Home » Search results for 'worship' (Page 7)
Search Results for: worship
Dipping Now Into Application Of American Fundamentalism And British Evangelicalism
Alistair Begg’s Interview
Popular evangelical preacher, Scottish American Alistair Begg, on September 1, 2023 revealed the following account in an interview:
And in very specific areas this comes across. I mean, you and I know that we field questions all the time that go along the lines of “My grandson is about to be married to a transgender person, and I don’t know what to do about this, and I’m calling to ask you to tell me what to do”—which is a huge responsibility.
And in a conversation like that just a few days ago—and people may not like this answer—but I asked the grandmother, “Does your grandson understand your belief in Jesus?”
“Yes.”
“Does your grandson understand that your belief in Jesus makes it such that you can’t countenance in any affirming way the choices that he has made in life?”
“Yes.”
I said, “Well then, okay. As long as he knows that, then I suggest that you do go to the ceremony. And I suggest that you buy them a gift.”
“Oh,” she said, “what?” She was caught off guard.
I said, “Well, here’s the thing: your love for them may catch them off guard, but your absence will simply reinforce the fact that they said, ‘These people are what I always thought: judgmental, critical, unprepared to countenance anything.’”
This didn’t seem to get on the radar of the rest of evangelicalism until an article about it on January 23, 2024 on Christian Headlines, almost four months later. Then the evangelical internet and podcasts exploded with mainly negative reactions to Begg’s interview.
Response of Begg to Criticism
In response to the criticism and hoopla over his counsel, Begg came out fighting. This is the biggest story right now in evangelicalism. He has elevated the story with his combativeness. Begg preached an entire sermon defending himself and he said a lot to crush opponents. Among everything, he said this one paragraph:
Now, let me say something that will be a little explosive. I’ve lived here for forty years, and those who know me best know that when we talk theology, when we talk stuff, I’ve always said I am a little bit out of sync with the American evangelical world, for this reason: that I am the product of British evangelicalism, represented by John Stott, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Eric Alexander, Sinclair Ferguson, Derek Prime.
I am a product of that. I have never been a product of American fundamentalism. I come from a world in which it is possible for people to actually grasp the fact that there are nuances in things. Those of you who are lawyers understand this. Everything is not so categorically clear that if you put one foot out of this box, you’ve got to be removed from the box forever.
Begg said some very, very harsh things in public about all of his critics, but in this section, he called them “American fundamentalists.” That is a pointed insult for most evangelicals. It’s essentially calling them an odious modern day Pharisee. He actually gets worse than that.
British Evangelicals and American Fundamentalism
British Evangelicals
Begg distinguished himself from American fundamentalism by referring to himself as a “British evangelical.” However, he was not attacked by fundamentalists. I would reckon that zero to few fundamentalists even listen to Begg It was in reality many, many evangelicals who had something in public to say about Begg, not fundamentalists. Out of ten podcasts denouncing Begg, close to ten on average were evangelicals. Among them, many big-named evangelicals spoke against Begg and his position. Yes, a few also came out in public support of him, but one might say, the usual suspects did that.
Alistair Begg said that he places himself within the British evangelicalism of John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. For his sermon, he relied heavily on an early book by Stott, Christ the Controversialist. I’m not one to coach Begg on the ins and outs of British evangelicalism, but I do understand American fundamentalism. I lived in it, took a class on it, read books on it, functioned among historic figures of fundamentalism, and wrote about it here.
Fundamentalist Movement
The fundamentalist movement is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented movements in world history. Fundamentalism deserves a critique, but secular historians and evangelical ones of all different stripes tend to slander fundamentalism. Calling someone a “fundamentalist” becomes then an ad hominem attack for an evangelist.
In his defense, Alistair Begg is saying that he’s just being his regular old British evangelicalism, but his critics are all being their American fundamentalism. In some ways, Begg is right that this behavior among his 95% plus evangelical critics seems like a historic outlier for evangelicalism in the United States. I would also agree that it looks like at least some type of neo-fundamentalist movement in evangelicalism.
If I were acting right now as a historian, I would say that this is a new, albeit small, movement in the United States, perhaps like that of Spurgeon during the Downgrade Controversy in England, a precursor to American fundamentalism. The critics of Begg are truly acting or behaving in the militant spirit of fundamentalists.
The Biblical Doctrine of Separation
Sine Qua Non of Fundamentalism
American fundamentalism was a movement in the early twentieth century within evangelicalism across denominations in defense of the fundamentals of the faith. Fundamentalists stood for doctrines that would preserve a true gospel and evangelical Christianity itself. A key feature of fundamentalism was and is separation, essentially “come out from among them and be ye separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17).
Separation is a biblical doctrine found in almost every book of the Bible. The non-fundamentalist, professing evangelical does not separate. The sine qua non of fundamentalism was and is separation. Separation is of the absolute nature of God. He is holy or separate. God separates. The goal of the original fundamentalist movement was to keep the fundamentals and thus keep the gospel. The fundamentalists understood the necessity of separation for protecting the fundamentals of the faith.
Evangelical Non Separatists
Evangelicalism itself became distinct from fundamentalism. Evangelicals would not separate. Instead, they emphasized their concept of unity, which meant toleration. In order to get along and to maintain the greatest possible coalition, evangelicals look for ways to compromise.
The non-fundamentalist evangelicals in the United States began to turn into something more in nature with mainstream evangelicalism in England. Especially characteristic of evangelicals was forming bridges with or to the world through social programs. In many cases, this turned into its own form of liberalism that today manifests itself today in rampant “woke evangelicalism.” Evangelicalism turned back toward liberalism in forms of cooperation, what many labeled a “new evangelicalism.”
Cultural Issues and Nuance
Cultural Issues
A major means by which evangelicals could sustain their idea of unity is to remove much of the application of the scripture, especially on cultural issues. Cultural issues are the most offensive teachings and practices of scripture. Examples of cultural issues are the unique identities of men and women, masculinity and femininity, the distinct roles of the man and the woman, marriage between only a man and a woman, parental authority over children, and the worship of God in the beauty of Holiness. There are many more cultural issues taught in scripture.
The defense by Begg is a case study of the nature of evangelicalism, especially represented in the above paragraph by the word, “nuance.” He calls out the lawyers in his church for their support on this thought. Yet, do we treat the perspecuity of scripture like we do that of federal, state, and local criminal and civil laws? The Bible is God’s Word. Almost his entire sermon performed nuance to defend what he did.
Nuance
Nuance allows for a multitude of possible acceptable positions on various scriptural issues. Nuance means permitting differences. Allowing for many different positions is the type of unity embraced by evangelicals. Evangelicals want to keep a large percentage of biblical doctrine and practice open to numerous positions. They tolerate many various positions on numerous different doctrines and practices for the sake of unity. This requires nuance with scripture.
Many evangelicals, I can see, understand now the damage of not practicing separation on doctrine and practice, including cultural issues. They comprehend now the connection between the gospel and same-sex marriage and transgenderism. Can you believe in Jesus Christ and accept same-sex marriage? I’m not saying that Alistair Begg would say, “Yes.” However, he values nuance and nuance goes both ways. Acceptance of same sex marriage starts with tolerance of it. This is akin to the progression one sees in Psalm 1:1:
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
Lloyd-Jones, A Fundamentalist?
Compared to John Stott as a professing evangelical still in the Church of England, Martyn Lloyd-Jones himself was a British fundamentalist. He was a separatist. A British publication, the Evangelical Times, reports:
Evangelical Times was launched in February 1967, four months after the much-discussed division between Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Stott. . . . In 1963, Lloyd-Jones quoted the Independent, John Owen, to show ‘the duty of every saint of God’ was to withdraw from a church where ‘notorious, scandalous sins had gone unpunished, unreproved’. In 1965, Lloyd-Jones dismissed arguments against separatism as ‘sheer lack of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit’ in favour of ‘trusting to expediency’.
I am not a fundamentalist, but I have much more sympathy for fundamentalism and fundamentalists. I’m not a fundamentalist, because I don’t think it goes far enough. You can’t protect the faith by diminishing doctrine and practice to fundamentals. One of the fundamentals is not “marriage between only a man and a woman.” Based on that kind of thinking, a fundamentalist doesn’t need to separate over same sex marriage. It is not a fundamental of the faith. This relates directly to this issue with Begg. This presents a problem even for the fundamentalist model of belief and practice.
Stott’s Evangelicalism
John Stott was an evangelical Anglican. How could Anglicanism coexist with evangelicalism? The framework for the Church of England undermines a true gospel. Henry VIII, who started the Church of England, didn’t deny the gospel of Roman Catholicism. He just wanted a divorce. The Church of England itself does not preach a true gospel.
Stott did not believe in a literal Hell or eternal torment. He believed and preached Annihilationism. Stott went to Venice Italy to join the Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission. He denied the inerrancy of scripture.
More to Come
Embracing An Unstoppable Advantage For Guaranteed Longstanding Victory (Part Two)
Fleshly Lust and Priesthood
Peter commands his readers (1 Peter 2:11): “Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.” It is a crucial or key verse in 1 Peter as Peter moves into the primary message of his epistle. It’s also a mandate or instruction, or at least similar one, as in other passages and from other authors.
In the Old Testament, being a priest was a privilege. The priest could go directly to God unlike an average Israelite. Jesus, however, makes every believer a priest, as seen in 1 Peter 2:5:
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
You can see in that very verse: the New Testament priest “offer[s] up spiritual sacrifices,” ones that are “acceptable to God.” The priesthood requires responsibility. The sacrifices are a sacrifice. And the sacrifices are spiritual and acceptable unto God. The priest can’t give to God just any old thing.
If the priest must offer spiritual sacrifices, then he must abstain from fleshly lusts. Fleshly lusts run in absolute contradiction to spiritual sacrifices. God will reject a fleshly sacrifice. Evangelicalism offers non-stop fleshly sacrifices to God. He rejects those offerings. Yet, evangelicals will count them as accepted because of their feelings. What they feel, they feel is acceptable to Him. They even very often think they feel the Holy Spirit in an ecstatic experience produced out of their passions.
Deprivation of the Soul and Idolatry
Posing as Worship
What does rejected worship do for someone’s soul? It deprives the soul. Fleshly lust hollows out a professing priest of God, leaving him spiritually famished. In the realm of spiritual warfare, this fleshly lust wars against his soul.
Professing Christians pose as worshipers. Like the priests of Baal with Elijah (1 Kings 18), they major on their expression of worship. It originates from their own passion, just like sin arises from their lust (James 1:14). True worship humbles itself before God, subjecting to the truth, which is only His truth. That is authentic worship, not the unique expressions of ones own feelings, but that proceeding from Words of God.
Fleshly lust parallels with idolatry, as revealed by Paul in Colossians 3:5, when he writes:
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
Mortification
Mortify your members, Paul writes. The members are body parts. Passions arise from body parts. Fleshly lust abides in body parts, as does indwelling sin. Body parts must be brought under subjection. Then they become instruments of righteousness unto God.
The first falling domino that ends in fornication is idolatry. Next is covetousness. Functioning in the realm of fleshly lust betrays fruit of the Spirit. It’s why Paul also commanded in Romans 13:14: “make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.”
“Abstain from fleshly lusts” and “make not provision for the flesh” relate to idolatry. Both result in not offering spiritual sacrifices unto God. God doesn’t accept worldly and fleshly worship, which also means the perpetual offering of a person as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1-2).
Soundtrack for a Life
Commands and Disobedience to Them
Christians walk according to the soundtracks of their lives, what they might call their playlist. The reformed theologian and author, Douglas Wilson, who wears the mantel of father of modern classical education, wrote this:
While working on this post, to take a snippet of my playlist at random, I have listened to “Feelin’ Alright” by Joe Cocker, “Rivers of Babylon” by the Melodians, “96 Tears” by ? and the Mysterians, “Lonestar” by Norah Jones, “Almost Hear You Sigh” by the Stones, “Watching the River Flow” by Dylan, “Motherless Child” by Clapton, and you get the picture. Now here is a quick quiz. Get out your Bibles, everybody. Is that playlist worldly?
Not too classical. Education, probably not either. That playlist disobeys two commands: “abstain from fleshly lusts” and “make not provision for the flesh.” And actually many others in the New Testament.
Internal Procession of Unrighteousness
Paul writes in Galatians 5:19, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest.” The works of the flesh are evidence. Like faith is evidence, the works of the flesh are evidence. One of those works is “lasciviousness,” which means “sensuality.” The soundtrack of a genuine Christian is not sensuality.
The viewpoint of “abstain from fleshly lusts” corresponds to the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. God’s righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees (Matt 5:20). The examples or illustrations of Jesus (Matt 5:21-48) then deal with the internal procession of unrighteousness. It’s not just murder, but hate. It’s not just physical acts, but the lack of abstinence from fleshly lusts. This clashes with the nature of God, the true identify of the believer, the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Fleshly lusts do not retard corruption. They speed it up.
More to Come
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar (Part Four)
Being Intentional
When you intend to do something — some people today call that “being intentional” — you might plan it or schedule it. Does scripture regulate or legislate intentionality? This thing of being intentional even has a definition: “making deliberate choices to reflect what is most important to us.” King David begins Psalm 101 with intentionality:
1 I will sing of mercy and judgment: unto thee, O Lord, will I sing.
2 I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart.
3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.
When you intend to do it, you might schedule it. That’s good. It’s how you ‘redeem the time’ (Eph 5:16). How do you seek something first? You’ve got to move it up in priority on purpose. You will and then do of God’s good pleasure. This is sanctification. It’s how you keep something holy.
If I want to ensure I do something, I put it on a “to-do” list. For the year, I write those actions on a calendar. For an entire church, as a church leader, I have a church calendar. What goes on that calendar? I could put a “Jumper Day” on the calendar with intentionality. Jumpers are those inflatable fun houses, serving as a kind of trampoline. Let’s say instead, I intentionally schedule into the year of the church a spiritual emphasis. Let’s call it a “liturgical calendar.” Every year the church emphasizes scriptural events in the life of Christ and other biblical themes.
Using the Calendar
The Psalms are a guide for writing hymns. The prayers of the Bible are a guide for what to pray. In the Old Testament, God weaves into the year a means by which Israel will remember what God did. This included the weekly Sabbath and then festivals. This is a model, not for continuing to follow a Hebrew calendar, but for what to do with a calendar.
Israel began to observe also an event the occurred after the completion of the Old Testament, the Feast of Dedication. It celebrated an event in the intertestamental period. Israel then added that Feast to the Hebrew calendar. Jesus too observed the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22ff). Like the other Feasts, the Feast of Dedication helped Israel remember what God did in saving Israel during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Macccabees.
The New Testament church schedules services on Sunday. Scripture doesn’t say how many, but many churches meet three times on Sunday: Sunday School, Sunday morning, and then Sunday evening. They might hold a midweek time too. Through example, scripture regulates a Sunday gathering for the elements of New Testament worship. It does not regulate how many meetings.
Keeping Holy
A believer can keep his speech holy. He can keep his deeds holy. A true Christian can keep his thoughts holy. He can also keep his motives holy.
Paul says the believer can yield his members, his body parts, as instruments of righteousness unto God or yield them as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin (Romans 6:13). Yielding his body parts as instruments of righteousness unto God is how he presents his body holy unto God (Romans 12:1). Someone can “worship God in the spirit” (Philippians 3:3) or not do that.
Sanctification in the Truth
Sanctification in the truth starts with thinking and understanding what God says in His Word. More than a hearer, he must also be a doer. This requires volition, a readiness of will. It also means a delight in what God said, a holy affection.
Sanctification in the New Testament follows the example of Jesus. In John 17:19, Jesus prayed to God the Father:
And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Jesus provided the perfect example to follow, and the Apostle John writes in his first epistle (2:6):
He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
Walking as Jesus walked is not arbitrary. It is looking to the scriptural example of Jesus. Also as John Owen wrote:
To see the Glory of Christ is the grand blessing which our Lord solicits and demands for his disciples in his last solemn intercession, John 17: 24.
The Glory of Christ
In 2 Corinthians 4:6, regarding sanctification, the Apostle Paul writes:
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
A church centers on the Person of Jesus Christ and Christ changes the church by its seeing of Him. To conform to the image of the Son a church must see the image of the Son.
I’m contending for purposeful, intentional seeing, thinking, and understanding the glory of Christ. The New Testament emphasizes certain events in Christ’s life. To be sanctified by the example of Jesus, to walk as He walked, and to see His glory, you must focus on Him. Jesus appeared on earth in real history in real time. He was here. In His time here, He accumulated important events in His life. The gospels, Acts, the epistles, and Revelation talk all about them. Put those on the calendar.
Keep Your Year Holy
Validity and Value
Don’t emphasize the events of Christ’s life according to their traditional dates on the calendar. Do emphasize them on their traditional dates. I like my emphasis on the calendar better than your no emphasis.
Putting the events of Christ’s life and other important biblical themes on your calendar is a way to keep your year holy. I’m saying there is a value to it. It is a means by which to accomplish many requirements for the believer from the New Testament. It’s not the putting it on a calendar that accomplishes the seeing, thinking, and understanding of the truth. It is the actual doing of seeing, thinking, and understanding.
Words mean things. The keeping in keeping something holy means something. This year I handed out a Bible reading calendar. Scripture doesn’t regulate the calendar I handed out. The calendar is how someone might keep things holy. Someone can have a calendar and remain unholy. I’m saying a calendar is valid and of value.
Remember and Emphasize
I didn’t hand out a fun-time-a-day calendar to our church. Our calendar did have one verse for each week for scripture memory. Scripture doesn’t regulate that. Does scripture regulate scripture memory? I’m guessing people won’t be arguing over a Bible reading calendar and a scripture memory calendar. Neither are in the Bible.
Believers should assume that they can keep something holy. They are told to keep things holy. Yes, in the Old Testament God instructs Israel to keep the Sabbath holy (Exodus 20:8). By what I read some people write, you might think that I’m writing this series for the purpose of keeping the word “Christmas” holy or keeping a date for Christ’s birth holy. I’ve not written anything like that.
I believe it’s been clear what I’m advocating. Some argue against it with what seems to be red herrings and straw men. I say, let’s be purposeful about remembering or emphasizing the events of Christ’s life during the year. A church can schedule more than that, but I support the use of a liturgical calendar to keep the church year holy.
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar (Part Three)
Regulative Principle of Worship
Over a period of time, professing Christians formulated from scripture what was termed, “the regulative principle of worship.” I believe in that. This took awhile in the history of Christianity to develop. I believe it because it is scriptural and, therefore, I want to follow it. The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 expresses it:
The acceptable way of worshiping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.
One example of the seriousness of regulating worship by scripture is that of Nadab and Abihu, when they offered strange fire to the Lord (Leviticus 10). Offering strange fire meant changing the recipe for the incense for the altar of incense in the holy place. Silence was not permission for them to offer a different recipe.
God prescribed a specific recipe, spelling out percentages of the ingredients. Scripture regulated the recipe. That was an element of Old Testament worship. Since God spelled it out, that’s all you could do. Nadab and Abihu changed it. God killed them for that. This indicates the seriousness of it.
What changes with observing Christ’s birth around December 25th? Next year Sunday is actually December 28. Emphasizing Christ’s birth changes nothing that God prescribed. It’s not like changing the recipe for the altar of incense. I contend it does not violate the regulative principle of worship.
Application of the Regulative Principle
Canon of Dort
Like one Reformation group, the Puritans, another, the Dutch Reformed Church, whom like the Puritans I’m not endorsing, committed to the Regulative Principle of Worship. In 1618-19, that group held their Second Synod of Dort, the Dutch term for the town of Dordrecht. This council explained its decisions in a document, The Canons of Dort. In Article 67 of the Canon, the council says:
The Churches shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, with the following day, and whereas in most of the cities and provinces of the Netherlands the day of Circumcision and of Ascension of Christ are also observed, Ministers in every place where this is not yet done shall take steps with the Government to have them conform with the others.
Earlier in Article 63, it writes:
The Lordly Supper shall be administered once every two months, wherever possible, and it will be edifying that it take place at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas where the circumstances of the Church permit. However, in those places where the Church has not yet been instituted, first of all Elders and Deacons shall be provided.
Helvetic Confession of 1564
Another Reformation group in Switzerland wrote Helvetic Confessions in 1536 and 1564. The second of these writes:
THE FESTIVALS OF CHRIST AND THE SAINTS. Moreover, if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord’s nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly. but we do not approve of feasts instituted for men and for saints. Holy days have to do with the first Table of the Law and belong to God alone.
Finally, holy days which have been instituted for the saints and which we have abolished, have much that is absurd and useless, and are not to be tolerated. In the meantime, we confess that the remembrance of saints, at a suitable time and place, is to be profitably commended to the people in sermons, and the holy examples of the saints set forth to be imitated by all.
Variations of Applications
All of these varied groups, including the Puritans, claimed the Bible as their final authority. They disagreed on the application of the regulative principle. Some said “no” on the organ. Certain ones said only psalms and no hymns. Groups differed on a liturgical calendar. They had their unique reasons for all of these variations, but all believed and practiced the regulative principle of worship.
Puritans sprinkled infants. How many infants do we see baptized in scripture, let alone sprinkled? Sure, Pilgrims and Baptists separated from the Church of England. Many Puritans, however, saw no problem with a state church as seen in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Puritans heavily involved and led the English Civil War. Most Puritans would not use musical instruments and sang only Psalms (total Psalmody).
Word Meanings
“Christmas” derives from “Christ’s Mass.” “Sunday” derives from “Day of the Sun” and Hellenistic astrology. If I called you “gay” in the not too distant past, that was considered a compliment. Not anymore. The word “mass” comes from the Latin missa, which means “to send or dismiss.” You could argue that “Christmas” literally means “Christ sent,” like John 17:18, “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.”
If I say, “Merry Christmas” to you, I’m not saying, “Go have a merry time at Roman Catholic Mass.” No. This is a joyous time, like when the ark returns to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6. This symbolizes God’s presence back in Jerusalem and David celebrates with all his might. Christmas means “Christ’s birth” to most. Be gone the idea that every word must revert to its original etymology. It’s one reason we revise our dictionaries — words change in meaning based on usage. Here’s a definition you might read: “the annual commemoration by Christians of the birth of Jesus Christ on Dec 25.”
Special Occasions
Philadelphia Confession
A liturgical calendar acknowledges special occasions. The Philadelphia Confession of 1742 says:
The reading of the Scriptures, preaching, and hearing the Word of God, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord; as also the administration of baptism, and the Lord’s supper, are all parts of religious worship of God, to be performed in obedience to Him, with understanding, faith, reverence, and godly fear; moreover, solemn humiliation, with fastings, and thanksgiving, upon special occasions, ought to be used in a holy and religious manner.
Jesus and the Feast of Dedication
I call to your attention the words, “special occasions.” Churches advocated for special occasions. Regarding this, Stephen Doe writes concerning the regulative principle of worship:
God commands us to worship him once weekly in a corporate manner, but allows us to apply biblical principles to worship him at other times. The church under the new covenant does not have less liberty than the church under the old covenant; we are not the underage church, but the church which has been baptized in the Spirit of Christ. If we were to apply the regulative principle without clearly understanding these things, then we would have to condemn the apostolic church for meeting daily, since God had never commanded such meetings. Instead, they understood that what God was commanding was for them to worship him acceptably (cf. John 4:24; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 10:25; 13:15).
This balance is seen in the example of our Savior, who exercised his liberty of conscience, while not violating the regulative principle, when he attended the Feast of Dedication (that is, Hanukkah; cf. John 10:22). That was an extra-biblical feast not commanded by God in Scripture, but begun by the Jews to commemorate the rededication of the temple after the close of the Old Testament. Jesus was free to go up to Jerusalem or not to go up. God commands us to worship, and Jesus was using that occasion to obey the command of God.
The events on a liturgical calendar are not special occasions because a church sets them apart for observation. No, they are special because they are events in the life of Jesus Christ. If a church adds Thanksgiving, Mothers Day, and Fathers Day, those are justifiable. These do not violate a regulative principle.
Keeping Holy
The term holiday has diminished in its meaning. If I say, Happy Holiday, today, I might mean something akin to a Hallmark card greeting. It probably is the opposite of holy, the meaning of “Holy Day” or “holiday.” When we observe it, set apart for special emphasis, then it is holy, like the ground around the burning bush with Moses.
Exodus 20:8 says, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” I could say, “Remember the birth of Christ, to keep it holy.” “Remember the resurrection of Christ, to keep it holy.” If we can keep something holy, then we can sanctify something. We can set something apart to keep it holy, rather than just being a worldly item during the year. Churches can and should do that. This is the value aspect, I’m advocating, for a liturgical calendar.
(More to Come)
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar (Part Two)
The Suggestion of a Church Calendar
Perhaps as you read, I don’t have to argue for Christmas and Easter. You accept that already for your church calendar. Churches should acknowledge and honor the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They include the birth and resurrection in the prayers, singing, and preaching of their corporate worship.
I suggest that a church have a calendar with events for the worship of the Lord. Scripture does not require the special days, but a church should acknowledge the truth of them. They can do that by putting them on the calendar, very much like inserting them into an order of service.
The Requirement of Order
The belief, teaching, and practice of scripture requires order. You see order all over the Bible. This is the nature of God. Romans 8:29-30 reveal an order of salvation:
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Here’s the order: (1) foreknowledge, (2) predestination to conform to the image of the Son, (3) call, (4) justification, and (5) glorification. Other examples of order exist. Consider Matthew 5:23-24:
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Here’s the order: (1) Decide to bring a gift to the altar, (2) remember brother has ought against you, (3) Leave the gift before the altar, (4) go, (5) be reconciled to the brother, (6) come back to the altar, (7) offer your gift at the altar.
The Truth of Order
God is a God of order. God requires order. “Order” translates the Greek, taxis. According to BDAG, it means: “an arrangement of things in sequence,” “a state of good order,” and “an arrangement in which someone or something functions.” Here are two usages of the word by the Apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 14:40, “Let all things be done decently and in order.”
Colossians 2:5, “For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.”
Very often the priesthood, like that of Zacharias in Luke 1:8, is called an “order.” The worship of Israel required order. If you think about the tabernacle, it started with an outer court, then an inner court, the altar of burnt offering followed by the laver, and then into the holy place. It ended in the holy of holies. God prescribed order in the worship.
Worship, Order, and a Church Calendar
When one reads the account of the Lord’s Table in the New Testament one sees a particular order of observance. This is seen in Matthew 26:26-27, Mark 14:22-23, Luke 22:17-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. Someone takes the bread, gives thanks, breaks it, explains it, partakes of it, remembers, and then in the same manner takes the cup. He takes the bread first and then the cup. One could say that the order makes sense as it will always.
True worship requires order. A calendar puts the events of Jesus’ life in an order and observes them according to that plan. It treats them like they occurred. They happened at a time of the year.
One does not have to put events on a calendar to give them acknowledgement and honor. Doing so, however, fulfills a principle of order, which is in the nature of God. That obeys doing things in order. It ensures the church will think on these events, meditate on them, emphasize them, and include them in prayer, singing, and preaching.
(More to Come)
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar
You Might Have a Liturgical Calendar
If you have Easter and Christmas on your calendar, you have a liturgical calendar. You might not call it one, but it still is. Should you though? Is it permissible or maybe even of value for a church to keep a liturgical calendar every year?
Let’s say that you mark Easter and Christmas at their traditional and maybe historical times. That means every year you acknowledge that Jesus rose from the dead and was born of a virgin in Bethlehem about nine months apart. You do more than that. You make those a major emphasis in every aspect of the service on those days. That is liturgy.
The Liturgical Calendar, Per Se, Not in Bible, But…
Regulative Principle
Scripture doesn’t teach a New Testament, Christian, or church calendar of any kind. Based on that, I understand a rejection of these special days under a regulative principle of worship. The Bible does not regulate a Christian calendar. Is that end of discussion? I don’t think so.
I would still argue for a liturgical calendar, even if you don’t want to call it a liturgical calendar. The Bible does not require it either by precept, principle, or example. It also does not require using hymn books, offering plates, even the construction of church buildings for worship.
You can plan worship days on a calendar around the events of Jesus’ life, but the Bible doesn’t tell you to do that. Prayers, preaching, and singing in a true church should on a continual basis emphasize especially certain events in Jesus’ life. Biblical events really occurred. Churches should treat them like they did. It is right to do that.
Circumstances of Worship
Our church celebrated Christmas this year on December 24th. We went out and caroled on December 21st at the houses of seven different people or families. I did a three part Christmas series with sermons on December 10, 17, and 24. I would call that liturgy.
Even though a liturgical calendar, I contend, is not an element of worship, it does fall under a sub-category of a circumstance for worship. Every theme of a liturgical calendar fits within the elements of worship. As an example, for Christmas a church can bring Jesus’ birth into prayer, preaching, and singing. That is still regulating the service based on scripture.
I would further contend that the order of a calendar gives more necessary order to the worship of God. Order is in the nature of God. Worship in truth should reflect the truth about God. Liturgy itself is an order of service. Service should be orderly.
The Use of the Term “Liturgy”
Most Baptists do not use and have not used the term, “liturgy.” Professing Christians define liturgy as the standard order of events in a gathering of worship. When people attend church, they do things. They might start with prayer, sing a psalm, then sing a hymn, take up an offering, read scripture, pray again, preach a sermon, and then end in prayer. This order of events, planning out what the church will do in worship, is liturgy.
“Liturgy” is the transliteration of a Greek word in the New Testament, leitourgia. BDAG, the foremost New Testament lexicon says the word primarily means: “service of a public or formal type.” In certain instances, the word “minister” is the translation of leitourgos, another form of the word. This is “one engaged in administrative service.”
Here are three usages of leitourgia as “service of a public or formal type,” translated “ministration,” “service,” or “ministry”:
Luke 1:23, “And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.
Philippians 2:17, “Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.”
Hebrews 8:6, “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”
All three of the usages relate to worship of God. They are service of a public or formal type.
Roman Catholic Liturgy?
Some oppose liturgy, because Roman Catholics use the word. Some would say liturgy originated out of Roman Catholicism. In the most fundamental way, liturgy is order of service. If you plan an order of service with prayer, singing, reading, and preaching, you prepared liturgy. If you plan that out further in a general way for your year, that’s a liturgical calendar.
Historical evidence exists for pre Roman Catholic liturgy. Of course, this isn’t the English word “liturgy” from the first three centuries, because English didn’t exist. However, liturgy in its most fundamental understanding existed in the first few centuries. Scripture also reveals the liturgical aspects of a worship service.
Liturgy of American Consumerism?
After preparing with many thoughts on this subject of liturgy, I read these paragraphs by Scott Aniol:
I always find it ironic when I hear Christians in America state with conviction—and a little bit of piety—that they won’t be tied down by “Catholic” traditions like the Church Calendar, and yet through their actual practices they prove to be constrained by a liturgical calendar of another sort—The Liturgical Calendar of American Consumerism.
They insist that they won’t celebrate Epiphany, the Baptism of Christ, Palm Sunday, Holy Week, Eastertide, Pentecost, Ascension Day, Trinity Sunday, Advent, or the traditional Twelve Days of Christmas.
And yet instead, their churches celebrate New Year’s Eve, Valentine’s Day, Easter Bunny Day, Mother’s Day, Memorial Day, Father’s Day, Independence Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving, and a Christmas season stretching from Thanksgiving to Christmas Day—days with customs rooted not in biblical events or Christian tradition, but in the tradition of American commercialism.
His article and a few to which he linked argues for liturgy in churches. A church could opt to plan out the traditions of American commercialism and plan into the calendar the events of Jesus’ life.
(More to Come)
2 Thessalonians 2:3 & Pre Trib Rapture: “Day Shall not Come”
People that deny the pre-Tribulation Rapture of the saints sometimes use 2 Thessalonians 2:3 to argue for their position. Let us examine this verse in its context:
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Opponents of the Biblical doctrine of the pretribulational, premillenial Rapture of the saints may argue that “the day of Christ” cannot be “at hand,” that is, it cannot be about to take place, until there “come a falling away first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” That is, the Antichrist has to be revealed before the Rapture can take place, according to this argument.
However, this argument against the pre-trib Rapture is clearly invalid. The phrase translated “the day of Christ is at hand” in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 comes from the Greek hoti enestēken hē hēmera tou Christou. The word enestēken comes from the Greek enistēmi, meaning “to be present”; the sense in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 is that “the day of the Lord has come” (BDAG). Some at Thessalonica thought that they were already standing in the time of the Day of Christ; they thought they were already in the Tribulation period, and so they were doing things like no longer going to work at their lawful employments. Paul explains that if they were already standing within the Day of Christ, if they were already present in the Tribulation, then they would see the Antichrist ruling the world, as he is the one who takes power immediately after the Rapture (Revelation 6:1-2). No Antichrist ruling the world? Then they were not in the Tribulation, argues Paul.
The other texts in the New Testament with the verb enistēmi verify this interpretation:
Rom. 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
1Cor. 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
1Cor. 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
Gal. 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
2Th. 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. [“the day of Christ is present.”]
2Tim. 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come [Greek future tense: “perilous times shall be present in the future.”]
Heb. 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
While in English we use the phrase “at hand” in a variety of ways, the Greek word in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 and its uses elsewhere in the New Testament demonstrate that Paul was warning that if one was actually in the Tribulation period, he would already see the Antichrist in power. Paul was not saying that the Antichrist would arise and then the Day of Christ would start at some point afterwards. Indeed, in the following context, Paul identifies the Holy Spirit as the Restrainer who is holding back the Antichrist until He is taken out of the way (2 Thessalonians 2:6-7). Notice that the Holy Spirit is referred to with a neuter (KJV, “what” withholdeth, to katechon) in 2:6 and a masculine (KJV, “he” who now letteth/restraineth,” ho katechōn) in 2:7. The neuter is used because pneuma, “Spirit / breath / wind,” is grammatically neuter word in Greek (as are all words ending in –ma), but because the Holy Spirit is a Person, He is referred to with a masculine form in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. When will the Spirit be taken away? When the saints are taken away in the Rapture–and then the Antichrist, no longer restrained, will be revealed.
Thus, in context, 2 Thessalonians 2 supports a pre-Trib Rapture, and nothing at all in 2 Thessalonians indicates that the Antichrist must start ruling before the Rapture can take place.
Many other passages support the pre-Tribulation Rapture of the saints, and refute a mid-Tribulation or post-Tribulation error, including passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4, which have been discussed in other articles on this blog.
–TDR
The Experience of Divine Hiddenness
Is God Hidden?
Is God hidden? Yes and No. God doesn’t hide Himself. In people’s experience, He remains hidden. That doesn’t mean He is in fact hidden. They experience Divine hiddenness.
In scripture, people experience Divine hiddenness. Job said to God (13:24):
Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and holdest me for thine enemy?
The Psalmist says in Psalm 10:1:
Why standest thou afar off, O LORD? why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble?
Unbelievers claim the hiddeness of God in Isaiah 45:15:
Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.
God Himself says that people say He hides Himself. They are Egyptians, Ethiopeans, and Sabeans (Isaiah 45:14). This isn’t new at all.
Argument for Atheists
Divine hiddenness is a hot new argument for atheists. It shows up in the most recent material of philosophical atheism:
However, “divine hiddenness” refers to something else in recent philosophical literature, especially since the publication of J.L. Schellenberg’s landmark book, Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason (1993). In this context, it refers to alleged facts about the absence of belief in God’s existence, on the basis of which one might think there is no God.
For example, Schellenberg argues that, since there are nonbelievers who are capable of a personal relationship with God and who do not resist it, there is no perfectly loving God, while Stephen Maitzen argues that naturalism better explains the “demographics” of nonbelief than theism and Jason Marsh argues that naturalism better explains “natural nonbelief” than theism. Understood in this way, divine hiddenness constitutes putative evidence for atheism.
Some people do not recognize the existence of God and they use as their basis the reason that God hides Himself from them. Others acknowledge God exists, but He does not appear to them in their estimation enough for them to believe. They live like He doesn’t exist.
The Crown Performance
People require God to give them, what I call, the “crown performance.” They expect God to come to them like a traveling minstrel. They hold Him hostage. If He will not provide the necessary experience they require, they will not believe in Him. What I’m describing is unbelief. Unbelief requires more and then more revelation from God.
As an argument, Divine hiddenness contrasts with the sovereignty of God. Men become sovereign. If God does not accede to however unbelievers expect Him to appear, they can ghost Him. God must obey their chosen methodology, because they are ultimately in charge. It exalts their intellect, which is too lofty to accept God’s kind of evidence. He’ll just have to do better, if they will acquiesce to Him.
Those who embrace the hiddenness of God set the terms for God’s revelation. He must accede to their expectations. If not, they justify their unbelief with hiddenness.
Sincerely Seeking?
Many of those who use Divine hiddenness as their reasoning for unbelief proclaim their own sincerity. They really want God. These unbelievers truly seek for Him, based on their own testimonies. If He would give them but a glimpse, a brief flash of light from Him, they would believe.
God says, I’m not going to hide. I’m revealing myself to everyone (Rom 1:19-21). It’s not that people can’t know God. They refuse the means by which He reveals Himself. Rather than receive His revelation of Himself in the manner He gives it, they want something else.
Unbelief makes excuses for not believing. To the unwillingness to receive what God shows of Himself, Jesus says in Matthew 12:39:
An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it.
Then He says it in Matthew 16:4:
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it.
The gospels record this teaching of Jesus again in other places (Mark 8:12, Luke 11:29). A sign points to the reality of God’s existence.
God Wants Relationship, Not Mere Acknowledgement
On Divine hiddenness, I wrote earlier this year:
People may not use this exact language, but in essence they very often ask a question concerning God, “Why is God so hidden?” God could have made more evident His existence and the truth of Christianity. He could make his existence as plain as anything. First though, scripture doesn’t read like God tries to persuade belief in His existence. No, God manifests Himself toward free reception of a saving, love relationship with Himself.
God knows the evidence sufficient for people with open minds and hearts. If you seek Him while He may be found, He will be found (Isaiah 55:6-7). But that means you want Him. This is your first act of worship of God, an offering of your soul to Him. This is more than mere acknowledgment of His existence, like the demons (James 2:19).
Faith in God’s love and knowledge acquiesces to the superiority of His ways. He displays His goodness and mercy in the way He reveals Himself. First, God uses it to bring the most people to Himself and, second, He leaves suitable ambiguity against hardening hearts toward Him. God does not force lost men to believe. He gives ample time and opportunity to encounter the dramatic, true story of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and His glorious resurrection and ascension. The foolishness of God is wiser than men, His weakness stronger than them.
A big difference exists between God hiding Himself and His revealing Himself in an unsuitable way to an unbeliever. Just because someone says he’s sincere in his seeking doesn’t mean he is. God judges that sincerity by His Word and that professing seeker falls short.
David Whose Heart Was Perfect With The LORD His God?
David. You look back to Saul, and then back at David. Of course, David. You look forward to Solomon, and then back to David. Of course, David. David. Why? Something is different about David. What is it?
David and Solomon
When you arrive at 1 Kings 11:4, the Lord says:
For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
God was not saying that Solomon’s heart was not with the LORD his God. It was not perfect with the LORD his God. On the other hand, David’s heart was perfect with the LORD his God. What was different about David, that his heart was perfect before the LORD his God, and Solomon’s wasn’t?
David and Jeroboam
Even Compared to Solomon
Then in 1 Kings 11:6, God says:
And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
This puts the condition of Solomon compared to David in a different way: he “went not fully after the LORD.” He also did evil in the sight of the LORD. By the time we get to Jeroboam, he’s worse than Solomon. His heart wasn’t even with the LORD his God. 1 Kings 12:32 says:
And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made.
Then 1 Kings 13:33 says:
After this thing Jeroboam returned not from his evil way, but made again of the lowest of the people priests of the high places: whosoever would, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places.
Judgment on Jeroboam
Because of this, 1 Kings 13:34 says:
And this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth.
And then God says to Jeroboam in 1 Kings 14:10:
Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.
In fulfillment of that in 1 Kings 15:29-30 we read:
And it came to pass, when he reigned, that he smote all the house of Jeroboam; he left not to Jeroboam any that breathed, until he had destroyed him, according unto the saying of the LORD, which he spake by his servant Ahijah the Shilonite: Because of the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and which he made Israel sin, by his provocation wherewith he provoked the LORD God of Israel to anger.
Distinct Paths Taken
Again and again after this, you can read the phrase, “walked in the way of Jeroboam,” very much like there was the phrase, “as David thy father walked.” These are two different paths in the history of Israel. David’s path is very much described by what God warned Solomon in 1 Kings 9:4 (and 11:38):
And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments.
David did not live a life of sinless perfection, but he walked in integrity of heart, uprightness, doing all God commanded him, and keeping God’s statutes and judgments. Fulfilling that is not sinlessness, but it does mean having a perfect heart with the LORD and going fully after Him.
Scripture distinguishes the heart of David from other kings. Some other kings had a heart fully after the LORD in the heritage of David. The way this manifested itself more than any other was in the worship of David. Someone fully after the LORD acknowledges who God is and then offers Him what He wants.
Solomon was an idolater, not to the extent of Jeroboam. But then Jeroboam was an even worse idolater, because he gave himself fully to idolatry. Solomon gave himself partly to the LORD and partly to idols. Solomon set himself part by building the temple and worshiping God there, even though later he partially turned from that and ruined his legacy with God.
Worship Distinguished David
David murdered Uriah. He committed multiple adultery. He was a polygamist. What does this mean in juxtaposition with the good things scripture says about him?
David was a true worshiper of God, who sought after God. He failed, but his direction and his sincere spirit for the Lord characterized him over the flaws in his life. The Bible and myself do not write these things to excuse David, but to elevate the distinction of worship.
Today churches are rampant with idolatry. The church growth movement changed and corrupts the worship of the church. It centers on the audience and not the Lord. The false worship profanes God and shapes a false god, unlike the God of the Bible, in the imagination of the participants. This is akin to the path begun by Solomon and then taken full fledged by Jeroboam. It’s ruining young people, churches everywhere, and the entire United States of America.
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Five)
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
God Gave Words in their Original Languages and Preserved Them
In Scripture
Part of the story of the doctrine of inspiration of scripture and then its translation relates to languages. God immediately inspired the original manuscripts of scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. God gave scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. God also used His church in an institutional sense or His true churches to give witness to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. This fulfilled the scriptural instruction to keep the Lord’s Words.
The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:18, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” A jot is the smallest consonant in the Hebrew alphabet. A tittle is a vowel point, which is small. Some evangelicals say the tittle is a part of a Hebrew letter that distinguishes it from another Hebrew letter. Either way, jots and tittles refer to Hebrew letters. That says that God promised to preserve what He gave by inspiration, which is the original text.
In History
Jesus Christ Himself, God in the flesh, says that ‘not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from the law.’ The Lord establishes one particular detail of preservation. That detail is this: He preserves His Words, the very letters, in the language in which they were written. We can see that churches believed this point of Jesus in the London Baptist Confession, when it says:
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; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Text, Translation, and Meaning
Churches should and do go to the original texts for their final appeal in all controversies of religion. This answers the question, “How did people understand the passage who heard it in the day of its writing?” The final appeal does not go to an English translation.
Someone could then ask, “Does everyone then need to know the original languages?” The same London Baptist Confession says next:
But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read, and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
I did not write Matthew 5:18. I did not write the London Baptist Confession on that point that Jesus made. However, I believe Jesus and what true churches believed and taught on this doctrine. For sure, I’m not abnormal on this.
A bit of logic could come into play. If the true Word of God was an English translation in the 17th century or an edition of it in the 18th century, could true churches believe and live what God said for the previous sixteen centuries? Anyone should ask that. If man lives by God’s Words, it assumes He possesses them. Part of the doctrine of preservation is the doctrine of availability. Denial of general accessibility is denial of God’s promise of perfect preservation of scripture.
Studying the Original Text of Scripture
Meaning
For someone reading this essay today, you should know that you can look up a word in the English translation to find the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic word. I know many who put in the effort to do that. Even those who never took one day of a course in biblical languages can know the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic word. In the church I pastor right now, when I refer to a Greek word, a man looks it up on his phone to see. The one, who does not know original languages, checks me out. I welcome it.
Grammar and Syntax
I would expect further study than the meaning of the words in their original language, but that is a very good start. A great one. Yes, people should know grammar and syntax, but I find that a large majority of people do not know grammar or syntax in any language. Some of the people who criticize our use of original languages here do not rely on grammar and syntax either.
For a moment, consider the expertise of grammar and syntax, even in an English version. Isn’t that an expertise too? Does the Bible come with a grammar book? Does scripture come with a syntax guide? It doesn’t. In a sense, someone uses a glossary of extra-scriptural terms to apply to the study of the Bible.
The words “verb,” “noun,” and “adjective” are outside of God’s Word. To be consistent, original language deniers should criticize the requirement of grammar and syntax. “Don’t make me learn the word ‘participle’!” I don’t know; maybe they complain about that too. Perhaps they are grammar deniers as well.
You will miss a portion of the meaning of scripture if you rely only on a translation. It helps to know the range of semantic meaning of a word. You can understand from the original text the tense, mood, or voice of verbs or participles. Going to the original text for meaning will help a student of God’s Word. God gave His Words in those original languages.
Points in the Text Not In Translation
Hebrew Acrostics
Did God give the book of Lamentations in a Hebrew acrostic? Yes. Someone cannot see that in a translation. Does that also affect the interpretation of the book? Yes. The third chapter is a triple acrostic by starting triplets of verses with the same Hebrew letter. This also provides a chiastic structure that tips the point of the whole book in the absolute middle of the book.
Several Old Testament passages structure each section of poetry to start with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Psalm 119 is a well-known example of this, but also Psalms 9-10, 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 145, Proverbs 31:10-31; and Nahum 1:2-8.
Poetic Word Plays
The Lord also used poetic word plays all over the Hebrew Old Testament one cannot see in a translation. Does God expect someone to recognize those word plays? Yes. You will start seeing word plays in the early chapters of Genesis and then continue seeing them all the way through the Old Testament.
In Genesis 1:2, “without form and void” translated tohu and bohu in the Hebrew, which is paranomastic, a rhyming effect. We don’t get this rhyming effect in English. One aspect of beauty or aesthetics are these devices of language. God gives them to us, not to miss them.
“One of his ribs” in Genesis 2:21 and “bone of my bones” in Genesis 2:23 are a Hebrew word play. God (and Moses) reverse the consonants of “rib” and “bone.” It’s intentional and easily spotted in Hebrew, but not in a translation. We are meant to see the life connection between “rib” and “bone.”
God uses an obvious pun between Adam and the Hebrew word ’adamah, meaning “earth.” The Hebrew ’adam means “man.” In the chapter introducing the first man, Genesis 2:5 says, “there was not a man [‘adam] to till the ground [‘adamah].” Later then, Genesis 3:19 says, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust [‘adamah] shalt thou return.” These Hebrew word plays are distinct from a translation.
God cares about these word plays. He used them. They mean something. He has not shelved them for translations of the original text. When someone cannot see an acrostic or poetic word play, He does not witness something God wrote. Any true believer should want to know this. It is a reason why God gives churches pastors.
Different Words
In the King James Version, the translators translated different Greek words with identical English words. They also translated identical Greek words with different English words. Someone would not know that by the translation. I ask you to consider 1 Corinthians 13:8:
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
“They shall fail” and “it shall vanish away” both translate the same Greek word, katargeo. You would not know that by the translation. I believe it is very helpful to know that, even for the interpretation of the passage. “They shall cease” translates a completely different Greek word than the other two in the series, and yet all three are translated differently, as if there are three different words. There are just two, not three.
On the other hand, “miracle” translates two Greek words: semeion (Acts 4:22) and dunamis (Mark 9:39). You would not know that by the English translation. Sometimes, very often, the translators translated semeion, “sign,” as if “miracle” and “sign” might be something different.
Do we decide the words and the meaning by the English translation? Do we now say, there are three different words in 1 Corinthians 13:8? Do we say that miracle is just one word, because that’s the way it looks in the English? Our decisions on these issues come from the original text, not the translation.
Originalism
Obeying God by rightly dividing the word of truth (1 Tim 2:15) requires originalism. Originalism means the original biblical text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that God gave it by inspiration. The Bible doesn’t change in meaning from the original text given to the original audience of scripture. The text means what the author meant and he wrote it in an original language. Scripture cannot mean something different than what it originally meant.
God preserved His Words to fulfill His promise of preservation. He did it for the right understanding of meaning. God also preserved those Words because His communication of meaning comes through those original Words. An accurate translation of a perfectly preserved text is not superior to the perfect preserved text. That translation comes from that text.
Recent Comments