Wierwille continues to use his wide range of biblical gymnastics in his teachings on death. Among these, The Way's exposition of John 21: 18, 19 reveals their belief that there is no glory in death. Because of this view they think that, "This passage does not flow in harmony with the rest of the Word nor first century tradition."57 To solve the dilemma of the New Testament disagreeing with The Way's theology, Walter Cummins, assistant to the president, revises the text. His only "evidence" is the lone deletion of the word "death" in a marginal reading of the very late (thirteenth-century) MS 31. Not only is this single manuscript outnumbered by hundreds that maintain the word "death," but it is an unreliable source." This is an excellent example of the lengths to which The Way will go to "prove" its errant doctrines.
Wierwille again misdefines a biblical word in his exegesis on a passage relating to a believer's view of death. He quotes Psalm 116:15, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints," and explains:
"The word "precious" in the text is "costly." . . . It does not cost God anything when an unbeliever or a God-rejector dies. They have not done anything for God anyway. But if a believer died, it would be costly to God . . . because they cannot help God any after they are dead."19
This word "precious" (yaqar) throughout the Old Testament has the connotation not of expense, but of rareness, value, treasure, or prize. (Note especially I Sam. 3: 1; Isa. 13:12; Dan. 2: 11.) Three times this whole phrase, "precious in the sight of' is used. Each time it is obvious that the lives spoken of were not expensive, but were "highly valued" and so weren't flippantly destroyed (11 Kings 1: 13; 1: 14; 1 Sam. 26:21, 24). In the same way, the death of God's saints is valued and prized in His sight. He does not deal with our lives carelessly, nor does He allow the enemy to reign over us. Instead, He carefully plans and controls the death of His saints to His purposes and glory.
Wierwille also comments on the "paradise" Jesus mentions in Luke 23:43, "verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise,"
"However, this verse talks about paradise-and paradise is not heaven. . . . Paradise is always a place upon earth."
This statement does not agree with 11 Corinthians 12:4. A man in Christ, Paul says, "was caught up into paradise, and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak." Indeed, Paul says this man was "caught up to the third heaven" (12:2). Paradise as Paul speaks of it is definitely not "a place upon earth," as Dr. Wierwille adamantly proclaims it to be.
Wierwille further manipulates this text to defend his errant view of death. Following the lead of many pseudo-Christian groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holy Order of MANS, he places the comma after the word "to-day" instead of before it. His result is, "Verily, I say to you to-day, thou shalt. . . ." He then claims, "This fits with the rest of the Word of God.""' If this were true, then why does Jesus use the phrase "Verily I say to you" scores of times, while He never says, "Verily I say to you today"? Dr. Wierwille's revision is not consistent with the rest of the Word of God. Instead, we have another instance of Wierwille molding the Word to fit his theology, rather than molding his theology to fit the Word.
Important to Wierwille's errant view of death is his interpretation of Hebrews 11:5, "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that be pleased God."
He interprets this to say that all, including Enoch, die and stay dead until Christ's return,
"He pleased God all the time for which God so loved him that God took him from the place where Enoch's loved ones would die and put him at a place where he should not see death. Enoch did not see anyone else die, but be himself died."62
Wierwille's bizarre exegesis is incorrect on many points. He claims that "the word 'see' is anablepo, which means 'to look with one's eyes' or literally to see someone die.""' In no reputable Greek text of today, including the UBS, Nestle, and Westcott and Hort, and not even in the outdated Stephens' text of 1550 which The Way uses, is the word anablepo found in the verse; nor is it found in any of the critical notes. This reflects either an incorrect guess on Wierwille's part or a deliberate misstatement. Instead, the word is idein, an aorist form of horao. In 17 of the 40 times this word is used in the New Testament, it does not mean a physical seeing as Wierwille demands. Verse 27 of this same chapter is an example. Moses left Egypt. . . . for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen."
Wierwille cites verse 13 as proof Enoch died: "These all died...." However, he does not take into account that this verse is sandwiched in the middle of a section (vv. 6-17) dealing only with Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob. Verse 13 refers only to these, not to Enoch and the earlier patriarchs. A look at Genesis chapter 5 is further persuasion that Enoch did not die. The entire chapter is genealogical in nature, listing 10 men, their ages at death, and children. After each one (except for Enoch and Noah) the closing phrase of the section reads, ". . . and he died." This phrase is not listed after Noah because the following chapters continue the narrative of his life, and finally record his death in Genesis 9:29. The phrase is not listed after Enoch's section because he did not die, but instead, ". . . he was not, for God took him." That is, God took him directly to Himself (contrary to Wierwille's ideas) without Enoch first physically dying. (Contrast Gen. 5:5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31 with v. 24.)
Wierwille is also apparently confused about the nature of death, claiming that the person's body and soul-life die together,
The Bible says that when a man dies, he is dead and he stays dead until the return of Christ and the resurrection. Nobody who has died is living with the exception of the Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Bible declares God raised from the dead."'
However, Scripture is witness that death is not the cessation of all life of the person, but rather a shedding of the body, Death is a "departure" or "release" from that which is only a dwelling or tabernacle as Peter expresses it (I Pet. 1:13, 15; 11 Tim 4:6). Old Testament examples of the departure (and, in one case, a re-entry) of spirits of men from their bodies include Genesis 35:18 and I Kings 17:22. For the Christian, this departure from the body means immediate presence with the Lord (11 Cor. 5:6-8; Phil. 1:21-23), and the cognizant souls/spirits of men continue for a time without their bodies (Rev. 6:9, 10; 20:4; 1 Pet. 3:18, 19; Heb. 12:23; Acts 2:27).
Employing Interior Texts
Wierwille and his colleagues encourage their followers unknowingly to use inferior study tools. These help to substantiate and bolster their own image as the sole competent correctors, translators, and interpreters of the Word. An excellent example of their widely used inferior tools is the Greek text of Stephens, 1550, in the Greek-English Interlinear by Berry. In Fundamentals of Greek Research, Walter Cummins explains basic textual criticism (finding the original texts of the New Testament writers by comparing varying manuscripts) and shows his readers how to correct two Greek words in Ephesians 3:9.65 However, if he had used any reputable Greek text produced in the past 80 years, such as Westcott-Hort, Nestle, and UBS, this would not have been necessary. These texts have already made the appropriate corrections in Ephesians as well as in such verses as I John 5:7 and I Timothy 3:16.
The most tragic aspect of Wierwille's promotion of inferior tools is not simply the false image of himself he creates for his followers. His followers are led to accept his other self-serving and invalid "corrections" and fallacious principles of criticism because on occasion he has been correct and hy this has secured their respect.
Misleading Methods
In each of the major areas of theology discussed here, Wierwille has fallen short of the accuracy of God's Word. The primary reasons for his incorrect expositions of the nature and work of Jesus Christ, the nature of man, faith, the New Testament originals, "Narrative Development," and death is his inept keys or principles of interpretation.
Wierwille's promise to "set before the reader the basic keys in the Word of God so that Genesis to Revelation will unfold . . ."66 falls tragically short of its goal. The biblical "keys" he uses repeatedly lock up the Word's interpretation of itself to his advantage. The results are internal confusion and gross perversion of God's Word. Wierwille's misleading and fallacious keys fall into four basic categories.
Foremost among these keys is Wierwille's contrived definitions of Greek words. His above-mentioned imaginative definitions of pros (with), paradise, metecho (take part), heteros and allos (other), dia (by means of) and others war against reliable lexicons and usage in the Word. Even Wierwille's "literal translations according to usage" never mention the Bible's use of given words, but are founded on his own conjecture. It is apparent that once he decides blow he will use a passage, he then contrives a supporting meaning for one of the Greek words.
An unscholarly companion to Wierwille's contrived definitions is his unfounded distinctions between words, like that between allos and heteros. Rather than illuminating shades of meaning, he produces obscuring colors.
Wierwille's scholarship fails not only by making erroneous word definitions and distinctions, but also by forcing word relationships. He wrongly equates such words as "with" and "foreknow" and "chosen." His inconsistency is glaring; while he attempts to distinguish between synonyms, be considers wholly different concepts identical.
To support his manipulations of words, be uses an occasional English word-not to illuminate a Greek word, but to define it. He uses "isosceles" to define isos and the King James translation "took part" to define metecho. This poor linguistic methodology is like defining the KJV word "conversation" by today's American use of the word.67
2. Abusing Greek Text and Language
Abuse of Greek syntax and manuscripts is the second category of Wierwille's defective methodology. His misuse is apparent in the examples discussed above: ignorance of genitives of aim, mid-sentence alterations of word meaning, the superfluous distinction between "faith" and believing," and imposed parentheses that wrongly segment biblical sections. His knowledge of Hebrew linguistic style is no better, as his misapplication of Isaiah 43:7 shows. In order to use Greek manuscripts to his full advantage, he also promotes inferior research tools and false principles of textual criticism.
Glaring inconsistencies mark The Way's manipulations of Greek texts. On the one hand, The Way revises the text of John 21:19 on the basis of MS 31, claiming that this thirteenth-century manuscript was based on an earlier, "correct" text. This approach refutes Wierwille's revisions of I John 5:7, 1 Timothy 3:16, Galatians 4:6, and John 1: 18 (which he alters to deny Christ's deity). If MS 31 were based on an earlier, "correct" text, then by the same principle MSS 61, 88, 629, and 635, which support the KJV reading of I John 5:7, were also based on earlier, correct texts and should be accepted. Also by the same principle, the 26 MSS which support the KJV reading of I Timothy 3:16 were also based on earlier texts and should be accepted by The Way. There is more evidence in favor of the KJV readings of I John and I Timothy 3:16, which Wierwille rejects, than there is for his revision of John 21:19. The Way's defense of the use of a late variant supposedly based on an earlier "correct" text proves entirely untenable.
Wierwille also misuses Greek texts by setting a lone good source in opposition to all other MSS (as in Gal. 4:6) and by placing a few MSS of low reliability above MSS of greater quality and number (as in John 1:18). Proper textual criticism does not scrape up any MS evidence in existence regardless of quality in order to back a preconceived interpretation, as The Way does. Instead, it delays any interpretation until the text is assured by applying proper and reliable principles of textual criticism, Proper textual criticism first weighs the external evidence, or MSS, considering their date, geographical distribution, and genealogical relationships. Second, the internal evidence of the text and of the passages themselves is examined. Here the more difficult, shorter, divergent, and less refined readings are generally favored, while taking into account the author's style and content.'" The art of textual criticism is oversimplified and abused by The Way.611
3. The Claim of Aramaic Originals
Wierwille's third false key of research is his claim that the New Testament was authored in Aramaic, then translated into Greek, Some passages, such as the above-mentioned Matthew 27:46 and Hebrews 11 verses, he claims were erroneously translated, and he offers his own "accurate" translation. He also manipulates Orientalisms to his advantage, as in Philippians 2:6. He uses both "Aramaic originals" and "Orientalisms" to avoid passages that oppose his preconceived theology.
Wierwille gives no concrete evidence to support his theories of Aramaic originals nor of mistranslations into Greek. At best, he argues from silence, which is the weakest of contentions. No Aramaic originals are extant, and all of the earliest New Testament manuscripts that have been recovered are in Greek, not Aramaic. The overwhelming evidence favors Greek, not Aramaic originals. Semitisms and Aramaic words found in the New Testament are not traces of Aramaic originals. Rather, they reveal the historic reality of the language Jesus most often ministered in, as well as literary fullness and the Semitic backgrounds and ways of thinking that the Jewish authors were used to. Latinisms, by comparison, are also found in the New Testament (such as Paul's praetorium and Mark's use of Roman monetary terms), but no one claims this to be evidence for Latin originals.71
4. Arbitrary Relationships Set Forth
The fourth category of Wierwille's pseudo-research is his practice of relating words and concepts that have no business being together, while he ignores other relationships that clearly should be established. As explained above, he unjustifiably relates the "light" of John 1:6 to the Father, and "foreknow" to "elect" and "chosen." He also equates God's image with man's spirit and makes man's spirit a prerequisite to communication with God. A classic example of his failure to parallel related passages is his refusal to interpret the word "faith" in Habakkuk 2:4 by Paul's quotations of this verse. Sanctified common sense, combined with a fuller knowledge of Scripture and some balanced teaching on valid principles of interpretaion7l would have prevented many of these peculiarities. It is also necessary to curtail logic's tendency to manufacture presumptuous relationships and presuppositions,
The most disturbing feature of The Way is not that the group respects Wierwille, but that they place his work on par with Scripture and above the Greek texts that are the Bible's basis! Cummins fully upholds Wierwille's erroneous methods of establishing the Greek texts:
"Then, where there appear to be discrepancies we must compare the texts, keeping foremost in our minds the "inherent evidence" which is the evidence from the scope of the Word and the foundational research principles contained in the Power for Abundant Living Classes ." 72
The Word has been proven valid over centuries of use and attack. Wierwille, on the other hand, has repeatedly fallen short of the accuracy and integrity of God's Word.
We must draw four conclusions regarding Wierwille's use of God's Word to establish his doctrines. First, his scholarship and translation ability are motivated by a preconceived theology. His corrupt interpretations do not unveil the Word, but only reinforce his preferred doctrine. Second, the methods of interpretation he uses to achieve his doctrine are not sound, but are engineered to mold the Word to fit his design, Third, his preconceived theology and unsound methodology render him virtually incapable of rightly dividing the Word of truth, Wierwille himself points out, "If my research is a wrong-dividing of God's Word, then I stand before God as an unapproved workman .73"
His research repeatedly reflects a wrong dividing of God's Word and he does stand before God as an unapproved workman. Fourth, the extent of Wierwille's error invokes the question of whether he is simply misled, or if he is knowingly misleading others. While in this world we may have only partial evidence of the answer to this, the Lord will make all things known on the great day to come.
How may Christians, then, accept Victor Paul Wierwille? Is he "the next man of God to rise up after Paul's death,"" as some of his followers suggest? Is he a brother, though misled in some areas? Or is he a "wolf in sheep's clothing," a false teacher with whom we must contend?
Wierwille victimizes every fundamental doctrine of Christianity. Scripture itself judges the person who so violates the faith, and especially the doctrine of Christ:
"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds (11 John 9-11 )."
Even if the teaching on Christ were the only doctrine Wierwille denied, we would have to reject him completely as a false teacher.
To accept Wierwille's teaching in some areas but not in others is not a via)le option. First, his theological system does not allow it. His teachings are so interdependent that if one doctrine is rejected, others fall with it. More importantly, Scripture does not allow us to assent to a false teacher at all. Victor Paul Wierwille must be rejected as a false teacher.
We challenge followers of Dr. Wierwille to examine objectively his teachings and use of the Word. A Greek concordance and recognized study aids, written by a wide range of scholars from many Christian persuasions, will supply valuable information. Following a restricted group, composed of Dr. Wierwille and his upper-echelon followers, does not fill the proverb's requirement that "in a multitude of counselors there is safety" (Prov. 24:6; 11: 14). Ask God for the strength and courage to leave The Way. It is difficult to leave friends, acceptance, and status and to write off countless hours of expended time and energy. Nonetheless, Jesus, the accuracy of God's Word, and the hope of eternal life demand no less.
Teachers of The Way have a great responsibility to correct their present teaching. "The greater condemnation" (James 3: 1 ) awaits teachers for error they propagate. To those who cognizantly deceive, beware! There is danger of becoming "wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever" (Jude 13).
Our Lord is the great and powerful God. He would not allow His people to flounder in darkness from the time of the apostles until the first Power for Abundant Living class in 1953. He has kept His people strong against the power of the evil one for centuries and will continue to do so for His glory.
32. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, pp. 154-56.
33. On the Aramaic form of Matthew's text see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 1971), p. 70; H. B. Swete, The Gospel According to Mark (London: Macmillan Co., 1905), pp. 385f.; and cf. Brown, Driver and Briggs, p. 552. Scholars transcribe the Aramaic form of mah into English as ma'.
34. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970), p. 60.
35. Wierwille, Jesus Christ Is Not God, p. 62.
36. Ibid., p. 63; idem, Power for Abundant Living, pp. 239, 247.
37. Wierwille, Jesus Christ Is Not God, pp. 58-59 (pp, 58-63 contain essentially the same argument as Power for Abundant Living, pp. 231-40).
38. Wierwille, Jesus Christ Is Not God, p. 61. 39. Ibid.
40. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, pp. 272-83. 41. Ibid., pp. 278, 280.
42. Ibid., pp. 274-75. 43. Ibid., pp. 34-35.
44. Nicoll, op. cit., p. 419; Evelyn Abbott and E. D. Mansfield, A Primer of Greek Grammar (London: Rivingtons Limited, 1963), Syntax p. 3; H. P. V. Nunn, A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 43.
45. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, p. 283. 46. Ibid., p. 273.
47. Walter J. Cummins, Fundamentals of Greek Research (New Knoxville, 0.: American Christian Press, n.d.), p. 12,
48. Matthew 26:73. 49. Guthrie, op. cit., p. 21.
50. Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 3rd ed., p. 779.
51. Most of the above material was gleaned from Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac?" Bibliotheca Sacra, October, 1974, pp. 320-3 1, and The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 1: 188-89, 4:754.
52. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, p. 167.
53. Wierwille, Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, 6th ed. (New Knoxville, 0.: American Christian Press, 1972), p. 174.
54. Ibid., pp. 174-75. 55. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, p. 164.
56. Lonnel E. Johnson, The Gift (New Knoxville, O: American Christian Press, n.d.), p. 5; cf Wierwille, Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, p. 192.
57. Walter J. Cummins, "The Integrity of the God-Breathed Word," The Way Magazine, May-June, 1975, p. 7.
58. The inferiority of MS 31 is evidenced by the fact that Bruce Metzger does not cite it in The Text of the New Testament. In addition, the list of miniscules (which use cursive script) systematically cited by the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (New York: American Bible Society, 1966, 1968), p. xvii, chosen and collated by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research of Muenster, West Germany with co-editor Kurt Aland, includes 21 other manuscripts as late or later than MS 31, but ignores MS 31 itself. Since Cummins has identified himself closely with the Institute and Dr. Aland, we marvel that he would consider MS 31 important and even essential for critical use while recognized Institute scholars reject it as such.
59. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, p. 123. 60. Ibid., pp. 134-35.
61. Ibid., p. 135. 62. Ibid., p. 19 1. 63. Ibid., p. 191. 64. Ibid., pp. 188-89.
65. Cummins, Fundamentals of Greek Research, pp. 16-17.
66. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, p. 4.
67. Zondervan's Englishmans Greek Concordance is an excellent resource for checking New Testament word use. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is a very good encyclopedia of articles on New Testament word use, written by scores of recognized scholars.
68. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 209-11.
69. Good syntaxes and lexicons are invaluable in New Testament study. Among recognized sources are Dana and Mantey's A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament and A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Arndt and Gingrich, cited above. For a full and readable discussion of the New Testament textual evidence and criticism, Metzger's The Text of the New Testament, cited above, is excellent.
70. Helpful discussions on the Aramaic are found in larger Bible dictionaries, such as Zondervan's Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible and Abingdon's Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, as well as assorted dictionaries of philology, such as The Languages of the World, Ancient and Modern by Stanley Wemyss.
71. Mayer's Interpreting the Holy Scriptures supplies helpful principles of interpretation of Scripture.
72. Walter J. Cummins, "The Integrity of the God-Breathed Word," The Way Magazine, May-June, 1975, p. 7.
73. Wierwille, Jesus Christ Is Not God, p. 3. 74. Whiteside, The Way-Living in Love, p. 43.
This article was originally published as part of The Integrity and Accuracy of The Way's Word by John Juedes and Douglas Morton, 1981.
Essential to his teaching on the crucifixion and Holy Week is Wierwille's concept of "narrative development." Wierwille's expositions using "narrative development" essentially set the Gospel accounts in opposition to each other. In the process, he concludes that four men were crucified with Jesus rather than two. Claiming that malefactors and robbers are two different classes of robbers, Wierwille demands that Matthew and Mark could not be talking about the same people. If he were consistent in applying this principle, there would also have to be two Barabbases, as John 18:40 terms him a robber while Luke 23:19 and Mark 15:7 call him an insurrectionist and murderer. Other examples could be given to prove that this method, carried to any extent, reaps absurdity.
Criticism by mischaracterization is what I'd call this. The fact that the word "malefactors" and the word "robbers" could refer to two different sets of people crucified with Jesus is not offered in PFAL as undeniable proof, but rather as opening the possibility. "All robbers are malefactors, but not all malefactors are robbers." Wierwille combined a number of matters to establish "four crucified" (I should say Bullinger did so, but that's not the point). Could robbers and malefactors be referring to the same people? Yes. Could those words be referring to different people? Yes. It was evidence for Wierwille's case, but it was not a smoking gun.
Actually Belle, I learned last year that Jesus was crucified on a tree. This allowed for the crucifixion to be done with great haste. Rather than set up a weight bearing foundation which would have taken more time to support a cross and a person on it, they instead nailed the top part of a cross to a large tree. The tree evidently was large enough to hold two other people along with Jesus. Since a tree is circular the person handling the execution could have crucified one robber then depending on which way he went, left or right, could have then dealt with either Jesus or the other robber or malefactor. I read a complete study on this along with some of the history and scriptural references.
Crucial to The Way's doctrine of four crucified with Jesus is a distinction between two Greek words, allos and heteros. Although both words are normally translated "other," he claims that allos means "other of varying kinds" while heteros means "other of the same kind."52
The many New Testament passages using these words show that Wierwille's definitions are incorrect. A host of passages using the word allos are made ridiculous if Wierwille's definition is used. Are a man's right and left cheeks of varying kinds (Matt. 5:39)? Was the seed of the sower of varying kinds (Matt. 13:5, 7, 8)? Were the talents the faithful servant gained of varying kinds (Matt. 25:20, 22)? Did the restored hand of a cripple vary in kind from his other hand (Mark 3:5)? Were the similar things that the Jews did actually things of varying kinds (Mark 7:8)? Obviously, Wierwille's attempted definition of allos was unknown to biblical writers.
The following pairs are described by biblical writers as heteros. Are these pairs "other of the same kind" as Wierwille insists? God and money (Matt. 6:24)? Pharisees and publicans (Luke 18:20)? Sadducees and Pharisees (Acts 23:6)? Contradictory spirits and gospels (11 Cor. 11-4; Gal. 1:6)? Ages of mystery and ages of the revealed (Eph. 3:5)? The Levitical priesthood and tribe versus the Melchizedekan priesthood and the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:11, 13, 15)? Obviously, Wierwille fabricates distinctions not known to this wide range of New Testament writers.
Now, I need to double check this, but this writer has the definitions 100% backwards. Bullinger (and therefore Wierwille) taught that allos was another of the same kind, and that heteros was another of a different kind, the exact opposite of the claim made by this writer! Therefore, all of the evidence used to in this section to prove Wierwille wrong actually proves him right!
Again, I need to double check that. I don't recall Wierwille ever using the "same kind/different kind" argument in the context of four crucified. I recall allos being "more than two involved" and heteros being "only two involved."
This person wasted valuable cyberspace with that section.
Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm mistaken. Here's the writer's citation: Power for Abundant Living, p. 167.
Wierwille's bizarre exegesis is incorrect on many points. He claims that "the word 'see' is anablepo, which means 'to look with one's eyes' or literally to see someone die.""' In no reputable Greek text of today, including the UBS, Nestle, and Westcott and Hort, and not even in the outdated Stephens' text of 1550 which The Way uses, is the word anablepo found in the verse; nor is it found in any of the critical notes.
That must be why Wierwille never wrote it. As Mike would say, the written book and the taped class were not identical. I don't know if he misspoke in the class or if you could attribute dishonest motives to VPW for this mistake/error. But I do know that to criticize him for something he corrected (ie, the use of anablepo) is just downright mean, if not ignorant.
diazbro, I'm not sure off the top of my head. I believe I copied it from a link that WayferLookin posted here in 2001 or so. I've been going through some old things I copied to read later and/or chew on. I'll see if I can find it. I think this is a guy's thesis paper in college.
I'll peck around and let you know what I find. I'm not trying to deny him credit; I just can't remember.
Ok, I just checked what I believe to be the references to allos and heteros above.
Reference 52 is flat out wrong.
quote:
Crucial to The Way's doctrine of four crucified with Jesus is a distinction between two Greek words, allos and heteros. Although both words are normally translated "other," he claims that allos means "other of varying kinds" while heteros means "other of the same kind."52
quote:
52. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, p. 167.
BUT...
quote:
PFAL, p. 167
One word is heteros, and the other Greek word is allos. Both heteros and allos are translated "other," but heteros means "other when only two may be involved," while allos means "other when more than two may be involved."
There's no mention whatsoever of the "same kind/different kind" distinction referenced by the writer.
He seems to have reference 53 right, and his refutation of it is on point. Allos and heteros simply don't mean what Wierwille said they mean. This is on the Actual (not merely apparent) Errors list.
See the Companion Bible, Appendix 124 for the definitions of heteros and allos (different kind/same kind). It also includes the other definition. I don't see any evidence that Wierwille ever deviated from these definitions. If someone can find it, please let me know. But the writer of this piece simply has it backward and ends up bolstering what he attempts to dismantle.
Raf, in the filmed PFAL class, Wierwille said that heteros was of the same kind and allos was of a different kind. Whether he departed from Bullinger's definitions or just misspoke, I don't know. Either way, I think that both of them were wrong.
Actually Belle, I learned last year that Jesus was crucified on a tree. This allowed for the crucifixion to be done with great haste.
This is very fascinating, Mark.
I had only encountered this view briefly a few years ago, when reading a description to
one of the late Ernest Martin's studies (ASK publications), though I hadn't gotten around to picking that work up.
Apparently, ancient Christian legend has it that Gologtha where Christ was crucified also happened to be the place where Adam was buried
(Paul-Louis Couchoud, "The Creation of Christ", vol II). It's also been suggested that the tree upon which Christ was crucified was the tree of the Garden of Eden. But I've forgotten where I read that particular bit.
According to legend, the denuded tree on which Christ hung was made from the wood of Eden's Tree of Knowledge. It is through ascending this tree of knowledge that an ordinary human can transcend all that is material and mundane in life, gaining the heights of heaven. Thus by ending his life at the cross, the great Christ in a sense infused us with the promise of a new, spiritually enlightened life. Thus was the tree of knowledge transformed into the 'tree of life.'
Wierwille's bizarre exegesis is incorrect on many points. He claims that "the word 'see' is anablepo, which means 'to look with one's eyes' or literally to see someone die.""' In no reputable Greek text of today, including the UBS, Nestle, and Westcott and Hort, and not even in the outdated Stephens' text of 1550 which The Way uses, is the word anablepo found in the verse; nor is it found in any of the critical notes.
That must be why Wierwille never wrote it. As Mike would say, the written book and the taped class were not identical. I don't know if he misspoke in the class or if you could attribute dishonest motives to VPW for this mistake/error. But I do know that to criticize him for something he corrected (ie, the use of anablepo) is just downright mean, if not ignorant.
The writer was hasty in his criticism in a few places, this being one of them.
vpw made several mistakes in the taped class due to improv.
My favourite example was Paul going to Jerusalem, and one guy
"I forget if it was Felix or Festus" said "almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian."
He couldnt remember which one because it was NEITHER, it was AGRIPPA.
(Felix and Festus show up later in the chapter.)
I wouldn't claim THIS was a critical error, but it was correctable and sloppy.
Similarly, the taped class has "anablepo" and the book has "eidon".
The word in the text he referred to IS "eidon" and may carry the meaning he meant.
He misspoke on the tape. (All of us good note-takers have notes that contradict
the textbook at that spot.)
To spend time on THIS dilutes the writer's point-it makes it look as though this is
the BEST he can come up with to refute vpw-and that would make vpw look BETTER
Ok, I just checked what I believe to be the references to allos and heteros above.
Reference 52 is flat out wrong.
quote:
Crucial to The Way's doctrine of four crucified with Jesus is a distinction between two Greek words, allos and heteros. Although both words are normally translated "other," he claims that allos means "other of varying kinds" while heteros means "other of the same kind."52
quote:
52. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, p. 167.
BUT...
quote:
PFAL, p. 167
One word is heteros, and the other Greek word is allos. Both heteros and allos are translated "other," but heteros means "other when only two may be involved," while allos means "other when more than two may be involved."
There's no mention whatsoever of the "same kind/different kind" distinction referenced by the writer.
He seems to have reference 53 right, and his refutation of it is on point. Allos and heteros simply don't mean what Wierwille said they mean. This is on the Actual (not merely apparent) Errors list.
See the Companion Bible, Appendix 124 for the definitions of heteros and allos (different kind/same kind). It also includes the other definition. I don't see any evidence that Wierwille ever deviated from these definitions. If someone can find it, please let me know. But the writer of this piece simply has it backward and ends up bolstering what he attempts to dismantle.
From what LongGone said,
this was another place where vpw misspoke on the tapes, but it's corrected in
the books.
(Again, I find this was correctable, and should have been corrected, but that's
a separate, and smaller, quibble.)
As we discussed in the ACTUAL/REAL ERRORS IN PFAL discussions,
vpw was all over the map here. I'm unsure if Bullinger also(Bullinger) was all
over the map and vpw just parroted him, but I'd suspect something like that.
Where vpw claimed that allos and heteros made a distinction between exactly two
of something, that was error, period. (That's in the books.)
Apparently, in the tapes, vpw claimed "heteros" meant "other of the same type"
and "allos" meant "other of a different type",
and the books say the opposite.
The books are correct, as I see it.
The fastest illustration I can see for this is Galatians 1:6-7.
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of
Christ unto ANOTHER gospel,
which is not ANOTHER;..."
"unto another gospel" uses the word "heteros",
"which is not another" uses the word "allo".
Paul marvelled they removed to a DIFFERENT gospel,
which was not OF THE SAME KIND.
(Ok, Raf answered my question about Bullinger. vpw just xeroxed him as usual
without realizing he contradicted himself in doing so.)
Wierwille again misdefines a biblical word in his exegesis on a passage relating to a believer's view of death. He quotes Psalm 116:15, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints," and explains:
"The word "precious" in the text is "costly." . . . It does not cost God anything when an unbeliever or a God-rejector dies. They have not done anything for God anyway. But if a believer died, it would be costly to God . . . because they cannot help God any after they are dead."19
This word "precious" (yaqar) throughout the Old Testament has the connotation not of expense, but of rareness, value, treasure, or prize. (Note especially I Sam. 3: 1; Isa. 13:12; Dan. 2: 11.) Three times this whole phrase, "precious in the sight of' is used. Each time it is obvious that the lives spoken of were not expensive, but were "highly valued" and so weren't flippantly destroyed (11 Kings 1: 13; 1: 14; 1 Sam. 26:21, 24). In the same way, the death of God's saints is valued and prized in His sight. He does not deal with our lives carelessly, nor does He allow the enemy to reign over us. Instead, He carefully plans and controls the death of His saints to His purposes and glory.
(snip)
Employing Interior Texts
Wierwille and his colleagues encourage their followers unknowingly to use inferior study tools. These help to substantiate and bolster their own image as the sole competent correctors, translators, and interpreters of the Word. An excellent example of their widely used inferior tools is the Greek text of Stephens, 1550, in the Greek-English Interlinear by Berry. In Fundamentals of Greek Research, Walter Cummins explains basic textual criticism (finding the original texts of the New Testament writers by comparing varying manuscripts) and shows his readers how to correct two Greek words in Ephesians 3:9.65 However, if he had used any reputable Greek text produced in the past 80 years, such as Westcott-Hort, Nestle, and UBS, this would not have been necessary. These texts have already made the appropriate corrections in Ephesians as well as in such verses as I John 5:7 and I Timothy 3:16.
I'm skipping the whole "death/paradise" thing because that would take up
a whole thread on its own, and we STILL wouldn't all agree.
I think it's wrong of the writer to blithely declare the case for that
is open and shut, when intelligent Christians can intelligently disagree
on it (as we do here, sometimes.)
As to the definition of "precious",
I think of "precious" gems as well as "semi-precious" gems.
The "precious" gems are more costly.
That which is more costly is more highly valued.
Two Christians own copies of Bullinger's Companion Bible.
One owns the hardcover, one owns the leatherbound version.
The hardcover is cheaper.
Which of them puts the book away in its little case every night?
The latter. Why? Because it cost as much as 3-4 other reference books
put together.
A man owns a Ford Pinto and a Ferrari Testarossa.
Each one is damaged by falling concrete. Which one does he freak out
over? Right-the Ferrari. It's more costly, and "precious", and it's
more treasured by him as a result.
I say that the writer did NOT successfully refute the translation of
that word as "costly". His "argument" fit that definition just as well.
Finally,
why have a cow over the Gordon Ricker-Berry Interlinear from the
Stephens Text being used,
when it's the one people can actually FIND in stores?
I happily use it side-by-side with Marchall's Interlinear from the
Nestle Text.
Considering how many SERIOUS problems there are with vpw's errors,
I find it problematic that someone would camouflage them by making
THESE look like the most legit criticisms they could find.
Raf, in the filmed PFAL class, Wierwille said that heteros was of the same kind and allos was of a different kind. Whether he departed from Bullinger's definitions or just misspoke, I don't know. Either way, I think that both of them were wrong.
Does anyone else remember this? I don't.
Either way, the article above has a citation (number 52) to a specific page in the PFAL book, which contradicts what the writer is saying (I'll say JM from now on, for Jueded-Morton). Unless there was an earlier edition that had these definitions, they goofed.
Raf, I no longer have my copy of the PFAL book but I know what was said in the class. The Juedes/Morton article cited was originally published in 1981. According to this later Juedes article, the definition was changed in the second printing (not edition) of PFAL.
quote:
VW's definitions of allos and heteros were radically different in the first two printings of PFAL (1971, pp. 167-168; he may have changed them because they contradicted his meaning for heterosin RTHST.). In the first printing, VW insisted that heteros meant "other of the same kind," but months later in the second printing he insisted heteros meant "other when only two may be involved." In the first printing he asserted that allos meant "other of varying kinds," but in the second printing he said it meant "other when more than two may be involved." In both printings he left the claim, "Which Greek word had to be used to have the true Word?... This is the sharp accuracy of God's Word." If it was so accurate, why did VW change the meanings so radically-- but not the conclusion about four crucified? If those meanings were the accuracy of the Word, how could they change so radically in only a few month's time?
Far be it from me to portray myself as a Biblical scholar, but I do remember PFAL (how can I forget after that many times?). And I distinctly remember VPW belaboring the point of it being "a different kind" when going over the passage about the guards breaking the legs of those crucified.
So, yeah, I would say that it was in the filmed version as well.
It appears to me that he got his Bullinger definitions reversed. A huge "so what" in my book, but honestly, my memory of the filmed class fails me (and thank God for that).
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
9
11
8
Popular Days
Mar 18
16
Mar 21
13
Mar 24
12
Mar 23
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 23 posts
def59 9 posts
Jbarrax 11 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 8 posts
Popular Days
Mar 18 2005
16 posts
Mar 21 2005
13 posts
Mar 24 2005
12 posts
Mar 23 2005
12 posts
Belle
Disposing of Death
Wierwille continues to use his wide range of biblical gymnastics in his teachings on death. Among these, The Way's exposition of John 21: 18, 19 reveals their belief that there is no glory in death. Because of this view they think that, "This passage does not flow in harmony with the rest of the Word nor first century tradition."57 To solve the dilemma of the New Testament disagreeing with The Way's theology, Walter Cummins, assistant to the president, revises the text. His only "evidence" is the lone deletion of the word "death" in a marginal reading of the very late (thirteenth-century) MS 31. Not only is this single manuscript outnumbered by hundreds that maintain the word "death," but it is an unreliable source." This is an excellent example of the lengths to which The Way will go to "prove" its errant doctrines.
Wierwille again misdefines a biblical word in his exegesis on a passage relating to a believer's view of death. He quotes Psalm 116:15, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints," and explains:
"The word "precious" in the text is "costly." . . . It does not cost God anything when an unbeliever or a God-rejector dies. They have not done anything for God anyway. But if a believer died, it would be costly to God . . . because they cannot help God any after they are dead."19
This word "precious" (yaqar) throughout the Old Testament has the connotation not of expense, but of rareness, value, treasure, or prize. (Note especially I Sam. 3: 1; Isa. 13:12; Dan. 2: 11.) Three times this whole phrase, "precious in the sight of' is used. Each time it is obvious that the lives spoken of were not expensive, but were "highly valued" and so weren't flippantly destroyed (11 Kings 1: 13; 1: 14; 1 Sam. 26:21, 24). In the same way, the death of God's saints is valued and prized in His sight. He does not deal with our lives carelessly, nor does He allow the enemy to reign over us. Instead, He carefully plans and controls the death of His saints to His purposes and glory.
Wierwille also comments on the "paradise" Jesus mentions in Luke 23:43, "verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise,"
"However, this verse talks about paradise-and paradise is not heaven. . . . Paradise is always a place upon earth."
This statement does not agree with 11 Corinthians 12:4. A man in Christ, Paul says, "was caught up into paradise, and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak." Indeed, Paul says this man was "caught up to the third heaven" (12:2). Paradise as Paul speaks of it is definitely not "a place upon earth," as Dr. Wierwille adamantly proclaims it to be.
Wierwille further manipulates this text to defend his errant view of death. Following the lead of many pseudo-Christian groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holy Order of MANS, he places the comma after the word "to-day" instead of before it. His result is, "Verily, I say to you to-day, thou shalt. . . ." He then claims, "This fits with the rest of the Word of God.""' If this were true, then why does Jesus use the phrase "Verily I say to you" scores of times, while He never says, "Verily I say to you today"? Dr. Wierwille's revision is not consistent with the rest of the Word of God. Instead, we have another instance of Wierwille molding the Word to fit his theology, rather than molding his theology to fit the Word.
Important to Wierwille's errant view of death is his interpretation of Hebrews 11:5, "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that be pleased God."
He interprets this to say that all, including Enoch, die and stay dead until Christ's return,
"He pleased God all the time for which God so loved him that God took him from the place where Enoch's loved ones would die and put him at a place where he should not see death. Enoch did not see anyone else die, but be himself died."62
Wierwille's bizarre exegesis is incorrect on many points. He claims that "the word 'see' is anablepo, which means 'to look with one's eyes' or literally to see someone die.""' In no reputable Greek text of today, including the UBS, Nestle, and Westcott and Hort, and not even in the outdated Stephens' text of 1550 which The Way uses, is the word anablepo found in the verse; nor is it found in any of the critical notes. This reflects either an incorrect guess on Wierwille's part or a deliberate misstatement. Instead, the word is idein, an aorist form of horao. In 17 of the 40 times this word is used in the New Testament, it does not mean a physical seeing as Wierwille demands. Verse 27 of this same chapter is an example. Moses left Egypt. . . . for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen."
Wierwille cites verse 13 as proof Enoch died: "These all died...." However, he does not take into account that this verse is sandwiched in the middle of a section (vv. 6-17) dealing only with Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob. Verse 13 refers only to these, not to Enoch and the earlier patriarchs. A look at Genesis chapter 5 is further persuasion that Enoch did not die. The entire chapter is genealogical in nature, listing 10 men, their ages at death, and children. After each one (except for Enoch and Noah) the closing phrase of the section reads, ". . . and he died." This phrase is not listed after Noah because the following chapters continue the narrative of his life, and finally record his death in Genesis 9:29. The phrase is not listed after Enoch's section because he did not die, but instead, ". . . he was not, for God took him." That is, God took him directly to Himself (contrary to Wierwille's ideas) without Enoch first physically dying. (Contrast Gen. 5:5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31 with v. 24.)
Wierwille is also apparently confused about the nature of death, claiming that the person's body and soul-life die together,
The Bible says that when a man dies, he is dead and he stays dead until the return of Christ and the resurrection. Nobody who has died is living with the exception of the Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Bible declares God raised from the dead."'
However, Scripture is witness that death is not the cessation of all life of the person, but rather a shedding of the body, Death is a "departure" or "release" from that which is only a dwelling or tabernacle as Peter expresses it (I Pet. 1:13, 15; 11 Tim 4:6). Old Testament examples of the departure (and, in one case, a re-entry) of spirits of men from their bodies include Genesis 35:18 and I Kings 17:22. For the Christian, this departure from the body means immediate presence with the Lord (11 Cor. 5:6-8; Phil. 1:21-23), and the cognizant souls/spirits of men continue for a time without their bodies (Rev. 6:9, 10; 20:4; 1 Pet. 3:18, 19; Heb. 12:23; Acts 2:27).
Employing Interior Texts
Wierwille and his colleagues encourage their followers unknowingly to use inferior study tools. These help to substantiate and bolster their own image as the sole competent correctors, translators, and interpreters of the Word. An excellent example of their widely used inferior tools is the Greek text of Stephens, 1550, in the Greek-English Interlinear by Berry. In Fundamentals of Greek Research, Walter Cummins explains basic textual criticism (finding the original texts of the New Testament writers by comparing varying manuscripts) and shows his readers how to correct two Greek words in Ephesians 3:9.65 However, if he had used any reputable Greek text produced in the past 80 years, such as Westcott-Hort, Nestle, and UBS, this would not have been necessary. These texts have already made the appropriate corrections in Ephesians as well as in such verses as I John 5:7 and I Timothy 3:16.
The most tragic aspect of Wierwille's promotion of inferior tools is not simply the false image of himself he creates for his followers. His followers are led to accept his other self-serving and invalid "corrections" and fallacious principles of criticism because on occasion he has been correct and hy this has secured their respect.
Misleading Methods
In each of the major areas of theology discussed here, Wierwille has fallen short of the accuracy of God's Word. The primary reasons for his incorrect expositions of the nature and work of Jesus Christ, the nature of man, faith, the New Testament originals, "Narrative Development," and death is his inept keys or principles of interpretation.
Wierwille's promise to "set before the reader the basic keys in the Word of God so that Genesis to Revelation will unfold . . ."66 falls tragically short of its goal. The biblical "keys" he uses repeatedly lock up the Word's interpretation of itself to his advantage. The results are internal confusion and gross perversion of God's Word. Wierwille's misleading and fallacious keys fall into four basic categories.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
1. Contrived Definitions and Distinctions
Foremost among these keys is Wierwille's contrived definitions of Greek words. His above-mentioned imaginative definitions of pros (with), paradise, metecho (take part), heteros and allos (other), dia (by means of) and others war against reliable lexicons and usage in the Word. Even Wierwille's "literal translations according to usage" never mention the Bible's use of given words, but are founded on his own conjecture. It is apparent that once he decides blow he will use a passage, he then contrives a supporting meaning for one of the Greek words.
An unscholarly companion to Wierwille's contrived definitions is his unfounded distinctions between words, like that between allos and heteros. Rather than illuminating shades of meaning, he produces obscuring colors.
Wierwille's scholarship fails not only by making erroneous word definitions and distinctions, but also by forcing word relationships. He wrongly equates such words as "with" and "foreknow" and "chosen." His inconsistency is glaring; while he attempts to distinguish between synonyms, be considers wholly different concepts identical.
To support his manipulations of words, be uses an occasional English word-not to illuminate a Greek word, but to define it. He uses "isosceles" to define isos and the King James translation "took part" to define metecho. This poor linguistic methodology is like defining the KJV word "conversation" by today's American use of the word.67
2. Abusing Greek Text and Language
Abuse of Greek syntax and manuscripts is the second category of Wierwille's defective methodology. His misuse is apparent in the examples discussed above: ignorance of genitives of aim, mid-sentence alterations of word meaning, the superfluous distinction between "faith" and believing," and imposed parentheses that wrongly segment biblical sections. His knowledge of Hebrew linguistic style is no better, as his misapplication of Isaiah 43:7 shows. In order to use Greek manuscripts to his full advantage, he also promotes inferior research tools and false principles of textual criticism.
Glaring inconsistencies mark The Way's manipulations of Greek texts. On the one hand, The Way revises the text of John 21:19 on the basis of MS 31, claiming that this thirteenth-century manuscript was based on an earlier, "correct" text. This approach refutes Wierwille's revisions of I John 5:7, 1 Timothy 3:16, Galatians 4:6, and John 1: 18 (which he alters to deny Christ's deity). If MS 31 were based on an earlier, "correct" text, then by the same principle MSS 61, 88, 629, and 635, which support the KJV reading of I John 5:7, were also based on earlier, correct texts and should be accepted. Also by the same principle, the 26 MSS which support the KJV reading of I Timothy 3:16 were also based on earlier texts and should be accepted by The Way. There is more evidence in favor of the KJV readings of I John and I Timothy 3:16, which Wierwille rejects, than there is for his revision of John 21:19. The Way's defense of the use of a late variant supposedly based on an earlier "correct" text proves entirely untenable.
Wierwille also misuses Greek texts by setting a lone good source in opposition to all other MSS (as in Gal. 4:6) and by placing a few MSS of low reliability above MSS of greater quality and number (as in John 1:18). Proper textual criticism does not scrape up any MS evidence in existence regardless of quality in order to back a preconceived interpretation, as The Way does. Instead, it delays any interpretation until the text is assured by applying proper and reliable principles of textual criticism, Proper textual criticism first weighs the external evidence, or MSS, considering their date, geographical distribution, and genealogical relationships. Second, the internal evidence of the text and of the passages themselves is examined. Here the more difficult, shorter, divergent, and less refined readings are generally favored, while taking into account the author's style and content.'" The art of textual criticism is oversimplified and abused by The Way.611
3. The Claim of Aramaic Originals
Wierwille's third false key of research is his claim that the New Testament was authored in Aramaic, then translated into Greek, Some passages, such as the above-mentioned Matthew 27:46 and Hebrews 11 verses, he claims were erroneously translated, and he offers his own "accurate" translation. He also manipulates Orientalisms to his advantage, as in Philippians 2:6. He uses both "Aramaic originals" and "Orientalisms" to avoid passages that oppose his preconceived theology.
Wierwille gives no concrete evidence to support his theories of Aramaic originals nor of mistranslations into Greek. At best, he argues from silence, which is the weakest of contentions. No Aramaic originals are extant, and all of the earliest New Testament manuscripts that have been recovered are in Greek, not Aramaic. The overwhelming evidence favors Greek, not Aramaic originals. Semitisms and Aramaic words found in the New Testament are not traces of Aramaic originals. Rather, they reveal the historic reality of the language Jesus most often ministered in, as well as literary fullness and the Semitic backgrounds and ways of thinking that the Jewish authors were used to. Latinisms, by comparison, are also found in the New Testament (such as Paul's praetorium and Mark's use of Roman monetary terms), but no one claims this to be evidence for Latin originals.71
4. Arbitrary Relationships Set Forth
The fourth category of Wierwille's pseudo-research is his practice of relating words and concepts that have no business being together, while he ignores other relationships that clearly should be established. As explained above, he unjustifiably relates the "light" of John 1:6 to the Father, and "foreknow" to "elect" and "chosen." He also equates God's image with man's spirit and makes man's spirit a prerequisite to communication with God. A classic example of his failure to parallel related passages is his refusal to interpret the word "faith" in Habakkuk 2:4 by Paul's quotations of this verse. Sanctified common sense, combined with a fuller knowledge of Scripture and some balanced teaching on valid principles of interpretaion7l would have prevented many of these peculiarities. It is also necessary to curtail logic's tendency to manufacture presumptuous relationships and presuppositions,
The most disturbing feature of The Way is not that the group respects Wierwille, but that they place his work on par with Scripture and above the Greek texts that are the Bible's basis! Cummins fully upholds Wierwille's erroneous methods of establishing the Greek texts:
"Then, where there appear to be discrepancies we must compare the texts, keeping foremost in our minds the "inherent evidence" which is the evidence from the scope of the Word and the foundational research principles contained in the Power for Abundant Living Classes ." 72
The Word has been proven valid over centuries of use and attack. Wierwille, on the other hand, has repeatedly fallen short of the accuracy and integrity of God's Word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Four Final Conclusions
We must draw four conclusions regarding Wierwille's use of God's Word to establish his doctrines. First, his scholarship and translation ability are motivated by a preconceived theology. His corrupt interpretations do not unveil the Word, but only reinforce his preferred doctrine. Second, the methods of interpretation he uses to achieve his doctrine are not sound, but are engineered to mold the Word to fit his design, Third, his preconceived theology and unsound methodology render him virtually incapable of rightly dividing the Word of truth, Wierwille himself points out, "If my research is a wrong-dividing of God's Word, then I stand before God as an unapproved workman .73"
His research repeatedly reflects a wrong dividing of God's Word and he does stand before God as an unapproved workman. Fourth, the extent of Wierwille's error invokes the question of whether he is simply misled, or if he is knowingly misleading others. While in this world we may have only partial evidence of the answer to this, the Lord will make all things known on the great day to come.
How may Christians, then, accept Victor Paul Wierwille? Is he "the next man of God to rise up after Paul's death,"" as some of his followers suggest? Is he a brother, though misled in some areas? Or is he a "wolf in sheep's clothing," a false teacher with whom we must contend?
Wierwille victimizes every fundamental doctrine of Christianity. Scripture itself judges the person who so violates the faith, and especially the doctrine of Christ:
"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds (11 John 9-11 )."
Even if the teaching on Christ were the only doctrine Wierwille denied, we would have to reject him completely as a false teacher.
To accept Wierwille's teaching in some areas but not in others is not a via)le option. First, his theological system does not allow it. His teachings are so interdependent that if one doctrine is rejected, others fall with it. More importantly, Scripture does not allow us to assent to a false teacher at all. Victor Paul Wierwille must be rejected as a false teacher.
We challenge followers of Dr. Wierwille to examine objectively his teachings and use of the Word. A Greek concordance and recognized study aids, written by a wide range of scholars from many Christian persuasions, will supply valuable information. Following a restricted group, composed of Dr. Wierwille and his upper-echelon followers, does not fill the proverb's requirement that "in a multitude of counselors there is safety" (Prov. 24:6; 11: 14). Ask God for the strength and courage to leave The Way. It is difficult to leave friends, acceptance, and status and to write off countless hours of expended time and energy. Nonetheless, Jesus, the accuracy of God's Word, and the hope of eternal life demand no less.
Teachers of The Way have a great responsibility to correct their present teaching. "The greater condemnation" (James 3: 1 ) awaits teachers for error they propagate. To those who cognizantly deceive, beware! There is danger of becoming "wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever" (Jude 13).
Our Lord is the great and powerful God. He would not allow His people to flounder in darkness from the time of the apostles until the first Power for Abundant Living class in 1953. He has kept His people strong against the power of the evil one for centuries and will continue to do so for His glory.
_______________
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
END NOTES
32. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, pp. 154-56.
33. On the Aramaic form of Matthew's text see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 1971), p. 70; H. B. Swete, The Gospel According to Mark (London: Macmillan Co., 1905), pp. 385f.; and cf. Brown, Driver and Briggs, p. 552. Scholars transcribe the Aramaic form of mah into English as ma'.
34. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970), p. 60.
35. Wierwille, Jesus Christ Is Not God, p. 62.
36. Ibid., p. 63; idem, Power for Abundant Living, pp. 239, 247.
37. Wierwille, Jesus Christ Is Not God, pp. 58-59 (pp, 58-63 contain essentially the same argument as Power for Abundant Living, pp. 231-40).
38. Wierwille, Jesus Christ Is Not God, p. 61. 39. Ibid.
40. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, pp. 272-83. 41. Ibid., pp. 278, 280.
42. Ibid., pp. 274-75. 43. Ibid., pp. 34-35.
44. Nicoll, op. cit., p. 419; Evelyn Abbott and E. D. Mansfield, A Primer of Greek Grammar (London: Rivingtons Limited, 1963), Syntax p. 3; H. P. V. Nunn, A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 43.
45. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, p. 283. 46. Ibid., p. 273.
47. Walter J. Cummins, Fundamentals of Greek Research (New Knoxville, 0.: American Christian Press, n.d.), p. 12,
48. Matthew 26:73. 49. Guthrie, op. cit., p. 21.
50. Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 3rd ed., p. 779.
51. Most of the above material was gleaned from Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac?" Bibliotheca Sacra, October, 1974, pp. 320-3 1, and The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 1: 188-89, 4:754.
52. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, p. 167.
53. Wierwille, Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, 6th ed. (New Knoxville, 0.: American Christian Press, 1972), p. 174.
54. Ibid., pp. 174-75. 55. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, p. 164.
56. Lonnel E. Johnson, The Gift (New Knoxville, O: American Christian Press, n.d.), p. 5; cf Wierwille, Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, p. 192.
57. Walter J. Cummins, "The Integrity of the God-Breathed Word," The Way Magazine, May-June, 1975, p. 7.
58. The inferiority of MS 31 is evidenced by the fact that Bruce Metzger does not cite it in The Text of the New Testament. In addition, the list of miniscules (which use cursive script) systematically cited by the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (New York: American Bible Society, 1966, 1968), p. xvii, chosen and collated by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research of Muenster, West Germany with co-editor Kurt Aland, includes 21 other manuscripts as late or later than MS 31, but ignores MS 31 itself. Since Cummins has identified himself closely with the Institute and Dr. Aland, we marvel that he would consider MS 31 important and even essential for critical use while recognized Institute scholars reject it as such.
59. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, p. 123. 60. Ibid., pp. 134-35.
61. Ibid., p. 135. 62. Ibid., p. 19 1. 63. Ibid., p. 191. 64. Ibid., pp. 188-89.
65. Cummins, Fundamentals of Greek Research, pp. 16-17.
66. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, p. 4.
67. Zondervan's Englishmans Greek Concordance is an excellent resource for checking New Testament word use. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is a very good encyclopedia of articles on New Testament word use, written by scores of recognized scholars.
68. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 209-11.
69. Good syntaxes and lexicons are invaluable in New Testament study. Among recognized sources are Dana and Mantey's A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament and A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Arndt and Gingrich, cited above. For a full and readable discussion of the New Testament textual evidence and criticism, Metzger's The Text of the New Testament, cited above, is excellent.
70. Helpful discussions on the Aramaic are found in larger Bible dictionaries, such as Zondervan's Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible and Abingdon's Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, as well as assorted dictionaries of philology, such as The Languages of the World, Ancient and Modern by Stanley Wemyss.
71. Mayer's Interpreting the Holy Scriptures supplies helpful principles of interpretation of Scripture.
72. Walter J. Cummins, "The Integrity of the God-Breathed Word," The Way Magazine, May-June, 1975, p. 7.
73. Wierwille, Jesus Christ Is Not God, p. 3. 74. Whiteside, The Way-Living in Love, p. 43.
This article was originally published as part of The Integrity and Accuracy of The Way's Word by John Juedes and Douglas Morton, 1981.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
A lot to feed on there.
Some real mistakes this writer makes. Real serious mistakes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Criticism by mischaracterization is what I'd call this. The fact that the word "malefactors" and the word "robbers" could refer to two different sets of people crucified with Jesus is not offered in PFAL as undeniable proof, but rather as opening the possibility. "All robbers are malefactors, but not all malefactors are robbers." Wierwille combined a number of matters to establish "four crucified" (I should say Bullinger did so, but that's not the point). Could robbers and malefactors be referring to the same people? Yes. Could those words be referring to different people? Yes. It was evidence for Wierwille's case, but it was not a smoking gun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Actually Belle, I learned last year that Jesus was crucified on a tree. This allowed for the crucifixion to be done with great haste. Rather than set up a weight bearing foundation which would have taken more time to support a cross and a person on it, they instead nailed the top part of a cross to a large tree. The tree evidently was large enough to hold two other people along with Jesus. Since a tree is circular the person handling the execution could have crucified one robber then depending on which way he went, left or right, could have then dealt with either Jesus or the other robber or malefactor. I read a complete study on this along with some of the history and scriptural references.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Now, I need to double check this, but this writer has the definitions 100% backwards. Bullinger (and therefore Wierwille) taught that allos was another of the same kind, and that heteros was another of a different kind, the exact opposite of the claim made by this writer! Therefore, all of the evidence used to in this section to prove Wierwille wrong actually proves him right!
Again, I need to double check that. I don't recall Wierwille ever using the "same kind/different kind" argument in the context of four crucified. I recall allos being "more than two involved" and heteros being "only two involved."
This person wasted valuable cyberspace with that section.
Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm mistaken. Here's the writer's citation: Power for Abundant Living, p. 167.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Who authored these articles ? Are they part of a larger work ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That must be why Wierwille never wrote it. As Mike would say, the written book and the taped class were not identical. I don't know if he misspoke in the class or if you could attribute dishonest motives to VPW for this mistake/error. But I do know that to criticize him for something he corrected (ie, the use of anablepo) is just downright mean, if not ignorant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
diazbro, I'm not sure off the top of my head. I believe I copied it from a link that WayferLookin posted here in 2001 or so. I've been going through some old things I copied to read later and/or chew on. I'll see if I can find it. I think this is a guy's thesis paper in college.
I'll peck around and let you know what I find. I'm not trying to deny him credit; I just can't remember.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, I just checked what I believe to be the references to allos and heteros above.
Reference 52 is flat out wrong.
BUT...
There's no mention whatsoever of the "same kind/different kind" distinction referenced by the writer.
He seems to have reference 53 right, and his refutation of it is on point. Allos and heteros simply don't mean what Wierwille said they mean. This is on the Actual (not merely apparent) Errors list.
See the Companion Bible, Appendix 124 for the definitions of heteros and allos (different kind/same kind). It also includes the other definition. I don't see any evidence that Wierwille ever deviated from these definitions. If someone can find it, please let me know. But the writer of this piece simply has it backward and ends up bolstering what he attempts to dismantle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Raf, in the filmed PFAL class, Wierwille said that heteros was of the same kind and allos was of a different kind. Whether he departed from Bullinger's definitions or just misspoke, I don't know. Either way, I think that both of them were wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Did anyone read my post? It explains rather briefly that there was only 2 crucified with Jesus and not 4.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Well if Mark says it has to be Gospel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
This is very fascinating, Mark.
I had only encountered this view briefly a few years ago, when reading a description to
one of the late Ernest Martin's studies (ASK publications), though I hadn't gotten around to picking that work up.
Apparently, ancient Christian legend has it that Gologtha where Christ was crucified also happened to be the place where Adam was buried
(Paul-Louis Couchoud, "The Creation of Christ", vol II). It's also been suggested that the tree upon which Christ was crucified was the tree of the Garden of Eden. But I've forgotten where I read that particular bit.
[update]- Ah, here's that link:
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
I believe the excerpts are from this article on John Juede's site:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The writer was hasty in his criticism in a few places, this being one of them.
vpw made several mistakes in the taped class due to improv.
My favourite example was Paul going to Jerusalem, and one guy
"I forget if it was Felix or Festus" said "almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian."
He couldnt remember which one because it was NEITHER, it was AGRIPPA.
(Felix and Festus show up later in the chapter.)
I wouldn't claim THIS was a critical error, but it was correctable and sloppy.
Similarly, the taped class has "anablepo" and the book has "eidon".
The word in the text he referred to IS "eidon" and may carry the meaning he meant.
He misspoke on the tape. (All of us good note-takers have notes that contradict
the textbook at that spot.)
To spend time on THIS dilutes the writer's point-it makes it look as though this is
the BEST he can come up with to refute vpw-and that would make vpw look BETTER
than he was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
From what LongGone said,
this was another place where vpw misspoke on the tapes, but it's corrected in
the books.
(Again, I find this was correctable, and should have been corrected, but that's
a separate, and smaller, quibble.)
As we discussed in the ACTUAL/REAL ERRORS IN PFAL discussions,
vpw was all over the map here. I'm unsure if Bullinger also(Bullinger) was all
over the map and vpw just parroted him, but I'd suspect something like that.
Where vpw claimed that allos and heteros made a distinction between exactly two
of something, that was error, period. (That's in the books.)
Apparently, in the tapes, vpw claimed "heteros" meant "other of the same type"
and "allos" meant "other of a different type",
and the books say the opposite.
The books are correct, as I see it.
The fastest illustration I can see for this is Galatians 1:6-7.
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of
Christ unto ANOTHER gospel,
which is not ANOTHER;..."
"unto another gospel" uses the word "heteros",
"which is not another" uses the word "allo".
Paul marvelled they removed to a DIFFERENT gospel,
which was not OF THE SAME KIND.
(Ok, Raf answered my question about Bullinger. vpw just xeroxed him as usual
without realizing he contradicted himself in doing so.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm skipping the whole "death/paradise" thing because that would take up
a whole thread on its own, and we STILL wouldn't all agree.
I think it's wrong of the writer to blithely declare the case for that
is open and shut, when intelligent Christians can intelligently disagree
on it (as we do here, sometimes.)
As to the definition of "precious",
I think of "precious" gems as well as "semi-precious" gems.
The "precious" gems are more costly.
That which is more costly is more highly valued.
Two Christians own copies of Bullinger's Companion Bible.
One owns the hardcover, one owns the leatherbound version.
The hardcover is cheaper.
Which of them puts the book away in its little case every night?
The latter. Why? Because it cost as much as 3-4 other reference books
put together.
A man owns a Ford Pinto and a Ferrari Testarossa.
Each one is damaged by falling concrete. Which one does he freak out
over? Right-the Ferrari. It's more costly, and "precious", and it's
more treasured by him as a result.
I say that the writer did NOT successfully refute the translation of
that word as "costly". His "argument" fit that definition just as well.
Finally,
why have a cow over the Gordon Ricker-Berry Interlinear from the
Stephens Text being used,
when it's the one people can actually FIND in stores?
I happily use it side-by-side with Marchall's Interlinear from the
Nestle Text.
Considering how many SERIOUS problems there are with vpw's errors,
I find it problematic that someone would camouflage them by making
THESE look like the most legit criticisms they could find.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Does anyone else remember this? I don't.
Either way, the article above has a citation (number 52) to a specific page in the PFAL book, which contradicts what the writer is saying (I'll say JM from now on, for Jueded-Morton). Unless there was an earlier edition that had these definitions, they goofed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Raf, I no longer have my copy of the PFAL book but I know what was said in the class. The Juedes/Morton article cited was originally published in 1981. According to this later Juedes article, the definition was changed in the second printing (not edition) of PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Raf,
Far be it from me to portray myself as a Biblical scholar, but I do remember PFAL (how can I forget after that many times?). And I distinctly remember VPW belaboring the point of it being "a different kind" when going over the passage about the guards breaking the legs of those crucified.
So, yeah, I would say that it was in the filmed version as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks.
It appears to me that he got his Bullinger definitions reversed. A huge "so what" in my book, but honestly, my memory of the filmed class fails me (and thank God for that).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.