LITTLE THINGS MEAN A LOT

 There's a song from the days of yesteryear, a song that stayed at the U.S. number one spot for nine consecutive weeks called, "Little Things Mean A Lot" as sung by Kitty Kallen. It's a love song, but we might apply that to the way God sometimes works in history, a long time ago, like history 503 years ago. 

The little things that meant a lot back then were a hammer, a nail, a sheet of paper, and lots of Latin. The man who used those little things had no idea that what he was about to do would change world history forever. When he wrote the Latin, then got a nail and a hammer, he was an obscure, but well-educated Roman Catholic monk among a multitude of other obscure monks. He was also a professor in Wittenberg, a position he had held since 1512. He had a doctorate in theology and in that capacity, he had given lectures over the Psalms, Romans, and Galatians.

On the paper he had written 95 statements (called "theses"). When he nailed that paper to the now- famous Wittenberg Castle church door, he was doing what many a person had done--it was like putting a note on a public bulletin board for the purpose of making some kind of announcement. What Luther was doing was calling for a discussion of his 95 statements, a debate of some things that were bothering him about the Roman Catholic church to which he'd sworn fealty for the rest of his life. He was merely announcing his desire for a discussion when he placed the paper on the door that day of October 31, 1517.

One of the 95 statements, Number 82, particularly bothered Luther: it concerned the sale of indulgences. Indulgences were based on two beliefs: 1) the sacrament of penance did not completely eliminate the guilt of the sin forgiven through absolution alone; one also needed to undergo temporal punishment (“penance”) because one had offended Almighty God and 2) indulgences rested on belief in purgatory, a place in the next life where one could continue to cancel the accumulated debt of one’s sins.

Number 82 said: "They ask, e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose."

That hammer, that nail that paper, those little things were like an explosion of an atomic bomb whose fallout would change Western Civilization. When Luther was nailing his Latin to the door, he had no idea of an explosion or of any fallout. To him those statements were an invitation which said, "Let's meet and discuss reforming the system." 

Five hundred and three years ago, on October 31, 1517, those little things didn't mean much. But later, they did, they really did. What you might consider a little thing in acting on your biblical convictions today can turn into something magnificent in the hands of God.

DEADLY DECEPTION

 DEADLY DECEPTION

We find deliberate deception in the New World Translation (Jehovah’s Witnesses).  About their “Bible,” here are some responses:

Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded the translation " . . . has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation . . . It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest.” 

British scholar H.H. Rowley: “From the beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated. This translation is an insult to the Word of God.”

Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the New World Translation “a shocking mistranslation.” 

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the New World Translation “a frightful mistranslation,” “erroneous,” “pernicious,” and “reprehensible.” 

Dr. William Barclay concluded, "It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”

It is interesting that the Jehovah’s Witness organization has always resisted efforts to identify members of the translation committee. The reason was they preferred to remain anonymous and humble, giving God the credit and glory for this translation. However, as former Jehovah witness David Reed says, “An unbiased observer will quickly note that such anonymity also shields the translators from any blame for errors or distortions in their renderings. And it prevents scholars from checking their credentials.”

The Jehovah’s Witnesses should have blushed in shame when the names of the translators of The New World Translation were revealed. The reason for their shame was the translation committee was completely unqualified for the task. Four of the five men in the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training whatsoever (they had only a high school education). The fifth, Fred W. Franz, claimed to know Hebrew and Greek, but upon examination under oath in a court of law in Edinburgh, Scotland, he failed a simple Hebrew test.

In court, Franz was asked if he knew Hebrew and he said, "Yes." He said he had a command of various languages including Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, German, and French. When asked if he speaks Hebrew, he said, "No." He was then asked if he could translate the fourth verse of Genesis into Hebrew. His answer was, "No." The fact was that Franz, like the others on the committee, did not have the knowledge to translate Hebrew or Greek. The truth is that Franz dropped out of the University of Cincinnati after his sophomore year and even while there, he had not studied anything related to theological issues.

The New World Translation is not a translation. It is filled with additions to and subtractions from the Word of God. It is a tampering with the Bible to force it to fit the heresies of the cult. The deception of the Jehovah's Witnesses can only be classified as deadly.

FILL IN THE BLANKS

Love. It's the major theme of song writers and poets. We have a special day devoted to it. We send cards and buy gifts on that day. Sermons extol it. 

Paul wrote about it and what he wrote is often the centerpiece of many a wedding. But is it all so many words? 

Here's a convicting exercise: read I Corinthians 13, the text where Paul tells us what love is and what love is not, and as you read it, take out the word "love" and put your name in its place:

⁴ _______ is patient, _____ is kind and _______ is not jealous; _______ does not brag and _______ is not arrogant, ⁵ ________does not act unbecomingly; _______ does not seek its own, _____ is not provoked, ________does not take into account a wrong suffered, ^{6 ________}does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but ________rejoices with the truth, _______bears all things, _______believes all things, ______hopes all things, ________endures al things. 

Enough said. 

THIS IS MY BODY BROKEN FOR YOU

 It's a well-worn statement at thousands of the Lord's Supper services when they pass the bread: "This is My body which is broken for you." That is what Jesus said, isn't it? Or is it? Let's see, taking a look at the institution of the Lord's Supper from the King James Version:

Matthew 26:26 "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body."

Mark 14:22: "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body."

Luke 22:19-20: "And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is My body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me."

(John, lest the reader thinks that eating the bread and drinking the cup have salvific merit, de-emphasizes the ordinances and therefore doesn't record the institution of the Lord's Supper.)

The omission of "broken for you" fits with the Old Testament in which we read about the Passover lamb--it was not to have a bone broken. John recorded the fulfillment of the hoary prescription for the Passover Lamb when he wrote about the crucifixion: "For these things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled, 'Not a bone of his will be broken.'" The Scripture to which John refers is Exodus 12:46 and its instructions for sacrificing the precise lamb. 

Yet, when we come to I Corinthians 11:24 in the same KJV, we read, "And when He had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." 

Broken? I thought that John said no bone of Jesus was broken. He did say that. And in all of the accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the three Gospels, in the same KJV, Jesus never said that the bread was symbolic of His body's being broken. (The bread had to be broken to be distributed; the reference is to Jesus' body.) The Old Scofield Reference Bible (KJV) includes a note, replacing "is broken for you," with "is for you." The editors caught the problem.

So, what's going on here? Andrew Kuyvenhoven explains: "1 Corinthians 11:24, reads: '[He took a loaf of bread] and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.'" The words "which is for you" beg for some addition, such as "which is given for you" or "which is broken for you."

"So from early times, scribes have been adding such words. As a matter of fact, the word "broken" was inserted in the Greek text on which the King James Version was based. But the true text reads: "This is my body which is for you." And that's how we find it in all newer versions. [As Dr. Charles Ryrie said, "Thanks to textual criticism, we have a New Testament which is 99.9% pure." Such additions have been noted.]

Kuyvenhoven continues, "However, because of that added word, a misunderstanding has crept into the tradition that surrounds the celebration of the Lord's Supper. If we love truth more than tradition, we must now make clear that breaking bread has nothing to do with a broken body. 'Breaking bread' is a term for sharing food. In Bible times, bread was not cut, nor did it come sliced and packaged, but broken and then given to guests or members of the family. "Breaking bread together" means eating together."

By far, the modern translations, over 30 of them, omit "broken" from I Corinthians 11:24. Thus by a scribal addition, a tradition was born, one which has been repeated throughout church history without the speaker's being aware that what he's reciting means that Scripture can indeed be broken. His addition of "broken" contradicts Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as John's wrap-up statement of the crucifixion that not a bone of the Lord Jesus was broken.  

The moral: tradition in word and deed must be examined to see if it has a biblical root.

THE SAD TALE OF TWO BULLIES

 Scholars of all shapes, sizes, and persuasions give adulation, accolades, and applause to the one they call the greatest theologian and thinker in church history. One author wrote that it's impossible to underestimate the importance of the man, Augustine. 

Not so fast: Augustine believed baptism was necessary for salvation. So was the Lord's Supper. He rejected the literal 6-day creation and a literal Millennial Kingdom. He jumped on Luke 14:23 and one word in the verse, the word, "compel." "Compel" is in the parable Jesus told about a king inviting people to his feast, but was not satisfied with the response, so he ordered his messengers to go all over the place and"compel"people to come. 

Augustine took "compel" to mean torture them, whip them, drown them; kill them if necessary. Not only that, but Augustine unleashed the rancid smell of "TULIP" on the world before there was "TULIP," because John Calvin said his theology came from Augustine. 

It's strange that Augustine recommended torture to force people into the kingdom, yet believed in unconditional election, so one would wonder what the purpose of torture was, since, according to unconditional election, no one has a choice in the matter of salvation anyway, tortured or not, since God decided the fate of everyone in eternity past before we all were born. 

Michael Servetus denied the Trinity. In 1552, the Spanish Inquisition took action against him, but he escaped. Later, the French Inquisition declared Servetus worthy of death but had to burn him in effigy, due to his escape. In August 1553, Servetus went to Calvin's Geneva where he was recognized and at Calvin’s request was imprisoned by the city magistrates. 

His trial lasted through October, at which time the Council of Geneva condemned him to death. Servetus was burned at the stake on October 27, 1553. The Calvinists and the Catholics both wanted him dead, but the Calvinists got to him first. Calvin agreed with the sentence of death by burning, thus staining his name down through the centuries.  

All that because of a misunderstanding of one word in the Bible and Augustine, who knew very little of Greek got it wrong. The word conveys urgency. It's alternate meaning of "urge" fits in the contest of the character of God who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son." It fits with the Bible's statement "God is not willing that any should perish . . ." 

Because of Augustine and Calvin, it's no wonder that unbelievers who know history fear  Christians who want, without biblical warrant, to go into all the world and take over governments. The church is not a nation and is never called a nation in the New Testament. 

God has not granted the church civil power, legislative power, and rightly so.