibit pleasure and happiness all around. The act of evangelism brings animosity and ridicule. How could those two things bring someone pleasure and happiness?
Five hundred years into Christ’s kingdom or one million years into the eternal state, the recipient will live in utter and indescribable bliss. I would call that pleasure and happiness too. For the short seventy to one hundred year life in this age, sacrifice brings joy, deep-seated fulfillment, or an inner calm of the soul. Paul said the short term suffering is not compared to the eternal weight of glory. This is living by faith. Faith overcomes the delusion of utilitarianism.
The New King James Version Does Not Come From the Same Text as the King James Version
In recent days at his youtube channel, Mark Ward again compared the New King James Version (NKJV) with the King James Version (KJV). This goes back a few years, when Ward wrote a blog post that said that the NKJV and the KJV came from an identical Greek New Testament text. In the comment section, I started giving him examples of differences, five at a time. I provided these examples after he made his claim. His claim did not come from his own personal research. After continuing to give examples about five at a time, that showed his claim was wrong, Ward admitted that the two texts were not the same in at least six places.
Systematic Search
The standard as to whether the NKJV and KJV are different, however, is not the few differences that I found in the little time after Ward made his claim. Ward speaks about the differences as though there were just six that really don’t matter much to the meaning of the text. He does not mention that he did not find these variations himself. He also treats those six like they represent all of the differences. It’s just not true though. I hardly looked for examples and found the few ones that I sent him without any systematic search.
Since Mark Ward won’t stop misrepresenting the issue of the differences between the text underlying the NKJV and the KJV, I decided to start a more systematic search in my spare time. I began in Matthew 1 to start chapter by chapter through the New Testament, and I’m to the fifth chapter of Mark So, this is just Matthew — one gospel — and then Mark 1-5. That doesn’t mean that I found every example, because I don’t have a copy of the text for the NKJV. Perhaps one doesn’t exist.
If someone were trying to study and teach from the NKJV and use the original languages, what text would he use for that study? I’m asserting there is none. It doesn’t come from the same text as the KJV so an underlying text of the NKJV, that same as that translation, is not available. That’s a tough one, wouldn’t you say?
Examples
To find my examples, I had to look at the two translations and compare them. When I saw differences, then I went to the Greek text to see if these differences were the result of a different text. Again, Mark Ward didn’t do this work. He doesn’t look for these examples. How does someone report something like fact that he doesn’t even know? All of the examples to which Mark refers came from my finding them for him.
Without further adieu, below are the most recent examples I found of differences between the underlying text of the NKJV and the KJV [CT=Critical Text, TR=Textus Receptus].
Matthew
- 1:18—KJV, TR, ”as,” gar versus NKJV, CT, no “as,” no gar
- 7:9-10—KJV, TR, “if he ask,” aorist versus NKJV, CT, “if he asks,” future
- 9:17—KJV, TR, “perish,” future middle versus NKJV, CT, “are ruined,” present passive
- 9:22—NKJV, CT, strepho, versus KJV, TR, “turned him about”epistrepho, “turned around”
- 10:19—KJV, TR, “shall speak,” future versus NKJV, CT, “should speak,” subjunctive
- 13:36—NKJV, CT, “explain,” diasapheo versus KJV, TR, “declare,” phrazo
- 16:17—KJV, TR, kai, “and” versus NKJV, CT, no kai, no “and” to start verse
- 18:6—KJV, TR, epi, about,” versus NKJV, CT, peri, “around”
- 19:5—KJV, TR, proskalleo, “shall cleave” versus NKJV, CT, “be joined,” kalleo
- 20:20—KJV, TR, ”of,” para, versus NKJV, CT, apo, “from”
- 21:25—KJV, TR, para, “with” versus NKJV, CT, en, “among”
- 22:10—KJV, TR, hosous, “as many as” versus NKJV, CT, hous, “whom”
- 23:34—KJV, TR, kai, “and” versus NKJV, CT, eliminates kai, no “and”
- 27:3—KJV, TR, apestrephe, “brought again” versus NKJV, CT, apostrepho, ”brought back”
Mark
- 1:16—KJV, TR, de, “now” versus NKJV, CT, kai, “and”
- 2:15—KJV, TR, to, “that” versus NKJV, CT, no to, no “that”
- 2:21—KJV, TR, kai, “also” versus NKJV, CT, no kai, no “also”
- 4:18—KJV, TR, no eisin, “they are” versus NKJV, CT, eisin, “they are” (in italics but in so doing accrediting the CT)
- 5:6—KJV, TR, de, “but” versus NKJV, CT, no de, no “but”
These are nineteen more examples after looking at about one and a third New Testament books. I don’t want to keep searching for these. Rather, I would wish for the other side to defer and just admit that the NKJV translators did not use the same text. In other words, I don’t want them to keep challenging this assertion. The NKJV is not the NKJV. It would come from the same text as the KJV, one would assume, if it were a “New” King James Version. The NKJV comes from a less different text than most modern versions, but it does come from a different text.
Why Does It Matter?
Why does any of this matter? It isn’t a translational issue in this case, but one of the underlying text. This is presuppositional. God promised to preserve every Word. If that’s true, which it is, then this relates to the doctrine of preservation of scripture. Mark Ward and others act like they don’t even understand it. They rarely to never mention it.
In a recent video on this same issue, Mark Ward went on the offensive against the King James Version. It wasn’t a new attack. This is the point. Textual critics say one short phrase in Revelation 16:5 wasn’t in any known manuscript, but was instead a conjectural emendation by Beza (read about this issue here). It is not a phrase that appears in a majority of presently preserved Greek manuscripts. I carefully wrote that last sentence, because a translation of the Latin of Beza doesn’t say it was a conjectural emendation, but instead he wrote:
Therefore, I am not able to doubt but that the true reading should be as I have restored it from an ancient manuscript [hand-written] codex of good faith, truly ο εσομενος.
Men like myself and others with our presuppositions from scripture believe this is what Beza did, not conjectural emendation.
A problem that Ward would not mention in his offensive against the King James Version is that almost all modern versions, ones that he supports, come from a minority of the manuscripts. Not only that, but in hundreds of lines of text in the underlying text of the modern versions there is zero manuscript evidence. They have no manuscript support. Yet, Ward and many, many others, who deny the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation, have no problem advocating most for those modern versions that translate that text.
****************************************
Addendum
I don’t plan on continuing to keep looking up more examples. It wasn’t as those examples did not present themselves as I looked. This makes the point of variations in the textual basis between the NKJV and the KJV. What made this tough is that the NKJV translators said, no differences, and yet there are.
If you trusted the translators, then you didn’t know the differences. Perhaps you never checked. Yes, there’s a difficulty sometimes in deciding translational differences. I tried to find the ones where the differences would or could reflect a difference in the text. A variant needed to exist for me to use the example. It’s easy to come later and defend it as a translational choice, but there is a there, there. If you want to criticize, you could try to do that, and I could just keep looking for more too. This is something perhaps you haven’t done, that is, look on your own.
If you haven’t looked on your own, maybe you could do that, if it matters to you. As I’ve said in the past, for a long time, I assumed the NKJV used Scrivener’s, the same text as the KJV in other words. Then I read someone who said, no, so then I began looking a little and agreed that it wasn’t the same. You really shouldn’t have it both ways, that is, a first way where you say there is no difference. And then you have a second way, where when someone looks up examples and you attack the person doing that. That is having it both ways. It isn’t honest.
Natural Laws Don’t Cause Origins or Existence
Natural Laws
When you look at the world and space around it, you are not seeing the result of natural laws. The natural laws, such as the law of gravity, do not explain the origin of the universe. When one football player flies out of bounds after a collision with another, a natural law did not cause that. The second player caused the first one to move out of bounds. You could say that a defender forced him out. Natural laws didn’t bring about the event.
Force, as one player forcing another out of bounds, expresses Newton’s second law of motion, which says:
The acceleration of an object depends on the mass of the object and the amount of force applied.
Something applies force and it isn’t a law itself that does it. Newton’s law, a natural law, explains the force, but it isn’t what sent the offensive out of bounds. Someone pushed him. The law explaining the momentum that carried a football out of bounds didn’t make him quickly and explosively leave the playing field.
Category Error
Before nature existed, the laws of nature did not exist. Laws explain how nature operates, not what caused it to get here. In his 2010 book The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking wrote that the universe can and will create itself from nothing because of the existence of laws like gravity. He said:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.
In an accurate way, people call this mistake, a “category error.” It is my normal practice to attempt to give someone the benefit of the doubt. According to 1 Corinthians 13:7, this is ‘hoping all things.’ However, it is very hard to believe that these men really do think that the universe arose from laws that depend on an already existent universe. Space and matter precede natural laws. No one should believe or advocate for this deluded concept declared by Stephen Hawking. It is so bad, this idea that laws actually do things, that it really should be a laughing-stock.
God the Cause for Everything
Every year, people fall from high elevation and die from hitting the ground below. The news does not report that the law of gravity caused their death. Again, there is a law of gravity, but the law itself doesn’t cause anything.
God both caused and sustains space, matter, and energy. The laws that explain their function themselves proceed from His intelligence and design. Assigning their cause to laws is just a futile attempt to eliminate God and man’s accountability and obligation to Him.
Recent Comments