It is so much too the liking of where we stand to where we aught to be standing, that shines in the face of life lived and ended.
Death for all is not as realistic as when it occurs. It is all too often that life is lived by so many except for the expressed recognition of God's glory. I pray that many who have opportunity would do so in taking and making the most of it to express it to the glory of God.
The iconic reality of Michael Jackson is and was. The idolatry of the nation and world with relation to Michael Jackson was and is. The lessons learned are still for many obvious but not so attentive.
Living a life to the glory of God is still without vain (Ecclesiastes 3:14-15; 5:7). But as Solomon teaches us living a life without God is and always will be with vanity, and vanity of vanities (Ecclesiastes 2:1-11; 5:7; 6:1-12). Thank God for a life lived!
To God be the Glory for lives lived for the expression of His Glory!
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Turnabout isn't always fair play: Responding to Warren's sudden change on the issue of "same sex" marriage
Some things are just too obvious to deny!
In a recent April 9, 2009 OneNewsNow.com article by Jim Brown, entitled, “Warren’s ‘backsliding’ on marriage damages the church” Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. of Washington, D. C.’s High Impact Leadership Coalition was outraged that Rick Warren of Saddleback Church of Lake Forest, California would offer his apology Monday, April 6, 2009 on CNN’s Larry King Live(1) concerning his support during the fall of 2008 of California’s marriage proposition 8 amendment.(2) Jackson said, Warren has done “tremendous damage” by his apology. Warren stated that he “has never been and never will be an anti-gay marriage activist.”(3)
It's apparent to me that the Bible, which many like Warren purports to believe in, truly disagrees with them. So it is obvious to me that they just don't believe or agree with the Bible or what it says. But the desire is to fit into both camps to gain from each what is most influential rather than to "from the start", just please God or what God has said in the Bible regarding this and other matters, that He regards as sin and unrighteousness, as well as those that are holy and righteousness.
Also, I don’t want to be judgmental in the since of knowing for certain; but I seem to want to think and sense that men like Warren, Osteen, Ted Haggard and the like are hiding indiscretions. Maybe even the likelihood of just such sins in their own lives. After all, if you notice in Paul's statement to the Romans in chapter one verse 32 he states, "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
I believe these two phrases show the two reasons for the sudden turn-about by many in agreement to support homosexuality and other sexual perversions.
Notice the phrases "not only do the same" and "but have pleasure in them that do them".
First, the phrase "not only do the same" is quite suggestive from Paul that these, to whom it is apparent, knowing of God's judgment of death to all who practice these lifestyles of sin, also themselves "do the same". This is why I stated that there seems to be a 'hiding of indiscretions'. Why else would anyone knowing the judgment of God against this, not condemn these lifestyles?
Finally, the phrase "but have pleasure in them that do them". This is also obvious that Paul is showing that there is the carrying out of these sins in the lives of these persons (who know the death judgment of God against these sins and upon those who practice it), but also, the pleasure they have with the persons who practice these sins. There is also a since of pleasure with these persons if you think about it in our day, in which they (homosexuals and the like) are large supporters to "ministries" that support their causes rather than condemn those causes. So in that since, there is a pleasure by many who "have pleasure in them that do them". That is why I said at the start that the desire by men such as these is to fit into both camps to gain from each what is most influential rather than please God. God will take care of any ministry and minister He has called if they would just do the work of ministry to which He has called them.
This is why I believe there is this sudden turnabout by Warren and others to support these lifestyles and the persons who practice them.
___________________________________________________________
1. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=481280
2. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=483576
3. Ibid., http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=483516
In a recent April 9, 2009 OneNewsNow.com article by Jim Brown, entitled, “Warren’s ‘backsliding’ on marriage damages the church” Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. of Washington, D. C.’s High Impact Leadership Coalition was outraged that Rick Warren of Saddleback Church of Lake Forest, California would offer his apology Monday, April 6, 2009 on CNN’s Larry King Live(1) concerning his support during the fall of 2008 of California’s marriage proposition 8 amendment.(2) Jackson said, Warren has done “tremendous damage” by his apology. Warren stated that he “has never been and never will be an anti-gay marriage activist.”(3)
It's apparent to me that the Bible, which many like Warren purports to believe in, truly disagrees with them. So it is obvious to me that they just don't believe or agree with the Bible or what it says. But the desire is to fit into both camps to gain from each what is most influential rather than to "from the start", just please God or what God has said in the Bible regarding this and other matters, that He regards as sin and unrighteousness, as well as those that are holy and righteousness.
Also, I don’t want to be judgmental in the since of knowing for certain; but I seem to want to think and sense that men like Warren, Osteen, Ted Haggard and the like are hiding indiscretions. Maybe even the likelihood of just such sins in their own lives. After all, if you notice in Paul's statement to the Romans in chapter one verse 32 he states, "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
I believe these two phrases show the two reasons for the sudden turn-about by many in agreement to support homosexuality and other sexual perversions.
Notice the phrases "not only do the same" and "but have pleasure in them that do them".
First, the phrase "not only do the same" is quite suggestive from Paul that these, to whom it is apparent, knowing of God's judgment of death to all who practice these lifestyles of sin, also themselves "do the same". This is why I stated that there seems to be a 'hiding of indiscretions'. Why else would anyone knowing the judgment of God against this, not condemn these lifestyles?
Finally, the phrase "but have pleasure in them that do them". This is also obvious that Paul is showing that there is the carrying out of these sins in the lives of these persons (who know the death judgment of God against these sins and upon those who practice it), but also, the pleasure they have with the persons who practice these sins. There is also a since of pleasure with these persons if you think about it in our day, in which they (homosexuals and the like) are large supporters to "ministries" that support their causes rather than condemn those causes. So in that since, there is a pleasure by many who "have pleasure in them that do them". That is why I said at the start that the desire by men such as these is to fit into both camps to gain from each what is most influential rather than please God. God will take care of any ministry and minister He has called if they would just do the work of ministry to which He has called them.
This is why I believe there is this sudden turnabout by Warren and others to support these lifestyles and the persons who practice them.
___________________________________________________________
1. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=481280
2. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=483576
3. Ibid., http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=483516
Monday, March 9, 2009
Our Prayers for God's Glory and Grace in the Winter's and First Baptist Church of Marryville, IL Families
Dr. Fred Winters of First Baptist Church of Marryville, Illinois was killed on yesterday while preaching during moring church services. A 27 year old gunman opened fired on him while he was preaching from the pulpit. He attempted to shield himself with his Bible as the gunman opened fire. He recieved gunshot wounds to his chest. The pistol then jammed. He then pull a knife out and lashed out at church members, who tried to subdue him. Some were injured in the attempt. The gunman then, stabbed himself. Dr. Winters however, is the only reported death at this time.
May the Lord keep, strengthen, and comfort the Winter's family and the First Baptist Church of Maryville, Illinois' church family. Our prayers go out to them in the tragic loss of their husband, father, and pastor on yesterday. May He display His glory in the midst of this moment of tragedy!
May he use this time to alert all of us to the reality of the uncertainty of the next moment. But the glorious certainty of a definite destiny with Him to those who know Him, and a tragic damnation of a definite destiny without Him, to those who know Him not. This is without doubt, a time for these and others, when they are in need, of our showing forth godly love and support.
Always remember, "Except for the grace of God, there we would be!"
God knows how do display His glory and grace even in the midst of this tragic situation. His grace is upon all who believe even in death. The Apostle Paul said to the Corinthian Christians, "....absent from the body, and present with the Lord" (II Corinthians 5:8b-c --KJV).
That same grace is available even to those who remain, "For we walk by faith, not by sight:)" (II Corinthians 5:7). Remember David says, "(15) The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous and His ears are attentive to their cry; (17) The righteous cry out, and the Lord hears them; He delivers them from all their troubles. (18) The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit. (19) A righteous man may have troubles, but the Lord delivers him from them all;" (Psalm 34:15, 17-19 --NIV).
We pray for God's justice to be done in this murder of this pastor. As David says in Psalm 34:16, "the face of the Lord is against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth." But we are tempered with an attitude of prayer for the salvation of the soul of those to whom justice will be, and should be done upon (Genesis 5:5-6). For God would rather see the wicked turn from the sin and error of their ways, and turn to Him rather than die in their sin (Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11).
Let us not forget that the young man that commited this act has family who are also affected by the tragic repercussions of the actions he carried out.
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Training in the "Bent" of a Child: An exegesis of Proverbs 22:6
We are inundated with people who either realistically have never had children, don't plan on having any, or will never handle children of any sort; who are affecting the decision-making processes of parents who deal with children everyday. The sad thing is; I have always known that to be an expert in an area, you definitely must have experience in that area as far a practice is concerned.
There are tons of people in our society that are academicians and theoriticians and not practitioners. Especially, when it comes to the subject of rearing children. I find it most beneficial that doctors in any science who practice are on the real cutting edge of breakthroughs, as far as diagnosis and treatment is concerned, and that doctors in any science who are academicians and have never practiced are just theoretic in most cases with regard to diagnosis and treatment.
Well, the line in the rearing of children is not a one, two, or three step as some of these people assume. The mental framework of children are based on a "bent" or as the Scripture states in Proverbs 22:6, "Train up a child in the way that he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it." The phrase "in the way that he should go" is literally rendered in the Hebrew, " `al- piy darkow" {`al- (in); piy (he should go); darkow (the way)} or in English "according to his way".
The phrase, "the way" in English is translated from the Hebrew "darkow" in the Septuagint (LXX --Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures) and Masoretic Text. Both however, use the noun "derek" (deh-rek) which means literally "a road (as trodden)". Figuratively it means "a course of life or mode of action". The real catch is that this word or noun "derek" is derived from the root word or verb "darak" (daw-rak) which means "to tread; by implication, to walk; also to string a bow (by treading on it in bending)". Hence the key idea is that a child's training or "chanak" (to initiate, to teach, to dedicate, to consecrate, to inaugurate), should be according to his "bent" or "bending". This simply indicates that if a child's bent or bend is a certain way then that is how he should be consecrated, dedicated, initiated, inaugurated, or taught.
Let's face it some children are harder to bend than others. Better yet, it is hard to teach\train children who are bent in a certain direction. The whole idea of bending and training them is just so that they do as a bow does for an arrow, "shoot straight".
On many occasions I have had parents say that their son or daughter did change some things for the better, after being embarrased on a particular occasion. Then the son or daughter did say that he or she was embarrassed, and that the embarrassment did get the point across to them. So their emotional and psychological makeup was not hindered, it was bent right and now they are shooting arrows properly.
On other occasions with children an embrace was more responsive than an embarrassment, which caused the same result; a child "shooting strait".
I must say the Scriptures always work out for the sake of those who properly apply understanding to the truths they (Scriptures) tend to teach.
There are tons of people in our society that are academicians and theoriticians and not practitioners. Especially, when it comes to the subject of rearing children. I find it most beneficial that doctors in any science who practice are on the real cutting edge of breakthroughs, as far as diagnosis and treatment is concerned, and that doctors in any science who are academicians and have never practiced are just theoretic in most cases with regard to diagnosis and treatment.
Well, the line in the rearing of children is not a one, two, or three step as some of these people assume. The mental framework of children are based on a "bent" or as the Scripture states in Proverbs 22:6, "Train up a child in the way that he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it." The phrase "in the way that he should go" is literally rendered in the Hebrew, " `al- piy darkow" {`al- (in); piy (he should go); darkow (the way)} or in English "according to his way".
The phrase, "the way" in English is translated from the Hebrew "darkow" in the Septuagint (LXX --Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures) and Masoretic Text. Both however, use the noun "derek" (deh-rek) which means literally "a road (as trodden)". Figuratively it means "a course of life or mode of action". The real catch is that this word or noun "derek" is derived from the root word or verb "darak" (daw-rak) which means "to tread; by implication, to walk; also to string a bow (by treading on it in bending)". Hence the key idea is that a child's training or "chanak" (to initiate, to teach, to dedicate, to consecrate, to inaugurate), should be according to his "bent" or "bending". This simply indicates that if a child's bent or bend is a certain way then that is how he should be consecrated, dedicated, initiated, inaugurated, or taught.
Let's face it some children are harder to bend than others. Better yet, it is hard to teach\train children who are bent in a certain direction. The whole idea of bending and training them is just so that they do as a bow does for an arrow, "shoot straight".
On many occasions I have had parents say that their son or daughter did change some things for the better, after being embarrased on a particular occasion. Then the son or daughter did say that he or she was embarrassed, and that the embarrassment did get the point across to them. So their emotional and psychological makeup was not hindered, it was bent right and now they are shooting arrows properly.
On other occasions with children an embrace was more responsive than an embarrassment, which caused the same result; a child "shooting strait".
I must say the Scriptures always work out for the sake of those who properly apply understanding to the truths they (Scriptures) tend to teach.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The Crystal Cathedral and Personality Driven Churches: A lesson in Affinity for men and Allegiance to Christ
Many in the church world have proven my point for years by what has been going on for the last twenty years or so. Their allegiance is not to Christ! I have said for some time now, "We may have an affinity for men, but our allegiance belongs to Christ!"
One News Now has on its website an online article dated 02-01-09 written by Associated Press writer Gillian Flaccus entitled, "Televangelism empire in chaos over family split". An excerpt from the article states:
Chrystal Cathedral is not going down as a church if it is founded on Christ. However, it is the televison programming "Hour of Power" that is going down as of this moment. Perhaps there is a time of judgement for this kind of thing. People have been substituting the local church for television church. One is biblical and the other is not! I agree with the interjection, "OH, WELL!" Parachurch ministries should spring from the local church but not be a substitute for it.
That's the problem with these personality (the best name for Rick Warren's "purpose driven") driven churches. The only person to whom the church should be driven is Jesus Christ. There is to much man-center preaching, rather than Christ-honoring, God-glorifying, expository preaching that gives biblical doctrine ahead of seeker sensitivism. Suffice it to say the fact that the theology of Robert H. Schuller (the dad) is different that Robert A. Schuller (the son). You can even tell it in their preaching.
Church history teaches us that this kind of thing (personality driven church) is never ever going to work, because it does not have God's support or blessings upon it; no matter how long it has been in operation. Swaggart found that out. Check out most of his preaching now. It is totally different than it was years ago.
True biblical exposition doesn't seek to draw crowds. It is exhalts God, and equips and draws saints. Evangelism is how you reach lost men (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15-16). Discipleship and biblical expository doctrinal preaching is how you "keep" saved men (I Timothy 4:11-16; Acts 2:42-47).
One News Now has on its website an online article dated 02-01-09 written by Associated Press writer Gillian Flaccus entitled, "Televangelism empire in chaos over family split". An excerpt from the article states:
"Once one of the nation's most popular televangelists, the Rev. Robert H. Schuller is watching his life's work crumble.
His son and recent successor, the Rev. Robert A. Schuller, has abruptly resigned as senior pastor
of the Crystal Cathedral. The shimmering, glass-walled megachurch is home to the "Hour of Power" broadcast, an evangelism staple that's been on the air for more than three decades.
The church is in financial turmoil: It plans to sell more than $65 million worth of its Orange County property to pay off debt. Revenue dropped by nearly $5 million last year, according to a recent letter from the elder Schuller to elite donors. In the letter, Schuller Sr. implored
the Eagle's Club members - who supply 30 percent of the church's revenue - for donations and hinted that the show might go off the air without their support."
Chrystal Cathedral is not going down as a church if it is founded on Christ. However, it is the televison programming "Hour of Power" that is going down as of this moment. Perhaps there is a time of judgement for this kind of thing. People have been substituting the local church for television church. One is biblical and the other is not! I agree with the interjection, "OH, WELL!" Parachurch ministries should spring from the local church but not be a substitute for it.
That's the problem with these personality (the best name for Rick Warren's "purpose driven") driven churches. The only person to whom the church should be driven is Jesus Christ. There is to much man-center preaching, rather than Christ-honoring, God-glorifying, expository preaching that gives biblical doctrine ahead of seeker sensitivism. Suffice it to say the fact that the theology of Robert H. Schuller (the dad) is different that Robert A. Schuller (the son). You can even tell it in their preaching.
Church history teaches us that this kind of thing (personality driven church) is never ever going to work, because it does not have God's support or blessings upon it; no matter how long it has been in operation. Swaggart found that out. Check out most of his preaching now. It is totally different than it was years ago.
True biblical exposition doesn't seek to draw crowds. It is exhalts God, and equips and draws saints. Evangelism is how you reach lost men (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15-16). Discipleship and biblical expository doctrinal preaching is how you "keep" saved men (I Timothy 4:11-16; Acts 2:42-47).
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Response to and email concerning use of the terms in English texts "children" or "dear children" in John's epistles; and "angel" in Revelation 2-3
Dear Bro.,
Not only is it a violation of the "rule of logic"; most definitely it is so, but also three other reading errors if not more: (1) twisted translation --when a text is retranslated, but not in accordance with sound Hebrew/Greek scholarship, to fit the preconceived teaching of a cult or even a particular teacher for that matter. (2) ignoring the immediate context --a text is quoted but removed from the surrounding verses which form the immediate framework for its meaning. (3) collapsing contexts --two or more verses which have little or nothing to do with each other are put together as if one were a commentary on the other.
The commentator is retranslating the verse after having looked at other books of the Bible authored by John. His opinion is that if John uses the term in other of his writings then he must be using the same term here in Revelation with reference to these churches. So change the translation and you will get that effect.
However, once that is done then it leads to collapsing contexts. What John discusses in the context of his other epistle does not necessarily mean that he is doing the same in Revelation 2-3. After all the genre of Revelation is different than that of the gospel of John, and the Johnannine epistles (I, II, & III John). The genre of Revelation is apocalyptic literature or writing (prophecy). I, II, & III John are epistles. The Gospel of John is narrative concerning the life of Christ.
It is true that sometimes you can look at the other writings of an author and notice that he uses the same terms sometimes in other of his writings but again that would be in relation to discussing the same issue or similar issues. Such as in I John 2:28 and I John 3:7 he uses the term "teknion" which comes from "teknon" used in II John 1:1 & III John 1:4 both terms meaning little children or darlings; particularly infants. The term "teknion" comes from "teknon", which comes from "tikto" which means to produce, to bear, or to be delivered as in children or a child (teknon). The whole idea is that these terms are used discussing that the Christians to whom John is writing these three epistles are immature Christians that he was responsible for as a spiritual father to them. Better yet they are his spiritual children and his is concerned with their spiritual care. Also, all three of these epistles contain the same terms in there particular contexts and describes the term with the same connotation.
I John uses the terms refering to spiritual children as infants, but the contexts where the terms (teknon, & teknion) are used discusses being faithful in abiding in Christ as righteous until Christ returns (I John 2:28, 29) and in I John 2:20, 27 he states that the Holy Spirit on the inside will cause you to accept all teaching concerning Christ.
II John uses the same terms (teknon and teknion) as I John 2:28 does, but he is writing to a congregation symbolically called, "the elect (chosen) lady and her children" (II John 1:1, 4). It is concening Gnosticism and it's false teaching concerning the incarnation.
III John uses the same terms (teknon & teknion) as does I and II John, but he is writing to Gaius his friend concerning walking in the truth with his children and his lack of appreciation toward Diotrephes (III John 9-11) who was not walking inthe truth, but dismissing anyone who did not agree with his policies.
Now, where these word have shown the same connotations in their contexts, they however have collapsing contexts as to what they are each discussing. In other words in word usage the people John is refering to in each of the above letters by their verses are the same contextually, but when discussing what each context is detailing about, the contexts collapse because they are each discussing about these children a different topic.
Finally, the reason these contexts collapse is there immediate contexts as just stated, discuss different issues. However, sometimes a book by and author can use a translated word that is the same word in translation but not in meaning. That is why some understanding of the original language's use of a word or the grammar needs to be understood to help us understand the context where and English translation uses a word that is not the same in meaning as the original translation.
Such is the case with John's first letter in which he uses the term "paidia" in I John 2:13, 18; which means instruction, chastening, teaching or learning. However, the English translations use the term(s), "children" or "dear children". When the term is actually better translated by its meaning, "instruction" or "instructing". Because John opens the second chapter calling them children (teknion) and addresses them as spiritual children. Then throughout the second chapter the translation idea is accepted that he is talking to them as children (this of course is to me an example of all of the translations including KJV showing dynamic equivalence--thought for thought, and not formal equivalence--word for word [which is far better] ). Although the term can and usually refers to the instruction given to someone as a child especially with relationship to the context.
This also shows that I John 2 which uses the terms "teknion" or "teknia" (2:1, 12, 28) as well as the term "paidia" (2:13, 18) can have different contexts or terms used in different ways in a context or contexts, and not mean the same thing. So it is not good for the author of the article to try and say that the terms of a passage can always be acurately interpreted using a authors previous writings. This is not always true. Especially as we see here in I John 2, let alone I John 2:13, 18. The term should be translated word for word as "instructing", "teaching", or "learning", even though John is talking to his spiritual children.
*{The reason the term "paidia" is translated "children" or "little children" is because the word comes from the Greek term "pais" which means "child" (the genitive case); "a boy" (often beaten with impunity); "a girl" (by analogy). Then the terms' inflections or forms led to the meaning being "child instruction" or "instruction of a child". Terms such as (A) "paidion" (neuter)--a childling (boy or girl); and immature Christian (by analogy). (B) "paideuo"--to instruct, chasten, teach, or learn (as with children or a child). (C) "paidarion" --a little boy, a lad, a child. (D) "paidagogs" --a tutor, shoolmaster, instructor.}
{Wilson's (My)} word for word translation of I John 2:18 using the original text:
"["Instructing", "Teaching"; "Learing"], it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour." [Wilson's translation]
The same can be shown in the later part of I John 2:13d.
For the Glory of God in all Things,
Pastor N. Wilson
P.S. Also remember these individuals refered to in Revelation 2-3 as "angel" can't give the idea of evangelist that was stated in your response:
"The term can hardly apply to an elder, for there seems to have been a plurality of elders in all the churches, and it is not likely that one would be singled out. It is my judgment that the angels were the preachers or evangelists of the churches. As these evangelists not only labored at home, but were often sent out, and were messengers to carry the good tidings, there is a fitness in applying the term to them. We know from the epistles of Paul and from church tradition, that Timothy was long the evangelist at Ephesus, and it is possible that he may have lived and labored until the time of John's banishment." [Your response.]
The passages in the 2-3 chapters of Revelation is quite clear that these individuals were "of the seven churches" or "of the church in..." (Rev. 1:20; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). These guys were stationed in these churches, there is no evidence of them having laboured anywhere else or being sent out anywhere else. So that idea would not fit well with the texts. Also, although Timothy was told to do the work of and evangelist (II Tim. 4:5), that does not change the fact that he was the pastor to the Ephesian church (63-66 AD) during Paul's time, by the way, not during the time John wrote the book of Revelation (81-96 AD). The book of Revelation was writen years later (at least 15-30yrs later). Remember, John was the last of the Apostles to die and the longest of them known to have lived.
It is possible that Timothy could still have been alive but not likely, due to the reign of the particular emporer of the time being Nero (who burned Rome and blamed the Christian--then had many of them executed), who usually found the leaders of the churches and had them terminated, and then the church would scatter until another leader was placed. (1) An old tradition states that Timothy continued on as bishop of Ephesus and was later suffered martydom by Domitian or Nerva (D.E. Hiebert, Personalities around Paul (1973); pp. 98-113). (2) Nicephorus said that he was clubbed to death for having in the temple of Diana at her statute's feet for having denounced its licentiousness (Ecclesiastical History iii. 11). (3) The historian Calmet says that, "possibly Timothy was "the angel to the church at Ephesus" (Rev 2:1). The praise and the censure agree with Timothy's character, as it appears in Acts and the epistles. The temptation of such an ardent yet soft temperament would be to "leave his first love." Christ's promise of the tree of life to him that overcometh (Rev 2:5, 7) accords with 2 Tim 2:4-6. Paul, influenced by his own inclination (Acts 16:3) and the prophets' intimations respecting him (1 Tim 1:18; 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6: compare Paul's own ease, Acts 13:1), with his own hands, accompanied with the presbytery's laying on of hands, ordained him "evangelist" (2 Tim 4:5)."( Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Copyright (c)1998)
Finally, Paul's statement to Timothy in II Timothy 4:5 about "doing the work of and evangelist" could also have the idea of doing evangelism in the area of Ephesus where he pastored.
Not only is it a violation of the "rule of logic"; most definitely it is so, but also three other reading errors if not more: (1) twisted translation --when a text is retranslated, but not in accordance with sound Hebrew/Greek scholarship, to fit the preconceived teaching of a cult or even a particular teacher for that matter. (2) ignoring the immediate context --a text is quoted but removed from the surrounding verses which form the immediate framework for its meaning. (3) collapsing contexts --two or more verses which have little or nothing to do with each other are put together as if one were a commentary on the other.
The commentator is retranslating the verse after having looked at other books of the Bible authored by John. His opinion is that if John uses the term in other of his writings then he must be using the same term here in Revelation with reference to these churches. So change the translation and you will get that effect.
However, once that is done then it leads to collapsing contexts. What John discusses in the context of his other epistle does not necessarily mean that he is doing the same in Revelation 2-3. After all the genre of Revelation is different than that of the gospel of John, and the Johnannine epistles (I, II, & III John). The genre of Revelation is apocalyptic literature or writing (prophecy). I, II, & III John are epistles. The Gospel of John is narrative concerning the life of Christ.
It is true that sometimes you can look at the other writings of an author and notice that he uses the same terms sometimes in other of his writings but again that would be in relation to discussing the same issue or similar issues. Such as in I John 2:28 and I John 3:7 he uses the term "teknion" which comes from "teknon" used in II John 1:1 & III John 1:4 both terms meaning little children or darlings; particularly infants. The term "teknion" comes from "teknon", which comes from "tikto" which means to produce, to bear, or to be delivered as in children or a child (teknon). The whole idea is that these terms are used discussing that the Christians to whom John is writing these three epistles are immature Christians that he was responsible for as a spiritual father to them. Better yet they are his spiritual children and his is concerned with their spiritual care. Also, all three of these epistles contain the same terms in there particular contexts and describes the term with the same connotation.
I John uses the terms refering to spiritual children as infants, but the contexts where the terms (teknon, & teknion) are used discusses being faithful in abiding in Christ as righteous until Christ returns (I John 2:28, 29) and in I John 2:20, 27 he states that the Holy Spirit on the inside will cause you to accept all teaching concerning Christ.
II John uses the same terms (teknon and teknion) as I John 2:28 does, but he is writing to a congregation symbolically called, "the elect (chosen) lady and her children" (II John 1:1, 4). It is concening Gnosticism and it's false teaching concerning the incarnation.
III John uses the same terms (teknon & teknion) as does I and II John, but he is writing to Gaius his friend concerning walking in the truth with his children and his lack of appreciation toward Diotrephes (III John 9-11) who was not walking inthe truth, but dismissing anyone who did not agree with his policies.
Now, where these word have shown the same connotations in their contexts, they however have collapsing contexts as to what they are each discussing. In other words in word usage the people John is refering to in each of the above letters by their verses are the same contextually, but when discussing what each context is detailing about, the contexts collapse because they are each discussing about these children a different topic.
Finally, the reason these contexts collapse is there immediate contexts as just stated, discuss different issues. However, sometimes a book by and author can use a translated word that is the same word in translation but not in meaning. That is why some understanding of the original language's use of a word or the grammar needs to be understood to help us understand the context where and English translation uses a word that is not the same in meaning as the original translation.
Such is the case with John's first letter in which he uses the term "paidia" in I John 2:13, 18; which means instruction, chastening, teaching or learning. However, the English translations use the term(s), "children" or "dear children". When the term is actually better translated by its meaning, "instruction" or "instructing". Because John opens the second chapter calling them children (teknion) and addresses them as spiritual children. Then throughout the second chapter the translation idea is accepted that he is talking to them as children (this of course is to me an example of all of the translations including KJV showing dynamic equivalence--thought for thought, and not formal equivalence--word for word [which is far better] ). Although the term can and usually refers to the instruction given to someone as a child especially with relationship to the context.
This also shows that I John 2 which uses the terms "teknion" or "teknia" (2:1, 12, 28) as well as the term "paidia" (2:13, 18) can have different contexts or terms used in different ways in a context or contexts, and not mean the same thing. So it is not good for the author of the article to try and say that the terms of a passage can always be acurately interpreted using a authors previous writings. This is not always true. Especially as we see here in I John 2, let alone I John 2:13, 18. The term should be translated word for word as "instructing", "teaching", or "learning", even though John is talking to his spiritual children.
*{The reason the term "paidia" is translated "children" or "little children" is because the word comes from the Greek term "pais" which means "child" (the genitive case); "a boy" (often beaten with impunity); "a girl" (by analogy). Then the terms' inflections or forms led to the meaning being "child instruction" or "instruction of a child". Terms such as (A) "paidion" (neuter)--a childling (boy or girl); and immature Christian (by analogy). (B) "paideuo"--to instruct, chasten, teach, or learn (as with children or a child). (C) "paidarion" --a little boy, a lad, a child. (D) "paidagogs" --a tutor, shoolmaster, instructor.}
{Wilson's (My)} word for word translation of I John 2:18 using the original text:
"["Instructing", "Teaching"; "Learing"], it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour." [Wilson's translation]
The same can be shown in the later part of I John 2:13d.
For the Glory of God in all Things,
Pastor N. Wilson
P.S. Also remember these individuals refered to in Revelation 2-3 as "angel" can't give the idea of evangelist that was stated in your response:
"The term can hardly apply to an elder, for there seems to have been a plurality of elders in all the churches, and it is not likely that one would be singled out. It is my judgment that the angels were the preachers or evangelists of the churches. As these evangelists not only labored at home, but were often sent out, and were messengers to carry the good tidings, there is a fitness in applying the term to them. We know from the epistles of Paul and from church tradition, that Timothy was long the evangelist at Ephesus, and it is possible that he may have lived and labored until the time of John's banishment." [Your response.]
The passages in the 2-3 chapters of Revelation is quite clear that these individuals were "of the seven churches" or "of the church in..." (Rev. 1:20; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). These guys were stationed in these churches, there is no evidence of them having laboured anywhere else or being sent out anywhere else. So that idea would not fit well with the texts. Also, although Timothy was told to do the work of and evangelist (II Tim. 4:5), that does not change the fact that he was the pastor to the Ephesian church (63-66 AD) during Paul's time, by the way, not during the time John wrote the book of Revelation (81-96 AD). The book of Revelation was writen years later (at least 15-30yrs later). Remember, John was the last of the Apostles to die and the longest of them known to have lived.
It is possible that Timothy could still have been alive but not likely, due to the reign of the particular emporer of the time being Nero (who burned Rome and blamed the Christian--then had many of them executed), who usually found the leaders of the churches and had them terminated, and then the church would scatter until another leader was placed. (1) An old tradition states that Timothy continued on as bishop of Ephesus and was later suffered martydom by Domitian or Nerva (D.E. Hiebert, Personalities around Paul (1973); pp. 98-113). (2) Nicephorus said that he was clubbed to death for having in the temple of Diana at her statute's feet for having denounced its licentiousness (Ecclesiastical History iii. 11). (3) The historian Calmet says that, "possibly Timothy was "the angel to the church at Ephesus" (Rev 2:1). The praise and the censure agree with Timothy's character, as it appears in Acts and the epistles. The temptation of such an ardent yet soft temperament would be to "leave his first love." Christ's promise of the tree of life to him that overcometh (Rev 2:5, 7) accords with 2 Tim 2:4-6. Paul, influenced by his own inclination (Acts 16:3) and the prophets' intimations respecting him (1 Tim 1:18; 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6: compare Paul's own ease, Acts 13:1), with his own hands, accompanied with the presbytery's laying on of hands, ordained him "evangelist" (2 Tim 4:5)."( Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Copyright (c)1998)
Finally, Paul's statement to Timothy in II Timothy 4:5 about "doing the work of and evangelist" could also have the idea of doing evangelism in the area of Ephesus where he pastored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)