Sheep and Goats

Category: Jesus

  • Isaiah 33:6: The Stability of Your Times

    “He is the stability of your times; An abundance of salvation, wisdom, knowledge, and the fear of Jehovah —This is his treasure.” (Isaiah 33:6)

    This verse would make a good year text too, given how unstable life is. Maybe one unfine year it will be one. It includes an emphasis Bible reading, study, and meditation, since the goods don’t come through osmosis. Though, to some extent they do, if you immerse yourself in the atmosphere. And it’s a “treasure” to get “wisdom.” Though “knowledge” may be gained through science, it doesn’t deliver much on the “wisdom” front. Moreover, on the “salvation” front, if anything, it tells us that our goose is cooked.

    As to stability, a circuit overseer used to tell how he would get carsick as a boy. This resonates with me because I used to get carsick as a boy also. Our family’s solution was to stick me in the passenger seat where it was less likely to happen, relegating mom to the back seat with my two younger siblings. I grew up thinking that was just the way it was with families, and was surprised to ride with friends whose moms were doing it wrong, sitting up front.

    The circuit overseer never displaced his mom as a boy. His directive, given him in the back seat, was: “Look as far off into the distance as you can. Do not shift that gaze.” It’s the one thing that does not change that would save him. It was a good dry run for how he would later be looking to God in times of instability—his nature and principles do not change, amidst a chaotic earthly backdrop in which everything changes.

    The times today, they are unstable. Then, it was threat of the encroaching Assyrians. Today, many threats encroach, often more vague with unsure consequences. “The Future’s So Bright I Gotta Wear Shades” became a hit song in the 80s. They sing it at graduations, even though the songwriters said the shades and brightness were an allusion to how nuclear war might end it all. 

    And how fretful should people be, for another example, that 75% of insects (by biomass) have dissappered in the last 30 years? This, according to a 2017 German study, and it mirrors findings in birdlife. Should that be a cause for alarm or should it be dismissed as one of those things? Anyone my age knew this and often said it, due to the bug splatter you used to have to clear off your summer windshields but no longer do. This was “anecdotal,” however, and the great thinkers were dubious of it without measurements. One might think they could just ask the geezers, all of whom would answer the same, that you’d be washing bug guts off your windshield at length after a summer’s night drive, but such is not the ways of science.

    On the other hand, they keep churning out the goods at Costco. As I dine on my hot dog and soda, still one dollar and fifty cents (though I wouldn’t want to subsist on them), satiated customers with fully loaded carts stream out of the store as though on a conveyor belt, an incredible feat.

    The 33rd chapter explores how Israel would fare in the face of the Assyrian threat and how those looking to God would escape. The climax is the last verse: 

    “And no resident will say: “I am sick.” The people dwelling in the land will be pardoned for their error.” (33:24)

    Whatever the then-ramifications, whenever in the Bible one reads of those “pardoned for their error,” one thinks of the Great Pardoner. Jesus even connected being pardoned with being free of sickness when he told the paralyzed man his sins were forgiven. Religious honchos huffed over just who he thought he was, a man who could forgive sins.  He proved the point by telling the man to pick up his mat and walk. 

    (“When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic: “Child, your sins are forgiven.”  Now some of the scribes were there, sitting and reasoning in their hearts: “Why is this man talking this way? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins except one, God?”  But immediately Jesus discerned by his spirit that they were reasoning that way among themselves, so he said to them: “Why are you reasoning these things in your hearts?  Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and pick up your stretcher and walk’? But in order for you to know that the Son of man has authority to forgive sins on earth—” he said to the paralytic: “I say to you, Get up, pick up your stretcher, and go to your home.” At that he got up and immediately picked up his stretcher and walked out in front of them all.“ — Mark 2:5-12)

    He is the Son of God, given authority even to forgive sins. Likely foreshadowed at Isaiah 33:17–“Your eyes will behold a king in his splendor,” as it begins to become apparent just God will save in modern times. It’s by means of this Son appointed king. Sometimes this dawns on people gradually. Sometimes it hits like a thunderbolt, and may account for Thomas’s exclamation: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20;28) a revelation of the Lord and a praise of the God who reveals him. 

    I should have a nickel for everyone who has declared that Thomas is equating the two. It’s a valid view of that verse alone, and may even be the first interpretation that comes to mind, but it doesn’t fit the overall picture. Two things are mentioned, so that means they are the same? Not to trivialize the point, but I stopped at Dunkin the other day and ordered a coffee and donut. The clerk handed me two separate items. They may commonly go together, nobody would ever say that they are the same.

    Any reason that Thomas could not be exclaiming ‘My Lord!’ having just identified him, and then equally marveling at ‘my God’ who brings it about? It would fit 33:22 of Isaiah: 

    “For Jehovah is our Judge, Jehovah is our Lawgiver, Jehovah is our King; He is the One who will save us.” With the revealing of his Son, we see just how he will accomplish those things with people. You praise the Son, but you praise the Father even more.

    “The Father is greater than the Son,” says John 14:28. It’s no more complicated than that. It is a fact, though, that when my friend John Cuggan displayed the booklet ‘The Word: Who is He According to John?’ at this workplace, a booklet that left a sizable gap below the title, his born-again co-workers filled the space with his last name: ‘The Word: Who Was He, According to John Cuggan?’

    ***

    The model prayer Jesus gave, often dubbed ‘The Lord’s Prayer,’ serves well as an updated formula for stability, just like 33:6 but with more specifics. You don’t just chant out The Lord’s Prayer verbatim. It’s not like a good luck charm that you say over and over. Said Jesus:

    “When praying, do not say the same things over and over again as the people of the nations do,for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words. So do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need even before you ask him.” (Matthew 6:7-8)

    On the other hand, it’s not a bad outline, because it shows priorities:

    “You must pray, then, this way:“‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth. Give us today our bread for this day; and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the wicked one.” (7:9-13)

    Sanctification of God’s name and the Kingdom take top billing, for there is where the real answers are. He’s got it all together in heaven, no doubt, but only when “the Kingdom comes” dies his “will” take place “also upon earth.” So that takes first place. 

    Drop down afterward to the personal things. To the extent possible, focus on the “bread for this day,” and not matters many years out (or regrets of things many years ago). We are beings that plan ahead, of course, but even so, the mental health people call it “living in the present” that grounds a person. Do it to the extent you can.

    And you’d better not be one always pointing the finger at others. If we would ask the Father to “forgive us our debts,” we must also be ones who “have forgiven our debtors.”

    The last item, to not be brought “into temptation” but be shielded from “the wicked one”—it probably goes without saying that you scope out scenarios ahead of time to avoid trouble. This counsel probably would have helped the many people drawn by Epstein’s reputation for wild parties, many without knowledge of just what a slimeball he turned out to be. Now, they are all being tarred by whoever doesn’t like them, but they would have been spared had they smelled a rat from afar and steered clear of any whiff of what is raucous. What well-connected person doesn’t salivate over being invited to a rich person’s wild party? But they should have kept their distance. It now appears the fellows modus operendi, likely with spy backing, was to lure in powerful people, compromise them somehow, and hold it over their heads forever. Just applying the Lord’s Prayer would have saved them. At time of writing, everyone who went there is officially innocent of wrongdoing, leading to the absurd conclusion that Epstein’s girlfriend is in jail for sex trafficking to no one.

    Three Dog Night would have saved them, too. “Mama told me not to come. That ain’t the way to have fun, son.”

    Did they have mamas that didn’t love them? Twice the devil calls the songwriter’s name and once Congress (as though it is the same) calls it. Each time the refrain is: “Who do you think you’re fooling?” He is invulnerable because “my mama loves me. She loves me like a rock.”

    You may not say it verbatim, but it the prayer is a helpful outline to keep priorities straight. It’s stabilizing, same as 33:6.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Outline of the Lord’s Prayer

    On the Lord’s Prayer, you don’t just chant it out verbatim. It’s not like a good luck charm that you say over and over. Said Jesus:

    “When praying, do not say the same things overand over again as the people of the nations do,for they imagine they will get a hearing for theiruse of many words. So do not be like them, foryour Father knows what you need even beforeyou ask him.” (Matthew 6:7-8)

    On the other hand, it’s not a bad outline, because it shows priorities:

    “You must pray, then, this way:“‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth. Give us today our bread for this day; and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the wicked one.” (7:9-13)

    Sanctification of God’s name and the Kingdom take top billing, for there is where the real answers are. He’s got it all together in heaven, no doubt, but only when “the Kingdom comes” will his “will” take place “also upon earth.” So that takes first place. 

    Drop down afterward to the personal things. To the extent possible, focus on the “bread for this day,” and not matters many years out (or regrets of things many years ago). We are beings that plan ahead, of course, but even so, the mental health people call it “living in the present” that grounds a person. Do it to the extent you can.

    And you’d better not be one always pointing the finger at others. If we would ask the Father to “forgive us our debts,” we must also be ones who “have forgiven our debtors.”

    The last item, to not be brought “into temptation” but be shielded from “the wicked one”—it probably goes without saying that you scope out scenarios ahead of time to avoid trouble.

    You may not say it verbatim, but it’s a helpful outline to keep priorities straight.

    ******  The bookstore

  • “He Will Not Judge by What Appears to His Eyes”

    He will not judge by what appears to his eyes” (Isaiah 11:3) made me wonder if that female statue of blindfolded justice you see in front of courtrooms is based on that Bible passage. It isn’t. It was based on a Greek goddess. 

    Nice try, but no bullseye.

    The reason it is a nice try is that another Isaiah passage (2:4) is undeniably the inspiration for the statue standing before the United Nations: “They will beat their swords into plowshares.”

    But, the answer to the first question is no. Lady Justice traces back to the Greek goddess Dike, who made injustice among humans her pet cause and kept Zeus informed, who always received the news with detachment. The statue didn’t even have a blindfold at first. When it was added in the 1500s, it wasn’t a compliment. It meant the same as it would on an umpire today.

    Powerless to change the symbol but not wishing to be insulted, over the next 200 years, the blindfold was upgraded to become a compliment denoting impartiality—being blind to outward appearances.

    It’s just as well. The Lady Justice statue doesn’t really work for Isaiah 11:3, since that verse finds fulfillment in Jesus, and he “will not judge by what appears to his eyes” not only by being impartial but also by excercising an ability to see things hidden, even matters of the heart. The blindfolded Justice statue therefore does him an injustice, not going far enough, though no more an injustice than does the ‘Sword-to-plowshares’ statue plunked before the United Nations building. In both cases, the idea is planted that it is all talk and little action, that it is ideals not necessarily corresponding to reality.

    Actually, in these days of photo evidence and quick feedback, sports judges render pretty good justice. Challenges and appeals are adjudicated in seconds, not years. But the legal system takes years and can consume your life savings. Elon, or someone, briefly sent a chill throughout the industry by suggesting all of it, lawyers and judges alike, might be replaced with AI.

    In these case of Isaiah 11:3 and Jesus, a quandary is presented which, at first glance, is every bit the quandary of blindfold-no blindfold. Jesus is the “twig of Jesse.” (11:1) Later, he is the “root of Jesse.” (11:10) What’s with that? Twigs and roots are at opposite ends of the stump. 

    “A twig will grow out of the stump of Jesse, And a sprout from his roots will bear fruit.” (11:1)

    “In that day the root of Jesse will stand up as a signal for the peoples. To him the nations will turn for guidance. (11:10)

    He’s the twig from the stump of Jesse (David’s father) in that he arises from that family line after it has been cut down. He becomes a root in himself upon being awarded the kingship foreshadowed by that line of Israelite kings, specifically the southern two-tribe one. That’s when he “stand[s] up as a signal for the peoples [and] “to him the nations turn for guidance.” Backtrack to Isaiah 9:7 at this point: 

    “To the increase of his rulership And to peace, there will be no end, On the throne of David and on his kingdom In order to establish it firmly and to sustain it Through justice and righteousness, From now on and forever. The zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.”

    God then gathers a remnant from far-flung places (11:11), binds them together and leads them out from Assyria along a “highway” laid down, just like the prior one laid down between the waves of the Red Sea. It’s a theme that recurs several times in biblical history.

    ******  The bookstore

  • An Increased Focus on Jesus

    There are times when I think that if Jehovah’s Witnesses would simply modify their schedule of congregation Bible reading, that in itself would go a long way towards muzzling accusations that they don’t do Jesus. They certainly do. How anyone can make that charge is beyond me, yet there are those that continually make it.

    Just modify the Bible reading schedule. For as long as I can remember, probably always, Jehovah’s Witnesses have worked their way through the Bible, a few chapters at a time, at each mid-week meeting. Reach the end of Revelation and start in again at Genesis. This means they are only 20% within the New Testament, for 20% is all the NT comprises of the overall Bible.

    pink pencil on open bible page and pink
    Photo by John-Mark Smith on Pexels.com

    We ARE living at the time the New Testament is in effect. We ARE living at the time that Jesus rules as king. Maybe change the focus of the weekly Bible reading to better reflect that, maybe make it something like: Pentateuch, the NT, the wisdom chapters of the OT, the NT, the prophets, NT, and so forth, making the ratio more 50/50. Even trimming the 80/20 (OT/NT) to 66/33 would help.

    Nah, I don’t think it will ever happen, or even that it would be a good idea. Who would want to take responsibility for skipping over any part of the “all Scripture” which is “written for our instruction?” Nor would that change placate the “Jesus IS God” people. It will probably be 80/20 Genesis-through-Revelation for the duration of this system of things. But who knows? Every once in a while, the teaching program of meetings is adjusted. Maybe this one too will happen someday.

    ******  The bookstore

  • “You Always Have the Poor with You”

    As fine as helping the poor is and it is well to do it, Jesus said the following to those wishing to do it at the expense of attending to the Lord’s interests at that moment: (Matthew 26:11): “For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.” It sounds kind of callous but serves to show that the two activities are not the same.

    Even more significant than the plight of the poor and needy is that there should be so many of them, 2000 years after Jesus said what he did. Does it not show the utter failure of human government, which supposedly exists to alleviate such suffering? That being the case, the work Jehovah’s Witnesses are best known for, announcing the incoming kingdom of God, the same one Jesus taught his followers to pray for in ‘the Lord’s Prayer’ becomes an important component of Christian activity. It’s what gives people hope.

    To be sure, it is a specialty. Nobody works that specialty as the Witnesses do, and most don’t do it at all. Those who respond to the good news correspond to the man who learns how to fish, instead of eternally needing a fish supplied him. The good news imparts hope. Thus, two huge factors causing neediness and homelessness are eliminated. Preaching the good news is an activity not to be minimized.

    That said, I never criticize those who do run soup kitchens and such projects. They are undeniably alleviating suffering and it is something Witnesses don’t make their main focus.

    Given all the criticism directed at Witnesses for their focus on preaching, sometimes taking the form of spiritual one-up-mans-ship, one might assume that everyone else in the Christian world IS fully devoted to alleviating suffering and hunger. If so, why so little result? Given that Witnesses are but the tiniest sliver of the overall religious population, and that they are generally of modest means themselves, if they forgot all about preaching to devote themselves fully to rendering physical aid, how much of a dent do you think it would make? The problem is structural, gets worse with time, and will be fully solved only with the coming of God’s kingdom.

    Meanwhile, there is nothing to stop Witnesses as individuals from donating to local charities focused on neediness and hunger if they wish. I have done so. I assume there are others, according to their means.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Who is Michael?

    Who would have thought that Jehovah’s Witnesses were not alone in identifying the archangel Michael with Jesus? That the idea is also found in the writings of Martin Luther and John Calvin? That a host of other theologians have said it too? It was news to me.

    Really enjoyed this exhaustive article. Were it not for the Michael/Christ identification running afoul of trinitarian concerns, I think few would care about how JWs define this. It would just be a relatively insignificant quirk of the faith. That’s why I was surprised to see Luther, Calvin and others also make the connection and am not quite sure how they did so without arousing those concerns. It must be they have changed over time?

    On higher criticism, I noted separately how Luke Thomas Johnson likened it to a sort of Trojan Horse. Under the historical-critical method, he said, the theologian cannot talk about miracles as Jesus’ resurrection or virgin birth, therefore that restraint has a way of becoming an implied denial.

     

    See link here to chapter 6, by  G. Chryssides 

     

    https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph-detail?docid=b-9781350302716&pdfid=9781350302716.0012.pdf&tocid=b-9781350302716-chapter6

     

    of the book:

    The Archangel Michael Beyond Orthodoxies: History, Politics and Popular Culture

     

    which is found: https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph?docid=b-9781350302716

     

     

     

     

  • John 1:1 and how to translate where there is no indefinite [a] article.

    A trinitarian modification of Scripture is found at John 1:1. By far, most translations today say that “the Word was God” at that location.

    However, Dr. Jason Beduhn writes, in the book ‘Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Versions of the New Testament,’ that:

    “Grammatically, John 1: 1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical (“interlinear”) translation of the controversial clause would read: “And a god was the Word.” A minimal literal (“formal equivalence”) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: “And the word was a god.”

    “The preponderance of evidence, \[1\] from Greek Grammar, \[2\] from literary context, and \[3\] from cultural environment, supports this translation, of which “the Word was divine” would be a slightly more polished variant carrying the same basic meaning. Both of these renderings are superior to the traditional translation which goes against these three key factors that guide accurate translation.”

    The Koine Greek language has the definite article (the) but not the indefinite article (a). What to do, then, when there is not an indefinite article before the object (god) of John 1:1c? There can’t be one because one does not exist. The same question arises with regard to Latin Vulgate (late 4^(th) century) or Syriac/Peshitta (2^(nd) to 5^(th) centuries), other early translations of the Greek New Testament. Neither has an indefinite article.

    But, in the early third century CE, the Greek NT was translated into a language that does have an indefinite article, the Sahidic Coptic language. How does that language with an indefinite article handle John 1:1c? It renders that final phrase: "the Word was a god."

    That this rendering is correct is suggested by Acts 28:6, where Paul shakes off a snake. The islanders all expect him to swell up and die. When he doesn’t, they begin saying he “was a god.”

    There is no ‘a’ in the Koine Greek, it being the indefinite article. The sentence construction, the grammar, as well as common sense, here demands one be inserted. The grammar runs parallel to John 1:1. However, John 1:1 is usually translated ‘God.’ Acts 28:6 is always translated ‘a god.’ It is not grammatic rules that accounts for the different treatment. It is theology.

    The Sahidic Coptic language is a critical thinker’s dream come true. With an indefinite article that Greek, Latin, and Syriac do not have, the Coptic allows for no ambiguity. It says the Word was a god.

    As Beduhn writes, “divine” works, too. Surely the Son of God is divine, even if not God himself. However, a developing trinity dogma was then taking form to run rigorous translating off the road. It is not grammar that demands “the Word was God.” It is theology. Grammar says it is "a god."

    ***

    Enter one Ernest Cadman Colwell, a biblical scholar, textual critic, and academic, who served as a professor of New Testament and president of the University of Chicago (1945–1951), specializing in Greek manuscripts and early Christian texts. He proposed what has come to be known as “Colwell’s rule,” that allows for scooting around the ordinary rules of grammar that Beduhn cites and that the Coptic illustrates. Apparently, nobody knew anything about such a “rule” before he proposed it less that 100 years ago. His profession suggests he concocted it solely to advance and protect a trinity doctrine, and that if you didn’t already believe that the Word was God, you would never translate it that way.

    At most, per this recent rule, John 1:1 can coexist with a trinity doctrine. In no way can it serve as a fundamental underpinning of it, which is how trinitarians usually play it, as though their ultimate trump card.

    ******  The bookstore

     

  • Proverbs 8:22-31: Wisdom Personified as the Son, or Just Wisdom?

    Toward the end of a nine-chapter Proverbs treatment of wisdom, is a short passage which many think is  wisdom personified as Jesus:

    “Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago.From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth.When there were no deep waters, I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water.Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth,When he had not yet made the earth and its fields Or the first clods of earth’s soil.When he prepared the heavens, I was there; When he marked out the horizon on the surface of the waters,When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep,When he set a decree for the sea That its waters should not pass beyond his order, When he established the foundations of the earth,Then I was beside him as a master worker.  I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time;I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men. (Proverbs 8:22-31)

     If it is Jesus, it is good that he was “especially fond of the sons of men.” That’s far better than a Jesus who wants to make us trouble. At any rate, you can’t quite picture the abstract quality “wisdom” in itself as being fond of anything in particular. It has to be personified in order to be “fond.” So, why not with the Son? Why not putting him alongside God as his “master worker” for all aspects of creation, rejoicing with him as each aspect comes into being?

    Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 CE) thought the passage referred to the Son, as evidenced by his “Dialogue with Trypho.” So did Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 CE), as written into his work “Against Heresies.” But those views ran afoul of later doctrine. Didn’t 8:22 (Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago) show, if applied to Jesus, that the Christ was a created being, subordinate to God? Yes, it did, said guys like Arius (c. 250–336 CE), in harmony with Justin and Irenaeus. But a growing trinity movement would make Arius public enemy #1. Leaders of that movement, like Athanasius (c. 296–373 CE) banished the Proverbs 8 passage to just being Wisdom, as an eternal attribute of God, with nothing to do with the Son.

    What I believe is that those closest to the source are most likely the ones who got it right, rather than those who came along hundreds of years after.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • An Obedient Heart or an Understanding Heart—Which Is It?

    “So grant your servant an obedient heart to judge your people,” Solomon asked in a dream, “to discern between good and bad, for who is able to judge this numerous people of yours?” (1 Kings 3:9)

    Imagine such a request—for an ‘obedient heart.’ From a king!—who normally isn’t concerned with obedience to anything or anyone.

    Furthermore, God equates this request for an obedient heart to ‘understanding:’

    “It was pleasing to Jehovah that Solomon had requested this. God then said to him: “Because you requested this and you did not request for yourself long life or riches or the death of your enemies, but you requested understanding to hear judicial cases, I will do what you asked. I will give you a wise and understanding heart, so that just as there has never been anyone like you before, there will never be anyone like you again. Furthermore, what you have not requested I will give you, both riches and glory, so that there will be no other king like you in your lifetime.” (vs 10-13)

    I was just getting ready to comment on this at the midweek meeting when I thought I’d check how other translations put it. We have a handful of them on our own app, some mainstays like King James and American Standard Versions, some eclectic ones like Rotherham and Byington, and a few permutations of our own New World Translation. But for sheer scope, I like Biblegateway.com. Enter your scripture, append “in all English translations” to the result, and you have a list of 54 translations to choose from. It is not “all English translations,” as they say. It is all they have. Rotherham and Byington aren’t there, nor is New World Translation. But it still is a lot. Let’s check how many render 1 Kings 3:9 as “obedient.”

    Whoa! None of them do! Well—just one, the Holman Christian Standard Bible. 53 of the 54 translations have something different!

    By far, the most frequent rendering is an ‘understanding heart’ that Solomon requested, as opposed to an ‘obedient heart.’ 31 of the 54 versions say ‘understanding,’ with two more saying, ‘a heart that understands’—almost the same thing. The next most common is ‘discerning.’ Some versions change the ‘heart’ to ‘mind,’ as though what Solomon wants is to be the smartest kid in class.

    So the New World has an ‘obedient’ rendering that only one other translation has! Did they just write it in? You know how our people like to lay it on with obedience. I was just entertaining the notion that the Witnesses got it wrong when I noticed a handful of versions that suggested they were on to something after all—maybe something others had missed.

    The New American Bible—Revised Edition, the one I employed as house Bible in I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses: Searching for the Why (because the New World Translation is there declared ‘extremist’) says ‘listening heart.’ The Names of God Bible says ‘heart that listens.’ Oh yeah? Listens to what? Or should it be who?

    Indicating it is the ‘who’ to be listened to, the Wycliffe Version reads: “Therefore thou shalt give to thy servant an heart able to be taught, that is, enlightened of thee . . . And the Message Translation, which is sometimes so paraphrased as to veer into ludicrousness, here is spot-on. Solomon requests a ‘god-listening heart,’ it says.

    So now I’m thinking that the brothers aren’t so daft after all, that they’re on to something that most miss and nobody but one says explicitly. Hmm. How to research this? Look up ‘obedience’ in the Insight book. There I find that the Hebrew word is ‘shama.’ Is 1 Kings 3:9 one of the places shama is used? The article doesn’t say.

    Look up ‘understanding’ in that same encyclopediac work. Nothing.

    Okay. Nothing remains than to hop on the great internet with the search terms, ‘1 Kings 9:3,’ ‘shama,’ and ‘obedient.’ This is a little risky because Witness apostates have peppered the internet with a gazillian tirades about how their former religion stinks to high heaven. But in this case, ‘obedient’ is the furthest thing from their minds, and nobody has bothered to weigh in on this particular verse. Instead an article by Daniel Hoffman is pulled up.

    “When Solomon prayed for wisdom,” he says, “surprisingly, he did not use the word “wisdom.” What he prayed for, according to the ESV, [Easy-to-Read Version] was “an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil”

    There is a Hebrew word for ‘wisdom.’ Solomon doesn’t use it! What word does he use? ‘Shama,’ the one that Insight on the Scriptures identifies as the root word of ‘obedience!’  Quickly the New World Translation has risen from ‘dog of the pack’ to ‘top dog!’

    It is not that ‘understanding’ is wrong as a rendering. It’s fine as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go very far. If it does not convey the idea that ‘understanding’ comes from listening to God rather that simply being innately smart it does its readers a great disservice. Here’s how Hoffman puts it:

    “So the ESV translation is not wrong. But I think maintaining the literal translation is better in this case. The more concrete “hear” reminds us that wisdom, discernment, or understanding, biblically conceived, is a matter first of all of hearing the word of the Lord. Wisdom in its biblical conception is not an abstract trait that some people just naturally have, but is a result of hearing the word of the Lord and digesting and embracing it.” (He says “hear” because shama has the connotation of hearing someone, in this case God.)

    Is it really necessary to go so far as the New World Translation goes (and the Holman Christian Standard Bible) and say ‘obedient.’ No, I don’t think it is. But it just may be the best choice of renderings. After all, what is the point of ‘hearing’ God if you blow off what he says as nothing? Disobedience is afoot today. It is like what was said to Ezekiel: “Look! You are to them like a romantic love song, sung with a beautiful voice and skillfully played on a stringed instrument. They will hear your words, but no one will act on them.” (Ezekiel 33:32)

    Ha! The words are a “romantic love song.” They are inspirational—the stuff of stirring song, moving poetry, rousing prose, but as to obeying them? No. And so Dee mentioned to me the other day how she had commented on someone’s ornate religious edifice he was carrying on about, that yes, people have built many beautiful things for God, “but I almost think it’s better when they find out what he wants and obey him instead.” That got her the fisheye from her recipient but I thought she hit the nail on the head. It’s not unlike what Samuel told Saul: “Look, to obey is better than sacrifice.”

    That being the case, that obedience is important to God and we live in a time of marked disobedience, and we strive to avoid “the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience,” (Eph 2:2) you can make a case that ‘obedient heart’ is the best rendering of all.

    This is not the first time I’ve spotted the New World Translation with a rendering that at first seems suspect but turns out to be superior. Ronald Sider, in his book ‘The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience’ grumbles that Galatians 5:13 literally reads, “be slaves to each other,” yet most popular translations dilute the verse to a more independence-savoring “serve one another in love”—a rendering promoting disobedience that he says contributes to the deplorable state of his own people, whose overall moral conduct is identical to that of the greater world whereas it is supposed to be a notch above. The New World Translation, however, holds to the original Greek, with “through love slave for one another.”

    I noted it here as well with Psalm 22:16, where the New World Translation stuck to the literal Hebrew whereas almost everyone else succumbed to an at least arguably fraudulent reading.

    If the New World ranks with the best translations in these three instances, why is it sometimes said that it is the worst? In almost all cases it is because it does not render certain verses in the formalistic, even if less rigorous, way that they must be rendered to support the trinity doctrine—and adherents to the trinity take offense. There is such a thing as letting beliefs dictate scholarship, whereas it ought to be the other way around.….

    028A3395-E560-4286-B720-827CABF8E208 

    Painting: ‘The Wisdom of Solomon”—James Tissot

    (1 Kings 3:9, which this post expounds on, was included in the recently assigned week’s Bible reading. Therefore this post will fill in for that week’s meeting notes.)

     

    ******  The bookstore

     

     

     

  • How Does it Work that ‘Jesus Died for Our Sins?’

    One reason I became and remain a JW is the gift of explaining just how Christ’s death works. Everyone else must settle for a sloppy “Jesus died for our sins to show he loves us.” Pulls on the heartstrings, I guess, but it seems more than a little fuzzy intellectually. Only JWs (to my knowledge) can explain just how that death benefits us. It is right to highlight it:

    https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/jesus-sacrifice-ransom/

    Note how it all hinges on Adam. You can’t throw away Adam to chase after the evolutionists, tempting though that may be. Keep him as a metaphor if you absolutely must, but keep him. Maybe seeing how everything hangs together by keeping him will be enough to reconsider the “science” that says he is fairy tale.

    I’m all for science. I really am. Pour me a double shot of it. E5BE6D8E-3D75-48C2-A2BD-A44A39B42FD3But it is supposed to serve us, rather than we serve it. I hope I can think a little out of the box when “science” says nothing remains beyond the grave. Why the “science” in italics? Because it remains a tool of discovery, a valuable tool indeed, but not the only tool, nor even the most important one.

    Writing of certain branches of alternative medicine, Dr. McCabe states (roughly): “These methods, thousands of years old, are unproven by science not because they are untrue, but because of the limitations of science.” Exactly. When you can gather material into contrasting groups, the only difference between them being a single variable, and perform repeatable experiments upon those groups, science is at its best. Not all things lend themselves to such easy classification and repeatability. “Science” in the absence of such attributes becomes little more than speculation, hardly worth discarding the spiritual things which carry far greater benefit.

    You don’t even have to toss out all that the evolutionists say. Let scientists be scientists and Bible students be Bible students. Micro-evolution, that essentially amounts to variation within a “kind?” Sure, why not? It is little different than animal husbandry, which people have known about for ages. Maybe you can even play with macro-evolution some. More dicey, but maybe some aspects of it can be accepted. But life arising from non-life, “abiogenesis” it is called? No.

    Just make sure you keep Adam in the mix some way, some how, and you retain the key for unlocking just how Christ’s death works to save humankind.

     

    ***The bookstore