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.

Complete in Him: A Guide to Understanding and Enjoying the Gospel By Michael P. V. Barrett

Complete in Him: A Guide to Understanding and Enjoying the Gospel 

By Michael P. V. Barrett

Amazon's Overview:

Nothing is more basic to spiritual life and growth than understanding and enjoying the fundamental truths of the gospel of saving grace that center directly and uniquely in Jesus Christ. This book is a back-to-basics approach to Christian living. For Christians, everything—both their eternal destiny and their earthly journey—depends on what they think of Christ. The Bible defines from different perspectives what it means to be saved so that we can put it all together to see how great salvation we really have. Complete in Him examines essential and inseparable elements of the gospel in order to show that all of salvation relates to and flows from the Savior, Jesus Christ. Christ is everything. Salvation in Christ is complete, and we are complete in Him.

A review by Christ Anderson is available here.

Comments by Andy Naselli are also available here.

For those wanting it electronically, is also available as part of the www.logos.com Michael Barrett collection. 

The first edition was a hardback published in 2000. The new version (2017) pictured above is a paperback version and includes chapter by chapter study questions. I would suggest these study questions are an excellent edition especially when working through the book with family or a local church class. I regularly try to read through this text once each year. It is also on all my kids required reading list. I personally have the book as both hardback and paperback. You can preview sample pages on Amazon.com. I am listing the table of contents below:

1. Condemnation: The Need of the Gospel

2. Christ: The Essence of the Gospel

3. Conversion: The Response of the Gospel

4. Regeneration: New Life in the Gospel

5. Union with Christ: The Security of the Gospel

6. Justification: The Legality of the Gospel

7. Reconciliation: The Peace of the Gospel

8. Adoption: The Privileges of the Gospel

9. Sanctification: The Effect of the Gospel

10. Glorification: The End of the Gospel

11. Assurance: The Enjoyment of the Gospel 

My favorite quote from the book, "right thinking about the gospel produces right living in the gospel."

Read. Enjoy. 

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).

Providential Preservation of Scripture Test Case: The Proof Text Matthew 5:17-20

Providential Preservation of Scripture

Test Case: The Proof Text Matthew 5:17-20

Can even well-meaning and sincere Christians be guilty of Eisegesis?

Introduction

Bottom Line Up Front: Yes, even well-meaning people can and do commit the same interpretation mistakes they accuse of others. No they are not being deliberately hypocritical, malicious, or imposing double standards but many time we simply fall prey to this trap without knowing it. The motives and reasons may vary. The point is that it happens even by well-meaning people. Yes, even in the most charitable and loving tone possible: it still happens even by well-meaning people. 

  

But first we need a reminder of some simple definitions. Exegesis put simply is saying what the text says in its context (think: grammatical-historical, typology, etc…). On the other hand, eisegesis is reading into or importing our own ideas (even if good, sound, and conservative ideas) into the text of scripture. This is very close to the idea of application (or a more trendy title “relevance”) to the modern reader. Akin to these ideas or concepts is a presupposition, which a simple definition would be assuming something it taught but not actually proved (by exegesis) from the text. For example, some Christians practice presuppositional apologetics (certain ideas or truths are assumed true and not proven so). Or perhaps a bus ministry, VBS, Sunday School, visitation are “applications” of texts teaching evangelism or discipleship. In relation to Eisegesis, this series of articles will attempt to show the proof texts used to show God’s promise of scriptural preservation have not meant historically what well-meaning people today are trying to say they mean.

Our Example

We could use any number of proof texts such as Psalm 12, Ps 119, or 1 Pet 1. These are the standard texts used and we will get to each of them in time. However, our test case text under discussion is the Gospel of Matthew 5:17-20. Here’s the simple issue: Is Jesus teaching the ongoing authority of the Old Testament text or is he teaching a promised preservation of the Hebrew text (which is how one might see a “proof text” understanding of scriptural preservation)? Again, remember the problem is not has God’s word been preserved in the totality of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts or only in one Greek manuscript but does the Bible itself anywhere actually teach God would preserve the text of scripture. Again, our thesis as stated above, can and do even well-meaning people fall prey to the problem of eisegesis? In full context our test case reads as follows,

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-20, English Standard Version)

Comments

First, the English gloss “to abolish” (both ESV, NASB; "destroy" KJV) translates the same Greek term both times it appears here. This underlying Greek term occurs 17 times in the NT and there’s nothing cryptic in a lexicon, dictionary, or even a NT word study of the term.  So whatever “the Law or the Prophets” means, Christ explicitly states he did not come “to abolish” them but in contrast “to fulfill” them (all three ESV, NASB, and KJV). If the “the Law or the Prophets” refers to the entirety of the Old Testament then Christ did not come “to abolish” the Old Testament but “to fulfill” them. I think we can safely note neither Christ or any of the apostles took this to mean we shouldn’t quote, memorize, or preach from the OT. The NT gives overwhelming evidence to all these categories in practice. 

Before moving on the to the explanatory clause “for” in the follow verse (v. 18) two additional comments are needed based on the context of the gospel of Matthew which should help to shed light on understanding the comments Jesus makes. First, the verb “to fulfill” occurs 86 times in the New Testament, 16 times of which occur in Matthew in reference to “fulfilling” Old Testament prophecy concerning the Messiah (himself). This helps us to see how Christ is using the term in this direct context and even in the previous chapters of Matthew. Second, is in relation to term “authority” occurring 102 times in the New Testament, 9 times of which also occur in Matthew. Interestingly, the gospel of Matthew by the author’s design rotates between Narrative and Discourse sections (think: Olivet Discourse or Sermon on the Mount). The sermon on the Mount (ch. 5-7) when coming to a conclusion receives the testimony that Jesus taught as one having “authority” (Mt 7:29). The remaining three gospels (Mark, Luke, and John) repeat the same term “authority” in relation to the teaching, preaching, and miracles of Jesus. This same authority is displayed throughout the gospel of Matthew in his teaching, healing the sick, and even casting out demons. Ultimately (in this same gospel in Ch. 28), Jesus will declare to have been given “all authority” over all creation (heaven and earth). I would suggest this concept of authority is essential to understanding the meaning of Christ’s words in our context.

On to our explanatory clause introduced by the preposition “for.” This text provides an explanation for Christ coming “to fulfill” and not “to abolish” the Old Testament (especially as relating to prophecy concerning himself. Matthew repeated uses this idea throughout his book for fulfilled prophecy in the Messiah. This “authority” of the Old Testament extends even to the smallest Hebrew letter or the smallest part of a Hebrew letter. This verse also contains another repeating verb “to pass away” (ESV, NASB; "pass from" KJV). There will be a point in time when “the heavens and earth” will pass away. The explanation then relates to when Hebrew letter references will “pass away.” Ultimately, again the end of the verse gives us a timing reference “until all is accomplished.” This extends the ongoing authority of the Old Testament, not just to include prophecies of Christ’s first coming (the incarnation) but also to his future return (second coming). Just a side note, I would assume if you see preservation of the text in this verse you must also see in the context “until all is accomplished” an end to textual preservation (both kept miraculously and ending miraculously).

So if I’m right this simple straight forward reading of the text is concerned with Christ’s declaration of the ongoing authority of the Old Testament with special focus on all the Old Testament prophecies concerning himself (from his incarnation to his second coming). This is how Matthew uses the OT and the formula “to fulfill.” He takes this ongoing “authority” seriously because to not teach them or to relax their ongoing authority has serious consequences. Basically your referred to as the “least in the kingdom of God.”

Corroborating Sources

In time we will consult commentaries, theological journals, historical creeds and confessions, systematic theologies, and even well-thought ordination statements. However here we will consult some common study Bibles confirm my interpretation or do they see a doctrine of scriptural preservation taught from this text? This comparable source is something that you might have readily available. Consider a sampling of them (odds are you already own some of them). Please note that not one of these top-level carefully prepared study Bibles uses this text to teach the modern “proof text” position for scripture’s promised preservation. On the contrary, five say the same things in regards to the ongoing authority of the Old Testament (bold type is mine for emphasis). Two others point to issues of obedience and righteousness.

“Here Christ was emphasizing both the inspiration and the enduring authority of all Scripture. He was specifically affirming the utter inerrancy and absolute authority of the OT as the Word of God—down to the least jot and tittle.” (MacArthur Study Bible, p.1400).

“Jesus confirms the full authority of the OT as Scripture for all time, even down to the smallest components of the written text…the iota…and the dot…. The OT remains an authoritative compendium of divine testimony and teaching.” (ESV Study Bible, p. 1828)

“The Lord’s point is that every letter of every word of the OT is vital and will be fulfilled.” (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1520)

“Divine inspiration extends to the smallest parts of the prophetic writings, and therefore God will bring to completion all He had said in His Word without fail.” (The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, p. 1363)

“Jesus does not alter, replace, or nullify the former commands; rather, He establishes their true intent and purpose in His teaching and accomplishes them in His obedient life.” (The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version, p. 1368)

“Jesus is not speaking against observing all the requirements of the law … Jesus repudiates the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Law.” (Zondervan Study Bible KJV Edition, p. 1445)

"Even the letters are divinely inspired, in the original manuscripts." (Henry Morris Study Bible, KJV Edition, p. 1394)

               So there you go. I’ve provide both premillennial and Amillennial source. Both in agreement. I’ve also provide both source from both side of the baptism view. Regardless of author, published, denominational affiliation, or theological grid, they nearly line up on the interpretation. Please note, none of them see a scriptural preservation of the text, either providentially or miraculously. Perhaps there is a mass conspiracy or maybe the text does not actual says what people want to see.  This is called "Eisegesis." 

Conclusion

Again the concern is not whether the scriptures have been preserved for thousands of years (which is a historical fact), but is it even possible for well-meaning Christians to read this theological concept into (eisegesis) a scriptural text?  Simply go to any museum in the US, France, Switzerland, or the United Kingdom (assuming they contain Greek and Hebrew manuscripts or any old copy of the Scriptures). I would suggest church history shows God has providentially preserved his word in the totality of available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. You can personally see Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which have preserved God’s word if you’re willing to make the trip. Skip the plane ticket. Go to your book shelf or night stand and pick up a copy of the scriptures in English (my own mother tongue). Or read it perhaps in French, Spanish, Italian or any other spoken tongue in 2020.

Future articles will simply increase the evidence defending the historic Christian position. We can appeal to commentaries, ordination doctrinal statements, theological journal articles, historical Christian confessions and creeds, and even reputable systematic theology textbooks. I think you’ll see an overwhelming amount of conservative scholarly and historical evidence all pointing in the same direction.  Scripture has been providentially preserved in the totality of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and modern languages too.   

Again, at least in the name of being charitable, if you want to use Matthew 5 for an authoritative proof-text then go for it. People use proof texts all the time, whether the text actually says what they want it to is another issue. Just remember the next time you are tempted to accuse someone of eisegesis to make sure to take a long look in the mirror. So to repeat my opening concern, “Do well-meaning people repeat the problem of eisegesis in scriptural interpretation?” I suggest based on the way Mt 5 is used (even by well-meaning people) the ongoing answer has to be yes.

Book Recommendation: 15 Things Seminary Couldn't Teach Me (Gospel Coalition)

15 Things Seminary Couldn't Teach Me (Gospel Coalition) by Jeff Robinson Sr. (editor)
(Wheaton, IL: Crossway) 2018.

Excellent book of challenging chapters. I enjoyed reading through it.

Read a review here on the Gospel Coalition website.
Read a review here on the 9Marks website.

Table of Contents

Forward by R. Albert Mohler Jr.

1 Knowledge and Credentials Aren't Enough by Jeff Robinson Sr.

2 What to Do When My Church is Dying by Mark Vroegop

3 How to Shepherd My Wife by Daniel L. Akin

4 How to Pastor People Who Are Different from Me by Jeff Higbie

5 How to Follow My Lead Pastor When We Disagree by Matt Capps

6 How to Lead My Leaders by Juan Sanchez

7 How to Raise My Kids to Love the Church by Matt McCullough

8 How to Shepherd My Congregation through Seasons of Suffering by John Onwuchekwa

9 When to Accept a Call or Leave My Church by Harry L .Reeder

10 How to Handle Conflict by Jay Thomas

11 The Need to Fight for My Relationship with God by Vermon Pierre

12 The Time It Takes to Become a Shepherd by Dale Van Dyke

13 The Temptation to Make a Name for Myself by Scott Sauls

14 The Joy I Can Know over a Long Tenture by Phil A. Newton

15 What to Do When No Church Hires Me by Collin Hansen

Read. Comment. Enjoy.

Twelve principles for disagreeing with other Believers (Part Two)

Twelve principles for disagreeing with other Believers 

(Part Two)

For the last two sessions I've covered principles for disagreeing with other Christians.  They are not always perfected by myself or anyone else.  But in general they are very helpful and serve as a foundation for how to disagree (yes, even with other believers).  The first was a series of principles from Tim Keller's book Center Church. Today is part two of twelve principles found in a book titled Conscience by Andy Naselli and J. D. Crowley. This post will cover the remaining six principles (Principles 7-12).  Some of these thoughts are initial and definitely not final but they are sort of thoughts in progress. 

7. Your freedom to eat meat is correct, but don't let your freedom destroy the faith of a weak brother or sister (Rom 14:13-15).

     A. Do I realize my theological or application position is correct but that it will effect others?
     B. I must personally not let my liberty on the text and translation issue harm other believers. In applying this to the text and translation issue (for which I think it probably doesn't) but does this imply that a weak believer on this point has added to or made part of orthodox Christian belief and practice an English translation of the scriptures? Does this also imply that all other Christians using any other English translation (not to forget Italian, French, or Spanish to name a few) are causing them to be destroyed?
     C. In what practical ways can I personally avoid ruining the faith of other genuine believers (especially as it applies to the text and translation issue)?
     D. How do I determine who is being schismatic, overbearing, or is simply teaching false views on the text and translation issue?

8. Disagreements about eating and drinking are not important in the kingdom of God; building each other up in righteousness, peace, and joy is the important thing (Rom 14:16-21).

     A. Is my position on the text and translation issue on the same level as eating and drinking?
     B. Can I build up other Christians using multiple translations? Consider some sub-points here:
          First, must building up believers be done in the context of a local church?
          Second, can it be done online or in another source of media?
     C. Can I build up other Christians within the constraints of their conscience on this issue?
     D. Am I willing to restrain my freedoms to build up other believers?

9. If you have freedom, don't flaunt it; if you are strict, don't expect others to be strict like you  (Rom 14:22).
     A. How should we define or describe flaunting? Is it even remotely fair to place on the same level one's liberty in music, alcohol, or smoking and reading an understandable English translation?
     B. Is trying to teach on this issue to be described as flaunting a freedom?
     C. On the other hand, if some people can only or will only (for whatever reason) use and/or endorse only one English translation, is it fair for them to expect all other to agree with them?  Consider some sub-points on this one:
          First, must an institution of higher learning (college, seminary) require all students to use the same English translation?
          Second, must a high school/middle school require the same standard?
          Third, should local churches do likewise for teaching and preaching?

10. A person who lives according to their conscience is blessed (Rom 14:22-23).

     A. If blessing comes from a clear conscience, should not we try to teach our conscience according to history, scripture, and right reasoning?
     B. Obviously we don't want people to violate their conscience. But consider, at what point is a refusal to even try to educate ones's conscience a stubborn attachment to traditions?
     C. At what point does a person's conscience overly bind themselves or others to the point where this new defined obedience standard is not required to achieve God's blessing on their life?

11. We must follow the example of Christ, who put others first (Rom 15:1-6).

     A. In what ways can Christ be shown towards those who clearly are in false teaching in this area?
     B. In what ways can Christ-like edification occur when only one English translation is allowed?
     C. In what ways did Christ practice a tolerance for and the same time liberty of OT quotation from both LXX and Masoretic text (one of which would directly offend the audience)?
     D. Is the text and translation issue truly a non-essential? Who determines whether it is a non-essential?
     E. Are their limits that even Christ taught and practiced toward those who disagreed with his practice of the OT? Did it ever reach a conscience issue level?

12. We bring glory to God when we welcome one another as Christ has welcomed us (Rom 15:7).

     A. Again, the parallel between days and meats and the text and translation issue might be a little strained here. If concepts or doctrines such as revelation, inspiration, preservation, or the like are actual doctrinal categories then can there really and truly be doctrinal liberty here? Is this really on the same level as things such as blue jeans, television shows, or reading Harry Potter? Can we agree to disagree on the Trinity or atonement? See the difference.
     B. Is this a legitimate application to a conscience issue? Can God truly be glorified if it is false teaching and not just a liberty or non-essential?

Well this article ends here.  I hope these three articles on disagreeing with other believers has been benificial. In the end, it is Christ that we must preach to a lost and dying world. It is only in him where we have eternal life. Preach from your Bible. Any Bible. Any translation (even the bad ones are still Bible--if you disagree then you just missed the value of these twelve points). Just preach and teach Christ.
 
Read your Bible. Enjoy. Comment as needed.