29. November 2008 by James.

Overheard:  “Everyone wants to be truly sanctified - that is… well, everyone wants to be godly… well not “goody-two-shoes-godly” but, you know…. holy… not in the “Mother Theresa” sense, but - you know - good… well, at least good enough, whatever that means - I mean, nobody’s perfect right? I mean…”

Confusion, discouragement and defeat with “victorious living” are common among Christians.  Defeated living can be a result of our desire to live in the presence of God and experience His best - a common and well-founded instinct of a believer. 

How do we reconcile the instinct of the believer to be in God’s holy presence, with the reality of our own unholiness?  

The words – holiness, sanctification, victory, infilling of the Spirit, Christ-likeness, godliness, perfect love, Christian perfection, etc. have been preached and taught and fought over for hundreds of years.  However, the word “holiness”, if taught and preached consistently as the inspired writers of the scriptures used it, would shed an understanding light rather than a confusing one.  Our understanding of God and His purpose can be enhanced and we can respond to the instinct to experience His best only if we accurately use the word “holiness”.

Our study in Romans 6-8 contains a few of over one thousand references in the scripture to holiness.   The scriptures contain definite revelations of the meaning of holiness.  They speak of God moving in ways to redeem and sanctify His chosen people to Himself. Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers are “Holiness 101” texts that cover the basic facts of holiness and what the Israelites’ role was and will be in creating and preserving holiness.  In these texts, Israel – a holy nation – is being instructed about holiness.

Yet, the Gentile believer’s question “What? Me? Holy?” remains.  Careful, consistent and accurate study will show that holiness is a promise for all – Jew or Gentile - yet Gentiles especially, must understand their role in holiness, just as Israel needed to understand their role.  As is the case throughout the scriptures, the roles of Jews and Gentiles differ when it comes to holiness as well as salvation and ultimately, kingdom life. Additionally, holiness is bi-directional – God’s holiness imparted to us, and our response to Him. 

The terms: sanctification from sin, purification, baptism in the Spirit – or with the Spirit, consecration and other terms have been mangled and misused resulting in the confusion and defeated living of Christians today.  The terms themselves are innocuous, but the bias and sloppiness with which they have been applied to this most important teaching of holiness, has become a stumbling block to many Christians.

The best way clear up confusion about the scriptures is to go to the scriptures and bypass the opinions and doctrines of man.  But to begin, we turn to man’s definition in the dictionary.

It is interesting to note that references to “holy” in dictionaries contain contradicting definitions – demonstrating that lexicographers based their definition on theological usage – even if the usage is incorrect.  The lexicographers did not correct the contradictions but sought only to define the contradicting definitions.  Theologians can assume a meaning for a translated Greek or Hebrew word – like holiness – and then expand their assumption.  It is unfortunate that if the assumed meaning is incorrect or contradictory, then the exposition or teaching must also be wrong or contradictory. 

Sadly much of our apologetics today is in defense of teachings that have been built upon incorrect assumptions rather than the inspired writer’s true meaning and purpose.  The writer’s meaning and purpose can be derived through consistent, concordant and careful study of God’s word.

Theologians do not agree on the definition of holiness.  They don’t even agree if holiness is in, or can be in God, man, or both or neither one.  Their disagreement over the centuries has produced the following definition by Standard Dictionary.

Holiness

1.     The state or quality of being holy.

2.     Completeness of moral and spiritual purity, perfection, and integrity; absolute moral purity; perfect sanctity: said of God

3.     Perfect conformity in purpose and character to the moral law; freedom from sin; moral and spiritual purity and perfection; godliness: said of man.

4.     The state of anything hallowed or consecrated to God or to His worship.The second and third definitions are unscriptural in God’s teaching of holiness.

The concept of holiness as “moral and spiritual purity, perfection” is responsible for the idea that no believer is a saint until he has been glorified – even though Paul and other writers call all believers “saints”.  This flawed concept causes believers to disbelieve.  “What me? I’m not behaving with moral and spiritual purity and perfection, that’s what saints do, therefore I’m no saint – and I’m certainly not holy”.    So the machine of religion encourages believers to “try harder” to be moral and pure and perfect, “so that you can be holy in God’s eyes”.  And so more people are destroyed by the bondage of the cycle of defeated, discouraged, guilt-ridden living

George Rogers, a pastor and writer from the early 20^th century was emphatic in his assertion that all believers are saints.

What God means by holiness is that they have been claimed by Him and have been sanctified in Christ Jesus.  Before God the changeless name of every believer is “saint”… This name is given to all, regardless of the degree of their faith, or the purity and worthiness of their character.  True, believers are saints by calling first, [and] then their walk should become worthy of their calling that they may [demonstrate to others] the beauty of holiness.

Eight times in Romans the believers are called “saints”. (Romans 1:7, 8:27; 12:13; 15:25-26, 31; 16:2, 15).   Rogers goes on to define holiness as the cause of moral behavior rather than moral behavior being the cause of holiness and that holiness is a relationship not a moral code.

Holiness in man is a relation to God and not a moral or spiritual quality.  A holy person is one who is set apart to God for His use.  Since it is true that whatever is set apart to God either in a ritual or in a practical way is usually separated thereby from all that is not of God or that is contrary to Him, holiness results in the separation from sin.  It is thus that the word holiness has in common use acquired a moral significance.  In popular conception and definition the effect has been mistaken for the cause. [emphasis added]  In scripture the verb “to hallow” means to devote a person or thing to God, and holiness is the result of that act, without the thought of change of moral quality being necessarily present.  Thus Scripture often predicates holiness of that which can have no moral quality and even of those who are unbelieving and immoral.  To sanctify, then, is not to cleanse from sin, but to dedicate something or something to God.

God’s first lesson is to instruct the Israelites to sanctify – or set apart – all of the firstborn males of man and animals.  “Sanctify unto me all the firstborn….” (Exodus 13:2, 12, 15; 22:29; Deut. 15:19; Luke 2:23).   “It is mine” and “Whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine.”  Whatever God claims as His – is holy?   God later claims the Levites to be set apart -  (holyized) as a holy tribe, from all Israel which is separated “from among the people” as a “holy nation”.   

Other early lessons on holiness are found where God declares inanimate, non-human objects to be holy.  These objects have no choice, and have no moral character or behavior.  In the settings with Moses and the burning bush and prior to Moses’ ascension of Sinai where the ground was sanctified by God’s holy presence. (Exodus 3:5,19:23). The tabernacle and all of its furniture was a sanctuary.  It had a holy place and the holy of holies.  The altar was holy of holies, and whatever touched it was holy.  These objects had no moral qualities; they were holy because they were set apart – sanctified – for God.

Num. 16:38 demonstrates the use of the metal from the censors of Korah’s company – a company of sinners put to death – beaten into plates for the covering of the Ark of the Covenant and became holy because they “offered before the LORD [therefore] they are holy”.  This was done as a sign or a lesson for the People of Israel.

The Hebrew scripture presents a large number of examples of objects being holy in spite of the fact that they have no moral quality.  They are holy because of their relationship to God – because of His choosing the object as His possession.  This holyizing of a “thing” is brought about without any change in the “thing” which is sanctified.  It is one-way from God to the object with no response from the object.  When believers – who have already been made holy (holyized) by God’s own claim – respond to the claim by presenting themselves to God for His exclusive use they are in a relationship with God – a two-way relationship

Holiness then is made up of two primary components:  There is a holiness which is promised to believers and is God’s claim, requiring no moral quality or behavioral change.  This one-way holiness declares that there is a holiness that believers have in Christ Jesus, which makes them saints or holy persons.  Then there is a holiness that generates a personal response to God’s claim of one-way holiness by presenting oneself to God for His exclusive use, which results in two-way holiness.

Both one-way and two-way holiness can be seen in Jesus Christ.  George Rogers succinctly describes this embodiment of God’s perfect holiness.

The Father sanctified Him and he sanctified Himself to the accomplishment of a divine purpose; there could be no thought of purification from sin in the case of Christ.  [In one-way holiness], He Who subsisted in the form of God was sanctified by His Father and dispatched into this world (John 10:36).  Before His conception Gabriel announced the generation of a holy thing, the neuter gender appropriately indicating the holy embryo (Luke 1:35).   [In two-way holiness], He was distinguished from all others as Son of God according to a spirit of holiness (Rom. 1:4), a spirit of unreserved and utter devotion to God.  Whatever of holiness was typified in the holy objects and persons of the Mosaic institutions found realization and completion in Him.  He was the Inaugurator and Perfector of holiness, as he was of faith.  Hence He said, “For their sakes I am sanctifying myself, that they may also be sanctified in truth” (John 17:19).  In His daily devotion to God He was sanctifying Himself, but He was not purifying Himself from sin.

Christ’s sanctification – His devotion to God’s purpose over His own purpose – is the source of our own sanctification.  Christ’s setting Himself apart for God’s exclusive use is the foundation for our faith and our own sanctification.

And yet, the term “sanctification from sin” is repeatedly preached and taught, although it is never found in the scriptures.  If sanctification meant primarily separation from sin, then it would be impossible to sanctify objects without moral quality, and pointless to sanctify Jesus Christ.  It would be difficult to understand how an unbelieving spouse is sanctified by virtue of marriage to a saint, or why their unbelieving children are holy.  These are examples of holiness without salvation.

Misconceptions about holiness in God clouds the crystal clear teaching in scripture about holiness in His creatures.  If we hold that God’s holiness is inherently moral purity, then what we have just established as scriptural is false.  Holiness in God cannot be inherently different than holiness in His creation in light of His statement “Ye shall be holy, as I am holy”.  If he meant to say, “You shall have perfect moral behavior and spiritual purity, perfection and integrity because I have it, “ then the word “saint” could never describe believers. 

Believers will be changed and be like Him, but not in the form of His moral perfection and integrity, but in the likeness of His absolute devotion to His Father’s will and work.  Holiness is something that God requires of His people in this life and it corresponds to the holiness that His people find without exception in God.

The word “holy” is often accompanied by other qualities.  “Pure and holy”, “holy and just”, “holy and true”, “holy and flawlessness” are examples of co-existing qualities.  However justice, truth, love, purity and flawlessness are accompanying qualities of holiness they are not holiness.  To emphasize the importance of this understanding is to look at examples where a holy place can be contaminated, yet it remains holy.  Even though God on at least one occasion says, “I am profaned among them,” He still remains the Holy One of Israel.  The word “profane” is the opposite of holy, and yet in spite of being profaned, holiness remains.

Holiness then is not behavioral or moral purity, perfection, justice, love, or flawlessness.  Holiness is the result of presenting something, or someone to God in response to God’s claim.  If the effect of setting apart to God is separation from sin, the effect must not be mistaken for the cause.  If the effect of sanctification is moral and spiritual perfection and separation from sin, it is an error as foolish as it is false to confuse this effect with the holiness that causes it. 

God instructed Israel with object lessons and rituals.  Before he made the statement “I am holy,” He prepared Israel to understand the meaning of holiness.  He set many things in front of them and declared them holy because they were His.  It follows that when a person, thing, day or place was declared to be holy, Israel thought of it as being related to God as His peculiar possession.  Israel knew she was destined to be, indeed was called, a holy nation because she was God’s “own possession from among all the peoples” (Exodus 19:5-6; Deut. 14:21; 26:19).  God’s claim sanctified the firstborn, the sanctuary, the Sabbath, the priesthood, the Tabernacle and the offerings among other things and people.  They belonged to God because He had sanctified them to Himself.  What then, did it mean to them when God said, “I am holy”?  Wouldn’t they conclude that since they were holy because they were God’s people, God must be holy because he was the people’s God?   If holiness is a relation rather than a moral or spiritual quality, wouldn’t God’s holiness be a relation to His creatures, and especially those who were related to him as His chosen people? (Leviticus 11:44-45)

There is a parallel with one-way holiness, two-way holiness, and with conciliation and reconciliation.  Christ has conciliated himself to the world; he’s done His part.  He has claimed his children, sanctified them, set them apart.  He has claimed them as His own possession.  He has promised salvation to those who believe.  Now, will you sanctify yourself to Him?  Not as a moral behavior change but a desire to be in his presence, in his will, in his work, for His exclusive use?

Works Cited

Rogers, George L. Studies in Paul’s Epistles to the Romans. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Los Angeles, CA: Rogers, 1936. 

 Page 350, George L. Rogers, Studies in Paul’s Epistles to the Romans, Vol. 1, 2 vols.

 Page 351

 Page 355

Posted in Musings, Translation Anomalies | Print | No Comments »

13. December 2007 by James.

From previous posts, we know that “God loves the system (arrangement) He created in such a way that He gives His Son”.

In the same way that the original Greek tense for “loved” is indefinite tense - not past, present or future but indefinite - and should be rendered “loves”; the same is true of “gave”. The word “gave” is indefinite, and the most accurate rendering is “gives”. God loves and gives, not loved and gave.

So then, to whom, when, how, where does He give, and so what?

My study of the word “gives” exposed my misunderstanding of the word. In fact, the traditional evangelical, fundamental teaching would be better served with the word “rewards”. We have been taught that God’s gift is a reward for our belief, or behavior, or membership, or our giving, or our ability to imitate the Son by being like him - Christlike.

“Giving” and “rewarding” have different meanings. Paul taught this in Romans 4:4 when he contrasted a reward versus a gift in the same way of payment of a debt versus grace.

If God rewarded the world with His Son, then the world would have something to be proud of, because the reward would be a payment of a debt - something God owes the world. This is not the way God gives His son, because He owes us nothing. He gives His Son, but does not reward the world with His Son.

I once attended a birthday party where the birthday-boy received a very special gift from his parents “because he got straight A’s”, along with his regular “just because” gifts. When he opened his reward “gift”, he talked about himself, was inwardly focused, and replayed the hard work he exerted to receive the reward. When he opened his “just because” gifts he was thankful and externally focused and expressed gratitude to the giver. He spoke nothing of his accomplishments in “deserving” the gift.

To treat God’s gift as a reward is the ultimate self-idolatry. It puts the focus on the receiver’s abilities, rather on the motives of the giver.

Imagine if a man saved and planned for a secret, special, surprise gift of a new car for his wife. After giving her the car he overhears her saying, “because I trust Him and have committed not to divorce him, he gave me this car”. Or if he heard her say, “I’m so faithful to him, and love him and do things for him, so he gave me this car”. Or “I’m so lucky to get this car from him. Imagine if I lived in New Guinea and there were no cars.” Or, “If I hadn’t been blessed with such wisdom to choose such a wonderful man, I wouldn’t have this new car”.

These responses all tarnish the gift and the giver because the focus of the wife is on what she has done to be rewarded with the “gift”. Her response changes the meaning of the word “gift” and makes it mean “reward”. 3:16 would then read: “God’s love is such that He rewarded the world with His Son for their belief/behavior/trust….”, instead of “God’s love for the world is such that He gave His Son….” - “God so loved the world that he gave…..”.

Too often the teachings we hear actually support the reward rendering instead of the gift rendering. An example of this subtle redefinition of the word is found in some “alter calls”. “You must surrender, come forward, pray the “sinner’s prayer”, make a decision for Christ, commit your life to Him, ask Him into your heart and then you can receive the . . . ” reward. The correct word cannot be gift in this context, although the word “gift” is used.

It is tragic that so many believers are robbed of the enjoyment of the Gift, because they’ve been taught erroneously that the Gift is a reward for their decision/belief/commitment/membership/giving, and thus, their joy is in their wisdom/choice/belief, rather than the glorious GIFT that He gives to the world.

“God loves the system and the manner He shows it is by giving His only-begotten Son….”

Begotten? By whom? Mary? God? Did God “beget” Himself in His Son? How does the Trinity work when the verse says that God’s Son is “begotten”?

Next post - Begotten…

Posted in Translation Anomalies | Print | 1 Comment »

10. December 2007 by James.

God loves the world in this manner….. John 3:16.

This is a continuation of 3:16 the Ubiquitous End-Zone Ad.

In the last post, “So“, I asked for a better definition of “the World”. (The world? The universe, The planet earth, the people? All people? Just some chosen ones?)

This word “world” (kosmos in Greek) seems to mean different things in the Bible. It could mean the cosmos, or the system or the arrangement. Ignoring Michael Jackson’s “We are the World, we are the people” lyrics, it seems odd that the word world would mean the people in the world, because that would mean that the world is the people, or that the people - that which is in the world - would have to be the world itself - which doesn’t make sense to me.

Elsewhere in the scriptures the word world is identified as an age ,or an eon, or even an administration or stewardship system. We are hard pressed to find that God initiated His loving interface with mankind just on the chance that some of them might choose Him. Instead we see an organized, systematic purpose in God’s interaction with people and with his other creations, living and non-living.

In Genesis, we read of His creative activities and each time he created something in His “system” He said it was “good”, He didn’t limit this expression to mankind alone since He expressed approval of the whole “arrangement” of His creation.

Light came into the world but men loved darkness (John 3:19). It is clear that the world is an “arrangement” and the men that lived in it are a part of that “system”. Light is a part of the arrangement, and so is darkness. People - a part of the arrangement - loved the dark part of the world more than the light part of the world.

We read in John’s “Revelation” that there will be a “new heaven and new earth” (Rev. 1:21), not just new people but a new era, or eon, or age, or system, or “world“.

God’s love of the entire system, which includes time, darkness, light, people and all of His creation - is such that He gave….

For God’s love of His “arrangement” is displayed in this manner:

He gave….

His only begotten Son… begotten? First-born, child, first creation?

Next post - Gave.

Posted in Translation Anomalies | Print | No Comments »

9. December 2007 by James.

Continuing from 3:16 End-zone.

Not to lend too much credibility to William Jefferson Clinton’s quibbling over the definition of the word “is”, I must admit that he does have a point in validating and verifying the true meaning of words. Words, carefully used, have careful meaning. Shouldn’t we also assume that the Inspirator (I think I just made that word up), of the scriptures also used words carefully including the word “so” in John 3:16 - “God so loved the world…..”.

Careful reading of the ubiquitous passage with the assumption that each word is divinely inspired, and carefully placed, will yield some truths not often found by the “in-your-face” end-zone ad.

I’ve always assumed that God “SOOOO” loved the world, inferring a large all-encompassing quantity of love - that the word “so” described the awesome extent of God’s love. Further examination of the Greek usage of this word has yielded a new truth. Instead of a descriptor of the size or quantity of God’s love, the quality of God’s love portrayed by the way He expresses His love to His creation. This is far more meaningful that than simply the size of His love. It is the way God’s love is revealed, and not just its measure.

The Greek word for “so” is usually rendered thus, instead of so. In John 3:14, “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Mankind be lifted up”.  In other verses, the King James Version translators have rendered it on this wise (Mat. 1:18), after this manner (Mat. 6:9), likewise (Mat. 17:12), in like manner (Mark 13:29).  Thus or even so, is a closer rendering.

So… “God thus loved the world: He gave His only begotten Son”, would be a better translation. But not really, because the rest of the verse needs attention.

God thus loved … Does that mean that He loved in the past, but presently He may not be loving? Why is the word “loved” in past tense? Is that what the Greek texts say?

Again, the original text uses the verb loves not loved. God’s love is not past history. It is present truth. God loves (as wells as loved, and also will love) the world. The verb is indefinite in its tense, not past, present or future, but all encompassing. His love is all encompassing.

God loves the world thusly. Or - God loves the world - here’s how.  How much richer that is!!  God loves the world in this manner…..He gave….. The original text, rendered consistently paints a deeper, more meaningful picture of God in the active role of loving and fulfilling His purpose for the world.

Next post - “the World”.  (The world?  The universe, The planet earth, the people? All people? Just some chosen ones?)

Posted in Translation Anomalies | Print | 3 Comments »

29. November 2007 by James.

Further review of the 3:16 endzone ad post is required based on my wife’s expressed disbelief that I would “even post such stuff….!”

Today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists must be honest about this one.  In spite of the danger of being labeled a “heretic”, Christians must be strong enough to ask who God is.  The danger of crossing the line of Trinitarian doctrine and belief has prohibited many from asking questions about God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.  We must be strong enough to ask, but we must also be strong enough to answer the question.  Reasonable thinking people need to have some sense of foundational belief that surpasses “because I told you so”.

For God so loved……  (See the verse again at biblegateway.com)

The question I posed in the previous post was:

God - who does this mean? God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit?  Did Jesus the Son so love the world that he gave himself?  Or did God the Father so love the world that he gave himself?  Does the Holy Spirit give the Son or God or himself?

OK.  Asking this question might prompt some to label the post as heretical and dismiss the question as sophomoric or “pithy”.  However, many young believers that I have had the pleasure of discussing “God” things with has stumbled over the doctrine of the Trinity.  

NEW BELIEVER:

So…. God is not Jesus?

OLD BELIEVER:

No, God is Jesus and Jesus is God.

NEW BELIEVER:

How could God have a son, a “begotten” son, which implies that he was created, and if God is eternal, how could someone that is created be God, and really… how could God create himself?  …he wouldn’t be eternal then would he?

OLD BELIEVER:

Where’s your faith?  Maybe you’re not really a believer after all.  You can’t start off by questioning everything.  Faith is faith.  That means you gotta believe stuff that doesn’t make sense.  Our ways are not God’s ways.  You gotta have more faith.  Just wait until we talk about the Holy Spirit, who was introduced by Jesus at Pentecost.  When you believe that you’ll REALLY have faith.

NEW BELIEVER:

Oh, then how come the Christmas story says that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit?  That was before Pentecost wasn’t it?

OLD BELIEVER:

Oh ye of little faith.  You must really have a spiritual problem to be questioning things so much.  You need to repent of your unbelief!  You’re not really a believer man.  You are drinking milk when you should be on solids.   You need to grow up.

NEW BELIEVER:

Oh, I understand now.  Forgive me.  I won’t ask any more questions.

OLD BELIEVER:

Good for you, you’re now a believer.

If Christians are honest, they must acknowledge that the doctrine of the Trinity is difficult.  (Note that I didn’t say it wasn’t true before you send me to heretic hell.)  In this verse, Jesus speaks of God as a father and Jesus as a begotten son.  You can’t get around that…. unless you dig deeper into scripture and find places that say things like “I and the Father are one”, and that’s were we lose many new believers.   Or should I say, “That’s what people don’t believe”.  Does the scripture really propose that a person must believe in the Trinity?

Let me ask you this.  Is belief in the Trinity a requirement for entering God’s presence?  However belief that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again, is a “gospel belief”.  Is the Trinity a difficult thing to understand? Yes.  Does this verse indicate that belief in the Trinity is a requirement?  You tell me in a comment below.

With this in mind, let’s read again that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son…..”

If we try to put this into Trinitarian doctrine, we lose the new thinking believer.  So let’s leave it for future “maturity of the believer” and go on.

God.  The Father.  The father of Jesus His “born”, loved son.  Either the scripture says it or it doesn’t.  God the Father. Jesus -without an earthly father, born of God.  And - think about this - Adam - the only other human without an earthly father, born of God.  Hmmmmmmmmmmm…………………….  Something to think about.

So… the next word in the verse ……. reserved for the next post.

And why not register so you can get an e-mail when I update my post?

God so loved…..

Here’s the previous post:

“So - Does this adverb measure his love, “it’s soooooooooo big”, or is it a statement of “so…..” therefore, given that, because of….?”

In the next post we’ll dig into the word “So”.  Just to wet your appetite….. “So” doesn’t mean “soooo big”  it means - “here’s how”, or the “manner in which”.  Here’s the meaning - “God loves the world - here’s how.  He gave his son.”

Come back to see the reason that this is true.

Posted in Translation Anomalies | Print | 1 Comment »

26. November 2007 by James.

Of all of the in-your-face biblical “told-you-so’s” - John 3:16 takes the cake as the most “duh” verses that Christians quote to convert people to their view of God.

What more could be said about the verse that is the pillar of Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Mainstream Christian, Catholic, Mormon, Jehova’s Witness and David Koresh ”proof”?    Here’s the verse in the “Authorized” (King James) version thanks to biblegateway.com.

Some questions should be asked - so I did.

“God so loved the world”.

God - who does this mean? God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit?  Did Jesus the Son so love the world that he gave himself?  Or did God the Father so love the world that he gave himself?  Does the Holy Spirit give the Son or God or himself?

So - Does this adverb measure his love, “it’s soooooooooo big”, or is it a statement of “so…..” therefore, given that, because of….?

Loved - Is this past tense ?  Does he still love?…to the same degree?  Was it the condition of the world at the time that he loved, or does he continue to love the condition of the world today?  If so, why not say Loves instead of Loved?

World - Is this geographic and geologic, nature? Or to people?  Perhaps the universe?

… that He gave His only begotten son…

Gave - What does this mean?  Gave only to those with open hands - ready to receive, or did he give to everyone? 

Only begotten son - Ummm.. refer to the question about God.  Does this mean Mary’s only son? If he’s “begotten” how is he eternal?

…that whosoever believeth in him…

Whosoever - Again is this limited only to a few?  Can people choose to be a whosoever?

Believeth - Even the devil believes - surely there is some qualification of belief?

In Him- Some versions say “On Him“.  In what he says, what he did, that he existed? Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit, or just Jesus? On the foundation of Him?

…should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Perish - Die? Go to hell? Die for a while?  Experience the wrath of God? Whosover shall not perish, or everybody?

Everlasting Life - Live forever? Go to heaven? Live again? Be resurrected? Live until the second coming? Some versions say “age-enduring” or “of the ages” does that mean until the end of time? Then what?

Ok.  Surely there are answers to these questions.  But they are not easily uncovered.  Which version should we use to answer these questions?  Obviously the inspired words were written in Greek.  But who can interpret ancient Greek?  We’re now left with a challenge to our faith.  This challenge reduces us to “version wars” which detracts from our ability to dig deeper. 

Technology today has opened a plethora of study tools that open the Greek to the common student of scripture.  A Greek text with sublinear renderings of this verse is helpful and available from scripture4all.org and other sources. 

The answers are in the Greek text, not in man-made translations. 

My next post will open up the Greek text for word-by-word rendering and deeper revelation of this most promise-filled truth from the scripture.

Stay tuned.

Posted in Translation Anomalies | Print | 5 Comments »