Have you ever wondered why, if not a bone of Jesus would be broken (John 19:36), some brothers will constantly mention the “broken body” of Jesus when presiding over the Lord’s supper? Why do some translations contain the word “broken” in Paul’s explanation of the Lords supper and some do not (1 Cor. 11:24)? The answer may surprise you. This article contains a simplified version of the answer.
The term “Messiah” occurs only twice in the New Testament, and both times it contains a brief explanation of what it means.: “Messiah … which is translated, the Christ” (John 1:41), and “Messiah … who is called Christ” (John 4:25).
There are good reasons for this as we have shown in this series of articles. The first part of this study examined Old Testament background of the term “Messiah” and how the expectations of “Messiah” changed during the intertestamental period. The second part of this study considered the term “Messiah” in the first century and how it was viewed when the “voice of one crying in the wilderness” broke that silence and what that means for us today. This concluding part examines what “Messiah” meant to the first century church and what it means for Christians today.
Did you know the term “Messiah” is only found twice in the New Testament, and both times there is attached an explanation, “which is translated, the Christ” (John 1:41), and “who is called Christ” (John 4:25)? Why is that? In the first part of this study, consideration was given to some Od Testament background of the term “Messiah” and how the expectations of “Messiah” changed during the intertestamental period. The second part of this three-part series considers the term “Messiah” in the first century and how it was viewed when the “voice of one crying in the wilderness” broke that silence and what that means for us today.
Why do discussions about translations, especially when critical of the KJV, often become “fighting words”? Since when is a rational discussion about anything biblical among truth-seeking brethren off-limits? Why have churches split and preachers been hired or fired based on “KJV-only” teachings? This article seeks to lessen controversy and promote unity by addressing three essential things that all translations, biblical or secular, need. When these things are understood, the controversy should lessen. Much of why translations read differently is not “liberal versus conservative,” but what does the evidence support? May we always justify our conclusions based on sufficient evidence!
