Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Bible Study

  • Translations: Getting Back to Results

    Wayne Leman, on the Better Bibles blog, has posted a note about Ben Witherington’s apology for his remarks about the ESV (Ben Witherington apologizes for ESV comments). I’ve been pretty busy the latter half of this week, so I missed part of the action and had to review it through several blogs. I admire someone who is willing to apologize openly and honestly for an error in what he has written.

    Wayne goes on to make an important point when he says, “He has, in my opinion, now placed the focus where it should be for any Bible version, on its own merits, not on what one perceives to be the motives of its translators.” Ben Witherington has also moved forward to precisely this type of information with his post A Sample of More Literal Translations. These are some good examples of the types of decisions that translators must make irrespective of their approach to the final product. I’ve discussed details of the translation methods in my book What’s in a Version?, and in various notes on my Bible Version Selection Tool.

    But as a Bible teacher working primarily with lay members, I must also get involved with the question of how the individual Bible student gets an accurate idea of what the Bible means. In other words, by “results” I need to look at the final product. Once I’ve talked about Bible translations, study tools, and how to make use of them, how do laypeople test their work and study with confidence? The question I’m asked most often is just how one can be sure. Those who want to use more literal translations do so for the very good reason that they think they will get an more accurate understanding. For reasons I’ve explained elsewhere, I don’t think that is true. “More literal” is not the equivalent of “more accurate.” Both extremes on that spectrum of methodology, and everything in between, involve choices and compromises.

    The type of questions that Ben Witherington is asking in this post are a starting point in looking at the result. Too often scholars remain in a totally scholarly environment, commonly known as the ivory tower, and determine whether the meaning has been expressed in discussions between scholars. Expressing a meaning is kind of empty unless someone hears and understands the expression. In translations, that involves field testing.

    But for the average person the question again is this: How can I be certain of an interpretation? How can I be certain the meaning I get from my English text is right?

    Well, to be most certain, you need to learn the Biblical languages. Notice that I says most and not absolutely. Even when you know the Biblical languages, there remains differences in the level of skill between various readers, points on which honest disagreement is possible, and simple human error. In my own study, though I generally produce a translation of any passage of scripture I’m going to use in preaching or teaching, I also compare my own work with a selection of English translations. Why? Because I am as subject to error (and sometimes more so!) as the next guy.

    But there is still one more step. Even when I am as certain as I can be about the meaning of a particular verse, to be sure I’m understanding the full meaning and the application, I need to do two things:

    • Study the verse in context
      By this I mean to study entire passages. Sometimes “in context” becomes the equivalent of reading the verse before and the verse afterward. But if you want to understand Paul’s argument in a verse in 1 Corinthians 14, you will need to read the entire chapter at a minimum, and that will almost certainly lead you to reading chapter 12, and then surely Paul had a reason for putting chapter 13 between the two. To be confident that you understand a single admonition in chapter 14, you really need to put some work into studying all three chapters. Going beyond that, an overview of the entire first letter to the Corinthians will help you understand what Paul means about being spiritual.
    • Study the verse as it stands in relation to the canon of scripture.
      This means to look at the teaching in the light of other scriptures on the same topic. Try to do this after you have taken a serious look at the scripture you’re studying. Often people lose nuances of various portions of scripture by simply overriding them with another scripture. At the same time, a good principle, long used and tested, is to let what is plain and widespread help explain what is simple.

    These two principles can correct your understanding of an individual passage. It is especially important to do this type of study if your impression from a particular scripture seems odd or out of place. That’s the time to check especially carefully for misunderstandings.

    My final check, which I normally teach first in classes on Bible study, is the hanging principle. When Jesus said that all the law and the prophets hung on the two commands of love for God and love for one’s neighbor, I think he also gave us a check on how we read. Try to hang your interpretation from the two laws. If it doesn’t fit, reconsider it.

  • ESV Controversy and Women

    Ben Witherington seems to have started quite a stir yesterday with his post about the ESV entitled The Problem with the ESV. I like Ben Witherington’s work quite a lot, and respect him, but most of this post has to do with who translated the ESV and why, rather than with the quality of the translation itself. But more on this below.

    Wayne Leman responded in the Better Bibles blog with an entry that I think is very much on point, though I would like to nuance some of the comments just a bit more. His entry is entitled ESV translators are not misogynists.

    The ESV Blog has also responded with a post entitled The Origin of the ESV, which includes a number of examples. I do think that the presentation of examples showing the differences and similarities between the ESV and the RSV is the correct way to pursue this topic. Perhaps I’ll have to spend some time on that in a later post.

    I am in 100% agreement with Wayne that the correct way to examine and test a Bible version is by looking at the end product and not by determining the quality and morals of the translators. It is possible for someone with lesser credentials to surprise us by producing a good translation, while someone with apparently great credentials may lack the necessary skills to produce a usable translation.

    But in producing a Bible translation I think we have to ask ourselves whether we are effectively communicating the gospel message in a new environment. This is where I think we have to be very careful with the nuances of what we say. I’m no fan of the ESV, because I think it’s language is a bit awkward and wooden, and also because I prefer gender inclusive language in a translation. Why?

    Because I question both the motivations and the results of a translation policy that won’t express the message in the way that message would be expressed in the target culture. Let’s look at just one example, “brothers” or “brothers and sisters.” In this case there is a substantial portion of our modern culture that does not recognize “brothers” as addressing a mixed group of men and women. These people, when they here someone say “brothers” assume he (and generally it would be a he) is addressing just the men of the group. When we try to get beyond this level of meaning, I think we read much into the language of the New Testament that is not intended. In Greek, when addressing a mixed audience, one said “adelfoi.” That’s why Paul and James and others used that word. Not because they wanted to make some subtle point about masculinity.

    Some of you will think I’m making a big deal about something minor, but in going to churches and teaching my wife and I have repeatedly encountered women who don’t think they’re included in the work of ministry, even in areas where scripture clearly teaches that they are. The atmosphere that’s created by the attitude of “Oh, they’ll understand we mean them too” helps foster this. The result is that many gifted people–gifted women–are not used in the church because they don’t feel worthy, or they don’t feel that they can step out and lead.

    I’m not accusing the ESV translators of being misogynists. I do believe, however, that they have followed a translation philosophy that helps to foster exclusion rather than inclusion. I believe the gospel message is very inclusive, and even more I believe that the gospel commission is inclusive.

    Before I’m done, I definitely do not believe that Wayne Leman is trying to foster the attitude that I’m challenging here. What he is trying to do is get us to focus on translations not on translators. In doing that he is absolutely correct, and makes an important point.

    (Please see also my comments at Gender Neutrality and Bible Translation.)

  • Good Posts on Translation

    I want to call attention to a couple of excellent posts on Bible translation. The first is an analysis of Hebrews 1:7 by Iver Larsen, a translation consultant, posted by Wayne Leman on the Better Bibles Blog. This translation also leaves open the question of whether a translation of the Old Testament in the New Testament should be accommodated. In the solution proposed here, that is not necessary, but it’s something worthwhile thinking about.

    The second entry is a conversation between Suzanne McCarthy and J I Packer, which she posted in part. I would simply like to call attention to a couple of comments he made. First, commenting on the TNIV, he stated that “seeking to package the word of God for a particular reading public which the translators thought they could identify and characterize.” At a later point, he states, “When you are teaching, at least when you are teaching at graduate level, which is what we have here, you want as much precision as you can have and actually when you are standing in the pulpit, the same is true.” Does not this latter statement call for a particular type of translation for an audience that one can identify and characterize?

    As the conversation moves forward, Dr. Packer does seem to support the idea that different translations are valuable for different people. Follow the link above and read the entire entry.

  • Young Earth and the Bible

    Note: I’m going to be running two series here in parallel over the next few weeks, one on the methods of Biblical criticism and how a layperson can apply them, and the other on views of God as the creator.

    I’m pretty well known to be a theistic evolutionist, but at the same time, I have said argued that this is just one way of viewing the Biblical and the scientific evidence on origins. Others include old earth creationism, the ruin and restoration theory, and of course young earth (or young age) creationism. I believe that intelligent people hold all of these different positions. That doesn’t mean that I think they are all equally well supported by the evidence, either Biblical or scientific. Thus I will respond with vigor to the arguments of positions with which I disagree, but that doesn’t mean I think the people who advance them are stupid.

    Before I get into today’s topic let me look at a little bit of terminology regarding young earth creationist. A person who accepts all three elements listed below will almost always also accept a young earth and stick with that position. Since I’m summarizing, let me also recommend reading the presentation of these elements by Dr. Kurt Wise in Faith, Form, and Time, Section 1, pages 3-39. I strongly recommend Dr. Wise’s book as the one book to read on young earth creationism–if you’re only going to read one, make it this one. [edited 1/8/2008 for clarity.]

    The elements are these:

    1. The Bible is to be taken literally where possible (this is a very common conservative position, though not all conservative Biblical scholars adopt it. Gleason Archer, to whom I will refer in my discussion of old earth creationism, is a strong advocate of inerrancy and takes a quite different approach here. A good example of a scholar who holds this position is Tim LaHaye, who in his book How to Study the Bible for Yourself, chapter 11, page 159, makes it his first rule of hermeneutics.)
    2. The Bible is the decisive source of knowledge whenever it comments on a topic, including science
    3. The obvious literary form of the Genesis prehistory is narrative history

    Note that those are my restatements of the issue, and not quoted from any particular source. Accept those three things and you will be (or become as you study the Bible) a young earth creationist. Reject them, and you have many other options, but you are unlikely to accept a 6,000 year old earth created in one literal week. There are those who believe in young earth creationism who will not accept what I have stated here, and will argue that there is good scientific support for their position. But I believe I am being fair, and that the issue does primarily depend on one’s theological position with regard to the Bible. Young earth creationists have criticisms of evolution, but the only thing that ties the position together is the Biblical material. I think they should be open about that.

    Now let’s look at the basic evidence, taken literally.

    1. The Bible says the earth was created in one week.
      Taken literally and as narrative history, this one is pretty clear. If one has a bias in favor of the literal reading, then this one will be easy. Other creation stories, such as Psalm 104, will be read as more general descriptions and the “history” label will be granted to Genesis 1 & 2. Between Genesis 1 & 2, priority will be given to reconciliation of the accounts
    2. The Bible provides genealogies in Genesis 5 & 11 that provide complete chronological data. Again, assuming both literal and narrative history, these genealogies provide a very specific answer to questions about the age of the earth. Those YEC advocates who allow up to 10,000 years rather than sticking with 6,000 years depart slightly from the basic interpretive approach by allowing gaps in genealogies that have each person’s age at their first son’s birth specified, and the number of years they lived after that.
    3. The Bible again provides a narrative of the flood. I find it odd that some young earth creationists try to develop their model with the flood and related geology separated. If there was a worldwide flood, if the Genesis narrative describes it essentially as history, then it should become an integral part of the theory
    4. No matter what sort of mass of evidence that archeologists, anthropologists, geologists, and others gather showing that there are major problems with this chronology, this clear reading of the Biblical record must be decisive.

    I would suggest that in discussing this issue, those who disagree should start with where they stand on the three issues I listed, and discuss those first. As a theistic evolutionist, I reject all three of the premises, and I will discuss that in a later entry on theistic evolution. But young earth creationists should be criticized for inconsistency only when they depart from these principles, or when they claim scientific support that they don’t possess (a considerable area for discussion!).

  • Biblical Criticism Overview – I

    One great divide in Christian Bible study is between those who accept and use the methods of Biblical criticism and those who don’t. Generally, those who don’t regard Biblical criticism as a means to destroy the authority of the Bible and certainly as something that a believer can’t use. Since I am a believer, and I use the methods of Biblical criticism, I often find it necessary to describe and defend them.

    One difficulty is simply that most information on Biblical criticism is either so brief that lay persons cannot get a clear idea of what Biblical criticism actually is, or is extremely complex and written for scholars. Previously, I wrote a pamphlet that I could use as a handout, titled Understanding Biblical Criticism. Though I have been able to use it as a handout to good effect, it also falls into the category of “too brief.” (One can also find good articles on Biblical criticism in better Bible dictionaries.) I’m working on a series of additional pamphlets on various of the specific tools of Biblical criticism, such as form criticism, redaction criticism, literary criticism, and so forth. As I prepare to do that, I have been thinking a bit more about the justification for use of the critical methodologies.

    What are the assumptions necessary for use of the historical-critical method? Some believe that use of these methods must be be based on purely naturalistic assumptions, in particular, that one must assume that there is no supernatural element in the Bible. This is commonly stated as a belief that predictive prophecy is not possible, that miracles do not occur, and that the Biblical writers do not have any special information from a supernatural source. Since I do accept predictive prophecy (though in a much more restrictive sense than some), and accept that miracles occur, and do believe that the Biblical writers could receive divine revelation, and nonetheless use the methods of Biblical criticism, I obviously don’t think those are necessary assumptions.

    What is necessary is to assume a human element to inspiration, and I think the presence of such a human element is clear in the writings themselves. Moses is told to have things recorded by human agency (Exodus 17:14), the writer of Kings refers to his sources for information (1 Kings 11:42). The gospels show considerable verbal parallels, that are too close for just oral transmission, but nonetheless are not identical, and thus show the results of human editing. I think those who believe in verbal dictation have failed to explain these types of characteristics of the text. (I discuss views of inspiration further in my essay Inspiration, Biblical Authority, and Inerrancy.) I don’t see any assumptions required in the use of the methods of Biblical criticism other than that one must accept that there are, in fact, strong human elements in the text. I’ll discuss the specific elements necessary as I discuss various specific methods of Biblical criticism over the next few weeks. It’s my plan to present each of the major tools of Biblical criticism in practical terms to help Biblical exegetes better understand commentaries and other works that are based on the results of those methods.

    It’s important to be cautious in reading works of Biblical criticism. First, I recommend never reading just one. Any single Biblical critic (or any other student for that matter) can usually be very convincing when one reads only his arguments in favor. (Some of the best Bible commentators make an excellent presentation of opposing viewpoints.) Second, consider the basic methodology in determining what to accept and what to reject. Often conclusions are presented without an adequate description of the specific methods involved. Don’t be intimidated by the statement that certain conclusions are the assured results of scientific study, and that a rejection of them would be unscientific. Too many people accept the results of Biblical criticism without actually understanding the process by which those results were derived.

    The bottom line here is to read works of Biblical criticism critically. In order to do that you have to understand how the results are produced.

    In my next entry on this topic (not necessarily my next entry) I will outline the tools of Biblical criticism that I will be discussing.

  • Praying Now

    I’ve been working on a new pamphlet for the Participatory Study Series entitled 7 Barriers to Prayer in Your Church. I came up with these seven barriers while leading a prayer conference at my home church (Gonzalez United Methodist). The following expands on just one of these points.

    1Now Peter and John went up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour (3 PM). 2And there was a man who was lame from birth. There were some people who carried him there each day to the gate of the temple that is called “Beautiful” so he could beg from charity from those who went into the temple. 3When he saw Peter and John about to enter the temple he asked them for some charity. 4But Peter looked at him, as did John, and Peter said, “Look at us!” 5So he expected to get something from them. 6But Peter said, “I don’t have any siler or gold, but what I have I’m giving you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazereth, Rise and walk!” 7And Peter took him by the right hand and raised him up. And immediately his feet and ankles were strengthened. 8And he jumped up and stood, and walked around and entered the temple with them, walking and jumping and praising God. 9And all the people saw him walking and praising God. 10But they recognized him as the one who has been sitting in the Beautiful gate of the temple, so they were totally amazed and astonished at what had happened to him (Acts 3:1-10).

    I have always found it interesting how many parents will complain about the government not permitting official prayer in public school (though student led prayer as appropriate times is legal), while at the same time they will confess that they don’t find time to pray with their own children in their own home. There seems to be a strong desire to talk about prayer, but when it comes right down to it, we’re not all that anxious to just do it!

    And this leads me to the second of my seven barriers. (Yes, I’m aware I haven’t written about the first.) This is the “we’ll pray for you” barrier. You can see this in action in just about any church when someone tells another member about a problem, and the response is, “We’ll pray for you.” The idea is that at home in their personal devotional time, or in the next scheduled prayer meeting or prayer group, they will mention that person’s need in prayer. The problem is that frequently we forget to pray, and only rarely is the person prayed for present to receive the personal support of his or her church family praying.

    This has led me to think about this experience of Peter and John. What would have happened if the story went like this, instead of the way it’s recorded.

    Peter and John are entering the temple, and they see a man who has been lame from birth. They get his attention and then say to him, “We don’t have any money, but we’ll pray for you at our next prayer meeting.” Then they continued into the temple.

    What would have happened? Very little! I’m not here primarily concerned with the issue of the miracle. Many times, the result of the request for prayer doesn’t need to be some identifiable miracle. The need may simply be for people to get involved and get active in answering their own prayers. And that’s another problem with the “we’ll pray for you” barrier. We save our prayers for a time when we can easily feel somewhat detached from the problems of the person we’re praying for.

    Let’s look at some characteristics of Peter and John’s behavior in this situation (some of these go beyond my major theme):

    • They were paying attention to the problems of other people while on the way to worship
      Often we are so busy on Sunday morning or Wednesday night that we would have to “pass by on the other side” if we saw someone injured or in need. We might simply never notice.
    • They acted together, but in unity
      Peter is the spokesman, but John works right along with him. We’d be amazed at what could be accomplished if we worked more like a team in the church.
    • They admitted their own limitations
      There’s no point in pretending we have resources we don’t. If we can’t help someone, we need to pass them on to someone who can.
    • They acted in God’s power, not just their own
      Let’s expand this to accomplishing what we can as a team, as the entire body of Christ with our various gifts, and not just based on our own limitations.
    • They (and the man who was healed) provided an open testimony to what had happened
      Don’t be afraid to let other people know when things go well. Don’t be afraid to share.

    Not surprisingly, I think we can learn a great deal from the apostles. 🙂

    For more information on prayer, see I Want to Pray!.

  • New Translations in Selection Tool

    I’ve updated my Bible Translation Selection Tool to include some additional, older versions. As I add these versions I want to note a couple of things about this tool.

    The ratings should be regarded as subjective. I make an effort to use objective standards, but especially on the fine points, it can be difficult to do. For example, I can be certain that the REB is much less formal equivalent that the NKJV or the NRSV. But the difference in formality between the NRSV and the NKJV is a little harder to measure objectively. Nonetheless, I count words in certain passages and try to determine which are justified in terms of form, so that I can get a scaled result indicating how close to the forms of the source language the translators stayed. Similarly for the index indicating how functional equivalent a translation is, I check numerous passages and look at the use of idiomatic translations. Generally the results agree with what I will get if I simply read and compare the versions, and also with what the translators claim in the preface.

    When I get to such issues as readability, and value for public reading, my comments are even more subjective. For example, I like something that is clear, but in a formal register for use in public reading. That bias is bound to show through. In my own earlier comments on choosing a pew Bible, which normally will also be used for public reading, I have indicated cases in which this bias would be inappropriate. For example, while I don’t regard the NCV as particularly good for public reading, it might be the best public reading version for a church involved in outreach to people whose native language is not English, or for a church in outreach to people in its literacy program.

    Now, here is the list of translations added to my selection tool yesterday and today:

    • JPS Tanakh
      Hebrew scriptures only, the Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh is an extremely valuable translation for the serious student, especially for those who are not Jewish, but want to understand the Jewish point of view.
    • New Life Version
      A simple language version done by missionaries. It’s fairly good, but I didn’t find much to get excited about compared to similar offerings in the NCV, CEV, and so forth.
    • New International Reader’s Version
      Believe it or not, early rumblings of the gender language war came when this version was first released. It is mostly used for children’s Bibles, and is an excellent choice for that use.
    • RSV
      This is an old standby, though mostly superceded by the NRSV and the English Standard Version.
    • The Complete Jewish Bible
      Some might be confused by the title, but this is in fact a Christian version translated by a Jewish believer in Jesus. I would prefer other terminology than “Jewish” Bible simply because I don’t like to get into fights over Jewish identity and the appropriate use of various terms. I should point out that the translator of this Bible means something different by “Jewish” than do the translators of the JPS Tanakh.
    • New English Bible
      Again, I had previously not included this version because it has been replaced by the more current REB. Some are still using the NEB, though less than use the RSV.

    Use the selection tool to get a list of versions to check out. My judgment is subjective like everyone else’s. I believe, however, that if you choose your priorities carefully, I’ll be able to help direct you to a short list of versions to check out for yourself.

  • Marks of the Jesus Message

    This passage is from the lectionary selection for February 5, 2006, Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany.

    29And immediately as he came out of the synagogue he went into Simon’s house. 30Now Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and immediately they told him about her. 31And coming near he raised her up, taking her hand, and the fever left her, and she served them.

    32And it became evening, when the son went down they were bringing him everyone who was sick and those troubled by demons. 33And the whole city gathered near the door. 34And he healed many who were ill with various diseases, and he threw out many demons but he wouldn’t allow the demons to speak because they knew him.

    35And he rose up very early while it was still night and went out and went away into a deserted place where he could pray. 36And Simon and those with him pursued Jesus, 37and they found him and they said to him, “Everybody is looking for you!” 38And he said to them, “Let us go elsewhere into the nearby country towns, so that I might preach there as well. Because it was for this that I went forth.” 39And he went into all of Galilee preaching in their synagogues and casting out the demons.

    — Mark 1:29-39 (taken from my TFBV project)

    The gospel of Mark introduces Jesus in a whirlwind from his first appearance through his baptism and into ministry. In fact, the entire book of Mark runs at a very fast pace. It’s easy to miss the depth of what’s going on.

    I often hear pastors and evangelists wondering how they should test their ministry. What tells them that they are proclaiming the right message and doing the right things? Well, that can be a big question and the answer might differ greatly from person to person. After all, there is a lot of service that needs done to people, from education to emergency disaster assistance. A wide variety of things can be keys to good ministry.

    But consider our passage today. I see three elements to the activity of Jesus, and an interesting reaction on the part of the crowds. The three actions are:

    • Healing
      Wherever Jesus went he brought healing. It seemed to come naturally to him. I think the first question to ask when testing one’s own ministry to others is simply this: Is it bring healing, spiritual and/or physical? Sometimes we’ll find that in our attempts to help other people we’re actually leaving injured people behind us. I’m often told that the gospel offends, and indeed there are those who are offending by a free gift of salvation. But much, much more often people are offending because those who proclaim and carry out the ministry behave in an offensive way. If there is offense, make sure the offense is because of the good news, and not because of “bad news you!”
    • Demons cast out
      Now I’m not suggesting that everyone’s ministry needs to include exorcisms, at least in the traditional sense. But your ministry needs to push out evil, and allow good to grow. It should cast out ignorance, and let true knowledge increase. I notice that in Mark Jesus doesn’t seem to go out of his way to cast out demons. They just keep popping up and getting in his way, and he promptly chases them off. Are you doing so much good that evil is just naturally driven away?
    • Proclamation
      Yes, Jesus actively claimed that the kingdom of God was near. He proclaimed the message. It’s very easy to get an unbalanced ministry. On the one hand we can do good so quietly that nobody else has an opportunity to join in. On the other hand we can spend so much time proclaiming that we have little time to do. A balanced, Christ-like ministry proclaims enough to bring people on board and keep the ministry going, but not so much that one can’t help but be a hypocrite–so much has been claimed that nobody can possibly live up to it.

    And what was the result of this? When Jesus went away for some rest, the people were looking for him. How many of those of us in Christian ministry experience this particular problem? I know some who do, but not that many. Often we’re working hard to try to drag people in to listen to us. The example of Jesus was that when ministry was taking place the demons fled, but the people flocked in to hear. That is how attractive we should make our lives and activities.

  • Was the Bible Written to Me?

    In some recent discussions, mostly related to my Seventh-day Adventist background (for those who may not know, I’m now a member of a United Methodist congregation but was raised SDA), I have encountered quite a number of questions regarding who various elements of scripture are for. For example, many Christians will say that the law of the Old Testament was for the Jews, and is not binding on them. Others will say that the law itself was made void for everyone due to the death of Jesus. Seventh-day Adventists divide the law into two major parts, the moral law or ten commandments and the ceremonial law which covers just about all the rest of the Torah.

    Alden Thompson, an SDA author, uses the “law pyramid” starting at the top with the one law of love to God, then the two laws of love to God and love to one’s neighbor, then the 10 commandments, making this more explicit in more commands, then the 613 “mitzvoth” or commands found in Torah. Each group of laws expands on the principles in the greater law. (You can find Thompson’s eplanation of this in his book Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God?, in chapter 4, “Strange People Need Strange Laws,” page 60. (Note: This book is published by my company, Energion Publications.) The result is a variant on the SDA position which makes the 613 commands simply a more detailed expansion on the more basic one and two laws, but leaves an open question as to whether the 10 commandments are universally applicable (Thompson as a committed SDA believes they are), or whether one must take the laws more as a whole and determine their applicability to time and place.

    I tend to bounce this question off of my SDA roots for the simple reason that I think that the more general Christian community has often not done enough thinking about what we believe about the law. In just about any congregation I will find people who think that the entire law was nailed to the cross, and no laws apply to us at all, to those who firmly hold that the 10 commandments must be kept, but aren’t sure just what the consequences will be for failure. At the same time, we have an almost exaggerated reverence for monuments of the ten commandments, expressed by people who are not all that sure about a good number of them.

    I’m also focussing on the issue of the ten commandments, because that is a common area of disagreement. But I’m really more interested in how we read the Bible in general, because this same type of question is quite valid for any scriptural passage.

    The fact is that none of the Bible was, in fact, written to me personally, nor to my church as a whole. (Now please pause a bit before jumping on me about the prayer of Jesus in John 17. I’ll allow that some passages can be read more broadly, but there are very few.) The SDA distinction between the 10 commandments divides a single instance of lawgiving into multiple parts, supposing one part to be directed to all people, and the other to Israel. But the 10 commandments themselves begin with “I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt . . .” (Exodus 20:2) That’s addressing a group of Israelites near Mount Sinai at a particular time and place. The Israelites through their celebrations participated as a people in God’s acts of salvation, and made themselves part of this as well. As Christians, we feel that we are a part of that deliverance as well, metaphorically through Jesus, called from Egypt (Matthew 2:15), and spiritually through being Abraham’s seed by faith (Galatians 3:29). We gain from the experience even though we did not experience it directly and physically.

    So despite the fact that I believe SDAs have thought a great deal more about the law and its relation to grace, I find myself in profound disagreement here. The Bible itself doesn’t make a distinction between the 10 commandments and the rest of the law. There is no part of the Torah that was addressed to non-Israelites. There is no indication of greater sacredness, except for two things: 1) It’s actual content and 2) That it is spoken by God directly to the people. In the history itself I see considerable reason to believe that the fact that the 10 commandments were spoken by God directly is not a good indicator. As I read Exodus 19, God was quite prepared to give his law directly to the people, but the people were not prepared to receive more. But I do believe the actual content of the 10 commandments sets them apart to some extent.

    But once I’ve said that the 10 commandments are addressed to someone else, I must start looking at the rest of scripture. There I find that this is nothing unusual. My favorite passages are all addressed to someone else! Even Jesus addresses most of his words to other people, to his Jewish audience, to his disciples, to crowds in Galilee. Paul addresses his letters to specific Greek churches. In Revelation, John addresses the report of his vision to the seven churches in Asia. There are a few items addressed to the church generally that I can read pretty directly, but I seem to be reading someone else’s mail a good deal of the time when I study scripture.

    Let me take a brief detour here to make a point about revelation in general. My wife was recently asking me about the story of John the Baptist identifying Jesus in John 1. The question is this: If Jesus is John’s cousin, does he not already know him? Doesn’t he have some history on which to base his conclusion and identification? Assuming we take Luke seriously, certainly John has some basis for knowledge, but apparently God didn’t choose to just tell him, “John, your cousin Jesus is the anointed one. When he comes to be baptized, point him out!” Instead, he tells John that the person on whom the Spirit descends like a dove is the anointed one. Sounds convoluted, doesn’t it? Sometimes I have to wonder about these things. Revelation seems to come in such a round about way.

    But you could look at books like Ezekiel, Daniel, or Revelation in a similar way. Ezekiel is amongst the exiles in Babylon, but is moved around by the Spirit in vision. The major thrust of the entire first chapter is simply that God is present, active, and powerful even away from Israel’s land. (Admittedly there is more there, but that’s the key message.) Why couldn’t God just say, “Ezekiel, I’m here and I’m still in control”? Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2 could have had a dream that showed armies moving and maps. The man knew most of those countries after all. But instead we have an image, and a call for Daniel to interpret. Later, in Daniel’s visions, for some reason we have a vision followed by an angelic interpretation. Those of us who have studied these books for years hardly notice. That’s just the way it is. But if you stand back and think about it, it can seem a little strange. Revelation again presents symbolically much that we might like to have laid out plainly. I’m reminded of Tolkien’s hobbits who “liked books filled with things they already knew, set down plainly without contradiction.”

    Jesus also used some convoluted ways, using parables and signs to aid in his teaching. He even expressed his reasons (Mark 4:10-12). Discussing this passage extensively would go beyond the scope of this essay, but let me simply suggest that Jesus was keeping the message from people who were never going to get the message anyhow. He was confusing the “5 minute a day” crowd. I regularly encounter people who want to become good Bible students on 5 minutes a day. I have to tell them I have no such quick method. Knowing your Bible, and more importantly knowing the God of the Bible requires much more commitment than that. (For more on parables see Interpreting Parables.)

    For whatever reason, God has generally chosen to give his word in a context of experience. From that experience we can then derive principles, lessons, and even commands that apply to us personally or as a community. In this way all of scripture is important, even though it may not apply to me directly.

    The key is that in each of these cases, God is dealing with real people in a real way. I want to know God better and so the way that he dealt with Israel back in the wilderness, or the way he dealt with the church at Corinth or the churches in Asia is very, very important to me, because it tells me how God deals with people under different circumstances and at different times. This doesn’t make the 10 commandments inapplicable, but it may make them applicable in a different way. At the same time, it means that all those other chapters in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are also applicable in that they say something about how God works. If we believe that God was really dealing with Israel, operating in a relationship with them, then we need to ask what we can learn from the way in which he dealt with them.

    Recently, in studying through the Torah I have found that there is much more there than normally meets the Christian eye. We are so used to dismissing the “ceremonial law” as all pointing to Jesus and done away with at the cross that we have missed much of the content. There are things to learn here about community, about holiness and sanctification, about sacrifice, about thanksgiving, about order, and about commitment to God as his people.

    At the same time, as we realize these laws were not given to us gentiles, we are not looking to replicate the sytem of worship of the Israelites. We want to learn everything we can about living in covenant with God as it is applicable to our time, our covenant and our relationship with God.

    In that sense, the 10 commandments are simply a part of that whole picture. As you study them, I think you will find that they embody much more universal principles than do the many laws, and that you will find many more ways in which they apply to your personal and church life. Nonetheless there is more there to learn throughout the Torah (Pentateuch).

  • Choosing a Pew Bible

    Sometimes choosing a pew Bible is a kind of afterthought. I grew up in churches that didn’t even have pew Bibles. It was expected that all the church members would have their own and would bring them to church. But for many churches the pew Bible can have a major impact both on worship and on learning.

    One church I was associated with decided to get some new pew Bibles. They wanted to get the NIV, because most of the members used that at home, and the pastor also used it in preaching. Then it turned out that they could get NRSV pew Bibles cheaper from their primary source, and so the church now has NRSV Bibles in the pews. Most commonly scripture readings are taken from a different version, and the pastor uses a third version in preaching. The members still own the NIV more than any other version, so the pew Bible is of a version that is rarely used.

    How can one choose a good pew Bible, especially considering the inevitable differences in the desires of various church members?

    The key to this process is to be very clear first about your mission, and then about your use of scripture in your worship services. Ideally, your use of scripture will reflect your church’s mission, and will help your church carry out your mission.

    Most churches will speak of a mission to the community and of outreach when discussing their mission. But often the actions of the church speak of a considerably different mission. For example, if a church claims to be dedicated to reaching modern young people, and yet uses the KJV in preaching and teaching, there is probably a disconnect between the claimed goal and the actual goal.

    Assuming your church is trying to reach someone, let’s look at some of the groups you might want to reach:

    1. Persons who have never been church members and who did not grow up in church
    2. Persons who grew up in church, but have left
    3. Churched persons who are dissatisfied with their current congregation
    4. Needy persons who can be reached with literacy programs
    5. Young people
    6. Persons whose primary language is something other than English
    7. College age adults
    8. Educated and professional people
    9. Existing, long-time members

    I personally think all of these groups, and many more that I have not mentioned, should be reached by a church, and many of them are not. I would not criticize a church for having an outreach to any of these groups as its goal, or the goal of one of its worship services. But it is important for your church to recognize who they are really reaching. Often we speak of outreach to the unchurched, but we run worship services that are designed for habitual church goers.

    Further, we must ask what role scripture plays in the worship service. Do you use scripture readings as a means of worship? Do you use responive readings? Are members of the congregation asked to read scripture out load? Is scripture primarily a part of teaching? How important is easy understanding to the effect of your scripture reading.

    It is not sufficient just to choose a Bible with a good “public reading” rating on one of my version charts. That was one of the ratings I was not even sure I should use because it is so subjective. What I like in public reading may well be very different from what you like. The CEV, for example, was translated with oral reading in mind, yet I know many people who abhor hearing it in public scripture reading, even when they appreciate it for private reading. I personally rate the CEV at an ‘8’ (out of 10) for public reading, and the ESV as a ‘5’, but I know many people who would rather hear the ESV.

    In addition, I know many people who love the KJV for public reading because they think it just sounds like a Bible. It has a “spiritual ring” to it for many people’s ears. But those same people will admit that they really don’t understand what they hear very easily.

    Young people are likely to follow modern versions with little “church language” such as the CEV, the NCV, or the TNIV. Older members, or more educated (or perhaps just more intellectual in attitude) may prefer something that sounds a bit more dignified, like the REB, the NRSV, or the ESV. Those versions, however, contain a good deal of church language, and so may be less effective for teaching.

    Consider also what most church members are using at home. If you are going to use a different Bible in the pew than people normally bring to church, be aware of the questions that may occur. If you use responsive readings, check your hymnal as well and find out what version is used in preprinted responsive readings.

    If you find the need to compromise between a more “majestic” sounding version for scripture readings as part of worship, and a more readable version for teaching in church, consider putting an “easy to read” version in the pews, and printing scripture readings and responsive readings in your bulletin. Consider also doing some teaching about Bible translations so that your members will understand why versions are different and be able to make intelligent choices about them.

    For further information, see my book What’s in a Version?. I also am available to teach classes on Bible translations in churches.