We’re considering Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible
The most obvious difference between us and the writers of the scriptures is language. The scriptures are written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Nearly all Americans read the scriptures in English translation.
After all, even if you know one of the languages of the Bible, you’d have to be fluent in the version of the language spoken 2,000 years ago to truly understand the text. A modern Greek speaker would struggle to read the New Testament text, just as modern Americans struggle to read the English of Beowulf and the Canterbury Tales — which aren’t nearly as old as the Bible. Hence, the original languages are accessible only to those who’ve studied for the purpose of reading the original text.
People who’ve never studied a foreign language tend to assume a simple, one-to-one correspondence between English and, say, Greek words. Hence, to many, translation would seem to be a matter of substituting the equivalent word for each Greek word.
Of course, this kind of simplistic translation will utterly fail. The Greek is filled with expressions that can’t be literally translated. For example —
(Jer 31:20 KJV) Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the LORD.
Seriously? Try reading this one in a middle school Bible class! Or this one —
(1Sa 25:22 KJV) 22 So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Wouldn’t we prefer —
(Jer 31:20 ESV) Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he my darling child? For as often as I speak against him, I do remember him still. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on him, declares the LORD.
(1Sa 25:22 ESV) “God do so to the enemies of David and more also, if by morning I leave so much as one male of all who belong to him.”
The Hebrew doesn’t say “heart” and “male,” but that’s the meaning in English — your Hebrew-English lexicon notwithstanding.
Yep, the KJV can be just a little too literal to be understood or, even, appropriate.
Dancing
The authors point out the language can define reality as a culture perceives. In English, we refer to all sorts of activities as “dancing.” Some of these are sexually erotic and surely sinful, whereas others aren’t wrong at all. In fact, some forms of dancing even celebrate God, with scriptural approval.
(Psa 150:4 ESV) Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe!
But in English, we have but the one word, and so we tend to treat all dancing as the same for doctrinal purposes. We struggle to say it any other way. (Church universities famously euphemize with “choreography”!)
But in Indonesia, for example, where dance is a big part of culture, they have several words that distinguish different kinds of dance — some holy and some not so holy. (For unholy dancing, they borrow the English “dance”!)
Makarios
The authors give the Greek word makarios as an example of Greek words with no English equivalent. BDAG (the premier New Testament lexicon) defines the word with “the general Gr-Rom. perspective: one on whom fortune smiles.”
The VGNT lexicon translates “Oh, the happiness of …!”
We usually translate “blessed” in the Beatitudes.
But to English speakers, “blessed” sounds like “God will bless” or “God has blessed.” But Barclay explains,
Makarios then describes that joy which has its secret within itself, that joy which is serene and untouchable, and self-contained, that joy which is completely independent of all the chances and the changes of life.
Stoffregen gives this helpful explanation —
What does it mean to be blessed? The Greek word for “blessed” used in the Beatitudes is makarios (plural: makaroioi). The following is a study of how this word has been used (mostly taken from the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament).
In ancient Greek times, makarios referred to the gods. The blessed ones were the gods. They had achieved a state of happiness and contentment in life that was beyond all cares, labors, and even death. The blessed ones were beings who lived in some other world away from the cares and problems and worries of ordinary people. To be blessed, you had to be a god.
Makarios took on a second meaning. It referred to the “dead”. The blessed ones were humans, who, through death, had reached the other world of the gods. They were now beyond the cares and problems and worries of earthly life. To be blessed, you had to be dead. That is the origin of the different saints days — they are remembered on the dates of their deaths. All Saints Day was for all the people who had died in the faith whose names we didn’t know.
Finally, in Greek usage, makarios came to refer to the elite, the upper crust of society, the wealthy people. It referred to people whose riches and power put them above the normal cares and problems and worries of the lesser folk — the peons, who constantly struggle and worry and labor in life. To be blessed, you had to be very rich and powerful.
I can’t find it, but when I was in college, I read an essay by an ancient Greek writer which concluded that one cannot be makarios in this life, because as soon you claim to be makarios, the gods would become jealous and take your makarios away. Therefore, makarios is for those at the end of life — or even dead — beyond the reach of jealous gods. Besides, the author argued, how can you be makarios until you know how your children and grandchildren all turn out? (My memory is bit fuzzy, but that’s how I remember the essay. And it fits. Finally, that reading serves a purpose!)
Hence, for Jesus to declare his followers makarios was not only to speak of contentment, it was to promise a happiness that could not be taken away by anyone — not persecutors and not even the Greek gods. Hence, it’s a contentment coming from God — who is more powerful than anyone or anything that might seek to take your makarios away. It’s not just blessed (a state of being), it’s also contentment (a feeling) that cannot be taken away.
(I’ve editorialized a bit on the authors’ explanation but I’ve not disagreed with them.)
Notice how many words are required to explain just one little Greek word. What English word carries the thought of makarios? (And we’ve not even touched the use of the word in the Septuagint.)
Privacy
In America, we crave privacy. We want a house in the country far from others — a stretch of beach where we can’t see any signs of anyone else. We even file lawsuits over the “right of privacy.”
However, many cultures find the idea of privacy abhorrent. The Indonesians don’t even have a word for privacy. The closest they can come is “lonely.”
The world of the Bible was a world where privacy was unheard of. People lived in very small rooms, with no glass in the windows (hadn’t been invented), and with no sound insulation of any kind. Argue with your wife, well, your parents live in the next room and your brother and sister-in-law on the other side. And they hear every word, even if you whisper.
When a couple was married, the reception took place outside the bridal chamber. The best man’s job was to witness consummation and the blood on the sheet to confirm the bride’s virginity. As one author explains,
iii. The couple enters the chuppah room and consummates the marriage while the companions of the bride and groom wait and celebrate outside or in the next room.
iv. The groom hands the bloodied “proof of virginity cloth” to the witnesses chosen by the bride’s parents, who then give it to the bride for safekeeping. …
i. After consummation, the entire wedding party walks to the house of the groom in a procession for a wedding feast.
Some argue that an essential “spiritual discipline” is solitude. We tell our members to have “quiet times” when they should pray and study alone. These Western ideas are hard to find in the Bible. In fact, you would find far more support for praying and studying with others. But we just assume the solitude is best because (a) many of our leaders are introverts and they personally prefer solitude and (b) our culture tells us that we need to “get away” and be by ourselves.
Notice, for example —
(Luk 9:18 ESV) 18 Now it happened that as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him. And he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?”
“Alone” doesn’t necessarily mean “alone” as we think of alone.
That’s not to say that Jesus never truly prayed alone (Matt 14:23), but that we assume that this was a good thing, not a desperately lonely thing. Perhaps the point of Jesus’ praying alone is not that we should pray separated from our friends and brothers, but that the job of a Messiah was a difficult and lonely task that cost Jesus dearly.
You see, our cultural presuppositions color our reading in many ways. It wouldn’t occur to us to think in other terms.
By the way, the point of —
(Mat 6:5-6 ESV) 5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
— is not that we should pray alone, but that we shouldn’t pray for show. I mean, consider all the accounts in Acts and Paul’s letters that speak of group prayer. Why isn’t that a spiritual discipline?
(Act 4:31 ESV) 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.
There is something special about group prayer.
I’m not against praying alone — just the idea that solitude and solo prayer and study are somehow more spiritual and a deeper discipline that group prayer and study. (Our problem isn’t that we aren’t alone enough but that we aren’t open enough with those we’re with.)
If we prayed more as they prayed, would we have more of the boldness that they had? It’s difficult to be bold alone.
” It’s difficult to be bold alone.”
For some people Jerry, not for others. It is difficult to speak out, if you have doubts about what you are going to say. If you are not really convinced, then you shouldn’t speak out, except to ask questions. That is much of the problem with the progressives, to many unanswered questions, they presume to teach before they learn.
I will bring this up because it is necessary. Many people use only one English translation and those English words are used to justify everything including, sadly, injustice. All translations have a bias. Bias does not have to be bad; it can be good, but it is still there. If you have three translations, you have three different ways of looking at a Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic sentence in another language. The major problem results when a perhaps new English translation does not support a particular tradition that has been used for a long time and is regarded as equal to the Torah in authenticity. Then, the problems arise and people are criticized for swapping, not swapping, or causing trouble because their eveys were opened to what the original language might have been saying. It is why the Jews still get the Torah out and read the ancient Hebrew (still no vowels) which still makes sense today. The prophets are read in Hebrew or Aramaic.
FYI Laymond,
I learned a lot whilst teaching.
Laymond,
Pretty harsh criticism of progressives from one who has admitted he doesn’t know if he is saved or not. I am convinced of my salvation based on God’s grace and yet you question that conviction.
If you are not convinced of your own salvation why do you speak out so much? From many of your comments it seems that you are only convinced everyone else is wrong.
Wow! Don’t you just love it when people who know very little about translation comment on the process of translation?
It seems to me that we miss the point when we compare two English translations and then try to draw from that an understanding of another language altogether which is both unfamiliar and dates back thousands of years to a culture with which we are only mildly familiar, if at all. Should we not comment on the fact that we are seeking a translation of an ancient document written in a language that is no longer fluidly being transformed through daily usage that changes meanings into a modern language that is still fluid in meaning and NOT as settled in meaning and usage among current students of different generations?
Before we seek to translate another language, we need to see our understanding of our current language for what it is. For those of us in our 50s, our parents thought of temperature when we used the word ‘cool’ and our children and grandchildren think our usage of the word is quaint and outdated. If we were to translate such a word from another language, which generation’s meaning would we use to translate it? And how would those others who wrote what we are translating feel about our choices?
Dynamic equivalence is a moving target at best. Literal equivalence assumes that words used in common phrases always mean what the strict definitions of those words means. Experienced translators using both methods realize that translating phrases is a very different process from translating individual words. Most lay ‘translators’ are actually not any closer to accurate translation when they apply a dictionary definition which does not account for differences when words are used in particular phrases. Even an inexperienced translator who has traveled within our own nation between regions is familiar with colloquialisms like “y’all” and “you’uns” and generational differences like “neato” (when it has nothing to do with something being organized and clean) and “cool” (when it has nothing to do with temperature) and “boss” (when it has nothing to do with one’s job) and a host of other examples of how common phrasings and slang affect word meanings and generational understandings.
The problem is not asking too many questions. A much bigger issue is that we barely know any of the really good questions to ask, much less have a good idea of what the answers to those questions are. And when the ignorant presume to lead the oblivious, we mostly attain a high level of unearned and unqualified errors that we are ill-equipped to suspect, much less recognize and address.
Do we assume too much when we presume to know how one translation is different from another? Is it even reasonable to expect that those with very little training can do an adequate job at something the most experienced workers know to be daunted by?
Perhaps one example we should cite is the meaning of the word ‘scholarship’ and how it has changed significantly in just the past 20 years, much more in the last couple of hundred years – and surely even more in the last two thousand years.
So … really, how much do we get out of citing the differences between the early 17th century (KJV – 1611) and the late 20th to early 21st century (ESV)? Would we not also gain from noting the revisions of the ESV, (arguably one of the most popular and most recent translations/revisions of earlier translations on the shelves of bookstores in America today)? Indeed, despite efforts to assemble the best of the best translators when pursuing a new translation, the very multiplicity of modern translations and their revisions is evidence of the fluid nature and artistry involved in an attempt at translating from a ‘dead’ language into a language still evolving and changing while in general use currently, a fluidity which mitigates against the idea that we will, or perhaps even can, arrive at an end product which satisfies the desires of an entire generation (much less all currently living generations equally).
Knowing these things, how is it that we find reason to divide the Lord’s house over every difference caused by nuances of meaning which we might feel are important? Is that the best way to honor God and to seek to understand His word?
Grizz
Actually Mark, if you didn’t already know the subject, you weren’t teaching, you were studying with others. If you teach you need to teach with confidence that you know , you never say I think, or I suppose when teaching. I have studied the teachings of way to many CoC teachers, written teachings, who have later changed their mind about what they taught, but it is already out there, what about those whom you have convinced with your early teachings, what are they supposed to believe once you have changed your mind.?
Orion, I have never claimed to be either a gospel preacher, or teacher. I hope I have never referred you or anyone else to anything other than what is plainly stated in the bible. I believe the gospel was delivered and written by those in the know, and that is all I have to go on, and that is what I try to do. I don’t refer anyone to the teachings, or opinion of man when it comes to anything as important as the salvation of their soul.
In any other language or at another time is Love Your God and Love Your Neighbor hard to understand?
Maybe that is how God ultimately will judge us all.
Grizz
Terrific post.
I would note the glaring absence of any mention of the Holy Spirit in this ongoing discussion of understanding scripture. While I appreciate linguistic nuance, this is beginning to sound like the common idea that one cannot appreciate poetry except in its original language. Exchange “Pushkin” for “Paul” and we are in about the same place.
Laymond’s statement “If you teach you need to teach with confidence that you know , you never say I think, or I suppose when teaching” is the cause of many people leaving the cofC and much animosity. This is cofC theology at its finest (worst). The fear that one can never change his mind is dangerous. This leads to the refusal to rethink positions and opinions and the cofC condemning everyone whose opinion differs from their old 1940s opinion. It is also a slippery slope to the next statement which is “I’m right, you’re wrong.” I have taught difficult subjects and lectured at high levels. I will not be cocky. I may have confidence, but I will not be overly confident. I will happily say “the evidence supports” or “until we know differently”. This is a major clash between young and old especially within cofC.
Mark said, ” I will not be cocky. I may have confidence, but I will not be overly confident. I will happily say “the evidence supports” or “until we know differently”. ”
No one asked that a teacher be “cocky” no one likes and very few pay attention to a “know-it-all”
but teachers need to be confident when they are teaching how to disarm a bomb, or obey the gospel. They both can cost a life. If you don’t have complete confidence in what you are teaching, you should not be teaching. The person that you are teaching, might not be around when ” we know differently”.
Christianity itself is a simple sentence. Jesus was the promised messiah whom God raised from the dead after he was executed by crucifixion.
The rest is minor and over which the major schisms have occurred.
Jay practices law and when the Circuit (appeal) or Supreme Court issues a ruling, sometimes the arguments and the teaching have to change in light of said ruling.
Laymond,
Can you actually state that you have not learned anything new since you became a Christian? I remember you stating that all mankind had had been given a knowledge to know right from wrong. I understood you to state that it was before anyone became a Christian. Of course if that was true how could you accuse anyone of not having the knowledge to teach, but then how would you teach anyone that has the knowledge already given to them by (God)?
Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Larry were the gentiles later added to that covenant, or not, Paul seemed to think we were.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Were these gentiles taught this, or were they given this by God?
Laymond,
Since Paul was speaking to the Jews concerning the Gentiles position with God prior to being included in the Gospel, the information that quote from Romans speaks of a law that they obeyed during the time of the law of Moses, and is not applicable to the present time. At the present time there should be no separation between Jews and Gentiles both have been merged into one Covenant through and by Christ, into one body. If your description is really what happened then all that accept Jesus have already received all the knowledge they need written into their inward parts and hearts. If anyone appeared to misunderstand the message from God it would be a reflection upon Gods ability to write it on their hearts. I see that you understand exactly what I am communicating about because of your assertion that God gave them this, and they received it without being taught. If that was really true then as we attempt to teach those that have not accepted Christ (which is the position that the Gentiles in this message were as Paul described) then we would be displaying that we believe that God did not do the job perfectly.
Then if we consider Jer 31:33 happening as it is stated all of the house of Israel should have received all knowledge and we would be in error to attempt to teach them anything. Verses like, “(2 Tim 2:15 KJV) Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” would be telling Timothy and us to use an alternate source for the knowledge that God should have written upon our hearts. I believe that the message of Jer 31:33 is conveying the attitude within man that God desires man to develop, we all know many men that are very much on the opposite side of the fence so to speak in developing an attitude like this.
If you had received a direct gift of knowledge about God as described in this verse, why would you have to quote scripture to confirm what God had delivered to you, wouldn’t you hold the same place in the picture of authority as the scriptures as a representative of God?
Larry, you might be confused once again.I don’t believe I said that Rom 2:15 didn’t leave room for people, even Christians to learn new things. It only says God placed within their conscience the knowledge of right and wrong.That we as humans should not need to teach others right and wrong.
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) NLT – Rom 2:15 – They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.
NIV – Rom 2:15 – They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
The following is an example of a conscience that knows right from wrong.
Jhn 8:9 And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
You might be confusing a good conscience with the holy ghost, they are not one and the same.
Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
But even then does it say man will guide you into truth, or does it say something else?
We get used to one language and anything else sounds wrong.
I remember in my 30’s when we had a family from Pennsylvania visiting our congregation and when asked to pray he said you, when speaking to God and didn’t use a single thee or thou. Most of us if not all, thought it a sin to speak to God in anything but King James language. In most if not all the COC no other Bible was allowed in the building but King James.
How things have changed!
You see, we don’t have to go way back to another country or time to not understand all about another version of a language used in the Bible do we.
Laymond,
If God gave a man a conscience that knew what is right and wrong, would not it be perfect and complete? Would you expect God to give a conscience that was inferior or only partial? If a man had been given this perfect knowledge from God, what would be the something (new) that you mention? Anything that you could learn (new) would have to be something that was not given by God.
You have mentioned that, “That we as humans should not need to teach others right and wrong.” This leads me to ask at what time in a humans life would that be given, do we account it to a age or an event in a humans life? I can say that I have not known a child that did not need instruction as to right or wrong. I can also say that I have not known an adult that I was convinced that they understood right from wrong with perfection. The lack of knowledge of right and wrong has even been an issue even within men that have dedicated themselves to Christianity. You might offer that they (Christians) have been given the knowledge and know but just don’t obey, Then I would offer that after a time of (disobedience) they lose the understanding of what is truly right, and another human who observes this is obligated to teach that person again what is right or wrong. Sometimes the government even has to get involved in the process of recreating knowledge of right or wrong in an individuals life.
Now let us look at the preceding verse and observe what it says about this gift you state was given to them by God. Looking at several translations.
(Rom 2:14 KJV) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
(Rom 2:14 NIV) (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
(Rom 2:14 NRSV) When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves.
(Rom 2:14 ESV) For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
(Rom 2:14 CEV) Some people naturally obey the Law’s commands, even though they don’t have the Law.
These should be sufficient, notice the words explaining the source they have received this manner of life from. We see, do by nature, do instinctively and naturally. God really does not take credit for giving this information to them. In fact it appears to me that those words are giving credit to the men that are doing the action for choosing to live that way even when they weren’t taught.
Notice, these were not Gentiles that were living with the Jews and it was not all Gentiles. They may not have even known of the Jewish Religion. The communication also parallels them beside or outside the Law that was given to the Jews. As you notice the right or wrong here in both the Jewish and this law attested to the Gentiles, there is a mention of works of obedience being a factor in their relationship of being accepted or not. There is not any mention of faith of either one; this is describing a works based acceptance of these people with God.
This new covenant that is spoken of in Jer 31:33 was to be given to the (House of Israel) Jews referring to the followers of God or Christ. There is not a mention in scriptures of this being placed into Gentiles. Many times the scriptures use the names Jews and Gentiles to refer to Jews as chosen people and Gentiles as all other people. We see later the Gentiles even those that are spoken about above were grafted in to the New Covenant but no one enters with out faith and the (works) identification above is now The Grace of God.
Larry said, ” You have mentioned that, “That we as humans should not need to teach others right and wrong.” This leads me to ask at what time in a humans life would that be given,”
(oh I don’t know, but how about right here)
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Then Larry goes on to explain how God had nothing to do with nature.
“These should be sufficient, notice the words explaining the source they have received this manner of life from. We see, do by nature, do instinctively and naturally. God really does not take credit for giving this information to them. In fact it appears to me that those words are giving credit to the men that are doing the action for choosing to live that way even when they weren’t taught.”
Larry is right when he said “they weren’t taught.”, because it was built in, way back in Gen 3:22.
Although there were no Christians in Geneses, there was the knowledge of right and wrong, and in my opinion if not for this built in knowledge, there would be no Christians today either.
In the end, none of us will have had it all just right and no other human will have either.
We will be judged by how we did with what we thought was right and it will be amazing how that will differ throughout the ages, locations and languages.
How good we are at condemning others for differing with us.
Lets not forget what Jesus did, like the words of the song “He took your place” sung by the Whites.
I thank God every day that He is doing the judging for eternity and not us humans.
Laymond,
I assume that you believe that God applied this message about man knowing good and evil to all living after Adam. I did not take time to pull all references that could apply but, evidently by the time of Moses men did not retain the knowledge that was required by God. God had to have written laws to explain to man what was right and wrong. This law exposed sin so men could see it, you know good or evil.
Notice what an inspired writer stated about this.
(Rom 7:7 KJV) What shall we say then? is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
(Rom 7:8 KJV) But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
(Rom 7:9 KJV) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
I believe that Paul’s statement declares that he did not have a direct implantation of the knowledge of sin or right and wrong, good or evil.
So my next question for you is did you receive the perfect knowledge of right and wrong when you were born or later in life. Would your parents have told the world that they had no need to teach you right from wrong as a child, because they saw that you had a perfect knowledge of what was wrong? Did you rear any children that never needed instruction in this area? Your neighbors and their children would also be bound by your assertion to have a perfect knowledge of right and wrong.
I cannot see how your logic fits this physical world.
Larry, it is not that humans don’t know good from evil, it is that they choose who to follow of their own accord. Have you forgotten who else was in that garden? The law of Moses was not written so we would know good from evil, but to remind us and to impose punishment for doing such evil. And later Jesus was sent to do the exact same thing, remind us once more, that good works, and evil works bring different rewards. The center, the heart, the core of Moses’ law was punishment, which in it’s self is evil for evil, which as I see did not work so well. The core of the message Jesus brought is good over comes evil, which in all reality has proven to be true. “Love your enemy” “love your neighbor as yourself ” Which will you choose, punishment or love, even my 3yr old great grandson knows the difference. No we did not teach him good and evil, if we had we would have left out the “evil/bad” we just need to remind him now and then which he should follow.
I have to admit it becomes harder and harder for God’s children to distinguish good from evil in this fallen world, but the instinct is still there, why do people who are completely downtrodden by evil call on God to save them, because they still know good from evil. They still know God, from Satan.
Larry, the way I see it, we were not put here to teach one and the other, we were put here to love, and help one and the other, surely you don’t think Eve was put here to teach Adam.
AJ wrote,
“Most of us if not all, thought it a sin to speak to God in anything but King James language.”
Very good point. Ironically enough, in the English of 1611, “thou” was the informal version of “you” (from the Germanic “du”). “You” was formal. Hence, the KJV language we often insist on using for God is actually an insistence on referring to God “especially as an expression of familiarity or contempt” per http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thou#English.
“Thee” and “Thou” aren’t reverent or formal pronouns at all! We entirely misread the KJV at times, assuming they thought of God as we do, when in reality the translators were looking for a familiar, intimate relationship with God rather than formal, stiff, and distant.
(Psa 25:5 KJV) 5 Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day.
Laymond,
I believe that God stated that he was creating Eve to be a help meet for Adam. How could you have concluded to a concept that someone else would disagree with God and substitute that she could have been a teacher assigned to teaching Adam?
As for your concept that we were put here to love and help each other, I will have to offer these comments.
!. If God created us and put us here for that reason then we would be no more than servants to humans, and of course no man could be served because then he would not be a servant. You change the message from God into human serving human message.
2. Solomon explained the purpose of man. (Eccl 12:13 NIV) Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. How does message compare to yours?
3. The scriptures are full of instructions about teaching others with a message about right or wrong/ good and evil. There are so many I will only submit this one which spells out who we are to love first and foremost, then gives explicit instructions about teaching children.
(Deu 6:5 KJV) And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. 6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
Do you have more sources of instructions in scriptures that we are not to teach each other?
I have not experienced in my lifetime that anyone can teach only good to a child without also defining evil for them.
I guess that you and I saw a totally different message from Paul, in (Rom 7:7 KJV) What shall we say then? is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
He essentially said that by the law he learned what was evil.
Larry, I am pretty sure the scripture you quoted was given under the “old covenant” , I believe Paul said if you are going to live under the “old laws” you have to obey all of them.
The Hebrew writer seemed to think there was a new covenant made.
Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.
I believe there was something said about if the first was good there would have been no need for the second, something like that anyway.
Larry actually, the conversation we are now having would have been better discussed on “The Problem with Elders,” if Jay ever decides to re-open that discussion.
Laymond,
That is the problem with Elders! LOL
I think you might be right AJ 🙂
Laymond,
I tricked you just a little as I quoted from the OT, thinking that you might not pickup on NT instructions about teaching each other the first part of your statement. As I noticed your statement, “Larry, the way I see it, we were not put here to teach one and the other” I thought that you intended (put here) would be in relationship to God’s purpose. Therefore, I thought Solomon’s testimony would explain the purpose. It may have since you did not respond to that portion of your conclusion.
I had directed you to Paul’s direct statements that he would not have known sin (evil) except the Law explained it to him. As I responded to, all men being given a knowledge of (good and evil) by your reference in Genesis. Paul’s comment assures that mankind was not given a complete knowledge of (good and evil) even into the NT time.
Now let us again look at the message of the NT about teaching one another, in comparison to your statement, “not put here to teach one and the other”.
We will only need one verse of the 82 verses from Acts to Revelation that use a form of the word teach 92 times within their text to address the issue.
(Col 3:16 NIV) Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.
Then if you look from Matt through John you will find forms of teach 169 times in 152 verses, making the count in NT to be 261 times in 234 verses. Search and test how many times that God or Christ or the Apostles indicated that we are not to teach each other as you suggested. In comparison the word love in NT 232 in 200 verses
Larry I do believe, the new covenant is wiping out this law that was proposed by Moses’ father in law . What Jethro told Moses was the job is to great, get you some help. The same advice the preacher of today is given, get some good men and make them “elders”, so that you don’t have to do so much work. But as I see it God said that won’t be necessary, I will put that information in their minds, and hearts, they will “ALL” know me.
Exd 18:13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.
Exd 18:14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What [is] this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?
Exd 18:15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
Exd 18:16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make [them] know the statutes of God, and his laws.
Hbr 8:10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Hbr 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
If Jethro’s law, or suggestion is not countermanded here what is the purpose of the new covenant?
Laymond,
I find it amazing that you elect to pit these verses against all the actions displayed in the NT by Christ and his Apostles. The whole of their actions on earth were involved in the teaching of those that you claim should have had all of God’s laws written on their hearts and should not have needed instruction. Have you not understood that even the hand picked Apostles, the men that were the very closest companions and most devout Disciples of Christ, were instructed by him, they did not receive this direct implantation from God that I see you promoting. How does your Bible portray the word teach in the NT?
Laymond,
” I find it amazing that you elect to pit these verses against all the actions displayed in the NT by Christ and his Apostles.”
And Larry, I find it amazing that you don’t realize that Jesus lived his entire life, on his earth, under the “law of Moses” , or the old covenant
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
NLT – Mat 5:18 – I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.
And what was it Jesus came to do? fulfil. Sure he taught, because that was his mission. And he did it well. Jesus gave that same mission to the apostles, teach what I taught you, and if you forget, I will remind you. Where is it said in the gospel that anyone other than the apostles are to teach.
1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
What do you suppose John is talking about here Larry ?
Laymond,
I see that you did not read even the one verse that I gave you that states that we are to teach each other, much less any of the many others that make the same statement.
Will you read it this time?
(Col 3:16 NIV) Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.
I will answer your question about who is being spoken to and what it means in 1 John 2:27 as soon as you can explain that in the preceding verse Paul is not writing this message to Christians.
Larry, I believe Paul was speaking to believers.but the writtings of Paul are neither “gospel nor prophesy “.
If the same John wrote the gospel of John, and 1 John I believe he knows of which he speaks.
#1 Jeremiah a prophet inspired by God. (Jer 31:31)
#2 The writer of Hebrews Hbr 8:8
#3 Apostle John 1 John 2:27
All saying the same thing.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
For me I hesitate to teach from the fear of insulting the Ancient of Days. Many teachers
are skilled in quoting verses but miss the mark in applying those verses to “students” in
“Bible Class”. It makes me wonder whether repeating approved dogma that flies in the face
of Godly wisdom is superior to ignorance. In my view grace is the offering of God to cover
ignorance. Maybe what we teach is what we will be judged by.
For instance, a man who does not entertain sin but loves the position of a “teacher”? What
is required of this position? Humility? I would think this should be the first requirement
when instructing the wisdom of God to an audience. And a lecture involving subjects above
the lecturer’s ability to articulate either through lack of scholarship or indifference does not
seem to educate but rather fill the allotted time.
Some clearly humble teachers do not invite comments but simply give a lecture filled with
bible quotes, of which the audience is familiar. You wonder is this the whole of the matter?
Can the audience understand context when 20 scriptures from 5 or 6 NT sources are
recited? Trying to follow the shotgun approach is frustrating, by the time you get to a
certain verse another follows in rapid order until finally you lay aside the book of learning
since neither you or your spouse can keep up.
These are the problems I see with Sunday A,M., Sunday P.M. and Wednesday P.M.
classes but would not intentionally miss any of them. Half our members are absent
from said classes.