Waymarks 50 August 2007

waymarks 50

 

Report of Open Air Preaching

June5^th DUNSTABLE. Ashton Square. An elderly man of ethnic minority had some important information for me. He first tested me to ensure I was doctrinally sound. Did I believe in the Trinity. He then told me he believed everything including reincarnation. Poor fellow! At least he accepted a Way of Salvation not because he needed it, he told me, but it might be interesting.

June 6^th LUTON. T.C., standing 25 yards from where pc Henry ^* was murdered two days ago.  The town is very quiet and sombre. There are a dozen or so police standing by the war memorial where  wreaths are being placed, 25 yards to the other side of me. I preach and the sound carries along the street.

A man with an Eastern European accent wants to impart vital information to me. He is elderly and had died several times and each time he was resurrected. What did I think of this? I told him sometimes pills can help but he went on to explain more to me. Like yesterday’s man he believed in God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and also the Holy Mother. He didn’t need a Saviour because he had never sinned. I told him of Mary’s confession of God her Saviour (Luke 1: 47) but this ardent Catholic had never seen a Bible. He didn’t believe it anyway. If he ever finally died he would go up, he said. However, he did take a Way of Salvation.

June27th LUTON T.C. The Joss Stick seller was in my place when I arrived. I decided to continue there but inadvertently positioned myself in front of his bag. He was very polite and moved it away for me. He then stayed the whole time I was preaching, even picking up my “cane” when I dropped it. His vocabulary and accent told me he was probably American. 

A lady put her shopping bag down and stood to listen. I thought she was just waiting for someone (as often happens here at the entrance to the Arndale) but when I got interrupted by another lady, she immediately left.

The second lady was the mother of a child I had taught in 1978. I had put a remark on her school report which had affected her choice of career!  I hoped other remarks made in the classroom  had affected her choice of eternal destiny.

June 28^th LEIGHTON BUZZARD. By the Cross. Being an old market town, many shops still observe a midweek early closing. Today was it. Of course I knew this and this is why I came today; there are not many people about. A lack of noise and bustle allowed my voice to carry to the end of the High Street. So a lot of people actually heard the gospel preached.

One man who came to speak to me was the old road sweeper. I first met him with his barrow in Flitwick in 1981. He is a believer and came over from Jamaica in the 60’s. He told me the story he has related to me several times in the past —one market day a man was preaching from the steps of the Cross and the market supervisor tried to shoo him away. My friend asked him if a drunk staggered out of the nearby pub would he shoo him away, or stand laughing at him? The supervisor left the preacher alone.   

July 8^th WOLVERTON. By the Agora. This is now a regular stand for the gospel. Almost always there is opportunity

to speak to individuals and it was so again on this Sunday evening. a woman came out from the pub, beer glass in one hand and cigarette in the other. She was making her way to her house, 100 yards from where we stood. She said she was ashamed we should see her in her present state and showed a degree of guilt. She was, she told us, an ardent Catholic but knew she wasn’t right with God. She stood and conversed with us for a little while, refusing a tract (until my wife persuaded her just as we were leaving). Her friend came out from the pub and tried to drag her away from us, objecting to our “forcing religion down everybody’s throat.

Then a Jesus Army platoon arrived, armed with tracts and papers. They prayed over Paul, who was preaching with us and then surrounded a man by the bus stop who had been listening intently to the preaching, thereby ensuring he didn’t listen anymore. another J A woman walked past, pointing at me and saying in a loud voice that she had heard me preaching in Luton over the last 40 years. I thought this remarkable that she had walked past me many times over 40 years (actually 33 years since I began ton preach in Luton) and being a professing Christian had never attempted to speak to me.

The Jesus Army is now known as Jesus Fellowship Church and is charismatic and ecumenical. Desperate to appear orthodox it has joined the Evangelical Alliance.

 *(We bought our present house from pc Henry’s parents in 1974, the year after he was born.)

July 12^th LUTON T.C. A lady stood by me agreeing loudly with each point I made. Then a man told me I was missing a treat at the other end of the street. I had been aware of a disturbance as I came by. It was a Rock Band. (Always remember “rock” is a synonym for copulation). This man told me they were playing gospel music and in between they were talking about God and were giving out free hot-dogs.  There was a crowd listening but I thought it all hellish and got by as fast as I could. This man, flicking his dreadlocks to one side, assured me I would get a better response if I followed their example. He had been very interested in the hot-dogs.

August 3^rd LUTON T.C. There were plenty of people listening today, including the RAC man. an elderly man stood by, waiting to speak to me. He was another who wanted me to hear his theological views. The terms God and Allah, he informed me, were interchangeable. I told him my God bore no resemblance to Allah and I briefly explained why. He told me the only book he ever read was the Bible. Up to this moment I had thought he was a Muslim. He believed Jesus Christ was both God and man. But he didn’t need a Saviour, thank you, because he had never sinned, and heaven is on this earth anyway. I decided to be more pointed with him and warned him his sin was taking him to hell. He would not be moved but he stayed while I preached to him. 

By the Way....

Ards Evangelical Bookshop is selling a “Two Version Bible” . It might well be called The Double Tongued Bible . We are informed, “This much sought after Bible [by whom, we wonder] has been out of print for 50 years [why, we wonder] and is available in a limited edition reprint. It features Authorized version text, with the Revised Version in the margin.”

The RV bible was the master plan of two enemies of Christ, Westcott and Hort. It never succeeded in replacing the Authorized Bible and was soon discarded. But seeds of doubt were sown in many minds as to the verbal inspiration of Scripture and this is now being repeated by AEB. It is of course a money making exercise but will cause confusion among brethren. Many an untaught brother will proclaim the RV marginal reading as though he is some erudite Bible student, unaware of the depraved background of that reference.

So much has been written concerning the RV that there is no excuse for ignorance concerning it. I will only add here a paragraph by Sir Robert Anderson, KCB—

"In the Revised Version of the New Testament textual criticism has done its worst. It is inconceivable that it will ever again be allowed to run riot as in the work of the Revisers of 1881. When that version appeared, Bishop Wordsworth of Lincoln raised the question "whether the Church of England, - which in her Synod, so far as this Province is concerned, sanctioned a Revision of her Authorized Version under the express condition, which he most wisely imposed, that no changes should be made in it except what were absolutely necessary, - could consistently accept a version in which 36,000 changes have been made; not a fiftieth of which can be shown to be needed, or even desirable.

But what concerns us here is not the changes in the translation, but the far more serious matter of the changes in the text. The question at issue between the majority of the Revisers, who followed Doctors Hort and Westcott, and the very able and weighty minority led by Dr. Scrivener, the most capable and eminent "textual critic" of the whole company, was one with which every lawyer is familiar, but of which the Revisers may have had no experience and with which they were not competent to deal."

Anderson was referring to the law of indirect evidence, in this context supplied by the early Fathers, ancient translations, the majority of later mss, etc.  Jurymen Hort and Westcott seized upon the direct evidence of but two or three  ancient mss, as witnesses in order to "convict" the Received Text. These two or three witnesses proving themselves to be perjured whilst the indirect evidence would be acceptable in any just  court of law. His point is that "the principles on which the revision of the text was conducted.....are found to be unsound when judged by the science of evidence.”

The R.V. was never accepted. What is it that compels some of our brethren to quote from it? Dean Burgon wrote more than 100 years ago, "In the end, when partisanship has cooled down, and passion has evaporated, and prejudice has ceased to find an auditory, the 'Revision' of 1881 must come to be universally regarded as what it most certainly is, the most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous literary blunder of the Age."     — Newsletter 7 Summer 1995 ( Seven Newsletters were issued before the commencement of Waymarks in 1995)        

We learn that some assemblies once thought conservative now have their football teams. They practice “evangelism through sport” but are careful to avoid bible and praying stuff. Another brother informs me that some Edinburgh assemblies hold dances, or have ceilidhs. Others attend gigs.

Young mother: I believe even three year olds can get saved.

Elderly brother: In which case even three year olds even three year olds can go to hell.

THE GAP THEORY

This question appeared in Words in Season Sept.98;

'Is there a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2? Is the word in verse 2 "became"?'

Harold Paisley (brother of the better known Ian) answering this question sees a period of unknown length between verses one and two. Such a view panders to the evolutionists. Without form and void, he informs us, resulted from divine judgment. Upon whom? we ask, but he does not tell us. If he has swallowed the Pember/Scofield lie he will believe in a pre-Adamic race, implying that by one man (Adam) sin did NOT enter in because it was already present. Therefore when man was given dominion over all creation, 99.9% was fossilized so Adam was walking on a graveyard. Perhaps Mr Paisley would like to tell us who or what was judged in Gen. l:l. was it Satan? Or was it by fallen angels that we are to believe sin first entered into the earth?

He will cling to `without form and void' as meaning chaos because in his mind the words can only spell chaos. But the phrase is easy to understand. It means unformed and unfilled. Once God had called this great sphere of matter

into being from out of nothing, He then formed and filled it all in six 24 hour days.

Mr Paisley says 'was' is better understood as 'became'. Apparently he has mastered a couple of Hebrew words that convince him of this. God created the heaven and the earth but it immediately became messed up. Even before the earth and the moon were made. You will note that this earlier race had to live on a non-revolving planet without sun and moon. Or so our 'Christian ' evolutionists would have us to believe.

Why should I rather not listen to Monty White quoting Weston Fields when he says, 'The 'was' of Gen. 1:2 is shown to be the traditional and only legitimate translation of the Hebrew hayeta : How old is the Earth?,- EP. 1985.

Above all I simply believe my Bible. This is what evolutionists and revisionists do not like.. It says WAS and I believe it. So we say to those who believe that changes in modern versions do not affect doctrine, here is one word that does. It is right at the beginning of the Bible. The Gap Theory is a God dishonouring opinion. —Waymarks 15; Winter ‘98

I haven’t heard that Mr H Paisley has changed his mind on this subject.

 AV verses Vindicated

Isaiah 52: 15

So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him.

“so now he will startle many nations”. CJB (Complete Jewish Bible).

One must not think that being Jewish, these translators better understand the language.

Rather, they have accepted the variant in Kittel’s footnote to this verse, in his Biblia Hebraica;( my ed. 1909.)

The variant is thaumasontai  from the Greek Septuagint and means “startle”. There are no other variants. This is an interpretation and is not a translation of the Hebrew word nazah  meaning “sprinkle”.

nazah is consistently translated sprinkle in the OT. (24 times) and can apply to blood, water, , and oil, in a good or bad sense. Note the first reference; Ex. 29: 21 and thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron...

The Septuagint is an extremely defective document. There is no evidence it existed before the first century AD or that currently there is a definitive version of it.

The alteration in this verse is designed to deny the Messiahship of Christ.

Some of us remember how Hitler startled the nations, causing them to wonder with great astonishment.

Wilson tells us concerning this word,

The uniform use of the word [nazah] in the sense of sprinkling with blood, in order to purify, establishes a most important application of this passage to the virtue of the Messiah’s atonement.  — Old Testament Word Studies

William Macdonald, in his Believer’s Bible Commentary gives,

But when He comes again men will be startled (NKJV marg.)

In many places Macdonald takes the line of rationalism. His commentary is best avoided. The Bible Knowledge Commentary by John Walwoord is much more reliable. It is available online to those using E-sword.

Matthew 8: 2

There came a leper and worshipped him

Only deity is entitled to worship and here, and in ten other places recorded in the N.T., Jesus accepted worship. Darby did not like the idea of the Lord being worshipped so he changed it to “do homage”. The NIV has “kneeled before” in five of the eleven places.

The suggestion that it doesn’t really matter because the Lord’s deity is upheld in the other six references shows a v3ery careless approach to the Scriptures. Bible believers care about the omission of the truth even if it should be only in one verse.

Matthew 10: 5,8

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying,....cleanse the lepers, raise the dead....

Dean ,Burgon who so skilfully dernolished the Westcott& Hort theories upon which the RV was based, was nevertheless not 100% in favour of the Received Text. But then neither were the AV translators.There are a number of places where AV readings are not found in the RT, Conversely, Burgon regretted that the phrase "Raise the dead" which

IS in the RT, found its way into the AV.

Burgon wrote, "when our Lord first sent forth His twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial commission to them to 'raise the dead'. This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our Revisionists: because it is found in those corrupt witnesses- א B C D, and the Latin copies. But he might also have

pointed out that the words were kept in the RT because of the stronq ancient testimony to them|.

It may be that Burgon's real objection was that the comand to raise the dead did not seem  to fit in with the Lord’s Commission" This, he says, is easily demonstrable. Only he didn’t demonstrate it . That the

Apostles did have the miraculous powers given to them in Matt. l0, and that they used them after the Lord’s ascension is demonstrated in the book of Acts.

Particularly we note Acts 9:36-45. where we read of the death of Dorcas. Peter raised her to life again- He obviously knew he had this power for it would have been very damaging to the furtherance of the gospel if Peter had told her to arise and nothing had happened. It follows also that the men who went to fetch Peter knew that he had been given this power. There would have been no value in calling him to come and look at a corpse if he could do nothing about it. So we need not be surprised to read in the gospels of the occasion when the Lord conferred this power on the apostles. Paul also raised Eutychus from the dead, Acts 20: 9-12.

This is ore of the very few placcs where Burgon slipped up and allowed his judgment to be coloured by subjective reasoning. Dr. Letis has pointed this out in his book,  The Eccliastical Text.

Revelation 20: 11,12

And I saw a great white throne....and I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God....

The majority of modern versions omit God from this passage. They refer either to “the One” or to “standing before the throne”.   Ungodly men fear the prospect of giving account to God so He is removed, and the deity of Christ is denied. He said All authority is given unto me to execute judgment. He is to be the Judge on the great white throne.

Jack Moorman supplies the manuscript evidence for “God” (see When the KJV departs from the Majority text. p.108)

historical, theological, and contextual evidence against it. Instead, the fact that the Servant will "sprinkle" many nations completes the beautiful picture of the Messiah as both sin-bearing sacrifice and sin-purging maker of the atonement!

The Messiah Shall SPRINKLE Many Nations by Tim Dunkin, Studytoanswer.net (reprinted here by kind permission.)

Isaiah 52:15 Promises a High Priestly Messiah.

For lovers of the Messiah, Isaiah 52:15 is one of the most beautiful and precious promises pointing to the Anointed Lord. In it, we see the role of the High Priest being filled by the Servant whom God was (at that time) to send. The promise is that the Messiah would "sprinkle" many nations, making a clear allusion to the expiatory foreshadowing shown to Israel in the Law through the blood-shedding sacrifices. The Messiah, having had His visage marred (52:14) and having been wounded for our transgressions (53:5), so that He might serve as the sin-bearer for His people (53:12), would shed His blood to sprinkle and cleanse the nations. The Law clearly indicated that atonement for sin was made by blood (Leviticus 17:11), and it was His own blood which the marred, beaten, yet triumphant Messiah would use to sprinkle the nations and cleanse their sins from them.

However, in the zeal to obscure the truth of Jesus Christ's Messiahship, some "anti-missionaries" have sought to deny that this prophecy says that the Messiah would "sprinkle" the nations, and thus they try to deny that Christ fulfilled this prophecy when He shed His blood on the cross^* by removing from this passage the reference to the sprinkling. The purpose is so that the connexion between this prophecy and Christ's fulfillment and the observance in the Law of the shedding and sprinkling of the blood for the atonement of the people will be severed. This effort on the part of the rabbis is advanced by one of the many "convenient" mistranslations which appear in the Hebrew Scriptures as translated by the Jewish Publication Society. Isaiah 52:15 in the JPS translation reads,

"So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive."

Thus, the translation of the Scriptures used throughout English-speaking Judaism completely removes the idea of the Servant "sprinkling" the nations, removes the idea of atonement, and replaces it with His "startling" the nations. This, however, is an illegitimate translation (which also appears in many Christian Bibles as well) whose result is the obscuring of plain scriptural truth on the matter of the Messiah.

The first and foremost point that needs to be made concerning this passage deals with the word itself in the Hebrew. The term alternately translated "sprinkle" and "startle" is a form of the Hebrew verb /nazah/. /Nazah/ is used 24 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and each and every other place where the word is used, it clearly denotes the idea of sprinkling a liquid, whether it be blood, water, or oil. The word /nazah/ has the primitive meaning "to spurt", and differs slightly from the other word in the Hebrew scriptures which also denotes sprinkling (/zaraq/) in that it has more the idea of flinging or spreading a liquid out through sprinkling, while /zaraq/ is used in many places to denote pouring something out or gently sprinkling it (e.g. Ex. 29:16, Job 2:12). /Nazah/ seems to be used exclusively with liquids. Thus, from the straightforward meaning of the word alone, "sprinkle" should be the favoured reading. The word is most often used in passages dealing with ritual cleansing and purifying. Indeed, the Arabic cognate root of this word has the meaning of "honesty, purity, integrity, blamelessness, or being above reproach".

But, many would differ with this assessment. The basis for arguments against understanding /nazah/ in this passage as referring to sprinkling lies with the reading found in the Septuagint. The LXX translation at Isaiah 52:15 uses the word /thaumasontai/ to translated /nazah/. /Thaumasontai/ is a Greek word which means "admire, startle, wonder at". On the strength of this reading, from a translation which is reputed to have been made in the last two centuries BC, the argument is built in favour of "startle". However, it must be understood that the Septuagint is not necessarily reliable as an accurate translation, and the weight of a reading found in the LXX is not sufficient to overturn the clear meaning of a word in the Hebrew which is uniformly understood every other place it appears in the Scriptures (as is /nazah/). Further, the insufficiency of the LXX when dealing with /nazah/ is shown elsewhere, in Isaiah 63:3, where /nazah/ is translated as /kategegon/ (meaning "brought down"), even though the clear and natural understanding of the passage is quite obviously that of sprinkling.

Delitzsch in his commentary^1 <#notes> argues that, everywhere else that /nazah/ is used, it has the liquid as the object of the verb, not the object being sprinkled (e.g. Lev. 16:19, Num. 19:18). Yet it seems somewhat /non sequitur/ to deny the plain meaning of a word in a passage on this basis, especially as the usage in Isaiah 52:15 is not substantially different from the passages Delitzsch uses as support for his argument. The primary difference is simply that the liquid in Isaiah 52:15 which is being /nazah/-ed would be understood as having that action performed on it, rather than this being explicitly stated, if one were to go by the plain and uniform meaning of /nazah/ as it is used elsewhere.

Further, that "sprinkle" is the historical understanding of those familiar with this passage in the Hebrew is shown from several sources. In the Vulgate translation of Jerome, the verse in question appears as follows:

"Iste *asperget* gentes multas super ipsum continebunt reges os suum quia quibus non est narratum de eo viderunt et qui non audierunt contemplati sunt."

The word /asperget/ is the Latin "sprinkle". As an explicitly Christian translation, the Vulgate would not normally carry any weight in this discussion, except for two reasons. One, Jerome translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Latin from Hebrew, not from the Septuagint Greek. He did this, against much criticism, because he felt the Septuagint to be imperfect and uninspired, and wanted to make the translation from the original language. Second, Jerome's translation was done largely as he was tutored in Hebrew by a Jew who is said to have come to him secretly by night, fearing persecution^2 <#notes>. It seems unlikely that Jerome would not have engaged in at least some consultation as to the meaning of /nazah/ in this passage, especially given the disparity between the usual meaning of the word, and the meaning of /thaumasontai/ into which it is translated in the LXX.

Other historical sources can be seen which support "sprinkle" as the legitimate understanding at this point. The Aramaic targum of Isaiah says at this point "he will scatter many people". This reading, similar to "sprinkle" in the sense that something is being spread about by some sort of physical action (indeed, sprinkling usually involves scattering), suggests that the Jewish commentator on Isaiah who prepared this targum sometime in the first two centuries before Christ understood the word which he translated this from to be a reference to spreading something out (such as would be done in sprinkling), not startling or amazing someone. Further, John Gill notes that Rabbi Ibn Ezra (c.1089-1164) interpretated this clause to be suggesting that the Servant will pour out the blood of the nations as he takes vengeance upon them^3 <#notes>. Again, this seems to weigh in favour of a Hebrew understanding this passage as speaking of "sprinkling" more so than "startling". Further, the Syraic translation of this passage, according to Delitzsch, also follows "sprinkle"^4 <#notes>.

* [I have put this phrase in bold because Mr Dunkin appears otherwise not to give sufficient stress to the necessity of His death in atonement—R.S.]

The argument from the LXX is supported, however, by a contextual argument which attempts to draw a parallel structure between "as many were astonied at thee" in v. 14 and "So shall he *startle* many nations" in v. 15. It is argued that "startle" fits the context and harmony of the passage better than "sprinkle".

However, this argument is less than convincing. There is no real reason to assume that there must be a parallel structure between this verse and its predecessor. There is no readily obvious parallel structure between verses in this portion of scripture. Indeed, to draw a parallel structure between "astonied" and "sprinkle/startle" implies logically that the parallelism be further extended to "visage was so marred...." and "kings shall shut their mouths at him". Yet, this sort of a parallelism, taken to its logical conclusion between verses, then speaks to the exact opposite of the intention of v. 15. In verse 15, the kings shut their mouths (/qaphats/, with the meaning of "drawing together" or "contraction") as a sign that they have been put to quietness by the wonder and glory of what they are witnessing in the Servant. Yet, if the parallelism is drawn to its conclusion, then they are being put to quietness by the witnessing of the marring and corruption of the Servant, not His triumphant position which was first lain out in v. 13, which does not fit the tenor of the passage.

Further, "sprinkle" fits the context of the Servant's Song better, as well as the overall understanding of the place which the Messiah will fill. The whole passage of Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 is about atonement, even if modern Judaism wishes to ignore this truth (which is why many synagogues skip over the passage in their yearly readings of the Tanach). It was understood this way, and as applying to the Messiah, by practically all of the rabbinical scholars before and during the formative period of Talmudic Judaism^5 <#notes>. The interpretation of this passage as referring to the nation of Israel itself has only been widely accepted among Jewish theologians in relatively modern times^6 <#notes>.

In the context of the passage, the Servant makes atonement by His suffering for the sins of the people, taking them upon Himself and pouring out His own soul as an offering for their sins. In Isaiah 53, the Servant is depicted as being "wounded for our transgressions....bruised for our iniquities" (v. 5), giving us peace through His chastisement and healing us with His stripes (v. 5), having all our iniquity laid upon Him by God (v. 6), being stricken for the transgression of the people (v. 8), His soul is given as an offering for our sin (v. 10), justifying many (v. 11), bearing our iniquities (v. 11), bearing the sin of many (v. 12), and *making intercession for the transgressors* (v. 12). Note that in this passage, the Messiah is depicted both as the sacrifice AND the one offering the sacrifice. He is giving Himself to bear the sins of the people, to make expiation for their sins so as to *justify* them before God. The Law, of course, says that no remission of sin can be had without the shedding of blood (Leviticus 17:11). Hence, this passage is teaching that the Servant, the Messiah, makes atonement for the sins of the people, which justifies them before God as foreshadowed by the sacrifice of the lamb on the Day of Atonement. He obviously is shedding His blood if he is beaten, bruised for our iniquities, and is striped (lit. whipped) for our healing and salvation (the terms being more or less interchangeable in Hebrew).

Yet, in addition to being the sacrifice, the Messiah also serves as the one offering the sacrifice, for we see again in verse 12 that He makes intercession for the transgressors. Not only is His blood being shed to make intercession between God and man, but He Himself is making this intercession. To make intercession between the nation of Israel and God was the province of the High Priest, which he did once a year on Yowm Kippuwr. The Hebrew Scriptures elsewhere teach that the Messiah was to fulfill the role not only of a King, but also of a Priest. In Psalm 110:4, the Messiah is given the position of being a priest "after the order of Melchisedek". This indicates, as seen from the role of Melchisedek in Genesis 14:18, that the Messiah will be both a King and Priest, fulfilling a dual role. This truth is reiterated in Zechariah 6:12-13, where the BRANCH (uniformly understood to be a reference to the Messiah) would fill the roles of both King and Priest.

Understanding all this, then, it seems less likely that "sprinkle" in Isaiah 52:15 is out of context and harmony with the passage. Indeed, it fits more perfectly the understanding of the Messiah as one who will be smitten and disfigured ("marred" literally means "corrupted", as by bearing the sins which are abomination in God's sight), yet who will also fill the role of a priest making intercession and atoning for the sins of the people. That He would do so for all nations, and not just Israel, is understood then in passages such as Isaiah 11:10, 49:6, and 60:1-3. Indeed, what will cause the kings to shut their mouths at Him is the fact that this one who was marred, corrupted, is yet the one who will stand up and serve as this priestly king, sprinkling the nations. There will be nothing they can say against Him, no more can they do to Him than was already done, and yet this Servant is exalted and extolled by God to the position of priest and king such as they have never heard or seen done before.

Thus, it seems most logical to understand that this passage concerning the Suffering Servant is speaking to the priestly role which the Messiah would (and does) fulfill. The translation of "startle" has little substantial support, and has both

historical, theological, and contextual evidence against it. Instead, the fact that the Servant will "sprinkle" many nations completes the beautiful picture of the Messiah as both sin-bearing sacrifice and sin-purging maker of the atonement!

*End Notes*

(1) - F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. VII, Isaiah, p. 308

(2) - H.S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction, p. 241

(3) - J. Gill, Exposition of the Entire Bible, at Isaiah 52:15

(4) - F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. VII, Isaiah, p.308

(5) - see, for example, M Eastman and C. Smith, The Search for Messiah, p. 17 and The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, trans. S.R. Driver and A.D. Neubauer, p. 374-375, also see A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, whose compilation of rabbinical quotes concerning the Messiah includes many that refer to this set of verses

(6) - see http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/servant01.html for a more in-depth analysis of why this interpretation is not correct

The Mythological Septuagint, what is it?

The answer to this question is given below, taken from Samuel Gipp’s Answer Book

 #9  QUESTION: What is the LXX?

    ANSWER: A figment of someone's imagination.

    EXPLANATION: First, let's define what the LXX is supposed to be. An ancient document called "The Letter of Aristeas" revealed a plan to make an OFFICIAL translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) in Greek. This translation was to be accepted as the official Bible of the Jews and was to replace the Hebrew Bible. Supposedly this translation work would be performed by 72 Jewish scholars (?), six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The supposed location of the work was to be Alexandria, Egypt. The alleged date of translation was supposedly around 250 BC, during the 400 years of silence between the close of the Old Testament in 397 BC and the birth of Christ in approximately 4 BC (due to a four year error in the calendar).
    It has become known as the Septuagint, "The Interpretation of the 70 Elders". Also it is represented by the Roman (?) numerals whose combined value is 70, hence L-50, X-10, X-10. Why it isn't called the LXXII I'll never know.
    This so called "Letter of Aristeas" is the sole evidence for the existence of this mystical document. There are absolutely NO Greek Old Testament manuscripts existent with a date of 250 BC or anywhere near it. Neither is there any record in Jewish history of such a work being contemplated or performed.
    When pressed to produce hard evidence of the existence of such a document, scholars quickly point to Origen's Hexapla written around 200 AD, or approximately 450 years later than the LXX was supposedly penned, and more than 100 years after the New Testament was completed. The second column of Origen's Hexapla contains his own (hardly 72 Jewish scholars) Greek translation of the Old Testament including spurious books such as "Bel and the Dragon", "Judith" and "Tobit" and other apocryphal books accepted as authoritative only by the Roman Catholic Church.
    Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18).
    Thus we see that the second column of the Hexapla is Origen's personal, unreliable translation of the Old Testament into Greek and nothing more.
    Eusebius and Philo, both of questionable character, make mention of a Greek Pentateuch. Hardly the entire Old Testament and not mentioned as any kind of an officially accepted translation.
    Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eusebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentateuch had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. It most certainly cannot be a portion of any pretended official Old Testament translation into Greek. We can rest assured that those 72 Jewish scholars supposedly chosen for the work in 250 BC would be just a mite feeble by 150 BC.
    Besides the non-existence of any reason to believe such a translation was ever produced are several hurtles which the "Letter of Aristeas", Origen's Hexapla, Ryland's #458, and Eusebius and Philo just cannot clear.
    The first one is the "Letter of Aristeas" itself. There is little doubt amongst scholars today that it was not written by anyone named Aristeas. In fact, some believe its true author is Philo. This would give it an A.D. date. If this were true, then its REAL intention would be to deceive believers into thinking that Origen's second column is a copy of the LXX. A feat that it has apparently accomplished "in spades".
    If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.
    First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.
    Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.
    (1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare join such a forbidden enterprise.
    (2) It is obvious to any reader of the Bible that the Jews were to be distinctly different from the Gentile nations around them. Unto them was given such distinct practices as circumcision, Sabbath worship, sundry laws of cleansing and their own homeland. Added to this is the heritage of the Hebrew language. Even today, practicing Jews in China and India refuse to teach their children any language but Hebrew. The Falasha Jews of Ethiopia were distinct among the many tribes of their country by the fact that they jealously retained the Hebrew language as an evidence of their Jewish heritage.
    Are we to be so naive as to believe that the Jews who considered Gentiles nothing more than dogs, would willingly forsake their heritage, the Hebrew language, for a Gentile language into which would be translated the holiest possession of all, their Bible? Such a supposition is as insane as it is absurd.
    "What then," one might ask, "of the numerous quotes in the New Testament of the Old Testament that are ascribed to the LXX?" The LXX they speak of is nothing more than the second column of Origen's Hexapia. The New Testament quotations are not quotes of any LXX or the Hexapla. They are the author, the Holy Spirit, taking the liberty of quoting His work in the Old Testament in whatever manner He wishes. And we can rest assured that He certainly is not quoting any non-existent Septuagint.
    Only one more question arises. Then why are scholars so quick to accept the existence of this LXX in the face of such irrefutable arguments against it? The answer is sad and simple.
    Hebrew is an extremely difficult language to learn. It takes years of study to attain a passing knowledge of it. And many more to be well enough versed to use it as a vehicle of study. By comparison a working knowledge of Greek is easily attainable. Thus, IF THERE WAS an official translation of the Old Testament into Greek, Bible critics could triple the field of influence overnight without a painstaking study of biblical Hebrew. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the existence of the Septuagint on such thin evidence is based solely on pride and voracity.
    But stop and think. Even if such a spurious document as the LXX really did exist, how could a Bible critic, who, in reference to the King James Bible, say that "No translation has the authority of the original language, " claim in the same breath that his pet LXX has equal authority with the Hebrew Original? This scholarly double-talk is nothing more than a self exalting authority striving to keep his scholarly position above those "unschooled in the original languages."
    If you accept such an argument, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn!

Questions for the AV Bible Critic

1. Since you're smart enough to find "mistakes" in the KJV, why don't you correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?

2. Do you have a perfect Bible?

3. Since you do believe "the Bible" is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced your terminology ("the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals say...a better rendering would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.)?

4. Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"?

5. Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

6. Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow "evolved" and that men are more qualified to translate God's word today than in 1611?

7. There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?

8. Isn't it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has since lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?

9. Isn't it true that when you use the term "the Greek text" you are being deceitful and lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?

10. Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan? — Taken from AV1611.org.  copyright free.

Beware Bart Ehrman

Ehrman is an outstanding scholar and a leading world expert in Textual Criticism. His works have a great impact on the production of modern versions of the New Testament.

But Ehrman has been described in the Washington Post, March 5^th 2006, as “the fundamentalist scholar who peered so hard into the origins of Christianity that he lost his faith altogether.”

He claims to have had a “born-again experience” while he was a sophomore, but later abandoned this position, preferring to accept the teaching of his apostate professor, that Mark in his gospel made a mistake. This put Ehrman well on the road of apostasy himself and he ended up denying fundamental Bible teaching, in particular the resurrection of Christ. It was not long before he believed the Bible to be full of error.

On the American TV show The Colbert Report ( which I watched) Ehrman said he was an agnostic and did not believe in God.

He wrote,

I began seeing the New Testa­ment as a very human book. The New Testament as we actually have it, I knew, was the product of human hands, the hands of the scribes who transmitted it. Then I began to see that not just the scribal text but the original text itself was a very human book. This stood very much at odds with how I had regarded the text in my late teens as a newly minted "born-again" Christian, convinced that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God and that the biblical words themselves had come to us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As I realized already in graduate school, even if God had inspired the original words, we don't have the original words. So the doctrine of inspiration was in a sense irrelevant to the Bible as we have it, since the words God reput­edly inspired had been changed and, in some cases, lost. Moreover, I came to think that my earlier views of inspiration were not only irrel­evant, they were probably wrong. For the only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the cir­cumstance that he didn't preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn't gone to the trouble of inspiring them.—Whose Word is it? Continuum, 2006: p.211.

The truly born again soul is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and CANNOT apostatise.

Ehrman studied under Metzger, another notorious apostate, and is now the leading Bible critic. He is determined to destroy all trust in the Scriptures and faith in God.   He is no different from all the Textual Critics who have gone before him.

 

letter

Dear Ron,

.......It is extremely difficult to abandon the teachings of the Brethren, but I had to do this once I saw so many difficulties in their interpretations of Scripture .I can assure you I was ultra Brethren! Meetings and Conferences were the joy of my life.

So, you “chose Christ”. How was it that you came to believe? You were spiritually dead; so it follows God had to act to save you. Your name, being written in the Lamb’s Book of Life since eternity, you were saved in due time. It is all due to Him in Predestination and Election. It is a mercy that God saved SOME out of the mass. Christ died for His own, as is known in Particular Redemption. He cannot have died for all but only for them for whom He died. Should He have died for ‘all’ then ‘all’ would be saved!.....

No hurry, but I should like the book and the Gosling booklet returned. Postage enc’d.

yours, in Christ,

D J

Maidenhead

Dear D-

you wrote to me, having read a copy of Waymarks, passed to you by a subscriber. You sent me unsolicited literature which I am not interested in reading. I haven’t found any enclosed postage. You describe your assembly as of the ‘Kelly’party. You did well to leave it. I never referred to myself as P.B. as you suggest. I think this is a Darbyite cult.

You do not make any reference to a conversion on your part. Very few, though they escape from a cultish background, show themselves to be saved.

At no time have I accepted the teachings of the Brethren. Every doctrine I hold to is what I have discovered from the Scriptures. I have already told you the prophetic teaching to which I subscribe was largely influenced by studying Ryrie, and Pentecost. I did not accept anything I read until I had checked every Bible reference they gave.

How did I come to believe? I obeyed Scripture. Repent ye and believe the gospel. That is what I did. I did it because I was commanded to do it. Dead indeed! The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. John 5: 24. The voice of the Son of God was the voice I heard on the night of October 15^th 1955. It was the gospel voice, through the gospel preacher that night. I was dead in sin, but I heard because the Scripture is true and powerful. I had the option of refusing what I heard.( He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my word, hath one that judgeth him...John 12: 48.) but I CHOSE to believe and not reject.

You want me to believe, Donald, that the man sitting next to me that night (a colleague of mine) could not believe because he wasn’t on the approved list. That he could not hear and live because Christ having given an open invitation then whispers behind His hand; “but not you.”

To mouth the words “Christ did not die for all” is a foul blasphemy. To suggest that if Christ did die for all, then all are saved, is a puerile misrepresentation of the gospel. The work is done that saves. It is for all. Sadly not all avail themselves of God’s mercy but whosoever  WILL may come. Have you never noticed there is a personal WILL involved?

I reject all five points of Calvinism though they are being promoted more and more.

“Phrases Hallowed”

Simple souls need no coercion

To wholly trust the Authorized Version,

Critics cast their base assertions

Originate their vile aspersions,

Making many a cheap excursion,

Adding to by wrong insertion,

Or omitting by aversion

Phrases hallowed by our Version.

Allied with their servile minions

Hurl abuse, parade opinions.

Genuflect at falsehood's altar

Strangle, as with ancient halter.

Manuscripts, no life, but dead,

As mouldy as royal Gibeon's bread.

Scholarship that's unbelieving,

Deceives itself, while bent deceiving.

Recessions? Just imagination!

Pile them on t'funeral pyre,

Let it mount yet higher and higher.

Lift the banner, 'raise the standard

From those who from the truth meandered.

Translated from the Greek, Hebraic,

Our English Version's not archaic.

Like its Author-once despised

The Text Received-God authorized!

                                                                                       John Glenville