The Ninja Assassin Dilemma

The issue of our day is how to interpret the title of the film, "Ninja Assassin". This controversial topic has been discussed much in the last few days. This Facebook post aims to end this discussion, and give a clear answer to this vital question. Here are the common views. After discussing these views, I show why view is a. is correct.

a. A Ninja Assassin - that is, an assassin who happens to be a ninja, or an assassin characterized by ninja like activity.

b. A Ninja's Assassin - That is, a certain ninja commands an assassin to do his bidding. This is true in the movie. But it has some problems. For example, one must insert an apostrophe to "Ninja" in order to make it work. Although, since the movie is brainless, the title may be as well. There could be an implied apostrophe or idea of possession.

c. An Assassin who kills Ninja(s) - that is, an assassin (who may or may not be a ninja) who makes it his practice to assassinate ninjas. Having seen the movie itself, it is a valid possibility. Rizo, the main character, is indeed an assassin (who happens to be a ninja) who kills other ninja (could be a collective singular noun representing a plural idea). However, this view too is fraught with difficulties. Rizo is indeed a former Ninja Assassin (in the sense of view a.) and, as such, now kills his former colleagues. So he is both a. and c.

The fundamental issue at hand is this: As a film title, what view makes the best sense? I would argue view a. makes the best sense. It doesn't have the grammatical problems b. has. It doesn't have the double meaning that c. has. Although, a double entendre may be intended, but then would the person who named this terrible film be intelligent enough to think like this? It seems best not believe this.

I would like to employ Ockam's Razor in this case. Do not multiply entities beyond necessity, or take the simplest choice among multiple options. Thus, view a. seems best.

Watch your walk

Running through the mountainous forests of Virginia last year, I twisted my ankle. It was moderately dark, and the paths were sketchy at best. If I had been intent on watching how carefully I was running, I may not have had a sore ankle for that week. By analogy of the life of Christian, if we don't assess how careful our walk is, we are setting ourselves up for hurt.

Scripture tells us this very thing in Ephesians 5:15. Most translations say this, "therefore look carefully how you walk...". However, the sense of the original coupled with the context seems to indicate that "therefore look how carefully you walk" is a better translation. The difference of an Adverb is huge. One commands to keep watching your walk, the other commands to watch how consistently you walk that walk. It's the difference between carefully looking at a car and carefully driving a car. You have to drive sometime, and you don't want to be reckless and get into accident. In other words, as Christians, we are to live out our walk carefully every day.

Every day, then, becomes a battle. Remember that the days are evil (Eph 5:16), because the God of this world, Satan, rules (Eph 2:2). How often do you consider how carefully you live out your Christian life? Are you walking wisely before God, or is your life a frantic race from one event to another without any forethought to what you are doing in between?

No monophysites, no monotheletites, no arians you are wrong!

Is it not arcane and obtuse to argue about the precise nature of Christ’s incarnation? Why would one emphasis holding to the Orthodox Creeds so strongly, like Leo The Great had? In sermons, he would preach about holding fast to the creeds and orthodox confessions. Why did he do this? I used to think that these ancient preachers were only spouting off intellectual sermons. However, these men were only dealing with local and real controversies of the people. The early church dealt with problems of viewing Christ as God and Man. They concluded that he was fully man and fully God against errant views of the Scripture. We do the same today. Often Pastors equip the saints in dealing with their faith in a Post Modern context. I bet in the years to come that this will seem like an obtuse and arcane subject.

Life

Our very life is from God. Do you ever wonder what you should be doing with your life? Do you ever wish you were better at something, a better athlete, musician, etc.? Work hard and you may do well at these things and improve in them. But realize that our very life is founded and based in the Word of God. It is the Spirit who gives life through the Word, not our efforts. Deuteronomy 8:3 teaches that “man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.” This was especially important to Israelites for whom this was uttered, because if they did not obey God’s word they could be punished by death. For us, we are not given the death penalty for disobedience. In truth, we have a greater a punishment. We can look forward to an eternity in hell where death is never a punishment. In fact, the idea of death, cessation of life, would be a blessing. Live by the Word of God for it is your life.

Promises...

When I enter into my rest, I think that it will be best. The nation of Israel was promised rest, and was near to having it as they Renewed the Sinaic Covenant before entering the Promised Land. Before renewing this Covenant, Moses re-hashed the entire history of Israel from the Time of the Exodus.

What is so gripping is that this is a history of disappointment and grief. From building the Golden calf, while Moses was receiving the Law of God to worshipping Goat demons and the infidelity at Kadesh Barnea, Israel was a stiff-necked generation. Imagine this, a cloud of the Glory of God resides in your camp and leads your way by night and still you do not believe (Deut 1:32)! What bizarre behavior.

I see read this and think that of how foolish these people were; yet I myself can be even more foolish than they. The Grace of God must be great indeed. He put up with Israel because he made a covenant with Abraham (Deut 7:8), He puts up with me because he made a covenant with Jesus Christ (Titus 1:2). I am so very glad that God is not a man, that He should lie (Num 22:19; cf. Heb 6:18).

The Apocryhpa

The English Protestant Bible contains 66 books in total - 39 in the OT and 27 in the NT. A question come to mind, why are these the books in the Bible? Could there not be more books? For example, the Roman Catholic Church has 46 books in their OT Canon, the Orthodox Church has 49, and if I remember correctly the Ethiopian Church has bout 54 books in their OT Canon. So which is right?

In short, the Protestant OT Canon contains the only inspired OT Canon in existence. The Apocryphal writings are not God's Word. In fact, some claim the very opposite (cf. 1 Maccabees 9:1ff). No early lists of the Canon contain these writings (cf. Philo's, Melito's, Josephus', the Pharisaic list etc.).

More than that, Jesus never quotes from the Apocrypha. He was using the Greek Translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint of which contains these books. However, he doesn't quote them or allude to them, rather he quotes and alludes to most of the 39 books of the Old Testament Canon. That being said, there is probably another, better reason for Jesus not quoting or alluding to the Apocrypha. The reason is that there was NO Apocrypha in the Septuagint. The earliest manuscript we have of the Greek Translation of the Old Testament which includes the Apocrypha is from the 4th Century AD. In other words, the 1 Century AD Septuagint did not have the Apocrypha in it, because the idea of it being Canon was a rather late concept into the church. After all, the Roman Catholic Church only canonized it at the Council of Trent (1546).

In any case, because of the above reasoning and many more other reasons not listed here, we can be sure that the 39 books of the Old Testament Canon are the only inspired books.

The Canon of Scripture: Exploring the implications of a wider canon

I have been for the best week or so trying to determine when and how the Canon of Scripture came into being. I have come to some conclusions that I will note as a preface to the following discussion in order that no one is left guessing what I think. First, the there is a difference between the concepts of Canonization and Inspiration. God did not canonize scripture; He inspired it. Men canonized scripture. How? They realized that God had inspired it, and in response made it canon. Therefore the idea that men created the Canon if Scripture is in once sense true. However, the real question is how did they create the Canon?

Ignoring the answer to that question for now, let's consider what it would mean to have multiple Canons. The Roman Catholic church has 46 books in their Old Testament Canon. I believe the Orthodox church has has 49 books in their Canon, and I think the Ethiopian Church has around 54 books in their canon (I may be a book or two off - but that won't hurt the discussion).

So we have three different traditions of the Canon and this has not even noted that Protestant Bible which contains 39 books in the Old Testament. I read one author who said in so many words that "couldn't God have allowed a larger Canon or multiple Canons?" At least, the point was that God is great He could have created many canons! Wow. So simple. But wait, is every Canon inspired? Or put another way, is every book in each of these Canons inspired by God. If so, then we have a problem. For the Protestant Bible has only 39 books. Are we missing some inspired works?

If so, how does this affect the Christian Bible today of the Protestant tradition?

1. It means that we have only had a portion of God's revelation to man, provided we accept the definition of canonization noted above

2. It means that God has not providentially cared for the order of His books so that the church may be edified by all of His word. How can we preach the full counsel of God when we only have a the partial counsel of God?

3. It means that God is the author of confusion in His church, for some of the books rejected by the Protestants have blatant contradictions found in them.

Those are the only things I can think of off hand. But nonetheless, for these few reasons I can see a problem with the idea that God may have given multiple Canons.

Given that God has inspired Scripture and then Men recognized and affirmed this by Canonization I choose to trust God. I choose to trust that God would not be the author of confusion, that He would not hold back a portion of his complete body of Scripture to his church, that He would give the whole counsel of God to his Church so that it may be preached. I Choose so for a number of reasons that I plan to outline in the coming weeks.

I need to go do homework.

Sinning by confusion?

God reveals himself to all people. He bestows upon all men a revelation of himself. Passively, we see his power through nature; we see that he is God because of Creation. But God actively reveals himself to all men in one way, and one way only: In wrath.

Romans 1:18 states, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” God's wrath is the single and universal revelation of himself to all men and women everywhere. It is not God's love that he reveals to all men, though one may be able to see passively that God is good when one receives rain and food from God. It is at this point that men meet God. They meet God in wrath, and only wrath.

How exactly is this wrath revealed? It is revealed by the confusion of peoples. When humanity gives up the truth of God for a lie, God hands them over into their lusts (Romans 1:24), confused relationships (Romans 1:26), and, finally, God gives them an unstable or untested mind (Romans 1:28). The word for “untested” was used of a one who tested metals and coins. A coin or metal would not be approved if it had a faulty infrastructure, and so it would collapse under pressure. God gave them a mind in his active wrath that created faulty thinking. And hence, they became confused. Good is bad, God is not real and the family unit is no longer important. Sound familiar? Verse 28 of Romans could read like this, “As they did not 'approve' to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to an un-approved mind.” The same word is used in both places. God's wrath is not only revealed to all people, it also is a punishment fit for the crime. Men did not approve of God, so God in his wrath does not approve of men.

What's the point? Truth is morally good, error and confusion is morally evil and means God's wrath is active. Never let anyone tell you that it is prideful to be confident in truth, because this is indicative of a sinful attitude. Be bold, Do not be ashamed of the Gospel for it (and “it” alone) is the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16). Nothing else has God's power contained in it for our use except this gospel. It is true, and is truth. Confusion is God's judgement on sin, clarity and truth is God's blessing on His children.

God reveals himself to all people in wrath, manifested in confusion. This confusion begins by God unrestricting sin, then allowing confusion in personal relationships, and finally by God giving a untested and worthless mind to those who reject the truth by their unrighteousness. Understand that doctrinal clarity and boldness in proclamation of the truth is morally Good, and confusion, evil.