Re: [TruthTalk] Being Led or Being Driven

Sun, 06 Mar 2005 21:01:25 -0800

http://pbskids.org/barney/children/music/barneyband.html

Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lance and Bill - why don't you just get your own thing going off list since you have such an "I love you, you love my theology duet going on" and it appears that you can't include those of us who do not share your great imaginary vision (in the love fest) ... Lance can't resist the urge to be smart and cute and both of you tend to talk down at rather than share with....those of us who do not measure up to your standard of excellence as per Barth, Torrance, Polyani, Anasthasius et al.... What a downer to come home from a wonderful and uplifting service at Church - to this ... jt
 
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 11:38:20 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yes, indeed, "aspersions" is the word I was looking for. Thanks. Bill
From: Lance Muir
Judy:'dispersions' might well apply to my character but, 'aspersions' might be the word sought hereunder.
You are probably right, Lance. Judy, I should not have cast dispersions upon your character. You may very well be doing the best you are able with what you have been given. No one should ask for more than that. My apologies,  Bill
From: Lance Muir
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. 
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
 
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 23:36:25 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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
 
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 07:15:55 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Okay, Judy, it sounds as though you are convinced.  Bill
 
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:55:47 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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
 
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:49:41 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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?"
 
 
 
 
 

Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

Reply via email to