I spent all day in God's Word today. I took my children to a conference where we studied the Hebrew roots of certain words in the Bible and Hebrew meanings of certain principles. I went with a teachable spirit and I came away full to overflowing, knowing one thing for certain...
I was wrong.
I have probably never been so affected by one day's teaching of God's Word than I was today. The class was about the Hebrew mind vs. the Greek mindset, of which I thought I already had a fairly good grasp. I was shocked to learn that I still think with a Greek mindset; we all probably do. Brad Scott, of wildbranch.org methodically undermined all my beliefs today; well, not all - but close!
I should give you a little background first, before you think I am one who is easily swayed to the latest teaching or tickling of ears - I am not! For seven years of my Christian life, God had us in an Assembly of God church. I am Reformed now, but I've never had the doctrines and theology of Assembly of God, even while we attended there. Yet we knew that God wanted us there for a season (a very long one!). That is where He taught us to be Bereans, diligently studying God's Word after the sermon each Sunday and Friday, to see whether these things be true. We developed a very strong biblical foundation in those years, searching out the truths of God's Word for ourselves. I then went to a Reformed church for 5 years, but Reformed doesn't necessarily meaned "Reformed" (lots of variations here) and I discovered that the Bible didn't say what I was being taught from the pulpit once again. I was so firm in my stance on God's Word, I was willing to risk excommunication for it. So, you see, I am not one who is easily swayed by man's teaching.
There was so much that I learned today that I can't possibly share it all here, so I will just share a nugget or two with you. I've been having a conversation lately about eschatological viewpoints (what we believe about the end times). I've read a book about four different views on Revelation, studied Revelation somewhat in depth myself, and heard several different viewpoints, coming to the conclusion that I have no conclusion. I saw value and truth in each perspective, yet I needed to choose just one, didn't I?
Here is where I learned one of many differences between Greek and Hebrew thinking. Greek thinking puts everything in a box: there is only one right interpretation of Scripture; my method of systematic theology is the right one and everyone else is wrong. I have often said that God has at least two different meanings of everything in Scripture, but I still haven't gone far from the Greek mindset. Hebrew thinking uses a method called Open Block logic, which says that there are four different, yet compatible, interpretations of each verse. Now, before you think I've totally gone off my rocker this time, I will attempt to explain a very complicated pattern, very simply. I hope I can do this justice. Here are the four different interpretations:
1. Literal interpretation - what we see on the surface, the basic facts of the gospel message, what each word literally says, although I'm sure this view would take into account the fact that we need to recognize the genre of literature being used, such as poetry using similes and metaphors, for example. The Hebrew meaning of this viewpoint is "to strip off your clothes, to be out front, in the open, everything exposed." Most Christians (dispensationalists, evangelicals, fundamentals) would agree with this thinking.
2. Here we go a little deeper into the more profound, looking for clear implications. This is often used in prophecy, but can be used in other situations as well. The example was given of Ps. 34:7 "The angel of the LORD encamps all around those who fear Him, And delivers them." While this verse has extremely rich meaning, which I will go into in a later post, we can infer from this, as an example, that the angel of the Lord does NOT encamp around those who do not fear Him. (You'll understand why this is important in my next post or so about this.)
3. Search diligently (almost a desperate, panicked search) for what pertains to me.
4. The hidden things - the Hebrew here means "seed," which is buried in the ground and you must be willing to dig deep in the ground to find it. There are many truths contained in God's Word that don't translate well into English and we miss the Hebrew meaning of them, unless we are willing to dig deep into the Hebrew and find them.
These four categories mean that, as an example, the seven churches in the book of Revelation can have four different meanings:
1, The churches represent those who lived at that time.
2. The churches fit a pattern (I don't know if I got this one exactly right in my notes).
3. The churches represent the last days.
4. The churches are verses that really are written for us today.
If I am making any sense at this point, apparently this is a controversial subject, but if we interpret Scripture according to the Hebrew Open Block logic, all four would be correct interpretations. I can now go back and study eschatology all over again with a fresh perspective! (and every other verse in Scripture!)
Let me just give you one other example of what we can learn in Hebrew that we don't see in English. I know how much we all LOVE those genealogies in Scripture, so let's look at Genesis 5 at the names only of Adam to Noah. Did you know that the names tell the gospel message, when read in order? Blogger doesn't let me set up a chart (at least I don't know how), so in each line, I will write the name first and then the Hebrew meaning of each name.
Adam - Man
Seth - Is appointed
Enosh - Mortal
Cainan - Sorrow
Mahalalel - But the blessed God
Jared - Shall come down
Enoch - Teaching
Methuselah - His Death Shall Bring
Lamech - The Despairing
Noah - Rest/comfort
So, if we read them all in order, it says, "Man is appointed mortal sorrow, but the blessed God shall come down teaching; His death shall bring the despairing rest and comfort." Wow! What a geneaology!
My cup is so full, it's overflowing tonight! More later.
31 comments:
VERY interesting post. If you apply the search string correctly, you might even find a post titled "This Life is but a Dream" found at http://imawake.blogster.com/paradoxes_coming_full_circle.html
This author appears to be awake, but how many others are merely scratching the surface? Could it be we've all missed it because our focus is "greek myopic"?
I, for one, am challenged by your post.
Thank you.
Hon,
Great post. ;~}
I know we've discussed this issue numerous times (Greek v. Hebraic thought/mindset), but this "overview" of open-block logic certainly underscores our private attempt to reconcile what we've determined in said privacy: Opposition to a systemic difference does not equate to any practical antipathy between opposing viewpoints/interpreations.
Regardless of which aspect of the four-fold conclusion one may adhere, many are indebted to your search for truth.
May HE continue to bless your studies.
Your greatest admirer -- ME
Jen, What a great article. I cannot wait for more..
Now am I a nut for even asking this? The NT is written in Greek but would the fact that the Inspired authors are of a Hebrew mindset have any bearing at all on this?
CAn you possibly share the conference name with us?
Lindon, the 2 links in the 2nd paragraph are to both the specific conference and to the website, where he has everything written out, pretty much. You could spend days there.
I have to do more study on this, but one of his premises is that Paul, as was Jesus, John, and most other NT testament writers were Hebrews, therefore they spoke and wrote Hebrew. Granted, at least Paul and Jesus would have been fluent in Greek, as well as other languages, possibly, but their mother tongue was Hebrew. If they were Hebrews, and they were writing to other Hebrews, I wonder what language they would naturally have written in?
In my initial research, I have found two items of interest that point toward the NT originally being written in Hebrew. First, historical records indicate that the Romans hated the Jews so much that they burned all the Hebrew manuscripts, of which there are records of NT books written in Hebrew. They preserved the Greek translations because they didn't seem so "jewish." The second thing is that any Greek scholar will testify that the Greek NT writings, the "original" manuscripts, do not always read smoothly. Whenever we translate from one language to another, the flow of thought is somewhat disrupted and choppy. That is what we find in places in the Greek NT.
I've got lots more research to do, but if Hebrew is God's language, and I believe it is, I believe He probably would have written the whole Bible in Hebrew. And I think it's important.
Your post shows a few things.
One, your studies on the subject of Hebrew and the NT are only bearing the fruit you set out to "produce". First, how do you "know" Hebrew is Gods language, and how would one go about knowing such a thing? Second, how much Hebrew did Jesus even speak let alone how much Hebrew did Dr. Luke use in writing old "Theopholis" (not a very "Jewish" name). There is absolutely no historical proof, biblical proof or manuscript proof to support such an idea, it only can be kept alive by presupposing that God, who is not a man, is somehow tied to Hebrew (could he not have kept the whole Bible in "his" langauge if he wanted).
Second, the Gen 5 geneology does not work out quite like our friend tries to show if your teacher reads Hebrew he knows for certain he is stretching on this, but Chuck Missler and others has been trying the same "code" interpretations for years.
Finally, how Hebrew do you think the "I study the Bible and have my own conclusions and am willing to be excommunicated for my personal interpretations" type attitude is? Just curious?
"I've got lots more research to do, but if Hebrew is God's language, and I believe it is, I believe He probably would have written the whole Bible in Hebrew. And I think it's important."
Keep up with the research, including in it an examination of the presupposition that Hebrew is God's [only] language. Also please consider another point: If it is true that God protects his own revealed Word, isn't it more likely that Greek is the original language of the New Testament? If not, it would seem that that God has protected only imperfect translations of the New Testament for the past 2,000 years or so. That doesn't make sense to me.
Anonymous, may I ask that you please refrain from using the "anonymous" block here? You may make up a name, if you prefer, but it is difficult to converse with "anonymous!"
I don't "know" that Hebrew was God's language, but all evidence sure indicates that! Before the tower of Babel, what language do you think was spoken? If you have studied any history of Hebrew at all, especially in the first four chapters of Genesis, you probably wouldn't ask me that question. I don't have the space to go into it in a comment, but stop by once and while and I should add a little more here and there as I continue to study and learn.
You make a mighty strong statement when you say "There is absolutely no historical proof, biblical proof or manuscript proof to support such an idea." I think the burden of proof is on you for this one! I will post proof later; I haven't got that far in my studies yet, but I've got far enough to know that there is "proof."
Notice that I said "most" of the NT writers spoke Hebrew, leaving room for the possibility that Luke did not. Notice again that I only say possibility here.
Please do not associate me in any way, shape, or form with Chuck Missler. If something I say happens to be in agreement with something he teaches, it is a mere coincidence.
You say that my attitude is "I study the Bible and have my own conclusions and am willing to be excommunicated for my personal interpretations." I hope not. I did say that we diligently studied God's Word to see whether these things be true, and I was so firm in my stance on God's Word, I was willing to risk excommunication for it, meaning that I merely read from the whole passage of Scripture (Rom. 6-8, for example, when one verse in Rom. 7 was being offered as a proof text).
I do not claim to know everything about God's Word - not even close. But my blog is one place where I enjoy writing down what I'm currently learning. I hope that I continue to learn till the day I die! There is nothing more exciting to me than studying God's Word!
Berean, that is a great question! I'm not sure of the answer, and I don't know if I could ever give a definitive answer, but I would say that it allows us the opportunity to dig even deeper to find the gold nuggets that are buried deep within.
Thanks for the encouragement. I realize that most people have never considered these things, and when we first hear something new (even though it may really be old), it can be unnerving. Although the class I went to was intended for those who already had an interest in these things, I realize that most of my readers may not have ever considered this and I intend to present it in a non-threatening, familiar form, as opposed to using a lot of "Hebrew" vocabulary that most of just don't know. Stick with me as I learn!
Dear Jen,
I read Biblical Hebrew and believe it to be a beautiful language but the idea that God actually has a "human" langauge seems odd to me. God did choose to write the OT in Hebrew but do you think he was speaking Hebrew in heaven before man was created? Do you think Jesus was speaking Hebrew for the majority of his public ministry? In Mark 15:34, Jesus is quoted in the tongue he spoke in and it is Aramaic not Hebrew. The quote is similiar in structure to Psalm 22.1 yet the vocabulary is distinctly Aramaic.
Also, I must agree that you dont seem to be giving enough weight to "providence". If he does control every hair on our head, surely he could have and would have preserved the whole Bible in Hebrew if that is what he willed, but we have thousands of Greek manuscripts and miniscules (which makes sense since Greek was the linqua franca and the Gospel of the NT is for the world).
Hebrew and Heaven Hour, what an interesting name! No, I don't think God speaks Hebrew in heaven, although I won't say that He doesn't either! I do believe that it is the language spoken before the tower of Babel, though, and that God chose to use that language to communicate for at least 4000 years, and possibly 6000. Did Jesus speak Hebrew? I fully believe He did. Did He speak Greek? Aramaic? Yes, and possibly others.
I haven't studied any specific passages in the 3 different languages in the NT yet, but give me time. From my studies so far, though, there does seem to be some discrepancies in the "flow" of the language we currently have the "original" Scriptures in. (Those originals are long gone; we have copies of copies, etc.)
As far as Mark 15:34 goes, I would guess (and this is just a guess here) that Jesus was speaking in the language of the crowd because, although He was speaking to His Father, this was an extremely important cry of anguish that needed to be understood by all those around Him. As far as it being "similar" in structure to Psalm 22, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Spanish might be "similar" in structure to German, but no one would ever confuse them with being the same language. Of course, the opposite could be true as well, that what Jesus said on the cross was similar in structure to the Hebrew of Psalm 22, therefore Jesus probably spoke Hebrew, it was translated into Aramaic, which was translated into Greek, which was translated into English! Too crazy!
As far as Providence goes, I will give God room to do anything He pleases, and if I am totally wet on this whole thing, I'll back off and admit it!
But Jen, that is the point it wasnt translated into Greek this one time in the NT, instead it was left in Aramaic. Why would Mark go through the trouble of leaving it untranslated if in fact it was spoken in Hebrew? Why would he translate it into Aramaic but not Greek this one time? Because, and this seems all to clear, Jesus spoke it in Aramaic.
I am not disputing the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, as well as Greek and Hebrew. I'm sure He did.
I don't see what that has to do with what language the book was written in, though. If I write a book in English, and quote someone in Spanish, since I live in a city where much Spanish is spoken, I will write in English, quote in Spanish, and give the translation in English. If my book is then translated into Korean, then the book is in Korean, the original statement is in Spanish, and the interpreted interpretation is in the language of the book, Korean.
I don't see a problem with this.
Just some food for thought.
The Hebrew language was virtually dead (in spoken form) until 1880's when it was revived by ...Oh... I cannot think of his name now was it Hertzl?
Then it was used in instruction in Jewish schools in Palestine starting around 1913. Just in time for the new Israel state to take up as it's official language.
I for one, do not think that is a coincidence. Not sure if it applies here but it is intereting.
How many dead languages have been revived like that?
Lin, you mean that God revived a dead language for His time and His purpose because in His Providence, He chose this language, just as He chooses whatsoever and whosoever He pleases? That's a great story!
Jen wrote: "you mean that God revived a dead language for His time and His purpose because in His Providence, He chose this language, just as He chooses whatsoever and whosoever He pleases?"
That is exactly what I believe has happened. And why I keep listening for the trumpet sounds! :o)
I would definitely pick up the book "Exegetical Fallacies" by D. A. Carson. It will be a helpful introduction to the various kinds of fallacious argumentation that goes around. I don't mean to be overly critical, but finding a coded gospel via selective use of the names in Genesis is, at best, bizarre, and at worst, fallacious. If the coded names came up with something that you didn't already believe, would you overturn the plain reading of the scriptures in its favor? And so you have Genesis 3:15 - the proto-gospel, and that's enough. There are many ways to "decode" codes, and when you have a piece of literature as complicated as the scriptures, there are a lot of ways, statistically, to connect the dots and, in essence, "create" meaning. Anyway, the conference has every telltale sign of being a fad (like all of the 'Christian' passover seders that have been going around), and I would just urge caution.
Actually, Barlow, I thought that was just another confirmation of what I already KNOW Scripture teaches. Hidden codes should only verify Scripture; if they don't, I would turn my back on that teaching in an instant.
I fully believe that since the Scriptures are not only written from a "Jewish" perspective, but by Jews, about Jews, and originally for the Jews, if we don't study them from a Jewish perspective, we will lose much of the richness of the God's Word.
As far as Passover goes, come around here again next spring, and I will go into great detail as to why all Christians should celebrate Passover - not as being under the Law - but to be able to understand Christ's death.
Until then!
"I've got lots more research to do, but if Hebrew is God's language, and I believe it is, I believe He probably would have written the whole Bible in Hebrew. And I think it's important."
Wow! It's just too bad that your god isn't in control more than what he is...just think he could have had the whole Bible in the Hebrew language instead of Greek! Those pesky little Romans always have to ruin what your god wants to accomplish...see how crazy your thinking is?
I believe I once heard John MacArthur condemn those who were "decoding" the Bible. Saying they were foolish to believe that God has hidden His word from us like Easter eggs and sits up in heaven saying, "Now try to find what it is that I am commanding you to learn!" You’re walking on Gnostic ground. Revelation 22:18-19
“18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
My god is stronger that that - I see you've been posting here under all different names!
I said nothing about the Romans being able to overthrow God's plan for what language the Bible is written in. If it was originally written in Hebrew, or Chinese, for that matter, and it is now preserved in Greek, then that is all part of the God's plan. I would say that for those of us who are willing to study it in depth, that is just another layer to dig into!
I'll write a little more later about the vast difference between a Hebrew mindset and Greek. Feel free to disagree, but do it in love!
I don't think God has hidden His Word from us "like an Easter egg" (wow, that is analogy that doesn't settle too well with me!), but that He has LAYERED His Word so that each subsequent layer adds more richness and fullness and depth to the previously uncovered layers. This is really nothing more than plan old word study. Look it up in Strong's and use a good Hebrew/Greek dictionary, and you will get the same answers. There is nothing mystical or magical about it at all. There is nothing added, nothing taken away. If your dictionary definitions don't increase your understanding of the right interpretation of the passage, you're probably looking at the wrong word!
There's a good section in Carson's book about the alleged Hebrew vs. Greek mindset. Anyway, just trying to help; these codes are a huge distraction. I read Thorleif Boman's book in college and got all excited about this perspective, but then I read around - in Carson, and in the late Hebrew scholar James Barr, and it became clear that I was barking up a weird tree.
As for whether it is "Jewish" to look for codes - it really isn't. There is a sect of mystical judaism that looks for codes and believes in past lives, etc. But if you're willing to claim that first century Jews, or Isaiah, or Moses, for that matter, believed that reading the bible in any way other than in terms of its plain semantic sense, then I would like to see that evidence. What is the evidence?
As for my first argument, your response is circular. You're saying you accept the existence of intentional codes because they say what you expected to hear. And yet saying what you expected to hear doesn't prove that the codes are there intentionally. If I know it is around noon and I look over at my broken clock (stuck at noon) and see the time I was expecting, it doesn't mean that I've found a valid time keeping method. It is just that statistically, there are 2 times a day when I could look at the clock and draw the wrong conclusion. As a believer, you first need to have some reason to believe that reading the scriptures this way was an intended thing. And where is the evidence for that? The evidence cannot be drawn from the alleged meaning you've decoded, as we've seen.
As for the seder, sure go ahead and slay a lamb and practice a seder supper, but what I'm talking about are these guys who travel from church to church and convince Christians via an elaborate ritual with pamphlets and diagrams that we have a concrete idea about all these details in the seder supper that align with Christian teaching. Dig into it and tell me the date of the documents you're using to find out how to practice the seder supper. I'd be surprised if you could get back earlier than 500 or 600 a.d. And so assuming that we know how Jesus ate the seder supper seems a bit farfetched from those rabbinic sources.
Barlow, I think we have a basic misunderstanding here. I am NOT looking for mystical codes or HIDDEN meanings at all. This is plain word study. Look up each name I listed here in the Hebrew and see what it means. For those who already spoke Hebrew, this would have been the plain, clear sense of the reading. Hebrew names always meant something clear, and that clear meaning was before them every time a name was used.
The Hebrews would have taken Scripture at its face value because they understood Hebrew, which is just my point! I don't speak Hebrew, so if I want to understand the original context BETTER, then I have the opportunity to go to the dictionary and look it up. In fact, I regularly use an every day dictionary when I'm writing this blog; that does not make it mystical at all.
Please don't try to persuade me with teachings by MEN. They will not sway me at all. If you can show me something in the Scripture that I need to change, I will listen, but I don't give a hoot for what some man says. You will find a commentary for every side of every issue. So what?
As far as Passover goes, come back in the spring! I don't have the time to go in depth into it now.
Okay Jen,
You say if you can be convinced by Scripture you are wrong you will drop the notion of the NT being written in Hebrew oringinally.
Here you go.
In Johnn 5.2 John tells us that "in Hebrew" the pool is called Bethesda.
In John 19.2 he tells us the place is called the pavement but "in Hebrew it is called Gabbatha".
You have two choices
1. The refrences to "in Hebrew" are not in the original NT (since it was written in Hebrew this of course would be a serious redundancy and absurdity). And therefore the NT we have is not only not in the original lanaguage (Hebrew) but it is not even accurate text (since it adds things to the Greek text like, 'in the Hebrew it means'.)
2. Realize that the thesis about the NT being originally in Hebrew is not well supported and move on to a more profitable study.
Being a berean and all, I think you should choose #2
I know you don't like learning from men first, but since there is no verse to support the type of Bible studying you are putting forth in "Rejecting a Greek Mindset", I would encourage you to read this article that I have provided in this link all the way through. Really, I say this with Christian love and it will do you no harm...I promise :o)!
H&HH, here is what I found regarding why certain passages in the NT say, "in Hebrew XXX is called..."
The names of many of the places described were changed to Aramaic and Greek names. In the written Hebrew there is the comment that in the Hebrew tongue this would be Beth Chesed. But you are reading a Greek translation from the Aramaic. The writer mentions that it is Beth Chesed in the Hebrew, but the text we are reading has it back in the Greek Bethesda, from the Aramaic Beth hesda. It is slightly different in the Greek and Aramaic, which most people are indeed SPEAKING. So the writer reminds them of what it is in the Hebrew. These places had become known through other languages.
I hope that helps.
I would like to reply to a comment by anonymous: "let alone how much Hebrew did Dr. Luke use in writing old "Theopholis" (not a very "Jewish" name). " [sic. the name is spelled Theophilus] Those who are fluent in both Hebrew and Greek (NT Greek I'm referring to here) are aware that Luke wrote first in Hebrew, and then translated his work into Greek. Let me say that I am not one of them, but I am aware of the scholarship. I know that Luke is usually considered a Gentile, on the basis of one reference to him by Paul, where he refers to him separately from the other Hebrew people. And apart from the above I do not know (yet) what the arguments are for his being either Jewish or Gentile. I personally believe he was Jewish - either by birth or a proselyte. How else to explain his evident fluency with Hebrew?
And by the way - his having written originally in Hebrew is a very strong argument for his having written his gospel first. You can tell where Matthew and Mark borrowed from him, for those sections translate perfectly back into Hebrew, the same as his gospel and Acts do! The other parts do not translate back easily.
I think this could be taken further re: whether the NT was originally written in Hebrew or not. Check with those scholars who are fluent in both languages and are translating the New Testament into Hebrew. If the whole New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, it will translate back very easily. To the best of my knowledge, only Luke/Acts and parts of Matthew and Mark borrowed from Luke qualify.
I confess I chuckle to read in word studies and exegetical commentaries about the frequent "hebraisms" in Luke. Surprise, surprise!
You really need to be careful about this Hebrew vs Greek mindset. Hebrew culture is not inspired. The Hebrew language is not inspired. The Greek language is not inspired. The Scriptures are inspired and the Holy Spirit did so in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Israel and most especially the utlimate King of Israel, Jesus Christ were called to be a light to the nations. They were not called to Hebraize the nations but to evangelize them.
My goodness. I'm afraid some people appear to be living in a fantasy world. NT originally written in Hebrew? Jen, did you say the burden of proof is on those who say it was originally written in Greek? Someone else suggested that those fluent in Greek and Hebrew will recognize that it was originally written in Hebrew. Sorry, this is utter balderdash!!!!!! I don't think anyone today is "fluent" in Koine Greek or first century Hebrew (or Aramaic even). As one who reads both of them, the suggestion that Luke of all people originally wrote in Hebrew is ludicrous.
Let's not talk about "proof." Does anyone have any evidence at all for these outlandish claims.
Forgive my somewhat extreme tone, but I really cannot imagine where some of this stuff is coming from.
Tayta wrote:
"Those who are fluent in both Hebrew and Greek (NT Greek I'm referring to here) are aware that Luke wrote first in Hebrew, and then translated his work into Greek."
This is a sad over generatlization. First, every "fluent" Greek scholar I have met or read is confident that since Luke's Greek is the cleanest that not only was this text written in Greek it was written by a well educated Greek. Second, if so many scholars support your opinion please tell us one. (here are mine, Daniel Wallace, SM Baugh, DA Carson, Machen, Charles Hill etc., etc., etc.,...these are the ones that are at arms length from my desk. Lukes Greek is well written in the Hellenistic style with the Hebraisms being found mainly in chapter 2 of the book...and not strongly seen afterward. Third, what scholars place Luke as the first Gospel? Almost all agree that Mark was first and I dont have time to go into the reasons but again, this claim about Luke is untrue...if you disagree please verify. Fourth, after Paul lists the "only" Jews who were with them (Col 4.11) he lists Luke as one of the "other" non-Jews.
Seriously, this post needs some reevaluation on many levels.
I stumbled onto your post looking for a book on Google and I believe the Holy Spirit lead me here..... just to remind you to WALK BY FAITH and believe in the ALL KNOWING GOD.
I am so blessed that you are studying the Bible and allowing God to lead you. I am even more blessed to know that you are willing to accept what He reveals as Truth no matter what the cost!
I have only One teacher: The Holy Spirit, and because I follow His direction alone, I have been ex-communicated once(which is scriptural), but I have also been rewarded to experience God at work. Though my obedience, and resisting reality and obeying Him rather that man, law, rules or church, He has set drug addicts free from addiction without having to go through withdrawals. My child was born without birth pains and the list just goes on and on... goto www.Gig.BigBIG.com and www.youtube.com/gighalfwayhouse for testimonies.
What I would like to say is that everything God says is a truth in every dimension... the natural, the supernatural, the emotional etc. Also it's timeless... it was so historically, it is for the now and it's for the future. The more you are willing to allow God to be God, the more you will experience Him.
For all those with nasty comments... we are here to build and encourage one another. We are not here to break down, tear apart or cause division... the Spirit of God does not operate in this manner and the Spirit is definitely not ashamed of revealing Himself and He doesn't have to operate in secret.
Those who are blind cannot see and will not be able to fathom. You need the guidance of the Spirit to read the Book of Life. Without being born again it's impossible! You also need to deny self and to die to self and your perceptions.
Lastly, unless the Holy Spirit leads you to investigate the language issue any further, don't. The NT had to be written in a new language as the Gospel was for Jew and Gentile. God is not a God of law and He is not bound by anything; He used what would be understood and easily read by all. It only makes sense that He would use the language most commonly read, understood and easily translated. I KNOW if you go and study all aspects as if you were in advertising, you would find that it was all done perfectly.
Who does man think he is that he even thinks that he could obstruct or confuse the purpose of DEITY?
Rest in God and know that He is sovereign, but that man too is sovereign. A simple example of this you can find in the book of Esther: The king was sovereign, but he gave his ring to Haman which wrote a decree as if king Xerxes had written it. This decree could not be changed, but God intervened and Haman was hung on the gallows he built for Mordecai. Afterwards God intervened so that Mordecai had charge of the ring, He gave Mordecai the wisdom to write a new decree that protected the Jews from the 1st.
Trust in God... He is in control! Just be sure to be like Mordecai and not to be like Haman as you are sovereign over your own life.
Mother of faith
Post a Comment