Wednesday, April 17, 2013

History

Religion and the Church at Pergamum

Revelation 2:12-17

©1999 by James A. Fowler. All rights reserved.

You are free to download this article provided it remains intact without alteration. You are also free to transmit this article and quote this article provided that proper citation of authorship is included.
 Home
 Revelation series


   Pergamum was the capital city of the Roman province of Asia. This political connection was an incentive for the citizens of Pergamum to remain loyal to Rome. Emperor worship was part of this loyalty, and a large temple dedicated to emperor Augustus was located in Pergamum.
   The city itself was built on a rocky hill approximately one thousand feet tall in the Caicus valley. The name of the city, Pergamum, is derived from the Greek word purgos meaning "tower." Pergamum sat like a citadel towering above the valley. On the top of the thousand foot tall acropolis was the temple of Zeus, the highest of the Greek gods. Archaeological remains of the temple of Zeus in Pergamum can be viewed in the Berlin Museum today.
   The temple of Aesculapius, the Greek god of healing, was also located in Pergamum. People came from all around to seek healing at this temple, crying "Aesculapius soter," i.e. "Aesculapius is our savior." This site became the "Lourdes" of ancient Asia. The idolatrous insignia of this temple was an emblem of a serpent entwined around a staff, which medical physicians still use to this day.
   Pergamum was also the intellectual center of Asia. Its library was second in size and renown only to that of Alexandria in Egypt. A dispute between the two libraries led to Egypt's imposing an embargo on all papyrus, the reed sheets which were developed and manufactured in Egypt and used for writing scrolls, preventing them from being sent to Asia. The library at Pergamum had to develop a new writing material made of animal skins, which was called the "Pergamene sheet," or as it is better known, "parchment," which became the medium of choice for written documents for many centuries thereafter.
   The church in Pergamum was probably established through outreach endeavors from Ephesus, as most of the churches in the region were. Luke reports that while Paul ministered in Ephesus, "all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks" (Acts 19:10).
   Jesus identifies Himself to the Christians in Pergamum as "the One who has the sharp two-edged sword" (2:13). In thus identifying Himself, Jesus is exclaiming that He, as the risen Lord Jesus, has an effective power that is above any other, certainly more powerful than earthly government authorities like those of Rome. Jesus, is the "Word of God, living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing...and able to judge the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).
   Those within religion often assume their own power, and fail to recognize the effectiveness of God's power and God's judgment. They fail to realize the divine ability to distinguish what is of God and what is not, and to effectively judge that which is derived from diabolic source.
   "I know...," Jesus observes, "where you dwell, where Satan's throne is..." (2:13). The satanic activity of religion was indeed entrenched in Pergamum. Emperor worship was practiced at the temple of Augustus Caesar. The highest of the Greek gods, Zeus, was worshipped at the temple on top of the mound. The serpent himself was the emblem worshipped at the temple of Aesculapius. Later in the Revelation, Jesus will refer to "the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world" (12:9; 20:2), identifying him with the satanic serpent in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1-5). In some sense, Pergamum was particularly the "throne of Satan," Hell's Headquarters, the Devil's Den.
   Religion incorporates the highest level of diabolic reign and activity. Within religion the devil's ways are enthroned and falsely identified as God's methods. In religion Satan parodies God and brings people so close, and yet so far, from what God wants in their lives. Satan does indeed "dwell" in religious people, "working in the sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2).
   In continuing His observations, Jesus commends the Pergamene Christians by saying, "You hold fast My name, and did not deny My faith..." (2:13). Having confessed Christ, received Christ, and been identified as "Christ-ones," Christians, these Pergamene believers had held fast even in the midst of persecution. They had apparently fulfilled Peter's admonition, "if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God" (I Peter 4:16). They had not denied their faith in Jesus Christ, and they had done so "even in the days of Antipas, My witness, My faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells" (2:13). We know no other details about this person named Antipas, who was probably one of the Christian believers from the church in Pergamum, and was apparently martyred for his faithful witness to Jesus Christ, at the instigation of Satan and his religious henchmen there in Pergamum.
   Jesus had observed their situation and their faithfulness, but then comes that looming transitional "but..." "But I have a few things against you," He charges, "because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit immorality" (2:14). Apparently the church in Pergamum was tolerating some religionists, who like Balaam of the old covenant, were a scandal to God's righteous action. The record of Balaam's pronouncements to Balak is found in Numbers 22-24. Balaam tried to have it both ways at once, to play both sides against the middle. His was the way of pragmatic expedience and appeasement to do whatever worked to save his own skin. The "error of Balaam" (Jude 11) led to the "wages of unrighteousness" (II Peter 2:15) because "the counsel of Balaam" caused the Israelites "to trespass against the Lord" (Numbers 31:16). Balaam's accommodation caused the people "to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab" and to "bow down to their gods" (Numbers 25:1,2). Adultery and idolatry were the result, as Jesus intimates.
   The religionizing tendencies of Balaam were present in Pergamum. Religion survives on pragmatic expedience, compromise, accommodation and appeasement. The "end justifies the means" in religious practice, so whatever corrupt beguilement, deceit or treachery that might be deemed necessary to the end desired is employed. They will not stand up for God's way alone in accord with God's character, but religion capitulates to the prevailing powers that be, with an attitude of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Such is not the way of God, who never compromises His character.
   When religion engages in such permissive appeasement with the world and its ways, activated by "the god of this world" (II Cor. 4:4), the resultant perversion of the populace is predictable. They revert to their naturalistic tendencies of idolatry and immorality. Religion perpetuates and promotes idolatry. Noting the idolatry of the Athenians, Paul cited them for being very "religious" (Acts 17:22), or more literally, having "great respect for demons." Writing to the Corinthians, Paul also explained that "sacrifice to idols..." was "sacrifice to demons" (I Cor. 10:19-21). Religion inevitably pursues idolatrous false-gods, rather than submission to the One true and living God in Jesus Christ. Religion also permits immorality and adultery by failing to measure all things by the faithful character of God, and the expression thereof by the Spirit of Christ.
   Jesus continues His charge against the Pergamum church by charging, "You also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans" (2:15). This type of religious perversion was previously mentioned in the letter to the Ephesians (2:6). The label "Nicolaitans" is etymologically derived from the Greek words nike, meaning "to conquer" or "to be victorious," and laos, meaning "people." Nicolaitan religion "conquers the people." It is but another variation of Balaamite religion, for the name Balaam is derived from two Hebrew words, bala, meaning "to devour" or "to consume," and am, meaning "people." Religion devours and consumes the people. It uses and abuses them. It "eats them alive," swallowing up all that they have in order to appease its insatiable appetite for personal enrichment and institutional advancement. Religion does not seek the highest good of men, but it is men seeking their own personal benefit.
   In consequence of the charges against the church at Pergamum, Jesus commands them to "Repent therefore, or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth" (2:16). Repentance is what any church needs when it has tolerated religion. A change of mind about who is capable, and a change of action that is available to God's ability to enact all things in accord with His character.
   There is an "or else" ultimatum that Jesus makes to the Pergamene Christians. If repentance is not forthcoming, Jesus indicates that He will "come quickly, and make war against them," apparently meaning "against the Balaamite and Nicolaitan religionists." His "coming quickly" does not seem to refer to the second physical advent of Jesus Christ to earth, but rather to His providential action in judgment whereby He will "make war" exercising His divine power and authority against all satanic activities in government, religion or elsewhere.
   It is important to note that it is Jesus who "makes war." Religion often engages in the activism of what they like to call "spiritual warfare," but it is merely humanly activated assault against demons, against government policies, or against social causes such as immorality, pornography, abortion, etc. Such religious activity is usually totally ineffective, if not counter-productive, because they are trying to achieve what only divine power can accomplish. It is Jesus who "makes war" because He personifies the "sword" of divine power. Christians are to "stand firm" in their faith in Jesus Christ, rather than fighting ineffectively in activistic wars and crusades "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," and accomplishing nothing.
   Christians of every age must be spiritually discerning to "hear what the Spirit says to the churches" (2:17). We do not want to be deceived into employing Satan's tactics and techniques which he so subtly introduces into religious activity. Rather, we want to "overcome" all tendencies to religious activity.
   The promise that Jesus makes to the Christians of Pergamum who will faithfully derive all from Him, is two-fold. "I will give of the hidden manna." "I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it" (2:17).
   God was faithful to provide physical sustenance to the Israelite people in the wilderness. "It was like coriander seed, white; and its taste was like wafers with honey" (Exod. 16:31), and they "ate the manna for forty years" (Exod. 16:35). The physical manna was but a pictorial representation of the spiritual sustenance that Christians have in Jesus Christ. Jesus explained the significance of the manna and related it to Himself when He said, "I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if any man eats of this bread, he shall live forever" (John 6:31-35; 48-51). Our spiritually sustaining nourishment for living as Christians is to be found in Jesus Christ alone. Religion often offers a substitute diet whereby people can get "fed" on a particular creedal doctrines and supposedly orthodox expositions of Scripture. Christians must never settle for anything less than the sustaining of the "hidden manna," the "bread of life," the dynamic provision of the life of Jesus Christ by His Spirit. The fulfillment of this promise of spiritual nourishment and sustenance is experienced only by those who partake only of Jesus Christ.
   What is the white stone with a new name written on it, which Jesus promises? Whereas religion extends "stones instead of sustenance" (Matt. 7:9), and they always attempt to "make a name for themselves," Jesus promises faithful Christians godly character bearing the name of Christ. The prophet said we would "be called by a new name" (Isa. 62:2; 65:15). Indeed we are! We are called Christ-ones, Christians, and no one understands what that means unless they have received the life of Jesus Christ into their spirit. A Christian is not an individual who has "got religion," or "joined a church" or repeated a creed. Rather, a Christian is a person who has received the Spirit of Christ into their spirit (Rom. 8:9), and then lives by that indwelling Christ-life, manifesting the character of God in their behavior to the glory of God. That is what Jesus wanted to see in the Christians of Pergamum and in Christians of every location in every age.

FAITH IS...

 
 An extended excerpt from the book, Living Faith, by
Jacques Ellul

This synopsized excerpt is from copyrighted material which has been duly cited,
and we recommend that you purchase this book to read it in its entirety.
Note bibliographical information at end of article.

 Articles, Excerpts & Quotes
 
 
 
BELIEF AND FAITHBy: Jacques Ellul

Out of the single verb "to believe" come noun forms for two radically antithetical actions: belief and faith. However, when I wish to use a verb form to give expression to my faith, I still have to use "to believe," unless I happen to use an even worse formula, "to have faith."
Belief provides answers to people's questions while faith never does. People believe so as to find assurance, a solution, an answer to their questions to fashion for themselves a system of beliefs. Faith (biblical faith) is completely different. The purpose of revelation is not to supply us with explanations, but to get us to listen to questions.
Faith is, as Barth so often reminds us, in the first instance, hearing. Belief talks and talks, it wallows in words, it interpolates the gods, it takes the initiative. Faith isolates; belief (Christian or otherwise) brings together. We find Faith takes an entirely opposite stance: it waits, remains on guard, picks up signs, knows what to make of the most delicate parables; it listens patiently to the silence until that silence is filled up with what it takes to be the indisputable word of God.ourselves joined with others in the same institutional current, all of us oriented toward the same object of belief, sharing the same ideas, following the same rituals, enrolled in the same organization, be it social or religious, speaking the same language. Belief is quite useful for the smooth functioning of society. Belief is the key to the consensus we look for, the one long proclaimed essential of communal life. Faith works in exactly the opposite way. Faith individualizes; it is always an exclusively personal matter. Faith is the personal relationship with a God who reveals Himself as a person. This God singularizes people, sets them apart, and confers on each an identity comparable to none other. The person who listens to His word is the only one to hear it; he or she is separated from the others, becomes unique, simply because the tie that binds that individual to God is unique, unlike any other, incommunicable, a unique relationship with a unique, absolutely incomparable God. God particularizes, singularizes the person to whom He says, "I call you by your name" (Isa. 45:4). Faith separates people and makes each of them unique. In the Bible "holy" means "separated". To be holy is to be separated from everyone else, to be made unique for the sake of a task that can be accomplished by no one else, which one receives through faith.
Faith presupposes doubt while belief excludes it. The opposite of doubt isn't faith, but belief. The "knights" of belief comply unfailingly with the law and the commandments. They are unbending in their convictions, intolerant of any deviation. In the articulation of belief they press rigor and absolutism to their limits. They unceasingly refine the expression of their belief and seek to give it explicit intellectual formulation in a system as coherent and complete as possible. They insist on total orthodoxy. Ways of thinking and acting are rigidly codified. This leads to a very high level of efficiency; the believer is a person who gets the job done, but all this activity is hollow at the core. Believers have so little internal reality of their own that they can live and express that reality only by and in a conventional established unit. They are the people of gatherings. Believers find encouragement and certitude in the presence of others ­ the certitude that those others really believe ­ and so community life fills up the existential void. Multiplying the number of liturgies, commitments, and activities gives believers complete satisfaction ­ in the midst of them they have no need of questioning the truth or reality of their belief; activity keeps them busy. But in this situation you can imagine how intolerable the diversity of beliefs becomes. There must be neither doubt nor uncertainty, for that would be radically destructive. So diversity cannot be tolerated. Diversity is always a source of further questions, of self-criticism, and thus of possible doubt ­ so belief is rapidly transformed into passwords, rites, and orthodoxy.
Faith is summarized in the words, "I believe; help my unbelief" (Mark 9:24). Faith constrains me above all to measure how much I don't live by faith; how seldom faith fills up my life. Faith puts to the test every element of my life and society; it spares nothing. It leads me ineluctably to question all my certitudes, all my moralities, beliefs, and policies. It forbids me to attach ultimate significance to any expression of human activity. It detaches and delivers me from money and the family, from my job and my knowledge. It is the surest road to realizing that "the only thing I know is that I don't know anything." Faith leaves nothing intact. The only thing faith can bring me to recognize is my impotence, in incapacity, my inadequacy, my incompleteness, and consequently my incredulity (naturally faith is the most unerring and lethal weapon against all beliefs).
Belief is reassuring. People who live in the world of belief feel safe. On the contrary, faith is forever placing us on the razor's edge. Though it knows that God is the Father, it never minimizes His power. "Who then is this, that even wind and the sea obey Him?" (Mark 4:41). That is faith's question. For belief things are simple: God is almighty. We normalize God. We get comfortable with God's power. It is faith alone that can appreciate the immensity of God, and His true nature.
The doubt that constitutes an integral part of faith concerns myself, not God's revelation or His love or the presence of Jesus Christ. It is doubt about the effectiveness, even the legitimacy, of what I do and the forces I obey in my church and in society. Furthermore, faith puts itself to the test. If I discern the stirrings of faith within me, the first rule is not to deceive myself, not to abandon myself to belief indiscriminately. I have to subject my beliefs to rigorous criticism. I have to listen to all denials and attacks on them, so that I can know how solid the object of my faith is. Faith will not stand for half-truths and half-certainties. It obliges me to face the fact that I am nothing, and in so doing I receive the gift of everything.
Belief relates to things, to realities, to behaviors that are raised to the status of an ultimate value that it worthy dying for. Belief transforms next-to-last human realities into ultimate, absolute, foundational realities. It turns everything that belongs to the order of the Promise, of God Word, of the Kingdom into epiphenomena, into sweet pious words, ways of making life easier, and a process of self-justification. Faith runs totally counter to this. To begin with, faith acknowledges the Ultimate in all its irrefragable truth, and so it depreciates and attaches little importance to whatever offers itself as a substitute for that Ultimate. It is not a matter of looking to some external ultimate reality; the Kingdom of heaven is (at present) in you or among you. As of now it is you who constitute it. Faith is the demand that we must incarnate the Kingdom of God now in this world and this age.
One never moves from belief to faith, whereas faith often deteriorates into belief. You can't get to faith by way of any old religion, or belief, or some vague spiritual exaltation, or aesthetic emotions. It is not "better" from a Christian viewpoint to "believe" than not to believe, to "have religion" than not to have it. There is no road from belief to faith. You can't transform a conviction of the value of rites into the act of standing alone in the presence of God. The reverse is true: every belief is an obstacle to faith. Beliefs get in the way because they satisfy the need for religion, because they lead to spiritual choices that are substitutes for faith; they prevent us from discovering, listening to, and accepting the faith revealed in Jesus Christ.
Kierkegaard argues that it is more difficult for people brought up on all the lore of Christmas, for those who have had all their little religious needs met by the church, to receive the shock of revelation, to discover the Unique One, and to enter into the dark night of the soul, than it is for those who have done nothing but search continuously without ever coming upon a satisfying answer. Belonging to Christendom and to one of its churches is the main obstacle to becoming a Christian. There is no path leading from a little bit of religion (of whatever kind) to a little more and finally to faith. Faith shatters all religion and everything spiritual. On the other hand, the passage from faith to belief is always possible and always a threat. It is the downhill slide to which the church and the Christian life are always subject. Faith is constantly degenerating into multiple beliefs. No phrase expresses this imperceptible change better than "to have faith." When we take possession of faith and claim to be the proprietor of faith, we naturally think we can dispose of it as we wish. The only thing we are really entitled to say is that "Faith has me." The rest is mere belief.
Faith is neither belief nor credulity, neither a reasonable acquisition or an intellectual achievement; it is rather the conjunction of an ultimate decision and a revelation, and bids me bring about the incarnation of the ultimate reality today, the Kingdom of God present among us. I am summoned by a Word that is eternal, here and now, universal, personal. I accept this summons. I am willing to act responsible; I enter upon an illogical adventure, knowing neither its origin nor its end. Such is faith.
Apologetics tries to prove that Christianity is true, that it is superior to other religions (which of course leaves us arguing on the religious level), and that it answers all human questions. We can show that Christianity makes a reasonable case, but these debates among intellectuals are utterly sterile: nobody ever succeeds in persuading anyone else. No apologetics have ever brought any unbelievers to faith, even when they could see that they had been beaten by their adversary's rhetoric. There is no intellectual road to the attitude (and more than the attitude ­ the life) of faith. The logical, intellectualist approach winds up in a ditch. The intellect does not call forth or show the way to faith.
Belief is a refuge and flight from reality. It is seized upon as protection, as a guarantee or insurance policy. Faith is taking risks, leaving behind safety and security, scorning guarantees, stepping out of the boat onto the Sea of Galilee. If we live by faith there is no need to plead with Him to save us from danger. It is enough to know that since He is there, even if the danger should prove mortal, whatever God's love wishes is being done and will be done in us, no matter what.
Why believe? (Using "believe" for participating in faith.) We have no answer for it. Believe for what? With an eye to what? To achieve what? To get what? We believe for nothing. There is no objective reason for faith; you have to live it. Faith has no origin or objective. The moment it admits of any objective, it ceases to be faith. If you believe in God in order to be protected, shielded, healed, or saved, then it's not faith, which is gratuitous. This will prove shocking, especially to Protestants, who have talked so much about salvation through faith, about faith as the condition of salvation, that they end up saying you believe so that you'll be saved. But we have to keep coming back to grace and its gratuitousness. If God loves and saves humankind without asking any price, the counterpart to this is that God intends to be believed and loved without self-interest or purpose, simply for nothing. It is scandalous, and yet so easy to understand when you think of love. The moment that a man and a woman love one another for something, whether it be for money or prestige or beauty or job, it is no longer love. Love is without cause and selfish interests; love is without reason.
Faith is constant interplay; it never stagnates or settles down. One cannot incarnate faith in some static, definitive fashion. Faith is the perennially new critical point. Faith therefore implies the continual presence of temptation and an ever clearer vision of reality; it implies criticism of Christian religion, of civilizing missions, of Christian moral codes imposed from the outside, of a Christian truth that excludes claims to it from any other area of human culture. Faith is the point of rupture (not with our fellow human beings) but with religions. Faith must proceed to criticize, to judge, and radically to reject all human religious claims. We have to be careful here; it is not people who are being judged or criticized here; it is their will to power and the expression of that in religion. But faith's critique of religion can be rooted only in its critique of itself.
Faith leads me to take part in everything, while at the same time it shows me everything in a light that is not that of reason, experience, or common sense. This is not a intellectual operation, but an existential attitude. Faith brings about the "new person" manifested in love and lucidity.
The faith of Christians in the church today has gone astray. Their obsession with the contents of faith (theologians quarreling over technical terms) instead of with the movement and life of faith is what has triggered our worldwide crisis. But the unchangeable remains unchangeable. The Ultimate One, the Unconditioned, the Wholly Other has not changed. Faith is our responsibility to see to it that the Transcendent, the Unconditioned, the Totally Other Being, becomes an active reality here and now. Faith moves mountains only when it speaks to the omnipotent Creator, and when it also accepts its role of hearing the word of faith.
From: The Living Faith: Belief and Doubt in a Perilous World. San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers. 1983. This synopsis is taken primarily from the chapters entitled "Traditional Misunderstandings," "Believing for What?", and "Critical Faith." It is recommended that the reader acquire and read the entire book.

Wisdom

Religion and the Church at Sardis

Revelation 3:1-6

©1999 by James A. Fowler. All rights reserved.

You are free to download this article provided it remains intact without alteration. You are also free to transmit this article and quote this article provided that proper citation of authorship is included.
 Home
 Revelation series


   Five centuries before Christ Sardis had reigned as one of the greatest cities in the world at that time. By the end of the first century when Jesus addressed the Christian community at Sardis, the residents of the city were living with a pride of their past history and glory. They were arrogant, wealthy and immoral.
   Sardis was located about 50 miles east of Smyrna in the valley formed by the Pactolus River. Five roads converged in a junction in this valley. A jagged rock outcropping with steep cliffs on three sides rose about 1500 feet above the valley on the edge of Mt. Tmolus/Boz. This became the acropolis of the city of Sardis. The site was nearly impregnable and inaccessible. So the Sardisians thought, but twice in their history their city had been captured because of their over-confidence when they had allowed enemies to infiltrate. This happened in 549 B.C. when the Medes overcame the city, and in 218 B.C. when the Cretans conquered them.
   Toward the end of the first century Sardis still remained a wealthy city. Gold had been discovered in the river valley, and Sardis may have been the first city to ever have used gold coinage. Wealth often leads to the pretense of self-sufficiency, and such seems to have been the case in Sardis.
The wide variety of religious offerings were present in Sardis as in the other cities of the region. There was a temple of the fertility goddess, Cybele. Archaeologists have uncovered an extremely large temple that was an imitation of the great temple of Artemis at Ephesus, but it was apparently never finished due to an earthquake in 17 A.D.
   Jesus begins His address to the church in Sardis by identifying Himself as "He who has the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars" (3:1). What is Jesus trying to say to the Christians of Sardis by thus identifying Himself?
   Throughout the Revelation (1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6) reference to "the seven Spirits" appears to be a symbolic allusion to the completeness of the work of the Holy Spirit. The Sardisian Christians were apparently "resting on their laurels" again, and their "deeds were not completed in the sight of God" (3:2) because they were not allowing the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, to complete His work in them. When the "seven Spirits" are identified with "seven eyes" later in the Revelation, the implication is that the Holy Spirit is omniscient and sees all that is going on in the church at Sardis.
   By indicating that He is the One who "has the seven stars" (1:17; 1:20; 2:1; 10:5; 13:16; 20:1,4), Jesus is telling the Christians of Sardis that He is the One who has the authority and is in control. Earlier Jesus had explained to John that "the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches" (1:20). Sometimes the human leadership of a local church concludes that they have the authority and are in control of the church. Religion has this natural tendency to establish hierarchical authority structures, complete with "flow charts" of political authority and administrative responsibility. In so doing they usually bypass the authority of Christ who is the "head of the Church"(Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18) and fail to submit to His leadership and guidance of His church. Jesus identifies Himself to the Christians at Sardis as the One who knows what is going on, the One who is in control, and the One who intends to complete His work in them.
   Jesus' observation of their condition there in Sardis is expressed when He says, "I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, and you are dead" (3:1). They had a reputation that they were spiritually "alive." There was an alleged vitality, but it was "in name only." They were only nominally vibrant Christians. There was some hypocritical play-acting going on. The risen Lord Jesus charges the Sardisian Christians with an externality that appears to be alive, but in essence they are "dead." Jesus had exposed the hypocritical Pharisees similarly when He said, "You are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. You outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness" (Matt. 23:27,28). Those in the church at Sardis were like zombies operating in a lifeless church. It was "Tombstone Territory."
   It has been said that "Few things are better organized that graveyards, but there is little life there." So it is that few things are better organized than religious programs and activities. A church may be very busy and very active, and it will appear to undiscerning people that such a church is really "alive," but despite the frenetic activity of performance and productivity that church might be very "dead," because they are not deriving what they do from the life of Jesus Christ.
   Life is in Jesus Christ alone. Jesus said "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25); "I am the way, the truth and the life" (John 14:6). Paul explained that "for me to live is Christ" (Phil. 1:21); "Christ is our life" (Col. 3:4). Unless our activity, whether individually or collectively, is the "manifestation of the life of Jesus" (II Cor. 4:10,11), then it is not the expression of life. Activities that are not derived from the life of Jesus Christ are but the expression of "dead works" (Heb. 9:14); they "bring forth death" (James 1:15).
   Religious activities may appear to be so "alive" with enthusiasm and excitement, but if they are not activated by the life and character of Jesus Christ Himself by His Spirit, they are a "dead loss." Religion propagates a pseudo-life that appears to be "alive," but is actually dead because it is devoid of the divine life of God in Christ. Lifeless religion is so deceiving because the undiscerning think it is alive, when it is really dead.
   Jesus continues to charge the Christians in Sardis when He says, "I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God" (3:2). We were "created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10), and these Christians had some unfinished works. They had disallowed Jesus to do what He wanted to do in their lives and in their church. They had "quenched the Spirit" (I Thess. 5:19). To thus quench the manifestation of Christ's life and ministry can have serious consequences. Jesus told the parable of the vineyard keeper who did not find fruit on his fig tree, and ordered it to be "cut down" (Luke 13:6-9). God's purpose is to have the fruit of His character to be expressed in the behavior of His people unto His own glory, and the failure to allow for such is a misuse of humanity.
   To remedy the situation in the church at Sardis, Jesus issues several commands. There are five imperative verbs in verses two and three which command the Sardisians to respond: "be watching, strengthen, remember, keep and repent."
   First, Jesus tells them to "be watching." What are they to be watching? They are not to "be watching" the statistics on the attendance board or their place in the denominational polls. They are to "be watchful" of how Satan can so subtly deceive them into religious practices, rather than living out the life of Jesus Christ. Peter advised Christians to "be watching" because "your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (I Peter 5:8). Jesus told His disciples, "Keep watching and praying, that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matt. 26:41). Paul encouraged us to "Be watching, stand firm in the faith..." (I Cor. 16:13). We are to be "on watch" against ungodly forces, and the religious methodologies that Satan inspires.
   Jesus goes on to explain the consequences of not "standing watch." "If you will not watch, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you" (3:3). This may have had a particularly pointed implication for the people of Sardis, for twice previously in their history their city had been captured because of their failure to "keep watch." They thought they were physically strong and secure, and in their over-confidence they were conquered. When Jesus warns that their failure to watch will result in His coming upon them "like a thief," it means that He will come suddenly, unexpectedly, unannounced and without forewarning. Although the same imagery is used of Jesus' coming at His second advent (I Thess. 5:2; II Peter 3:10), it does not appear that this is the "coming" that Jesus is referring to in His warning to the Christians in Sardis. The final Parousia is not dependent on the watchfulness and repentance of the Sardisian Christians. Jesus is simply indicating that their failure to respond in repentance will result in His coming unexpectedly to bring some kind of physical consequence of judgment or discipline.
   Secondly, Jesus commands them to "strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die" (3:2). Establish what you do have "in Christ," and build stability on the foundation of Christ. Paul exhorted the Thessalonian Christians to "comfort and strengthen their hearts in every good work and word" (I Thess. 2:17), and then turned around and wrote, "The Lord is faithful, and He will strengthen you" (I Thess. 3:3). So it is that Jesus is not asking the Christians in Sardis to do anything that He is not willing to do in them, if they are willing in faith. "The Lord of all grace...will establish you" (I Peter 5:10; Rom. 16:25).
   The third command of Jesus to the Sardisian Christians is to "remember what you have received and heard" (3:3). What had they received and heard which they are now to remember? Had they received an ideological belief-system, or a morality code, or membership in an organization, or a ticket to heaven? No, that is what religion offers. These Christians had received Jesus Christ by faith (John 1:12; Col. 2:6), and heard His call upon their lives. They were to "remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead" (II Tim. 2:8).
   The fourth imperative imposed upon the Christians in Sardis was to "keep" what they had received and heard. Having received Jesus Christ, they were to "keep His word" (I John 2:5), "keep themselves in the love of God" (Jude 21), and "keep the faith" (II Tim. 4:7).
   The fifth command was to "repent." If they were going to get out of their lifeless spiritual graveyard there had to be repentance, a change of mind that led to a change of action. Their complacent and self-sufficient thinking would have to be exchanged for the recognition that only the activity of Christ in them was pleasing to God. Whenever religion has permeated the life of a church there must be repentance to reverse the direction of the church and allow them to return to faith.
   "But," Jesus observes, "you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white; for they are worthy" (3:4). In almost every church situation there are the "faithful few," who have continued to walk in the purity of Christ, "hating the garment polluted by the flesh" (Jude 23) and "keeping themselves unstained by the world" (James 1:27). When we become Christians we "put on the new man" (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) and are clothed in His righteousness, holiness, love, joy, peace, etc. Whenever we revert to the practice of religion we are clothed instead with self-effort, self-justification and self-adulation. Such behavioral garments are soiled, stained and polluted by the satanic motivation of the flesh in conjunction with his world-system.
   Those who repudiate such soiled garments of religion are promised by the Lord Jesus Christ that they "will walk with Him in white, for they are worthy" (3:3). They will allow the purity of Christ's character of godliness and holiness to be expressed in their behavior. It is not that they are "worthy" because of any meritorious action on their own part, but they are "worthy" because they are relying on the "Worthy One," Jesus Christ, to be operative in them. Only thus can any Christian "walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work" (Col. 1:10), "walk in a manner worthy of the God who calls us into His kingdom and glory" (I Thess. 2:12), "walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which we have been called" (Eph. 4:1), and be "considered worthy of the kingdom of God..." (II Thess. 1:5).
   Religion often considers "worthiness" to be based on natural talents and the performance of service and contribution. A person is then considered "worthy" of being considered for a higher position in the church and "worthy" of being honored before men. They know nothing of the "worthiness" that is derived only from the "Worthy One" living in and acting through the Christian.
   The promise of Jesus to the church at Sardis is continued with a three-part promise: "He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels" (3:5).
   Christians who overcome the temptation to revert to religion by maintaining their association with the Overcomer (John 16:33) will be clothed in "white garments," representing the purity of the character of Christ. Religion, on the other hand, concerns itself with external activity and clothing rather than the character of Christ. Pre-occupied with ecclesiastical robes and garments and with people wearing "Sunday-go-to-meeting" clothes, religion inevitably emphasizes the external rather than the internal. Jesus is concerned that we be clothed internally with His character.
   Jesus also promises that overcomers will not have their names "erased from the book of life." The obvious implication is that it is possible to have one's name erased from the book of life, or else the statement would have no meaning whatsoever. The Psalmist had requested that the unrighteous "be blotted out of the book of life, and not be recorded with the righteous" (Ps. 69:28). The "book of life" seems to represent the register of heavenly citizenship. As Christians "our citizenship is in heaven" (Phil. 3:21); we are part of "the church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven" (Heb. 12:23); and we "rejoice that our names are recorded in heaven" (Luke 10:19,20). We are "those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life" (Rev. 20:15; 21:27). But when we substitute religion for the Savior we are liable to having our names erased and blotted out of the book of life. God will not and cannot tolerate diabolic religion contrary to His character and grace. The security of heavenly citizenship is not in religious doctrines of "eternal security" and "once saved, always saved," but in dynamic dependence upon the function of the Savior living out His life in us. Religion offers a false-security, and religionists are in danger of having their names erased from the book of life.
   The third part of Jesus' promise is that those who overcome the temptation to revert to religion will be privileged to have Jesus serve as their advocate and "confess their name before His Father, and before His angels." Jesus had previously said to His disciples, "Everyone who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 10:32), and "before the angels of God" (Luke 12:8). As our behavior "confesses," "agrees with," "says the same thing" as the character of God because He is energizing such by His grace, Jesus will in turn "confess" us before God and the angels as being "in agreement" with Him.
   All of what Jesus promises can only transpire by our listening carefully with spiritual discernment to what Jesus is saying by His Spirit. "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches" (3:6). Such "listening under" the Spirit of Christ will issue forth in obedience that glorifies God as the life of Jesus Christ is lived out through us.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Narrowway path way

 
We thak Jim for fantastic work here as we like wise con curr it;s all a relationship, we ahev not and do not seekto exchange  it for anything less than as an ecclesia by way of faith, our hope is many will see it.. people ask what;s the differnce here is classic example of  an answer as well as living it by surrender and going it without  an easy faith.
 
 
A Personal Relationship
with Jesus Christ

What does it mean to have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ"?

©2000 by James A. Fowler. All rights reserved.
You are free to download this article provided it remains intact without alteration.
You are also free to transmit this article and quote this article
provided that proper citation of authorship is included.



A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS CHRIST
If you were asked to choose one of the following phrases to complete the sentence, which would you choose?

To be a Christian is...

(1) to believe that Jesus was born, lived, died, and was raised from the dead?
(2) to accept that God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ in order to reconcile all men with Himself?
(3) to receive Jesus and have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?
Option #1 - has to do with the historical Jesus and the events of His life in the first century.
Option #2 - has to do with the theology of Jesus which explains incarnation and Christology.
Option #3 - has to do with the personal, subjective experience of Jesus.

There really should be a fourth option: (4) All of the above. The objective historical foundation and theological formulation are essential prerequisites to the subjective relationship with Jesus. But if one's understanding of Christianity is comprised only of assent to the objective facts, and devoid of the subjective personal relationship with Jesus Christ, can such a person be considered a Christian?

What does it mean to have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ"?

Evangelical Christians have often proclaimed and explained that to be a Christian is "to receive Jesus and have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." Many who have heard that proclamation have not been able to understand what evangelical Christians mean by that phrase. Is it possible for the non-Christian, the natural man, to understand or comprehend the meaning of that phrase?

The natural man can understand "religion" ­ how religious organizations function, how they solicit finances, how they utilize propaganda to get their message out. The natural man can understand rational assent to religious tenets, propositions, principles, statements of history, theology, and doctrine. The natural man can understand adherence to a belief-system, or devotion to an ideology or an organization. The natural man can understand "spirituality" if it is defined as the serenity of "well-being", or devotion to a meaningful cause, or the recollection of an ecstatic experience, or conformity to a moral ideal.

But is it possible for the natural man, the non-Christian, to understand what it means to "have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ"? The Apostle Paul explained that "the natural man cannot understand spiritual things" (I Cor. 2:14). Is "having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" a spiritual reality that requires the presence and appraisal of the Spirit of Christ to understand what it means? If so, is it possible to adequately explain the meaning of this reality to a non-Christian?

A philosophy student, with whom I had an acquaintance, was very brilliant, well-read and articulate. He was willing and desirous of considering the facts of Christian history and theology under the microscope of human reason. But with a sneer and derisive comments full of scorn, he would mock and make deprecatory comments about those who referred to a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ." Why? This was outside of his ability to understand on a purely rational, philosophical and scientific level.

In our attempt to explain the phrase and its meaning we will consider the individual words of the phrase: (1) Relationship. (2) Personal. (3) Jesus Christ.

RELATIONSHIP - In its broadest sense this simply means that one object has a connection or correlation with another object. The relation of this to that. Mathematically, it may be the relationship of x to y. Geometrically, it may be the angle of relationship between one line and another line. Mechanically, it may be the relationship of the clutch to the drive shaft of an automobile, or one part of a machine to another part. Cosmologically, it may the relationship of earth to the sun; or even more extensively it may be the relation or relationship of everything in the universe to a constant (such as the speed of light within a vacuum), which is how Einstein developed his "Theory of Relativity", which was essentially a theory of relationship.

The above mentioned relationships are all impersonal relationships. As it is our objective to understand a personal relationship, we must explore what that means.

A personal relationship must involve at least one person. The first dictionary meaning of "personal" is defined as "how something relates to or affects a person." With this broad definition, a person can have a "personal relationship" with anything that affects or relates to them ­ a dog, a tree, a flower, a bottle of beer, etcetera ad infinitum.

An individual person might consider the historical evidence of a particular event or person, and then relate such to their own situation. Is that a personal relationship? An individual person might develop ideas into a logical explanation of how they fit together and function. Is that a personal relationship with a particular ideology? Can one have a personal relationship with history? ...philosophy? ...theology? If a person associates themself with, or relates to, a particular social unit, such as an organization like a fraternity, is that a personal relationship? Does loyalty, adherence, commitment and dedication to a grouping of other persons constitute a personal relationship? What is a personal relationship?

Surely the reader can recognize that I am questioning whether the phrase "personal relationship", as used in the evangelical terminology of contemporary religion, is but the personal affect that Christian history, theology and community have upon a person who consents and assents to relate to such. In its broadest definition this could be called a "personal relationship"; but are we content to accept that as the intent of the Christian relationship with Jesus Christ?

PERSONAL - How personal does the relationship have to be to be a personal relationship?

If you receive a loan from another individual, is there a personal relationship between the payer and the payee?

Is the legal and contractual relationship between an employer and employee a personal relationship?

Do you have a personal relationship with your great, great grandfather who may have died twenty years prior to your birth? Or is it just a biological and genealogical relationship of heritage?

Is it possible to have a personal relationship with George Washington or Napoleon Bonaparte?

Is there a necessary personal relationship between siblings within the same family? Does biological kinship establish a personal relationship?

Let me share a personal illustration: I have a sister. We are related. She is my relative. We have a genetic and biological relationship. Is that a personal relationship? I have not seen nor communicated with this sister for over twenty years, nor does she apparently ever desire to do so. Do we have a personal relationship?

We must admit that the broadest definition of a "personal relationship" allows for a unidirectional relationship whereby an individual person relates to an object, an idea, a cause, an image, a fantasy, a mental construct, or a person who is no longer living. A "personal relationship" also allows for a relationship of two or more persons that is merely contractual, biological or social.

But a "personal relationship" is also defined as a dynamic inter-relatedness between persons, an experiential relationship between two persons that involves subjective interaction and communication, a person-to-person relationship, the connection, correlation and interaction of at least two persons in what might be better termed an interpersonal relationship.

I have an interpersonal relationship with Joe, for example. We are friends. We interact. We communicate back and forth. Since Joe is a Christian, I have a different kind of interpersonal relationship with him than I would have with a non-Christian friend. With a Christian friend I have something in common that allows for communion and fellowship (koinonia), a communication based on our spiritual commonality in Christ; a deeper level of interpersonal interaction and communication than I could have with a person who was not spiritually one with me in Christ.

But every other interpersonal relationship that I might have is not on the same level of experiential interpersonal relationship that I have with my wife. The interaction of our interpersonal relationship as husband and wife involves a connection, a "knowing", an intimacy, an "intercourse" (social and sexual) that is deeper than any other interpersonal relationship that I have. And the fact that she is a Christian wife allows a spiritual communion and oneness that makes our marital interpersonal relationship as deep as any human interpersonal relationship can be.

That is why the Apostle Paul uses the intimate interpersonal relationship of husband and wife as the best human and physical analogy to the interpersonal relationship of a Christian with Christ. (Ephesians 5:22-33). The closest oneness and intimacy of personal relationship on earth that can be used to picture and describe and explain the oneness and intimacy of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, is the marriage relationship.

JESUS CHRIST - What then is a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ"? Or would we be better served to refer, instead, to an "interpersonal relationship with Jesus Christ", in order to avoid any idea that we are referring to an individual person relating to an object, an idea, a cause, an image, a fantasy, a mental construct, or a person that is no longer living?

Is a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" just a relation of our mental assent to an historical Jesus? Is a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" just an ideological relationship of belief based on the circumstantial evidence of reports that we can read in the Gospels of the New Testament? Is it possible to have an interpersonal relationship with an historical personage that lived hundreds of years ago? Is it possible to have a interpersonal relationship with a logical construct of theological tenets about God and His Son, Jesus Christ?

Or does an "interpersonal relationship with Jesus Christ" necessitate an experiential, interactive relationship that involves an inter-relatedness, a oneness, a union, a commonality of identity, an intimacy, a "knowing" that can only be likened to the marriage relationship on earth?

That would necessitate the recognition that the Jesus of history, who walked around Palestine over 1900 some years ago, is still alive as a living Person, though in a different form ­ in a spiritual form, and capable of interacting in an interpersonal relationship with human persons today. That is the message of the Christian gospel ­ that Jesus lived, was crucified on the cross, and was raised from the dead in the resurrection, and having ascended to God the Father, He was "poured out" and made available in spiritual form, as the "Spirit of Christ" (Rom. 8:9), in order to indwell the spirits of persons in every age, becoming one with them in spiritual union, and becoming the basis of their new spiritual identity, as they engage in a dynamic interpersonal relationship with the living Lord Jesus.

At this point we need to admit that even the reference to an interpersonal relationship with Jesus Christ might be inadequate. The marriage relationship that Paul employs in Eph. 5:22-33 breaks down in illustrating the relationship of Christ and the Christian because the relationship between the Christian the the living Lord Jesus is also an intrapersonal relationship, involving the indwelling presence of the Spirit of Christ within the spirit of the Christian.

In order for the Christian to have a dynamic interpersonal relationship with Jesus Christ it necessitated that Jesus be a living Person. That was facilitated by the historic resurrection of Jesus when He was raised from the dead on the third day to become the every-living Lord Jesus. In order for the Christian to have a spiritual intrapersonal relationship with Jesus Christ, it necessitated that Jesus be a Spirit-person. That was implemented by the Pentecostal outpouring of Jesus in Spirit-form when the Spirit of Christ became available to indwell the spirits of receptive individuals in every age as the life-giving Spirit (I Cor. 15:45).

This is why evangelical Christians employ the Biblical terminology of being "born again," to explain the living reality of the personal Spirit of Christ coming to dwell in the spirit of a receptive person in an intrapersonal relationship, and that to engage in a growing and developing interpersonal relationship whereby the living Lord Jesus functions in and through the Christian.

It is important to understand that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is not just an objective relationship to the benefits that Christ allegedly made available by His historical actions of death, burial and resurrection. Protestant Christian religion, in particular, has tended to objectify the relationship of the Christian to God and Christ in a forensic, juridical and legal framework that posits the relationship as but the "justification" of a right relationship with God the Judge in the heavenly realm. As a corollary, the relationship of the Christian with God has been viewed as a static "reconciliation" that is no more personal that "reconciling" one's financial books.

The intrapersonal and interpersonal relationship of the Christian with Jesus Christ must be recognized as a subjective, internal, spiritual reality, whereby an individual in any age receives the living Spirit of Christ into his or her spirit (Rom. 8:9), thus becoming a Christian, a Christ-one. That relationship must involve a dynamic sense of ontological interaction and communion, a living and functional communication.

Granted, this explanation of a personal, intrapersonal and interpersonal relationship with Jesus Christ requires spiritual understanding that can only come by the presence of the Spirit of Christ within the spirit of a receptive person. (I Cor. 2:8-16). That is the difficulty Christians have in attempting to explain what it means to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It cannot be understood until He, the Person of Christ, is received by faith. Then, we have the spiritual and relational understanding of regeneration and new birth (Jn. 3:1-6). Then, we can have the spiritual understanding of the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ within our spirit (Rom. 8:9); that the living Lord Jesus Christ is in us (Col. 1:27; II Cor. 13:5), and lives in us (Gal. 2:20) as our spiritual life (Col. 3:4). Then, we can begin to fathom that we are united in a spiritual oneness of union with Him (I Cor. 6:17). Then, we can begin to understand that we are new creatures (II Cor. 5:17; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10), and that our identity is only "in Him" as Christ-ones, Christians ­ that who I am can only be explained on the basis of Who He is. Then, we can begin to understand the dynamic function of the Lordship of the Living Lord Jesus, not just as an assent to His being Lord, God, Deity, but as the acceptance of the fact that my life is no longer mine to determine, but is entirely as His disposal and determination.

(Of course, my life was really never mine to determine, anyway. I was just deceived into thinking that it was, and that I was an independent self-determining self. I am convinced that one of the major reasons why the natural man, as well as most religion, including evangelical Christian religion, does not understand what a personal, intrapersonal or interpersonal relationship with Jesus Christ involves, is because they do not understand or accept that the non-Christian, the unregenerate person, has a personal, intrapersonal and interpersonal relationship with Satan, the Evil One - Jn. 8:44; II Tim. 2:26; I Jn. 3:10. cf. The Natural Man.)

So, how do we as Christians attempt to explain that the Christian life is a personal, intrapersonal and interpersonal relationship with Jesus Christ?

We do not want to "fake people out" and offer them "religion" instead ­ membership, involvement, commitment, dedication. In much of Christian religion today people are told about a relationship to "churchianity" rather than Jesus Christ. They are introduced to the "fellowship of excitement" whereby people can "get all excited about Jesus"; hyped up and "high" on Jesus. They are introduced to "programs", the success of which is evaluated by the numbers of buildings, budgets and baptisms. They are introduced to the "escape hatch" whereby the penalty of sin can be removed, and a "fire insurance policy" of eternal assurance in heaven is offered. The past can be forgiven, the future can be assured ­ such an offer provides an impersonal relationship to sin and an impersonal relationship to a future destiny, but it does not adequately encompass a dynamic and living personal, intrapersonal, and interpersonal relationship with the living Lord Jesus Christ in the present.

It is imperative that we, Christians, explain, as best we can by the empowering of the Spirit of Christ, how a personal, intrapersonal, and interpersonal relationship with Jesus Christ is initiated and functions. Only God can effect that relationship of Christ with another, as an individual chooses in the receptivity of faith to receive the living Spirit of Christ into his or her spirit.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Discussions on wuest words,


.

We hope people seek out the answers to their questions, to the articles on translatlations.They needed to know on why so many translations and transliterations and thus may have shiftedin terms, as gradualism mechanism dictates an ever increasing change into the culture rather than truth,.  quote-NW


A Review of the Kenneth S. Wuest Translation of the New Testament
Luther W. Martin
Rolla, Missouri
The complete title of Dr. Kenneth S. Wuest's translation is: "The New Testament, an Expanded, Translation." In his preface, the author states that his work is intended "as a companion to, or commentary on, the standard translations . . ." And, although he is to be commended for the greater portion of his effort, still we believe that he has fallen sadly short of literal accuracy in a number of instances . . . particularly those that involve the subject of baptism in order to the remission of sins.
Dr. Wuest has endeavored to observe and follow the Greek order of words in his sentence structure, and we wish that he had been equally accurate in remaining with the meaning of the Greek context, rather than resorting to a substantial amount of paraphrasing and interpolating.
Careless Use of the Name "Christian"
Dr. Wuest has made use of the name "Christian" 45 more times than it actually appears in the Greek New Testament. In the First Letter to the Corinthians, he uses the word "Christian" 13 times; and in First Peter and Titus, he went so far as to insert the term "Christianity" once in each letter.
Careless Use of Names for the Church
In 1 Cor. 11:16 he selects the expression "assemblies of God." This is a very good rendering, but in other places he resorts to: "church assembly" 1 Cor. 14:18. This is equivalent to saying "church church" or "assembly assembly." In 2 Thess. 2:2, Dr. Wuest inserts a lengthily explanatory statement, in which he uses the expression "Christian assembly." There is no Greek equivalent for this explanatory statement whatsoever.
Deliberate Insertion of Translator's Views in Context
In I John 2:16, he inserts "the totally depraved nature . . ." In 1 Thess. 1:4, he inserts . . . "in which God in sovereign grace selected you out for salvation . . ." In Acts 22:16, he gives . . . "Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name." Please note the two words that I have underscored . . . "Having previously" . . ; By resorting to such a rendering, he attempts to infer the idea of salvation prior to baptism.
Deliberate Avoidance of Immersion
Dr. Wuest seems to desire to totally avoid any wording that would teach the necessity of immersion for the remission of sins. In his preface, he indicates that he has attempted to do away with anglicized words, such as "baptism" . . . and with that goal, we concur. If most of the English revisers would have reduced baptize to immerse, or baptism to immersion, there would be less false teaching and confusion in the world' relative to just what constitutes "baptism." But let us examine how this translator deals with what should be rendered as immerse, dip, submerge, plant, overwhelm or plunge-under.
Acts 2:37-38: "Now, having heard this, they were stung to the heart with poignant sorrow. And they said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, what shall we do, men, brothers? And Peter said to them, have a change of mind, that change of mind being accompanied by abhorrence of and sorrow for your deed, and let each one of you be baptized upon the ground of your confession of belief in the sum total of all that Jesus Christ is in His glorious Person, this baptismal testimony being in relation to the fact that your sins have been put away, and you shall receive the gratuitous gift of the Holy Spirit . . ." (Note the extreme lengths to which Wuest has gone in inserting his own views in such a rendering.)
Romans 6: 3-4; "Do you not know that all we who were pieced in Christ Jesus, in His death were placed? We therefore were entombed with Him through this being placed in His death...." The underscored words "were placed in Christ" are used in lieu of "baptized into Christ." To get away from the anglicized Greek word, it could read, "immersed into Christ" or "submerged into Christ." "Were placed in" fails miserably to show forth Christ's death, burial and resurrection.
Gal. 3:27; "For as many as were introduced into union with Christ, put on Christ." Here, Dr. Wuest has certainly avoided any transliteration.... he has completely tossed the subject away. "Introduced into union with Christ" means no specific act or thing.... while the Greek context uses ebaptisthete, from bapto, meaning to dip. We agree with Dr. Wuest, that the action described achieves or accomplishes what he gave in his translation . . . namely, "introduced into union with Christ." But instead of actually translating the Greek text as it is, Dr. Wuest favors his readers with a commentary at this point.... and by handling it in this manner, he leaves great leeway for all sorts of sectarian conclusions and teachings.
One Lord, One Faith and "One Placing Into"
In the fourth chapter of Ephesians, the paragraph on "oneness" is given as "There is one Body and one Spirit, even as also you were in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one Faith, one placing into (the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit), one God and Father of all, the One above all and through all and in all." (Eph. 4:5-6.) Note that in place of "baptism" the translator uses the expression "placing into." This, of course, is that which is accomplished by the action of baptism, properly preceded by faith, repentance and confession of Christ .... but by such a rendering as "placing into" there is no indication whatsoever as to what comprises the action yet the Greek gives the word "baptisma" which in turn comes from the Greek stem bapto, meaning to dip. Wuest also goes beyond the call of translating duty, when he inserts "the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit".... thus, tending to leave the impression that the baptism under consideration is that of the Holy Spirit, rather than immersion in water.... as in Acts 10:47-48.
Other Unusual Renderings
That Dr. Wuest has some very fine work demonstrated in his translation, we do not deny. However, we sincerely feel that he has neutralized the good things in his work, by the great number of questionable wordings.... wordings that seem to generally reflect sectarian doctrine. Here are some further examples of unusual renditions: The word "Cross" with a capital "C" is used a number of times.... as in Phil. 3:18, Col. 2:14, and Heb. 12:2.
In several instances, Dr. Wuest uses the word bairns to further describe "first-born ones" or "little children." As in 1 John 2:28, 3:1, and 5:21. We cannot understand how the use of this word bairn which is Scotch and archaic, can assist in clearly rendering the Scriptures in a modern helpful manner. In 2 Timothy 4: 5, where Paul urges Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist . . ." (euaggelistes, is the Greek word for it), Dr. Wuest instead, renders it "pastor." No doubt, he thinks that "pastors'' and "evangelists" are one and the same . . . and, so thinking, he chose to switch the terms. However, further study will demonstrate that in the New Testament, elders, pastors, and bishops, all refer to the same work and responsibility, while the word "evangelist" may be interchanged with "preacher." See the word kerux, as used in 1 Tim. 2:7; and 2 Tim 1:11.
Conclusion
In numerous passages, Dr. Wuest has translated excellently and well. But as we have already stated, some of his brilliant renderings are dulled and dimmed by some of his unfortunate word choices. For comparative reading, his translation is worthwhile, but for regular study, or for exact literal renderings of the Greek text, we cannot endorse it.
TRUTH MAGAZINE X: 10, pp. 16-17 July 1966


Discussions over time we heard on the topic for your studies..

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

What matters most is real sight.

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness (martureo) that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God. ever wonder has real power or ability,, this is it..

This word group (martus, martureo, marturia, derivative verb = diamarturomai = to solemnly testify - 15x = Acts 2:40 8:25 10:42 18:5 20:21 20:23 20:24 23:11 28:23 1Th 4:6 1Ti 5:21 2Ti 2:14 4:1 Heb 2:6) gives us our English word martyr which in the Christian context is defined as one who witnesses or bears testimony especially by his or her death because of their faith in Christ. In other words, when commanded to recant (withdraw or repudiate a belief formally and publicly) Christ or die, they choose to die, giving the ultimate testimony that Jesus is Who He said He was (is)!

one goes all the way the witness is one that operates out side of human sight, in order for faith to be re land bare fruit it must be the extent which exists out side our abilities to work.Enoch did not see physical death because he pleased God, it;s huge difference that  guilt laden bondage found in a religion= means bondage by it;s very term,which seeks to bind many to be defeated by seeing only his or her sin not the new life.

The sting and deadly stigma produces no fruit just bondage. The life of faith produced amen not seeing death and the immense power that transcends the very physical world we live in Jesus demonstrates and his apostles and the Early body likewise operated in faith far removed from the latter Platonic and often powerless theology which would follow and demise the priesthood of the believers and the cessation of the Spirit's power to into a marriage of human physcology and platonic and gnostic theology, the loss would be great over the centuries.When comparing the the two states it;s not hard ot see the life from death..

Obedience of faith"), did not receive what was promised (They looked with eyes of faith and thus had a "conviction of things not yet seen." Father, give our wandering eyes, which are so prone to look at the temporal and worldly, Spirit enabled vision to see the unseen, the eternal, the blessed, sure, stabilizing hope found only in Christ Jesus our Lord.
This is huge difference between a religion and relationship one is alive the other is a mere human idea. Or philosophy.

NW IS FAITH WARD