25-1116p - Detailed Summary

Mike connects this to the morning’s discussion on names and their meanings, extending the idea that words also carry significance. Dictionaries help us understand pronunciations and meanings of words, and words are used to paint pictures in our minds for communication, much like how God uses familiar words to reveal His will to us.

The sermon warns against arguing over words through scriptures, noting that some words are synonymous and that time spent arguing could be better used for research. It is unfortunate that some people cling to a particular word, assigning it a meaning that may not align with intent, leading to misunderstandings. Despite this, understanding words well is necessary to avoid pointless arguments.

In 1 Timothy 6:3-5, it is stated that if anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even those of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine according with godliness, such a person is proud, knowing nothing, but obsessed with disputes and arguments over words. From these come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, and useless wranglings of men with corrupt minds, destitute of the truth, who suppose godliness is a means of gain, and from such, one should withdraw. The emphasis is on consenting to wholesome words, particularly those of Jesus, to do well and avoid obsession with disputes.

Mike intends to discuss some words not to engender strife but to ensure understanding when reading the Bible. He mentions his stepfather’s misreading as an example where people might think they are reading something correctly but are not. The goal is to clarify meanings to enhance comprehension and avoid misinterpretations in scriptural study.

Mike recounts how his stepfather, early in Mike’s Christian journey, misread Proverbs 23:20 from the King James Version, quoting it as "Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh," but pronouncing "riotous" as "rotten," saying "eaters of rotten flesh." At first, Mike did not think much of it, but over time, as the verse was repeatedly quoted incorrectly, he began to question it, reasoning that no one would eat something rotten knowingly due to its stench and state. Even before deeply studying scriptures, Mike challenged this interpretation, finding his stepfather’s explanation nonsensical.

Upon recently reading Proverbs 23:20-21, Mike confirms the word is "riotous," spelled R-I-O-T-O-U-S, describing the eaters as "riotous eaters of flesh," not "rotten." His stepfather had misread and misquoted the verse. In the King James Version, it starts with "Be not among winebibbers," confirming this is the verse in question, as no other matches. In the New King James Version and New American Standard Version, "riotous" is replaced with "gluttonous," again describing the eaters, highlighting how mispronunciation or misreading can alter perceived meaning.

Mike references the killing of Charlie Kirk, agreeing it was murder, but notes a religious figure’s objection to calling it an assassination, arguing Charlie Kirk was not prominent enough like a president or well-known leader. However, consulting Webster’s Dictionary of 1828, "assassinate" means to kill or murder by sudden violence, without specifying the victim must be prominent. Mike points out that Charlie Kirk was prominent among young people, known through videos and debates.

The distinction between murder and assassination is questioned, as assassination simply describes murder by sudden violence, fitting Charlie Kirk’s death without needing to differentiate based on prominence. Anyone killed by sudden violence is assassinated, according to the definition. This example illustrates unnecessary arguments over words when their meanings overlap or describe the same act.

People debate the word "for" in Acts 2:38, where Peter instructs to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, with some claiming the Greek word "eis" means "because of," implying sins are already remitted. However, this interpretation is incorrect, as "eis" does not mean "because of." To resolve this, Mike directs to Matthew 26:26-28, where Jesus institutes the Lord’s Supper, taking bread as his body and the cup as his blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins.

At that moment, Jesus' blood is still in his veins, but soon he will shed it for the remission of sins. If "for" meant "because of" sins already remitted, it would imply Jesus shed his blood because sins were forgiven beforehand, which contradicts the purpose. Thus, using this parallel passage eliminates the argument over "eis," clarifying that remission occurs through the act, not prior to it.

In Romans 5:6-8, it is explained that while we were without strength, Christ died for the ungodly; scarcely would one die for a righteous man, but perhaps for a good man, yet God shows his love by Christ dying for us while we were sinners. Christ did not die for the already forgiven or righteous, as that would render his death vain; instead, he died to save people from their sins, as discussed earlier. This reinforces that arguments over words like "for" can be settled by context, such as in Acts 2, where people were exhorted to save themselves, and salvation occurred when they gladly received the word and were baptized, adding about 3000 souls.

The puzzling aspect is why people ignore context, claiming remission before baptism, when Peter instructed what must be done for it. Words are essential for communication, allowing God to reveal his will and guide behavior, but sad are those who argue merely to contend. The invitation is extended for anyone needing to share with the church, to come forward for prayers, using the Bible rightly by dividing it properly and avoiding wrangling over words. May the invitation be heeded while standing and singing.