A Voice in the Wilderness |
May 9, 1998 Topics:
5-point Calvinists? from: "Rapturing the Wicked?"
Q. Yes, many in the reformed camp believe in what has come to be known as "Calvinsism" however, there are many in the Evangelical community who feel the same way. I think a better distinction would be "those that hold to covenant theology" rather than "5-point Calvinist." (condensed)
A. And yes, I did think for a bit about my choice of words on that one. Hoping some friends of mine wouldn't be offended, thinking I was talking about them...since we were discussing this a few months ago. While there are the "conservative" type "5-pointers" as you mention elsewhere...you would possibily be amazed at notes I've gotten from scoffers of eschatological matters, who also flaunt the fact that they are "5-pointers." In "their minds" the two seem to go hand in hand. And they seem to be trying to add credibility to their eschatological views by including the fact that they are 5-pointers. As though, being a "5-point Calvinist" is some sort of "status" of theological correctness. Just another thought...not necessarily related to your concerns, but since you expand a bit on the Calvinist theme...While I happen to have some very dear friends who are 5-pointers, and when they were explaining it to me, I have a bit of a problem with the "irresistable grace" aspect...one tendency I notice with many of these who hold to these "positions." They tend to hold to the "position" and view Scripture "from the perspective of" that "position." Rather than starting with Scripture and a blank slate, and seeking what God's "thus says the Lord" might be. Coming to God's Word from a particular "school of thought" or perspective of some supposed "great man of God." When Jesus very clearly stated that it is the Holy Spirit Who teaches us.(Jn16:13) And we don't need some "man's perspective" because we have an "anointing."(1Jn2:27) Thanks for your well-thought-out note. [Top] KJV and Easter
Q. this is not a debate but just wondering. thanks again.
A.
When I looked this up with Online Bible, the Greek word in STrongs is
given as: 3957 pascha {pas'-khah} ....that's "Passover" And my
Heb/Grk/Eng interlinear (based on KJV's Masoretic/TR) agrees.
'Just another example of how the KJV is not as "perfect" as the
militants would have us believe, eh... And having said this, don't
misunderstand me to be condoning the perVersions which, in this case,
happened to use the correct word in that spot.
KJV and "easter" again
There were a couple of people who sent me an 'explanation' of Acts 12:4
in response to the (above) Q/A. One was a paste of writings of David W.
Cloud. The other sounded like an echo of similar material. Rather than
paste it all here (it gets rather wordy) let me briefly summarize, and
then paste my response.
The argument is that vs.3 says Peter was put in prison "during the -Days-
of Unleavened bread." And reminds the reader that the "day" Passover was the start
of a 7-day period called "Unleavened Bread." But that Passover, itself,
is just ONE (1) day. So if they were -into- the "day[s]" of unleavened bread, that the "day" of passover was (already) past. So, when KJV renders vs.4 that Herod wanted to
bring Peter out "after easter" he was really referring to the pagan
holiday celebrating "Ishtar" which would have been in keeping with
Roman tradition ...thus, the KJV translators did the "right thing" by
continuing the same word that translations previous to the KJV had used
(Tyndale, etc.)
That's it, in a nutshell...
Addendum: (6/1/06)
Now...my answer:
Well, the thoughts about Herod and "Easter" are certainly interesting
ones. Only problem is...it's the same word "Pascha" that's
used...whether the KJV renders the word as Passover (Heb11:28, 1Co5:7), or "Easter" in
that one (lone) place (Ac12:4). If it was the pagan holiday, why would Luke not have
used a different word? ...such as "Roman Festival of Ishtar" etc.etc.
Let's consider this from another angle. Looking at Luke 2:41,43 (same
author, Luke) they went at the "Feast of the Passover" ... "when they
had finished the day[S] (plural). While technically "Passover" is "one
day" it is intricately a part of "Unleavened Bread." Some would have
spoken of the whole time as the "Feast of Unleavened Bread" which
included Passover. Others would have referred to the whole time as
"Passover" which included "Unleavened Bread." It's still the same
celebration. And both had its origins in Israel's deliverance out of
Egypt. Oh...and then, let's not forget that the "waving" of the
firstfruits (1Cor15:20) is right in the middle of that, too, (on
Resurrection Sunday -Lev23:11) which 50 days later culminates in
Pentecost. So, he could have just as easily mentioned it as
"Firstfruits." One big festival time...three elements.
In modern times I don't hear Jews speak of Unleavened Bread or
Firstfruits. It is always "pesach." And also, calendars tend to label
the days as "Passover." For instance, my calendar right above this desk
here labels this year's April 11 as "First Day of Passover." Even
though, technically, you and I know that Passover is only "one day."
But I think it is clear that many people think of that whole week as
"Passover Week." ...even though, most technically speaking, it is
actually "Unleavened Bread."
Since Luke used the word "Pascha" ...I have no problem at all with the
fact that it should be rendered "Passover" in that verse. Since he also
did the same kind of thing in Luke 2:41,43.
And he actually gives us a "key" to this understanding in Lk22:1,
"Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called Passover.
I think that's quite clear.
And Luke was "set[ing] in order a narrative" in Lk1:1 and in Acts 1:1
he is continuing from the "former account." For such a careful
historical narrative, even humanly logically speaking, it seems
inconceivable that such a scholar would have used the "wrong word" in
Acts 12:4. If he had meant the feast of Tammuz/Ishtar...he would have
said so.
But Cloud's arguments are quite well done for a person who would defend
KJV as being "perfect" and of same status of "inspiration" as the
"original words" to Paul, Peter, Moses, Isaiah, etc. I suppose that
would explain why the KJV translators felt the freedom to draw from
history and tradition, rather than Luke's actual word? I don't suppose
the KJV translators were "Jews"? (Rom3:2)
READER COMMENT:
VW ANSWER:
During Passover/Unleavened bread, what did Jews do? Nothing. It was a sabbath of rest. They were to do "no labor of work" (Lev23:7-8) So, if all the Jews were holed up in their homes, what good would it do to bring Peter out and make a spectacle of killing him? With the Jews in their homes, or doing other things in worship, there would be nobody to make a spectacle -to-. Herod needed to wait till the "days of Passover" (unleavend bread) were over, when the Jews were again out-and-about, and then do this thing FOR THEM....to kill Peter. Yes?
READER COMMENTS:
VW ANSWER:
Luke wrote "Pascha" ....not "Ishtar". And Luke was no dummy! To allege that Luke "really meant" -easter-, is to question Luke's veracity; and thus, in actuality, the whole rest of the book of "Acts" is put in question. And if Acts is in question, then, too, is the Gospel of Luke...because he wrote them both. And if it is the case that Luke wrote the book of Hebrews (some speculate this, and I wonder about it, too), just think about all the doctrine that is suddenly up-for-grabs!
For all the instances of "pascha" in the NT, the KJV renders them all as "passover", except Ac12:4. If the Greek "pascha" is "passover" in all those other references, then it is also "passover" in Ac12:4. Period.
[Top]
An added bit of trivia about James and a couple of the KJV translation scholars, provided in a mailing recently by David Cloud (who is staunchly KJ-only); although the mailing itself was primarily on the topic of how protestants of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc) historically
persecuted Christians of the anabaptist/baptist persuasion -for- being 'dippers': among other things, James and these KJV translators persecuted baptists for believing in dipping/immersion. (Persecution for dipping/immersing in those years was often of the martyrdom variety) Cloud didn't make
any observation about his own KJ-only-ness, and the persecution the KJ authors perpetrated upon Christians.
But for our own consideration here: the English word "baptize" is a transliteration of the Greek...because James and company were militantly anti-dipping. But the Greek word means, literally, to dip/immerse. Thus... so much for the KJ's 'faithfulness' to God's Word in any of those spots, eh. Making the translation 'fit' the prevailing church (of England) doctrines of the day. Hmmm....sounds like some of today's perversions, doesn't it! If there is a difference
between our belief, and what God's Word says...modify what we translate and print, to 'conform' to -our- preferences. At least, today they don't (yet) martyr us who wish to stick with what God's Word -says-...although, the persecution takes the form of words, doesn't it. (Mt5:11)
[Top]
|