Pharisee church pastor condemns the prophet Elijah for “sinfully living with a woman who is not his wife”

In his latest tirade against “deteriorating morality in the world”, the Pharisee church pastor called the prophet Elijah in the Bible “a man of sin who violated the many and always-expanding rules of Christian accountability” for living with a widow while he stayed in Zarephath.

“An important rule of Christian accountability is that a man must never live with a woman who is not his wife,” the Pharisee church pastor explained. “If Elijah wanted to live with that widow, he should have married her first. Since he did not do so, he was living in sin.”

“It is therefore obvious why the widow’s son became so sick that he died,” continued the Pharisee church pastor. “As I have preached before, all diseases, from the common cold to cancer, are caused by sin in your life. The illness and death of the widow’s son is the result of either the child’s own sins, or the sins of his parents, or both. With his mother living in sin with the man Elijah who was not her husband, this child’s sickness and death is well deserved as a measure of Christian accountability.”

“If Elijah were indeed a prophet, as he is commonly known, he would know to never associate with sinners, such as a woman living with a man who is not her husband, in order to keep himself pure and holy in accordance with the rules of Christian accountability,” explained the Pharisee church pastor, “because Christians are not allowed to associate with sinners. I have no doubt that the man of sin Elijah has been burning in hell since his death.”

But, Pharisee church pastor, Elijah was apparently told to live with the widow in Zarephath, would that not be an acceptable excuse?

“The one who told Elijah to live with a woman who is not his wife is clearly even more sinful than Elijah,” thundered the Pharisee church pastor in response, “and whoever this is needs to immediately join in one of my Christian accountability groups, so I can hold him accountable as his accountability partner.”

Pharisee church pastor, as someone who says that you will hold God accountable, I suppose that if God is to come into the world, you would crucify Him to death on a cross.

Why the English Standard Version (ESV) is NOT my preferred translation of the Bible

The English Standard Version (ESV) version of the Bible, a newer translation first published in 2001, has been increasing its market share steadily. It has also found an audience among those disappointed with the recent revisions of the New International Version (NIV), possibly the market leader among Bible-believing Christians. Much of this popularity is due to the ESV’s promise of being “an ‘essentially literal’ translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer”. However, in one Bible passage at least, the ESV’s presentation is anything but literal. Indeed, the ESV stands alone among commonly accepted Bible translations in its rendering of the passage.

Please click on the link to see a side-by-side comparison between versions of 1 Corinthians 11:3-15.

In all other versions, one can see the words “woman” and “man” consistently translated throughout the passage. However, the ESV is on its own in shifting from “woman” and “man” to “wife” and “husband” respectively in parts of the passage. The ESV translators explained themselves in the relevant footnotes, which clearly displayed their lack of fidelity:

“a. 1 Corinthians 11:3 Greek gun&emacron;. This term may refer to a woman or a wife, depending on the context
b. 1 Corinthians 11:5 In verses 5-13, the Greek word gun&emacron; is translated wife in verses that deal with wearing a veil, a sign of being married in first-century culture”

In footnote a, the translators claimed that the context called for shifting perspectives. If this were so, how come the ESV stands alone in shifting? Should not all other faithful Bible translations employ the same shift in wording? Clearly, the ESV translators are not being literal in their translation work at all here.

In footnote b, the ESV translators admitted to using “cultural factors” in how their translation. However, this is exactly what got the so called “watered-down” translations, such as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the NIV’s new revision into trouble. Once we adulterate the word of God and claim that things are said a certain way because of a particular cultural context, we lose the universal truth that is presented in the Bible. Instead, passages that do not fit well with contemporary sensitivities can be dismissed as “that’s the way things were back then, and means nothing today”.

1 Corinthians 11:3-15 is a passage that is commonly dismissed as not relevant to today’s Christian, but that calls for a deeper separate discussion. Here, the focus is on the ESV translators’ errors.

So what’s the big deal with one passage in the entire Bible? The answer is: faithfulness to the Word of God is at stake here. Even the ESV translation admits that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16 ESV). Note that ALL Scripture originate from God, and not “All Scripture except 1 Corinthians 11:3-15”. No matter how one feels about that particular passage, the integrity of translation of God’s Word is relevant to all.

The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation? I think not.