Of Chips And Works

The airport staging area was crowded to capacity as the young man returned to his wife and casually commented as to his conclusion that the lady at the concession counter who sold him his soda certainly seemed to have had a “ chip on her shoulder. ” Suddenly, several activities stopped short, as multiple sets of eyes from the surrounding seats of the staging area turned to stare in stunned disbelief at this seemingly simple statement!

The couple from California just could not contemplate how the woman at the concession stand could, or even why she would, have had a California Highway Patrolman setting on her shoulder; and they actually got up and set out to go see such a strange phenomenon! After all, they knew a few… could it possibly be somebody they knew?

Seated nearby, the immaculately well-dressed and overstressed business executive who was also a computer expert wondered silently to himself just how much the “chip” on her shoulder was actually worth and exactly what kind of information it contained…

The thought of a salty snack suddenly made the nearby teenager turn off his computer game and turn his attention to his now-all-of-the-sudden hungry stomach, as he wondered why the woman would waste a perfectly good chip by putting it on her shoulder as opposed to into her stomach by eating it…? And… what kind was it anyway; salt and vinegar perhaps? Ah, his favorite!

The professional painter from Portland pondered the predicament as to whether or not the chip had perchance fallen onto her shoulder from above because the ceiling of her particular kiosk needed new paint perhaps…?

On the other hand, the high-stakes gambler from Georgia wondered if maybe he had dropped one of his lucky, winning, customized casino chips near the concession stand concourse and she had somehow picked it up and put it on her shoulder to display, just for luck. He thought about going to see, but then decided there was really no chance of it.

But the nearby farmer and his wife from Fargo were both obviously and evidently thoroughly disgusted, as they wondered just how and why a woman – and a woman serving food at that – could possibly get by, going through the day with one of “those” on her shoulder! And why on earth would anyone ever buy a drink from there as this young man obviously had?!? Inconceivable! They certainly wouldn’t!

Ten minutes passed. The California couple returned, determined not to believe anything else they overheard this young man ever say again, seeing as how they never did find the woman “piggy-backing” the policeman. The teenager went half-heartedly back to his computer game, grumbling stomach and all. The business executive quietly reviewed his computer files, all the while keeping an ear turned towards the young couple for more potential financial information on the infamous “chip.” Meanwhile, the painter passed the time pondering whether or not to go and explore the problem with his potential new client; the gambler decided to continue to roll the dice and just stay put; while the farmer and his wife still sat nearby with the undisguised look of disgruntled disgust on their faces.

And then suddenly, the startled stares started all over again (except for the now famished teenager who could wait no longer and made off after the young man) when the young woman softly asked her husband if he could go get her a bag of… “chips”…?

And we laugh. Because we know. We know and process the differences in the communicational context of these comments both immediately and automatically. We understand for example, the difference between a California Highway Patrolman (C.HI.P.), a computer chip, a potato chip, a paint chip, a poker chip and a “cow chip.” But do we always? You see, because of the many different kinds of “chips” we could talk about and the many different people’s varied perspectives on them – coupled of course with the young couple’s previously general terminology – there was a huge, but still simply-solvable situational solution! If the young man had but immediately specified that the concession lady he had purchased the soda from had had a psychological, or the stereotypical, temperamental and proverbial type “chip” on her shoulder, all would have been well… but he didn’t. The same could have been said later on if only his loving wife had but simply and immediately specified, “…a big bag of barbecued potato chips.” But she didn’t. Hence the confusion.

But ever so sadly and life and death seriously, the same can surely be said when it comes to salvation. For example, we often hear those of a particular man-made religious denomination and doctrine which seeks to deny the simple, scriptural, and straightforward eternal truth that baptism is an essential requirement in order to be saved (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38, 22:16; Romans 6:1-5; Gal. 3:26-27; I Peter 3:21; and  etc), scurrilously seek to sell us on the deception that baptism is a work and that the bible clearly says we are not saved by such works in places like Ephesians 2:8-9. Now, while they correctly quote these verses, they fail to understand – or at least fail to correctly inform us – that there are several different kinds of “works” discussed in general in the Scriptures, all of which must be discussed only in light of their own very specific context! In other words, the word “works” in the Scriptures is akin to the word “chips” in the airport! And we must be well-studied in order to truly separate them down and scripturally discuss and doctrinally dissect them (Acts 17:11; II Timothy 2:15).

There are for example, works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19); works of the Law of Moses (Galatians 2:15-16; and incidentally the type of works which Ephesians 2:8-9 is specifically addressing – see verse 15), and meritorious good works, all three of which can never atone or make up for the filthiness of our sins (Isaiah 64:6; And remember: even the good man Cornelius, as good as he was, still wasn’t “good enough,” and had to be immersed in the waters of the one, New Covenant, Christian baptism for the forgiveness of his sins – Acts 10).

And then, on the other hand, there are the God-commanded and required “good works” of faithful adherence and obedience to His word which God saved us specifically to perform! These would be equivalent to what our faithful forefathers in the faith are reported as having done in both Hebrews 11 and Acts 2:37-47, precisely because of their great faith in exactly what God said, which led to their exact and precise obedience to them… and for which they were greatly rewarded for so doing by none other than almighty God Himself! For a list of these sorts of “essential works” references, and of which we must maintain in order to please and be with God, please see: Matthew 5:16; Romans 2:5-10; Ephesians 2:10; I Timothy 2:9-10, 5:9-10, 6:17-19; Titus 1:16, and chapters 2 and 3 in their entirety, along with Hebrews 10:24-25; James 3:13; and I Peter 2:11-13 to name a few.

And finally, what I find most simply amazing of all, is that those who constantly and continually bring up texts such as Ephesians 2:8-9 completely out of their specific, intended, contextual addressing of the “works” of the Old Testament LAW OF MOSES, to somehow say that New Testament Christian baptism specifically for the forgiveness of one’s sins just exactly as the hand-picked apostles of our precious Lord and Savior such as Peter and Paul taught it, is somehow NOT essential before salvation can occur, defies the boundaries of even the most mature of imaginations!

They say that we’re saved by faith only. God says “not so” (See James 2:19-24). And in fact, while the baptism they seek to disclaim (with completely out-of-context verses on works not even associated with the same covenant as Christian baptism for the forgiveness of sins) is never recorded in the Scriptures as a “work” whatsoever, but is instead reported as an act of “faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Colossians 2:12), it is actually the “faith” part of their “faith only – no works” equation, which the scriptures resolutely report to be one of the very “works” which God requires! Faith a work?!? Yes! (See John 6:28-29.)

And so, in conclusion, the bottom line is this. There’s some chips you’d never eat (such as computer or poker chips); some chips that could kill you if you did eat them (such as paint or cow chips); and some chips who might arrest more than your development if you were caught speeding in the state of California! Likewise, there are those works which, according to the bible, certainly will not save us, along with some that surely will. So let’s make sure we know exactly – from the biblical context and not the biased con–man – exactly which type of “work” we’re actually talking about when discussing them, shall we? After all, we don’t want to be an eternal and infernal “chip off the old block” of those deceived like Eve, do we (II Corinthians 11:3-4)?

Posted in Doug Dingley | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Of Chips And Works

John Chapter One

In John 1, we learn that God is here. And, while Solomon asked, as he dedicated the temple if God would dwell on the earth (1 Kings 8:27), the writer John affirms that the answer is yes as he gives us snapshots of our Lord’s life on earth. And as John, the beloved disciples, writes for both the Jew and Gentile audience, Jesus is presented as the Son of God. We know that John had Gentiles in mind as well as Jews because he often interpreted Jewish words for his readers (Jn. 1:38, 41-42). And, His purpose for writing was not only to show that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophesies, but He also fulfilled the types. For example, He is the New Temple (Jn. 2:19-21) and He offers the new birth (Jn. 3:4ff). He is the serpent lifted up (Jn. 3:14) and He is the Bread of God that came down from heaven (Jn. 6:35ff). But overall, the major theme that runs throughout John’s account is: Jesus Christ is the Son of God and if you will commit yourself to Him, He will give you eternal life (Jn. 20:31).

In the First chapter, John records seven names and titles of Jesus that identifies Him as eternal God. In vs. 1-3, 14 Jesus is referred to as the Word. In much as our words reveal to others our hearts and minds, Jesus Christ is God’s Word to reveal His heart and mind to us. Thus, Jesus is the eternal, creative and incarnate Word. He was the Word made Flesh through the miracle of the virgin birth and took on Himself sinless human nature and identified with us in every aspect of life from birth to death. In essence, Jesus revealed God’s glory in His person, His works and His words and came with grace and truth (vs. 16).

In vs. 4-13, Jesus is referred to as the Light. Life is a key theme in John’s Gospel and thus Jesus is the Light of life and Light of the world (Jn. 8:12). We learn in 1:15 that God is light and how people either love the light or the darkness (Jn. 3:16-19).

In vs. 15-28, 49, John summarizes what John the Baptist had to say about Jesus Christ (vs. 15-18). First, that He is eternal (vs. 15). Second that he has the fullness of grace and truth (vs. 16-17). Third, Jesus Christ revealed God to us (vs. 18). In this last point, in essence, God is invisible, yet, Jesus Christ reveals God to us for He is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15) and the express image of His person (Heb. 1:3). He is the Son of God, which is recorded for us at least nine times in the book of John.

In vs. 29-34, Jesus is called the Lamb of God and it was repeated the next day (vs. 35-36). In the First century, the sacrificial lambs were brought to men, which could not take away sin. But here is God’s Lamb by God to men which could take away sin and His Lamb would shed His blood for the whole world. Jesus would die as that sacrificial Lamb of God (Isa. 53:7; Lk. 12:50) and it would be through death, burial and resurrection that the Lamb of God would fulfill all righteousness (Matt. 3:15).

In vs. 35-42, Jesus is called the Messiah. When John and Andrew were following Jesus, He asked them what they were seeking. And so, Jesus invited them to spend the day with Him and while with them, Jesus answered their questions. They were so impressed that they found their brothers and brought them to Jesus too. Andrew found Simon and John brought James. “We have found the Messiah!” is what Andrew said to Simon, meaning, they had found the Anointed, that is, the Christ. And, that conversation forever changed their lives.

In vs. 43-49, Jesus is called the King of Israel. When Jesus called Philip and He went to get his friend Nathaniel, Philip said, “Come and see” (vs. 39). And, when they came to Jesus, Nathaniel discovered that the Lord already knew all about Him. He told Nathaniel that he was an Israelite with no guile. And, when Jesus revealed His knowledge of Nathanael, this was enough to convince the man that Jesus was indeed the King of Israel. The King of Israel would be a title similar to Messiah or anointed One for the kings were always God’s anointed (Psa. 2:2-7). And, Jesus did present Himself as King (Jn. 12:10ff) and told Pilate that He was also born a King (Jn. 18:33-37).

The last name Jesus is called is found in vs. 50-51. He is called the Son of Man. This was one of the Lord’s favorite titles for Himself in which He is called by it 83 times in the Gospel accounts and thirteen times by John. This title speaks of both the Deity and humanity of Jesus. Being the Son of man, Jesus was showing Himself to be the living link or ladder between heaven and earth. In fact, He said, “No man comes to the Father, but by Me” (Jn. 14:6). The Jewish people also knew this phrase was a name for the Messiah (Jn. 12:34).

Thus, at the close of that day, Jesus had six believing men who were His disciples and eventually forsook all to follow Him. They had trusted in Christ and experienced His power. And in the next three years, they would grow in their faith; learn more about Him and one day take His place in seeking and saving the lost. Truly, Jesus of Nazareth is God come in the Flesh.

Posted in Robert Notgrass | Tagged , , | Comments Off on John Chapter One

Bible Translation

Which Bible Translation Should I Use?

Often, as a gospel preacher, I am asked which Bible translation I would recommend. I always recommend the King James Version, the American Standard Version (1901) or the New King James version and personally prefer the King James.  There are several considerations that I have taken into account when deciding upon these particular translations. Mainly I look at the method that was used by the translators and look to see whether there is an overall theological bias to it.

First, I always look to use a translation that uses the “Form Equivalency” (FE) method of translation, where an attempt is made to render a literal “word-for-word” translation instead of one that uses the “Dynamic Equivalency” (DE) method which is more of a “thought-for-thought” translation. You could say that FE is at one end of the spectrum and DE at the other. The many English translations out there fall somewhere along this line. It could be said, for instance, that the American Standard Version of 1901 would be at the extreme FE end of the spectrum and perhaps the New Living Translation or the Message Bible at the extreme opposite end.  The King James, New King James, New American Standard Bible and English Standard versions are each much closer to the FE end of the spectrum than they are to the DE end. The New International Version and perhaps the New Revised Version are much closer to the DE end than they are to the FE end of the spectrum.

Second, I then look for theological bias. For instance one such theological bias is found in Galatians 5 in the New International Version  where the Greek word sarx is translated “sinful nature…, “ rather than simply “flesh…” Galatians 5:16-17 (NIV 1984) “So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.  For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want…” For comparison’s sake notice this same passage in the ASV of 1901, “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would..”  Thayer’s defines sarx as, “flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts.” The word,  simply defined, nowhere implies anything sinful! This particular fallacy is the result of those who have approached Biblical translation with the theological bias of Calvinism, where man’s very nature is thought to be fallen because of original sin, a man-made doctrine that the Bible does not support! The NIV, in its current version, has changed that particular wording but still maintains it in a footnote.

Another instance of theological bias is found in the English Standard Version in Romans 10:10, where it alters the language to point where a false doctrine on salvation is taught. Other passages in the ESV are well translated, but Romans 10:10 clearly show a theological bias.  The ESV translates it as follows, “For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved…” For the sake of comparison, the NKJV version renders it, “For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation…” The ESV in Romans 10:10 translates the Greek word eis as “is.” “With the heart one believes and is (eis) justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is (eis) saved…”  Is this an accurate rendering of the Greek word eis? Thayer’s defines eis as follows: “into, unto, to, towards, for, among..” Note that the Greek word eis is not a verb, rather it is a preposition and therefore  it should never be translated by the English word “is.” The ESV in Rom 10:10, also translates the Greek NOUNS “dikaiosune” and “soterian” as VERBS , rendering them “justified…” and “saved…” respectively. The ESV claims to be a “word-for-word” translation, yet here they replaced nouns with verbs and a preposition with a state of being.

To my mind, “believeth unto righteousness…” (KJV) is not the same thing as “believes and is justified…” (ESV) Neither is “confession is made unto salvation…” (KJV) the same thing as “confesses and is saved…” (ESV) The English word “is” implies a state of being. The ESV would have us believe and be justified; confess and be saved. Yet, the Greek indicates that belief leads untorighteousness and confession leads unto salvation – but it does not equate belief with the state of being justified, or confession with the state of being saved. Theological bias at play here?  I think so.

Because of this fairly obvious theological bias, I personally cannot recommend this translation for serious Bible study. It has many good qualities about it, but I do not think it is a worthy replacement for the KJV, the NKJV or the ASV 1901. For those who may argue from the standpoint of readability, I do not believe the language used in the ESV is any easier  to read than what is used in the NKJV for instance. In reality,  with a little bit of familiarity, the KJV and ASV are not at all hard to understand even for small children.

The ESV has grown in popularity in part because a certain well-known gospel preacher  wrote an article, just after the ESV became available on the market in 2002, stating that he thought it may in time prove to be an excellent translation. Notice what he said, “Though the ESV is not without some weakness, generally speaking, it appears to be an accurate, literal translation, rendered in beautiful English. It is a version, we believe, that will serve the English-speaking world with distinction. It is our hope that this new version will not become a point of contention within the body of Christ.” (Wayne Jackson, Article: The English Standard Version, www.christiancourier.com). In this article, Brother Jackson simply gave his preliminary findings on the ESV, admittedly without a thorough investigation of the translation: “I have not gone through the entire volume. I’ve only checked random passages; nonetheless, I am impressed with this new version. It may turn out to be one the best modern alternative to the King James translation, although I still prefer the meticulous precision of the American Standard Version (1901).” (IBID) As the ESV has come under more and more scrutiny, more and more instances of theological bias are being noted.

All translations have their issues. One mistranslation every English version since the Bishop’s Bible (1568) has made is to not translate the Greek verb baptizo as “immerse,” (which is what it literally means) but rather to transliterate it as simply “baptize…”  This was done so that those who were practicing sprinkling and pouring for “baptism” would find it more acceptable. Every English version has its particular flaws the NKJV and ESV, for instance, poorly define the Greek word porneia as “sexual immorality” rather than adultery or fornication, which is a more precise definition. The King James Version has some problems as well, such as the insertion of the word “easter…” in Romans 12:4 and its imprecise use of the word “hell…” in places where the Greek word hades is used.  The NKJV more accurately transliterates it as “hades…” The ASV (1901) is considered by many scholars to be the most outstanding English translation, but many find it harder to follow than even the KJV.

To quote an older preacher, “The real problem with Bible translations is not in which one we use, but rather that we do not use the one we have…!”

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth…” (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV)

 

Posted in Jack McNiel | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Bible Translation

Do You Not Understand?

Understand: Thou Shalt Get a Clue

A comedian once said that all people are clueless once in a while, but some make a career out of it.  To illustrate his point he told the story of three fellows who went off a bridge in a pick-up truck.  The one that was driving rolled down the window and swam out, but the two sitting in the back drowned because they couldn’t get the tailgate down.

While such a story may amuse us, being spiritually “clueless” is not a laughing matter.  Its one thing to be naïve about something; it’s an entirely different matter to be intentionally ignorant or unwilling to learn or unwilling to accept the truth.  The Pharisees were like this; so much so that Jesus called them “fools and blind” (Matt. 23:17, 19; cf. Jn. 9:39-41).  Yet, one does not have to be like the Pharisees to be spiritually clueless.  One can almost hear the frustration in Jesus’ voice after He would give careful instruction to His disciples, only to realize that they didn’t have a clue what He was saying.  He would say things like, “Are you still without understanding?  Do you not understand…?” (Matt. 15:16-17) “How is it you do not understand…?” (16:11)  Jesus was not belittling them; He was trying to get them to open their eyes and understand what the will of the Lord is.  And that’s just what He’s still trying to do through His word today (cf. Matt. 7:21-27; 13:14-15; Jas. 1:21).

Friends, we are able to “read and understand” (2 Cor. 1:13).  We are able to understand the truth (2 Tim. 3:15-16), therefore, there is no excuse for spiritual blindness. “Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17).

Posted in Aaron Veyon | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Do You Not Understand?

Leaven Can Be Dangerous

Health Alert!  Leaven Can Be Dangerous!

The Bible uses the word “leaven” twenty-four times. It is used in the Old Testament eleven times. Five of these times it gives instruction about the observance of the Passover (Ex. 12:15, 19; 13:7; 34:25; Deut. 16:4). Four times it is used to forbid the use of leaven with a grain offering (Lev. 2:11; 6:17; 10:12). Amos mentions it being offered with sacrifices as an illustration of how far the Jews had drifted from honoring God (Amos 4:5). The other time it is mentioned is where God commanded using leaven with the bread offered at Pentecost (Lev. 16:27). It is always used in a literal way in the Old Testament.

However, when one comes to the New Testament, the picture is entirely different. Every reference to it has a spiritual, figurative application. Look at the following usages.

The church is like leaven (Matt. 13: 33; Luke 13:21). This is the only time that leaven is used in a good sense in the New Testament. Leaven placed in dough spreads throughout the dough and amazingly increases the size of the loaf. Jesus wanted His disciples to visualize the growth of the church.

False teaching is like leaven (Matt. 16:6, 11-12; Mark 8:15). When the Lord first spoke of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, His disciples did not understand. Afterwards, they discovered that He was speaking of the false teachings of men and how dangerous it is in spreading to others. Paul also describes false teachers as being like leaven which will permeate the entire church (Gal. 5:9).

Hypocrisy is like leaven (Luke 12:1). It was not just the doctrine of the Pharisees that Jesus rebuked, but also the fact that what they first appeared to be was, in reality, a lie. When Christians are hypocrites, their influence leads to hypocrisy in others. This concept is also found in Paul’s uses of the phrase “the leaven of malice and wickedness” and contrasts it with sincerity and truth (1 Cor. 5:8)

Sin left unattended in the church is like leaven (1 Cor. 5:6-7). The church at Corinth had serious problems. Paul described an immoral situation which was so vile even the pagans would not practice it. Yet, it was in the church, and instead of dealing with it, they were proud. Paul warned them that if this sin and all sins were not addressed, it would spread to all the church just like leaven. He told them to purge out that evil leaven and give that man back to Satan. Oh, that the church today would heed his words!

Leaven and you. The fact leaven is used to describe the church shows the power of righteousness. It is used to describe the power of unrighteousness. The question to be considered is, what kind of leavening influence are you having?

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Leaven Can Be Dangerous