-M-

MASORETIC TEXT. A name for the Hebrew text handed down from the Jews and underlying the King James Bible and other faithful non-Catholic versions. The following is from Dr. D.A. Waite's Defending the King James Bible: A Four-fold Superiority. Dr. Donald Waite, Director of the Bible for Today ministries and President of the Dean Burgon Society, is a Baptist scholar who has written in the defense of the Received Text. He has earned a B.A. in classical Greek and Latin; a Th.M. with high honors in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis; an M.A. and Ph.D. in Speech; a Th.D. with honors in Bible Exposition; and he holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher certificates in Greek and Language Arts. He taught Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and English for more than 35 years in nine schools. He has produced more than 700 studies on the Bible and other subjects.

"The word `Masoretic' comes from masor, a Hebrew word meaning `traditional.' It means to hand down from person to person. The Masoretes handed down this text from generation to generation, guarded it and kept it well. There were families of Hebrew scholars in Babylon, in Palestine, and in Tiberius. According to most students of these matters, these Masoretes safeguarded the consonantal text. [According to some fundamentalist writers, the vowels were present in the Hebrew language right from the start. All the Masoretes had to do was to guard both consonants and vowels. They may very well be correct in this.] I say `consonantal text' because, as one school of thinking understands it, originally the Hebrew was written only in consonants; there were no vowels.

"The Masoretes flourished from about 500 to 1000 A.D. They were supposed to have standardized the Hebrew O.T. in about 600-700 A.D. by putting in the vowel pointings to aid in the pronunciation of the consonantal text. Their text is called the Masoretic Text or M.T. if you want to abbreviate it.

"What about the Hebrew text used by the KJV translators? Here is some background on it. The Daniel Bomberg edition, 1516-17, was called the First Rabbinic Bible. Then in 1524-25, Bomberg published a second edition edited by Abraham Ben Chayyim (or Ben Hayyim) iben Adonijah. This is called the Ben Chayyim edition of the Hebrew text. Daniel Bomberg's edition, on which the KJV is based, was the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. This was called the Second Great Rabbinic Bible. This became the standard Masoretic text for the next 400 years.

"The Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text was used even in the first two editions of Biblia Hebraica by Rudolf Kittel. The dates on those first two editions were 1906 and 1912. He used the same Hebrew text as the KJV translators.

"The edition we used when I was a student of Dr. Merrill F. Unger at Dallas Theological Seminary (1948-53), was the 1937 edition of the Biblia Hebraica by Kittel. All of a sudden, in 1937, Kittel changed his Hebrew edition and followed what they called the Ben Asher Masoretic Text instead of the Ben Chayyim. They followed, in that text, the Leningrad manuscript. The date on it was 1008 A.D. This was not the traditional Masoretic Text that was used for 400 years and was the basis of the King James Bible. They changed it and used this Leningrad manuscript. So even the main text used by the NKJV, NASV, and NIV in the Hebrew is different from that used for the King James Bible. The footnotes in Kittel's Biblia Hebraica suggest from 20,000 to 30,000 changes throughout the whole Old Testament.

"The reason that most of the Hebrew departments, in colleges, universities, and seminaries who teach Hebrew, use the Ben Asher Hebrew Text instead of the Ben Chayyim Text is the same reason they use the critical Greek text in the N.T. They believe the "oldest" texts, either in Hebrew or in Greek, must always be the best. Not necessarily. These so-called "old" texts of the N.T., such as `B' (Vatican) and `Aleph' (Sinai) and their some 43 allies, were corrupted, I believe, by heretics within the first 100 years after the original N.T. books were written. Therefore, even though these might be the oldest, they were doctored by heretics and therefore are not the "best." Other texts, even though they might be later, if they follow the words of the original, must therefore be the ones to use. Those texts which agree with the original documents are those which the KJV has followed.

"Then there was a revision of Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. It was called the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the Stuttgart edition of 1967-77, based also on the same Ben Asher text. That is based on the Leningrad Codex which is the same one the revised Kittel Bible of 1937 used.

"[In addition to changes based on using the wrong Hebrew base, the modern versions] also make corrections based upon the following spurious criteria: (1) The Septuagint; (2) conjecture; (3) the Syriac version; (4) some Hebrew manuscripts; (5) the Latin Vulgate; (6) the Dead Sea scrolls; (7) Greek O.T. translations such as the Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion; (8) the Samaritan Pentateuch; (9) quotations from Jerome; (10) Josephus; (11) an ancient Hebrew scribal tradition; the Targums; (12) the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome for the Psalms; (13) a different set of Hebrew vowels and consonants which create different divisions in the text.

"My conclusion is even if there are seeming contradictions in the traditional Hebrew text, I feel it is imperative to stand by this Text and let the Lord figure out what may seem to be contradictions to us. Keep what God has given and preserved through the ages. The King James translators came along and saw what the Hebrew Masoretic text said and simply translated it right over into the English. They didn't quibble with it; they didn't try to harmonize it. ... Never be ashamed of the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the King James Bible! It was accumulated by the Jews in fulfillment of Ro. 3:1- 2. We agree with Dean John William Burgon who wrote of "the incredible folly of tinkering with the Hebrew text" (from a letter April 8, 1885, appearing in the Guardian, as quoted in John William Burgon, Late Dean of Chichester--A Biography, 1892, by Edward Mayrick Goulburn).

"Not only was the Scripture accumulated by the Jews, but it was authorized by Jesus. Jesus Christ authorized the traditional Masoretic Hebrew O.T. text (Mt. 4:4; 5:17-18; Lk. 24:27,44). The Lord Jesus Christ never refuted any text, any word, or any letter in the Hebrew O.T. He didn't say, `Now Moses was misquoted here, it should have been this...' He offered no textual criticism whatever. Had there been any changes, I'm sure He would have corrected it, but He didn't. It stands written! His stamp of approval is on the Masoretic Hebrew text.

"After much study, thinking, and praying about this subject, I have personally arrived at a strong conviction that I will not budge from the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text on which our King James Bible is based. That is it. I'm not going to move" (D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, pp. 20-36). [See Bible, Bible Versions, Erasmus, Inspiration, King James Bible, Preservation, Westcott-Hort.]

MASS. The Roman Catholic form of the Lord's Supper. According to Catholic doctrine, the mass is a re-sacrifice of Christ in which the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ when it is blessed by the Catholic priest. The authoritative Vatican II Council of the mid-1960s stated: "The Mass, the Lord's Supper, is ... a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated. ... In this sacrament Christ is present in a unique way, whole and entire, God and man, substantially and permanently. This presence of Christ under the species `is called real, not in an exclusive sense, as if the other kinds of presence were not real, but par excellence'" (Vatican Council II--The Conciliar and Post conciliar Documents, 1975, pp. 108,114). The Catholic Catechism, 1975, says: "The sacrifice on the altar is no mere commemoration of Calvary, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby Christ the high priest, by an unbloody immolation offers himself a most acceptable victim to the eternal father, as he did on the cross."

That the Catholic Church considers Christ actually present in the mass is evidenced by the fact that it requires that the wafer be worshiped: "All the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic Church. Nor is it to be adored any the less because it was instituted by Christ to be eaten. For even in the reserved sacrament he is to be adored because he is substantially present there through that conversion of bread and wine which, as the Council of Trent tells us, is most aptly named transubstantiation" (Vatican Council II, pp. 109-110).

While certain forms of the Mass have changed since Vatican II (it can be said in the vernacular instead of Latin and many prayers are omitted), the dogma of the Mass being a re-sacrifice of Christ has not changed. The Catholic Mass is a gross perversion of the simple memorial meal depicted for us in the N.T. Scriptures.

FOLLOWING ARE THE REASONS WE REJECT THE MASS: (1) Jesus could not possibly have meant that the bread and juice would actually become His body and blood. (a) When He instituted the Supper, He was there in His physical body, "so the piece of wafer which He said was His body, and the cup of wine which He said was His blood, could not possibly have been His body and His blood in any literal sense; certainly, He was indicating that these were symbols that He was using" (Let Rome Speak for Herself). (b) Paul plainly says the Lord's Supper is a symbolic, memorial meal (1 Co. 11:23-25). (c) In Jn. 6 Jesus explained the meaning of His demand that men eat His flesh and drink His blood, and He said it had a symbolic, not a literal meaning (Jn. 6:35,38,41,48,53). (2) The sacrifice of Christ was a once for all event (He. 9:12,26,28; 10:10,12,14). When Christ died on the Cross, He said, "It is finished" (Jn. 19:30). The RCC, with its repeated sacrifices of Christ, denies the eternal sufficiency of Christ's Atonement. (3) A sacrifice without blood cannot atone for sins (Le. 17:11; He. 9:22). (4) The intrusion of a special priesthood between Christ and the believer is an unbiblical abomination (1 Ti. 2:5; He. 7:24-27; 1 Pe. 2:5,9). (5) Masses for the dead, which are central in Catholic practice, are entirely foreign to the Bible. Prayers and rituals for the dead are pagan practices, not biblical Christianity (De. 18:9,11; 26:13-14). (6) The supposed changes which occur in the Mass are clearly deceptions. The bread and wine remain unchanged in appearance, color, odor, or form, yet the Catholic Church requires its people to believe the elements actually become Christ. They call this deception a miracle, but true biblical miracles are real and observable. (7) It is idolatry to worship the elements of the Mass (Ex. 20:4-5; Jn. 4:24). (8) There is no semblance between the drama of the Catholic Mass and the simple ceremony initiated by Christ and practiced by the N.T. churches (Mt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:23-25; Lk. 22:19-20; 1 Co. 11:23-25). It is obvious that the Lord Jesus Christ did not institute the Mass. The Bible promises perfect security and assurance through Christ's once-for-all sacrifice on Calvary. Any person who places his trust entirely in Christ and His shed blood need never doubt his eternal salvation before God (Jn. 3:16; He. 9:12). THe Lord's Supper, far from repeating Christ's sacrifice, simply REMINDS the believer of that glorious sacrifice by which he is redeemed unto God forever! [See Atonement, Justification, Lord's Supper.]

MODESTY. THE MEANING OF MODESTY. "In females, modesty has the like character as in males (restrained by a sense of propriety, not bold or forward, not loose, not lewd); but the word is used also as synonymous with chastity, or purity of manners. ... Unaffected modesty is the sweetest charm of female excellence, the richest gem in the diadem of their honor" (Webster) (1 Ti. 2:9; Tit. 2:5). "When Paul wrote to Titus, he gave some instructions, especially to the `young women.' He told them `to be discreet, chaste.' (Titus 2:5). Discreet means to be sober- minded, self-controlled, or temperate. Chaste means to be modest and pure from carnality. Paul writes a similar statement to Timothy, instructing him what to teach the women. `In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety' (1 Tim. 2:9). Shamefacedness means to know shame and to have a sense of shame. Sobriety means to be discreet, controlling all passions and desires that might cause a temptation to be immodest. This is a direct command from God for ladies to dress modestly. Ladies are to be careful about their dress. It seems today that many women have absolutely no sense of shame and decency" (F. William Farrow, "Was Jesus Concerened About Modesty?" Maranatha Baptist Watchman, August 1993).

THE REASON FOR MODESTY. Before the fall, the man and the woman were naked and were not ashamed, but after the fall man's heart became darkened, and it became necessary that men and women be clothed. One of the first things God did after the Fall was to cover Adam and Eve (Ge. 3:21). Immodesty increases sin among men (Le. 19:29; Pr. 7:10-13; 23:27-28). Some women excuse their immodest dress by saying lust is the man's problem, but Jesus Christ warned that fornication begins as lust (Mt. 5:28), and the woman who does not cloth herself properly is guilty of stirring up unlawful passions in the man. David and Bathsheba both were guilty in the transgression. Bathsheba should not have been bathing in a public place; David should not have gazed upon her nakedness. The Bible warns that "the strange woman," the immoral woman, can "catch" a man with her seductive dress and actions (Pr. 7:10-13). "Whether you realize it or not, men look at certain portions of the body, and it doesn't matter whether you think that is good, bad, or otherwise, they are going to do it. And if you wear clothing that attracts attention to that, you are just helping them in their sin. That's why a dress, unless it's too tight, is better than pants, because a dress does not draw the attention to that part of the body that people look at and lust after" (Bruce Lackey, Bible Guidelines for Clothing).

THE WAY OF MODESTY. The Bible says God "covered" Adam and Eve (Ge. 3:21). This is a good pattern for modesty. The man and woman should be covered decently so that the body is not improperly displayed in a sexual way. There are two areas which must be addressed when dressing modestly: First, the nakedness must be covered. It is obvious that it is immodest to wear clothing which exposes the parts of the body which have sexual appeal, such as short skirts, low blouses, shorts, and skimpy suitsuits. Second, the sexual parts must not be sensually accented. Tight, clinging attire is as immodest as skimpy attire because the outline of the body is emphasized and exposed. [See Adultery, Chaste, Discreet, Fornication, Lust, Nakedness.]