|
Bt says of Jt 'the lengths you will travel to save
face'. IMO nothing of the sort is going on here. IMO whenever Jt speaks she does
so from her heart, mind and, as she sees it, under the tutelage of the Holy
Spirit. IMO this is why, Bill, MOST of your interaction with Jt, though well
intended and, IMO, superb in it's content, is 'time well wasted' (comedy channel
promo)
I'm sorry about the run-on sentences but I believe
you catch my drift. If you don't then, ask for clarification.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 06, 2005 10:47
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Being Led or
Being Driven
Judy charges > So
you have determined to change Matthew and Luke so that they line up with
your interpretation of Ekballo in Mark Bill?
It's not my interpretation which ought to concern
you, Judy. In your case, it is yours; in fact, the following is a great case
in point:
Judy writes > What about
these (same word) - is the meaning here "forced and compelled" as well?
- note they are sent into not cast out
of...
Matt 9:38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest
that he will send forth laborers
into his harvest.
Matt 12:20 A bruised reed shall he not break and
smoking flax shall he not quench till he send
forth judgment..
Luke 10:2b Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest,
that he would send forth laborers
into his harvest.
My, O my, the lengths you will travel to save face! Yup, they were sent
forth into something else, no doubt about it -- and with the same word certain
sailors, fearing shipwreck, "cast out
the wheat into the sea." And so I ask you,
what does "forth" mean, here, if not OUT -- send "out" laborers into the
harvest, etc. "And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do
not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the
belly, and is cast out
into the draught?" (Mat 15.16-17) --
Perhaps as good a place as any to end our conversation,
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 4:24
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Being Led or
Being Driven
But you are not Bill?
You still want to believe that the Holy Spirit drives even though there are
two witnesses against one (supposed)? No
wonder things become so complicated.... jt
Whatever, Judy. The truth is, I don't look at it in terms of one being "against" the
other -- whether supposedly or not. I told you this
already.
But these words are in
opposition Bill (if you insist that "send forth" means doing
something under the force of compulsion), and this is not God's way nor is
it the way His Holy Spirit operates. When Mary was chosen for
the incarnation this was not forced upon her without her consent; (see
Luke 1:38) the angel waited for her to accept.
Luke 4:1 says "And Jesus being
full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit
into the wilderness." Would
you consider "sent forth under the Spirit's
annointing?"
What I am doing is looking at the words
themselves and determining their range of usage, then translating
them in a way which preserves that usage without pitting them against
each other. Whether it is casting demons out of
sinners, or throwing heirs out of vineyards, the thrust of
ekballo places its activity and power in a source other than
its subject. The "send out" of this word is
therefore also in the power
of another. In the case of this verse, it is in the power of the Holy Spirit; hence, Jesus was "compelled" by the Spirit to enter the
wilderness.
What about these (same word) - is the meaning
here "forced and compelled" as well? - note they are
sent into not cast out of...
Matt 9:38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the
harvest that he will send forth laborers
into his harvest.
Matt 12:20 A bruised reed shall he not break and
smoking flax shall he not quench till he send
forth judgment..
Luke 10:2b Pray ye therefore the Lord of the
harvest, that he would send forth
laborers into his
harvest.
I wish you were able to see this. Just
because two of the Gospels use a different word, that in it itself does
not negate your responsibility as either a
translator or an interpreter of this word to honor its definition
and treat it accordingly.
jt: I understand Bill (we are
warned not to add or take away from what has been written) so I treat
this very seriously. However, I don't see any wisdom in
forcing Matthew and Luke
to conform to Mark since all three report on the same incident
and were inspired by the same Holy Spirit - and we also
have the Spirit to help us apprehend truth so that we are
not entirely beholden to Greek words.
If harmony is what you seek, you should nonetheless respect the thrust of
the more forceful ekballo
and translate the others in a way that
preserves its thrust, and you should do
this while staying within their common range of usage -- hence,
the Spirit "brought" him to the wilderness.
jt: I'm wondering if you have a
basic underlying Calvinistic bent Bill because the root of this conflict
lies in the nature and character of God
who allows us to be tested but
never compels or forces anything on us so that when we are judged it will
be for our own choices, not His.
As believers being led by God's
Spirit is what we are supposed to be about daily and it is something one
must do willingly just like Jesus our Master who delighted to do the
will of the Father. If the Holy Spirit was going to do any
strong arming surely it would have been in the garden of Gethsemane because He really
did have a struggle with that one..
The "mystery" is solved for me, too.
Bill
jt: So you have
determined to change Matthew and Luke so that they line up with your
interpretation of Ekballo in Mark Bill? judyt
But you are not Bill? You still want to
believe that the Holy Spirit drives even though there are two
witnesses against one (supposed)? No
wonder things become so complicated.... jt
Okay, Judy, it sounds as though you are
convinced. Bill
Are we now on the "same page"
Bill? When was Jesus ever "driven" to do
anything?
judyt
Judy, your problem is not with me.
Yours is to reconcile two very different
words from Scripture: "drive"
and "lead" -- get the picture?
Bill I've never had a problem with
scripture and you are the one who
insists that Jesus was literally "driven" to the wilderness
(from one gospel) when two others
use the word led.
As of yet you really haven't done much to "harmonize" the
two; all you have only insisted (contrary to its
definition) that "ekballo" doesn't
really mean force or drive out, expel, exclude, reject, or
compel.
Actually it is three - and the
reason for this is because in my experience so far God's Word
has never been contradictory and I don't believe that this is a first....
I don't understand how you can feel justified in doing this, but I
often have difficulties making sense of the things you say. I do
agree with you that Mark had "a more forceful style" than
Luke -- he demonstrates this throughout his Gospel
-- but I would like to ask you why the
Holy Spirit would inspire him to say that Jesus was
driven (a word with the thrust of being forced
against one's will) into the wilderness, if
in fact he was actually volitionally led there like Luke's Gospel
is translated to state? Please answer this question for me, as I
am very interested.
Both Matthew and Luke use the word "led"
Bill. IMO the problem comes from trying to interpret
scripture solely by the use
of Greek words. Ekballo does not
only mean what you have noted
above, it is also used with the idea of "sending
forth" as in ministry. Look at how this
word is used elsewhere in the
gospels:
Matt 9:38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of
the harvest that he will send
forth laborers into his harvest.
Matt 12:20 A bruised reed shall he not
break and smoking flax shall he not quench till he
send forth
judgment..
Luke 10:2b Pray ye therefore the Lord of
the harvest, that he would send
forth laborers into his harvest.
Again, if what you are seeking to do is to harmonize the two
accounts, then the way to do it is to
translate Luke's word "ageto" as brought -- the Spirit
brought him to the wilderness. This word ageto can
also be translated to imply the use of force, such
as lead away, arrest, take into custody (see Mar
13.11). And so, if it is harmony that you seek, then it is Luke's word which needs to be translated in a
way which conveys the forceful tone of Mark's ekballo --
not the other way around: unless you can explain to me
how one can force a willing
accomplice. Bill
Once again Bill it is
three accounts - two of them say
"led", and one uses the word Ekballo. To
say this means "driven" would be against God's nature and His
Word. A&E were driven from the garden in judgment but God does
not ever drive or force anyone to do His will; if we will not
serve Him willingly, he leaves us to our own devices. The prophet
wrote about Jesus "Lo I come in the volume of the book it is
written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, they law
is within my heart" (Ps 40:7, Heb 10:7). Being sent
forth is something
one is in agreement with and acts
upon willingly (such as ministry teams and being led by the Holy
Spirit). Jesus sent forth the 12 as well as the 70 - There
is no record that he ever drove anyone or forced them to do anything. It is unfortunate that
the translators did not use "sent forth"
rather than "driveth". The mystery
is solved for me. judyt
This is a good example of the principle
that from the mouths of "two or more witnesses" let
every
word be established. I was remiss
in not doing more homework when we were discussing
this.
Both Luke and Matthew say "Jesus was
led" - only Mark uses the word "driven" in the KJV.
The
NASB translates it as "impelled" and
has a note saying that **this is because of Mark's
more
forceful style.
Are we now on the "same page"
Bill? When was Jesus ever "driven" to do
anything? They
couldn't even throw Him off the brow of
the cliff in their wrath? Noone took His life
and the
Prince of this World had nothing in
Him. judyt
Say Bill,
In my reading this a.m. I note
that Luke 4:1 says "And Jesus being full of the Holy
Ghost returned
from Jordan, and was LED
by the Spirit into the wilderness" (Luke
4:1)
So what do you think?
Which is it that harmonizes with the
rest of scripture "being driven or being
led?"
|
