Wear New Glasses

I just got some new glasses. I detest new glasses when they are first worn, because of the nausea. It’s a stronger prescription so it is taking some getting used to. Some of us, including myself, need to feel like we are using a different set of eyes while reading God’s word. It is very easy for those of us who were raised in the church to have preconceived notions about what the scriptures will say when we open them. This is not how it should be! We see that Thessalonica had this problem when we read Acts 17:11 and 1Thessalonians 5:21. We ought rather to “take Jesus as He is” (Mark 4:36). When we sit down to read from God’s word, we should allow IT to shape our convictions and beliefs, rather than mold the Bible to what we want. This “new” way of reading may be difficult at first. It takes more time and study. It is much easier to make the Bible say what you want it to rather than to dig deep into it and see what it really says. When we read the Bible the way that we should, it may also be nauseating, in a sense. It seems to me that many do not want to study the word or “get into the whole religious thing” because they are afraid of what they will find. They fear that they will find what they are doing is wrong and that there is a consequence. It is much more comforting and easy to not read the Bible and do what you would like, or to only read Psalms all of your life and make yourself feel good. God commands that we obey HIM and the only way to do that is to know what He wants. We must never obey ourselves. The Bible is not subjective (John 17:17) and we must not treat it as such. I pray that we will all be opening our Bibles and reading what God has to say to us.

The Church

In creating an English language version of the New Testament, from the Greek, I am comfortable with the practice of translation. When agapaw is translated “charity” in the KJV, and followed by “love” in newer versions, I am comfortable, even though original intent, to some degree, may be lost. It is an accurate translation. I am somewhat comfortable with the practice of transliteration, whereby a Greek word is rendered letter for letter, rather than through translation. The most familiar example of this practice is baptisma, or baptism, as rendered by the King James translators. Even though the application of this transliteration has been skewed over time, the practice of transliteration is not inherently ineffective. But, oh how we all wish the King James translators would have written “immersed” rather than baptized.

I am extremely uncomfortable with the practice of substitution. Although, as with transliteration, it is not inherently inaccurate, the possibility of opinion, and agenda, become a probability. Such is the case with some “high profile” words in the New Testament. Baptism, although a transliteration, is also a substitution word, because of the implication of sprinkling or pouring as an acceptable alternative to immersion. The word “repent” is not an accurate translation of the Greek, and it will be dealt with in a future article.

Brother Hugo McCord’s New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel contains an Appendix in the back of the book, explaining many of these thoughts. I am especially drawn to his work, because Dr. McCord can effectively convey his brilliance and apply it to my simplicity. I don’t agree with all of Dr. McCord’s published views on theology, but I am not qualified to contest his expertise on language translation. Some of the thoughts presented in this article are influenced by our beloved brother, Hugo McCord.

“And Jesus said, ‘And thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…”

The word “church” never appears in the Greek text of the New Testament. According to McCord, the word “church” refers historically “to a physical building, a meetinghouse, which the Lord’s people in the first century did not build, and for which there is no New Testament word”. Church is English, from kirk (Dunkirk was named for a meetinghouse located at Dun or Dunn). Tyndale, in the first English translation of the Greek text in 1525, used “congregation”, because he knew that “church” was an inaccurate translation. King James I, who was head of the Church of England, and who had, using McCord’s words, a “vested interest in the word church”, ordered the fifty-four translators to change “congregation” to “church” in 1611, and the rest is history. For what it’s worth, Alexander Campbell, like Tyndale, used “congregation” to describe the body of Christ, knowing that “church” was inaccurate.

The Greek word is ekklesia, which simply means, “called out” or gathered. There are a couple of citations in Acts 19 (verses 32 and 41) where ekklesia is used to describe a mob. In verse 39, ekklesia refers to a group of law-abiding citizens. In the thirty-six other citations of ekklesia, all references are to the Lord’s people. In one of these thirty-six citations, Acts 7:38, Stephen’s word, captured by Luke, is ekklesia, and is used to describe the Hebrew nation that wandered in the wilderness of Sinai after leaving Egypt.

So, we see, that ekklesia refers to a gathering of people. Whether lawful, riotous, Hebrew or universal, it refers to a gathered group of people. In the references to the Lord’s people, who are gathered, one might assume an additional term, “the elect”, to coincide with gathered. So, instead of church, in the 35 references to the Lord’s people, we have a “gathering of the elect” to describe those who are “called out”.

So, what’s the big deal? Wouldn’t you think that most people understand this? Wouldn’t you think that most people are taught, and understand, that the church is not a building, but people? The church is an institution, but it is not a physical institution, defined by architecture and building materials. The church is people. The home is an institution, very different from a house, which is defined by architecture, landscaping and building materials. The church and the home are God ordained institutions, or entities, comprised of people.

“Husbands love your wives as Christ loved” an organization? Technically correct, but woefully short on conveying the meaning! Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved his people! Husbands love your families as Christ loves His family! Christ is the head of His body, His people, not an organization, as King James thought. Husbands are to be the head of their family as Christ is the head of His!

People who are head of an organization manage that organization. Yes, they lead, but they lead by managing. Jesus led, and expects men to lead, by ministering and managing. Even within the church, shepherds have management responsibility, but they also have ministering responsibilities. An eldership that manages to the exclusion of ministering, is a recipe for disaster. A husband or father that manages his family without ministering is as well.

The Lord adds people to other people, not people to an organization. It’s not as if we’ve joined the Rotary Club. We have joined the elect of God; joined the people who are saved; joined the people who are called out from the world!

“And Jesus said, ‘And thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…”

It would have been a bit more difficult to memorize and quote if this passage from Matthew 16 had said, “… upon this rock I will build my people, elect and gathered from the world”. But, it would not have given the slightest inclination for us to think of a physical building or an organization. Christ did not come to build a church. He came to build His people, and He will build His people by building their faith in Him.

Bible Contradictions

We are in a spiritual war. It is obvious. To win the battle, we must not only put on the armor of God spoken of in Ephesians, but we must know our enemies weapons. The most used one is trying to pass off man-made creeds as God given. Galatians 1:9,10 refutes that. Another is claiming that the Bible isn’t true at all. Science, archaeology, and Biblical prophecies all refute this claim. Still another is ignorance. Through the great commission and 2Tim. 2:15 we can fix this. If you’ll notice, in every instance I am using the Bible to fend off these fallacies. But there is a weapon the devil has, and uses quite frequently, that uses the Bible itself to try and defeat our faith. This weapon is the claim that the Bible contradicts itself. There is nothing further from the truth. When and if you are confronted with this situation, stand boldly. Stand strong. The Bible is perfect. 2Tim. 3:16 says, “God breathed”. Now that being said, to stand boldly we must always have an answer for the hope that is within us. I’d like to look at a few of the main contradictions that the world says the Bible makes, and how they are not contradictions at all.

First, we must understand what a contradiction in fact is. In logic, the Law of Contradiction is stated as follows: “Nothing can both be and not be”. Aristotle put it this way: “That the same thing should at the same time both be and not be for the same person and in the same respect is impossible.” For instance: a door can be both opened and shut, but it cannot be opened and shut at the same time. An important truth that must be hammered home repeatedly is this: a mere difference does not make a contradiction! For instance, let us analyze the following two statements: Robert is rich. Robert is poor. Do these statements contradict one another? The answer is – not necessarily! First, two different people named Robert could be under consideration. Second, two different time frames might be in view; Robert could have been rich but, due to financial disaster, he became poor. Third, the terms “rich” and “poor” might have been used in different senses; Robert could be spiritually rich but economically poor. The point is this: it never is proper to assume a contradiction exists until every possible means of making it not a contradiction have been used. Now, let this principle be applied to the Bible.
Some contradictions are very easy to prove, while others take a little more thought and common sense. Example of a very easy one: I heard of one guy who claimed he found a contradiction. He said it was impossible for the Hebrew priests to carry the ark across the Jordan River when Moses had filled it with so many animals. This man was obviously confused about the two different types of arks. So you see, when someone says, “Well I don’t believe the Bible because it contradicts itself!” don’t be afraid to ask, “Where?”.

One of the most used “contradictions” is that God both loves and hates. This is not a contradiction because He loves some things and hates others. John 3:16 He loves sinners. But He hates every false way (Psalm 119:104).

Another frequently used claim is that the gospel writers contradict themselves. The case of the healing of the blind men of Jericho is one of these. First, while both Mark and Luke mention the healing of one blind man, Matthew records the healing of two blind men. Second, Matthew and Mark indicate that the blind men were healed as Jesus was leaving Jericho, whereas Luke says that a blind man was healed as the Lord “drew nigh” to the city. How, then, shall these narratives be reconciled?
In the first place, the fact that two of the accounts mention only one man, while the other mentions two, need not concern us. Had Mark and Luke stated that Christ healed only one man, with Matthew affirming that more than one were healed, that would be a contradiction but that is not the case. If one says, “I have a son,” he does not contradict himself by stating further, “I have a son and a daughter.”
But how may the second problem be solved?

It is possible that three blind men were healed in the vicinity of Jericho on this occasion, and that the incident mentioned by Luke, when Jesus approached the city, might have been a different miracle than that recorded by Matthew and Mark. This may not be the most likely explanation, but it cannot be disproved.

1. Some argue that “drew near” also can mean “to be near”. This view implies that Luke simply locates the miracle near Jericho.
2. Perhaps the best viewpoint is the fact that at the time of Christ there actually were two Jerichos. First, there was the Jericho of Old Testament history that was located at the sight of Elijah’s spring. In the first century, however, that city lay almost in ruins. About two miles south of that site was the new Jericho, built by Herod the Great. The Lord – traveling from the north toward Jerusalem – first would pass through the old Jericho, then some two miles to the south, would go through the new Jericho. The miracles under consideration, therefore may have been performed between two towns. Accordingly, the references in Matthew and Mark to leaving Jericho would allude to the old city, whereas Luke’s observation to drawing near to Jericho would refer to the newer community

The last one I’d like to look at is how the disciples supposedly contradict one another in what was written above the Lord’s head when He was crucified. Matthew says that the sign reads: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mark says that the sign reads: THE KING OF THE JEWS. Luke says: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. And John says: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Now certainly this is a contradiction! No! A few thoughts: first of all, they all say: King of the Jews. So when Mark gives the bare minimum, is he lying? He states it says King of the Jews and it does! Now if he were to write, “it only says King of the Jews” then we would have a problem. Second, Luke says that the inscription was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. There are three different languages. Is it possible that some of the words could be “lost in translation” as they say? To give you an example, I went to one of those translation websites where you can translate a phrase from English to just about any language and then back to English. Well I typed in the phrase: How are you doing the fine morning? I translated it to Greek and the back to English and got, “How you make this thin morning?” You see what I mean? Mark could have read one of the transcriptions while Luke and John read completely different ones!

We must realize that when we evangelize, some are not going to listen. It is nearly impossible to get some people to see what is right in front of them. So when this arises, we must do exactly what Jesus told us to do: move on. We are only commanded to plant the seed. But do not let this discourage you or make you doubt in any way! God wrote the Bible and God is perfect!

Power at Our Disposal

We have all witnessed unprecedented power at various times in our lives. Have you not sat through a violent thunderstorm and marveled at the power in the wind, the rain, and the lightning? You may have been taking shelter from a tornado, only to emerge from safety after the storm passes and shudder at the power of destruction in those storms. You have seen the power of nature in the devastation along the Gulf Coast of the United States, the annihilation from the tsunami’s in Indonesia, or the earthquakes and volcanic eruptions that occur from time to time. You’ve seen the power of an idea in the birth and development of this great nation, and in its struggle for civil rights among its citizens. You recognize the power of one sermon to change a life, and to change eternity for a soul. You can grasp that one verse of an invitation song would be powerful enough to empty hell.

Paul wrote in Romans 1 about the power of the “good message” of Jesus Christ. He says it is the “power” unto salvation for everyone who believes, Jew and non-Jew. Can we grasp that kind of power? Or have we become so numb to the message that we cannot comprehend the power inherent in it? It is my belief that many do not, or cannot, recognize the power of change in their life, because they really didn’t have a conversion experience. Their life didn’t undergo any radical change. Perhaps they didn’t give up any former lifestyle to become a Christian, and therefore, perhaps they wouldn’t have an appreciation for the power of transformation. Using a storm analogy, contrast the experience of a man who endured a raging flood from a relatively high position, against the experience of a man who, along with his wife and children, were pulled from the raging water only seconds before being overcome.

We would never proclaim a gospel that omits the need for baptism, and rightfully so. In faithfully teaching the necessity of baptism, have we failed to proclaim a gospel founded on the need for repentance? There is power in the blood of Jesus, and power in the waters of baptism that brings us into contact with His blood. But there is power in the lure of sin, and power in the ability to overcome sin through the power that comes from above.

There is also divine power in the strength we receive from the Spirit of God. According to Romans 8:11, there is the power of life. Paul makes an argument that because “the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in us”, that same Spirit “will give life to our mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in us”. Did you get that? The same power that raised Jesus from the dead is available to give immortality to our mortal bodies!

Who can say that the Spirit of God dwells in a Christian and yet, does nothing?

In addition, the same Spirit Paul writes about in Romans 8, is an agent of inner strength to the Christian. The words of this same Spirit, through Paul, are clear:

“I pray… that God would grant you … to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man…” (Ephesians 3:14-16). Further, Paul talks about the scope of this power that we, as Christians, have, in verse 20.

“Now, to Him, who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us…”.

FAR MORE ABUNDANTLY BEYOND ALL THAT WE ASK OR THINK? In other words, I cannot imagine the power that is at my disposal.

The power of God, through His indwelling Spirit, is a privilege reserved for God’s children. Let’s not live beneath our privilege.