Blog Archives
Divisions
In C.S. Lewis’ novel, The Great Divorce, he depicts a kind of metaphorical bus tour of Heaven , Hell, and a kind of in-between place, much as did Dante in his Divine Comedy. For Lewis, the aspect of Hell that he emphasizes the most is that of privation, or the separation from anything that is good. While Lewis did not reject the language of positive retribution or destruction that the Bible speaks of, it is the idea of the “outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth” that depicted the awefulness of Hell to him.
As part of this tour, he described the people building houses with walls, but the walls only kept other people out and did nothing to protect the one within from the weather. Further, he depicted hell as a place utterly devoid of community. When someone would move nearby, those already there would quickly move away to avoid interaction with others. Lewis understood, as did Aristotle, that humans are social animals and separation from others is a most difficult thing to face — something that was a suitable part of God’s eternal and righteous judgment.
Yet, what strikes me as odd is that as a society, we are doing everything in our power to create that context here in this life, in this case, through the many labels that have been assigned to people, putting them into ever-smaller groups in both church and in society. We use terms like liberal and conservative, which have meanings, but don’t always define a person’s specific view. Most of us fall across a spectrum that falls between the far left and far right. In matters of religion, there are fundamentalists and liberals, orthodox and Neo-orthodox, evangelicals, confessionalists, Reformed or Arminian, pentecostal or cessationist, post-mil, a-mil, pre-mil, pan-mil and a wide range of in-betweens. I sometimes describe myself as a Confessionally Reformed, a-mil with post-mil sympathies, supralapsarian, paedo-baptist, creedo-communion, presuppositional in the Clarkian school of thought, sola psalmis, Christian with certain theonomic sympathies. And, I imagine that some of you, dear readers, either don’t know what all of these distinctions mean and others may be outraged by some of them.
My point is this: labels can be useful when understanding a person’s thoughts and motivations, but they are destructive when they just create walls between people that prevent constructive conversation. Socially, we see the same thing happening. People have created numerous “gender expressions,” which tend to put people into boxes that separate them from genuine community with anyone who does not hold their exact set of preferences. Largely, this generation has grown up being told they can be anything they want to be. Even in the church, this has been taking place as people often misquote Philippians 4:13. Paul saying that he can “do all things through him who strengthens me” does not mean that Paul could flap his arms and fly. It does not mean that he could breathe underwater. Similarly, people with lousy eyesight are not going to become Air Force fighter pilots even if that is what they most “want to be.”
Humans thrive in community and one of the reasons that the American Experiment has been so wildly successful (at least culturally and technologically) is because people of varying backgrounds have been able to come together to share ideas, cultural traditions, and to meet shared goals while also sharing a commitment to Truth (both in natural law and in spiritual law). Yet, today, as labels arise, as “personal truths” supplant the idea of absolute truth, we create chasms between ourselves, our ideas, and our cultural distinctives that do not belong if we are going to live in a united society.
Church Discipline
“Of whom are Hymenaios and Alexander, whom I handed over to Satan in order that they may be taught how not to blaspheme.” (1 Timothy 1:21)
Paul gives us two examples of people who have not been faithful as “good soldiers” of Jesus Christ. Hymenaeus, we see again in 2 Timothy 2:17, along with Philetus, as one who is irreverent in his speech and was leading people into ungodliness. If we presume that this Alexander is the same person as “Alexander the Coppersmith” found again in 2 Timothy 4:14, it can be inferred that these men did not learn their lesson.
What lesson, perhaps, is that? It is the lesson that calls upon all who name the name of Christ to live out lives in accordance with the way God has called us to live. Jesus said that we are to make disciples of the nations and part of that disciple-making process is to teach said disciples to obey all that Christ has commanded (Matthew 18:20). In turn, when sin is embraced rather than put to death, there is a place in the life of Christ’s church for the practice of discipline for the chastisement of sin (see Matthew 18:15-20). Here, Paul is referring to an instance where he has disciplined those in the community where Timothy is laboring (Ephesus).
The question that many raise is, why does Paul name-drop here? Arguably, it is not simply to make a point, but to prepare Timothy for those who might work against him. Those who had been disciplined by the Apostle Paul may very well become enemies of Paul’s emissary. Yet, that brings up a question of propriety. Many would suggest that for a preacher today to name-drop would be in poor taste. Nevertheless, Paul stated that we should imitate him as he imitated Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). It should also be said that if a church disciplines a member of the church, especially to the point of removing that member from the rolls, then the rest of the body should know who that happens to be and why indeed they should be avoiding them (2 Thessalonians 3:6). Further, should not a shepherd warn his sheep of known threats from false teachers? While it may not seem to be “in good taste,” it is the example set for us in God’s word…something which we should be keen to follow.
The goal, though, of all discipline, is to teach the body how not to blaspheme, whether that blasphemy is to be uttered with one’s lips or communicated by one’s actions.
All Kinds of Prayers for All Kinds of People
“I urge you, firstly, that all kinds of requests, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be made for all mankind,”
(1 Timothy 2:1)
When we arrive at these verses, we often have a tendency of focusing on the importance of our praying for kings and other leaders. While it is true that we are to pray for such people who are in positions of influence over our lives, we sometimes overlook the two things that are being asserted here. First, our prayers should be for all kinds of people, not just the rich and powerful. We should be praying for the poor, the widow, the laborer who lives down the street, as well as those who are doctors, lawyers, and other people of wealth and influence. We should be praying for blue-collar and white-collar workers alike. We should be praying for soldiers and police officers. We should be praying for firemen, EMT personnel, nurses, therapists, farmers, mechanics, and the many other people who labor in our midst as moving parts of what we might call the great human-machine of society.
On a certain level, we indeed understand the importance of doing so, but do we pray for such people who are working for our overall good, but whose work makes our daily life more inconvenient? For instance, how often have we been running late to our own jobs only to find roadwork being done on the primary route we drive? Do we pray for such folks or do we hurl expletives into the air because crews have torn up the road for what seems to be the third time in as many months? When the person in front of us is driving too slowly, or who is moving too slowly down the middle of an aisle in the grocery store, do we pray for such people or just grumble at them? When a police officer gives you a ticket for going too fast on the road, do you grumble that the officer just happened to be present, like a shark seeking prey, or do you pray for said officer and give thanks to God for people who labor to keep our community safe (even if it means keeping the community safe from people who drive too fast)?
The point is, for a community to function, there are all sorts of people who must be engaged in labor. We are called to pray for these as well as our governors. Secondly, we are to offer all sorts of prayers. We are to intercede on behalf of others. We are to pray with those who are suffering and facing great challenges in life. We are to pray with those who cannot even lift prayers of their own. We are to pray for the needs that others happen to have and make requests on their behalf. And further, we are to make thanksgiving. We are to thank God for their presence in our community and we are to celebrate when they achief goals (even if we are struggling to meet our own goals!).
In the end, do we pray all kinds of prayers for all sorts of people? Sometimes the prayer life of Christians can be rather selfish and limited. Try spending a day praying for everyone you encounter. You might just find that you have far more for which you can pray than you initially thought.
I Don’t Care
(What you want, what you really, really want…)
In the mid-nineties, the Spice Girls had a hit song called “Wannabe,” which contained the refrain, “I’ll tell you what I want, what I really, really want. So tell me what you want, what you really, really want…” The tune was catchy and spoke of the nature of friendship and relationships, but it also provided an apt commentary on our Western culture. Burger King’s tagline is “The way you want it.” Chik-fil-A stresses, “It’s our pleasure to serve you.” Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, used to say, “There is only one boss, the customer.” Slogans that tout the importance of customer satisfaction abound in our culture today. It’s how businesses succeed in building a loyal customer base. Further, as someone who has been in small business himself, a satisfied customer is what you ultimately want, and the businessman should strive to give his or her customer what they “really, really want.”
Yet, churches are not businesses. Nevertheless, church leaders fall into the trap of thinking of themselves as businesses. Surely, when attendance goes up, revenue tends to go up. When attendance drops, revenue drops. Yet, while the purpose of a business is to generate revenue, the purpose of the church is to build Christ’s kingdom. And these, my friends, are two very different goals. Nevertheless, churches often circulate surveys and other questionnaires asking the people in the pews what they want in a pastor, what they want from the pastor, what they want as part of the worship service, and what kind of programs the people want…what they really, really want.
The problem is that the church is a Kingdom, or at least, the local church is meant to be a microcosm of the Kingdom of Heaven. And, Kingdoms have Kings. In the case of the church, these Kings are not mere figureheads like the King of England, but it has a real King with real rules and commands, and the King expects His citizens to obey said rules. In fact, the King has established offices in His Church to ensure that His laws are taught to His citizens, that they are trained and equipped to carry them out, and to discipline said citizens when the citizens refuse to submit to His authority.
Who is this King over the church? It is Jesus Christ the Lord. Who are His ministers? They are Elders, Deacons, and Pastor-Teachers. Deacons are charged with ensuring that the poor, the widows, and orphans are cared for and treated with equity. Elders are charged as overseers over the body, and Pastor-Teachers are given the awesome responsibility to teach and equip the citizens of Christ’s Kingdom for ministry, so that the people are also able to live their lives as disciples, obeying all that the King has commanded.
And so, within the Kingdom of Christ, what is important is not what the people want, what is important is what the people need to train them to be good and productive citizens of the church. Of what value, then, are polls and questionnaires? What is important is not citizen satisfaction, but the satisfaction of the King. In fact, the citizens will discover, if they submit to the will of the King, that they will find far more satisfaction in the things that satisfy the King than in the things that they think will satisfy themselves.
And so, what you (or I) might want (or think we might want) is irrelevant in the life of the church. The only thing that is relevant is what Christ wants. And so, as a Pastor-Teacher in the church, I really don’t care what you want, what you really, really want; I care what Jesus wants, what He really, really wants.
Faith and a Good Moral Conscience
“having faith and a good moral conscience. Those who cast this aside have shipwrecked their faith.”
(1 Timothy 1:19)
What are the qualities of a good soldier of Jesus Christ? While we might list many attributes that Christians are to strive to have, Paul focuses on two here in this verse and combines them with a warning. What are those two attributes? The first is faith and the second is to have a “good conscience.”
Faith ought to be obvious. One cannot please God apart from faith (Hebrews 11:6) and likewise, all that is done without faith is sin (Romans 14:23). Further, this faith is not something we generate within ourselves, but we must be born again from above (John 3:3), it is the means that guides the way the believer lives and walks (Hebrews 11:1; 2 Corinthians 5:7) and it is not only how we are saved on this side of the Cross of Jesus, but it is the way the saints of old also walked (Romans 4:12; Hebrews 11:2). If you would be a good soldier of Christ, saving faith is the starting point and it is God’s doing.
Yet, there is an aspect of this “good soldiering” that also speaks to our participation. We are called to have a “good conscience.” Paul uses the word συνείδησις (suneidesis) in this context, which primarily speaks of the question of morality, or that of a moral conscience (hence the translation above). In other words, Paul is speaking about a person who chooses right over wrong, life over death, and God’s way over the ways of man (Deuteronomy 30:15-20; Romans 12:1-2). The one who knows what is right and yet refuses to do it is not a good soldier; indeed, he is one from whom we must separate ourselves (2 Thessalonians 3:6). And those ignorant of the ways of God must be taught (Matthew 28:20).
The challenge (to preserve the analogy) is that many in the church are not good soldiers and many churches are not interested in training good soldiers. People are often lax when it comes to growing in their faith and obedience to Christ’s commands and are often content with the idea that they are destined for heaven while they go about living worldly lives. If you have ever served in the military, you understand that obedience to the commands of your leaders is not an option and contentment in mediocrity is never an acceptable option. It isn’t in the church either. At least, it isn’t in Christ’s true church.
While it is certainly true that a true conversion (which is God’s work in us) does often supernaturally produce a change in the moral conscience. Indeed, it must! One is being transformed from death to life! Nevertheless, the true believer also seeks to mature his or her moral conscience every day of their life. We seek to discern what is the good and acceptable will of God and as we mature in the faith God has given to us, we grow more like Christ and less like the world. We grow to hate the things that God hates and to love the things that God loves in every aspect of our lives. In other words, we participate in maturing our “good moral conscience” so we may become a better soldier.
What happens if we do not? Therein lies the warning (and even examples in the following verse!). When you do not seek to be that good soldier, you make a shipwreck out of your faith. Does that mean you will lose your faith? No, God loses none of His own. But it does mean that your spiritual life will be tossed and battered by every wave and storm of human invention. And folks, if you have ever been aboard a ship that has been in danger of shipwreck, you understand that it is not a voyage that you would enjoy. A life such as that is filled with misery and guilt rather than with the satisfaction that comes with the fact that God is using you to build Christ’s Kingdom.
So be that good soldier and build on the faith that God has instilled in you (Jude 20).
Wage War as a Good Soldier
“This commandment I put before you, my child, Timothy, in accordance with the prophesies about you that preceded this, in order that you might wage war as a good soldier through them.”
(1 Timothy 1:18)
Paul now focuses on a direct instruction given to Timothy, yet it is one that is instructive for all of us. Timothy is to wage war as a good soldier. Wage war in what way? Wage war against whom? Paul will flesh this out as he continues through this epistle. Yet, what is clear is that the prophesies made about (or over) Timothy when he was a child were given for one purpose: that Timothy might rise up as a soldier in Christ’s church, fighting the Good fight (as Paul would once again instruct Timothy in chapter 6, verse 12, and as Paul would strive himself to do, 2 Timothy 4:7).
How is this instructive for us? As Christians, we live here in this world in a time of war. Indeed, we are not waging war against the flesh (2 Corinthians 10:3); we fight against the rulers, authorities, and powers over this present darkness and the spiritual forces in heavenly places (Ephesians 6:12). Indeed, there will be times of peace in the new creation, but not here in this world. And, just as Timothy was commissioned for this task by the prophecy and the laying on of hands (2 Timothy 1:6), we too are called to approach the Christian life as ones who are engaged in warfare. And we are to be “good” soldiers. We are an expeditionary force of heaven, yet, a quick survey of the landscape around us will indicate that we (as the True Church) have largely been losing ground.
Losing ground? Society in the West is in decline. The church, which is called to be the “pillar and buttress of the Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) is commonly filled with corruption, social syncretism, and narcissistic strife. What is worse, like the church in Laodicea, the church in the west has largely become lukewarm and comfortable in its own filth. Loved ones, this is not how soldiers take to the battlefield. This is not how soldiers honor their captain (2 Timothy 2:3-4). This is not how members of a kingdom honor their King. Beloved, sometimes, as a church, we wonder why the culture will not listen to us. Yet, before the culture will listen, we must repent. We must worship and conduct our lives as the great Captain of our Faith calls us to live. Then, and only then, will God hear from heaven, forgive our sins, and heal our land (2 Chronicles 7:14).
Wake the Sleeping Giant
“And, coming from the town square, unless they have baptized [themselves], they do not eat and there are many other things that have come down to them that they hold dearly, such as baptizing cups and pitchers and copper kettles and dining couches.” (Mark 7:4)
In our home, there reside four adults. In addition to my wife and me, we have two adult children, and it should be said that all four of us have somewhat different work schedules. My wife’s alarm clock is typically the first to go off on any given day, and then the others follow, sometimes creating a cacophony of various beeps and tunes between our bedrooms. My wife is a light sleeper, and so she chooses a quiet melody as her alarm sound, one that wakes her up without disturbing my slumber. I tend to be a heavy sleeper, so I choose the most obnoxious-sounding alarm tones available to ensure that I will roll out of bed on time to go to work.
It has been said that the church, during times of relative peace, is like a sleeping giant. During persecution, that giant awakens and rises to a level where it changes the world. Yet, during seasons such as what we experience in the Western World, where persecution is fairly negligible, the Giant slumbers. It is as if it is genuine persecution, where people are losing their lives and churches are being shut down, that provides the obnoxious-sounding alarm that causes the Giant to wake.
I’d suggest that three things happen when the Church slumbers. First, every man does what is right in his own eyes, creating traditions that are both unbiblical and idolatrous. Second, we find ourselves fighting and bickering over the validity of our traditions rather than boldly proclaiming that people must repent and believe. And third, the society around us looks to other sources for finding meaning in life. Will any of you argue that society isn’t filled by all three of these sorts of things?
Some of you might be tempted to protest by saying, “Wait, but our local church meets all three of the marks of the True Church. Perhaps you do and praise God for that, but are you really fulfilling what the church is called to be doing? For those unfamiliar with the “Three Marks,” Chapter 29 of the Belgic confession lays these out as 1) the pure doctrine of the Gospel is preached therein, 2) the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ, and 3) that church discipline is exercised for the chastizing of sin (it should be noted that the Second Helvetic Confession, chapter 17 contains a much fuller description of the true church).
The problem is that many of the churches stop with a bullet-pointed list when the Belgic Confession itself goes on to summarize the nature of the true church in that same chapter, as one in which Christ is the only head of the church. A head is a ruler. A head is a lawgiver. A head is the one that you obey and follow. As Jesus stated: “My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27). There are also no qualifiers. The sheep are not to follow Christ their head some of the time. They are not to follow Christ their head when it is appealing to their taste or pleasing to their senses. And, they are not to follow Christ their head only when the path is easy. The sheep are to follow Christ their head at all times. The sheep are to follow Christ their head even when the road is hard, uncomfortable, and distasteful.
In turn, the true church is to do likewise. They are not to do what is right in their own eyes. They are not to follow and defend the traditions of men. And, when they discover that they are following human traditions, they are to repent no matter what the ramifications of doing so may be. Many denominations claim that they have Christ as their only head, but if you challenge them in an area — their approach to worship, their approach to leadership, their practice of discipline, their practice of koinonia — where said things reflect the traditions of men, then you will find yourself labeled as a “troubler of Israel” (1 Kings 18:17).
You see, the problem is that the traditions of men lull the church to sleep. To borrow from an old pop-song, they have become “comfortably numb.” The church today seems to be more interested in its own agendas, its own entertainment, and its own preferences…not that of the Head they claim to follow. They remain stuck in the morass of uninspired, man-centered, entertainment-driven, therapy rather than true worship. It needs a wake-up call. It needs to be told that man-made traditions, even while benign, are never okay. It needs an obnoxious-sounding alarm clock to wake it up. It needs to discover worship in Spirit and Truth, genuine koinonia, and a declaration of the Gospel that is proclaimed and then lived out, despite what the consequences may be. It needs a wake-up call. And, when the sleeping Giant truly awakes from his slumber, he will transform the world with that declaration.
The Unexamined Church
In Plato’s apology, he presents Socrates as stating: “The unexamined life is not lived by man.” More commonly, it is phrased as “the unexamined life is not worth living” or “the unexamined life is not worthy of a man.” In the end, he conveys that a life lived without introspection, self-examination, and a critical examination of the heart is a life that will amount to very little once all is said and done. One of the things that separates man from the natural order is that we have the ability to think and reason, but if we are not to apply that reason to ourselves and our lives, what good will that reason be to us?
Certainly, this notion ought to resonate with the Christian as he goes through life. We are called to examine ourselves and the way we conduct our lives to determine whether or not we are walking in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5). We are called to examine ourselves before we come to the Lord’s Table for Communion (1 Corinthians 11:28). The very title that is given to Elders in the church is that of “Overseer,” implying that one of the roles that these men play is that they are to examine the church as a whole to determine where it is walking in truth or where it may have lost its first love and is walking in error (1 John 1:6; Revelation 2:5).
And, it is that latter notion that we often miss as Christians. We do understand the importance of self-examination (though often we are not as honest with ourselves as we ought to be because we have grown accustomed to justifying sin), but we also feel uncomfortable when others in the church examine us. To that, we often cry out the world’s mantra, “Don’t judge me!” Yet, we need that judgment. How can church discipline be practiced (Matthew 18:15-20) if judgment is not exercised in the examination of the body? How will the Elders root out the wolves from the midst of the sheep if examination is not practiced (Matthew 7:15) and distinguish the antichrists who are seeking to lead people away from the body (1 John 2:18-19).
In turn, we should note that it is not just the Elders who should be examining the body, but the individual Christians should likewise be examining the body as a whole to discern whether they are in a true church or a false church. Is Christ the King of the church or is man its king? Is there true worship, faithful to the Scriptures, being practiced or do people practice what they most like or according to the traditions of men? Are the Scriptures taught faithfully, rightly dividing the Word of Truth, and is the Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone proclaimed from the pulpit or are works somehow injected into the message of salvation? Are the sacraments practiced as Jesus presented them and is discipline used for the chastisement of sin?
It is my experience that churches are often happy to examine others but are want to examine themselves. They want to hold that their traditions are fine and that nothing needs to be changed and act like an ostrich, burying its head in the sand, ignoring any critical evaluation of their practices. Sometimes, they have practiced an unbiblical tradition so long that they are blind to it entirely. Yet, spiritual growth does not take place apart from examination. In fact, I would suggest that growth never takes place until a person, or a group of persons in a body, is willing to critically examine all of their practices in the light of the Word of God. And thus, just as the unexamined life is not worth living, the unexamined church is not worth attending.
Eternal King
“So, to the Eternal King, imperishable, invisible, God alone, honor and glory forever unto the ages, Amen!”
(1 Timothy 1:17)
Doxologies like this are not only common in Paul’s writings, but in the Bible as a whole. How can we even begin to put into words the glorious character of our God? Statements like this make a great start. And we must be very clear that we understand that declarations like this are not a matter of mere fancy or flights of spirituality, but they are clear statements as to the character of the God we serve, and as such, they should instill within us a holy fear for who He is.
One of the trends of the last generation has been to try and emphasize the personal and the relational nature of our God. Indeed, He is personal and he does condescend to us. Yet, the Bible also presents Him as being gloriously transcendent and our theology needs to capture both. Today, talk about the “Fear of the Lord” is frowned on in many circles, yet if we are going to take this passage seriously, these words should engender just that fear in our lives, for they speak of God’s profound transcendence over all He has made.
He is Eternal King. In other words, he is the ultimate ruler over all that exists. He has always been its ruler and always will be its ruler. He is God. Kings also protect what is theirs and they enforce the Law. Since God is also Lawgiver, now we see the language of Him being Law Enforcer, which reminds us that he is the final judge over all things. We may be tempted to think that if we write human laws in such a way that they excuse our sins that we are okay when it comes to judgment. Nevertheless, human laws do not supersede divine ones. He sets the standard. We often abuse it, twist it, warp it, and malign it for our own ends. And we will be judged accordingly for having done so.
God is imperishable. In some senses, this goes along with God being eternal, but it is a reminder that were we to stand up against God, we will never prevail. God is invisible, for He is spirit. And, God is alone. He is not one God amongst many nor is he even the superlative example of a class of beings. No, God exists alone. He is in a class that is entirely His own and there is none to rival Him; all others are pretenders at best.
And thus, all honor, glory, and praise belongs to our God forever. And the only right statement to add to these words is, “Amen!” It is our testimony that these words are both true and that they are engrained in the very innermost part of our being. Indeed, He is the one to be praised! Amen and Amen!
What is Non-Negotiable?
There is a well-known phrase that goes back to Saint Vincent of Lerins (died AD 445) that goes as follows: “In Essentials unity, in Non-Essentials liberty, and in all things Charity.” And, in principle, the idea is a good thing. Confessing Christians are commanded in scripture to treat one another with love — ἀγάπη (agape) even. Those who cannot or who will not act with love toward other Christians are not really Christians in the first place (1 John 3:14-15). Further, there are plenty of areas in which we might disagree with Christian brothers (the application of this verse or the interpretation of that passage) and no essential piece of theology is altered. I remember the first time that I preached the “Parable of the Steward of Unrighteousness” (Luke 16:1-13). At the time, I was in seminary still and looked up 17 different commentaries on the parable and each commentator approached the text differently. Go figure…
The real problem with this phrase of St. Vincent is not the latter two clauses, but the initial clause. What defines the “Essentials of the Faith.” Or perhaps, to use more Biblical phraseology, what defines the “Faith once and for all time delivered to the saints.” What points of doctrine are we compelled to be united on lest the Christian faith be lost and we fall into outright heresy? This is a somewhat more hotly debated question.
Some theologians tend toward a more minimalistic approach — if we can all agree on the Apostles’ Creed, we can claim that we are Christians. Yet, Mormons would claim to hold to the Apostles’ Creed and even most mainstream denominations would identify the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints as a cult and not as a Christian denomination. Why is that? It is because the LDS church has redefined some of the terminology to suit their theological views.
Others have suggested that the four so-called Ecumenical Creeds together form this Essential view (Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athenasian Creed, and the Christological Statement of Chalcedon). These four certainly draw us much closer to the answer and add some much-needed definitions to the terminology of the Apostles’ Creed. Yet, the Pope would affirm these four Creeds and most protestants would argue that the Pope is in serious error and many of us (particularly in the Reformed school of thought) would argue that the Pope is an antichrist.
So, where do we go next? While the next logical step is to appeal to the Confessions of the Church, we must be reminded that the purpose of a Confession is to clarify distinctions between Christian bodies, so confessions unapologetically cover things that may not fall into the realm of “Essentials.” So, that still leaves us asking the question, “Where is our starting point when it comes to Essentials?”
The answer has to fall back to looking at the Bible — the sixty-six books that comprise the Old and New Testaments. But, we need to go a little further than that. We ought to clarify that it is these books, treated as the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God, consisting and treated as a unified whole, not a collection of disparate books gathered by the church. When the Scriptures become our starting point and our only rule for faith and practice, we now have a substantial basis upon which essentials can be distinguished.
The Bible is also the only place where we can know the Gospel. Gospel, of course, is a word that is used rather broadly — it refers to the four books that begin the New Testament and it also refers to the message of salvation we might would use in evangelism. In its most basic sense, though, the word means “Good News” and the Gospel (in that sense) is the whole of the Bible as the Bible contains the good news of God’s redemption of man throughout history. Beginning to end, it is the only place where we can discover the good news of the forgiveness of sins and a hope for eternal life. That is our Essential — everything else we hold flows out of this one book.
Clinging to the Word of Life
“clinging to the Word of Life, that I will be satisfied in the day of Christ that I did not run in vain nor did I labor in vain.”
(Philippians 2:16)
Much can be said from these words of Paul, but I want to focus first on the initial words which follow the statement in the previous verse. What is the way in which we live our lives in a way that is blameless and pure? The answer is that we must do so clinging to the Word of Life. It is the Bible that provides us with every standard by which we may know the life we are to strive to live. It is the Bible that gives us wisdom and discernment for the decisions we make. And it is the Bible that records all of the promises of God that will give us the courage to live the way we are called to live…that is if we trust the Bible.
But Paul doesn’t simply say for us to trust the Bible. He says we are to cling to it like one might cling to the edge of a great cliff lest we fall to our doom on the valley floor below. This clinging is a life or death clinging. These scriptures for us are our very life (Deuteronomy 32:47). For we do not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord (Deuteronomy 8:3). And it is not only our calling to live by them, but to speak of this word to others at every opportunity and no matter the cost (Acts 5:20).
Yet, how many professing Christians reject this word that God gives to us…or at least pick and choose that which they want to follow and that which they wish to ignore. Selective hearing does not an obedient follower make.
Thus, friends, set the Word of God before you, which is God’s Word of Life. Do so in all things and in every way. Let it guide your steps and do not deviate to the right or to the left from that which it instructs and commands. Let the Word of God guide your speech and your attitudes as well as your reasoning. Do not let any idea into your life except through the sieve of the Scriptures. It will always prove faithful and reliable…cling to it for it is your very life.
Sanctify them in the Truth (John 17:17)
“Sanctify them in the Truth; Your Word is Truth.”
(John 17:17)
What a powerful statement! Jesus lays out two great truths for us in this little statement…first, that it is by the means of the Truth that we should be sanctified and that the Word of God (Scripture) is Truth. Yet, we need to lay out some definitions here to make sure we understand the depth of this statement.
The first question we really need to ask is what does the word “sanctify” mean. In Greek, the term sanctify is the word, aJgia/zw (hagiazw), which is related to the term a¢gioß (hagios), meaning “holy” or “set apart for sacred use.” The Hebrew equivalent to this term is vwødDq (qadosh); God regularly sets apart his people (Leviticus 19:2, 20:26), his priests (Leviticus 21:8), and implements or items of worship (Leviticus 27:30,32) as hÎwhyÅl v®døq (qodesh layahweh)—“Holy to the Lord.” Thus, getting back to aJgia/zw (hagiazw), sanctification is the process by which God makes us holy as He is holy. It is a process by which he refines us as by fire (1 Peter 1:6-7), scraping off the dross and refining us for his work here in this world and to be ultimately purified as we are prepared to enter into his eternal presence in glory.
Thus, if we are sanctified in Truth and the scriptures are the revelation of God’s word, then how are we sanctified in the Bible? To begin with, let us state up front that the efforts of man in this area avail him nothing if not indwelt and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not talking here about those who do not have new life, but he is talking about the born-again believer in Jesus Christ. Also, it should be noted that Jesus did speak many other words and do many other things than are recorded in the Bible (John 21:25), so some would argue that the Bible is not synonymous with God’s Word. While there is some truth to that claim, it is clear that the Bible is the only revelation of God that has been written down and preserved for us through the ages (through the superintending of the Holy Spirit). Certainly, there are many texts that claim divine or apostolic authorship as well as prophetic authorship, but these texts have clearly been shown to be much later additions, written under pseudonyms, and are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. It has become popular in this age to drag out these texts and create false theologies based on them, but such is the work of false teachers whose condemnation was designated and written about long ago (Jude 4). Look to the fruit of such teachers (Matthew 7:15-20) and who pervert the grace of God into sensuality and deny Jesus Christ (Jude 4 again). The second century church fathers refuted them when they were writing, we should heed their warnings and not stumble into the errors of these charlatans.
As we move, then, back to the Bible—God’s revealed word and the source of all Truth, then how is it that the Bible is a tool in our sanctification? John Calvin made the argument that there are three purposes to the moral law as it is contained in scripture—the first was simply to set before us a moral code so that we can live together in society without killing one another. Simply spoken, how different our world would be if every human being on our planet lived by those ten basic commandments! Secondly, the Ten Commandments are designed to teach us our inability to live a holy life before the Lord. The simple fact is that try as we may, we cannot keep the commandments of God and thus as we survey the world around us, it is filled with idolatry, crime, adultery, greed, lust, etc… Thus, the law teaches us we need a savior to redeem us from our wicked state. Then finally comes the third use of the Law, which is as a tool of sanctification (what Jesus is talking about here) not for all mankind, but for the believer. As we seek to live according to the Moral Law of God out of a desire to honor our Redeemer and God, we grow more and more like the one who fulfilled that law for us, Jesus Christ.
Jesus said that if we love him, we will demonstrate that love in obedience to his commands (John 14:15). In addition, in the great commission, Jesus commands the Apostles to go out and make disciples. What are the marks of a true disciple? First, they have been baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But, secondly, they have been taught to obey “all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). Thus, we can infer that it is not just the Moral Law that believers are to seek to obey, but all of God’s word as he lays it out before us. This is not to suggest that we are to obey all of the sacramental laws of the Old Testament, Jesus has fulfilled them for us once and for all time (Hebrews 10:10) nor is it to mean that the civil laws of the Old Testament are to be applied as they were applied in the Old Testament—Jesus himself forgave sins punishable by death (John 8:11)—such laws were given for a people who were structured into a Theocratic kingdom, now we are a kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9) and thus have a priestly function while living within the nations of others (just as the Levites did in Israel and just as Abraham did while living as an alien in Canaan). We can certainly glean some moral principles from these case laws in the Old Testament, but their application is a moral guide and not civil law.
The heart at what Jesus is getting at, though, is that we must be taking God’s word and applying it to every area of our lives if we are to grow like him. How do we do this, though, if we are not immersing ourselves in our Bibles and studying it—recognizing it as Truth? What does it say about our hearts if we go to the Bible, yet it does not change us? In Christ we are new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17), being changed—transformed even—into the image of Christ through the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:1-2)—and how is that renewal to take place? It takes place through the application of God’s word to every area of our lives—indeed, as our Lord prayed, we are sanctified according to his Word. Christian, pursue that end.
Is the Bible Inerrant?
One of the things we talk a lot about in church circles is the authority of scripture—that it is given by God and is designed to instruct us in every area of life. One of the terms that we use when we speak of why the scriptures are authoritative is the term “inerrant.” But I have found that while we often throw that term around, a lot of times, people aren’t entirely sure what the term means.
To be “inerrant” means far more than something has no errors in it. When I was in school, I regularly had “error-free” mathematics tests; when I was in seminary, many of my Hebrew vocabulary tests were found to be “error-free,” but none of these were inerrant. The word inerrant means not only that something has no errors, but that it is incapable of making an error. The Oxford American Dictionary defines “inerrant” as “incapable of being wrong.” One writer described the inerrancy of the scriptures in this way: “They are exempt from the liability to mistake.”
So why do we ascribe such a nature to the scriptures? To begin with, they are God’s word, and if God is incapable of making a mistake, then his word also must be incapable of making a mistake—remembering that those who wrote down God’s word were “moved along by the Spirit” as a ship is blown by the wind filling its sails (2 Peter 1:21). In the language of the Apostle Paul, scripture is exhaled by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and thus is the source of all training and guidance for the believer. These are God’s words and not man’s and thus we ought to expect them to carry the authority and attributes of God’s character and not man’s character.
It is granted that there are many these days that doubt the inerrancy of scripture. For some, it is a plain matter of unbelief. For others it is misinformation or not having studied the evidence. For others it is the fear that if one acknowledges these words to be the inerrant word of God then one must submit one’s life to scripture’s authority and demands, and such is true. Regardless of the reason that people doubt, Scripture has withstood every test and challenge that has been leveled at it.
There is one other thing that is worth noting about such a book as we have. Not only are the scriptures our only guide for faith and life, but they are the only book to guide us as we go to our deaths. The Bible shows us Jesus Christ, our need for him as a redeemer, and his promise that if we trust in him in life, confessing him with our lips and believing in him in our hearts, he will confess us before the Father and guarantee us eternal life in paradise. For the one who is facing death, this is the kind of knowledge that brings peace and enables them to leave this world with grace and not fear. It is no wonder that the Scriptures are what most people ask to have read to them on their deathbeds, and not Shakespeare or Coleridge. The Bible is the one book that transcends death because it was written by a God who died and rose again—promising that he would do the same for us.
Foundational Biblical Principles to Classroom Management
Some initial thoughts as to some Biblical principles that ought to shape the way Christian schools and Christian teachers order their classrooms. These thoughts are not meant as exhaustive, but instead are meant to be a Biblical foundation upon which a philosophy of Christian education can be built.
1. The interaction with students, from instruction to discipline, must be built on the principle that students bear the image of God (Genesis 1:26), and though that image was twisted and deformed as a result of the fall through the entrance of sin and death (Romans 5:12), the image of God was not lost in the fall (Genesis 9:6). Thus, a large part of the role of Christian education is that of “straightening” the fallen person—helping to restore the person in such a way that they accurately reflect the image of God. As Christ is the perfect reflection of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), it is into the image modeled for us by Christ that we seek to direct the transformation of our students. The life and well-being of the child is seen by scripture in a special way (Psalm 127:3; Matthew 19:14; Mark 9:42). How we handle sin in the classroom as well as education in the classroom must be seen in this context, and teachers are to understand that they are to be held to a higher standard than others (James 3:1).
2. Education is a divinely ordained responsibility of parents, but particularly that of the Father as the covenant head of the household (Ephesians 6:4; Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 4:10; 6:7, 20-21; 11:19; 32:46; Psalm 78:5; 2 Timothy 1:5). It is also noted in scripture that the Levitical priests were to come alongside of the parents for the purpose of educating their children (Leviticus 10:11; Deuteronomy 33:10; Judges 13:8; 1 Samuel 12:23; Ezekiel 44:23; 2 Chronicles 15:3) as part of the larger covenantal community of believers (Exodus 6:7; Leviticus 26:12; Matthew 2:6; Romans 9:25; 2 Corinthians 6:16). There are also occasions where others within the covenant community who had particular gifts and skills were gifted to teach (Exodus 35:34). While it is recognized that God’s people can learn things from non-believers (1 Kings 5:6; Acts 7:22), the Bible presents teaching as an activity to be undertaken by the covenant community. Though the Levitical Priesthood has fallen away and been replaced by Christ (Hebrews 7), all believers are now priests (1 Peter 2:9; Isaiah 66:20-21) and thus responsible to fulfill the Levitical functions which are not a part of the sacrificial system as that role has been fulfilled by Christ alone (Hebrews 10:10-14). Hence, Christian parents must not only seek to oversee the education of their children, but they also have a Biblical mandate that the education of their children is done by Christians, and not by non-believers. In turn, teachers must be mindful that they are serving as proxies for the student’s parents, not as replacements and are to instruct in such a fashion as to honor the parents for whom they are acting.
3. The teacher must understand that the Biblical end of education is to equip the students to obedience to God’s commands so that their days may be long in the land (Deuteronomy 5:33; 11:9). Hence, children are also commanded to honor their parents (which implies an honoring of their instruction) so that their days may be long in the land (Exodus 20:12). The Biblical idiom of “living long” does not so much refer to long physical life in the land as it refers to the life and essential health of the covenantal community of the faithful in the land which God had given them. This language, though, is later applied to the church (Ephesians 6:3) under the auspices of living faithfully in the world. To accomplish this, teaching is to include the law for righteous living (Exodus 24:12; 2 Kings 17:27) and also instruction in more mundane areas (2 Samuel 1:8; Exodus 35:25; Isaiah 28:23-29). In addition, scripture mandates the teaching of the history of God’s acts (Exodus 12:14; 2 Samuel 1:18; Psalm 66:5). Thus, teaching that is scriptural (and hence mandated to be done within the community of faith) is teaching that covers every discipline of life and is designed so that the believer may walk in reverence and obedience to the commands of God (Deuteronomy 14:22; Micah 4:2; 1 Peter 1:16). The implication of this marks Christian teaching as being something distinct from secular (the Greek model) education. For the heathen, religion and faith have no bearing on one’s thinking, philosophy, or ordinary life; for the Christian, knowledge of God lived out in faith is everything—there is no aspect of life that religion is not meant to touch and inform. Hence, the Christian classroom needs to reflect that principle.
4. Discipline is a God-given tool by which education is furthered (Hebrews 12:5-11; Psalm 50:16-23; Proverbs 12:1; 13:24; Revelation 3:19). It is designed to keep children from vicious teachings and error, to suppress feelings of bitterness of students who have been wronged, to punish wrongdoing, and to show the repulsive nature of sin and the pains that are associated with it. Said discipline should be non-preferential and balanced to suit the infraction. Discipline also should not be designed to break, humiliate, or discourage the child from a pursuit of a God-honoring life. It should be firm, but delivered with a spirit of kindness and not vengeance or anger. Ultimately discipline should build up not only the student being disciplined, but the entire class as well. Finally, once discipline is administered, the student is to be considered as justified as to the law of the classroom and should be reinstated to the covenantal community of the class in question without lingering reminders of said sin.
A few final thoughts about the childhood education that Jesus would have received:
- Synagogue schools were funded by the parents of the children attending. The education of poor students was funded by donations given in the temple or at Sabbath worship.
- Teachers were salaried by the synagogue and were not allowed to accept money from wealthy families lest favoritism be given.
- Teachers were forbidden from losing their patience with students for not understanding concepts, but were expected to be able to make them plain to all.
- Kindness was encouraged and schools used the strap in discipline, not the rod.
- Parents were prohibited from sending their children to schools in other communities for the purpose of eliminating rivalries and to maintain the educational level of the town.
- Leviticus was the first book taught to children (particularly Leviticus 1-8).
- Other passages of scripture that were found in Children’s primers were: the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21; Numbers 15:37-41); the Hallel Psalms (Psalms 113-118); and The Creation and Flood narratives (Genesis 1-11).
- To the Jew, the study of scripture was of greater importance than any other study they could pursue. The culture considered it profane to even learn a trade apart from a study of the scriptures. The study of trades did not replace scriptural study, but flowed out of scriptural study.
Part of a Traditional Jewish Morning Prayer:
“These are the things of which man eats the fruit of the world, but their possession continues for the next world: to honor the father and mother, pious works, peacemaking between man and man, and the study of the law, which is equivalent to them all.”
(Peah 1:1)
Family Tree of Modern English Bible Translations
Here is a visual history of English Bibles and their historical/philosophical family trees. Note that these studies are works in progress as they were begun a number of years ago and as new translations of the Bible are always being developed.
win
Outline of 1 Peter
I. Greeting (1:1-2)
II. God in his Grace is raising you out of your sin to salvation (1:3-12)
1. God has given us new birth to a greater inheritance (1:3-5)
2. God will keep that inheritance while you are being sanctified through
persecutions (1:6-7)
3. The joy of that salvation in your hearts and in the hearts of those who have
pointed to Christ from old (1:8-12)
III. Therefore, be holy for God is holy (1:13-25)
1. Live your life obediently and in anticipation of what is coming (1:13-16)
2. God has redeemed you by the blood of Jesus Christ (1:17-21)
3. God has purified you through his imperishable word (1:22-25)
IV. Therefore, live your lives to reflect God’s good work in you (2:1-3:22)
1. Rid yourself of sinful ways and nourish yourself on spiritual things (2: 1-3)
2. God has made you a holy nation, built on the Living foundation stone of Jesus
Christ (2:4-12)
3. Live in submission to authorities outside of the home (2:13-25)
4. Live in submission to authorities inside of the home (3:1-7)
5. Living submissively in spite of persecution brings you blessing and the
persecutor shame (3:8-17)
6. Look to your baptism as a reminder of Christ’s past work and its eventual
completion (3:18-22)
V. Therefore, since Christ was persecuted, expect to be persecuted yourselves (4:1-19)
1. Misery loves company and will seek to drag you down into their sin (4:1-6)
2. Yet, judgment is coming, so be prepared (4:7-11)
3. Do not be surprised by your sufferings, but take joy in them (4:12-19)
VI. Closing remarks to church leaders (5:1-11)
1. Be good shepherds, modeling your service on Christ, the Chief Shepherd
(5:1-4)
2. Live humble lives (5:5-7)
3. Resist the enemy in faith and persevere until the end (5:8-11)
VII. Personal remarks and closing blessing (5:12-14)
Outline of 2 Peter
I. Greeting (1:1-2)
II. God’s Call on the life of a Christian and the Christian’s response (1:3-11)
1. God’s calling His people to glory (1:3-4)
2. The Christian’s response to God’s call (1:5-11)
a. progression of faith to love (1:5-7)
b. work to grow in grace (1:8-11)
III. Purpose (1:12-15)
IV. Defense of Apostolic and Scriptural authority (1:16-21)
1. Defense of Apostolic authority (1:16-18)
2. Defense of Scriptural authority (1:19-21)
VI. Warnings against false teachers (2:1-22)
1. Warning of their imminent arrival (2:1-3)
2. Warnings from history and God’s Faithfulness through history (2:4-10)
a. the fall of the angels (2:4)
b. the fall of the ancient world and salvation of Noah’s family (2:5)
c. the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah and salvation of Lot’s family (2:6-8)
d. reminder of God’s competence in saving his people from trial (2:9-10)
3. Description of the false teachers (2:11-17)
4. Warning about the road these teachers travel along (2:18-22)
V. The second coming of Christ, the imminent judgment of ungodly, and the new
heavens and the new earth (3:1-13)
1. Have confidence in Christ’s promise to return (3:1-9)
2. Have confidence that Judgment is coming (3:10-12)
3. Have confidence in the remaking of heaven and earth (3:13)
VI. Closing exhortation (3:14-18)
Bible Translation Philosophies
All translations are interpretations. This is for two reasons. First is that English grammar is different than Greek or Hebrew grammar. A truly literal word for word translation would prove extraordinarily difficult to read. Secondly, in Greek and Hebrew, as with English, words often carry a variety of meanings depending on the context in which they are used.
Translators must make the decision as to what English words best represent the original text and they must write the grammar in such a way that the translation reflects the grammatical emphasis of the original. In doing so, it is impossible to translate without being influenced by your religious biases. The other challenge that you face in translation is in how you express a first century idea in twenty-first century language. This depends on how well you understand not only both cultures but also in understanding the context that surrounds the text.
And, you must also have an understanding of the Bible as a whole. God planned out history in intimate detail, and he wrote his scriptures and preserved them for his people. Thus, how we interpret scripture ought to reflect God’s decisive hand in its creation but also the consistency and inerrancy that belongs to his written word. That being said, there are Three general philosophies behind Bible translation: Formal Equivalence, Dynamic Equivalence, and Paraphrasing.
Formal Equivalence: This is as close to a literal translation as you will find. The philosophy is to translate the original text on a word for word basis into contemporary language. The main advantage of this approach is that it gives you a more accurate word for word correspondence with the original text. This makes word studies, where you trace a particular word’s usage through the Bible, more straightforward. The drawback is that the language can often become fairly wooden and awkward to read.
There is another issue regarding formal equivalence translations that is hotly debated as to whether it is a strength or a weakness. Because the English language is often vague and sometimes less precise than the Greek and Hebrew languages, sometimes a literal translation on a word for word basis leaves important theological concepts open to the reader’s interpretation. These concepts are usually clear in the original text, but become less clear when translated on a word for word basis into the English. Formal equivalence tries to minimize the translator’s interpretation of the text.
Dynamic Equivalence: The response to the problem of ambiguity within formal equivalence translations is dynamic equivalence. Rather than translating on a word for word basis, dynamic equivalence translates on a thought for thought or a concept for concept basis. This does involve more interpretation of the original text, but often can deliver a reading that is closer to the original intent. This translation often provides a more fluid reading of the text, but it does sacrifice a degree of precision when it comes to word studies.
Paraphrase: Sometimes called “free translation,” this mode of Bible translation is hotly debated. A paraphrase is the converting of the original text, or for most paraphrases, as translation, into your own words. Oftentimes this kind of translation can be very approachable for pleasure reading, but is not precise enough to do serious Bible study. Also, this kind of translation involves a great degree of interpretation, and depending on the translator’s biases, biblical doctrines may be obscured or given undue weight.
Obviously, these are very broad categories and they allow a great deal of overlapping. It is probably most accurate to picture these definitions on a chart with formal equivalence on one end and paraphrasing on the other, with dynamic equivalence being a middle ground. Each translation, then would fall somewhere on the chart, leaning toward one of the definitions, but being influenced by the others.
Regardless of their strengths and weaknesses, all three have their value. Formal equivalence translations are often best for serious Bible study, but dynamic equivalence is better for more casual reading and public reading of scripture. It is far more accessible both to younger people and to new Christians. While paraphrases are not my particular cup of tea, many find that they are quite good for pleasure reading. It just must be cautioned that a more technical translation of the Bible should be accessible for worship and study.
Regardless of your translation philosophy, the end goal is the same. We want the word of God to be read and understood by the people of God. People have different educational backgrounds and are at different levels of faith when they go to pick up this wonderful book. As Paul writes in Romans 1:16, “I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God to salvation.” If the word of God is to be brought to bear on the lives of God’s people, it must be understood. Different translations for different seasons in different people’s lives is the reason that we have so many versions to choose from when we go the Bible book store.
Difficulties with Gender Neutral Translations
This is a major hotbed of debate within evangelical circles, particularly since the new revision of the New International Version (NIV), Today’s New International Version (TNIV), has gone this route. Most evangelicals consider this move to be a sell-out to the liberal feminist movement, but some hotly argue that it better reflects current language usage. Currently, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), Today’s New International Version (TNIV), the Revised English Bible (REB), The New Century Version (NCV), the Contemporary English Version (CEV), and the New Living Translation (NLT) are the translations that have opted toward gender neutral language.
The philosophy behind gender neutral translations is that the use of the masculine “he” as a generic term to refer to both male and females is no longer the commonly accepted usage in the English language. The solution that they propose is to make the language plural. “He” becomes “they” and “his” becomes “their.” References that are specific to a particular person are left alone, only the general references are changed. Admittedly, there is a move within the liberal community to incorporate gender neutral language to refer to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but to the best of my knowledge, none of the above translations mentioned as gender neutral have adopted this philosophy.
The danger of pluralizing the language is important to discuss. In some instances, the change is quite harmless. For example, James 1:26 reads in the NIV:
“If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.”
In the TNIV, it reads:
“Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. “
Yet, in many cases, the gender neutral language either obscures doctrine or the personal nature of salvation, allowing for a reading that is more acceptable to the Roman Catholic church.
For example, John 14:23 reads:
“If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” (RSV)
Yet, the NRSV reads:
“Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them and we will come to them and make our home with them.”
This may seem to be a slight change given the overall intention is that this verse is addressed to both men and women, yet it has profound implications. First, Jesus did not speak in plurals, he spoke in singulars. He wanted to make a point of emphasizing the personal nature of salvation. Salvation is an individual thing, not a corporate thing as the Roman Catholic church would teach. Jesus did not generically die for every believer, he died for each believer, and pluralizing the language obscures this important fact.
Making the pronouns plural also obscures many of the Old Testament prophesies about Jesus. For example:
“He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken.” (Psalm 34:20, RSV)
The gender inclusive version renders this verse:
“He keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken.” (Psalm 34:20, NRSV)
This completely obscures the messianic prophesy that David is making in this psalm.
At times, changing the singular to plural completely changes the meaning of the verse. For example, Psalm 19:12a is changed from “who can discern his errors” (NIV) to “who can discern their errors” (TNIV). At first glance, with this verse entirely out of context, this change does not seem too threatening. Yet, when you realize that the preceding verses of Psalm 19 are dealing with the perfection of God’s law. Verse 12 is taking that law and then applying it to the individual, as Paul does in Romans, to remind us that we cannot know our errors without God’s good and perfect laws. Yet, the TNIV, when “he” is translated “their” shifts the meaning of the verse to look as if God’s laws are the ones that have errors. The TNIV reads like this:
“The Law of the Lord is perfect…,The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy…, the precepts of the Lord are right…, the commands of the Lord are radiant…, they are more precious than gold…, who can discern their errors.” (Psalm 19: 7-12, TNIV)
Oftentimes, the word “man” is simply omitted. In verses where the text reads “men and brethren,” the TNIV simply omits the term “man” altogether. Also, of the 61 times that the term “Saint” is used in the New Testament, the TNIV has omitted 53 altogether in favor of “God’s people.” The term saint carries connotations of holiness and being set apart. It is a term of endearment given to the saved people of God. The change does two things. First of all, it reduces changes the emphasis from personal salvation to a corporate sense, as the Roman Catholic church likes to teach. Secondly, it emphasizes the Roman Catholic belief that “sainthood” is only for a privileged few.
Our salvation comes from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not membership within the church. The church is a sacred institution because individuals who make up the body of Christ are saved and sanctified by the work of Christ. Christ did not die to save an institution, but to save a people who gather together as part of an institution. As Martin Luther cried out, we are saved by grace and grace alone! There is no coincidence that the gender neutral translations are accepted by the Roman Catholic church, for these gender neutral translations obscure many of the holy doctrines that the protestants fought and died to proclaim.
There are nearly 2000 citations that evangelical scholars have addressed showing the dangers of gender neutral translations. In terms of casual reading, these changes may or may not be particularly noticeable, but for serious Bible study, they are a definite stumbling block. We need to hold translators to the highest standards of translations and be very careful of the biases that they bring to the table of interpretation. We also ought to ask ourselves, has the English language really changed that much as to make terms like “mankind,” that use the masculine in an inclusive way, offensive to the average person? Personally, I don’t think so.
This philosophy is not restricted to the liberal left, but is even sneaking into more respectable circles. Thomas Oden, the general editor of the highly acclaimed Ancient Christian Commentary on Scriptures wrote in his book on pastoral theology, “taking special note of the maternally nurturing images associated with the third person of the Holy trinity in its classical, orthodox, ecumenical formulation, I will speak of the Holy Spirit in the feminine …” See: Oden, Thomas. Pastoral Theology: Essentials of Ministry. San Francisco: Harper, 1972. It is worth noting, that the ancient texts not only refer to the Holy Spirit in masculine terms, but there are a number of times that the personal pronoun “he” is used to refer to the Holy Spirit. Yet, as I mentioned above, theological interpretations will enter into any Bible translation. Sometimes for good, sometimes for ill.
Some Background to Modern English Bible Translations
There are a plethora of different Bible translations available for the Christian to choose from. Some are better and some are worse. All come from a devout desire to make the written word of God accessible to people of all cultures, languages, and walks of life. This is not meant to be an exhaustive overview, but is meant to be more of a snapshot of the available options.
The Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901: With new archaeological and linguistic evidence available, it was deemed appropriate that the King James Version be revised and reworked. This lead to two versions being published: the Revised and the American Standard Versions in England and America respectively. These reflected both more modern speech and the most current linguistic scholarship of the day.
Scofield Bible: In 1909, Cyrus Scofield published the King James Version of the Bible with his own footnotes much in the same way as the earlier Geneva Bible had done. Scofield was a Congregationalist pastor but had been ordained in the Southern Presbyterian church (although he never served a Presbyterian congregation). Scofield was a dispensationalist in this theology, which set him apart from the Covenantal theology of his Reformed heritage. This becomes quite apparent when you begin to study his notes on the Second Coming of Christ. It is important that the Christian be aware of his biases before committing to the use of his notes. Regardless of your theological bias, Scofield’s theology has had a tremendous influence on the American church. His influence is can especially be seen in the Southern Baptist church and in the literature of the Moody Bible Institute.
Moffat Bible: Scottish theologian and Oxford professor, James Moffat completed his translation of the Bible in 1924. He also served as editor of a New Testament commentary series that utilized his translation. His translation never became widely circulated, but copies still turn up from time to time. While Moffat was not always orthodox in his thinking, his translation often grasps the literary intent as well as the meaning of the poetic books of the Old Testament.
Revised Standard Version: In 1952, the American Standard Version was revised in a somewhat less literal, but more readable form. The intent of this translation was to provide a more ecumenical translation that would be acceptable to Catholics and Protestants alike. The RSV and the later revision in 1989, the New Revised Standard Version, are probably the most widely used texts in mainline Protestant denominations.
New American Standard Bible: Another revision of the American Standard Version is the New American Standard Bible, published in 1960. This is probably the most literal translation of the original texts available today. It is the result of the work of 58 evangelical scholars from a variety of denominations so carries a good balance of literal translation as well as keeping doctrinal intent sound. This is one of the best study Bibles available today.
Amplified Bible: Because many words carry wider connotations in the original languages than in the English translation, in 1965, scholars were led to create the Amplified Bible. This translation includes in italics the various synonymous words that the original word implies. Readers then can insert one or more of these words to hopefully better convey the original intent of the text. While it can be awkward to read for personal edification and study, it has been often used by revival preachers who want greater emphasis on particular words in the texts from which they are preaching.
Today’s English Version (Good News Bible): In 1966, the American Bible Society published a new translation in contemporary English. This version intentionally uses colloquial language in its translation. In 1991 it was revised to become the Contemporary English Version. The CEV similarly uses colloquialisms and is written on about a 5th grade level to make it accessible to a broader audience.
New English Bible: This 1970 translation done in England carried a heavy British flavor. Its revision, the Revised English Bible, in 1989 removed many of these idioms, but still kept an English flair. It is a popular translation for public reading as it keeps much of the traditional poetic flair of the older King James Version.
Living Bible: In 1971, the American Standard Version was paraphrased to create the Living Bible. The New Living translation, published in 1996, was not a paraphrase, but a new translation although it kept much of the readability of its predecessor.
New International Version: In 1978, the New International Version was published which has turned out to be one of the most popular translations amongst evangelical Christians. It maintains a good balance between readability and technical accuracy. The latest revision of the NIV, Today’s New International Version, published in 2002, has created a stir in the evangelical churches who were loyal to it because it went to a gender neutral translation (see above).
Readers Digest Condensed Version: While this translation, published in 1982, sounds somewhat humorous to more mature Christians, this translation was headed up by Bruce Metzger, a respected Bible scholar, with the intent of making the scriptures more accessible to un-churched people. Better than half a million copies were sold of this translation, but leaves open questions as to the dangers that abound when you edit and condense the word of God.
New King James Version: Another 1982 publication was more well received than the Readers Digest Version. The New King James Version offers more contemporary language than the Earlier King James Version.
International Children’s Bible: This translation of 1986 was the result of the collaboration of translators that worked on the New American Standard Bible, The New King James Version, and the New International Version of the Bible. Their plan was to create a translation that is specifically designed for use by children. It is written on a third grade educational level and uses short sentences with easily understood language. Its revision, the New Century Version of 1991 was marketed more for adults, but kept the third grade reading level.
The Message: In 1993, Eugene Peterson published his own New Testament. While this is technically a new translation of the Ancient Greek, stylistically it is closer to a paraphrase as many thoughts are added to convey the meaning of the text and it is written to read like a novel. Peterson also dropped the verse notations from his translation which makes serious Bible Study more challenging. Many Christians enjoy reading this translation casually, but it is not meant to be a primary Bible for study and worship.
Holman Christian Standard Bible: Published in 2000, this English translation was commissioned by the Southern Baptist Publishing House and was produced by a team of 90 scholars from a variety of denominations. This translation tries to balance Formal and Dynamic Equivalence methods to create a readable but literal translation.
English Standard Version: Published in 2001, the ESV is an evangelical revision of the RSV. Its design was to provide an essentially literal translation without the “woodenness” that is found in many literal translations. Its language has much of the fluidity of the NIV, but it proves to be much more accurate in its translation. While it is an excellent Bible for study, it can be daunting particularly for younger Christians as it is written on an eleventh grade reading level.
Foreign Language Translations
With a vision to place a Bible in their native language in the hands of every man woman and child on the planet, groups like the Wycliffe Bible Translation Society are working at a feverish pace. Currently, there are complete Bible Translations in better than 500 languages worldwide as well as Bible tracts, which contain portions of scripture, in more than 2000 different languages. And the process continues. In some cases, translators must go into a region and create a written language for the culture before translation can even begin. It is a long and arduous process, but with the aide of computer communication and database technology, the missionaries that God has called into his service are spreading God’s written word even to the most remote regions.
* * * * *
Admittedly, the flood of translations can be confusing and misleading at times. Yet, we are privileged to live in a culture where reliable translations are available to us as we have the resources to study more than one translation if we choose. All too often we take this privilege for granted. Don’t. Rather, as you are mourning the flood of less than perfect translations, pray for those who are diligently seeking to provide a complete Bible for cultures who have none. And pray that those translations, as well as the English translations that we are presented with, would be faithful to the wonderful God we serve.
The specific Bible that you choose for Bible study should be a good one, but the particular version that you choose is less important than that you fill your life with God’s word. There is no excuse for the Christian to be ignorant as to the scriptures, but many professed evangelical Christians are. Find a translation that you can understand and perhaps a reliable commentary (I recommend starting with Matthew Henry) to help you through tricky verses and to enrich your study. Then read it, study it, and fall in love with it.
Biblical Perspicuity
What do we mean when we speak of the Perspicuity of Scripture?
While there are certainly many areas of scripture that are difficult to interpret and to understand, given that the Bible was given to all people throughout history, not to just a select few, and given that the Bible was given for the edification of people of every age and level of intelligence and education, not just those trained as theologians, in matters of salvation, the scriptures are clear enough that all can understand what God has communicated, particularly with respect to the question of salvation. The church fell into grave error in the medieval period when it argued that the scriptures were too difficult for any but the clergy to understand and thus restricted the Bible into the hands of the educated elite of the church. This is contrary to the Biblical testimony of the early church, where the gospel was proclaimed and the command to study scripture was given to all believers. The Bible is clear on the question of what sin is, the fallen state of man, the reality that man needs a redeemer, the fact that Jesus came and paid the penalty for sin for those who come to him in faith, and that if we yearn for redemption, we must flee to Christ. The Bible is also clear in terms of the explanation of what the life of the believer should look like in terms of moral behavior and good works. These things, even a young child or one with the least amount of education can understand and thus the scriptures should be read and studied by all who call themselves believers in Jesus Christ. This does not ignore that there are difficult passages of scripture; such passages should be labored over and assistance sought from reliable theologians and commentaries should be sought, but the last thing one should do is to flee from them.
What then do we mean that the Bible is infallible and inerrant?
What do we mean when we state that the Bible is infallible as well as being inerrant?
As discussed above, the Bible is inerrant, or, in other words, without error. The idea of infallibility takes the premise one step further. When we say that the Bible is infallible, we say that the Bible is incapable of making mistakes, or in practical terms, that the Bible is incapable of leading the believer into error. This is not to say that there have never been students of the Bible that have drifted into error, indeed, the history of the church is filled with those who have done just that. Yet, the reason that they drifted into error is not because they were misled by scripture, but it was because their own sin got in the way of the proper interpretation of scripture. To understand scripture fully, it must be approached in faith and with respect for what it is, and thus guided by the Holy Spirit for its interpretation. Many non-believers have spent their lives studying the Bible and have often provided valuable insights into the text, but they eventually fall into error because they do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ, and as a result, their minds are not illumined by the Holy Spirit. Yet, for those who are born again believers, those who are trusting in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, prayerful study and application of the scriptures will not lead them into error.
In addition, the scriptures are infallible in teaching the way by which men and women must be saved. To put it another way, it is through the writings of scripture, being taught and proclaimed, that people come to know the beauty of Jesus and to experience the wonders of salvation that Jesus wrought. So important was this idea that the Apostle Paul wrote the following words:
Therefore, how are they to call on him of whom they have not believed? And how can they to believe in whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without one preaching? And how can they preach if they have not been sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of the one who proclaims the good news!” But they have not all heard the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what they heard from us?” Therefore, faith comes out of hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:14-17)
Thus, the very content of our proclamation of the gospel and of our preaching in the church must always be God’s word. The thoughts and ideas of the pastor can lead one to fall, but God’s word is incapable of doing just that.
There have been different approaches to this concept in the history of the church. The Eastern Orthodox church has largely held that since the early Christian councils were so scripturally based, said councils should be considered to be infallible as well as the scriptures. The difficulty with this view is that there have been many books, creeds, and confessional texts that are deeply based in scripture, but when one argues that infallibility extends from scripture to those writings based on scripture, one enters into subjectivity in terms of what constitutes a document based on scripture. Such a view also places a great deal of weight upon the interpretation of scripture and not upon the scriptures themselves. Invariably, this view will lead you into theological error and toward crediting the minds and the pens of men with honor that God never intended that they be given. Such a position elevates the writings of these church councils to the level of scripture as well, and the dangers of that matter have already been touched upon. While there are many wonderful texts that have been written to guide our studies, we should always be cognizant that they have been written by men and not by God.
The Roman Catholic church has taken a different approach to this as well. They have held that the Pope, as “Christ’s Vicar” on earth is preserved by God from entering into error on matters of the church, faith, and morality. He is said to demonstrate that infallibility when he speaks from “Peter’s Chair,” properly known as speaking ex cathedra. This is built on the assumption that Peter was the first Pope of the church and that through the process of a succession of Popes, the Apostolic authority of Peter was handed down from generation to generation. Again, this makes the error of assuming that men are incapable of failing, something all sinful men can do, no matter the character of the individual. It is only God who is infallible and thus the infallibility of God extends to his divine word alone, not to the words of men. What we do with that word is what opens us up to error.
To what extent does inerrancy extend?
To what extent is the Bible inspired and thus inerrant? Does the inspiration extend only to the ideas conveyed or to the very words of scripture?
A debate that has been taking place between the Orthodox branches in the church and what is normally called the Neo-Orthodox movement, is over the question of the extent of revelational authority. Another way of phrasing the question is, “Is the Bible the word of God or does the Bible contain the word of God?” This presents a contrast between a view of the inspiration of scripture and the view of the plenary inspiration of scripture.
The Neo-Orthodox movement in the church has held that it is not the words of scripture that contain the inspiration of God, but it is that when those words find themselves to rest upon the ears and the heart of a believer, then, and only then, genuine inspiration takes place. This allows the Neo-Orthodox theologian to not get very hung up by source critical arguments because, after all, it is not the words of scripture that are important; rather, it is the effect that those words have on the believing heart that is important. As one can see, this scheme of understanding revelation becomes extremely subjective and robs the text of any genuine content, for content, according to this view, comes from the hearer’s interpretation of the words. Exegetical theology also becomes nearly impossible, for exegesis becomes about “what this text means to me…” instead of what this text actually says. And though this position can be attributed to Neo-Orthodoxy today, it is not a new sin, but one that can be traced all of the way back to Adam and Eve who doubted God’s word that they would die if they ate of the forbidden fruit.
In response to this, the Orthodox theologians have taken a strong stand on the plenary (or complete) inspiration of scripture. In other words, every single word of scripture is a result of the inspiration of God. Every noun, every verb, ever preposition, every adjective, every pronoun, ever article is a result of the breathing out of God and thus carries with it the full authority of God himself. This view holds that meaning comes from within the text and not from within the hearer. This view holds that God is a rational and intentional God and that as a result, when he rationally and intentionally communicates with his people, he has a plain and intended purpose and meaning behind what was said. This view holds that the very statements of scripture contain propositional truth given to God’s people so that we might know him and glorify him with our lives. This view holds that while we see the stylistic fingerprint of the human authors within each text, that it is God who is writing through them, using all of their gifts and talents to produce his word, and that word—every word of it—is true and perfectly given and preserved by the Holy Spirit.
There are many in the post-modern world that would contend that words in themselves contain no meaning. They would continue that words are nothing but culturally formatted symbols with which we communicate and that it is the context in which language is used that conveys meaning. On one level, there is a degree of truth to this argument. We have already spoken of the dynamic nature of language as it is used by a culture. Many of our words carry with them very different meanings depending on the context in which they are found. For example, depending on the context, the word “dope” in English could refer to illegal drugs, to someone who is foolish or not intelligent, to gossip that is shared, to a form of varnish used on aircraft, or to lubricant that is used as a sealant. Context, then determines which form of the word you are using. This being said, words in a culture do have a fixed and limited set of meanings. Dope does not also mean dog, cat, and grocery cart; it cannot mean anything we want it to mean. If it could, then language would become meaningless, for “Dope dope doped dope” could then mean, “I need you to pick up a gallon of milk at the grocery store.” If such use of language were ever to become the case, then, as a culture, we would be returned to the state people found themselves in at the Tower of Babble, when God confused the languages. Culture cannot exist and reproduce itself if language is rendered meaningless.
Yet, even the post-modern thinker, when pressed on the issue, would assert that language does contain meaning, though it pains them to do so. Post-modern thinkers write books for people to read. Certainly in writing a book, the post-modern thinker expects people to understand what he is trying to teach. When a post-modern thinker goes to the bank and asks that his paycheck be deposited in his checking account, certainly he expects the teller to understand what he is saying and he trusts that the money will actually go into his account rather than in some random account. When the post-modern thinker goes to the emergency room in agony because he has kidney stones, when he communicates this to the doctor, he does not expect the doctor to start by examining his knees. When the post-modern thinker goes to a restaurant and orders an expensive meal, the post-modern thinker expects to be served the meal he ordered. Thus words have meanings and any rational person is forced to admit such by the way they use their words in practical situations. And, as God is a rational God, the words that God speaks in scripture are spoken with an expectation that they be understood—and that they be obeyed!
It is important to note that scripture was not given as dictation, squelching the various personalities through whom God wrote. We see stylistic language, artistic structure of texts, and themes that run through the writings of given authors, showing us something of the human nature of the Bible. Exodus 4:14-17 records the calling of Aaron to be Moses’ prophet (also see Exodus 7:1). God would tell Moses what to say, Moses would tell Aaron what to say and Aaron would speak it. The words that the prophet speaks belong to God (or in Aaron’s case, Moses), but the mannerisms, inflections of speech, and personality belong to the prophet. So too with scripture—the words belong to God, but the structure and personality of the writings belong to the prophetic or Apostolic author.
It is worth emphasizing here that only the Orthodox view of plenary inspiration preserves the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture. When the meaning of scripture becomes subjective, the truth of scripture becomes subjective as well. In addition, scripture itself claims to be the word of God, not just to contain God’s word. As the scriptures claim to be inspired in a plenary sense, to claim otherwise is to invalidate the value of scripture as a whole, suggesting that it is nothing more than a book of lies.
To what extent does Biblical infallibility extend?
If the Bible is incapable of error, to what extent does that infallibility extend, just to theological matters or to all maters to which it speaks?
We have already touched on this idea but it bears repeating. Given that the Bible is written by God, it is impossible for the text to be in error. God is omniscient and as he is the author of the Bible, the Bible reflects his omniscience in all areas. This means that the Bible is inerrant in the history of which it speaks, of the geography of which it speaks, of the science of which it speaks, and of real existence of the miraculous deeds that it records. It is our obligation, when our own understanding seems to contradict the revelation of scripture, to submit our understanding to the revelation that is given. Anything that compromises this view accuses God of being untruthful in his revelation of all things or it denies that scripture is divine revelation altogether and accuses its authors of being charlatans and frauds in the name of religion.
The Preacher's Study 