March 2024 Devotionals

14 March 2024

Plan Seed Now

Today on the M’Cheyne Bible Reading chart you’ll read Ex 25, Prov 1, Jn 4, and 2 Cor 13. Here are some brief comments on John 4. In between his teaching to the woman at the well and the healing of a nobleman’s son is a brief interlude on the harvest. Jesus is teaching his disciples spiritual truth. Here are some basic nuggets of truth. First, stop waiting on the harvest it is ready now. Stop procrastinating and making excuses. The time is now. Second, the harvest is a joint effort. We are not competing. Some sow and other get the blessing of reaping. You may never get to see the fruit of your efforts. Lastly, your efforts will continue what others have already begun. Our secular society is quickly becoming an unreached people-group that has no concept of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus sows and this chapter shows three explicit results of sowing where you can. It called believe in Jesus Christ. 

13 March 24

How Do I Enter the Kingdom of God???

Today on the M’Cheyne Bible reading plan you’ll read Ex 24, Job 42, Jn 3, and 2 Cor 12. Here’s some brief encouraging comments from John 3. This passage is famous for a Jewish leader Nicodemus coming to Jesus by night (2). This passage sort of divides nicely between two aspects of salvation. In this context, multiple parallel ideas for this happen: “see the kingdom” “enter the kingdom” “have everlasting life” “might be saved” and “not condemned.” Historically, this idea has been divided into two aspects: the new birth and saving faith (personal responsibility). On one side there is the concept of being born again (or born “from above”). The emphasis being God must do this because it is a gift and something mankind cannot do (3, 5, 😎. On the other side there is the exercising of saving faith “believe” “cometh to the light.” Saving faith is the responsibility of everyone “whosever.” It is also a lifelong idea that requires perseverance “believing” (a present tense verb that must continue) (15, 16, 18, 36). It is the imperative of all to believe “in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (18). Eternity with God is the blessing and eternity without God is the condemnation (15, 16, 36).

The personal and corporate expressions of exegetical, theological, and practical Antinomianism

The Exegetical, Theological, and Practical Expressions of Antinomianism (both personally and corporately) (Part One)

Introduction

    Christians of all people should be the ones who can get along the most.  Sadly, interpretations and applications of the Scripture itself is what causes divisions. Not only these areas but the way we identify and respond to those who disagree is another problem entirely. Just consider what you think to be essential and nonessential theological positions and how our consciences interact with one another, especially in regard to the law. Personally, I would rather have the scriptures in my own language, regardless of if its resultant disagreements, at least I can read a Bible for myself.  So again, in the spirit of Romans 12:18, "as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men," instead of labeling people with ad homiems let's wrestle through the nuances of Antinomianism. 

    So, before we can begin any discussion of an idea or disagree on its applications, we need to have a definition of the term. It is much easier to fabricate a definition and accuse others of sinning against my own contrived definition either in belief or practice or simply to fire off ad hominem attacks, but I'd rather wrestle with the text. Here is part of the problem, emotionally charged terms like lawlessness, legalism, antinomianism, license, or worldliness are very nuanced and don't apply consistently across the board. However, our mission today is to discuss the concept of antinomianism. On a basic level, you can see it is a compound word combining "anti-" and "nomian."  The first idea should be simple: "anti" means to be "against" something. The second term is a transliteration of the Greek term for "law" or "custom." But is that really helpful? Antinomian means to be against law. In a way it means "lawlessness." Still not all that helpful but a decent starting point. The scriptures themselves identify this term "law" with multiple nuances--the entire Old Testament, part of the Old Testament, or maybe even the Ten Commandments explicitly, to suggest a few.

    I would like to suggest being most helpful we need a nuanced understanding of the terms such as Legalism and Antinomianism. Historically, we have wrestled with understanding "law" in nuanced fashions such as a civil, ceremonial, and moral law. Even this understanding creates push back that the law must be understood as all or nothing (see James 2:10, "offend in one point, he is guilty of all") or defined in a manner in which Christ fulfilled it, "For Christ is the end of the law" (Rom 10:4). But there must be some more nuances or principles behind it because the "law" is still referenced hundreds of times by New Testament writers. So, I would like to suggest this concept of Antinomianism can likewise be understood in a nuanced fashion from a Biblical perspective. I think we have room to argue here since the term does not show up in the scriptures and we need to do a better job than simply accusing other Christians of obeying and/or applying less verses than I do (be it decalogue, Mosaic law, or Old Testament as a whole). I do wish to take Christ's warnings seriously from Matthew 5:19, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach me so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven...." So, I would like to tread carefully before I thrown out about 2/3 of my Bible or say it doesn't matter or apply to me in 2023.

Argument Proper

    With that introduction and basic understanding of law and some of its nuances I would like to suggest based on the title of this article at least three nuances to the concept of Antinomianism. And I think you'll see there is more to grasp than simply saying "against law." These three categories are exegetical, theological, and practical Antinomianism. It would not be fair to call someone an Antinomian without nuancing what I actually mean especially since I know there are good and godly Christian people holding to other positions on this issue than myself. That in itself should cause me to want to, even if we don't always, show charity toward other Christians in this area. And as we shall see the terms: antinomianism and legalism are closely the opposite sides of the same coin.

I must admit to a degree, definitional nuances are almost like splitting hairs but for our purpose it is necessary. Let's define our three aspects and focus on each individually. Worst case I don't want to be accused of definitional hedging, which is always a danger, but here we go. First, exegetical antinomianism is an understanding of law which sees the law like a dimmer switch. Second, theological antinomianism is an understanding of law which sees the law like an on/off switch. Lastly, practical antinomianism is an understanding of law in which a person is living without law. The greater struggle I hope to show is that these categories overlap and there is a point in which a person's relationship to the law also parallels their relationship to Jesus Christ. Please understand I will unpack the three categories giving each a separate and fuller explanation and I will do my best to reference modern day authors wrestling with these issues.

Exegetical Antinomianism

First, what does an exegetical antinomian look like? What theological positions might they oppose? This is the Christian in my diagram below in the far-left blue circle (no political association just for example purposes). To this person their understanding and relationship to the law (be it OT, Decalogue, imperatives, rules) functions as a dimmer switch. A dimmer switch by reminder can be turned on but you can typically slide it up/down or left/right making changing the level of light in the room. For quick application, these Christians do believe the law does apply today but in different ways and in different nuances. Each scriptural text is interpreted and applied personally and corporately with the understanding that the law is somehow and someone still functioning today (hence in our diagram there is an overlap with those who believe the law is either on or off). And yes, this applies to both dispensationalists and covenant theologians but in different forms of emphasis, nuance, and application.

Theological Antinomianism

Second, what does a theological antinomian look like? How do they view their relationship to the law. Back again to our diagram, the theological antinomian is the Christian in the center circle (the one in red). Please note according to the diagram, a theological antinomian tends to view the law as an on/off switch. Simply put the law is still in effect or it is not. Please note also that those of this understanding overlap two different positions. One, they overlap the exegetical antinomian to their left and the practical antinomian to their right. Again, this position as we will discuss in future articles has an interpretive grid providing for convenient applications such as "that was for Israel" or "this applies to the church" way of thinking. Please note also this grid has a 2000-year bridge to cross. Just like the dispensationalist and covenant theologian they still have to wrestle with what can be identified with labels such as: descriptive, prescriptive, or normative. 

Practical Antinomianism

Lastly, what does a practical antinomian look like? How do they view the law? What do they think of its application to them? Refer to our diagram, the practical antinomian believes they are not under the law in any form or fashion. Please note the green circle above overlaps the theological antinomian to their left. So, there are clearly people in this camp who believe and interpret scripture as though it does not apply to them in many or most aspects of life. They may tend to minimize doctrine and emphasize more often than not that particular texts only applied to the original audience. Much of wrestling with this group will involve how we identify the overlapping portion with the red/green circles and conversely how might we tend to label those who do not overlap the red in any way. At what point do we truly and honestly start using phrases such as: worldliness, licentious, without rules, slaves to the flesh, or unbeliever.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have discussed some introductory basics on Christianity and it's understanding of and application of the law. We've discussed the law has multiple facets: OT, decalogue, imperatives, or simply rules. This author has also started a hopefully charitable understanding of differently nuanced positions on the law: Exegetical antinomianism, theological antinomianism, and practical antinomianism. In future articles we shall wrestle honestly as possible with each positions' understandings of and application of the law.

As always thoughts and comments encouraged.

 

Doing Right: Ethically, Morally, and Legally

Doing Right: Ethically, Morally, and Legally

Introduction

Actually to discuss this topic opens the door even for Christians to discuss what actually serves as the bedrock standard for doing right: ethically, morally, and legally. More often than naught it brings charges of legalism (an over-abused term) or its converse license. Christians are actually commanded and exhorted to do good (right). Our example for these references is found in the small epistle written by the apostle Peter. But even to use these epistle as the basis implies or presupposes my standard for doing right is God's self-revelation of himself in the Bible. It does touch or bear directly into issues such as the scriptures claims of authority and sufficiency. Consider a sampling as follows,

"For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people." (1 Peter 2:15)(ESV)

"having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will than for doing evil." (1 Peter 3:16-17)(ESV)

"Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good." (1 Peter 4:19)(ESV)

For Christians to do what is good or right requires a standard. For the Christian, that unchanging standard is the Bible. Unfortunately many today are swept along with whatever standard is produced, endorsed, and punished by the prevailing culture. And yes, this ever-changing standard even for many Christians is simply their own experiences and feelings. To begin a series on this topic I would like to consider also some of following definitions for these terms. What is moral, ethical, or even legal? To be honest, even using advanced search engines for the Biblical text such as Logos, there just aren't pages of Biblical references to terms such as ethical, moral, and legal. So principles and inferences, (yes, proof texting even), might be a better option unless we simply want to resort to imposing the Moral Law (not sure that went to well in the early years for the Pilgrims and those first winters). 

Ethics as defined by The Dictionary of Theological Terms by Alan Cairns is "the science of morals." He goes on to elaborate in terms of human action: "motive" "standard" and "purpose." These three identifications he extracts from Cornelius Van Til. Barrett defines ethics in a similar manner, "the rules or standards that govern conduct." (Complete in Him: A Guide to understanding and Enjoying the Gospel by Michael P. V. Barrett, Appendix 4, p. 295). To add a third source, ethics is "the area of philosophical and theological inquiry into what constitutes right and wrong, that is, morality." (Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, by. Grenz, Guertzki, and Nordling, p. 47). Simply put the study of ethics helps us to evaluate both thoughts and actions which can be viewed as morally right and wrong.

If ethics is to involve what is moral then where can we find a standard for morals? Whatever it means to be moral is important. Cairns writes, "the moral law embodies divine directives by which God commands ... both in private and in public life." (Chariots of God: God's Law in relation to the Cross and the Christian, Alan Cairns, p. 28). I would like to expand on this definition. The moral law or even God's will for us today is found in the entirety of the 66 books found in the scriptures. If this is so true and simple then why do Christians disagree on ethical, moral, and even legal issues? Perhaps in a society with rights and privileges we as Americans don't understand having no privileges or rights. Just to complicate the matter, add in concepts such as "world view" and the individual "conscience" of each person.  

Applications to Consider

As we begin this series simply consider some examples. Where would YOU personally place them? Are there ethical, moral or even legal issues found in these examples? I am deliberately picking these examples because they are current and potentially future realities Christians can or do face.

First, should Christians obey the speed limit? Simple right? Have far above it is okay? Late for work, pregnant wife, wasn't paying attention, conscience issues, etc...? Try explaining obedience to a child who sees the speed limit sign "55 MPH." Doesn't that solve the problem? Does everyone perfectly do this? Why or why not?

Second, should I show up late for work or early? Standing around staring at you iphone (texts, emails, facebook) on work time? How about extra breaks? Longer lunches? What place do the state and federal employment policies have a say? Pay rates, injuries, and other related issues abound, but at what point do these items become issues?

Third, should Christians turn in or hand over their firearms if the government bans all firearms (not just "assault weapons" but revolvers, center fire, rim fire, muzzle loaders, etc...). No more hunting, self-defense period, not even a butter knife. Even the most peacefully and meek-appearing individual get their hackles all bent out of shape over topics like this. Imagine it as a reality--look at foreign countries where this is real. 

We could go on and one. Kids shots, doctor visits, schooling, records, military service, registering for the selective service, social security numbers, and more.... I am beginning to wonder whether some of these issues are simply character flaws or are they conscience issues? I would suggest a great many of these simply are conscience issues. You and I may disagree simply because they are not (or maybe they are) ethical, moral, and legal issues.   

Feel free to comment. I'll be working on this series for a while. 

A quest to interact with the best-selling English Translation: the NIV (New International Version) (Part One)

Introduction

One English translation which since its introduction to the English-speaking world in the 1980s (1984) has outsold every other English translation including the KJV, ESV, and NASB is the New International Version (NIV). Like it or not these are simply Publisher facts and reality. Unfortunately this English translation, whether popular or not, has been the whipping post for some in conservative evangelical circles and even in Fundamentalist churches since this time. It is the purpose of this thread to evaluate the theology, understandability, and other related issues of this top-selling English Bible translation. To do this, several issues must be addressed, including its adherents and attackers (to include what is their strongest arguments) against it.  But before we start I really want to challenge folks: what drives Bible translation? What is the motive for Bible translation? Consider some options concerning translations (1) is the purpose to rigidly adhere to and be scrutinized by how well you follow a particular translation philosophy (2) or better yet, is the purpose to put the Bible (God's word) into the language of the people so they can understand what God says and requires of them (Justification, Sanctification, etc...). And yes, this second point can run wild especially when translations are produces by individuals and not by committees providing accountability across denominational lines. 

My Argument

So here's the following plan of offense/defense (to use an Army understanding):

First, what is the purpose of a Bible translation. The question is not what you think the purpose is or is not.  Nor is the question what translation philosophy you think is best (which ultimately serves as a straw man) to attack other English translations not matching your selected choice (word for word, thought for thought, etc...). So here's my stab at a working definition for Bible translation, and hopefully not to commit a fallacy of definition hedging.  Definition: The PURPOSE (emphasis mine) of Bible translation is to put the original languages (by God's sovereign choice) (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic) into any and every spoken language possible (in the most understandable manner) that any and every language may know who God is and what he expects of them (in their own language). Consider the Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of translation, "the art and practice of rendering the Bible into languages other than those in which it was originally written." Note the similarity, we are taking the words in one language and "rendering" them in another different language. 

Second, and related to the first point above, the vast majority of attacks thrown at the NIV (outside the KJV-only) camp is to attack the translation philosophy employed by these men. Perhaps even a sidebar ad hominem attack at them or other issues. These we'll address with facts and their own words in defense. If the goal of translation, as stated above, is to understand the underlying Greek and Hebrew text, then what would you do? Consider your options: (1) keep a wooden word for word order (no one consistently does this); (2) keep a thought for thought; (3) or perhaps do your best to explain faithfully idioms, phrases, and the meaning the best you can? How about denominational or theological bias? To be clear and to be academically honest, all English translations employ these concepts. And yes it might even surprise you that your favorite English Bible translation even dips into the world of gender-neutral translation (regardless of whether its cool or not). Again, concerning translation philosophy, Jesus, the four gospels, and all the epistle writers (55 times total) quoted from the Septuagint (LXX), freely and without reservation. How good was that translation or the philosophy behind it? 

Third, the text and translation issue, as much as I appreciate the motive, intent, and product of pastors and laymen to free people from the grip of false teaching in this area, I am concerned that we are creating artificial standards to poke fun at or criticize English translations we personally don't want to use, or don't want others to use, either in translation philosophy (see above); associations (a major whipping post), or later on how they translate hotly charged gender issues (as if that is the new standard of conservative translations). And yes we will address these issues showing how they are used to misrepresent the theology of this particular English translation. I would challenge anyone to read the personal motivation behind the writing of the NIV. 

Conclusion

So again the plan of attack is to address these three issues. By way of reminder (with slightly different wording):

(1) Is there a potentially false understanding of what Bible translation actually is or what makes or is necessary to be a good translation (even by men who are well-intended) battling against the grip of false English only positions? Avoiding one extreme only to embrace another extreme is not helpful. Neither is it helpful to paint these issues as "either...or" arguments. 

(2) Is there a potentially false understanding of which Bible translation philosophy is best, more accurate, or more God-pleasing? Or are these standards artificially designed to limit or to self-profess which English translations are authoritative? Typically this takes the form of labeling certain translations and "conservative" and others not.  

(3) Is there a possibility for fundamentalists to use the same strategies used against music, denominations, or other issues to paint these same "guilt by association" tactics against the most well-read and most sold English translation? Is it possible even for conservative evangelicals could borrow a page from this play book to attack gender issues or a combination of the above points?

(4) I also wish to show from the text itself, that no orthodox theological doctrine is lost.  No cardinal fundamental of faith is skewed or hidden in the NIV. This includes every category of systematic theology found in any reputable theological textbook.

(5) Finally, the vast majority of churches, denominations, and even well-known pastors (which you listen to already) use the New International Version occasionally and you probably didn't even know it when you listen to their sermons. Sadly, personalities tend to be more important than actual facts.

Read. Enjoy. Comment. Be informed.

Revisiting the Septuagint: Evidence from the Gospels (A 2000 Year old Translation Speaks Volumes Toward Orthodoxy)

Revisiting the Septuagint: Evidence from the Gospels

A 2000 year old Translation can teach more than many churches may be willing to acknowledge

Introduction

The English language has historically had an influence on the globe unlike any other. Mandarin (Chinese) through underground churches may replace it but only time will tell. Specifically the Bible translated into English has influenced the world like no other. These statements include the underlying presupposition and historical reality that the Bible has been translated into the English language and is now available in multiple versions. However, what is not stated but implied is that the scriptures were not originally given to us in English but in Greek, Hebrew (and a few sections in Aramaic). Historically speaking, these copies of Greek and Hebrew documents exist in thousands of historically verifiable copies, which you can personally see throughout the world in museums. To confuse the matter, some Christians (primarily in fundamentalism) believe and teach God has chosen to only preserve one specific NT Greek text (the Textus Receptus) and one specific OT Hebrew text (the Masoretic Text). These Greek and Hebrew texts interestingly are taught to underlie the English King James Version. Multiple King James Only writers can easily be listed by name supporting this position on preservation. My purpose here is simple: Jesus and all New Testament writers (Paul, Peter, James, and John) openly quoted from a Translation of the Hebrew text, The Septuagint. Thus, they did not believe God chose to preserve his word in the Masoretic text only (as many claim today). This position is simply false. 

My Concern

My concern (as mentioned in previous articles) is that Jesus and the apostles did not teach or practice this KJV only based idea. One such historical source for this claim refuting this KJV only thinking is the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX). So what’s that have to do with anything? I thought the OT was written in Hebrew. Here’s the point: did Jesus and all the apostles believe God only preserved his word in the Masoretic text? If they did believe this, does it not stand to reason they would only quote from this God preserved Masoretic text? The Bible evidence itself shows otherwise. For this article I am sampling all fourteen Gospel references from the Septuagint to make this point. There is no evidence for God having chosen the Masoretic text. This Masoretic text position is simply an application of misused proof texts such as Mt 5:17-18 to teach God’s miraculous or even “perfect” preservation of the scriptures to include even “jots” and “tittle.” (See previous article here)

If this King James Only claim were so, then you actually have “functioning” Trinitarian problems (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Consider KJV only claims in application to the Trinity. First, God (the Father) has promised to perfectly or miraculously preserve the text of scripture. Second, God the Son (Jesus) openly quotes from both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. Third, God (the Holy Spirit) by inspiration breathed out the text of scripture in both languages and holy men wrote it down. We'll have to expand on the orthodox unity within the Trinity in another article. This paper seeks to show both Jesus and all four gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), as well as all subsequent NT writers (Peter, James, and Paul), under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, openly quote from both the Septuagint (Greek translation) and the Masoretic text. The claim to know God’s word is found only in the Masoretic text is simply a believe not based on historical manuscript evidence and contrary to all biblical evidence.

The Gospel Evidence

As mentioned earlier the four gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) all quote from both the Masoretic text (Hebrew) and the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew text). The breakdown is as follows: Matthew (6x), Mark (3x), Luke (2x), and John (3x). All 14 references come from the OT prophet Isaiah. We will examine each one as evidence that Jesus and the gospel writers did not hold to a preserved Masoretic text position. If as KJV only advocates surmise, that God has chosen to preserve only the Masoretic text, then here you have 14 references (in addition to 55 in the remaining NT books) where a LXX is used instead of the supposed preserved Masoretic text.

The Gospel of Matthew  

                                                                                          

As mentioned previously, all of Matthew’s Septuagint references come from the prophet Isaiah. Several of these quotations overlap the other three gospel writers. For sake of space I will not repeat the same proof text overview each time (but I will at least mention them to be consistent and thorough).

NT Reference	OT Reference	Explanation
Mt 1:23a	Isa 7:14	Quotation of clear term for “virgin” in Septuagint and not a more ambiguous “virgin” in Masoretic text (הָעַלְמָ֗ה)
Mt 1:23b	Isa 8:8, 10	Quotation of the specific transliterated proper noun from OT Greek text
Mt 3:3	Isa 40:3	Word for word verbatim; Masoretic text includes text not appearing in Greek text “in the desert” absent in Septuagint quotation
Mt 12:21	Isa 42:4	Word for word verbatim entirely absent in the Masoretic text but present in the Septuagint “in his name shall the Gentiles trust.”
Mt 13:14-15	Isa 6:9-10	Near verbatim quotation of 47 Greek words including nouns, verbs, and articles; Masoretic text involves multiple verb tense changes, replacing of verbs for participles, and verbs for nouns.
Mt 15:8-9	Isa 29:13	There are several structural differences, the primary difference is the missing pronoun “to me” from the Masoretic text but present in the Septuagint.

Now we will move to several textual examples of what the chart above shows. To be technical the references are in Greek but all you need to do is compare the shapes (letters) showing you the Greek NT text quotes the Greek translation of the Hebrew text (not the Hebrew text) which would produce a different translation. The examples come in three types: one, word for word (verbatim) proof texting, two, a specific word focus, and three, an addition or subtraction of words or phrases (in both Greek and Hebrew). These 14 references clearly point to the fact that NT writers included Septuagint word changes, additions, and subtractions from the Masoretic text in their quotations. 

  

Example One Mt 3:3 and Isa 40:3,

(OT and NT) εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους

(KJV) OT “make straight (in the desert) a highway….” (KJV) NT “make his paths straight”

***Note even the English King James Version leaves out the Masoretic phrase “in the desert.”

Example two Mt 12:21 and Isa 42:4,

(OT) καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν

(NT) καὶ   τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν

(KJV) “and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.”

***Note this entire clause is absent in the King James version Masoretic text.

Example three Mt 1:23a and Isa 7:14, (OT) παρθένος “virgin” and (NT) παρθένος “virgin”

The Gospel of Mark

As with Matthew’s quotations, all Mark’s quotes come from the prophet Isaiah. All three of Mark’s references overlap Matthew and have been discussed previously. But for sake of thoroughness, Mark 1:3 quotes Isa 40:3; Mk 4:12 quotes Isa 6:9-10, and Mk 7:6-7 quotes Isa 29:13. Again all three of these have already been addressed and Mark provides us no new pertinent information. Again, another NT writer under inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not exclusively quote from the Masoretic text but from the Septuagint.  

The Gospel of Luke

Just as Matthew and Mark used the prophet Isaiah, Luke as well used only LXX quotes from Isaiah. Of Luke’s two quotations, only Lk 4:18-19 quoted from Isa 61:1-2 (26 total words), provides an additional unaddressed concern. Luke’s quotation of Isa 40:3-5 in Lk 3:4-6 was previously addressed in Matthew’s quotation. The Masoretic text includes one specific proper name (יְהוָ֨ה) “Yahweh” not included in the Septuagint which is noticeably absent in the King James Version NT quotation. For sake of ease, an English translations is provided.

Isa 61:1-2 “The LORD anointed me…” and Lk 4:18-19 “He anointed me…”

The Gospel of John

In similar fashion to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John also exclusively uses LXX quotations from Isaiah. Again, we have already discussed the issues with Jn 1:23 quoted from Isa 40:3 and Jn 12:40 quoted from Isa 6:10. The one example not previous addressed by any of the three synoptic gospels is Jn 12:38 quoting from Isa 53:1. The proper name “LORD” (Κύριε) and preposition τίνι (bold) are not present in the Masoretic text however it is present in the King James Version quoted portion of the Septuagint listed below.

(OT) Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; καὶ ὁ βραχίων Κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη

(NT) Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; καὶ ὁ βραχίων κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη

(KJV)  --- , Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

Conclusion

It serves as a good reminder when studying the scriptures, that our study is not mere academic exercise. We our studying God revealed word. His truth in the scriptures is what aids in our progressive sanctification. This growth includes the exposure of both truth and error. The error under discussion is the claim the God has promised to preserve his world miraculously or even perfectly only in the Masoretic Old Testament text.  

By way of review, all four gospel writers, when using the Septuagint, quote exclusively from the prophet Isaiah. All 14 Septuagint quotations provide a textual clue clearly different from the Masoretic text. These differences help to identify that NT writers freely and openly used both the Masoretic text and the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). This liberty of translation included word changes, additions, and subtractions from the Masoretic text reflected in the Septuagint. This is clear evidence that God did not exclusively chose to preserve the text of scripture in only the Masoretic text. In addition, this claim of either perfect or miraculous preservation also places the members of the Trinity in disagreement and is obviously false as well.

Biblical Theology of Food (Vegans, Vegetarians, and You)

 Biblical Theology of Food 

                                                                 

                  (Vegans, Vegetarians, and You)

Introduction

Few dietary or lifestyle choices are as divisive as something simply called food. Yes, something as simple as food in our culture has turned into a dietary decision, whether for medical, health, or any host of reasons. It's also spawned into a lifestyle choice. Yes, food and the very source of the food you eat can turn into verbal and principled combat on the most extreme level. Some of us eat meat. Yes, its true I personally eat meat. Some only eat vegetables. Some people won't eat anything dairy related period. Yes if you look hard enough there's a medical report proving your everyone's position too. All different categories exist and reasons (some even medical such as gluten or lactose intolerance) but apart from these in the end its just an opinion or personal choice (some medical related). Perhaps conscience or cultural issues (we'll address these in time). If we don't have a worldview to help shape our choices struggles will happen. Yes, even our food comes with a worldview attached to it. 

The Methodology 

My intent is simple. I wish to show a Biblical Theology of Food. Starting from the book of Genesis and working through to the last book of the Bible Revelation. Does the Bible itself make the claims of health and personal care pushed by this choice? What does God Himself say about food? What does God say about meat, dairy, vegetables...? We'll dive into the text and try to create a pertinent and relevant argument to help us address the concerns of today on this issue. Obviously every reference to food is not necessary for a healthy biblical understanding of food. See here goes.

Old Testament

Starting in the first book of the Bible, Genesis God gave to the first man and woman, Adam and Eve food to eat. Genesis 1:29 explicitly states that prior to the fall God had given to them every tree bearing fruit for food. Their only food restriction was not to eat from one tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Of course, we know they failed and disobeyed. From there we are told Adam and Eve would have to work the ground to produce food to eat. Still in a post-fall world humanity is to eat the food produced from the ground. No meat is allowed yet.

In time humanity rebels against God and the sinfulness of mankind is only restricted by their own corrupt imaginations which is only evil on an ongoing basis. God decides to judge the world but to save eight people through the flood on an ark. Even Noah is told to take along food on the ark both for himself and the others on the ark (including the animals).

Not till after the flood were the dietary restrictions altered. After the flood God gave to Noah and his family the permission to eat meat (Genesis 9). This is just like he gave them vegetables prior to eat. Not morally wrong. No conscience issues. God allowed them now to eat meat. 

Strangely enough in time food becomes a means of securing God's blessing. Remember the events of Jacob and Esau. While Esau is out hunting, Jacob deceives his father into gaining his father's blessing. Don't forget previously Esau sold his birthright for a pot of stew. Again by way of observation, hunting is a legitimate and approved means of gathering food. Both farming and hunting are okay. 

Later in time Joseph stores food for seven years to provide for the nation of Egypt and any who would come to buy some. Later food restrictions are set by God upon his people Israel. Mainly because they were to be his "set apart" people to live and even eat differently. Even here in the dietary food laws, meat was not taken away only certain types of mammals, birds, and aquatic life were restricted.

The sacrificial system instituted by God himself involves eating food. We have food offerings and food even for priests to eat from parts. There are sacrificed animals and offerings of grain too. As part of the law and being God's holy and set apart people, God actually gave specified food laws and restrictions. There were certain items from land, sea, and sky from which they could and could not eat. 

Food also appears as an issue during Israel's wanderings in the wilderness. Spies bring back food from the promised land. They will complain about the God-given manna and quail. God gave them both a bread and a meat. They will even want the food they had back in Egypt. They actually preferred the food with slavery as opposed to God's provisions. 

Joshua comes face to face with food being used as a form of deception. In Joshua 9 rash and sudden decisions (alliances) were made. Similarly later on Saul makes a foolish rash decision when forces abstaining upon his soldiers. It forces him into a horrible double standard, only to have his son spared by troop loyalty. Food is also one the items used to help Solomon stand out as a wise and blessed monarch to foreign powers. 

Food also appears in several narratives related to both the Babylonian and Assyrian captivities. Both to Israel in the north and Judah in the south. It appears sporadically through the returns of Ezra and Nehemiah when returning to the land. It becomes a point of struggle for a governor portion and to soldiers defending walls. 

I'd like to end our Old Testament study with probably the most famous of food related illustrations in the time period. A man named Daniel. He and his three Jewish friends are part of many others taken captive into a foreign land but the decision of these men stands out. They refused to defile themselves with the food and drink given by their captors. Meat and vegetables have always been around, taking into account Mosaic covenant dietary restrictions. Some translations use the phrase "vegetables and water." God apparently blesses them with both wisdom, dream interpreting abilities, and favor with pagan leaders. 

Conclusion

As to how we apply the Old Testament narrative to our daily lives in our present day is another discussion. First, I have deliberately left out both the Psalms and Proverbs (Ecclesiastes too). I'll reference them as a stand alone article at a later date. Second, the eating vegetable for food was the pre-fall diet (minus one tree). Third, meat was introduced only after the death of the entire globe (minus eight people). Fourth, throughout the OT, food serves as both a source of blessings and curses.

We of course are left with several struggles. To what degree is the OT narrative our paradigm for our current menu making? Which portions serve as direct normative example for today? Obviously, you won't get manna or quail from heaven. I also don't think Christians fight too much over eating pork or other previously forbidden foods (apart from other non-meat, dairy, of medical reasons). Which parts are more prescriptive in nature and do apply for today? Some of these I'll wrestle with in NT applications of many of these narratives, food law restrictions, and of course instruction principles from Proverbs, the Psalms, and Ecclesiastes. Don't forget we want a thoroughly Christian (therefore biblical wordview) which will also include all the NT revelation on this subject.

Enjoy. Feel free to comment.  
Of course mention any OT reference I left out you feel are actually important for a OT Biblical view of food (obviously my list does not include every reference to food).