Bible Translations and Manuscript Issues

A new Bible Translation, The Pure Word, is out. Looks interesting. I read a sample of its scholarship. Very helpful, but while being literal, it appears to me to fall short where other literal translations succeed.

I think it's a great complement to those works and a valuable resource, but not the end-all. The publishers recommend it be used as a complement to a readable version because it is awkward in English. Sounds good to me.


I'm a little disappointed that they kept apologizing to the KJV. One of the members of the committee was a KJV-only guy until he realized (as many have argued) it suffers from political and ecclesiastical compromises. They write that he wept when hit with the truth.

Rather than cry, he should praise God for delivering him from his false worship. Eh, I'll take all the kissing of the KJV as long as they acknowledge it's not inspired above the original manuscripts.

(I hope I can get a copy of the Pure Bible by the end of this year.)

I should say, in the example they give on the order page, they use at least one word I can't find in any Greek manuscript or in any literal translation. This piqued my interest.

I don't pretend to know Greek, but there are so many great resources, on occasion I've tried my hand at translating. You may have seen some of my attempts followed by "The Michael Scotto translation, which we do not recommend."

-------------------------

Since I commented on translations, I thought I'd share my very little knowledge on the subject. Big picture stuff. VERY generalized for those starting at square one.

There are essentially three kinds of translations: Literal (L), Dynamic Equivalence (DE), and Paraphrase (P). Many translations are a combination, leaning more one way than another. (Another phrase for the L is "formal equivalence," in case you ever see that.)

L- Literal (Formal Equivalence)
DE - Dynamic Equivalence
P - Paraphrase

The KJV, for example, is a literal translation (L). That is, it tries to translate the original manuscripts directly to English. If you'll notice, some words in the KJV (NKJV) are in italics. That's their way of saying they added words for English context. I'd say that reveals it has a slight bit of DE. There are certainly more "literal" translations (like Young's Literal), but the spirit of being L is in translations like the KJV. A slightly more readable L is the ASV (American Standard Version).

The NIV is a dynamic equivalence. That is, it takes the original text and arranges it more "dynamically" (changes it). They add more to try and have it communicate more closely to modern English. It attempts to give the "thought" behind the words, rater than the words themselves, while employing some of the words. Comparatively, The Good News Translation (GNT) is a looser DE than is the NIV (IMHO)

As we get farther away from the L, we are getting away from translations you would want to use for a "word study" or similar.

Finally, something like the New Living (NLT) or the Message Bible (MSG) would be a paraphrase. To me, they're more like commentaries. They might be helpful for reading comprehension, but certainly somebody's bias is present. I would not recommend P as a study Bible, but it may help with simple reading.

Some like the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) are combo versions (L, DE in this case).

Here are some comparative examples:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and void (ASV) L 

In the beginning, when God created the universe, the earth was formless and desolate (GNT) DE 

First this: God created the Heavens and Earth—all you see, all you don’t see. Earth was a soup of nothingness, a bottomless emptiness, an inky blackness. (MSG) P 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty (HCSB) L/DE

Biblegateway.com allows you to see 56 different English translations. The continuity is sometimes amazing. Studylight.org has an "interlinear" option which shows you the original language and as you roll over the words you can see the English word used. If you click on the word, the Strong's Concordance definition (with others) comes up and you can see how many times it's used and how it is translated in other verses.

You will also see options for manuscripts. I'll give a big picture overview below.

Versions I use the most (in no order):

NKJV - New King James Version
NIV - New International Version
ESV - English Standard Version
ASV - American Standard Version
YLT - Young's Literal Translation
EBR - Rotherham's Emphasized Bible
KJV - King James Version
RSV - Revised Standard Version
DARBY - Darby Translation

That's certainly not exhaustive. I've recently started to check the MEV (Modern English Version)

I recommend The Companion Bible (which is KJV) which has excellent notes breaking down words and patterns in scripture. There is also a condensed version available online.

Finally, I HIGHLY recommend "How to Enjoy the Bible" which is an excellent resource for studying scripture written by a brilliant, yet humble scholar, E.W. Bullinger (DBG).

Used copies are very inexpensive: CLICK HERE

-------------------------

I've decided to go ahead and comment on manuscripts since I mentioned it. Believe me, this won't take long. I've read and listened to a bunch on this topic. I've read scary books about "New Age" texts, etc. But upon closer inspection, I've never really seen the reason for the hub bub.

[I won't go too deep into the Old Testament and New Testament. Just know that with the OT there exits a Greek version (the Septuagint) which is helpful with understanding how some Greek words can be used, but it is sometimes less reliable than Hebrew (Chaldean) Jewish texts (but only marginally so). The Septuagint, as with all honest translations, certainly can be called "the Word of God" in regard to the inspired books (not the Apocrypha). The Lord and the Apostles quoted from it in the New Testament Greek texts. ]

The differences that do exist in the accepted manuscript evidence do not affect any major doctrine (and really very few minor doctrines if we want to quibble). I'd even argue there are more "problems" among the English translations than among the bulk of the manuscript evidence (and really not much there). IMHO.

Compared to other ancient documents we take for granted as accurate (e.g. Greek philosophers), the biblical manuscripts are incredibly more numerous and reliable.

Here's pretty much what you need to know if you're just a beginner: there are essentially two sets of texts. The first represents the vast majority of what we have. These make up the "Majority" or "Byzantine" texts. You may hear of the Textus Recptus (TR) or the "Received Text." Well, the Majority Text is a compilation of medieval texts and the TR is similar (though not as complete). Although not interchangeable with "Byzantine", they're essentially the same for our purposes in regard to the different translations. When I use the interlinear function in StudyLight, I choose the Byzantine texts box (BYZ).

The Byzantine text is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts, though not in the oldest.

We've now covered about 95% of available texts (Majority). So why bother with the rest? Well, the other texts (Minority) are older. So, you can see the value in being closer to the originals. Closer, but we know less about their origins. Some prefer the Minority as there is some concern the state church may have not protected (or corrupted) the TR over the centuries. Some of the TR draws from the Vulgate (Latin) which may have added material for "clarification" or simply commentary.

One of the reasons the TR is "younger" was the practice of preservation by which new copies were made and older copies used for study (thus wearing them out). Since we don't know for certain the origin of the Minority texts, we're left to compare them with the Majority texts (these comparisons are healthy).

There are a couple of stark differences, mostly in terms of omissions. Some of the Minority Texts do not have Mark 16, for example.

If you care, the prominently used Minority texts are the Neste-Aland; the Westcott-Hort'; and Syriac-Peshitta. You may also hear of the "Alexandrian" texts. This is essentially to distinguish from the "Byzantine" texts.

Whatever translation you use will probably note the primary text used. It may also list differences in texts in the notes. Again, The Companion Bible (KJV) has a number of these notes. As noted in my last missive, I look at a lot of English translations taken from different texts, and I've never really seen a great chasm. Again, the problems I've seen in the English arise mostly from the prejudice of the translators. The fear-mongering from some quarters (from either side) is unwarranted, in my opinion. I wouldn't trust a translation solely from the Vulgate or from The Codex Vaticanus (kept in the Vatican library) primarily because we can verify neither outside a Catholic frame.

I believe John Darby saw the original Codex Vaticanus (CV) on a visit to Rome, but mostly what we have are reprints from the Catholic Church. It's all in Greek. I believe Westcott and Hort (WH) relied heavily on printed texts of the CV. Some say it differs "significantly" from the TR, but I leave that to others who have done far more extensive work than I. In my experience (admittedly anecdotal), I have seen translations from the BYZ, TR, and WH be used to glorify the finished work. Perhaps if I looked further, I would find more problems with the WH. But as of today, I would not speak authoritatively on its veracity or lack thereof.

Finally, the worst the Enemy has ever done to attack the Word of God has been done by people purposefully mistranslating it into English. The problem is not with the original texts themselves. And even if we had a perfect English translation, man and his traditions would twist it and use it to deceive. The people who worship the KJV never bother to note that so many heretics and false teachers use it (I've called it the Heretic's Bible of Choice). Not the KJV's fault, but the translation won't keep people from mishandling the Bible.

Satan and Eve both had the pure Word of God; but one twisting it and the other not believing it was the problem. It wasn't the text. As has been said, it's not the few differences that should trouble people, it is the clear declaration of what the manuscripts do teach that men should consider. These make up what men reject. They may use the manuscript differences as their excuse, but it is a rejection of light which lies at the core of their rebellion.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The
light shines in the darkness, and the darkness could not comprehend it... And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." 

-John 1:1-5; 3:19

Some used Companion Bibles out there, but I've linked free online versions above. The appendices in the back of the book are readily available in many places. If you want a hard copy, try:

Used Companion Bible: CLICK HERE

The Appendices to the Companion Bible: CLICK HERE

Addendum: Just a note on the Minority texts. The primary problem is that no one knows about their origins, who did the translation or why. They are all incomplete. They are older, but we have no way to tell what method they used. The TR texts are not as old (by design), but have been "received" from older translations utilizing a very strict method of copying. The layers of protection were known. A major change would be easily detected. This is not true of the older Minority texts. God does preserve His word. I feel more confident this is true of the Byzantine texts.

More on the Traditional Doctrine of "Hell"

As we prepare for the parables of Matthew 24-25, it is good to review again the implications of the traditional doctrine of "hell."

David Hocking (whom I like) was telling the story on his radio broadcast of his wife's aunt for whom they had been praying for many years. At a family gathering, she asked David about his knowledge of eternal life.

David shared with her the glorious gospel of the free grace of God and the woman surrendered her destiny to Christ. Obviously, that's a story I like to hear!

David said it was wonderful to be able to lead "that precious lady" to Christ. The Aunt died just a few days later (age 84). Did she become a "precious lady" to him on that day? No. But in his, and in most professing Christendom's theology, had she died the night before, God would be torturing her by fire, without hope, without end (worse than the Nazis could envision)... and we'd have to praise him for it.

I abandoned that doctrine about 15 years ago. I didn't abandon it because I didn't like it, but because it's not scriptural. It is monstrous and an attack on the character of God. Torturing people by fire serves no purpose. Even torturing Satan serves no purpose of God.

In logic, we understand that there is a point where extreme heat and pain are indistinguishable. There is no way to differentiate the fiery torment Satan would receive and the fiery torment his wife's aunt would receive.

Imagine a doctrine which takes someone burned alive in the ovens of Dachau only to open his eyes in the far worse, never-ending, fiery torture of God's torture chamber. And, again, as RC Sproul taught, we will find ourselves praising him for it? Sproul said this of his own mother being tortured. Monstrous.

The wages of sin is death. The choice we have is between life and perishing (Jn 3:16). There are also temporal ramifications for sin. Sin is a dead end. It is pleasurable for a season, yet leaves its slave empty. Faith offers us the ability to free ourselves from enslavement now and offers us the promise of incorruptibility and immortality in the resurrection.

"God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them."
-2 Cor 5:19

The work is complete, God only asks that it be appropriated by faith. Our ministry is to share the gospel of reconciliation.

"We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God." -2 Cor 5:20

That is our ministry, not scaring people into false professions to get "fire insurance." That's cheap preaching and the greatest evangelist of the age, Paul, never used it (for it is false).

To the religious, he offers life, if they will come:

"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life."
-John 5:39-40

To the wayward, he offers life, if they will come:

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”-John 8:12 

“I assure you: Anyone who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life"-John 5:24 

"Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in Me, even if he dies, will live."-John 11:25

That only makes sense if men are mortal and eternal life is only for those who are in the resurrection.

Brief Note on Dispensationalism

This blog seeks to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15) and the approach I take (after years of applying other approaches with great dissatisfaction) has been called "Hyper-Dispensationalism" or "Ultra-Dispensationalism" by some. I prefer "Consistent Dispensationalism." With that in mind, I wanted to briefly discuss "dispensations."

What is a Dispensation?

It is important to understand the biblical word "dispensation" (Eph 1:10; 3:2; etc.). When we speak of dispensations we are not speaking necessarily of time. Of course, a dispensation can be limited to time, but that is not its primary meaning.

A dispensation is a stewardship or an administration. Joseph was given stewardship over Pharaoh's house, for example. It is how things are run.

Two dispensations, then, can run simultaneously. There are laws in England and laws in France. They are independent yet not mutually exclusive. That is, it is illegal in both nations to murder, but that does not mean all laws are the same.

If you leave France driving on the right side of the road, pass through the Chunnel, and then decide to continue to drive on the right side of the road in England, you will have gone from being lawful to being unlawful despite practicing the same action.

In some of my entries I have noted that Jewish believers functioned under different directives than did Gentile believers in the Acts age (while all were saved by grace). In recent posts, I have noted the difference between several "administrations."

Things in this age are different from the Acts age, and we saw last time that there is a group of believers who will be "guests at the wedding." This is a truth we need to apply in other areas as well.

ALL people in all ages and dispensations receive the gift of eternal life the same way: by grace alone through faith alone. But rewards and hopes differ between dispensations.

Our churches often teach "Old Covenant" and "New Covenant" as the only two separating administrations of God (even some Replacement Theologians who say they reject dispensationalism). It is believed that somehow all men were under the OC of works and now all believers are under the NC of grace (we have covered how both covenants are for Israel and how the NC is yet future eleswhere).

This is gross distortion of scripture and has done more damage to the cause of Christ than almost anything else within Christendom.

Obviously, hundreds and thousands of years before the OC was given in Exodus 19, no one could be under it. Paul said it could never save. And in Nineveh we saw an entire Gentile people spared by faith who had no concept of the Feasts and sacrifices required of Israel, for example.

The OC is for "the children of Israel" (Ex 19); The Gospel of the Kingdom is for "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt 10); and the NC is "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" (Jer 31; Heb 8). We must make these distinctions to truly understand the will of God. We must "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15).

Today, throughout Christendom, truths from other dispensations are being dragged into the current dispensation. The Book of Matthew (a Jewish book given to Israel alone) is often the source of many of these errors. That is why we have been examining the Parables of Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount, etc.

We must distinguish the hope of the earth, the hope of the New Jerusalem, and the hope of blessings, far above the heavens. We must function under the present administration (the calling to which we have been called - Eph 4) and not fall into the trap of trying to function under other administrations.

Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
-Phil 3:13-14

And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh [Gentiles], He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
-Col 2:13-23

Guests at the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22

We now briefly look at the Parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22. We are again told by our Lord that this parable concerns “The kingdom of heaven” as we saw in the kingdom parables of Matthew 13.

 The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding…-Matthew 22:2-3a

As we had in The Parable of the Sower, we see here an invitation going out to different groups and we see rejection (“and they were not willing to come”). The sacrifice had been made and the wedding supper was ready (“See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding”).

We have referenced this wedding supper in other studies. In this short note, we want to concentrate on the final group who accept the invitation. As we’ve seen previously, the Lord prophesizes Israel’s rejection (calling them “murderers”) and the destruction of her city (Jerusalem, v.7). We’ve seen this in the previous parables, but now we are dealing with those outside those initially invited.

This call then goes out to a new group (“those who were invited were not worthy”). Who are these who were “not worthy?” These are the gentile “dogs” (Matt 15) who were “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12).

The Lord tells us, “the wedding hall was filled with guests.” So, these are not “sons” (heirs), they are not “the bridegroom” and they are not “the bride.” This group is made up of GUESTS in the kingdom and guests at the wedding feast in the coming New Jerusalem (Rev 21).

The Lord of the Feast (the King) comes among the guests and finds one without a wedding garment, and has him sent out (Mt 22:11-15). He is cast out “into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” We have seen this place before and we shall see it in the parables of Matthew 24 and 25. This is not tradition’s “fiery torment,” this is a place outside the New Jerusalem, out among the nations in the age to come (see previous studies on The Parables of the Kingdom).

But what of the “garment”? In the Lord’s letters to the Jewish churches in the Revelation, he three times references white or undefiled garments. We are not speaking of the free gift of resurrection life, we are speaking of reward.

In Rev 16, in speaking of His return (the “Parousia”), the Lord says, ““Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame.” When we get to the marriage supper in Rev 19, we get the specific description of the makeup of the linen worn by the “wife,” “for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.”  

We again have works coming in. The GIFT of God is eternal life through Christ, but every group, in every family of God, though the foundation laid is secure and eternal (Christ himself), there is a judgment of works. In the Parable of the Pearl of Great Price, we see the picture of something pure (the pearl is used in scripture of that which is holy) being born out of suffering, and rescued out of the teeming sea (gentiles; in the Parable of the Treasure, we see the remnant of believing Israel taken from the land). These are clothed in righteous works which distinguishes them.

In Revelation 21 we see the Bride of the Lamb, the New Jerusalem, the city with the names of the Apostles to the Jew (the names of those who will “sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel” in the Kingdom, on earth). This is the reward. This is the “city whose builder and maker is God” that Abraham sought (Heb 11:10). The Lord is the “Bridegroom.” The called-out church of this age is His “Body” (Ephesians) whose blessing are not in the earth, but “in heavenly places.”

So who are these “guests?”

The guests are believers among the Gentiles to whom the gospel of John 3:16 (etc.) has been sent (to “the world”). Some of these will be at the marriage feast in the Kingdom (Matthew 8) and some will miss out. Those who do not have a righteous walk, just like the Jews who do not, will be cast into the outer darkness (outside the New Jerusalem, outside the kingdom).

The implication is that the guests go through the Great Tribulation as well, but I do not want to be dogmatic about that. However, they arrive at the feast, they are guests and they must be clothed in the right garment (“righteous acts”). Again, another study for another day.

Matthew 22 continues to point us to a future kingdom, a future judgment, a future reward, and a future disappointment. In context of the whole book and the parables within, we are looking at all things, including these guests, in that light. Israel is front and center. In our day, however, Israel is still set aside. We await the day she turns back to her Savior, repents, and the times of refreshing can come in (Acts 3).

The Fig Tree in Matthew 21

I want to stop in Matthew 21 and 22 briefly before we get to the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 and 25. In Matthew 21 we find the Lord’s encounter with the fig tree:

Now in the morning, as He returned to the city, He was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, “Let no fruit grow on you ever again.” Immediately the fig tree withered away.
-Matthew 21:18-19 (NKJV)

The setting is just before the Passover and just after the Lord’s triumphal entrance into Jerusalem, hailed as King, the Son of David.

• “Hosanna to the Son of David!”
• “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”
• “Hosanna in the highest heaven!”

The Fig Tree is a type of Israel in scripture. The fig tree represents “national” Israel.

I refer us to the notes in The Companion Bible (Judges 9):


The Olive tree
- Israel's religious privileges (Rom. 11).


The Fig tree
- Israel's national privileges (Matt. 21).


The Vine
- Israel's spiritual privileges (Isa. 5).


The fig tree can have two or three year’s growth of fruit on it. We are nearing the end of the Lord’s three-year earthly ministry and what we find is a tree full of leaves. It is looking for its king. It hails the true Son of David as blessed. Yet in a few days, she will be calling for his death.

Was this the end of Israel in God’s plan? No. The Lord is saying that Israel, in rejecting her king, was forfeiting her privilege as head of the nations, for a season.

Young’s Literal Translation translates verse 19 in part this way:

“No more from thee may fruit be -- to the age.”

When the Lord taught his disciples for 40 days after his resurrection, with their minds opened to understand (Luke 24), he taught them about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (as we have seen, Acts 1:6). When Peter offers that restoration to “you men of Israel” in Acts 2 and 3, the condition is Israel’s repentance concerning the Holy One.

But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.
-Acts 3:14-15 

Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.
-Acts 3:19-21

In Romans 9 we see that the religious privilege of Israel was still active. Gentiles in the Acts age (post Acts 10) were “grafted into” the olive tree.


This is groundwork to help us understand Matthew 22 and The Olivet Discourse. This is all built upon the foundation we built looking at the parables of Matthew 13, the Parables of The Kingdom. We find in Matthew 24 and 25, the conclusion of the coming age and the fulfillment of the promised kingdom to believing Israel.

On Debating Catholics - Part 2

I'd like to reiterate that this is obviously not an exhaustive study of this topic, it's an overview on a blog. Therefore, I am not laying out every argument against Catholic doctrine and dogma.

With that in mind, I start with a recent exchange I had with a Catholic in regard to a comment I made concerning Pope Francis' condemnation of the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In my comment, I listed (close to verbatim, in English) the decrees of the Papal Bull "Cum nimis absurdum" from Pope Paul IV (July 14, 1555). In that decree, the Pope condemned Jews to "eternal slavery" (and he declared it absurd to believe otherwise).

In response, a Catholic scolded me for not knowing history and pasted a link about Pius XII helping Jews during the Holocaust. Well, everything I posted in that discussion was directly pulled from Paul IV's Papal Bull.

This is an example of what I've encountered countless times: quoting Popes and Councils is somehow tantamount to "Catholic bashing," apparently.

You will encounter argument flows along the following lines.

• A. Catholic argues that they have the Popes to gather around; state there are 220,000 different "Protestant" denominations because we have no central authority [Note: very few, if any, of them, understand what the Evangelical gospel teaches about "the church" which adds to their confusion].  

• B. You are told that Jesus founded the only true church on Pope Peter and they have 2000 years of tradition and the "early church fathers." The Seat of Peter has "the keys of the kingdom" and he may "bind and loose" on all matters of faith and morals.  The RCC is thus superior because of this single, unifying, infallible source. 

At this point, you may start quoting contradictory or vile or crazy things from Popes and Councils.

You may be called a "Catholic basher" at this point (I was banned from a Catholic forum for quoting popes and councils) or you will encounter one of two responses:

• A. Catholics don't really have to listen to the Popes. It's only when they speak "ex cathedra" that they are infallible. Push them and it comes down to only two doctrines. They then feel free to disagree on just about everything else. What they don't realize is that the popes and councils have a very different view of their obedience and what MUST be obeyed. They are charged with "submitting both mind and will" to the Pope on all matters of faith and morals, whether spoken ex cathedra or not. Ecumenical Councils are also said to be "infallible."

• B. Another popular response to quoting a pope from the 12th, 16th, 19th centuries (etc.) goes  something like this, "how about quoting something since the invention of the light bulb!" The inference, of course, is that somehow popes long removed from the "early church fathers" are better equipped to interpret doctrines in the present (ignoring those 2000 years of tradition in the process).

Can you see what happens? While arguing a unifying source and 2000 years of tradition, they feel free to tell us that they essentially are allowed to disagree with Popes, even on the matter of salvation itself. 

If you follow conservative political sites, you see a lot of "I'm Catholic, but this Pope has to go!" comments or similar. Well, that's not just a denial of the papacy, it argues against the Magisterium which elected him (are they not Holy Spirit led?). They also have to ignore their own list of "anti-popes" and the period when there were two papacies (Rome and Avignon), each condemning the other. Failing to note that all of the dual-papacy are popes listed in the official list of succession. And we can't even mention the downright wicked popes (rapists, adulterers, etc.) without backlash.

If one pope can be wrong, ALL popes can be wrong. 

Of course, as with most of these arguments, their worst witnesses are the popes and councils themselves. In this latter case, the idea that a clearly stated decree from Pope or council can be "better understood" over time is itself condemned by Popes (Leo XIII, etc.).

So, before long, you have Catholics who just touted the  "2000 years of tradition" and "Apostolic succession" and "unity under the popes" denying popes and councils and arguing they don't have to listen to some old pope.

Now, Catholic apologists have their own list of stupid "Protestant" arguments or some list of atrocities, etc. But there is a stark difference, I don't care what anybody else taught. Luther being an Anti-Semite means nothing to me. But if you tell me Paul IV is infallible on all matters of faith and morals, and that he may bind and loose... and he declares that Catholics must refuse to eat with Jews (etc.) as a matter of faith and morals... you have the problem, not me. Often the phrase, "we declare, affirm and pronounce" is used in regard to a doctrine held by "the universal church."

Another tactic is to put arguments into your mouth. "You Protestants believe" or "You think Catholics believe" are convenient ways to set up red herrings and straw men. Beware and don't allow them to caricature biblical truths. And, again, if I say "You Catholics believe X because Pope Y and Council Z decreed it so," they must defend. I only have to defend my own beliefs, not those of any other Christian.

I am careful not to put arguments in their mouths and I try to use only Catholic sources (the Vatican web site when possible).What I will do, however, is put Papal arguments in their mouths. I defend the popes as knowing what the CC teaches! I've been accused of being a Sedevacantist on more than one occasion, to which I reply, "No, but I admire their knowledge of CC history and their fidelity to what the popes have taught."

The Bible

In regard to the Bible, they'll claim the CC gave us the Bible, then tell us why it is inferior to their "sacred tradition" (or simply subject to it).  They will soon be explaining away or dismissing it as "old." They also deny its infallibility. Be careful here. They will speak in glowing terms about scripture, then undermine it.

And, as noted, they will readily dismiss "Sacred Tradition" too when it becomes uncomfortable.

I taught Religious Education in the CC. I still have my textbook on this subject. I have other books (with imprimatur) denying inerrancy. They will attack these textbooks and authors (nuns and priests and archbishops, etc.), but you will not find them demanding these things be removed from CC classrooms or textbooks. How can they if the material has an imprimatur of a "prince of the Church?"

I'll stop here. As noted, I don't engage much these days as it has grown tiresome over two decades to deal with such arguments.

But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.
-Titus 3:9

When someone starts to contradict one of his own core premises in order to salvage a pronounced conclusion, such a one probably has no interest in truth, only in argument. 

From such, turn away. 

Having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
-2 Tim 3:5

Remember, many lay Catholics just like being Catholic. I saw a bumper sticker recently which read "I love being Catholic!" I bet they do... but I bet they'd quickly deny Popes, Councils and more in a heartbeat if confronted with certain quotes and declarations.

That's all I'm going to say on this topic. If you know a Catholic who is truly seeking truth, trust the scripture. Preach grace. Invite them to read the Book of John.

Part 1 can be read HERE

On Debating Catholics - Part 1

A number of years ago, on a now defunct blog, I posted an entry on the topic of debating Catholics. It was born out of numerous frustrating conversations with Catholics in regard to their faith. If it is not known, I am a former Catholic. I was very devout. I was educated in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia under the auspices of John Cardinal Krol. I went on to be be active in high school, college and eventually serving as an acolyte and Religious Education teacher and youth conference speaker.

I do not list these things to present myself as an expert, but rather to show that my knowledge of both the doctrines and culture of the Catholic Church (CC) come, in part, from inside. I also readily note that my experiences in the CC were almost universally positive. I have very fond memories of my years in a CC school: serving as an altar boy, being active in the youth group and as part of the Newman Center in college. Certainly, personal relationships with Catholic family and friends was overwhelmingly positive.

But positive doesn’t make something true nor does it negate the realities of Catholic doctrine.

Remember, something isn't true merely because it is old; or because it is held by many people; or because it is declared by some ecclesiastical body.

Obviously, on a blog, I will not be dissecting 1500 years of Catholic dogmas, decrees and declarations (only as appropriate in context of my topic). To be sure, although educated as a Catholic in a conservative Catholic parish and after serving as an altar boy, acolyte and Religious Education teacher and youth leader, I can safely say I have learned more about the bulls, encyclicals and catechisms (etc.) of the Catholic Church after leaving her. (In my debates I use only Catholic sources when possible.) It is my experience that most Catholics are wholly unfamiliar with their own history or with the teachings of their own church..

I have found over the last quarter century that most of my efforts among Catholics have been mostly fruitless, although not completely so (and who knows what the Lord may have done with any seed sewn?). I turned my attention to teaching the individual responsibility of all men to seek truth for themselves, with a prayerful and honest heart. And that applies to those within and without Christendom.

But lately it has been impressed upon me that I need to renew my warning to those who may want to engage Catholics in discussion or debate. This will serve as simply a warning as to what you are up against (and what the strategy of the greater CC is). It is a gigantic (monstrous?) entity which appears unknowable, mysterious and complex. However, many of its doctrines were so clearly declared by Popes and Councils that we need not get caught up in the purposefully complex debate in which many Catholics want to engage. Trying the explain the clear with the complex is a fool’s errand.

Before moving on, I would suggest to those who feel insufficient either in their grasp of the totality of scripture or the vastness of the dogmas of Rome, that you teach and live grace. The centrality of the cross and the resurrection is the starting point of all true faith. From there, one can only add or subtract from the accomplished work of God himself. And, when understood, all “adding” is merely “subtracting” from his glorious gift and his all-sufficient work. In short, it is prideful blasphemy.

We rest on the only foundation which can be laid, because there is only one sacrifice for sin (complete and eternal).

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
-1 Cor 3:11

Then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
-Hebrews 10:9-14

In Part 2 I will briefly list the type of arguments you will probably see. Again, I will not be exhaustively refuting them, rather I will be alerting you to the methodology of most of the Catholics you will encounter. As with all witnessing, if you can see only argument and no seeking, prepare to  shake the dust from your feet and move on.

But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.
-Titus 3:9

When someone starts to contradict one of his own core premises in order to salvage a pronounced conclusion, such a one probably has no interest in truth, only in argument. 

From such, turn away. 

Having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
-2 Tim 3:5

Part 2 can be read HERE

Sermon on the Mount (Lord's Prayer) - Part 2

This is part 2 of our look at the Sermon on the Mount. 

In part 1 we saw that this section of scripture was:

1. concerned with "the gospel of the kingdom"
2. given to the disciples and not the multitudes
3. meant for Israel and her future kingdom

The most-oft quoted section of the sermon is the so-called "Lord's Prayer" in Chapter 6:9-12

‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.’

We've included it here in the context of the parables of the kingdom and the parables on the Olivet Discourse, Matthew 24-25 (the last part of the series).

On the Lord's calendar for Israel is "the great and dreadful day of the Lord." This is seen in the OT prophets and connected to the events and expectation in the Acts Age (such as Peter referencing Joel at Pentecost). We see it most clearly in the Revelation.

"On [the Day of the Lord] I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet."
-Rev 1:10

This will be a terrible time for Israel and it will flavor the Olivet Discourse and parables of Matt 24-25 ("the end of the age").

The Lord's Prayer is the disciples and true Israel looking forward to the kingdom of the promised millennium for Israel (1000 years, Rev 20) to come to earth. But there will be terrible times during the Great Tribulation preceding that age. Hence, the plea for "daily bread."

The section on forgiving is expanded by the Lord in the two verses following the prayer:

"For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."
-Matt 6:13-14

As we will see in regard to the question of the end of the age and the coming of the Lord in Matthew 24-25, faithfulness during that time will be judged. Part of the judgment will be the judgment of the nations on how they treat Jews and Jews how they treat each other. This is forerunner of the Magna Carta of the millennium where righteousness will be strictly enforced, with mercy.

If you read the Sermon on the Mount carefully, you will find a very high standard. That is another study for another time. For now, we will leave it in its place.

Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) - Part 1

We have finished with the eight parables of Matthew 13 and will be moving on to the ten remaining parables in Matthew. But for a moment I'd like to take what we've seen in Matthew 13 and apply these things to the setting of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 (which includes what we call "the Lord's Prayer").

Here is how Matthew 4 ends:

And he went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them. And GREAT CROWDS followed him from Galilee and the Decap′olis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan.
-Matthew 4:23-25

We see the setting: preaching "the gospel of the kingdom" which we know does not mention the Lord's death, burial and resurrection (when he announces His death in Matthew 16, the disciples are shocked and angry). This is for Israel. This preaching, and the miracles, are for Israel. Remember, in Matthew 10 the Lord forbids "the gospel of the kingdom" to be preached to anyone but Jews only.

So, we go from this outward ministry to all of Israel to this in Matthew 5:

Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them...
-Matthew 5:1-2

As we saw in Matthew 13, he separated his disciples in Matthew 5 from the multitudes. He was giving them, NOT the Magna Carta for the present age church, but the rules of the promised kingdom in Israel. These men (plus Mathias) will "sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28). Obviously, that is yet future.

We will see again this future kingdom as the setting for the parables yet to be examined.

Israel will have a kingdom (Acts 1:6), and the Apostles to the circumcision, preaching "the gospel for the circumcised" (Gal 2:7), will one day sit on those twelve thrones in that kingdom.

This gives us the context for the whole Sermon. Next time we will look more closely at "The Lord's Prayer." This will help us set the context for the parables yet to come.

Parable of the Scribe

We have finally come to the last parable of "the kingdom of heaven" in Matthew 13. Now, your bible probably only lists seven, but the wording in verse 52 is clearly parabolic (there's a 50 cent word!).

Then He said to them, “Therefore every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old.”
-Matthew 13:52

This is the balance to the Parable of the Sower.

A THE SOWER
- B Wheat and Tares
-- C Mustard Seed
--- D Leaven
--- D Treasure
-- C Pearl
- B Drag Net
A THE SCRIBE

This is at the end, in the house. The treasure is brought out by the householder (Gk: oikodespótēs, "master of the House"). This final note is Israel finally taking to her calling in the "great commission" to the Gentile nations. The good seed is bearing fruit.

We know that the "whole world" was promised to be blessed through Abraham (Gen 18:17-18; Gal 3:8-9; etc). That is via two ways: Jesus as the Christ and Israel as the conduit of God's earthly blessings. Remember, Abraham was blessed and justified BEFORE he was circumcised. He was of the uncircumcised (Rom 4).

When we look at the parables given "in the house," we see this structure:

A THE TREASURE IN THE FIELD:
The nation of Israel as distinct from the nations
B THE ONE BEAUTIFUL PEARL:
The remnant of Israel as distinct from the nation
B THE MANY FISH:
The Gentile nations as distinct from Israel
A THE TREASURE HID IN THE HOUSE:
Israel, viewed as a missionary nation sent to the nations.
(Charles Welch, Parables - An Alphabetical Analysis)

The "mystery" of the one new man of Ephesians was never Gentile faith. Scripture has shown us gentile faith from the beginning (as we saw with Abraham). We see all of Nineveh come to faith in the Book of Jonah, for example. And in Matthew itself we see this being said of the Roman Centurion by the Lord, "I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!" (Matt 8:10)

Peter heard this as well. So, we should cease with accusing him of ignorance when he is sent to Cornelius in Acts 10. The Lord never entered the Centurion's home in Matt 8 and never sees nor touches the Gentile servant he heals. Peter was right to say he had not been in the home of Gentile. The Lord was changing conditions, and Peter (as the one with the keys to the kingdom, Matt 16:19) was being instructed.

We discover the Spirit and the gifts falling on Gentiles was granted by the Lord to make Israel jealous (Rom 10:19-20; 11:11). This was also prophesied. It is not something hidden revealed. Romans 10:19 is a quote from Deuteronomy 32:21.

The prophets knew of this (Gal 3; Rom 15; etc.). But the body (Eph 2:14-16) Paul speaks of in Ephesians was hidden from the prophets (Eph 3:9). We know from his trial in Acts 26 that Paul spoke "no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come" (v.22). In the last chapter of Acts, Paul went to the Jews in Rome "persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets" (Acts 28:23).

Paul was in chains in the Acts "for the hope of Israel" (Acts 28:20). In Ephesians he reveals he is now "the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles" (Eph 3:1).

As we have noted before, it was not until the end of the Acts age that God reveals his "hidden" plan for the present age. That which was "at hand" for Israel in Matthew and in the Acts age, was put on hold. These parables, and the Book of Acts, will soon come alive again as Israel is once again restored.

That is the teaching of the parables of Matthew 13. As we move on to the other parables in Matthew, we must keep this context in mind.

Parable of the Drag Net

We have now come to the seventh parable (often considered the last by many), The Parable of the Drag Net. Note the specifics attached to this parable which will help us connect it to other things in the Book of Matthew.

“This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."-Matthew 13:49 

• end of the age
• blazing furnace
• angels
• separating wicked and righteous
• weeping and gnashing of teeth

We see this language in The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares:

The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The tares are the people of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. “As the tares are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.-Matt 13:38-43

A The Sower
- B WHEAT AND TARES
-- C Mustard Seed
--- D Leaven
--- D Treasure
-- C Pearl
- B DRAG NET
A The Scribe

So why the redundancy? Again, we note the audience and setting of the parables. The Wheat and the Tares is given to the multitudes, outside the house, by the sea. The Drag Net is given inside the house to the Lord’s inner circle. So, as we noted the similarities, we now note the differences.

In the former we have “wheat” and “tares” sewn. In the latter, we have a great harvest of fish from the sea. The former is a warning to Israel that their land may be filled with the multitudes, but who is truly a son of the kingdom may only be obvious at the end of the age. The seed picture individuals.

Gentiles nations are pictured as the raging sea in scripture. In the latter we see the “righteous” gentiles harvested. But what does this have to do with the House of Israel? Much in every way! As we will see in Matthew 25, much of their judgment will have to do with how they treat “the least of [His] brethren [Jews]” during the tribulation.

[Aside: we looked at the harvest of fish in John 21 as the resurrected Lord presented Himself to seven of the twelve disciples. We saw the "12 baskets full" of the what was left of the loaves (wheat) and the fish at the feeding of the 5000 in Matt 14, etc.]

As these judgments are “at the end of the age,” we must not apply them as universal to all men of all ages. They will be at the end of the next age (when Israel is back at the center of God’s plan and the Acts age is finally consummated). The blazing fire we have covered elsewhere, but I note again it is the “Gehenna” fire. We know of this from Isaiah 66 where Israel is back in the land and “corpses” (dead bodies) are thrown into that real, earthly conflagration.

Note the differences in rewards, hopes and judgments in scripture which we have looked at over time. (Our next thought will be a brief review.)

KJV NOTICE: The KJV reads “end of the world” in these passages. That does some violence to the context as we have noted previously. The Greek word is “aiṓn” which speaks of an “age,” not necessarily the end of the physical earth.