THE CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE

In his first interview with Mary, Queen of Scots, John Knox set forth the clarity of Scripture: “The word of God is plain in itself; and if there appear any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost, who is never contrary to Himself, explains the same more clearly in other places: so that there can remain no doubt, but to such as obstinately remain ignorant.” Zwingli, too, tested everything by the light of the gospel and the fire of Paul. He remarks that philosophy and theology prevented him from devotion to the Scriptures: “But eventually came to the point where led by the Word and Spirit of God I saw the need to set aside all things and to learn the doctrine of God direct from his own Word. Then I began to ask God for light and the Scriptures became far clearer to me—even though I read nothing else—than if I had studied many commentators and expositors.” Zwingli mounted the pulpit of the Great Church in Zurich, January 1, 1519 to announce a program of preaching consecutively through Matthew and ultimately the New Testament. Though Luther could not accept the militant Swiss reformer and the tragic division over the sacrament separated these leaders at Marburg in 1529, Zwingli’s appeal was to divine authority.

In the Baden Disputation of 1526 Zwingli answered how one ought to listen to that Word. It must be direct and master the understanding lest one’s own meaning make vain the Word of God. “If it is obscure in any place, it is to be expounded by God’s Word from another place.” Whether at the great disputation of January 29, 1523 or when Zwingli was at the point of death, both the preaching and hearing of the Word guided the Reformation in Zurich. There was a Zwingli Luther never knew, who wrote on October 31, 1531 before his death on the battlefield, “This is the best weapon, the only one that will be victorious, the Word of God.… Listen to the Word of God! That alone will set you right again.” To all of this John Calvin added common sense. For the reformers Christ was the subject and sovereign of Scripture. If for Jerome to be ignorant of Scripture was to be ignorant of Christ, for them to be ignorant of Christ was to be ignorant of Scripture.

The Bible was desired in the early Reformation, says Professor Van Den Brink, as a help to find a better way to God. The Word of God “seated in the minds of the faithful” led to possession and perception of its clarity. Patrick Hamilton it seems was accused in 1528 of just that opinion that the people of Scotland were well able to understand the New Testament. In Patrick’s Places, Hamilton expressed that better way to God:

    The Law sayeth

    Pay Thy debt

    Thou art a sinner desperate

    And Thou shalt die.

    The Gospel sayeth,

    Christ hath paid it.

    Thy sins are forgiven thee

    Be of good comfort, thou shalt be saved.

For all the reformers the clarity of Scripture led to that certainty. Its clarity and certainty provoked a crisis for Catholic exegesis.

Robert B. Laurin, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Interpretation,” ed. Ralph G. Turnbull, Baker’s Dictionary of Practical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967), 125–126.

Love: FEBC and LBPC must love one another!

First and last word in Christian theology and ethics. It is therefore important to understand clearly this exceedingly ambiguous term.

In the Old Testament. Sexual love is frankly recognized in stories of Adam and Eve, Jacob and Rachel, and in the Song of Songs. The Hebrew word can also mean tormenting lust (2 Sm 13:1–15), parental love (Gn 37:4), and both sexual and divine love in one context (Hos 3:1). It is used too of the love of friends (1 Sm 20:17), David’s love having some ground in gratitude, Jonathan’s in admiration, but with an element of altruistic self-renunciation as the crown prince stepped down for David’s sake. For this strong, unselfish love the OT usually employed another word, almost untranslatable, hesed, rendered sometimes “loyalty” (2 Sm 22:26 RSV), more often “steadfast love” (Gn 39:21) or “kindness.”
The connotation of this significant word is clear in Hosea 2:19, 20: “I will betroth you for ever … in righteousness … justice … steadfast love … faithfulness”; in Job 6:14, 15, where kindness is compared with treachery; and in 1 Samuel 20:8, which speaks of covenanted kindness. This unshakable, steadfast love of God is contrasted with the unpredictable, capricious moods of heathen deities. Hesed is not an emotional response to beauty, merit, or kindness, but a moral attitude dedicated to another’s good, whether or not that other is lovable, worthy, or responsive (see Dt 7:7–9).
This enduring loyalty, rooted in an unswerving purpose of good, could be stern, determined to discipline a wayward people, as several prophets warned. But God’s love does not change. Through exile and failure it persisted with infinite patience, neither condoning evil nor abandoning the evildoers. It has within it kindness, tenderness, and compassion (Pss 86:15; 103:1–18; 136; Hos 11:1–4), but its chief characteristic is an accepted moral obligation for another’s welfare, which no ill-desert or want of gratitude will quench.

Nevertheless response was expected. The Law enjoined wholehearted love and gratitude for God’s choosing and redeeming Israel (Dt 6:20–25). This was to be shown in worship, and especially in humane treatment of the poor, the defenseless, the resident alien, slaves, widows, and all suffering oppression and cruelty. Hosea similarly expects steadfast love among men to result from the steadfast love of God toward men (6:6; 7:1–7; 10:12, 13).
Love for God, and for “your neighbor as yourself” (Lv 19:18) are thus linked in Israel’s law and prophecy. While much love of another kind lies within the OT, these are the major points: God’s loving initiative, the moral quality of love, and the close relation of love for God with love among men.

In the New Testament. Christianity inherited this strongly moral connotation of love, not always remembered by those who sentimentalize the love ethic.

Agapē. Of Greek words available, eros (sexual love) does not occur in the NT; phileō, spontaneous natural affection, with more feeling than reason, occurs some 25 times, with philadelphia (brotherly love) 5 times, and philia (friendship) only in James 4:4; storgē, natural affection between kinfolk, appears occasionally in compounds. By far the most frequent word is agapē, generally assumed to mean moral goodwill which proceeds from esteem, principle, or duty, rather than attraction or charm. Agapē means to love the undeserving, despite disappointment and rejection; the difference between agapaō and phileō is difficult to sustain in all passages. Agapē is especially appropriate for religious love. Agapē was long believed to be a Christian coinage, but pagan occurrences have recently been claimed. The verb agapaō was frequent in the Greek OT. Though agapē has more to do with moral principle than with inclination or liking, it never means the cold religious kindness shown from duty alone, as scriptural examples abundantly prove.

The Synoptic Gospels. Jesus embodied the concept of hesed in the all-caring, all-inclusive fatherhood of God, shown toward just and unjust, far exceeding the divine concern for ephemeral grass, falling sparrow, or untoiling lilies of the field. God’s sons are freed, by their confidence in the Father’s love, from fretful care about material provision and personal safety to seek first God’s will and kingdom. This is the Father’s world; the Father knows; the Father loves. For the children of a loving Father, life is no struggle for existence but a serenity born of trust in a basically friendly universe.

In a sinful and suffering world divine love will show itself supremely in compassion and healing for the distressed and in redemptive concern for the alienated and the self-despairing. Hence the kingdom Christ proclaimed offered good news to the poor, to captives, the blind, the oppressed (Mt 11:2–5; Lk 4:18); while the attitude of Jesus toward those ostracized, despised, or grieving over sin in some far country of the soul assured them of forgiveness and a welcome return to the Father’s house (Lk 15). Such forgiveness was free, its only precondition being readiness to receive it in repentance and faith. Even here, however, the moral clarity of divine love is not obscured. For the obdurate, the unforgiving, the self-righteous, Jesus has only warning of the consequences of sin and the judgment of God (Lk 13:1–5); for the wavering or impulsive, stern discipline and unrelenting standards (Mt 10:34–39; Mk 10:17–22; Lk 9:23–26, 57–62).

Moreover, the good news of divine love does impose its own obligation: to love God and to love others as God does (Mt 5:44–48). The first and greatest commandment in God’s Law is, “You shall love the Lord your God.… And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (Mt 22:35–40, citing Lv 19:18; Dt 6:5).

The first commandment is not identical with, lost in, or only fulfilled through the second; it is separate and primary. What Jesus meant by loving God is indicated by his own habits of public worship, private prayer, absolute obedience; by the requirement “Him only shalt thou serve,” not dividing devotion with mammon, hallowing the divine name in daily business by avoiding empty oaths; by his zeal for the Scriptures, his defense of the sabbath, his unshaken trust and frequent thanksgiving (Mt 4:1–11; 5:33–37; 6:1–6, 9, 24; 7:21; 12:50; 23:16–22; Lk 4:16; 22:42).

Love for one’s neighbor is nowhere defined but everywhere illustrated. In the parable of the good Samaritan, “neighbor” is shown to mean anyone near enough to help, and love involves whatever service the neighbor’s situation demands. The parable of the sheep and goats shows love feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting with kindness the sick and the imprisoned. In the untiring example of Jesus love heals, teaches, adapts instruction to the hearers by parable and symbolic language, defends those criticized or despised, pronounces forgiveness, comforts the bereaved, befriends the lonely. We are to love others as he has loved us and as we love ourselves, which means “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them” (Mt 7:12). Such imaginative transfer of self-love does good without expecting return, never returns ill treatment, ensures unfailing courtesy even to the lowliest, sustains thoughtful understanding that tempers judgment.

Nevertheless love deals frankly with human weakness and wickedness. Jesus prays for Peter, but not that he shall be spared temptation; he rebukes disciples, warns Jerusalem and Judas, makes Peter painfully retract his denials, accepts that love may have to lay down its life. Christ’s love is no timid meekness, no sentimental mildness, inoffensive and ineffectual, helpless in face of the world’s evil. It is a strong determination to seek others’ highest good in all circumstances, at any cost. On that simple but demanding principle hang all moral obligation and divine law. To love is enough.

But it is also imperative. To Jesus the outstanding sin was lovelessness, the willful omission of any possible good, passing by on the other side while others suffer, ignoring the destitute at one’s gate, withholding forgiveness. Lovelessness was made worse by self-righteousness, censoriousness, the religious insensitivity that ignores another’s distress to preserve some petty ritual regulation. At the last, obedience to or neglect of the law of love will determine everyone’s eternal destiny (Mt 25:31–46).

Paul. The apostolic church quickly grasped the revolutionary principle that love is enough. Paul’s declaration that love fulfills the whole law is almost a quotation from Jesus. His exposition of various commandments against adultery, killing, stealing, and coveting is summarized in loving, because love can do no wrong to a neighbor (Rom 13:8–10). Ephesians 4:25–5:2, where all bitterness, anger, lying, stealing, slander, and malice are to be replaced by tenderness, forgiveness, kindness, among those who by love are made members one of another, makes the same point another way.

Love is, for Paul, “the law of Christ,” supreme and sufficient (Gal 5:14; 6:2), and Paul neatly defines what alone “avails” in Christianity as “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). He insists that the supreme manifestation of the Spirit which Christians should covet is “the more excellent way” of love (1 Cor 12:27–13:13; cf. Rom 5:5; Gal 5:22). Here too he contrasts love with five other expressions of religious zeal much prized at Corinth to show that each is profitless without love (1 Cor 13:1–3). He ends the chapter by comparing love with faith and hope, the other enduring elements of religious experience, and declares love to be the greatest.

Paul’s description of love in action includes liberality, acts of mercy, and hospitality; avoidance of revenge; sympathy that weeps; rejoicing with others; sharing of weakness, shame, or need; restoring, supporting, and upbuilding others, giving them all honor, kindness, forgiveness, encouragement; restraining criticism, even of the divisive, overscrupulous “weaker brother”—the list is almost endless. More generally, love is revealed as a quality of activity, of thinking, and of suffering (1 Cor 13:4–8). In brief, love does no harm and omits no good; and it is God’s Law.

But for motive Paul appeals beyond duty. To love we owe everything in salvation. God shows his love in that Christ died for us; out of his great love he made us alive in Christ; and in that love we live, by it we conquer, and from it nothing shall separate us (Rom 5:8; 8:32, 37–39; 2 Cor 13:14; 2 Thes 2:16; Eph 2:4; Ti 3:4, 5). God’s love is almost indistinguishable from Christ’s. “The love of Christ controls us” reveals the experiential heart of Paul’s thinking (Gal 2:20; 2 Cor 5:14; Eph 5:2, 25). Our love reflects the love first “poured into our hearts” (Rom 5:5), and is directed toward Christ (1 Cor 7; 16:22; Eph 6:24) and toward others, whom we love for his sake.

The love of God, experienced through Christ, returning in love for God, for Christ, and for his people—such is Christian love as Paul analyzed it.

John. What John later recalled, and reflected upon, forms the crown of biblical teaching about love. For John, love was the foundation of all that had happened—“God so loved the world …” (Jn 3:16; 16:27; 17:23). This is how we know love at all: Christ laid down his life for us (1 Jn 3:16). The mutual love of Father, Son, and disciples, must be the fundamental fact in Christianity, because God himself is love (1 Jn 4:8, 16).

We know this by the incarnation and by the cross (1 Jn 4:9, 10). Thus we know and believe the love God has for us, and that love itself is divine (“of God”). It follows that “he who loves is born of God.” “He who does not love does not know God,” nor “the message” of the gospel; “is in the darkness,” “is not of God,” and “remains in death.” No one has ever seen God; nevertheless “if we love, … God abides in us” and we in God.

God’s love is thus prior and original; if we love at all, it is “because he first loved us.” Our love is directed first toward God, and John is exceedingly searching in his tests of that Godward love. It demands that we “love not the world,” that we “keep his word, … his commandments,” and that we love our brother. This commandment we received from Christ, “that he who loves God should love his brother also,” for “if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” Twelve times John stresses the duty of mutual loyalty and love. Indeed, if one closes his heart against his brother, “how does God’s love abide in him?”

This emphasis upon the mutual love of Christians has been held a serious limitation of the love Jesus required. “Your brother” appears to have supplanted “your neighbor.” In this respect the commandment given in the upper room (Jn 13:34) is “new” compared with that in Matthew 22:39 (citing Lv 19:18), and the circumstances explain why. The night on which Jesus was betrayed was shadowed by the surrounding world’s hostility, the imminent crucifixion, and the defection of Judas. All the future depended upon the mutual loyalty of the 11 disciples, standing together under social pressure. By the time of John’s letter, new defections had rent the church. A perversion of the gospel called Gnosticism, essentially intellectualist, proud, “giving no heed to love” (Ignatius), had drawn away leaders and adherents (1 Jn 2:19, 26). Once again mutual loyalty was all-important, and John wrote expressly to consolidate and maintain the apostolic fellowship (1 Jn 1:3).

However, love for one’s brethren does not exclude, but instead leads on to, a wider love (cf. 2 Pt 1:7). John insists that God loved the whole world (Jn 3:16; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:14). Moreover, if love fails within the Christian fellowship, it certainly will not flourish beyond it, but evaporate in mere words (1 Jn 3:18).

In countering the loveless conceit of gnostic Christianity, John’s concern was with the basic commandment of love to God and man as at once the criterion and the consummation of true Christian life. He does not, therefore, detail the many-sided expressions of love. For description of love in action, his mind recalls Christ’s words about “keeping commandments” and “laying down life” in sacrifice (Jn 15:10, 13; 1 Jn 3:16), and he mentions especially love’s noticing a brother’s need, and so sharing this world’s goods (1 Jn 3:17). Terse as these expressions are, they contain the heart of Christian love. John’s forthright realism in testing all religious claims ensures that for him love could be no vague sentimentalism.
The Christian ideal can only be socially fulfilled within a disciple band, a divine kingdom, the Father’s family, the Christian fellowship. In Scripture love is no abstract idea, conceived to provide a self-explanatory, self-motivating “norm” to resolve the problem in every moral situation. It is rooted in the divine nature, expressed in the coming and death of Christ, experienced in salvation, and so kindled within the saved. Thus it is central, essential, and indispensable, to Christianity. For God is love.

R.E.O. WHITE

See GOD, BEING AND ATTRIBUTES OF; GRACE; MERCY; WRATH OF GOD.

Bibliography. K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1.2, 371–401; V.P. Furnish, The Love Command in the NT; C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves; J. Moffat, Love in the NT; L. Morris, Testaments of Love; A. Nygren, Agape and Eros; N. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the OT; C. Spicq, Agape in the NT, 3 vols.


R.E.O. White, “Love,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 1357–1360.

Bible, Alleged Errors in.

Critics claim the Bible is filled with errors. Some even speak of thousands of mistakes. However, orthodox Christians through the ages have claimed that the Bible is without error in the original text (“autographs”; see Geisler, Decide for Yourself). “If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture,” Augustine wisely noted, “it is not allowable to say, ‘The author of this book is mistaken’; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood” (Augustine, 11.5). Not one error that extends to the original text of the Bible has ever been demonstrated.

Norman L. Geisler, “Bible, Alleged Errors In,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 74.

Approaching Bible Difficulties. As Augustine said above, mistakes come not in the revelation of God, but in the misinterpretations of man. Except where scribal errors and extraneous changes crept into textual families over the centuries, all the critics’ allegations of error in the Bible are based on errors of their own.

Norman L. Geisler, “Bible, Alleged Errors In,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 75.

The church as Christ’s body

      The church as Christ’s body

  The church is Christ’s body (Eph. 1:23); we are one body in Christ (Rom. 12:5); you are Christ’s body (1 Cor. 12:27); as the body is one yet has many limbs, so is Christ (1 Cor. 12:12); your bodies are limbs of Christ (1 Cor. 6:15); we are members of his body (Eph. 5:30); we who are many are one body (1 Cor. 10:17); eager to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3); the whole body is fitted together by every joint (Eph. 4:16); building up the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12); there is one body and one Spirit (Eph. 4:4); Christ is the Saviour of the body (Eph. 5:23); he is the head of the body, the church (Col. 1:18); his body, the church (Col. 1:24); called in the one body (Col. 3:15).

A. Colin Day, Collins Thesaurus of the Bible (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009).

Jeffrey Khoo cannot say to Charles Seet, I do not need you.

Charles Seet cannot say to Jeffrey Khoo, I do not need you.

Bible Presbyterian Church cannot say to Baptist nor to Methodist, we do not need you.

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

1 Co 12:12–27.

Excommunication

Excommunication

    The Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue.

According to the Talmud, there were three grades of excommunication among the Jews. The first was called niddin, and those on whom it was pronounced were not permitted for thirty days to have any communication with any person unless at a distance over four cubits (about 6 feet). They were not prohibited from attending public worship, though they could not, during the thirty days, enter the temple by the ordinary gate. They were not allowed to shave during that time, and were required to wear garments of mourning.

The second was called cherem, and was pronounced on those who remained openly disobedient under the first. It was of greater severity than the other, and required the presence of at least ten members of the congregation to make it valid. The offender was formally cursed, was excluded from all intercourse with other people, and was prohibited from entering the temple or synagogue.
The third was shammatha, and was inflicted on those who persisted in their stubborn resistance to authority. By this they were cut off from all connection with the Jewish people, and were consigned to utter perdition.

The Talmud assigns as the two general causes for excommunication, money and epicurism. The first refers to those who refused to pay the moneys that the court directed them to pay; the second refers to those who despised the Word of God or of the scribes—both being put on an equal basis.

Excommunication is alluded to in Matthew 18:17; John 9:34; 12:42; 16:2. Some think Jesus in Luke 6:22 refers to the several grades of excommunication noted: “Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake” (KJV).


James M. Freeman and Harold J. Chadwick, Manners & Customs of the Bible (North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 1998), 517–518.

“What Makes a Good Biblical Scholar or Theologian?”

A good biblical scholar brings the text to life.

The Bible is about meaning. And whether you are a Christian or not, the Bible can teach us about living a life that is meaningful.

~Matthew Ryan Hauge, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Azusa Pacific University

Distortion

August 8: Distortion

Isaiah 14:24–16:14; Luke 6:1–49; Job 4:12–21

If attending church and small group or even reading the Bible and praying become activities that we do out of obligation, then we have a bigger problem than we might realize. If our hearts are disengaged, our religious motions and listless obedience serve only as a security blanket—something that makes us feel safe and good.

The Pharisees faced this dilemma, but they took the error one step further. They took the Sabbath—a practice intended to point people toward God—and twisted it into a heavy burden. So when Jesus wanted to do good on the Sabbath, it’s no surprise that they seized the opportunity to trap Him.

Jesus responded to the Pharisees’ accusation by telling them He is “Lord of the Sabbath” (Luke 6:5). But He also showed them the true purpose of Sabbath while at the same time exposing their hearts: “And Jesus said to them, ‘I ask you whether it is permitted on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save a life or to destroy it?’ ” (Luke 6:9).

Caught up in their religious observance, the Pharisees misunderstood the heart of God’s commands. Not only this, but they used the Sabbath to do harm—the polar opposite of Jesus’ life-giving actions.

Ultimately, the actions of the Pharisees appeared holy and righteous, but underneath they were lifeless. They were like the lukewarm waters described in Revelation, for which Jesus feels utter contempt: “Thus, because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am about to vomit you out of my mouth!” (Rev 3:16).

Nothing displeases God more than when our hearts and our actions don’t match up. If this is the case for us, we need to let Scripture examine our hearts as we pray for wisdom and the Spirit. Nothing can make us right with God unless we know why we are wrong with Him—and where our hope really lies. Our outward actions need to be infused with the desire to follow Him.

What are the motives behind your motions?

REBECCA VAN NOORD



John D. Barry and Rebecca Kruyswijk, Connect the Testaments: A One-Year Daily Devotional with Bible Reading Plan (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012).

Easier to Condemn Sins Than Mortify Them

It is easier to declaim, like an orator, against a thousand sins of others than it is to mortify one sin, like Christians, in ourselves; to be more industrious in our pulpits than in our closets; to preach twenty sermons to our people than one to our own hearts.

JOHN FLAVEL




Elliot Ritzema and Elizabeth Vince, eds., 300 Quotations for Preachers from the Puritans, Pastorum Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013).

PHARISEES—separatists---BIBLE PRESBYTERIAN?

PHARISEES—separatists (Heb. persahin, from parash, “to separate”). They were probably the successors of the Assideans (i.e., the “pious”), a party that originated in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes in revolt against his heathenizing policy. The first mention of them is in a description by Josephus of the three sects or schools into which the Jews were divided (B.C. 145). The other two sects were the Essenes and the Sadducees. In the time of our Lord they were the popular party (John 7:48). They were extremely accurate and minute in all matters appertaining to the law of Moses (Matt. 9:14; 23:15; Luke 11:39; 18:12). Paul, when brought before the council of Jerusalem, professed himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6–8; 26:4, 5).

There was much that was sound in their creed, yet their system of religion was a form and nothing more. Theirs was a very lax morality (Matt. 5:20; 15:4, 8; 23:3, 14, 23, 25; John 8:7). On the first notice of them in the New Testament (Matt. 3:7), they are ranked by our Lord with the Sadducees as a “generation of vipers.” They were noted for their self-righteousness and their pride (Matt. 9:11; Luke 7:39; 18:11, 12). They were frequently rebuked by our Lord (Matt. 12:39; 16:1–4).

From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his influence among the people.

M. G. Easton, Easton’s Bible Dictionary (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893).

THE EXAMPLE TO BE AVOIDED

  THE EXAMPLE TO BE AVOIDED (Philipians 3:2–3)

One particular group in Paul’s day was especially guilty of putting confidence in the flesh. These were the Judaizers. They plagued Paul and his converts constantly. Confused about the gospel, they added works of the law to faith in Christ, both for salvation and for Christian living. The Old Testament rite of circumcision was of special concern to them. They insisted that it was necessary for salvation. They did not omit faith in Christ but added works of the flesh. Paul called such men “deceitful workmen” (2 Cor. 11:13).
3:2. Paul also called the Judaizers dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. He considered their work dangerous and not of God. The saints were not to follow these people, but to beware of them, to watch out for them.

It was common for some Jews to refer to Gentiles as dogs, which were considered unclean animals. Paul used the term to describe those Jews who mutilated the gospel by insisting on the need to mutilate the flesh in order to be rightly related to God. What they did was actually evil, even though they may have had good intentions.

3:3. The Old Testament rite of physical circumcision was not only a sign of covenant relationship, but it was also intended to be related to spiritual circumcision of the heart (cf. Deut. 30:6). Writing to Gentiles, Paul made it clear that he and they were the true circumcision. This was because they had no confidence in the flesh and instead worshiped by the Spirit of God and gloried in Christ Jesus alone.

Instead of boasting in human accomplishments, as the Judaizers and Jews did, a child of God should glory in Christ Jesus alone. The word glory (kauchōmenoi) used here means “boast” or “exult” (cf. 1:26; 2:16; 2 Cor. 10:17).


Robert P. Lightner, “Philippians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 659.

How Changes in English Affect our Reading of the KJV

Changes in English over 400 years affect our reading of the King James Version in ways neither we nor the KJV translators could be expected to know. It's no one's fault that the KJV is no longer in the vernacular.

https://sermons.faithlife.com/sermons/179442-how-changes-in-english-affect-our-reading-of-the-kjv

What Does It Mean When Someone Is "Not King James Only"?

SCHISM

The Greek word schisma literally denotes a rent, or cleft (cf. Matt. 9:16; Mark 2:21); hence metaphorically, discord or division (John 7:43; 9:16; 10:19). This is its meaning in 1 Cor. 1:10; 11:18; 12:25.
1 Corinthians 12:25 is vital to a proper understanding of a schism: “That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.” Thus, schism is a rending of the body of Christ. It is a sin that exhibits a carelessness about the welfare of the body in general and its other members in particular. It is a sin against charity, a selfish introduction of dissention and division where there ought to be mutual tolerance and love.
This distinguishes schism from scriptural separation.* Scripturally, heretics (see Heresy) must be rejected (Titus 3:10) for they are schismatics from the body of true believers, having followed a self-willed opinion in preference to God’s revealed truth. Thus, separation from a communion on the grounds of the purity of fundamental Christian doctrine is not schism. For example, Calvin argued that the scriptural marks of a true church are the preaching of the pure gospel and the valid administration of the sacraments. Rome did not maintain these basic marks of a true church. Therefore, in separating from her the Reformers were not guilty of schism. Rome was the party, or sect, guilty of schism, for she had departed from the faith of the gospel.
The same argument holds good today. In an age when ecumenism is rampant, those who stand for Biblical separation are denounced as schismatics and are frequently likened to such sects as the Donatists.* But no Christian can deny that the ecumenical movement progresses by compromising the essentials of the gospel. Christians should therefore separate from ecumenical churches. The same goes for churches where modernism* and liberalism* dominate.
It is not right to remain in such fellowships merely because they nominally retain their ancient confessional standards. The argument is frequently put, for example, that while a Presbyterian church retains the Westminster Standards, it would be schism to separate from it. However, when the Reformers separated from Rome, she avowed her acceptance of the ancient creeds of the church. But that did not make her a pure church. It merely denoted the fact that lying and falsehood were added to her other impurities. Calvin said, “If the Church is ‘the pillar and ground of truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15), it is certain that there is no church where lying and falsehood have usurped the ascendancy.” If that was true of Rome with her professed acceptance of the ancient creeds of the church, it is no less true of those once Protestant churches that are seeking reunion with an unrepentant Rome, or are open to all great doctrinal impurity.
To sum up: schism is an expression of self-will or of heresy that leads to the setting up of sects—any group that is built on heresy is a schism from the body of Christ. Separation is on Biblical grounds, is commanded by the Lord (Eph. 5:11; 2 Cor. 6:14–18; 1 Tim. 6:3–5), and aims at maintaining essential Christian doctrine and practice.


Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms (Belfast; Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2002), 404–405.