---------------
Hyperventilating Pulpit and Pen goes off on Steven Furtick. We do not intend to defend Mr. Furtick, but rather, we shall examine the author's statements.
-----------------
Steven Furtick, who named a book “Unqualified” in reference to John MacArthur’s assessment of him, preached a sermon from a non-existent Bible verse. (In actual fact, the verse does exist. What is a matter of debate is whether or not this existing verse was added by a later scribe. Pulpit and Pen is amping up the offense in an effort to paint Mr. Furtick as being a a big-deal offender.
However, a quick survey of commentaries indicates that there is plenty of thoughtful dissent among Bible scholars, with the preference tending towards rejecting the verse's authenticity:
Studylight.org: In regard to this passage, it should be remarked that the account of the angel in John 5:4 is wanting in many manuscripts, and has been by many supposed to be spurious, There is not conclusive evidence, however...
Bible Study Magazine: This suggests that John 5:4 does not belong in the New Testament, which explains why many modern Bible translations have omitted it.
Bibleref.com: According to manuscript evidence, the most likely answer is that these words were not part of the original text of the Gospel of John. They might have been written into a margin, as a note, or a traditional explanation of the pool. At some point, the note might have been inadvertently copied into the main body and been absorbed as part of the text itself.
"Supposed." "Suggests." "Most likely." "Might." This is hardly the definitive situation asserted by P&P.)
Oddly enough, before preaching from the verse as though it were Inspired Writ (and allegorizing the text at that), Furtick acknowledged that the older (and better) manuscripts do not have the verse. (P&P now walks back their claim. Mr. Furtick did indeed properly acknowledge the questionable nature of the verse.)
He preached from it anyway. (Why this is so egregious is never explained. Mr. Furtick notes the disputed nature of the verse, which is entirely correct, but we can see no reason why the disputed nature of the verse should enjoin him or anyone else from explaining it.)
The verse in question is John 5:4, “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.” Although the King James has this verse, newer translations that are made from an older and more reliable selection of manuscripts do not have it. Likely, the verse was at one time added by a scribe making a parenthetical note of commentary, explaining why cripples and the sick were at the Pool of Bethesda. While it is likely that this superstitious belief existed among the Jews and not unlikely that they were indeed waiting by the pool believing this superstition, it’s highly unlikely that God ever sent an angel to stir the water to bring healing to the first lucky cripple who went headlong into the pool. In other words, the scribe was explaining what he believed the context of John 5:3 and 5:5 to be, but it was not a part of the Text inspired of the Holy Ghost. The next scribe then likely picked up the manuscript, unaware that his writing was parenthetical commentary, and included it in the next copy of the Scripture and so on. (Let's quote the entire passage:
Therefore, the dispute is largely irrelevant, as is P&P's histrionics.)
Again, oddly enough, Furtick acknowledges the older manuscripts do not have the verse. (Why this is continually odd to P&P is odd to us.)
After recommending the NIV as “good translation” (it really is not) and The Message (which Furtick rightly – to his credit – called a “paraphrase”), Furtick preached that John 5:4 holds the secret to personal breakthrough.
In Furtick’s preaching from this non-existent Bible verse, he explains that we are likewise waiting for God to come down and make our lives better. Essentially, he preached from even he knows is not really in the Holy Bible. (Waaait. Twice P&P claimed it was non-existent. Walking it back yet again, now they say the verse is actually "not really in the Bible.")
That’s pretty unqualified.
You can watch the video.
The Scripture is inspired, inerrant, sufficient, and authoritative. However, this doesn’t mean that individual translations, per se, are infallible. (Which Mr. Furtick does not claim.)
In the case of the KJV and earlier English versions, they botched it. Furtick knows it, but allegorized an entire sermon from it as though it were Inspired. (For the third time they are shocked at the simple idea that Mr. Furtick knew and explained the suspect nature of the verse.)
Thankfully, very few verses in the Bible are suspect of being added later by accident through careless scribes. Other verses include Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7, and Mark 16: 9-20. Very few serious Bible scholars believe these verses are original and most translations either remove them altogether or place an asterisk by them with a marginal note stating, “The older and more reliable manuscripts do not contain this verse.” In reality, nearly 20 manuscripts have been found with annotations from scribes notating that the verse was included, but not original. Also, the last five words of John 5:4 aren’t used in any of the rest of the Johannine Corpus (writings of John), meaning that they simply aren’t in his vocabulary.
Added to Furtick’s textual folly (The breathless rhetoric continues.)
is his butchering of an additional story. At about the 10 minute mark, Furtick paraphrases the story of the Samaritan woman claiming that in John 4, (Let's quote the full passage:
you should worship in Spirit and Truth.” (The author cannot even honestly quote Mr. Furtick. We have inserted the actual quote, which contextualizes Mr. Furtick's thrust.
And, we can read the Bible for ourselves:
This is not at all how the conversation transpired. In fact, Jesus rebuked the woman (?? There is no rebuke in this passage.)
because it was indeed sinful to worship God outside the cultic system set forth by Moses, (?? There is no mention of sin in regard to the worship issue.)
which included observance of the Ceremonial Law in Jerusalem.
Jesus said, “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.” Essentially, Jesus just called her ignorant. (Having spent considerable effort decrying Mr. Furtick's "allegorizing" John 5:4, P&P is itself happy to depart from the Scriptures as written in order to make points not in the text.)
The next statement from Jesus is, “But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.” Jesus was not absolving Samaritans for living outside of Moses’ Covenant; (Who has claimed this?)
indeed, they were sinning and outside of salvation under the Old Covenant. (There is no salvation under the Old Covenant.)
And while a New Covenant was coming and would be fully established at Jesus’ Passion, Christ’s comment to the Samaritan woman did not dismiss their sin of worshipping at Mt. Gerizim. (Who has claimed this?)
In fact, Christ Himself was on his way to the Ceremonial feast in Jerusalem as a part of his keeping of God’s Ceremonial Laws.
Steven Furtick handles the Scriptures like Edward Scissorhands handles a water balloon. (Pot and kettle.)
Unqualified.
Oddly enough, before preaching from the verse as though it were Inspired Writ (and allegorizing the text at that), Furtick acknowledged that the older (and better) manuscripts do not have the verse. (P&P now walks back their claim. Mr. Furtick did indeed properly acknowledge the questionable nature of the verse.)
He preached from it anyway. (Why this is so egregious is never explained. Mr. Furtick notes the disputed nature of the verse, which is entirely correct, but we can see no reason why the disputed nature of the verse should enjoin him or anyone else from explaining it.)
The verse in question is John 5:4, “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.” Although the King James has this verse, newer translations that are made from an older and more reliable selection of manuscripts do not have it. Likely, the verse was at one time added by a scribe making a parenthetical note of commentary, explaining why cripples and the sick were at the Pool of Bethesda. While it is likely that this superstitious belief existed among the Jews and not unlikely that they were indeed waiting by the pool believing this superstition, it’s highly unlikely that God ever sent an angel to stir the water to bring healing to the first lucky cripple who went headlong into the pool. In other words, the scribe was explaining what he believed the context of John 5:3 and 5:5 to be, but it was not a part of the Text inspired of the Holy Ghost. The next scribe then likely picked up the manuscript, unaware that his writing was parenthetical commentary, and included it in the next copy of the Scripture and so on. (Let's quote the entire passage:
Jn. 5:3 Here a great number of disabled people used to lie — the blind, the lame, the paralyzed, 4 and they waited for the moving of the waters. From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease he had. 5 One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, “Do you want to get well?” 7 “Sir,” the invalid replied, “I have no-one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.”Notice the only information added by disputed verse is that an angel would stir the waters. The entire balance of the passage conveys the exact same information absent this single detail. The disputed verse establishes or changes no doctrine, modifies no practice of faith, and does not affect in any way the teachings of the Church.
Therefore, the dispute is largely irrelevant, as is P&P's histrionics.)
Again, oddly enough, Furtick acknowledges the older manuscripts do not have the verse. (Why this is continually odd to P&P is odd to us.)
After recommending the NIV as “good translation” (it really is not) and The Message (which Furtick rightly – to his credit – called a “paraphrase”), Furtick preached that John 5:4 holds the secret to personal breakthrough.
In Furtick’s preaching from this non-existent Bible verse, he explains that we are likewise waiting for God to come down and make our lives better. Essentially, he preached from even he knows is not really in the Holy Bible. (Waaait. Twice P&P claimed it was non-existent. Walking it back yet again, now they say the verse is actually "not really in the Bible.")
That’s pretty unqualified.
You can watch the video.
The Scripture is inspired, inerrant, sufficient, and authoritative. However, this doesn’t mean that individual translations, per se, are infallible. (Which Mr. Furtick does not claim.)
In the case of the KJV and earlier English versions, they botched it. Furtick knows it, but allegorized an entire sermon from it as though it were Inspired. (For the third time they are shocked at the simple idea that Mr. Furtick knew and explained the suspect nature of the verse.)
Thankfully, very few verses in the Bible are suspect of being added later by accident through careless scribes. Other verses include Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7, and Mark 16: 9-20. Very few serious Bible scholars believe these verses are original and most translations either remove them altogether or place an asterisk by them with a marginal note stating, “The older and more reliable manuscripts do not contain this verse.” In reality, nearly 20 manuscripts have been found with annotations from scribes notating that the verse was included, but not original. Also, the last five words of John 5:4 aren’t used in any of the rest of the Johannine Corpus (writings of John), meaning that they simply aren’t in his vocabulary.
Added to Furtick’s textual folly (The breathless rhetoric continues.)
is his butchering of an additional story. At about the 10 minute mark, Furtick paraphrases the story of the Samaritan woman claiming that in John 4, (Let's quote the full passage:
Jn. 4:20-24 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21 Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”the Samaritan woman explained that Samaritans believe they should worship on the mountain (Gerizim) and the Jews believe they should worship at the temple in Jerusalem and according to Furtick, Jesus said, “You’re both wrong (...because its not about a geographical location or a situation in your life. This is the place, and those who worship the father must...)
And, we can read the Bible for ourselves:
21 Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.This seems simple enough. Neither the Samaritans nor the Jews were correct in this dispute between them. They were both wrong in light of a new covenant, even right at that moment being announced by Jesus.)
This is not at all how the conversation transpired. In fact, Jesus rebuked the woman (?? There is no rebuke in this passage.)
because it was indeed sinful to worship God outside the cultic system set forth by Moses, (?? There is no mention of sin in regard to the worship issue.)
which included observance of the Ceremonial Law in Jerusalem.
Jesus said, “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.” Essentially, Jesus just called her ignorant. (Having spent considerable effort decrying Mr. Furtick's "allegorizing" John 5:4, P&P is itself happy to depart from the Scriptures as written in order to make points not in the text.)
The next statement from Jesus is, “But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.” Jesus was not absolving Samaritans for living outside of Moses’ Covenant; (Who has claimed this?)
indeed, they were sinning and outside of salvation under the Old Covenant. (There is no salvation under the Old Covenant.)
And while a New Covenant was coming and would be fully established at Jesus’ Passion, Christ’s comment to the Samaritan woman did not dismiss their sin of worshipping at Mt. Gerizim. (Who has claimed this?)
In fact, Christ Himself was on his way to the Ceremonial feast in Jerusalem as a part of his keeping of God’s Ceremonial Laws.
Steven Furtick handles the Scriptures like Edward Scissorhands handles a water balloon. (Pot and kettle.)
Unqualified.
No comments:
Post a Comment