The Orthodox Study Bible: Idol

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...

The Orthodox text's definition of Idol, there is not a definition for Idolatry:

A statue or other image of a false God; also, anything that is worshiped in place of the one true God. Money, possessions, fame, even family members can become idols if we put them ahead of God. (800).
---

Edited from archived entry

(Again, I do not want to reinvent the wheel with unneeded re-writes on this website)

Definitions of Idolatry

Browning writes that it is 'the cult surrounding a statue of a god or goddess'. Browning (1997: 181). 'Paul warns the Corinthian Christians about a kind of idolatry (I Corinthians 10: 14) which might have been a form of civic ceremony'. Browning (1997: 181).

'Idolatry is also used metaphorically for evil desires (Colossians 3:5)'. Browning (1997: 181).

This metaphorical use, I reason is the primary use of terms idol, idols, and idolatry in the Western evangelical church today.

Colossians 3:5 'English Standard Version (ESV)

5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you:[a] sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Footnotes: Colossians 3:5 Greek therefore your members that are on the earth'

P.C. Craigie defines idolatry as 'The worship of an idol or of a deity represented by an idol, usually as an image. Craigie (1997: 542).

He as did Browning acknowledges that the New Testament deals with idolatry in a more metaphorical context than the Hebrew Bible. Craigie (1996: 542). As in one should not covet for example (Ephesians 5: 5 and Colossians 3: 5).

Ephesians 5:5 English Standard Version (ESV)

'5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.'

Evil desires are the opposite of good desires (although human desires from present human nature, are always tainted, until the resurrection). Another way a stating this would be that the Holy Spirit is not being sought in evil desires, but sinful human desires are being followed. A theological key here is the idol becomes 'the immediate focus of a person's desires and 'worship' displacing the worship of God.' Craigie (1996: 543).
---

I am in agreement with Orthodox Bible that at idol is something placed ahead of God in importance.

In agreement with my edited archived work, an idol is a displacement of God.

For clarification, an idol is not an unmet need or desire that a regenerated Christian believer has that God is not meeting and causes stress and displeasure with God; an idol (idolatry) is biblically a replacement for God.

This distinction, in my humble opinion is too often misunderstood and/or ignored within evangelical church teaching.

Further, as I have written successfully accepted, biblical, Reformed, MPhil/PhD theses on the problem of evil and continued my work on this website, I can reasonably opine that many problems of evil are shuffled off as idols in ill-fated attempts to bring overly-simplistic remedies to problems of evil within the evangelical church.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CRAIGIE, P.C. (1996) 'Idolatry', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

ORR, R.W. (1986) I John, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Briefly on Matthew 7: 21-23

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Preface

Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...

Note: This 2018 article was revised on October 9, 2023 for an entry on academia.edu. I now have a different employer, but still am an academic writer...

Biblical considerations

Matthew 7:21-23

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

Footnotes: Matthew 7:22 Or works of power

Matthew 7:21-23 New King James Version (NKJV)

This is the version used by the Orthodox Study Bible

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
---

Before reviewing the related commentary from the Orthodox text, I have some curiosity with the New Testament Greek...

Bible Study Tools

ἀνομίαν

Bauer:

Lawlessness (71).

ἀνομία is the root word. (71)

In the context of Matthew 7: 23, it is a lawless deed (72), therefore those who practice lawless deeds (72). I can further connect this within the New Testament in that those who practice lawless deeds (1 Corinthians 6) shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, and these people (Revelation 22) are outside the culminated Kingdom of God.

Sin is lifestyle for the 'Lord, Lord' people and sin is a struggle for those under grace, until culminated perfection in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15).

From the New American Standard Bible:

1 Corinthians 6: 9

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

f. 1 Corinthians 6:9 I.e. effeminate by perversion

(Not simply an effeminate person)

Revelation 22: 15

15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
---

The Orthodox Study Bible

An interesting take from the notes of the Orthodox text as it takes 21-22 as a testimony of the deity of Jesus Christ.(page 22). Therefore, Jesus Christ (as God the Son, my add) speaks the will of the Father (page 22). Only God can execute a final judgement. (22). God's final judgement in Jesus Christ is aware of those that practice lawlessness and yet ironically embrace an extremely corrupted form of Christianity that replies on works righteousness.

Practically, for example, ponder on those that embrace the cultural Christian Church and yet deny biblical orthodoxy when it suits his/her form of works righteousness. A form of redefining God and dogma for his/her own worldview. This opposed to a contextual Scripture approach, where a person would embrace biblical sanctification to produce the works guided by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, being in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ (Romans, Galatians).

Theology Always Matters

Monday, December 07, 2015 Brief On Matthew 7: 21-23: Theology Always Matters 

Matthew 7:21-23

Ellison writes that preaching and even miracles are not necessarily indication of seeking and serving the true God. Ellison (1986: 1129). Works performed need to be considered in light of the character of those that perform them. (1129). France explains that superficial discipleship is ultimately rejected by God and Christ. France (1985: 148). It is not indicated as necessarily insincere discipleship, but it does not meet the divine standards. (148). Good works do not qualify a disciple that does not meet God and Christ's criteria for entrance into the Kingdom of God. 

This passage from Matthew 7 was preached on by the pastor at a church I attended. He opined that the persons under judgement knew God, but God did not know them. They had accepted Christ, but God and Christ did not have Lordship over them. Those under judgement were relying on works righteousness as opposed to trusting in God and Christ as Lord and Saviour. The pastor then stated that the theology of the persons under judgement was not a key issue as in they had proper theology because they knew of the Biblical God and Jesus Christ. 

However, I reason that theology is always in a sense a key issue. Theology always matters. The judged persons had a knowledge of the Biblical God and Jesus Christ; enough that they could in this supernatural realm of judgement described, recognize Jesus Christ as Lord. This however, may not be difficult in the spiritual judgement context described. It may be obvious. But that is speculation. This false disciples appeal to works righteousness. The pastor correctly pointed out that in the judging presence of God any kind of works righteousness approach by humanity to God is error. But, I would add that is it also clearly theologically in error. 

Romans 1-9, describes the universal sinfulness of humankind, by nature and choice and that only the atoning and resurrection work of Christ for sin, applied to believers as justification (righteousness) will save any one for the Kingdom of God. Galatians (2) states that man is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, faith in his atoning and resurrection work applied to persons in Christ. 

Ephesians 1-2 

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Ephesians 1 explains that those in Christ are chosen by God; therefore God knows who he has chosen. 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before [d]Him. In love 5 [e]He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the [f]kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. Ephesians 2: 1-10 Ephesians 2 explains that those in Christ are saved by grace through faith unto good works, and not by works or works righteousness. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [ag]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. 

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CAIRD, GEORGE B. (1977) Paul's Letters from Prison Paperback, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

COAD, F. ROY (1986) ‘Galatians’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan. 

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. 

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books. 

DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books. 

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

FEE, GORDON D. (1987) The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans. 

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

KLEIN, WILLIAM W., CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing. 

LIGHTFOOT, JOHN B. (1993) The Destination of the Epistle to the Ephesians in Biblical Essays, New York, Macmillan.

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers. 

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Brief ponderings on Christianity, Theism, Deism, Atheism

Helsinki Christmas Market: Evening Standard 

I am working at a Christmas Market today, promoting the Canadian Bible Society...

But not in Europe.

Christianity

Basically, within academia, because of manuscript evidence, historical Scripture, the Church Fathers writings and witness, biblical studies, theology, philosophy of religion, history and as well, premises from other disciplines, I hold to biblical Christianity as a worldview and my faith and philosophy.

Of course, biblically, a legitimate faith is via the triune God, the Father that sends the Son and Holy Spirit, the Son  that completes the atonement and resurrection imputed to humanity and too sends the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit that regenerates (Titus 3) those chosen in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1-2, Romans as examples).

Based on reason, my second preferred worldview would be some type of theism, perhaps with similarities to deism, heavily influenced by philosophy of religion.

If the biblical revelation was denied (not my view), I would still hold to many of the philosophical premises, within philosophy of religion which support the existence of an infinite, eternal, first cause, necessary, God.

Importantly for this particular entry:

My conclusion differs, for example, from many in ex-Christian movements that conclude that once Christianity and the Scripture is debunked in his/her mind, that therefore, atheism is the most reasonable worldview to embrace.

Theism

John S. Feinberg states that theism is literally the belief in the existence of God. The term may be recent and a counter to the seventeenth century terms deism and deistic and is used as the opposite of atheist. Feinberg (1996: 1080). Feinberg writes the term theist is used for religious believers and those who hold to certain philosophical and theological positions without necessarily being religious. Feinberg (1996: 1080).

Richard G. Swinburne explains that theism is the idea that there exists a God that is personal, without a body, omnipotent, omniscient, free, and the creator of the universe. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all theists. Swinburne (1999: 562). Swinburne states that God is personal in theism as he acts intentionally to bring about purposes and has knowledge of all things. Swinburne (1999: 562-563). 

Deism

M.H. Macdonald writes that deism describes an unorthodox religious view expressed among readers in the first half of the seventeenth century, most notably Lord Herbert of Cherbury. Macdonald (1996: 304). Deism is from the Latin for deus in contrast to theos from the Greek. Macdonald (1999: 304). Deism is different than theism and is connected to natural religion that thinks religious knowledge is gained through reason and not revelation or church doctrines. Macdonald (1996: 304). There is a belief in a supreme being, but this being is not directly involved in the affairs of his creation. Macdonald (1996: 304).

Therefore, the revelation of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament would be denied as actually occurring, and the gospel and related doctrines would be denied. In agreement with Christianity, would be an understanding of God as first cause and the creator of universal laws. Macdonald (1996: 305).

David A. Pailin, my brief former academic advisor, writes that deism is often in parallel to theism. Pailin (1999: 148). In modern times deism is used to define a supreme being who is the ultimate source of reality, but does not intervene in the natural and historical processes through revelation or salvific acts. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin writes that the common use of the term ‘theism’ does not carry the same negative implications. Pailin (1999: 148). He explains that historically deism is not so much a set of doctrines, but a movement, largely British, that became popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pailin (1999: 148). Many within deism will have doubts concerning concepts of supernatural religious doctrines, revelation and the authority of the Bible. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin notes that some within deism desire to replace Christianity with a more ‘reasonable’ faith, and for others it is an attempt to produce a more ‘reasonable’ version of Christianity. Pailin (1999: 149). 

William J. Wainwright explains that deism understands true religion as natural, as opposed to supernatural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). He writes that some self-styled Christian deists accept revelation although they argue that the content is the same as natural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). Most deists reject revelation as fiction, but many reason that God has ordained that human happiness is possible through natural means that are universally available. Wainwright (1996: 188). Salvation therefore does not come via divine revelation. Wainwright (1996: 188).

Atheism

In my British theses work (MPhil/PhD), I dealt with problems of evil that academically arose from mainly atheistic and critical premises which denied the existence of God, because of the existence of the problem of evil. Notable authors, Flew, Mackie and Phillips.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1996) ‘Theism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

MACDONALD, M.H. (1996) ‘Deism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

SWINBURNE, Richard G. (1999) ‘Theism’. in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

WAINWRIGHT, WILLIAM J. (1996) ‘Deism’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Does Incredible Hulk anger assist with knowing truth?

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...

A good friend and I have discussed over the last couple of years, the value of rage and anger within the context of intellectual discussions and debates.

This entry is non-exhaustive.

I will reference two key New Testament sections in relation to rage and anger...

Ephesians 4: 26-27

James 1: 19-20

My preferred bible version in usually the New American Standard Version, the Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James Version for which I provide images.

Ephesians 4:26-27

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 26 Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and do not give the devil [a]an opportunity. Footnotes: Ephesians 4:27 Lit a place 

James 1:19-20

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 19 [a]This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. Footnotes: James 1:19 Or Know this
---

I have found that anger, a righteous, rational anger, can in short periods produce a heightened state of focus. In my younger years, in particular, I was able to fix some problems when angry that I was not previously able to fix. I appeared to think better short term.

At my Wales, Viva, the external reviewer from London, intentionally made me angry and I was less defensive (My intent) and more offensive (Which they wanted). I then by God's will, went on further dismantling some bogus objections to my PhD thesis.

But heeding to the Scripture, especially James, below, I agree that a prolonged rage and anger often leads to a wrong focus on premises and conclusions that makes and keeps a person angry, in contrast to seeking the righteousness of God and being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Philosophically, a short bit of controlled anger (rage is more debatable, it would have to be rational rage) can have a person focus on the correctness of certain true premises and conclusions. This must be highly rational.

But if anger, and especially rage is prolonged, it can have a person so focused on certain premises and conclusions, perceived as correct, it negates him/her from seriously considering contrary, to some extent, premises and conclusions.

This can certainly often be seen in the context of political discussion, religion discussion and personal issues!

Page 447

Page 542