You and the Greek New Testament: Devotional Values and Precautions

You and the Greek New Testament: Devotional      Values and Precautions

I would like to provide to you two forms of exhortation (especially to pastors of local churches). One, in the form of a sermon.  The second, in book form. Personally I try to use my Greek NT on a fairly regular basis just to the languages flowing. It has also by way of personal testimony produces immense blessings reading God's word in its original language. The blessing of mining out vocabulary, word usage, grammar and syntax to say the lease simply can't be replaced with an English translation.

As to the first, I would encourage you to listen to Dr. Randy Leedy's presentation "A Deeper Devotion through a Greek New Testament."  That link can be found here located on the Mount Calvary Baptist Church Website.  This presentation was delivered during their 2018 Whetsone Conference. Exceptional presentation and heart warming challenge for pastors and laymen to use their Greek New Testaments.  It even includes some pointers (examples) of using Bible software for this task.  

The second exhortations is found in Dr. David Black's textbook Using New Testament Greek in Ministry: A Practical Guide for Students and Pastors. It is now over twenty five years since coming into print.  Three practical exhortations  concerning the decline in seminaries teaching or emphasizing study of the original languages are as follows: 

First, "the teaching of language tends to be dominated by content to the neglect of understanding" (p. 17).

Second, the decline in instruction results from "the enormous amount of material covered in the typical exegesis course" (p. 18). 

Third, the focus of teaching original languages should be "to prepare expository preachers of God's Word (p. 19). 

Finally, and I would suggest the most dangerous for the local church and Christianity as a whole, "the increasing tendency in education toward subjectivism" (p. 20). 

I hope these to sources are a challenge to you heart and daily devotional Bible reading. I also have provided a separate languages page for original language sources for both Greek and Hebrew. 

Read.  Comment.  Enjoy.

Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy, and Orthopathy: Series on Sanctification originally posted February 24, 2016

This weeks most read articles from www.Christianparadoxes.blogspot.com.

Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy, and Orthopathy: Series on Sanctification originally posted February 24, 2016

Orthopraxy: Pulpit Committees, Congregationalism, Elders and the Raising of Hands: How should we make decisions? originally posted August 23, 2018

Christian Growth: Misnomer or Personal Necessity? (Series on Sanctification) Part One originally posted February 19, 2016

Brief Excerpt on Pulpit Committees and the Wisdom of a Local Church Plurality of Lay Elders originally posted August 16, 2018

Bless Your Beautiful Hide:Morality, Ethics and Musicals originally posted March 16, 2018

Orthopraxy: Pulpit Committees, Congregationalism, Elders and the Raising of Hands: How should we make decisions? (Part Two)

Orthopraxy: Pulpit Committees, Congregationalism, Elders and the Raising of Hands: How should we make decisions in the local church? (Part Two)




As we continue this series we will readdress one of the common proof texts used by adherents of a congregational form of government (and by way of inference--pulpit committees).  Or in other words we will discuss the institution which is vigorously defended in fundamentalism to the almost exclusion of a plurality of lay elders. To be fair there are some churches within fundamentalism which have both a plurality of lay elders and congregational polity (and they're not Presbyterian). But there is a growing impetus that I see and hear to disregard elder passages or to relegate them to an ad hominem attack (as if being a Presbyterian were a crime).

This question before us is even more important when a local church is trying to discern the Lord's will in the selection of a new pastor or teaching elder.  And in relation to the current series under discussion: how would this relate to the local church have a plurality of lay elders? Could they or should they alone be the pulpit committee? Are they the ones given the task to ordain other elders? Let's remind ourselves again why this matters.  What if any responsibility does the NT text actually prescribe for the congregation? Correct doctrine is important (orthodoxy) but so is right practice (orthopraxy).  The scriptures are clear. We are not free to make up area liberty and disagreement.

As we continue this series, let's review quickly.  Several exegetical truths are assumed and defended elsewhere on this blog, commentaries, books, and throughout church history.  First, local churches have a plurality of lay elders as leadership. Second, deacons were not a rotating board of leaders but servants in a local church.  Third, congregations made some decisions in the local church (to what extent must be inferred--available textual data is potentially limited to church discipline passages). We'll need to revisit those passages again later.

From here we looked for proof texts to show what is commonly called pulpit committees.  There is in reality no proof in the NT for this organization (that is of course unless they are existing local church elders already).  How it came to exist historically in American Christianity is the topic for a later thread.  Acts 6 provides no help in the selection of local church servants.

From there we turned to Acts 14 and the selection of elders in local churches.  One key term used by advocates for congregational polity is the term translated as "appointed."  Here is a point of clarification, congregational polity is not under question, but the creation of pulpit committees. Nor is the question whether churches can have elders and congregational decision making.  Anyway back to the term "appointed."  The KJV uses the term "ordained" while the NASB and ESV use the term "appointed."  One term sort of puts the picture in your head of a committee, questions, and laying on of hands, and preaching certificates, etc....There are two distinct changes applied to this verse by strict adherents to a congregation form of polity.

First, the subject of the verb appointed/ordained.  Contextually (to the congregationalists), the subject of the verb is not the elder/apostles traveling through like the context would suggest.  The new subject of the verb is the local congregation.  It is the local congregation who are doing the ordaining/appointing. Hence, it is the congregation themselves (not the elders/apostles) who are making the decision.

Two, the etymology of the verb appointed/ordained.  The argument goes like this.  The underlying greek term (all two NT occurrences) is comprised by a combination of two terms: "hand" and "stretch out, extend."  So you see here the idea in the first century that the local church voted by democratic congregational polity by the raising of their hands (I'll assume as a good baptist these hands raised were at least 18 years old and members in good standing).  That seems to be the way people in America write their church covenants. Let's not forget adherents of a strong congregational authority have only two raising your hands verses by which they are trying to make a prescriptive case for all local churches. I don't want to throw out clear texts to church discipline where the congregation actually has a role.

Sounds convincing doesn't it?  I've heard fundamentalists preach this position repeatedly. Especially if you are preaching and teaching this to people who already agree with you it sounds pretty good.  So let's evaluate this interpretation in light of scripture. First, how is the term used elsewhere. Second, does an etymological understanding commit a fallacy of interpretation.  Third, if a NT writer wanted to say physically raise your arm in the air do they say that elsewhere? Lastly, does the context change the way the word should be understood?

This post is getting long so I'll be brief. First, the term appears twice in the NT (here and 2 Cor 8:19).  No reference in LXX but roughly 234 times in classical Greek.  One form of the verb with an attached preposition appears in Acts 10:41 but there God (the source of authority) is the subject who does the choosing (interestingly no one want's to impose congregational authority there). Not much to work with here.  In the other reference, Titus is chosen to travel with Paul by the local church.  Here's an odd point.  Titus was chosen by the churches (plural) to go with Paul.  How's that work?  So we have multiple churches collecting the raised hand majority democratic votes to select Paul's traveling partner? That complicates the subject. Its not just the one local church but many local churches (plural). The same term appears again in the plural form in the previous verse "churches" (v. 18).  So how does that fit in the local autonomous independent baptist church?  Even the KJV  still uses terms such as "ordain" and "chosen."  So I'm not sure this helps the voting interpretation any. Should we understand this prescriptively as well?  Local churches in plural format should vote together to send out missionaries? How's this work?

I poured through over twenty commentaries to get a feel for this one.  They are divided both in methodology and results (conclusion). Some seem to focus exclusively on the underlying etymology of the Greek term even drawing upon classical Greek usage.  Some believe the context determines the terms usage not it base dictionary etymology. While yet others acknowledge the apostles made the selection it could only happen with congregational approval. Lastly, the apostles chose themselves without the congregational approval. I seem to notice two trends here: one, those who focus their interpretive efforts on the terms etymology alone tend toward strong congregational decision making; and two, those who focus their efforts on the context and subjects tend toward a strong elder decision making. Is it possible to take away the argumentative weight of one of these two options? Here's an encouraging thought, even many that thought the term means a raising of hands state it doesn't mean that here and it is Paul and Barnabas making the decision (appoint/ordaining). On the other hand, many that came to the same contextual conclusion (Paul and Barnabas the acting subjects) have a hard time reconciling this with their own view of congregational polity. Oddly enough the NIV has the right contextual idea "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders..." (Acts 14:23).

Second, and by way of answer to the above question, the etymology of the term: hand and stretch out/extend.  As pragmatic and useful as it may sound to vote this way in 2018 I'm not sure this is what the NT writes (Luke/Paul) intended in the first century. This is the same line of reasoning that produces a definition of the church as "called out ones."  This is based on the two terms in Greek for word "church."  First, being a preposition "out of/from" and the second a verb "to call."  Hence our definition.  In response, it is more accurate to define our terms by usage and context not by etymological usage.  Not only this but this is simply an etymological fallacy, which is only one of sixteen possible fallacies from deriving meaning from the terms root.  Actually this one's quite common (See DA Carson's book Exegetical Fallacies, Chapter One "Root Fallacy").  Several other sources confirm this abuse of words etymology and faulty conclusions (See Cottrell, "Linguistics," in The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis edited by Willem VanGemeren). Another text used in years past at BJU for teaching this hermeneutical problem of a words root is Grant Osborne's The Hermeneutical Spiral. So it appears here the etymological argument for a raised hand congregation vote could have some merit if you divorce the term from its context and subjects in Acts 14:23. Or another point of view, the raised hands are the elders/apostles and not the congregation after all.

Third, could the Holy Spirit really say raise your hands if that's what he meant? Let's look at some NT examples.   Paul wrote with his "own hand" (Gal 6:11). How about 1 Tim 2:8 "lifting up holy hands."  Just a picture, euphemism, literally? Kinda of makes you wonder of all the references in the OT or even the Psalter (the Psalms) which speak of "raised hands" or even "bowing down." If raised hands is what was meant why find a cryptic way through word etymology to say it? A cryptic etymology which is not translated that way by any English translation I can find.

So do we have a pulpit committee in this verse?  Well actually this blog post didn't address that question but only a verse misused in a side-bar issue.  Now with this misapplied proof text potentially removed we can move on to other texts. To use texts like these to prove congregational voting seems not only a stretch but driven by an agenda to avoid references to a plurality of elders in local churches and to defend congregational authority and decision making. By extension, a pulpit committee as distinct from a functioning plurality of lay elders in the local church has no biblical warrant.

We still have other verses and church history to address.  They will come in forthcoming posts, this includes other means of making decisions by NT apostles (to include casting lots). Potential precedent for ballots?  We'll see.

Read. Comment. Enjoy.

Brief Excerpt on Pulpit Committees and the Wisdom of a Local Church Plurality of Lay Elders

Brief Excerpt on Pulpit Committees, Congregations, and the Wisdom of a Local Church Plurality of Lay Elders  (Part One)



Why does it matter?  Why now write on this topic?  Answer: as I continue to listen to my brethren within fundamentalism preach, several themes are repeating as they sound a rally cry: first, how to keep a younger generation of fundamentalist pastors in fundamentalism and two, a buckshot blast on every theological issue that may or may not be attracting the younger generation away from their fundamentalist roots.  So what are these vast repeating concerns? You'll have to listen to what they are saying to find out.  But for the sake of this current thread: congregationalism and a plurality of lay elders.

I am assuming the following are correct and biblical for the following argument:

One, the New Testament teaches a plurality of lay elders in each local NT church. Just heard a recent excellent review sermon on the plurality of elders from a church in Greenville, SC.

Two, the position of deacon and/or deacon board is not a position(s) of authority in the local NT church. It is a position of service in the local church. There are no passages in the NT giving authority to deacons.

Three, history confirms these two above positions (we are not alone on an island to make up church polity of our own making). The only way to avoid points one and two above is to simply not teach or misconstrue the biblical texts of how they have been historically interpreted.

Four, congregational polity also works in coordination with this plurality of lay elders. This is typically where many baptist church pastors stop.  I for one am glad to see the numerous books in print encouraging churches moving to a plurality of lay elders in leadership.

Please see other articles on this website for a defense of the above positions.  I have written multiple articles concerning elders and polity within the local church. See here for that earlier series.

To answer the question we need to actually start with the Bible. There is no reference or even a hint of proof texts referring to a committee within a local church which alone has the responsibility to select the next elder/pastor for the local congregation.  The  only ones I can think of that come even close would have to be twisted to make them a proof text.

Does Acts 6 helps?  At best the congregation chose the deacons (not elders) which were then approved by the existing apostles.  I get the idea you could use this one as long as you ignore the content, topic, and context.

Really what you have to do is appeal to a pragmatic argument (it works must be okay).  Perhaps a plea to we've always done it this way (could have always been wrong too).

Textually what you need is a congregation that has a sub-divided group that with the responsibility of selecting the next elder/pastor within that particular local church.

What about the other options.  The elders selecting future elders? Or an entire congregation selecting a candidate approved by the elders?

What does the Bible says?  What evidence do we have? Consider the following:

Acts 14:23 "when they had appointed elders for them"  Contexts seems to identify the "they" as the apostles who were visiting earlier planted local churches.  The second "them" appears to be the local congregation. This seems to fit the context best.  Verse 21, "When they had preached."  Not the congregation but the elders passing through. Later in that same verse "and had made many disciples."  Again this would be mishandling the context to change the subject of the verbs. Third reference, "they returned to Lystra...." The same individuals preached, made disciples and returned.  Same subject all three times.  Verse 22 includes two more participles "strengthening" and "encouraging" with same same subjects as previous verse.  Its the elders/apostles passing through the local churches.  Now to verse 23, "when they has appointed elders for them in every church."  Why all of a sudden would the subject change?

This fits with Dr. Stewart Custer's commentary as well, "We may conclude that the apostles observed the believers carefully on their return journey and chose men who had already established a good testimony..." (Stewart Custer, Witness to Christ: A Commentary on Acts).  So the subjects are not the local church but the apostle/elders themselves.

David Peterson agrees as well that Paul and Barnabas are the ones doing the ordaining/appointing.  So its not the local church at all involved in this action (The Pillar New Testament Commentary:  Acts of the Apostles, 2009).

So this understanding of the text is not new, twisted, or imaginary.  Its simply a straightforward reading of the text in its context without another motive to dodge the results.  The result is obvious: it is not the congregation making the decision. So how do those who don't see the elders reference handle this verse? Is "raising your hand" to vote in 2018 really an option? Or is this simply another abuse of an etymological fallacy?

We'll address that answer next time.

Till then keep reading your Bible.

Comments as always encouraged.

Bless Your Beautiful Hide:Morality, Ethics and Musicals

Bless Your Beautiful Hide: Morality, Ethics and Musicals
(Seven Brides for Seven Brothers)

I heard a guy tell me once that this was the only musical that they could tolerate watching.  This definitely leans toward the masculine side of musicals (at least in my opinion).  Chopping wood, cabins, hunting, shooting, fighting, singing, dancing, and men taking the initiative to get a wife.




If you've not seen this one before then here's a quick overview.  There are seven brothers named by the first seven letters of the alphabet (in birth order): Adam, Benjamin, Caleb, Dan, Ephraim, Frank and Gideon.  Anyway the oldest brother Adam goes to town and finds a wife (Millie) who apparently falls for him at first sight.  He says she's the one: attractive, works hard, and she can cook.
He brings her home and she must "clean up" the other six brothers.  This includes good manners, clean clothes, and of course how to find a girl (which, includes learning to dance).  AND NO FIGHTING!!!  Which doesn't last very long, but they tried.

Anyway, the six brothers meet six girls, raise a barn, fight all the guys in town, win and go home empty-handed.  They sit around and think about the girls which spawns Adam's idea to go and kidnap the girls they had fallen for back in town.  So goes plot.  They go and take the girls.  It turns out really bad since the girls didn't like that idea.  But after months of isolation and winter the girls turn their gaze toward the guys.  Spring happens and Millie has a child.  Meanwhile, Adam has run off and is having a pity-party in the hunting cabin alone.  He comes back as well as the men from town to get back their daughters.  Musical ends with the six girls marrying the six brothers (at gun point).

Well, let's dive into some of the weeds related to morality and ethics.  The opening song sets the pace for eldest brother Adam.  He wants the perfect bride: works hard, physically attractive, and interestingly enough "sassy, as can be." Interesting combination.  He wins his wife (Millie) with deception.  She thinks she is marrying a man who lives alone on a farm (he seems to skip the part of also having six brothers in the same house).  She even sings about it but he seems to skip this fact again when she talks of cooking for only one man.



So let's pick on some of the issues.  These are a few of the moral and ethical issues that came to mind.

Constant fighting.  Throughout the movie this must be a right of passage for this family.  They fight with each other (in and outside of the kitchen), with the town folk, and with everyone at the barn raising scene. I'm all for self-defense and of course as a field grade Army officer, an appropriate application of just war theory to include but not limited to defensive war and preemptive strikes. Millie does here best to reform them with some manners and common courtesies.



Adam's little pity party and running away. Adam runs away and stays by himself at a far off hunting cabin. Basically, a little pity party of his own. This departure relates to the next scene.  He unfortunately is the catalyst for that problem too.  But I guess someone might blame the books they read.  Some even might want to ban horse and buggies for being an accomplice.  Hmm. This sounds familiar.  Ban the books and make it illegal to own books. It's the books fault.



Sobbin women scene--stealing brides. The six remaining brothers go to town and kidnap the six girls they previously met at a barn raising scene.  Of course, they got in a fight, danced, and went home. Anyway they kidnapped the girls and took them back home.  This is the catalyst that guides the remainder of the film.  Guys and girls stuck on the same homestead all winter long (at least till spring) when Millie has her baby. During this time the guys and girls really do fall for each other.



Deceit of girls at end with marriage resulting. After winter passes the dads and town folk come to the homestead to take the girls back home. One problem--the girls don't want to leave. When cornered the group hears a baby crying, but don't know who the mom and dad are.  So all the girls claim the baby is their own.  Result--the dad's force all the brothers to marry their daughters at gun point.



There are other tid bits here and there but these are just some thoughts to chew on for a while. I enjoyed the singing as always.  I especially enjoy Adam's opening solo which is the title of this article, "Bless your Beautiful Hide."



Enjoy!!
Thoughts and comments as always encouraged.

The Synagogue and Biblical Interpretation (Part Two)

The Synagogue and Biblical Interpretation 

(Part Two)

I first addressed this subject in an article posted in September 2016 (Series Part One).  Much of my same preliminary concerns and thoughts remain.  For those who don't want to click on the link and read the article in its entirety here's a synopsis.  First, the Old Testament contains zero references, either prescriptively or descriptively, in relation to the Jewish Synagogue (the inter-testamental notes in your Bible don't count).  Therefore, from the start there is no example, command, or precedent for Jewish synagogue worship.  Second, Jesus worshipped in the synagogue.  So Jesus actively participated in (man designed) worship practices. Third, the apostles continue to worship and evangelize in the synagogue years after Christ's bodily resurrection and ascension.  So what?  Seems clear that neither first century Jews, the Messiah, nor his followers had any scruples about participation in this inter-testamental Jewish institution.

This directly relates to so many issues Christians disagree on today.  How do we worship?  How do we live?  So many social justice issues are simply not addressed in the scriptures.  You are left with two historically debated options (at least in the application for worship and no this not an either-or fallacy).  I am assuming that when the scriptures claim, "all scripture is given by inspiration of God," and it can make a person "perfect/mature" then either in principle or precept the Bible addresses every potential issue you will face.  First, do we restrict our worship practices to (only) what is clear prescribed or even commanded in the pages of scripture?  Or on another level, do we restrict our worship to what is revealed in the NT?  Second, do we have the freedom or liberty to practice in worship concepts or methods that are not explicitly forbidden in the pages of scripture?  Not sure?  How about prayer books, Sunday school, prayer meetings, youth group, or number of services?  These positions matter.

Again, how do I as a Baptist wrestle with the synagogue and worship?  To further heighten the tension, they also worshipped in the synagogue on the sabbath. You'll have to re-read the articles I've posted on that issue another time.  But again, try applying the above principles to your Lord's day (Sunday) worship service (or how every many of them you have on that day).  See how hard this can be if you want to stringently adhere to position of only practicing what is explicitly practiced or commanded in the scriptures (or perhaps only the NT)?

Since I'm a Baptist I'll use myself and my beliefs as an example.  Consider the title "Baptist."  This designates my beliefs concerning one particular Christian ordinance as found in the pages of the New Testament.  If I am bound only to what is explicitly stated or practiced in the NT then what conclusions do I draw?  Again, my intent is to state what the Bible actually says not what a group or denomination practices.  First, when should a person be baptized?  Before or after a confession of faith?  Must it be that particular individual who makes a confession before that same individual is baptized?  Second, when actually should they be baptized?  One week, month, or year later?  Must I see some evidence or credibility of genuine faith?  How do I know?  Do I baptize them the same day?  Do I re-baptize them if they did really believe the gospel the first time?  Third, what formula should I use?  Do I baptize them in the name of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy spirit or in Jesus' name only? 

Back to our original topic of this article.  At what point does the synagogue play into this conversation?  First century Jews, Jesus, and the apostles/disciples don't seem  concerned about be limited to the pages of what the OT alone states.  Eventually I will need to draw on the synagogue to revisit the plurality of lay elders in a local church.  How they are to be chosen and who should be responsible for it?  But this will have to wait for now.

Thoughts encouraged.  

Dialogue interesting.  

Hope it helps to actually further and build up Christ's body.

I wish, I wish, I wish: In the Woods (Musicals, Ethics, and Morality)

I wish, I wish, I wish: In the Woods (Musicals, Ethics, and Morality)



This musical is truly an odd one indeed.  It appeared as a musical on the big screen in 2014.  This one is of particular interest since it has been selected as the musical for my children's participation next summer (2018).  It made its stage debut in the mid-1980s.  Our family has viewed this musical in three different formats: one, junior high stage; two, high school stage; and three, on the theatrical version in 2014.

In case you haven't seen this one, try to image a combination (literally) of story lines from Cinderella, Jack and Bean Stock (including a giant or two), Rapunzel (and a witch), Little Red Riding Hood (with a wolf), and a baker and his wife (childless).  How odd a combination.

So what drives the plot?  What would you do if what you wished for came true?  Would you still make that wish?  What about everyone else too? Try throwing all theses plot lines together in one big musical.  And oh by the way, the setting is in the woods (hence, the name for the musical).

Just for review.  Let's go over the plots again.  Cinderella: wicked step-mother with two snotty step-sisters and Cinderella in a house together.  The prince holds a ball and they all want to go.  Cinderella too. Girl meet prince and they live happily ever after.  Wrong!! Not in this musical.  Just wait till you see it (if not already).  There is a very similar twist with the others as well.  Jack got some magic beans for his cow, threw them in the ground creating a bean stalk.  He climbs it steals a harp and golden-egg laying goose, and finally, chops down the bean stalk and kills the giants who falls down.  Red riding hood is going to grandmas house with some goodies in a basket.  Meets a roof along the way who is later at grandma's house (full with big teeth, eyes, and ears).  He proceeds to eat grandma and Red.  Woodsman comes in and saves the day.  No more wolf.

Well, let's move on to the issues.  For an unbeliever, it may be no big deal, but morality and ethics matter.  More importantly, the source or foundation for ethical and moral decision making is paramount.  In this film (musical), morality and ethics are almost are relative as you can imagine.  In fact, the individual person sets their own rules of good and evil (while in the woods).

Its hard to say too much without ruining the plot and ending.  The focus of the movie is the baker and his wife wanting a child.  Their home however is cursed and childless because his dad stole some magic beans (hint, hint) from a witch, who just happened to take the baker's sister as a child and lock her in a tower (she just happens to have long hair and a familiar name).  The witch tells them they can have a child if they are willing to gather some items for her within a three day period: A cape, red as blood; hair, yellow as corn; a milky white cow; and and a golden slipper (not glass).  You can see now where all these plot lines will cross paths.

The musical changes scenes as the baker and his wife interact with these other plots.  This includes lying, cheating, stealing, or whatever it takes to give these items to the witch so they can have a child (supposedly removing the curse).  The latter half of the musical expands on the lack of morality as expressed "in the woods."  This includes blaming others, more deception, death, infidelity, and of course more deception.

Thoughts and comments as always encouraged.
Discernment is needed with all musicals and every form of cultural engagement.