I came across this Bible at an estate sale last week. It's Old Testament only. Translated from the original Hebrew in 1917 and published by the Jewish Publication Society. It arranges the books in very unusual order... Haven't had a chance to compare many verses to my other translations, but it was interesting enough to add to my growing Bible collection.
0 Comments
I was reading through 2 Peter this morning, and I noticed something interesting.
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 3:1 This passage confirms the existence of two things: "false teachers" and "destructive heresies". That means that not all teachers are teaching the truth, and not everything you hear taught is spiritually sound. Many denominational churches believe that it doesn't matter what you teach or what church you're a part of. They teach that as long as you believe in Christ, differences of doctrine are trivial. If that were true, then there could be no such thing as a false teacher, but Peter clearly taught that false teachers are a real and present danger. In fact, he goes as far as to describe their teaching as "destructive heresies" and warns that such teaching leads to "swift destruction". It's clear that false teaching cannot bring a person nearer to God, but is instead destructive of that relationship. Compare this passage with 2 Timothy 4:3-4... For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. So teaching can either be sound or it can be false. Sound teaching would reflect truthfully what the bible teaches, without adding to it or taking anything away. Anytime something other than the truth is taught however, it is just a myth. Utterly worthless. Empty. The truth can teach men what God expects of them, which is terribly valuable. A myth simply can't help you spiritually. So seek after sound teaching, avoid destructive heresies, and study often so you know the difference. “…what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” This is one of my favorite verses. It's a small verse, but it has huge applications. It lists three practical characteristics that God expects to be at the core of all of His followers. “To do justice” To be fair and moral in all of our dealings. To seek out the most honest path in every circumstance. The implied negative being to never participate in corruption or deceit. “To Love Kindness” To not only do kindness, but to enjoy doing it. To be defined by it. To possess the loving attitude of a giver. Never indifferent to the needs of others. Not selfish, or given to anger, or rude, or without mercy. To be thoughtful of those around us, and to look for opportunities to do good for the sake of doing good. (I think a great example of this would be the Samaritan Jesus spoke of in Luke 10:25-37.) “To walk humbly with your God” To leave sin behind and follow God. To walk in his steps instead of choosing our own path. To make His ways our ways. Not dragged reluctantly, constantly looking back, but walking with him freely and with an attitude of humility; of reverence. Thankful for the direction He gives us. Knowing that without it, we would be lost. Who were the Jewish Spiritual Leaders in Jesus’s Day?
Judaism was meant to pave the way for Christianity, so you would think that the Jewish leaders would have been the first people to embrace Jesus, but that wasn't the case. You would think that the Jewish leaders of Jesus’s day would have been the people closest to God, but Jesus said that they"made the Word of God void" and that they were "making disciples of hell." Jesus rebukes them many times, and of course they ultimately kill him. Then when the apostles try to spread the gospel, the Jewish leaders kill Christians, and in some cases are even successful in converting Christians back to Judaism. However, if you look at the Old Testament, these spiritual leaders were often described in a positive light, as agents of God. How did they go from being such Godly men in the Old Testament, to opponents of God in the New? Did it happen overnight? No, I think history shows a clear progression away from God. And this isn't a problem that only affected the Jews, progressing away from God is an issue that has to be constantly dealt with, even today. Haven't we all seen or heard of congregations that used to only teach the truth, and now are teaching something not found in scripture? Scribes First, lets look at the Scribes. We read occurences of them through out the New Testament. They falsely accuse Jesus in Matthew 9:3, and are then censured strongly by Jesus in Matthew 23. So who where these Scribes? The word Scribes in its hebrew form is "sopherim", which means "to write", "to set in order", and "to count". Which is a good description of what their early responsibilities entailed. The first occurance of them in the Bible is in 2nd Samuel 8:17 and 20:25, where two different men are mentioned as being scribes for king David. Scribes of this era are generally thought to be akin to secretaries, writing the King’s letters, drawing up his decrees, and managing his finances. They are mentioned a few times for counting, like counting David’s military. At this point in history though, the title of “Scribe” had no religious significance. Over time, this changed however. Proverbs 25:1 “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.” If you recall, King Hezekiah was eager to abolish idolatry and restore the worship of Jehovah. To this end, he organized a group of men and gave them the responsibility of transcribing old records; writing what had thus-far only been handed down orally. To this period, the term “Scribe” becomes a more significant title. It no longer designates only an officer of the king's court, but an entire class of students of the law. These Scribes mostly hailed from the tribe of Levites, same as the Priests (2 Chr. 34:13-14; Neh. 8:3). Unfortunately, Scribes of this era soon gained a reputation for being boastful of their wisdom. Jeremiah mentions this in Jeremiah chapter 8. Still, they did a lot of good by recording many of the books of the Old Testament for future generations. After the Jews return from Babylonian captivity, the position of Scribe changed again. Ezra was the spiritual leader for the Jewish people after the return. He is described as both a Priest and a Scribe. Starting with him, the position of “Scribe” starts to be viewed by the Jews as being on at least level footing with the position of Priest, if not greater. In any case, Scribes gained more and more notoriety afterwards. They began being called “Rabbi” which means “master” or “great one”, and signified that they were Teachers of the Law. It was taught: “Respect for a teacher should exceed respect for a father, for both Father and Son owe respect to a teacher”. Men of the Great Synagogue The most influential Scribes organized into a group known as the “Men of the Great Synagogue”. It was their job to see to it that the Jews followed the letter of the Law. They were no longer merely transcribers of the Law, like in King Hezekiah's day, but interpreters. The Jews would come to the Scribes to have them judge on matters, and their judgements were seen as legally and spiritually binding. As such, with each judgement a new tradition was brought to life that must be strictly followed. In fact, it was considered a greater crime to break one of their traditions than it was to break God’s written law. Interim Period During the 400 year interim between the Old and New Testaments, this pattern progresses until the Scribes of the New Testament barely resembled those of the Old. The Scribes of the New Testament are characterized by Legalism; they were too concerned with insignificant details. They had amassed hundreds, maybe thousands of traditions, more than the average Jew could hope to know. Only a Scribe, who had studied these traditions from his youth could hope to learn them all, which lended to the notion that only the Scribes possessed the true knowledge of God. Many of these traditions were in direct violation with God’s law, and the rest had little to do with pleasing God. To understand how this developed, it’s important to take a look at the Jewish mindset of this era. First, the Scribes put a large value on "Oral Tradition". That is, the interpretations that were orally handed down through the generations. It was thought that a person could not understand God’s word correctly without reading it through the lens of their Oral Tradition. This is a mindset we see in many modern day Jews, and also Catholics. If you were to confront someone of the Catholic persuasion about some practice not found in the Bible, they would respond with it’s in our Oral Tradition. This is something Jesus directly condemns in the New Testament, and this over-valuing of Oral Tradition played a big part in the digression of the Scribes. Also, the Scribes had a motto. They believed their job was to “put a fence about the law”. We see this phrase in Jewish literature of the day. By this, they meant that it was their job to create traditions that put distance between man and the possibility of sin. For example, in God said not to work on the sabbath, they would create laws for what constituted work. In doing so however, they added to the law, and over time these traditions often cancelled out the original command, or drew attention away from its true purpose. For example: the Law taught “love thy neighbor as thyself”, but the Scribes taught that only Israelites were neighbors, so Jews didn't have to show love to Gentiles. In fact, Jewish midwives were forbidden to help with Gentile births, even if not helping meant the death of the Mother. Jesus specifically condemns this attitude though in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). These Oral Traditions were formed in three different ways:
Most of their traditions revolved around the idea of “Ceremonial Purity”; determining what was clean and unclean. There was little distinction to them between physical cleanness and spiritual cleanness. Which is why they were critical of Christ and his Apostles for not washing their hands (Matthew 15:2, Mark 7:1-5). Men of the Great Synagogue/Senate/Sanhedrin It’s also interesting to note the Scribe's rise in political power. The Men of the Great Synagogue formed during the return from Babylonian captivity and existed until the early Hellenistic period. It is believed that they were the backbone to the Maccabean revolt. It’s hard to find information about this group, most of it’s history is lost now, but you can see that the position of Scribe is starting to gain a political component. After the Maccabean revolt, Judas Maccabee founded a governing body to oversee the Jews, called “Gerousia” or “Senate”. This body was the precursor to the Sanhedrin council we see in the New Testament. Scribes were allowed to be part of the Senate as representatives to the people. Some believe the Sanhedrin dates back to the 70 elders that Moses selected to aid him in Numbers 11:16 and that it has existed ever since, but this idea is not backed up by scripture or the historical accounts. The first mention of the Sanhedrin is during the reign of Herod. This group had a varying amount of power depending on which ruler was currently reigning, but it essentially acted as a tribunal, passing judgements and issuing decrees. It played a pivotal role in the trial of Christ (Matthew 26:57-67; Mark 14:53-65), and is mentioned again in Acts when it had Stephen stoned (Acts 7:54-60), and then later in the trial of Paul (Acts 23). Pharisees The Sanhedrin consisted of two political parties: the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Acts 4:5-6) and these two parties bitterly opposed each other. It would be similar to being Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. And both of these parties came into existence after the Maccabean revolt, when the Jews were ruled by the Senate. Josephus was a Jewish historian in the first century; we can a learn a lot about Jewish history from his writings. He also happened to be a Pharisee, so when we read his writings we see history from a Pharisee's point of view, which can be enlightening. So here is how Josephus described the Pharisees and Sadducees: “Of the two named schools, the Pharisees, who are considered the most accurate interpreters of the laws, and hold the position of leading sect, attribute everything to Fate and to God; they hold that to act rightly or otherwise rests, indeed, for the most part with men, but that in each action Fate co-operates. Every soul, they maintain, is imperishable, but the soul of the Good alone passes into another body, while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment. The Sadducees, the second of the orders, do away with Fate altogether, and remove God beyond, not merely the commission, but the very sight of evil. They maintain that man has free choice of good or evil, and that it rests with each man’s will whether he follows the one or the other. As for the persistence of the soul after death, penalties in the underworld, and rewards, they will have none of them. The Pharisees are affectionate to each other and cultivate harmonious relations with the community. The Sadducees, on the contrary, are, even among themselves, rather boorish in their behaviour, and in their intercource with their peers are as rude as to aliens. Such is all I have to say on the Jewish philosophical schools.” It's clear that these two groups were bitter rivals with differing ideologies. The Pharisees as a party were made up of people from all walks of life: farmers, merchants, fisherman, ect. But the leaders of the Party were the Scribes. It is possible that some Scribes also belonged to the Sadducee party, but our only evidence for this are verses that mention “Scribes of the Pharisees” which infers that there might be Scribes of other parties. Still, historically the vast majority of Scribes, if not all, were Pharisees. And the defining trait of the Pharisees was that they followed the Oral Traditions of the Scribes. Sadducees The Sadducees were polar opposites of the Pharisees. If the Pharisees were conservative, than the Sadducees were liberal. This party was made up mainly of High Priests. If you recall, Moses made his brother Aaron and Aaron's sons the first priests, and only their descendants were allowed to become priests after them. In the Old Testament, these priests were often times spiritual giants, but it seems this changed after the Maccabean revolt. In any case, unlike the priests of the Old Testament, these New Testament High Priests were aristocrats. They were a much smaller party than the Pharisees and didn't have as much pull with the jewish populace, but they were much wealthier and had stronger ties with Rome. They supported their lavish lifestyles with a temple tax which every Jew was required to pay. Basically Sadducees were living the good life, and this lead to them not caring very much about the afterlife. They didn't believe in eternal reward or punishment. They were too busy enjoying what they had. This is a stark contrast to the Pharisees. According to Josephus, Pharisees “lived frugally, with no regard to luxuries”. The Sadducees had a few other defining characteristics: they did not follow the oral traditions of the Scribes, they did not believe in resurrection from the dead (Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18-27; Acts 23:8), and they did not believe in the existence of angels (Acts 23:8). Why these groups opposed Jesus Pharisee/Scribes:
Sadducees:
Sources
I’m going to start this post by saying this is what I take this passage to mean, and I could be wrong. I don’t think that I am, I have studied this matter extensively and am confident in my understanding of it. But I find 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 to be a difficult passage, and none of the scholarly authors of my commentaries agree on its meaning or application, so I feel that I should allow for the possibility of error.
Hiram O. Hutto wrote a tract (currently displayed on the La Vista Church of Christ website here) where he laid out a verse-by-verse commentary on I Corinthians 11:1-16. In this tract, Hutto states his opinion that all women are directly commanded to wear a head covering while praying. There are a number of congregations in the church that hold to this belief. They teach that all women should wear a covering on their head as a sign of their submissiveness while praying. Upon a careful study however, I don’t believe this is the case. Hiram O. Hutto Refuted On the surface, it would seem that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is commanding a veil to be worn by women while praying or prophesying. Certainly, he did command the women at Corinth at this time. And I agree with Hutto's reasoning that the covering discussed is an artificial one (specifically, a veil) and not long hair as some incorrectly teach (this can be determined by replacing the word “uncovered” with “short hair” and ”covered” with “long hair” in verse 6, in which case the sentence would fail to make logical sense). Which leaves us with two possibilities: either Paul was binding this veil on the women of Corinth (and possibly other congregations of the day) but not on all women for all time, or Paul was binding it on all women for all time. Hiram O. Hutto’s tract takes the second position, and his reasoning is based on the fact that the language Paul uses borrows from permanent themes, ergo the subject of his message must also be permanent in nature. But another explanation for the permanent language used, would be because the underlying subject being taught is that of the roles of men and women and the attitudes that each should have towards their roles (consider that Paul begins in 1 Corinthians 11:3 by addressing the position of husbands and wives). These roles are of a permanent nature, which would explain why the language used employs permanent themes; it would be very difficult to discuss such roles and their implications without mentioning themes of a permanent nature. So I find this is a very weak argument. Historical Context I think the historical context is very important to this study. Unfortunately, there is debate among scholars if the wearing of veils was a custom of the day or not. Some historians claim that the wearing of veils by women was not a custom that originated from Christianity, like the Lord's Supper, but instead pre-dated it. This would strongly suggests that Paul was merely regulating a custom that was already present, not creating a new one. Such regulations were given in other places (holy kissing for example) where some regulation was called for to ensure a custom of the day did not become a stumbling block. I can't find any example in the New Testament where a custom of the day was bound on Christians (few today bind holly kissing or foot washing as commands), which would indicate that this passage is not a binding command for all women of all time. Instead, it would only be binding where applicable. That is, any time when the circumstances are the same as they were when this message was taught (those circumstances being that veils have an obvious symbolic meaning). If a certain article of clothing is culturally seen as a sign of submission for women to wear in public, and the removal of that article of clothing in public culturally seen as a sign of religious rebellion, or as a stepping stone to usurping authority from men, then it would be better to abide by that tradition than shock others by refusing it. Other historians claim the opposite however, that the wearing of veils was not a custom of the day, that it originated instead with Christianity. If that is true, then Paul’s command to the church at Corinth would still be applicable today. Which again brings us back to the question, what was Paul’s intent? To create a lasting Christian tradition, or regulate a pre-existing one? I am not a historian and claim no expertise in the area, but it seems to me that it would be a very difficult thing to prove definitively the customs of a certain city on a certain date, and as far as I can tell, no historian has offered concrete proof on this point. But Paul addressing this subject makes much more sense in the light of it being a regulation of a pre-existing custom. If such was the case, it would cause no conflict with the rest of scripture. Otherwise, if women of all circumstances are commanded to wear veils as an outward sign of their Christian character as the proponents for this interpretation suggest, then I find that the passage would not harmonize with other passages of scripture, such as 1 Peter 3:3-5 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 1 Peter 3:3-5 shows that our faith and submission should not be external displays, but internal characteristics. Not displayed in the wearing of a certain form of clothing, but visible to God in our hearts. This is in stark contrast to the notion that a woman should by nature wear a certain article of clothing in order to display her submissiveness. If there are two possible interpretations of a passage, and one would cause a contradiction with other parts of God's word, then the only possible interpretation would be the one that causes no contradictions. (see also Matthew 6:5-6 and 1 Samuel 16:7) Context of Passage As such, I believe this to be the context of in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16: Paul had become aware that some women had broken a common tradition by throwing off their veils to pray and prophesy. No doubt, in public and before men, as he would address that soon after. Either there was a feminist faction who believed they were equal to men in all things and displayed their belief by uncovering their heads, or there was just general confusion in this area. Paul's purpose for addressing the issue of head coverings could have been for either (or more likely both) of the following reasons: Paul was concerned about the women usurping authority from men during worship, and choose to first address the attitudes of the women's hearts (that they should embrace their position even in small matters) before later addressing the larger matter of silence during the worship in 1 Corinthians 14:34. Or, Paul was worried that by breaking this understood custom of the day, the women could possibly bring reproach to the church by appearing un-submissive, and thus cause some to stumble. In either case, this regulation of custom would cease to be applicable when the custom ceased to exist. Wearing veils is no longer an understood symbol of submission, so it wouldn't cause one to stumble to see a woman not wearing one today. It also would no longer be considered a step towards usurping authority from a man during worship, as it was then. The lesson is still very applicable of course, of accepting roles given by God, and not wearing anything that would bring reproach on the Church. But the specific tradition of wearing a veil is not. I will say this as well though, if one believes that this passage commands the covering of a woman's head today, then it should be pointed out that a hat would not be sufficient. The covering would have to a veil; as would be recognizable to the members of Corinth. Just as one can't substitute bread for a hamburger during the Lord's Supper, one wouldn't be able to substitute a veil for any sort of head covering that is not a veil. I recently discovered an audio file of a certain Brad Price teaching a class during the 2012 Polishing the Pulpit seminars titled "How to Use Bible Commentaries". In this class, Price lists book after book that he has found particularly useful during his tenure as a preacher. Some of the books I was aware of, but many were new to me and I look forward to tracking down several of his suggestions. I reached out to Mr. Price and obtained a copy of the handout that accompanied this PTP class, which lists all of his recommendations. With his permission, I have attached the list below.
I love books. I love reading them, love talking about them, love collecting them, love organizing them into logical groupings to optimize ease of retrieval. If I had the funds, my library would be bigger than my house. I firmly believe that Christians should build up their libraries with books that will aid in bible study. But books of a religious nature are overwhelmingly denominational and usually have strong doctrinal bias, so it can be very difficult to find books that are helpful to a Christian. I am far from an expert on this subject, but I thought I'd share some of my recommendations, and some places to get better recommendations.
Where to get recommendations Guy N. Woods is one of my favorite authors and was a fellow collector of books. In his book “Questions and Answers Volume One”, Woods has a section where he recommends a number of his favorite books. I have found this list of immeasurable value. Many of his suggestions are rare and long out-of-print, but can be found on ebay or in used bookstores. In his book “How to Effectively Study the New Testament”, Woods gives a similar list of must-read titles, but there are enough differences that I would recommend reading both lists. Wayne Jackson’s book “Guide to Greater Bible Knowledge” has another helpful list of recommended books. While Woods’ recommendations seemed geared more for the serious student or preacher, Jackson’s is geared more for the average Christian. Winford Claiborne, a former professor at Freed-Hardeman, wrote “Books, Books and More Books”, a guide for building Christian libraries. The book is free, and only available from International Gospel Hour (I have only just ordered a copy for myself and haven’t received it yet, so I can’t comment on the quality of this list, though I have read favorable reviews of it) (EDIT: my copy was waiting in the mail when I got home and it didn't take long to flip through it. Claiborne advocates the reading of a large swath of literature types, including non-religious and denominational books, so it's a good list for finding side-reading type books, but it wont help much if one is looking for books to aid study or books by the brotherhood). The textbooks used by Memphis School of Preaching are all excellent, and are listed in their brochure: msop.org/catalog.pdf For those who like really digging to uncover lost books, I have found many books by reading biographies of early Church of Christ preachers (therestorationmovement.com) who were often also authors. Books I have found helpful Bible: Can’t study the bible without one. I mostly use a KJV and ESV. The ESV is great for plain reading as it flows so smoothly, but I find myself constantly aggravated by the loss of poetry (read 2 Timothy 2:15 to see what I mean). The KJV reads with more poetry and force, but the archaic English can slow one down a bit. I don't have an ASV, but I have read from one on different occasions and generally prefer it to the ESV. I also have a Modern Literal Translation on my desk which I highly recommend for accuracy (I hope more Christians find their way to a copy of this). I recently found a nice vintage Thompson Chain Reference bible (KJV) and I liked it so much I bought a second copy when I came across one on ebay. The references alone are worth the cost, but I also love the way Thompson lays out the text (double column, verse-by-verse, with references on the outside columns). I also have an Interlinear ESV, which is awesome. Bible Dictionary/Encyclopedia: You need one, trust me. People’s Bible Encyclopedia is the best if you can find a copy. Smith’s Dictionary is also good (just don't read his ridiculous definition of behemoth). There are three versions of Smith’s: the original, which was multi-volume (I have been looking for month’s for a copy, but it seems to be pretty rare), a single-volume abridged version that was edited by Francis Nathan Peloubet (who possibly added some doctrinal bias in the process), and a “New Smith’s Dictionary” that was revised by a group of scholars that included two members of the church. The last is the most conservative, but I have yet to find a printing that I like (I’m a bit of a book snob, so I tend to avoid glued bindings, blurry ink, and weak covers). Greek Lexicon: I don't read greek, so I have trouble using some of the common suggestions like Thayer or Moulton that require one to at least know the greek alphabet in order to navigate the book. My favorite is Vines, which is organized via the English translation. Concordance: There are three main ones: Cruden’s, Strong’s, and Young’s. Most scholars seem to recommend Strong’s. I have all three, and I prefer Young’s. Bible Handbook: This gives you a synopsis of each book of the bible: themes, general subjects, historical background, and additional information helpful to the understanding of the material. Almost like a commentary, but with a broader scope. Hailey’s Handbook is the standard, but it has denominational bias. I have two favorites in my library: W. W. Dowling's “Bible Handbook”, and Ashley Johnson’s (who was a member of the church) “Busy Man’s Bible Encyclopedia”. Johnson’s book is especially helpful if you are studying lengths of time based on genealogies. George W. DeHoff was also a member of the church and wrote “Dehoff's Bible Handbook”, but I don't have a copy of it (yet). Other Recommendations: I think every Christian should read “Muscle and a Shovel”. Then they should read Dave Miller’s “Piloting the Straight”. The Gospel Advocate Commentaries are greatly helpful. Anything by these authors is worth reading: Wayne Jackson, Guy N. Woods, McGarvey, Moses Lard, Sweeny, Wendell Winkler, V.P. Black, Dungan, Thomas Holland, Kurfees, and C. R. Nichol. Wayne Jackson’s “Notes from the Margins of my Bible” is especially brilliant. I just bought a copy of "MacKnight on the Epistles" yesterday, and it already came in handy this morning. The depth of the work and layout of the information was impressive. Feel free to add books that you have found helpful in the comments! Your initial response is 40 days and nights, right? I am shamed to admit that was my first thought before I went back and studied the passage again this week. Consider the following timeline though:
So the total time Noah spent on the ark was 1 year and 10 days (with possibly some small room for adjustment based on differences between Hebrew calendars and modern Gregorian calendars). That is a long time to spend in a boat with family and animals! I was lucky enough to grab a complete three-volume set of New Testament Christianity by Z. T. Sweeney off ebay recently (here's a free, online version of volume one if you're interested: LINK ). The books are a collection of sermons from early Restoration Movement preachers.
This morning, I read the second sermon in volume one, "THE SECT EVERYWHERE SPOKEN AGAINST" by Elijah Goodwin. It's a very reasonably laid out argument for New Testament Christianity and against denominationalism. (I found a biography of the author HERE and mention of a book of sermons he wrote in 1856 called "The Family Companion". Another book to add to my growing search list.) One point in his sermon that struck me as particularly interesting, was the connection between the words "sect" and "heresy" in the New Testament. Both words are translated from the same greek word αἵρεσις (hairesis). Which according to my Vines Greek Expository means a division, especially one caused by a choice or preference, usually used to denote the act of choosing to follow a selfish choice instead of truth. According to Goodwin, this word occurs nine times in the New Testament, and is translated "heresy" four times, and "sect" five times. (I tried to look-up each instance but ran out of time. I'm not sure which version was used to make this statement, but if I had to guess, probably a KJV or ASV.) Paul uses this word when he lists "works of the flesh" that would prevent one from inheriting the kingdom of God in Gal. 5:20: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies [hairesis], envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like." What are denominations if not sects broken off from the New Testament church? In light of the harsh treatment of this word, I don't see how any denomination could argue that we have authority in the NT to form our own sects. This being the case, the only true church would be recognizable because it would be the only one still following NT teachings without deviating from the pattern given. In other words, not a sect. I tend to read several books at the same time; picking up one and reading a few chapters, then jumping to another, until I have finished several at once. So this week I read portions of New Testament Christianity Volumes One and Two by Sweeney, Woods-Franklin Debate (loaned to me by my friend Grant), Piloting the Straight by Dave Miller (which was recommend to me by my Dad and Joe Williams), James by Guy N. Woods (so I can keep up with Bobby Crowe's class), Greater Bible Knowledge by Wayne Jackson, and Questions and Answers by Guy N. Woods.
Here are some of my collective thoughts after reading the above:
|