Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Subscribe To Conservative Evangelicals 737
Posts
All Comments
Monday, November 20, 2023
Sunday, October 22, 2023
New ebook available
Ted D. Manby, A Pastor's Guide to Understanding and Overcoming Church Conflict
Available at Amazon.com for Kindle
The author of this work believes if this book was placed in the hands of the right people, Baptist Association Offices could move from a position of aiding congregational antagonists to actually supporting the pastors in the association that are under attack.
A few comments about this book from a Pastor in SC with over 35 years' experience in the ministry.
I just finished your book and let me commend you on a very thorough and practical, well-researched, and plainly written resource. It would be hard to conceive of a situation that you have not dealt with in principle, and I pray God uses this work to aid many wounded pastors and Christian workers. The church I pastor had conflict with the DOM. The Interim Pastor, a Columbia Bible College professor, had some very pointed words of rebuke and correction for the DOM and helped the church to persevere beyond those early days. It has oft been proved what you say about antagonists not wanting truth or peace, but merely use situations as a means to achieve their own selfish ends.
Thursday, September 28, 2023
Why I am a One Issue Voter
When we make a choice that affects others, God is most pleased when our choice is one that reflects biblical ethics. This drives me to be a one-issue voter. Is the candidate and his/her policies committed to protecting all human life—including babies still in the womb or not? There are no other considerations if one candidate is pro-life and the other one is not. If two candidates have the same commitment to preserving human life, I consider which one has better policies for protecting the church and allowing the spreading the gospel. [1] This rule and one exception provide the guidance for the voting choice with no other considerations.
I do not vote for the person
who I think will put the most money in my pocket. I don’t try to measure the
level of pride in one candidate as compared to another. I don’t consider
personality or subjective preferences. I disagree with evangelical leaders who
ignore the national consequences of murder and only focus on the internal sins
of one candidate. These men show a serious lack of discernment. Biblical
ethics is my driving factor in the voting booth.
Not all biblical commands
are equal nor are all sins are equal in consequence or punishment, according to
the Lord Jesus Christ. Why were not pride, lust, and coveting sins that
received capital punishment in the civil law given to Israel directly by God?
It is because these sins were not equal in consequence to others or requiring
the same divine punishment based on the justice of God. Of course, they are
evil and ungodly sins of the mind. But it is unjust to treat internal sins as
if the damage by them to other humans is equal to murder, theft, and rape on
earth. Punishment will be set for each deed done in the body on the day of
judgment (Matt 16:27; 2 Cor 5:10; Col 3:25; Rev 2:23, 22:12). Sin that begins
in the heart, but is mortified or restrained, does not deserve the same
punishment as when that sin that the heart desires is carried out in full
measure to the harm of others. Murder is forgivable, but it cannot be undone.
When this is said, there
are two things that make conservative Christian’s struggle with that statement.
First, they have been under the teaching of bold Protestant men that strongly reacted
to the Roman Catholic man-made distinction between Mortal and Venial sins to
the degree that they went to the other extreme of teaching all sins are totally
equal in every sense and situation. Second, they have heard evangelists, in
their appeal to the lost, warn them that just one lie or one lustful thought is
enough for them to be sent to the Lake of Fire. Even when others have committed
more extreme crimes, it does not mean they won’t face the judgment of a holy
God. They will face it. Their righteousness is not compared to other humans, but
to God’s holy standard and the law they willingly disobeyed that is written in their
hearts. This is true. Often believers hear the evangelists’ warning that concerning
one being able to escape the coming judgment, there are no little sins. No sins
will be excluded on the day of judgment for those not united with Christ. Then,
they make the mental leap from this one instance to assume, therefore, all sins
are equal in every sense. However, we will show below that this is not
what the Bible teaches.
When a person says all
sins are equal and should be punished the same, they have unbiblical ethics. If
one of my sister’s neighbors covets her car and has lustful glances towards
her, it is not the same as if he rapes her, murders her, and steals her car. It
is true that just one sin of the mind will make him guilty on judgement day and
banned from heaven unless he is united with Christ—by His cross-work and His
active obedience. But this neighbor’s punishment before a human court and
before God will be greater if he acts on his sinful thoughts and does actions
that affect numerous people and the victim. A serial killer and a person who
does a rolling stop at a stop sign do not deserve the same punishment in a just
system.
The Bible teaches that not all laws are
equal. Jesus said, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a
tenth of your spices—mint, dill, and cumin. But you have neglected the more
important matters (weightier) of the law—justice, mercy, and
faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the
former” (Matt 23:23 NIV). This was not a new teaching. We read
in Micah 6:8 “He has told you, O man,
what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice,
and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic 6:8
ESV). Also note 1 Sam 15:22; Ps 51:10-17;
Isa 1:11-15, 29:13-14; Jer 7:21-24; Hos 6:6-11; Hab 2:4; and Zech 7:8-14. Amos
writes: “Take away from me the noise of your
songs; to the melody of your harps, I will not listen. But let justice
roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings during the forty years in the
wilderness, O house of Israel?” (Amos 5:23-25 ESV.) Do note that
since Adam and Eve left the garden, there has never been a 40-year period when the
laws concerning murder, theft, or adultery were put on a temporary hold. Anthropologists
discover these natural laws in some form in every culture they examine. [2] The
lighter laws—the purity and ceremonial laws—were not as important as the moral
laws revealed in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17; Jer 7:9). The
Pharisees made the purity and distinction laws along with the worship
regulations the most important in error. Jesus was asked, “Teacher, which is
the great commandment in the Law? 37 And He said to him, You shall
love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with
all your mind. 38 This is the great and foremost commandment.
39 The second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40
On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matt 22:36-40
NASB). Also see Mark 12:28-34; Deut 6:5, 10:12; Lev 19:18; and Matt 19:17-19. The
first moral law Jesus lists summarizes commands 1-4 of the Decalogue and the
second moral law summarizes commands 5-10. Joshua reminded Israel, “Only be
very careful to observe the commandment (mitsvah) and the law (torah)
which Moses the messenger of Yahveh commanded you, to love Yahveh your
God and walk in all His ways and keep His commandments (mitsvah) and
hold fast to Him and serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul” (Jos
22:5). Joshua taught the greatest commandment was a mitsvah and not a ḥōk
(statute) or mishpatim (ordinance). See further explanation on these
three terms below.
Nine of the Ten Commandments are
repeated in the New Testament and are applied to the Christian community. This
includes the command against the murder of humans (Matt 5:21, 19:18; Mar 10:19;
Luke 18:20; Rom 13:9; Jam 2:11, 4:2). These moral laws are the weightier or
most important laws. [3] Jesus
said,
For I assure you: Until heaven and
earth pass away, not the smallest Hebrew letter or one small portion of a Hebrew
letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished. 19
Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches
people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever
practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom
of heaven (Matt. 5:18-19).
Each law must be accomplished before it is repealed, replaced,
set aside, or annulled by a clear New Testament text. Furthermore, if there are
lesser commandments, by necessity, there are also greater ones. Jesus
illustrates this in another place.
At that time Jesus passed through
the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick and
eat some heads of grain. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said
to Him, ‘Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the
Sabbath!’ 3 He said to them, ‘Haven’t you read what David did when
he and those who were with him were hungry– 4 how he entered the
house of God, and they ate the sacred bread, which is not lawful for him or for
those with him to eat, but only for the priests? 5 Or haven’t you
read in the Law that on Sabbath days the priests in the temple violate the
Sabbath and are innocent? 6 But I tell you that something greater
than the temple is here! 7 If you had known what this means: I
desire mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent (Matt.
12:1-7 HCSB).
It
was more important to preserve human life than to follow a ceremonial rule
about bread meant only for the priest’s family. This is because preserving life
is what the commandment against murder requires. David and his men were given
the bread so that they would not starve.
The moral laws are the heavy ones [most important], the purity, distinction,
and ceremonial laws are the light ones [least important] (Matt 23:23). For
biblical ethics, the moral law to preserve human life is more important than
the temporary purity laws (Mark 7:19; Col 2:16) that were annulled or replaced
in the new covenant. Not eating a rabbit does not reflect the holiness of God.
It merely made the Jew different from the surrounding Gentiles. However,
choosing to not steal because we love God reflects His holiness. This is ageless
and everlasting. In a fallen world, we sometimes must not only choose between
the most important and least important but also sometimes our options are to
choose the lesser of two evils to make the best choice available.
Norman
Geisler makes this point by writing:
Not all moral laws are of equal weight. Jesus spoke of the “weightier” matters of the law (Matt. 23:33) and of the “least” (Matt. 5:19) and the “greatest” commandment (Matt. 22:36). He told Pilate that Judas had committed the “greater sin” (John 19:11). Despite a rather widespread evangelical distaste for a hierarchy of sins (and virtues), the Bible does speak of the “greatest” virtue (1 Cor. 13:13) and even of “greater” acts of a given virtue (John 15:13). [4]
To
find the path that would most glorify God and to choose the highest possible
good, we should seek to understand which commands have the greatest weight.
Following the course of action that is well pleasing to God may not always be easy in a sinful and fallen world, but such obedient and even heroic options can, by the grace of God, be found and followed even in the most extreme conditions. Such unswerving commitment to discerning and obeying the will of God—including a willingness to pay the “cost of discipleship”—is much needed in the twentieth-century American church, where believers are all too often tempted by the comforts and compromises of the surrounding culture. [5]
To
follow biblical ethics, we should first seek a path that would allow us to obey
all the moral commands or to not violate any of them. “Normally, there is a
third alternative when we face a moral dilemma. Scripture promises that God
will provide a way of escape (1 Cor. 10:13). Often, this is the way of faith.” [6]
However,
sometimes a third option cannot be found. If we cannot find another way out
after Bible study, prayer, asking counsel from pastors, and sanctified
reasoning; we should choose to obey the greatest command to glorify God the
most in this situation. Dr. McQuilkin writes about cases like this.
If one feels he must make a
choice and do what the Bible describes as breaking a law, he should (1) make
the choice in line with biblical precedent and (2) confess the sin as a sin. [7]
The Bible teaches that
not all punishment is equal (Exod 21:14; Num 35:15; Deut 25:1-3). Not every sin
or sinner will receive equal punishment (Deut 28:20; Psa 28:4; Matt 10:14-15,
11:21-24, 12:41-42, 16:27; Mark 12:38-40; Luke 23:41; John 5:29; Acts 10:42;
Rom 2:6, 16, 14:10-12; 2 Cor 5:10, 11:13-15; Gal 5:21; 1 Tim 5:24-25; 2 Tim
4:14). Jesus illustrated this in this text:
But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’
and starts to beat the male and female slaves, and to eat and drink and get
drunk, 46 that slave’s master will come on a day he does not expect
him and at an hour he does not know. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a
place with the unbelievers. 47 And that slave who knew his master’s will and
didn’t prepare himself or do it will be severely beaten. 48 But the one who did not know
and did things deserving of blows will be beaten lightly. Much will be
required of everyone who has been given much. And even more will be expected of
the one who has been entrusted with more (Luke 12:45-48 HCSB).
Preserving the life of unborn and newly born children is
a Christan’s moral obligation. As we mentioned above, each of the Ten
Commandments has a positive and a negative side. When God asks us to honor our
father and mother (Eph 6:1-2), this means it is wrong to dishonor our parents.
When God commands us to not steal (Rom 13:9), which is the negative side of
this commandment, the positive side is also required. We are to work and share
with those who cannot work. Paul writes, “The thief must no longer steal.
Instead, he must do honest work with his own hands, so that he has something to
share with anyone in need” (Eph. 4:28 HCSB). Likewise, the negative command “do
not murder” (Rom 13:9) has a positive side. We must also preserve human life
when possible. And the Bible views intentional murder of humans as a crime so
serious that the state should punish the guilty by death (Gen 9:5-6; Exod 21:12,
14, 29; Lev 24:17; Num 35:16, 30, 31, Deut 19:11-13). Thus, it is a very
serious matter (Rev 6:10).
The Christian has a responsibility to the unborn in a
constitutional republic. The Bible says, “Speak up for those who have no voice, for the justice of
all who are dispossessed. 9 Speak up, judge righteously, and defend
the cause of the oppressed and needy” (Prov 31:8-9 HCSB). David writes,
For it was You who created my inward
parts; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I will praise
You because I have been remarkably and wonderfully made. Your works are
wonderful, and I know this very well. 15 My bones were not hidden
from You when I was made in secret, when I was formed in the depths of the
earth. 16 Your eyes saw me when I was formless; all my days were
written in Your book and planned before a single one of them began. (Psa
139:13-16 HCSB).
See also
Exod 21:22-25 where God declares that a baby in the womb is a human life with
equal civil rights. Also consider 2 Kin 8:12 and Amos 1:13.
The shedding of the blood
of human babies in or outside of the womb calls out to God for national
judgment (Gen 4:10,15:16; Lev 18:21, 20:2-5; Deut 18:10; 2 Kings 16:3, 17:17, 21:6,
23:10; Num 35:33; Prov 28:17; Jer 19:4, 32:35; Ezek 20:26, 31, 22:13, 23:37). In
ancient times, people would burn babies on metal idols that had been heated by
fire. This caused the baby’s skin to burn off, like saline injection abortions do
in our day. The idol for Molech had two hands that would be heated for this
purpose.
Researchers claim that fourteen
days after conception, pre-born babies can feel pain. God records these
atrocities against nations. The Amorites lost the land of Canaan for murdering infants,
which was among the sins that led to the Jews’ captivity by the Assyrians and
Babylonians. The Northern tribes never returned to land, and only a small
remnant from Judah made it back to the land of promise. During the 70 years of Babylonian
captivity, even the godly remnant suffered during many difficult days. These
are matters of serious consequence and must be considered by a Bible believing
follower of Jesus when they enter the voting booth.
Thus, it is not the best
for our country. It is not wise to follow evangelical leaders who lack
discernment. They are not practicing biblical ethics. It is futile to attempt
to gauge the pride of each candidate and choose the one we subjectively feel is
the least proud. We lack too much information to do such a thing with any
accuracy. God is the only one capable of accurately judging the human heart. Instead,
the greater moral commands need to win out in our thinking.
Contemplate the concept of one person being
accountable for another before God, which was communicated to Ezekiel. God
says, “However, if the watchman sees the
sword coming but doesn’t blow the trumpet, so that the people aren’t warned,
and the sword comes and takes away their lives, then they have been taken away
because of their iniquity, but I will hold the watchman accountable for their
blood. 7 As for you, son of man, I have made you a watchman for the
house of Israel. When you hear a word from My mouth, give them a warning from
Me” (Ezek 33:6-7 HCSB). We are not Jewish prophets or lookouts on the walls of
an ancient city. But there are principles in this conversation between Yahveh
and Ezekiel of God’s expectations when His people have an opportunity to do
something to preserve a human life and don’t follow through on that action.
This text is not discussing voting. But when human life is in the balance, the
principles in this text are addressing taking actions to persevere life when I can,
and thus, apply to voting. There are other matters that make me figuratively
hold my nose in the voting booth because there are areas where neither candidate
smells very appealing. However, I hold on to biblical ethics and vote for the
one who will work the hardest to reduce the bloodshed of the innocent in my
country.
The moral
law gives us specifics on how to love God supremely and to love our neighbor as
ourselves (Matt 22:37-40). In a New Testament sermon, John MacArthur, Jr. noted
that the Ten Commandments are linked to ten words that show us how to love God
and others. We love: 1. Loyally, 2. Faithfully, 3. Reverently, 4. Intimately,
5. Respectfully, 6. Harmlessly, 7. Purely, 8. Unselfishly (giving), 9.
Truthfully, 10. Contently. Our focus above has been on number ‘6. Harmlessly,’
to not intentionally murder and to preserve innocent human life when it is
possible. Long before the Mosaic Covenant, God gave Noah instructions after the
flood that all peoples and cultures are to provide serious consequences for
those who intentionally take a human life without cause (Gen 9:5-6). These
consequences were a concern for Cain after murdering his brother centuries
before Noah (Gen 4:10-16). This moral law preceded the giving of the law at Sinai
and continued after the New Covenant was fully in place (Rom 13:9; 1 Cor 15:26;
1 Tim 1:7-16; Rev 6:10), unlike circumcision, the Passover, and the dietary
laws. These verses show it is still a requirement for God’s people, and keeping
this mandate is a way for us to reflect His eternal holiness.
Some may reject
the use of the term ‘moral’ with the term ‘law’ because they see all laws as
part of one whole, with no division or separation. For those who hold this view,
they still must realize that Jesus taught that there are more important and
less important laws among what they perceive to be a single category of law. They
must distinguish between laws and prioritize the ones that matter most for
ethical decision-making.
There are two key reasons I am comfortable recognizing three categories of
laws in the Hebrew Bible. A study of this topic by historical theology reveals
that Augustine clearly recognized three categories of OT law. Augustine’s view
in the 400s AD was not new and has been accepted by many orthodox theologians
throughout church history. The second reason is the actual Hebrew terms used for
the law. Consider the use of three different terms together to describe the
entire law in Lev. 26:15; Deut. 8:11, 11:1, 26:16, 17, 1 Kin. 2:3, 6:12, 8:58, 9:4;
2 Kin. 17:34, 37; 1 Chr. 22:13; 2 Chr. 7:17, 19:10, 33:8; Neh. 1:7, 9:13, 10:29;
and Mal. 4:4. The Bible uses these terms together to discuss the entire law.
When the terms are used alone, they refer to specific types of laws. This can
be seen in contexts where these terms are found. Moses uses these three terms when
he writes: “You have today declared the LORD to be your God, and that you would
walk in His ways and keep His statutes, His commandments and His ordinances,
and listen to His voice” (Deut. 26:17 NASB). The purity laws and worship
regulations are the statues (ḥōk). The Israeli civil laws are the
ordinances (mishpatim). This word contains the Hebrew word for judge,
(shapat) for the elders who applied these laws at the city gates in the
land of Israel. The term commandments (mitsvah) refers to the moral
laws that reflect the holiness of God in hundreds of passages (See Exod 20:6 where
the ‘Ten Words’ are called mitsvah). You can see the massive charts of
every biblical use of these terms that support this position in my book
available at https://www.academia.edu. [8]
When an Old Testament author uses two terms for the law together, the
entire law is included, even the third category not mentioned. This is like
when we say, A to Z. The letters in-between these two letters are also
included.
Israel had to follow all three categories of the law until Jesus’ death. This
change was symbolized by God tearing the veil in the temple before the Holy of
Hollies at the moment of the death of the Messiah (Mark 15:38). Thus, not every
text in the Hebrew Bible will strictly separate these categories. Because
Israel was required to keep all three categories of the law until the New
Covenant began (Jer 31:31-33), we should not expect every Old Testament prophet
to make a sharp division between these law categories in the Hebrew Bible. The
New Testament teaches that there was a change concerning animal sacrifices,
circumcision, Old Testament officers, sabbaths, feast days, and dietary laws (Heb
8:13). At the same time, the New Testament applied moral laws to both Jewish
and Gentile converts after Pentecost (Eph 6:1-2). This unravels part of the
mystery hidden from the old covenant saints concerning the changes in covenant
administrations (Eph 3:9). The author of the book of Hebrews writes concerning Jesus
replacing Aaron’s descendant as high priest, “For when the priesthood is
changed, the law must be changed also” (Heb 7:12 NIV) and “The former
regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless” (Heb 7:18 NIV). He
also states that in his day these ceremonies are now “dead works” (Heb 9:14) and
notes that these regulations were only “imposed until the time of reformation”
(Heb 9:10). However, there are no New Testament statements like this concerning
commandments five through ten in the Decalogue. This is significant because a
law remains in force until it is repealed, replaced, annulled, or its set time
has expired.
But even those
Christians who disagree with what has just been stated and do not accept three categories
of Old Testament law still need to use biblical discernment. If they don’t
change their focus, they’ll end up like the Pharisees who missed the big
picture by only concentrating on a small detail. They would filter their drink
to keep a gnat out but end up swallowing a whole filthy camel when taking a
drink. This was because their focus was backwards of what it should have been.
When you make the minor things major, you end up making the major things minor.
Calvin wrote on Matt 23:23, “It is the invariable practice of hypocrites to
allow themselves liberty in matters of the greatest consequence, and to pay
close attention to ceremonial observances.” [9] Thus,
when we reflect on Matt 23:23, no careful Bible student can argue that Jesus
did not teach that some laws were more important than others.
In Deut 10:16-22,
Moses presents Yahveh as the model of justice for His people in
how they care for widows, orphans, and strangers in the land. It is very
important to God that these vulnerable individuals who cannot defend themselves
are treated with dignity as image bearer of the Triune God of the Bible (See Isa
1:17-28, 28:17).
In
Deuteronomy 14, Yahveh gives Israel rules to distinguish them as a nation.
These include not cutting themselves, eating only clean animals, paying tithes,
and participating in Jewish feasts in one location in the promised land. This was
later revealed to be Jerusalem. Tithes, as seen in this chapter, are
part of the ceremonial laws, purity rules, and worship regulations for national
Israel. There are no moral laws repeated in Deuteronomy 14. It was later oral
tradition that added the rule to tithe on the spices in one’s kitchen. Instead,
the Mosaic law was focused on the farmers’ major crops and animals to provide food
for the families of the Levites and Priests. Contra the Pharisees’ practice,
these are not the most important laws in the Bible.
Mercy is an attribute
of our heavenly Father that we are to emulate. Moses writes: “then the LORD
your God will restore your fortunes and have mercy on you, and He will
gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you”
(Deut 30:3 ESV). Also see Exod 33:19 and Isa 30:18. Daniel offered guidance of a
vital lifestyle change to the king when he said, “Therefore, O king, may my
advice be pleasing to you. Renounce your sins by doing what is righteous,
and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor. Perhaps your
prosperity will be prolonged” (Dan. 4:27). Jesus said, “Blessed are the
merciful, for they shall receive mercy” (Matt 5:7 ESV). This is much
more important than bringing a thimble of spice to the temple.
Faithfulness is loyalty. Yahveh spoke through Hosea, saying, “For I desire loyalty
and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hos. 6:6 HCSB).
Loyalty to God is greater, weightier, and more important than the outward,
heartless observance of ceremonies. Covenant loyalty is a moral attribute of
God that His people are to emulate (Deut 32:4, 20; 1 Sam 26:23; Psa 37:3; Isa
11:5, 16:5, 25:1; Lam 3:23; Hos 4:1; Jon 2:8; Rom 3:3; Gal 5:22). Like mercy or
compassion for the needy, this characteristic starts in the inner man and eventually
manifests itself in actions. Because the Pharisees’ hearts were far from God
(Isa 29:13; Matt 15:7-14), without regeneration; justice, mercy, and
faithfulness [10]
were impossibilities for those trying to earn God’s favor by a list of man-made
rules (Matt 23:9-35). Justice, mercy, and faithfulness are highly valued by God
when they come from the heart and are shown through actions.
I decide based on the more important matters of justice, mercy, and
faithfulness. The infant is innocent, and it is unjust to murder any baby.
I show mercy to the infant and to the child’s mother by investing in groups
that support them. I show covenant loyalty by faithfully telling the truth that
each pre-born infant is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27). I love my
pre-born neighbor in the womb when I enter the voting booth. Likewise, I am
aware of the pro-abortion journalist article from the Huffington Post that mocks
my position. She does this to strengthen her cause for not using biblical
ethics for life’s choices and to weaken the pro-life movement. As R. C. Sproul’s
mother used to say, “Consider the source.” Regardless of these matters, I am
a one issue voter.
Ted D, Manby, Th.M.
[1] I use the same principles for the exception above when the only choice is between two pro-abortion candidates.
[2] See Margaret Mead, Some Anthropological Considerations Concerning Natural Law (core.ac.uk) article, at Notre Dame Law School.
[3]
Walter C.
Kaiser, Jr., “The Weightier and Lighter Matters of the Law: Moses, Jesus and
Paul” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation:
Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 176-192.
[4]
Norman L. Geisler, “Graded Absolutism,” in Readings in Christian Ethics,
vol. 1, Theory and Method,
ed. David K. Clark and Robert V. Rakestraw (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 131.
[5] John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1985), 14.
[6] Robertson McQuilkin, Principles of the Christian Life: An Introduction to Biblical, Personal, and Social Ethics (Columbia, S.C.: by the author, 1983), 145.
[7] Ibid., 146.
[8] An
Exegetical and Canonical Analysis of Leviticus 26: Laws, Covenants, Promises,
and Warnings | Ted D Manby - Academia.edu
[9] John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol 2., Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 16 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981, reprint), 46.
[10] See John 19:39 for loyalty by a
Pharisee after regeneration.
Wednesday, June 21, 2023
Christians Applying the Old Testament Laws
A law stays in
effect until it is annulled, replaced, or its time-limit or restriction has
been fulfilled. All laws are not equal and not all reveal the same thing. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you
hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill, and cumin. But you have
neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and
faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the
former (Matt 23:23 NIV). The moral law reveals the holy nature of God
and does not change. You shall be holy, for I Yahveh your
God am holy (Lev. 19:1); You shall thus observe all
My statutes and all My ordinances and do them; I am Yahveh (Lev. 19:37). Also
see 1 Peter 1:14-16 and Acts 14:15.
There were
specific Hebrew terms for this category of law, namely the moral law. The main term
is mitsvah, usually translated as
‘commandment’ in English. You have heard of this term before. At a Bar-mitsvah,
a 13-year-old boy becomes a son of the commandments in Judaism. The Ten
Commandments are the foundation for this moral law (Eph 6:1-4), often called
the “ten words” or the “testimony,” but many other moral laws give more clarity
beyond the foundational and overarching Ten Commandments. The 10 words instruct
us on the larger categories and show what loving God (1-4) and loving our neighbor
(5-10) looks like (Matt 22:37-40; Rom 13:8-10). But these 10 Words are broad umbrella
like commands and the additional moral laws in the Torah provide more specifics
for human obedience. For instance, both homosexual relations (Lev 18:22) and
bestiality (Exod 22:19) are a violation of the overarching foundational moral
law, ‘Do not commit adultery’ (Exod 20:14; Matt 19:18-19). [1]
The additional moral laws clarify what God hates and what holiness looks like,
as well as what paganism looks like. If one loves God, that person will obey
Him (Mark 12:28-34; John 14:15; Deut 11:1).
However, in the
middle of the Ten Commandments is the 4th commandment that has both
moral and ceremonial aspects (Exod 20:8-11). Understanding the Sabbath
regulations is a difficult study and takes years of work to come to a solid
conclusion. Historical Theology is only partially helpful in this matter
because of the diversity of interpretations for the last 2,000 years. The ceremonial
part of the fourth commandment concerns the day of the week (Matt 12:10-12; Luke
13:14-15) and is a sign for Israel (Exod 31:12-17). Saturday commemorates both
the six 24-hour-day creation week and the redemption of Israel from Egypt’s
brutal slavery (Deut 5:15). They observed the Sabbath prior to receiving the
law (Exod 16:23-29; also see Gen 3:8-11, 4:3, 26:5; Mark 2:27-28) and it is described
in the law (Deut 5:13-15; Exod 20:8). However, Jesus arose on the first day of
the week and for forty-days repeatedly met with the disciples on the first day
of the week (John 20:1, 19-29; Luke 24:21-45). This New Covenant redemptive act
in redemptive history was greater than the redemption of the Jews from Egypt (a
type of the Suffer Servant’s redemption, see Isaiah 53). Thus, a change of day
was in order just like the change in the covenantal sign of circumcision to
baptism (Col 2:11-14) and the replacement of the Passover with the Lord’s
supper (Mark 14:16-26). So, the moral part of this commandment continues
forward, but the ceremonial part does not. We each must decide individually how
to handle the day of worship and determine which day to honor each week (Rom
14:5-6). However, our conclusion on obeying this part of the 4th
commandment cannot be made binding on another believer’s conscience according to
the New Testament (Col 2:16). The three moral aspects of the 4th
commandment that are repeated and applied to Christians are the requirements to
work, to worship, and to rest (This is also the view of G. Campbell Morgan and
close to Augustine’s position). However, ‘rest’ in the New Covenant takes on a salvific
(Matt 11:28-30) and eschatological application (Heb 4:9). Trusting or believing
in Jesus and the Word of God produces new covenant rest, and we are commanded
to do it (1 John 3:23 and Heb 3:11-4:11). Unlike the other nine commandments, the
whole fourth commandment is not repeated in the New Testament and not applied
to the church. Likewise, the ceremonial part is annulled in the New Testament
by both practice and command (Acts 15:5-32, 20:7; 1 Cor 16:1-2, Rom 14:5-6; Col
2:16; Gal 4:9-12). But the three moral parts of this command that are repeated (work,
worship, rest) and not repealed in the New Testament are binding on the church
(1 Thes 3:10; Heb 10:23-27; Mark 6:31; Heb 3:7-19). However, Saturday worship
(contra Seventh Day Adventist) or Sunday Christian Sabbath rules (contra Thomas
Boston) are not required for believers today. However, worshipping on Saturday
or following Sunday Christian Sabbath rules are not individually forbidden, and
the latter provided much good for the Puritans of old and their godly descendants.
The Lord’s Day (Rev 1:10) Sunday worship is important, and it is wonderful to
use the day for Bible study, worship and acts of mercy. But the New Testament
would not support exercising Church discipline on a believer who picked apples
or jogged on a Sunday.
I must admit I
wish this issue was simpler to resolve and that John Chrysostom, Augustine, Martin
Luther, John Calvin, and John Owen all agreed on this matter (Historical
Theology). It would have even helped to have an ancient council to clarify a doctrine
of the Lord’s Day. I do not take it lightly that what I just wrote is not in
full conformity to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 Baptist
Confession of Faith. I decided not to re-enlist in the Navy Seabee Reserves after
serving 6-years, 10-months in 1986 based on my earlier influence of these
documents. Today I would have a lifetime monthly pension and temporary medical
care benefits if I had re-enlisted and completed the additional 13-years.
Likewise, when I was applying to be a Navy Chaplain in 2001, it would have
helped my application if I was currently in a Reserve unit or had already completed
my 20-years when I graduated with the required M-Div. in 2004. I do not want to
be aligned only with the theology of modern evangelicals, but deeply desire
continuity with orthodox believers from past centuries. Thus, I would prefer to
be able to affirm fully every article of a historical confession, but after
studying this issue for years, I have some reservations. Do note that the
American version of the Westminster Confession has omitted the section on
identifying the Anti-Christ, so the PCA was not above accepting a modified version
missing one section of the original Westminster Confession. Furthermore, it is
fine for anyone to limit Sunday activity to ministries of the word, works of
mercy, corporate worship, Bible study, and even physical rest. Do note that when I taught
Sunday School and preached twice on Sunday, it was hard work, and I was
exhausted on Monday. The Levites who hauled wood and
water to the temple on Saturday and the priests who sacrificed the animals were
required to work on the Sabbath but were not guilty of sin.
Where historical theology is
helpful is when a new teaching suddenly arises. New theological and
doctrinal understandings that show-up after the 1800s are a problem. Unless the
new views are based on recent archaeological findings or comparative language
word studies previously not available to help with biblical terms that are only
used once in the Bible (hapax legomenon), they are suspect at best,
dangerous at worst. There are some rare discoveries that clarify a text we may
have misunderstood, but these are the exception and not the rule. It takes an
enormous amount of pride to think that you are the first one to get a doctrine
right in over 2,000-years when Christ’s best gifted men to the church have
already lived and recorded their research for us.
Most of the civil laws of the nation of Israel
have a moral law principle that undergirds them. But they are, in essence, a
culture and time-frozen application of those principles. Likewise, some civil
laws reflect the mercy of God and restrict some humans while protecting others.
The slavery (Deut 15:12) and divorce laws (Deut 24:1-4) fall into this
category. Neither of these human actions mirror the holiness of God, but God,
in grace and mercy, puts in protection for the weaker party living in a fallen
world with these civil law restrictions. The time-frozen national restriction
of Israel’s civil laws, called misphpatim,
does not directly and exactly apply to the Christian in a wooden strict fashion.
However, the moral principles that undergird these laws do still apply to the New
Covenant believer. For example, observe Paul using this method by comparing Deut
25:4, 1 Cor 9:8-11, and 1 Tim 5:18. [2]
These civil laws require thinking, studying, and prayer to discern the
underlying moral principle that applies to Christians in every culture and in every
time period (See Matt 18:16; Luke 3:8-12, 10:26-28, 20:27-39; Acts 3:22-23,
23:4-5; Rom 9:15-17, 10:5-13, 19:19, 11:8, 12:19-21, 15:10; 1 Cor 5:13, 10:6-13;
2 Cor 6:16-18, 8:13-15, 13:1-3; Gal 3:10-14, 5:14; 1 Tim 2:19; Heb 3:4-6, 7-11,
8:3-6, 9:11-14, 18-28, 10:30-31, 12:18-24, 13:6; 1 Pet 2:9; and Rev 1:6). This
is not an easy task to complete, and we can make mistakes using our best
efforts. Likewise, the application in 1604 AD in Spain will differ from the
application in Australia in 2024.
Should the
Corinthians pay their pastors? Paul says yes, based on the civil law of Israel.
Must westerners with a sloped an A-frame roof build a rail around that roof to
obey the Bible (Deut 22:8)? No. However, the principle of providing safety in
the home for guests does apply to them and the modern necessity of installing rails
on steps and decks is for this same purpose. This is how you love your neighbor
as yourself (Matt 22:39 and Jam 1:8).
The ceremonial
laws (Hoq, Huqqah) governed old covenant
worship, which had many temporary types pointing to Jesus the Messiah (Col
2:13-17; Heb 9:1-28) along with the purity laws that were given to make God’s
people distinct, separated, and to develop a mind-set of distinction
(antithetical thinking) in the Jewish people as an example to the pagan world
(Exod 8:17-19, 21-24, 9:4, 11:7; Lev 10:8-11, 11:47, 18:3, 26-27, 20:25-26;
Deut 14:1-21; Gal 3:24-26). The Jew went through the fields each day making
mental distinctions. That animal is clean, and that animal is unclean. He
developed a worldview in which everything was not a shade of grey. Some things
were white, and some things were black. Thus, the Jews not only looked
different to the pagans around them, but they also thought differently from the
pagans did because of the worship and purity laws. Separation is for the
purpose of evangelism, is helpful for fighting the sin of compromise, and for
preserving a culture and bloodline, but these types of rules were not everlasting
moral principles that could not be set aside under any circumstances (Deut
7:1-16). The Jews were isolated as the particular people of God. Why was this
the case? They alone had the Mosaic covenant promises, they alone had the
special revelation of God (OT), and they alone provided the bloodline of the
coming Messiah (Abraham>Jacob>David; Rom 1:3). These temporary rules made
them distinct, protected, isolated, and harder to be assimilated into pagan
culture. Satan’s numerous attempts to do this failed, including his efforts
through Antiochus Epiphanes (Num 25:6-9; Exod 1:22; Est 3:8-11; Dan 8:8-14).
But once the Messiah had arrived, and the Scriptures had been preserved and
translated along with the Jewish culture and bloodline had all been preserved,
these rules had served their temporary purpose. They were set aside so the
focus could be on the Great Commission of discipling all the ethnic groups on
the earth in their own culture rather than making them Jews first. After the Messiah
started building His church, the purity rules would work against that goal
instead of promoting it (Matt 16:18; Acts 1-2, 8-10, 15; Rom 14:5-6; 1 Cor 10:30-31;
Gal 3:23-29; Eph 2:11-22; Col 2:16-23).
And these purity laws were clearly not the most
important regulations in the Old Testament cannon (Tanak)—contra the
Pharisees. Not eating a rabbit or some shrimp made the Jew different from the
pagans around them, but not morally superior by these abstentions. Separation,
isolation, and distinction are the foundations of many of the purity laws
rather than morality. For instance, one not eating pork while killing babies
does not cancel out the moral violation, and these laws were never equal (I visited
a doctor once in NY state who ate Kosher but also insisted that we abort our
son because he had a heart problem and other physical weaknesses). Even more to
the point, the old covenant worship regulations were fulfilled and replaced
with the new covenant worship regulations (Jer 31:31-34; Heb 9:1-10:31, 13:9;
Gal 5:1-14; Col 2:9-12; 1 Tim 4:1-6). Nevertheless, much can still be learned
from the principles behind even the sacrificial regulations that gives types
and insights about the Messiah earthly ministry and His finished cross-work. Furthermore,
Jesus annulled the purity laws given to make the Jews distinct from the Gentiles
because these now work counter to the gospel (See Acts 10 and 15). The LORD’s
judgment on the temple in Jerusalem in 70AD (Luke 21:20-22) completely ended
the Jews ability to keep the sacrificial laws in Israel, just like God tearing
the curtain in front of the Holy of Holies from the top to the bottom (Matt
27:51) made it clear there was a change with the worship regulations now that
the final sacrifice had been made by the Messiah Himself (Eph 5:2). Even in the
old covenant period, the laws to make Israel distinct were to be set aside if
they conflicted with a moral law (See Jesus’ affirmation of this in Matt 12:1-8).
It would have been a greater sin, not preserving human life,[3]
which is the positive aspect of the command against murder, by refusing to feed
David and his men with bread only allowed for the priest’s family—a ceremonial,
purity rule). The moral laws are the heavy ones [most important], the
ceremonial are the light ones [least important] (Matt 23:23). The legalists
always major on the minors and reverse God’s order of priority. Jesus reminds
the Scribes and Pharisees of this error repeatedly (See an example in Matt
23:24).
Some take Paul’s
arguments against the Judaizers that were making the ceremonial ritual of circumcision
as a requirement for salvation as his rejection of the entire Old Testament law
(Gal 5). Of course, the continuity and discontinuity issue has been debated for
many years especially after dispensationalism arose in the late 1800s. But
anti-nomianism dates back much further than this as Martin Luther had to
address it in his day. This is not a careful handling of the New Testament. Long
after Pentecost and the inauguration of Christ’s administration of the New
Covenant Paul applies the Ten Commandments to Gentile Christians (Eph 6:1-2,
Rom 13:8-10). And don’t forget, long after Pentecost the Holy Spirit used the
10th commandment against coveting to convince Paul he was a sinner
and needed to embrace the glorious Lord that appeared to him on the road north
to Damascus, Syria for salvation from sins power and punishment (Rom 7:7-8).
So, can a new
covenant believer eat bacon even though refraining from it made the Jews
distinct from the pagan nations around them and immigrants from those nations
visiting them? Yes, Jesus annulled these laws for the church (Mark 7:19; Acts
10:9-20; 1 Tim 4:1-8). So, is it okay now for a farmer to rape one of his sheep
now we are in the New Covenant era? No. The moral laws in the Old Testament on
bestiality, even though they are not repeated in the New Testament, have not
been annulled, replaced, or fulfilled in time. God still hates this practice. However,
eating catfish is not something God hates, but not eating them was a rule given
to the Jews to make them different from the other people groups around them.
The laws
concerning cross-dressing as a different gender than the one a human received
as designed by genetics and displayed at birth by gender specific body parts
are still binding no matter what the culture says (Deut 22:5). Killing babies
in the womb is still sin even though over 50% of Americans approve of it in
2023 (Exod 21:22-25). In 1950, less than 1% of Americans approved of the
practice. It is the covenantal administration which determines what is binding
on the people of God, not the changing culture. Liberal antinomian’s appeal to
the ceremonial-worship-purity-diet laws of the Jews having a time-date
fulfillment as justification for violating moral laws regarding sexual immorality
has no logical, exegetical, lexical, theological, or biblical basis. The new
covenant administration and its documents (the NT) under Jesus (rather than
Moses, the prior covenant administrator) also condemn their preferred sins
along with many other sins that different groups of people prefer (See 1 Cor 6:9-11;
Rom 1:16-32; Eph 5:1-21; 1 Tim 1:8-11). They cannot make a case for their
behavior by proper exegesis and application of the Bible. The Political Left movement
is aware of this and has started burning Bibles and silencing and jailing
Christians. Like in the Roman world of the first century, this is just the
beginning. They must force compromise or annihilate us to win. They have taken
the first steps on social media and even controlling credit and money to block
any who hold to different views than theirs. With one back-room decision, they
can make a thriving business that is not politically correct to need to file
for bankruptcy in weeks. Through leftist EID polices, believers can be removed
from positions of employment for failure to celebrate the lifestyle choices that
conflict with the Word God. It is no longer enough for the leftist movement that
we love, befriend, are kind to, and show tolerance towards individual pagans that
we expect to act like pagans as they live out their worldview and bend to their
culture. The expectation is now to go beyond caring for the individual to
celebrating their addictions and behaviors that are affirmed by leftist political
advocates. This is a compromise we cannot make. We must stand firm on the Word
of God like the first century Christians who would not offer worship to Caesar.
They were asked just once each year to declare Ceasar is Lord and burn incense
to him in worship. They died by the thousands for refusing to do this. Also
remember Daniel who would not stop praying when it was illegal as well as he
Apostles who would not stop preaching in Jesus’ name, in defiance of the
Sanhedrin’s official order. (We must obey God rather than men.) We could even
add the Hebrew families and mid-wives that would not kill the male babies in
direct defiance of the binding legal order of Pharoah. God has designed the institutions
of the family, the state, the church as equal institutions under Christ’s
Lordship and under the authority of the Bible. These three are not in hierarchical
order. Whenever the State asks the believer to do or not do something that Scripture
has put under the domain of the family or the church, or has made clear in its
teaching, it is the believer’s duty to courageously defy the State and accept
the consequences like the three Hebrew young men in the book of Daniel (They
would not bow, bend, or burn). Caesar is not Lord of the Church. Jesus the
Messiah is the only Lord of the Church. The State is over taxes and has the
authority to set rules to protect citizens, like traffic rules and the consequences
when these laws as well as when moral laws are violated. But it does not have
the authority to demand someone celebrate and encourage mutilating children who
have been deceived by the education system and the culture about their gender. It
does not have the authority to tell the Church that it cannot gather or cannot
sing once they gather. When the State does these things, it has left its domain
of authority under God and it is thus a sin to comply to its demands when its
regulations are the opposite of the Bible [See David Martin Lloyd-Jones, Commentary
on Romans 13].
Without divine intervention, the Left will win this battle. I have bad news, though, for my liberal neighbors. They will not win the war. Their persecution will come to an end and be reviewed on the Day of Judgment, which will increase their everlasting punishment. And this is a sure thing.
And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” (Matt. 25:40 ESV)
Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. 4 And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” (Acts 9:3-5 ESV)
The seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven saying: The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Messiah, and He will reign forever and ever! (Rev 11:15 HCSB)
Then I saw a great white throne and
him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no
place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small,
standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was
opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written
in the books, according to what they had done. (Rev. 20:11-12 ESV)
By Rev. Ted D. Manby, Th.M., USA 2023
[1] This law can also be broken to a lesser degree with
lesser damage and consequences in one’s inner man by lusting for one that is
not your spouse. Jesus said, But I say to you that everyone who
looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in
his heart (Matt 5:28 ESV). Unmortified lusts can become the full acts of rebellion, with all the
consequences and damage done. The 10th commandment on coveting clarifies
that these laws are broken first in the human heart long before the physical
actions occur, and that mere outward physical compliance is not fully keeping
the law.
[2] Paul writes: Do I say these things on
human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written
in the Law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the
grain." Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not
certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman
should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.11
If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material
things from you? (1 Cor 9:8-11 ESV) Also see 1 Cor 10:1-11.
[3] Each of the Ten Commands has a positive command built into
it, as well as a negative prohibition for the command to be kept. Not only is
one to not take a human life in anger, but he/she is also to preserve human
life in love. It is not enough to refrain from lying. You must also speak the
truth when it is needed.
Friday, February 24, 2023
How to Do an Old Testament Word Study for a Key Term in a Verse Being Studied
(The Examples Used Below are for the Hebrew Term ‘eved, Servant)
A. Determine what the word could
mean by exploring the semantic range.
1. Find the Strong’s word number
in reference works or in online sources or Bible software. Do not read the
articles on the term yet. Just write down possible English nuances of the term.
There are several ways to get the Strong’s number. Even if you know Hebrew, it
will save you time to have this number. Here are some options for various tools
you may be able to access.
$ One way to get the Strong’s number is
to use Index to Brown, Drivers, and
Briggs Hebrew Lexicon to find the BDB page number for your term of study. If
your version of BDB has the Strong’s numbers added in the margin, you now have
the number.
$ Look up a text that has the Hebrew
term in your Hebrew English Interlinear as some of these will have the Strong’s
number under each term.
$ The Complete Biblical Library has its own number under each word in the
Bible section. Look it up in the dictionary section with their number. At the
bottom of the article, it lists the resources which include the Strong’s number
for the term.
$ In BibleWorks software, put your mouse
on the English translation of the term you are studying in the NAS or NAU. In
the pop-up window, the Strong’s number is inside the carrots <001 >.
While here, write down the nuances listed in this pop-up window or the other
sources above you used.
$ In E-Sword software (download for
free) look up the verse in KJV+ or Hebrew OT+. The Strong’s number is beside
the word.
$ In Logos Bible software, look up any
verse that has the term. Right click on the English translation. The pop-up window
will have the Strong’s number in it.
Now that you have this number,
look up the English word in Strong’s Concordance and find the first verse you
know that has the same Hebrew term being searched. It may be your verse of
study. Verify that you have the right Hebrew term. The number will be to the
right of the Hebrew term in Strong’s Concordance. You have already used the
online tools, software, and books you have for the shortest route to get the
Strong’s number for your term. Write it down in your word study notes. E.g., Strong’s
5650. If your sources provided page numbers for other tools, include them in
your notes as well, with an abbreviation of the work’s title (e.g., T.W.O.T.,
716).
2. Looks up this word number in
the back of Young’s Concordance under the “Transliterated Hebrew” section and
“The English Universal Subject Guide” and in the back of the NASB Concordance
and or Strong’s Concordance Hebrew dictionary by the Strong’s number. Write the
nuances listed from any of these tools you have under this section that are
new. You can also look in Vines
Expository Dictionary and Wilson’s
Old Testament Word Studies for additional nuances, but don’t rely too
heavily on these two tools as they have some weaknesses. Skim read Brown,
Drivers, and Briggs (BDB) and Holiday’s Hebrew
Lexicon for more nuances without carefully reading the definitions yet.
This is the beginning of considering the semantic range of the Hebrew term, so
you don’t want to be influenced by experts before you look at the biblical contexts
with the nuances you collected and see which one is best for each verse.
[e.g., ‘eved, slave, servant, social inferior, bondsman, worshiper
of God, messenger of God, Messiah, attendant, officer, government official,
male servant, male slave, dependent, minister, advisor, political subject,
military subordinate, military officer, vassal kings, tributary nations,
officers of a king, ambassadors, soldiers of the army and officers.]
If you have a word that has numerous uses, this will need to be done quickly. You will need really sound reasons from the context to differ significantly from modern solid translations. You have your lists of nuances above, but there may be more nuances. There are some cases where the student will be justified in differing from the ASV, ESV, HCSB, NIV, NKJV or NASB because of the methods committee’s use in selecting the final gloss choice in their translation that the committee members are sworn to not share with the public. You are not concerned with copyright laws, differing from standard translations to make yours unique enough to sell or appeasing popular misconceptions. If the KJV or ASV had the best choice of nuance for a verse, use that one. Context is king and at this point you have avoided a strong influence from the Lexicons and word study articles. You have done your own work. After you have charted every use of the part of speech chosen (e.g., noun) of this term in the section selected, make a shorter list of all the nuances used. Under each of these nuances, list four to ten verses references that will provide samples of this shade of meaning. Include the phrase in which the term is found. Make the list like this:
1. Male servant (‘eved)
Gen 12:16 gave him sheep and oxen and donkeys and male servants and female servants and female donkeys . . .
Gen 24:35 given him flocks and herds, silver and gold, male servants and female servants . . .
2. Government official, cabinet member (‘eved)
Gen 20:8 So Abimelech rose early in the morning and called all his government officials and told them all these things . . .
Gen 40:20 On the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, he made a feast for all his government officials . . .
4. Depending on the tools you can access, read the Complete Word Study Dictionary Old Testament Lexicon definition, BDB, T.W.O.T., Holliday, TLOT, HALOT closely. Summarize the content of these Lexicons for additional nuances and the semantic rage (domain) of the term with this additional information. Go back and correct any verses you now feel certain you chose the wrong gloss for from reading the context and applying the available nuances. Update your list of nuances as well. But don’t force the resources articles contents into a text. Context is still king and will limit the options of nuance choices.
5. Consult scholarly but trustworthy commentaries. Find the first usage of the term in that Bible book and look at any more well know verses that include the term. The commentators tend to define important terms the first time they are used in a biblical book or in more well know verses or controversial ones that are often misinterpreted. They may cite scholarly articles that helped them reach their conclusions for a particular nuance. Because they are commenting on verses in your chart created in # 3 above, as well as your list of nuances with verse support, you may update your nuance choice now that you have the additional information. But this should be rare, as you applied your list of glosses from the sources above to the context of the paragraph and checked formal equivalent English translations for their choices before selecting yours. And because you will be extremely careful with the clause in the biblical text that you are using this study to help you exegete. It is not a big problem if you did not choose the best nuance for every verse as you work out the semantic range. In some verses several nuances will fit within the context and that is fine for our purposes. Summarize the information from the commentaries in your notes.
Next, the student should review remarks from scholars on the term in word study books, Bible encyclopedias, and Bible dictionaries. Some of these will be high-quality works. Thus, you should not ignore them. Summarize the information from these sources next. List the name of the source, then write a conclusion of their insights in a paragraph or two.
B. Consider the etymology of the term you are studying.
1. Look at etymological resources and note how they compare and differ from your study to this point. Options include Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language and Jeff Benner, The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible. Write down the definitions and prepare a concluding paragraph from any insights acquired.
[‘eved, e.g., The basic concept is a person who is under the authority of someone else as that person’s legal property, employee, subject, or vassal; or someone who presents himself in humility when speaking to someone of importance or when praying to God.]
C. Consider synonyms and translations into other languages.
1. Look at Girdlestone’s synonyms book[1] for the Hebrew synonyms first and then look at the Greek ones given. Look in the Appendix of Hatch and Redpath[2] for the Hebrew/Aramaic Index of the Septuagint. Write down the Greek synonyms for the Hebrew term being studied from this resource. Study these Greek terms in the LXX by following these steps. How many Greek terms are used to translate the Hebrew term being studied? Write the number in your notes. Write down the Greek terms that are certain and not in [] or [[implausible]]. Look up these Greek terms in Liddell and Scott[3] and BDAG[4] to do the following: (a) make three charts for each Greek term listing the nuance, then author and the title of the book, then the date of use. (b) Make one chart for the Liddell and Scott’s non-biblical authors, one for LXX Old Testament canonical books and the last one for the apocryphal books (c) For charts two and three, look up each verse from Hatch and Redpath in an English Translation of the LXX (like Brenton’s work[5]) and write down the English gloss and Bible reference used for the Greek term being studied (d) Put nuances at the top of the row of the chart from left to right. Put the dates for each term in the left column going down from oldest to most recent.[6] (e) Summarize the semantic domain of each term for the Classical and Hellenistic periods. (f) Do a conclusion of all the summaries noting the combined semantic domains of all the Greek LXX equivalents and the development of the term. Discuss if there was a Greek term that the LXX authors used the most for the Hebrew term being studied and which nuance they used the least. Does anything in their choices reveal how they understood dominant nuances for the Hebrew term in their era? What is the semantic domain of the most used Greek terms in the LXX for the Hebrew term being studied? Do these supply any insights into ancient understandings of the range of meaning of the Hebrew term being studied in the 250 BC time-period? Was there any observable change (development, progression) in usage over time? Ask key questions concerning the evidence discovered: a) Is this term’s use in the LXX and the Apoc. extensive, occasional, or rare? b) What is the variety of nuances, first in the LXX and then the Apoc.? What conclusion can be drawn from the evidence in these two works? Summarize your findings.
Non-biblical
Author’s (servant, Hebrew ‘eved) >
(Greek) pais
Liddell & Scott and BDAG:
List word meanings, the author and date he wrote.
2. Look up the Greek LXX terms in Moulton and Geden[7] or a Bible software program and make a list of the references followed by an English phrase or clause that contain the New Testament nuances for the Greek term. Follow this by a brief explanation of the gloss chosen. Use a formal equivalence translation (ASV, NASB, NKJV), your own translation or a combination of both.
E.g., Make a list of the Greek New Testament uses of pais, doulos, oiketās, anthrōpos, douleia, douleuein, doulā, ergasia, therapeia, therapeuein, therapōn, estos enopion, oiketās, paidarion, padion, sebein, huparetās (servant, slave) and list the nuance in the biblical phrase, followed by an explanation from the context. Begin by listing the references and clauses for the term pais.
Matt 2:16 Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem . . .
This is male toddlers and babies two years old and less that lived near Bethlehem. They were dependents, descendants, and were under the authority of their parents.
Matt. 8:6 and saying, “Lord, my personal assistant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering great pain.”
This is a military Roman centurion’s favorite assistant, servant, or military leader.
The New Testament authors had the influence of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Aramaic versions and the Septuagint and the further development of the term in Greek literature and culture. What the student is attempting to determine here is to what extent the nuances from the Hebrew Bible are repeated in contexts by the New Testament authors. The term’s development at this stage may be much broader than the original Hebrew uses. Write down the nuances that continue into this future period that match the original Hebrew and LXX. Summarize these findings in some concluding remarks from the evidence reviewed without back reading later nuance development into the older usages of the term. The student is seeking clarity and continuity at this point in the study rather than how the term usage evolved. Just like there are fallacies in making too much of the etymology of a term (e.g., a butterfly must be a fly covered in butter) there are fallacies in back reading a modern nuance of a term into previous time periods (e.g., the 21st century use of term ‘gay’ read back into an English hymn written in the 1600s). Our objective here is discovering the original author’s intentional meaning rather than the possible modern usages. Thus, focus your conclusion on the continuity aspect gained from observing the New Testament’s uses.
3. After carefully considering the Septuagint Greek texts, look at English translations of the DSS and Syriac Peshitta for additional nuances. For a term that is often used in the Old Testament, the Hebrew should dominate your consideration. For terms with less than five uses, these other sources and languages may expand the semantic range of the term from later time periods and understanding and may be helpful when the current known nuances don’t match the context of the original clause. Only the Original Autographs are inspired and inerrant. Only when a translation captures the original author’s (both divine and human) intention in a paragraph in the new language does the translation hold full authority over the believer. Thus, these other sources are not inerrant or written by an Old Testament prophet, priest, or king or a New Testament apostle (e.g., Peter) or prophet (e.g., Mark, Luke) and only inspired when they are a true match for the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek text. These translations are from later time periods where word meanings have developed differently. Likewise, we do not know the original language ability of the translators and editors or of their theological biases. So, extreme care must be used here. After acquiring insight from these sources, remember, the English gloss chosen from studying these sources must make sense in the original Hebrew passage.
Step 3: Consider the biblical
use of this term starting with the proximity in the book that the passage you
are seeking to exegete is found. You will do from wider to narrower in that
book and then go wider to other authors.
a. How does the
author of the book use this term in this Bible book you are studying? How does he use it in the chapter of
concern? How does he use it in the paragraph? How does he use it in the verse’s
sentence(s) being studied?
b.
How does this same author use this term in other biblical books he has written?
c. How do different writers of books in this Testament (either Old or New) use this term in their writings? Consider the proposed dates of composition of the books as you observe the developments of the term in the biblical text. Antecedent passages may have an influence on later texts, especially when there is a clear illusion or quote.
D. Check the expert produced word studies and summarize your final conclusions.
1. Check theological dictionaries and other word study sources before making your final conclusions on the semantic range of the term and its best use in any one passage. This step must wait until all the above work has been done or the student’s objectivity will be compromised in the study. Are there nuances that should be included that were missed in the steps above? Are there sources these works cite that were missed that give additional insights into the Hebrew term? Are their nuances used in the steps above that none of the Theological Dictionaries include? Is there a good explanation for the omissions or addition from the biases of the contributors or editors rather than careful objective deduction from the ancient sources? Write down supportable new insights from these works. If these works and your study confirm you have added unsupportable English glosses or missed legitimate glosses that should be included or used the wrong gloss in the study above on any verse cited, go back and correct it. This is part of the learning process. However, the experts are not neutral or inerrant. Thus, it is fine to disagree when the student has significant evidence for their position from the word study steps above. CBL, TLOT, David Clines, VanGemeren, Kittel (search for comments on the Hebrew term by reviewing articles on the Greek synonyms).
2. Make a final list of nuances of the term and conclusions on the term and its use in individual passages.
3. Note doctrinal and devotional insights from the study of the term and its use in various biblical texts.
4. Choose the best nuance for
the Bible verse you are studying from the evidence discovered while doing this
word study.
Works Consulted
Belcher, Richard P. Sr., Doing an Effective Greek Word Study (Columbia, SC: Richbarry, 1985).
Duvall, J. Scott and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-on Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001).
Stuart, Douglas, Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 3d ed.
Wenzel, Charles, Greek III Class
Notes, Columbia Bible College (Columbia,
SC: Np, 1984).
[1] Robert B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) reprint.
[2] Edwin Hatch and Henry A.
Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 2d ed.
[3] Henry George Liddell and Robert
Scott, An Intermediate Greek English
Lexicon (London: Oxford, 1945) 7th ed.
[4] Walter Bauer, F. Wilbur
Gingrich, William F. Arndt and Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979) 2nd ed.
[5] Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and
English (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992) reprint.