Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Study Method

  • Interview with Keith Williams on The Mosaic Bible

    I’m delighted to have Keith Williams, General Editor of the Mosaic Bible, and Bible and Reference Editor at Tyndale House.  This is part of The Mosaic Bible blog tour. You can find Keith regularly on the NLT Blog, or follow him on twitter, @keithwilliams. Don’t forget to look at the rules for my contest to give away a certificate for one free copy of The Mosaic Bible.


    Q:  In preparing this Bible was there any single experience that most touched you and the editorial team?

    A:  In almost every week, there was at least one quote, prayer, or reading that captured my spiritual imagination, but the one thing that sticks out most was seeing the final page proofs. To see how everything had come together in a way that fulfilled and even exceeded our vision for the Bible was quite gratifying. Our design team did an amazing job with the layout, and the final touch of varying the size and presentation of the art was captivating to me.

    Q:  I know that you chose quotations from writers of each century of Christian history and from every continent.  What other criteria did you use in choosing the contributors?

    A:  It was important to me to present a wide diversity of perspectives throughout, not only historically and geographically, but also across the various strands of Christian traditions, etc. I was also careful to include women throughout. In every single week, the contributors gave me more content than I could actually fit in a given week, and often I found myself cutting excellent material simply because I already had half a dozen quotes from a particular author or others like him or her. Ultimately, however, even though the diversity was important, I was careful to make sure that everything included would point the reader to deeper reflection on God and his Word in the context of that week’s theme.

    Q:  Did you find any new writer that particularly touched you or interested you that you could recommend to my readers?

    A:  This was my first exposure to most of the contemporary authors who contributed to this project. By “contemporary authors,” I mean those people who were commissioned to write the central meditation for each week. I found many of them to be very interesting and engaging, and I am somewhat at a loss to pick and choose. I do remember quite clearly that Tamara Park’s meditation (“Marked with Khesed,” p. m312-313) was so good that I couldn’t bring myself to edit it down to just one page. It is the only one that spills over to a second page. I remember agonizing over the proof, seeing that I just couldn’t get it to fit on one page without losing something important, so we broke the rules and let it spill over.

    Q:  In my experience the NLT is much more commonly used for personal reading than for public reading or exegetical study.  Is that an accurate characterization of normal use?  Do you see the NLT text as well suited for public reading and preaching?

    A:  There are definitely churches that use the NLT as their primary Bible for preaching and reading, but there are also believers and pastors who encourage using the NLT for personal reading while using a more formal translation in worship and study. I think the NLT can be used in both contexts with profit; it is a serious translation, done by qualified scholars who are passionate about communicating the Word of God as clearly and accurately as possible in modern English. Of course, the preacher will sometimes have to explain why the sermon deviates from the NLT, but doesn’t that happen with every translation in an exegetical sermon? The honest answer is yes. The nature of translation is that decisions are made that will capture major aspects of the original text, but it is not possible to represent all of the nuance of the original in translation. It is a myth that formal translations are better at preserving more of the aspects of the original language than dynamic ones. Both strategies have their strengths, and anyone doing in-depth Bible study in English should definitely consult more than one translation in their studies. But the NLT is definitely an excellent choice as a primary translation for exegetical study, public reading and preaching. Often the clarity of the NLT will shine a bright light on the central point of the text that might be obscured by the familiarity or traditional language of a more formal translation.

    Q:  Could you expand on what it means for this Bible to be Christocentric and how you accomplish this through the choice of readings and the layout?

    A:  This is a great question! There are two primary ways that I hope believers will be able to “encounter Christ” through this Bible. First, they will most certainly encounter Christ through his Word, which is presented on its own without the distraction of other content sharing the page. All of the supplementary content in the front is intended to drive readers back to the Scripture readings, the revealed Word of God. Second, I believe people will be able to encounter Christ through the witness of a community of believers from various times, places, and traditions of the faith. The readings, hymns, prayers, and artwork are all representations of Christ’s work in his people. They are brought together in a way that highlights the fact that Christ is truly present among his people, despite (and perhaps even through) our obvious differences.

  • Longman, Genesis, and Inerrancy

    I’m not going to make an extended comment here except to note that the point at which I get the most questions about my own interpreation of scripture and the doctrine of inerrancy is Genesis 1-2, possibly extending to Genesis 1-11.  The fact is that I can find people who affirm the doctrine of inerrancy to back everything I have said about those chapters.

    Besides pointing out that I haven’t done anything very original in this area, it shows that people very often conflate some form of Biblical literalism with Biblical inerrancy.  The two are not the same thing.  I have discussed this more extensively in my series on Biblical interpretation on my Threads blog, and more specifically regarding Genesis 1-11 on this blog.  I would note that some things I say regarding Genesis 4 and later raise more questions, though I would still maintain I could find backing from folks who support Biblical inerrancy.

    In any case, there has been a recent uproar over some remarks by Dr. Tremper Longman, and my main point is to link to a discussion of this matter by Jeremy Pierce, which I think is exceptionally clear on a number of key points.  One cannot determine whether a document in error before one determines what it intends to convey, and one cannot determine what it intends to convey without knowing what type of literature it is.

    Read Jeremy’s entire post for a good exposition.

  • The Mosaic Bible (NLT) Released

    I am excited about the release of Holy Bible: Mosaic NLT, just released by Tyndale House.  What is even more exciting is that I have been looking at a copy they sent me for a few days, and I have been invited to participate in their blog tour for the release.  In addition, Tyndale House is sending me a certificate for a free copy which I can give away as the prize for a contest on this blog.  More about that at the end.

    For my part of the blog tour, Keith Williams, general editor for this edition, will be answering a few questions.  The date for that post will be tomorrow, so I don’t have time to follow the excellent example of the Internet Monk in asking readers for their questions.  (He has taken “the more excellent way” I guess!)  But I have put a few questions to Keith and we’ll post the responses tomorrow.

    A bit later today I will be posting my own review of this Bible to give you a preview of what’s in store and of its value.

    OK, as to the contest, if you would like a certificate that you can take to your local bookstore and get a free copy of The Mosaic Bible, you will have an opportunity to do so here.  If you don’t get one here, follow the blog tour and keep trying!

    I am asking readers to give me suggestions for the best use of this Bible to encourage devotional Bible reading amongst Christians.  Indicate in your comment that this is an “NLT Suggestion” and make sure your e-mail, provided in the comment form, is valid.  I believe it will be one week from today (I may adjust this based on when I get the certificate in hand, but comment early in any case) that I will make a selection for the best suggestion.  I’m going to be getting two other people to look at the suggestions as well, so it won’t just be my personal choice.

    Your comment may be on this post, on my review, or on the Keith Williams interview.

    Note: There are important resources related to use of this Bible at Mosaic Holy Bible.

    The next stop on the tour is at This Lamp. The previous stop on the tour was at The Church of Jesus Christ.

  • Bible Application Suggestion – Make Yourself the Target

    I’m a strong advocate of Bible study by the laity, even when such study leads to errors.  In fact, I think making mistakes is an important part of Christian growth.  But there are a number of odd things that can happen when people apply the Bible.  One of the checks on “loony” Biblical application that I use is sharing, which I teach as part of my basic method of Bible study.  Sharing involves not just telling people what you think you have learned, but also listening to them for correction.  It’s OK to disagree, even with an expert.  But it’s a good idea to hear the expert first.

    In this post I’m talking specifically about application and how you hear scripture.  I discussed a related topic on my Threads blog today.

    My suggestion is simple:  Read the Bible for what corrects you, not for what corrects other people.

    There are two parts to this idea.  The first is to read and study the Bible looking for the best possible case that you are wrong.  This may seem perverse to some.  Why not just directly search for the truth?  The problem is that we are rarely able to search objectively for the truth.  Too often we “discover” that the Bible is telling us to believe what we already believed, or to do what we already wanted to do.  Consider how many conflicting answers people get to the question “What wouldJesus do?”

    In my very early days of online discussion, in the Compuserve Religion Forum, I once had a debate with someone over the translation and interpretation of Isaiah 45:7.  My set of arguments led to the idea that here God, through the prophet, claims to be the creator of everything.  There is nothing that does not find its source in God.  I still believe that, and hold that the pairs of opposites are intended to convey the whole spectrum.

    My opponent was very anxious to argue that God is in no way the author of evil.  Now there is a sense in which I would agree with that as well, while still maintaining that evil is a perversion, not a creation, but nonetheless even evil cannot exist without God.

    But the details are not important.  My opponent got the worst of the debate according to those on the sidelines, and one congratulated me on my fine arguments.  At that point pride got the better of me and I told him that it was no great mastery; I could present a better case against myself than my opponent was.

    I’m sure you guessed it.  He immediately told me to put up or shut up.  So I put up.  I formulated an argument challenging my own and in the process became much less certain of the low intelligence of those who would take the opposing view.  I didn’t convince myself to change positions, but I both strengthened my own arguments and provided myself a lesson in humility by having to provide possible counter-arguments to a number of my own points.

    If you set out to study your pet topic by looking for the best scriptural arguments against it, you may correct against your own biases.

    The other part of this is in practice.  Here I suggest this not just for the reasons I mention above, but also because it will help prevent a judgmental attitude.  It will also help you correct your practice according to what you learn.

    I would suggest as an example of how we don’t do this the issue of homosexuality in the church.  We live in an age with extra-marital sex is ubiquitous and is often swept under the rug or treated as of little importance.  At the same time we spend a disproportionate amount of time discussion homosexuality.  Perhaps those of us who are heterosexual should look more closely at the texts that apply to us.

    To those who might think this latter is a very liberal idea, I must mention that it is not original with me.  I first heard it from a Presbyterian Church in America pastor who was in all ways a conservative, Calvinist evangelical.  He preached it to his congregation.

    The problem I see is that while we look diligently for texts that apply to others, we can easily neglect those texts that apply to us personally.  Will you ever need to correct others?  Quite possibly.  But you will be in a much better position to do so if you have allowed yourself to be corrected–repeatedly.

    Bible study requires some sort of accountability at all levels.  We need to be willing to be corrected, and the starting point for that is letting God correct us through his word.

  • Identifying Divine Revelation

    Alan Lenzi writes a post in response to John Hobbins in which he seems to find it surprising that more Biblical scholars don’t abandon faith, and that their failure to do so says something about their “unwillingness to think historically without being hamstrung to the implications of their work by the fear of divine judgment … or by the irrationality of mysticism.”

    You really need to read that in its full context to get the flavor, but I don’t like quoting somebody’s whole post, so you’ll have to go to Alan’s site to see it.  But here is the part to which I want to respond:

    … The problem is this: when one takes a close look at the Bible in its original context, there is no evidence that the Bible is such a historically-situated divine revelation, that it is somehow ontologically different than other texts from antiquity and should be privileged or treated in a special way. …

    Now don’t imagine that I have suddenly found a great answer to the question, but I don’t see anyone else finding one either.  What exactly does a divine revelation look like and in what fashion should it be “ontologically different” from other texts?  I’m not saying it shouldn’t be; I’m wondering how one identifies it.  I have never seen an answer to this question that is at all satisfying.

    For myself, I simply confess that my belief in inspiration is a faith confession, not one I can demonstrate.  I do not look elsewhere in order to identify inspired texts.  I look at the Bible as inspired and thus discover from it the shape of inspired texts.  I fully accept that this is circular in the logical sense.  A leap of faith is not rational in many ways, but it is nonetheless a leap that I have taken.

    On the other hand, this leap of faith tells me little about what the Bible is supposed to be.  That I must discover by studying it, and critical methodologies, pursued objectively to the best of my ability, are one of the ways in which I make that discovery.  Of course, I also know that I am never totally objective.

    Yet I do not believe my objectivity is hampered by a “fear of divine judgment.”  It may well be altered by the “irrationality of mysticism” as I doubtless have some of the mystic in me.

    I wonder, however, whether a militant anti-mystic will do better than I will at understanding the writings of people who had a great deal of mysticism in their makeup.

    (John Hobbins provides an expanded discussion of his claim, which is well worth reading, though it uses more big words than mine does.)

  • Lazy

    … Bible study that is.  Food for thought from for the Sake of Truth.

  • Real Guy Interpretation – A Homily

    David Ker has challenged me, amongst others, to say precisely how we would handle 2 Kings 2:23-24.  I actually didn’t notice the challenge at first, though I’ve been following the series.

    I’m going to respond to the challenge by writing a homily.  Most commonly I do not speak from a written text except when I’m working against limited time.  So if I present a homily it will generally be from a written text.  I’m imagining the congregation of my home church as the audience.

    Scripture:  2 Kings 2:23-24 (If I was dealing with a congregation that would tolerate it, I’d read all of 2 Kings 2.)

    Opening

    A few years ago I was teaching a class on the Old Testament and we came to the command in Deuteronomy 18:21-28 which mandates that the parents of a son who is recalcitrant and refuses correction he should be brought to elders at the gate and should be stoned to death.

    I expected that people would view this with horror and it  was to lead into a discussion of dealing with difficult laws in the Bible.  As it turned out a number of people exclaimed “Yes!”

    As we discussed it turned out, not surprisingly, that nobody really wanted any teenagers–that’s the group they thought of in connection with this text–to die.  They just thought there should be more discipline.  Somebody ought to do something!

    They had discounted the text before they had even read it, failing to notice that it wasn’t about disciplining, but rather about terminating the child.

    You may be wondering just why I would start my discussion of a difficult text by citing another difficult text.  But the story illustrates how we work around things that happen in the Bible, and then when someone points out the details and we’re shocked.  That class started with the Deuteronomy passage as a sort of general admonition to discipline one’s children, and came to the point where they were ready to ask just why such a harsh law should be used.

    Something similar happens with our story for today.  Someone reads the story and then admonishes children, young people, or the whole congregation to respect their elders, pastors, or perhaps prophets.

    But if you’re a Sunday School teacher who is doing that, be assured that somewhere out there is a child, or an adult for that matter, who is wondering how having 42 children mauled by bears is a proportional or just punishment for taunting even a prophet.

    I’d like to suggest three phases in a simplified plan for learning from a Bible story.

    The first is …

    Hear the Story

    Let’s ask ourselves just how we might not be hearing this story.

    First, we make assumptions about the children that are involved.  The Hebrew phrase used does indicate that they are not adults or probably even young adults.  But in pictures I often see them portrayed as toddlers or preschoolers.  Similarly we teach the story sometimes to fairly young children who may well assume we’re talking about them.

    There’s nothing in the text, for example, to exclude the idea that this was a gang of teenage boys with sticks, stones, and maybe even spears who were not only taunting Elisha, but were threatening him.  In that case, Elijah might have responded vigorously to the taunting in order to preempt more serious trouble.

    But I’m not going to use that as an “explanation” of the story because, quite simply, the text doesn’t tell us that either.  It tells us nothing about a threat.  It simply speaks of taunting and of Elisha’s response.

    But let’s look further.  It’s interesting that Elisha doesn’t call for the bears.  He simply curses them in the name of the Lord.  Is he angry?  We don’t know.  What thoughts went through his mind?  We don’t know.  They taunted him and he cursed them.

    After he curses them, two she-bears come out and maul them, though again the Hebrew might well be translated more vigorously than “maul.”  I note here again that the text doesn’t say that God summoned the bears.  That’s an interesting point.  There are places where God specifically summons some means of destruction, but here the connection is not made explicit.

    Can we assume the connection?  I suspect we are supposed to do so, but it is not made explicit.

    So what does the story actually say?

    I would suggest that we need to hear the story in the context of the conflict going on in Israel.  Elijah has faced many dangers in his life, and has now passed on his authority to Elisha.  I wonder if Elisha wasn’t thinking more of his authority as a prophet in Elijah’s place than about any personal danger.

    The action establishes his authority, his connection to God, and his power.  Elijah prevented the rain; Elisha called for the she bears.  Even if he didn’t do so explicitly, that’s the impression the story leaves.

    The story isn’t about discipline, self-defense, or punishment.  It’s about authority, in this case the prophet’s authority from God in the midst of the religious conflict between the worship of Baal and Yahweh, God of Israel.

    So what’s the moral of the story?  That’s one of the most dangerous questions to ask!  It implies first that a story must have a moral, and second that there must be only one moral.  In fact, a story can be told for many reasons.  One we sometimes don’t think of is that it may simply be that the story tells us what happened.

    I recall a story that my mother used to tell titled “Jimmy and the Atheist.”  In it, an atheist rescues Jimmy from a fire and then adopts him.  As it stood, it was a story about the man’s love for Jimmy and Jimmy’s influence that brings about the conversion of the atheist.  Stop the story earlier, before the conversion, however, and suddenly it’s a story about not judging people and how an atheist could be the most giving person in the town.

    Stories are a most flexible means of communication, but at the same time they put more of the load of thinking onto the reader or hearer.

    Thus we come to the next stage …

    Enter the Story

    What do I mean by this?  I mean that the reader looks at the story without judging.  Just look at the people who are in the story, how they behave, and try to see it from their point of view.  We already have a basis on which to do this from our hearing of the story.

    Why is this important?  Because we tend not to learn from people and events when we stand over them in judgment.

    When we look at the story and ask whether Elisha should have cursed the boys in the name of the Lord we often miss the opportunity to check on our own attitudes and actions.  We know that 42 boys were mauled, but we don’t know how many there were.

    Now be honest!  How would you react to more than 40 young people coming toward you and taunting you?  Would you be angry?  Would you “curse them in the name of the Lord?”

    The fact is that for many of us, it’s likely that the only thing lacking for us to play Elisha’s role is, well, the power.  We do the cursing, but we’re fortunate that God doesn’t send two she bears each time we do.

    If you don’t believe me, wait for the next time someone cuts you off on the interstate …

    There’s another factor to remember here.  In the ancient world, words were thought to have power.  Cursing someone was a form of assault.  This attitude probably lies behind another difficult Bible passage, Exodus 21:17 that says that someone who curses father or mother should die.

    Applied today, that would be quite a population control measure!

    But think of this from Elisha’s point of view.  He’s the successor to a prophet who has stirred up many enemies.  He needs to establish himself.  He has work to do, and he also believes that curses might have power.  At the least they must be challenged.

    What would you do?

    There’s something else that entering the story will help you to do.  It will help you get out of the bad guy / good guy mode of thinking.  The problem is that Elijah looks quite a lot like a “real guy” in this story.  For the circumstances his reaction seems normal.

    The Bible presents few flawless heroes.  Even the greatest in Hebrew scripture, Moses, has his flaws.  When he strikes the rock after he’s told to speak to it, he disobeys God, but notice that God responds miraculously even to a disobedient Moses (Numbers 20:10-13).

    There is a time to look at heroes as heroes and see them in shining armor, so to speak.  There are other times when it is important to see heroes as human beings with flaws.   In Exodus 2:14, for example, we are told that Moses was afraid when he realized the king knew of his actions in killing an Egyptian.  In Hebrews 11:27 we are told that he left Egypt, “not fearing the wrath of the King.”  What’s the difference?  It’s simply two perspectives on a hero.

    So then we have the final stage …

    Grow from the Story

    If you have heard what the story actually says, and have entered into the story without judging the people, then you will be prepared to grow from what the characters can teach you.  You may have wondered about my suggestion that you don’t judge the characters.  There comes a time for judgment.  Once you understand, once you recognize your own similar weaknesses as well as your strengths, it is time to do some judgment.

    You judge what you should do and how you should live.

    There are many things I hear in this story.

    1. It is important for God’s messengers to get respect.
    2. Words really do matter.  I may not lean toward the same view as the ancients, but we may well be taking words too lightly in the modern world.
    3. It’s easy to react in anger when my authority or safety is threatened.
    4. Actions can have consequences beyond what I intend.  Elisha didn’t say, “I want two she bears to rip up 42 of these boys. ”  He just cursed them. Then came the she bears.  Is it possible that Elisha was surprised?

    Elisha was a real guy.  He had real weaknesses and real strengths.  He acted as he saw best.

    You may be wondering how I could skip the big question:  What about God?  Why would God take the action that he did?

    But you see, I think the answer lies in the same place.  God works through real people, real guys and real gals.  In order to do that, God often works more our way than his.

    What would the results have been if Elisha cursed and nothing happened?

    I can ask the same thing about my life and God.  How many of my messes does God have to clean up?

    God could, of course, choose to work through less real people.  It would be much less messy than it is.  But he hasn’t chosen to do it that way.  He’s chosen to work with us flaws and all.

    Conclusion

    You may be thinking that this method leaves a lot of room for error.  I certainly do!  But that is another aspect of the way God works, giving us the opportunity to think and learn and gain experience, rather than bringing us under tight control so our errors don’t mess up the works.

    There is one little test I’d like to suggest to help us stay on track.  I call it the hanging test.  In Matthew 22:34-40 Jesus gives the two laws of love.  Love God with all your heart.  Love your neighbor as yourself.  He says the entire law and the prophets hang on these two.

    And while I quote these from Jesus, he quotes them from the Hebrew scriptures.  I suggest that the lesson you take from these stories will show the most growth if it hangs nicely on the two hooks Jesus provided.

    Real people, real stories, real God.

    Will I really learn?


    That would be about 15 minutes if I resisted the temptation to expand, which I rarely do.  But still, I should get them out in less than 20 minutes.  Lots of questions are left, but I think that’s a good feature in a homily.

  • Popular Exegesis – Cutting the Knot

    David Ker at Lingamish has started a series in which he looks for ways to bypass the Grammatical-Historical approach to Bible study and look for ways that would allow more people to get involved in the study.

    To quote:

    … In fact, GHI [Grammatical-Historical Interpretation-HN] rather than illuminating the texts almost always results in muddying the waters and leaving us less certain about the “original intended meaning,” (OIM). What GHI fails to address is the need for intuitive and populist ways to arrive at Scriptural meaning leading to appropriate localized applications….

    It’s a bit ironic for me that he begins his series just as I am starting to follow Scot McKnight’s series on John Walton’s book on Genesis (see my initial notes on my threads blog).  This discussion of Genesis 1 illustrates what I would see as a clear case in which approaching the text without some context in terms of ancient literature in which to understand it would result in an incorrect understanding.

    Having expressed my skepticism, however, I intend to follow David’s posts rather closely as I would like to get hold of any light he can shed on ways that people can reasonably and accurately study the Bible for themselves without excessive dependence on others.  By dependence on others I don’t mean a proper dependence in terms of getting facts from those who have researched them, but rather the dependence that says, “A scholar says it means X so it <em>must</em> mean X.”

    David is certainly pointing at a very real problem.  My tendency is to believe the problem won’t be solved unless the believers in the pew decide to spend more time on their Bibles.  But I’m willing to hear any shortcut that doesn’t result in each person coming out with an individual opinion without good checks on that opinion.