Tag Archives: Biblical interpretation

Those pesky chapter numbers!

1 Reply

01_Ge_08_13_RGOK, I let it happen again. Or, at least, I think I did. I let one of those big numbers printed in between the words of my Bible get in the way of my seeing something that’s obvious in the text.

It’s not a major theological point. But it’s worth looking at.

You remember when Noah got off the ark. After months of listening to animals, smelling animals, dealing with animals, Noah finally did what he’d been wanting to do. He took his knife to them.

Not just one animal. A bunch of them. The Bible says, “Noah built an altar to the LORD and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.” (Genesis 8:20)

Then the chapter ends with God promising never to destroy the earth. The rainbow is given as a sign of that.

Then we get that big number 9. New chapter. New context, right? Another day maybe. Another setting.

I don’t think so. What God says about Noah being allowed to eat meat is directly related to the fact that Noah has just butchered a bunch of animals and has them cooking on an altar behind him. (If you haven’t read John Mark Hicks’ Come to the Table, I highly recommend it. He is the one that showed me the obvious: many sacrifices in the Old Testament were designed as a fellowship meal between man and God.)

God is saying, “That sacrifice you made… eat any of it that you wish.* And feel free to do so in the future.”

*yes, I know, with certain guidelines about not eating blood, etc.

And I never caught that simple fact because I let the chapter number get in the way.

Graphic courtesy of Sweet Publishing
Purchasing via the referenced link generates revenue for this blog

The innovation that is the printed Bible

12 Replies

BibleThere was an article that made the rounds the last few weeks, talking about the importance of preachers carrying a traditionally-bound Bible into the pulpit instead of using an electronic version. Several of the arguments centered around the need for people to study out of a “normal” Bible.

I tend to disagree. I think we face some problems in the church because we’ve come to see the Bible in this format as normal. We kind of picture Paul whipping out his Leather study Bible and saying to the people in Troas, “Let’s turn to Romans chapter 8.”

The Mormons believe that Joseph Smith received the complete book of Mormon (and other works) and had divine guidance in translating the material. It’s a book written as a book and designed to be read as a book.

The Bible isn’t like that. It wasn’t written as one book; it was written as dozens of books. It wasn’t written to be read per se; it was written to be heard. The presupposition wasn’t that each church member would have his own copy to study from; it was assumed that the church would gather, hear Scripture read aloud, and discuss the meaning of the text.

What happens when we assume that the Bible has always been around in the form that it’s been in?

  • We assume that we can interpret Matthew based on Acts and Ephesians (to choose some books at random). We’re much safer in using Old Testament books to help us understand Matthew. We can’t assume that Matthew expected his readers to have access to other New Testament writings nor did he necessarily think they had received all the teachings contained in those books.
  • We let chapter and verse numbering get in the way, as well as headings that have been included in most printed Bibles. These study aids can be a great help, but they can get in the way at times, interrupting the natural flow of a biblical writer’s arguments.
  • We make individual Bible study the norm rather than group Bible study. I’m definitely in favor of personal Bible study; I do a radio program in Spanish called “Read The Bible,” seeking to help people read and study the Word of God. But I think we’ve forgotten that the Bible was designed to be a community book, shared and interpreted by the body of Christ.
  • We forget to hear the Word. Reading leads us to nitpick over jots and tittles; we need to be sure that we hear the Bible in a broader way.

What do you think?

photo courtesy of MorgueFile.com

Nailed To The Cross

Leave a reply

“And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Colossians 2:13–14)

This has been one of the classic verses used against the Old Testament. I’ve mentioned before one of the horrible moments in my ministry, when one young man referred to the Psalms during a heated discussion at a men’s meeting. One older man, who had been in ministry for over 30 years, interrupted him, saying, “My Bible says that was nailed to the cross.”

Really? The Psalms were nailed to the cross? Is that what Colossians says?

Well… no, not at all. What was nailed to the cross?

The King James says “the handwriting of ordinances.” The word “handwriting” is cheirograph in Greek. That word appears nowhere else in the New Testament. However, the word is seen in some writings found in Egypt. In those writings, the word referred to an I.O.U., a record of debt. That reading makes sense in this context.

In an article about this verse, Bobby Valentine notes:

In Jewish apocalyptic there was an idea that there existed a book of records that kept track of our evil deeds. This book, like the mortgage (an I.O.U.) at the bank, provided powerful leverage with less than friendly spirit beings called principalities, powers, angels and the like. This book is mentioned often in Jewish literature of the time (1 Enoch 89.61-64; 108.7; Testament of Abraham 12.7-18; 13.9-14; and many other places). Enoch, for example, tells how he heard the words “write down every destruction {sin} … so that this may become testimony for me against them.” We have an IOU that stands against us and that IOU is our own sin debt. It is that sin that the malignant powers hold over us.

The translators of the ESV understood this passage to refer to a record of debt. They phrased it:

“And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” (Colossians 2:13–14)

But what if Paul were referring to the Law here? That doesn’t seem to fit with other passages where Paul quotes the Law as authoritative, but it is a possibility.

The removal of the Law from a position of opposition to Christians doesn’t mean that every writing before the cross loses validity for Christians. We have to remember that God’s Word is not merely a law book; it is a living, sacred document which teaches us about the nature of God and the way God’s people should live. I’m not talking the plan of salvation; I’m talking about sanctification.

It’s true that we are no longer under the Law of Moses. We no longer offer sacrifices. We await the eternal sabbath rather than keeping a weekly one. Our hope for salvation comes through Jesus and his sacrifice, not through law keeping.

That doesn’t mean that the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah suddenly cease to be God’s Word. That doesn’t mean that the lessons we learn from David and Moses and Abraham no longer hold truth. The Psalms still speak volumes about the nature of God and his creation.

It’s easy to confuse the Old Law with the writings we call the Old Testament. (remember that the term “Old Testament” wasn’t used to refer to Scripture until well into the second century) The Jews referred to the first five books of the Bible as the Law. If Paul really says that “the Law” is nailed to the cross, he is only referring to those books! And even at that, who among us thinks that the creation story was against us and needed to be nailed to the cross? Can anyone read Paul and think that he felt a need to nail Abraham’s story to the cross? Or the story of the exodus?

We need to read Colossians 2 as a celebration of Christ’s victory, not a proof text for dispensationalism. Eugene Peterson’s translation in The Message can help us capture that feeling:

“Think of it! All sins forgiven, the slate whiped clean, that old arrest warrant canceled and nailed to Christ’s Cross. He stripped all the spiritual tyrants in the universe of their sham authority at the Cross and marched them naked through the streets.”

Dividing The Word

2 Replies

saw“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (KJV).

This verse gets used a lot to say that we need to know how to divide God’s Word into Old and New Testaments. I’ve even seen this verse used in studies in Spanish, even though the concept of “dividing” isn’t in the Spanish translations!

Paul uses a word in this verse that isn’t used anywhere else in the New Testament. It’s a Greek word: orthotomeo. It literally means to cut straight, which explains the King James translation of the term. Remember, though, that the literal translation of a word isn’t always the way it was used. That is, we talk about a man being a straight shooter, even if he’s a pacifist. We can have a workout without ever going outside.

In common Greek usage, the word came to mean to do something correctly. Vine’s Expository Dictionary says “The meaning passed from the idea of cutting or dividing, to the more general sense of rightly dealing with a thing. What is intended here is not dividing Scripture from Scripture, but teaching Scripture accurately” [p. 327]. It often was used in reference to making a straight road; that’s the usage in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. We find orthotomeo in Proverbs 3:6 and 11:5, referring to straight paths.

Al Maxey wrote an excellent article on this verse. There he listed some of the different translations:

  1. King James Version — rightly dividing the word of truth.
  2. New King James Version — rightly dividing the word of truth.
  3. American Standard Version — handling aright the word of truth.
  4. New American Standard Bible — handling accurately the word of truth.
  5. New International Version — who correctly handles the word of truth.
  6. English Standard Version — rightly handling the word of truth.
  7. Holman Christian Standard Bible — correctly teaching the word of truth.
  8. The Message — laying out the truth plain and simple.
  9. Lamsa’s Translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta — one who preaches straightforwardly the word of truth.
  10. New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition — following a straight course in preaching the truth.
  11. New English Bible — be straightforward in your proclamation of the truth.
  12. The New Jerusalem Bible — who keeps the message of truth on a straight path.
  13. Hugo McCord’s NT Translation of the Everlasting Gospel — interpreting correctly the message of truth.
  14. Charles B. Williams’ NT in the Language of the People — who properly presents the message of truth.
  15. J. B. Phillips’ NT in Modern English — who knows how to use the word of truth to the best advantage.
  16. Contemporary English Version — who teaches only the true message.
  17. New World Translation — handling the word of the truth aright.
  18. Revised Standard Version — rightly handling the word of truth.
  19. New Living Translation — who correctly explains the word of truth.
  20. Darby Translation — cutting in a straight line the word of truth.
  21. Lexham English Bible — guiding the word of truth along a straight path.

Maxey also refers to some of the resource books on the matter:

The noted Greek scholar, Dr. Marvin Vincent, wrote, “The thought is that the minister of the gospel is to present the truth rightly, not abridging it, not handling it as a charlatan, not making it a matter of wordy strife, but treating it honestly and fully, in a straightforward manner” [Vincent’s Word Studies, e-Sword]. Albert Barnes (1798-1870) suggests Paul is instructing Timothy to “rightfully and skillfully teach the word of truth” [Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, e-Sword]. Dr. Henry Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the NT states that in 2 Tim. 2:15 this word means “to teach the truth correctly and directly” [p. 453]. “The context suggests that Paul is warning against taking the devious paths of deceiving interpretations” when teaching others God’s Truth [The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 11, p. 402]. Don’t wander away from Truth; stay on course with Truth; don’t take the detours of human speculation. Sophocles, a Greek writer, used this term to mean: “expound soundly” [Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies from the Greek New Testament, vol. 2, The Pastoral Epistles, p. 135].

We definitely need to know how to correctly handle the Word of God. We even need to know how to tell the difference between the covenant with Israel and the new covenant that Jesus established. But we don’t need to divide the Word, not if it means neglecting inspired words of God.

photo courtesy of MorgueFile.com

Deep answers to simple questions

7 Replies

adult, child with bibleI was given a couple of articles last week by one of our members. He is concerned about some of what he’s seeing during the Lord’s Supper, so in an honest attempt to help, he brought in these articles.

I don’t like them a bit. To be honest, I saw the title of the journal they were from, and I went in with a bad attitude. I read through them, but was quickly turned off. I’ve grown tired of piecemeal theology, which seeks to find words in the Bible that say what they want said rather than trying to figure out what a passage of Scripture is actually saying.

My dilemma was (and is) how do you explain that to the average church member? How do you show them that an author’s entire approach to Scripture is wrong? The man made points, with verses to back them up. To the member’s eye, it was very biblical. To my eye, it was very human and bordering on biblical malpractice.

I don’t want to come to the “well, you just wouldn’t understand” point in talking with people about the Bible. Yet I find that many biblical questions can’t be adequately answered by quoting a pair of Bible verses. I want themes and large principles. I want a passage of Scripture that is actually addressing that topic. If there isn’t one, then you’re going to have to show me how what you’re saying fits into the overriding story of Scripture. And that’s hard to do in an elevator speech.

It’s much easier to say, “Paul told the Corinthians to lay by in store every first day of the week, so that means we should meet on Sundays and have a collection.” That’s a concrete answer that people understand. It’s harder to look at principal themes of the Bible to determine how often to meet and what to do when we meet.

So much comes down to the way we view Scripture and what we consider to be an appropriate use of Scripture. Any suggestions on how to communicate such things in a way that people can understand? How do we lead people down a road that’s taken us years to travel? Should we even try?