Category: Bible

  • Truth Project 4: Theology (Who is God?)

    In this fourth Truth Project tour, Del shares that this is his favorite, and that he wishes he could do it first. The reason for doing it fourth is that in our culture, we need to take care of other things first. The only way that we can begin to answer the question, “Who is God?” is that he has revealed himself to us through his word.

    In addition to “Who is God?”, Del looks at another question: “What is eternal life?” This he answers from John 17:1-3, “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” This is not just knowledge of God, but relationship with God.

    Del then talks about his own journey of increasing knowledge of God through study of God’s various names. One example that he gives is El Qanna, the Hebrew word for “a jealous God.” God’s jealousy is not the same as our jealousy, however; God’s jealousy is zeal that arises when sin threatens a relationship. Names mean something, says Del. And this is what transforms us, so “should we be surprised that it is here we find the focus of the attack?” That is, God’s nature is being attacked in our culture, as well as God’s Word (i.e., the Bible). Del takes the rest of the tour to address attacks on the latter. He lists various people who have attacked the Bible, including Voltaire, Robert Ingersoll and the Jesus Seminar – which concluded that 82% of the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible were not really spoken by him.

    Del’s final segment for this tour was relating a personal crisis that he had in relation to the trustworthiness of the Bible. He was looking at the dates that the kings of Israel and Judah ruled, and saw an apparent contradiction between 2 Kings 8:16 and 2 Kings 1:17. It looked like the Bible contradicted itself when it talked about the beginnings of the reigns of Joram and Jehoram. After reading a book by Edwin Thiele called The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, he concluded that the apparent contradiction was only apparent because Judah and Israel used different dating systems. He challenges his listeners to really believe that the Bible is God’s Word.

    I admire Del’s willingness to tackle such a large subject in such a short amount of time. I agree with him that the only reason we can begin to know who God is is that he has chosen to reveal himself. I agree that knowledge of God is not just about intellectual knowledge, but it is about an intimate relationship. I agree with him that names mean something. I agree that God’s character and the Bible are being attacked in our culture, and that this has been going on for a long time. I liked his example of Joram and Jehoram, and I think it’s neat that studying the text in context takes away the seeming contradiction.

    I was uneasy, however, at the end of this example of Joram and Jehoram, when Del concluded, “Hallelujah, you can trust the Bible.” It’s not that I don’t think the Bible can be trusted, but I worry whether, based on Del’s example, people will trust in the Bible based on their own ability to explain it. I wish that Del had used as another example a passage that Christians disagree on or are unsure about. This, it seems to me, would be an equally good teaching moment. It would show the audience that we can still trust God’s ability to speak through the Bible even if we can’t always trust our own ability to explain it precisely.

    Also, I hate to bring this up again, but I chafed at the word “objective” when it was mentioned during this tour. This time, Del described relationship with God as objective. How, I wondered, could a relationship be objective? It seems that Del is trying to use “objective” as a synonym for “real,” which is confusing – and not the case.

  • Truth Project 3: Anthropology (Who is Man?)

    This week, Del looks at the question of who man is, and weighs the answer Christians give against the answer secularists give. The answers given to this question directly affect the question of why there is evil. Del claims that Christians have a lot of answers to this question whereas the world does not.

    First Del looks at the biblical view of man (meaning both men and women), saying that it teaches man is both body and spirit, created in the image of God. The Bible also says that man has fallen from his original state by rebelling against God. There is a “cosmic battle” within man, between who we were meant to be and who we are. What man needs, then, is divine grace and redemption. God must save us.

    By contrast, our culture assumes that man is purely physical, is the product of impersonal forces, and is basically good. His need is not for redemption (since he is good, there is no need to be redeemed), but self-actualization.

    Del examines the implications of this philosophy, and concludes that since it is dependent on impersonal physical forces alone, it leads to a lack of free will and a lack of ultimate meaning in life. It also leads to a lack of differentiation between humans and animals. He quotes Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) as saying, “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”

    These differences play out in how people on each side view evil. For the person with a biblical worldview, evil comes from man’s fallen nature. For the secularist, evil does not come from human nature but from society and culture. According to Del, the question must then be asked, “Who makes society? Isn’t it human beings?” In the end, if man is basically good, there is no way to explain why evil exists. Then the question to the secularist can be pressed even further: “Why does evil bother you?” “Why do you feel bad about evil?” “Isn’t evil, as you describe it, simply the natural outworking of the evolutionary process?”

    Del closes with an interview with Theodore Dalrymple, who wrote a book called Life at the Bottom which chronicles the sad results of lives oriented around fulfilling our desires and putting ourselves at the center of our existence. Dalrymple states, “You don’t need to find yourself; you need to lose yourself.”

    In my view, this is the strongest “tour” so far. Del makes some very good points about the logical conclusions of a secular or naturalist view of humans, and illustrates a good evangelistic technique in pressing the secularist to come to terms with the deterministic, and frankly hopeless, conclusions of his or her philosophy. For the Christians in the audience, it represents a challenge to orient our lives with God at the center rather than our own selves and desires.

  • Numbers 21:4-9 – Looking for Life

    Last weekend, Mary and I went down to Clear Lake, WA for me to preach at Community Covenant Church of Clear Lake. I had met the pastor there back in December at a gathering of local Covenant, and he sent out a general request for people to fill his pulpit during the month of March while he took some time off preaching. I responded, asked him what text he had planned on preaching from before he decided to take time off, and he said Numbers 21:4-9, the story of the brazen serpent in the wilderness.

    What follows is not the full manuscript. I’m still working out what feels most comfortable for me in sermon preparation, and while it worked for a while for me to write a full manuscript and then condense it into an outline, this time I just did a detailed outline.

    Numbers 21:4-9 – “Looking for Life”

    Introduction: Snakes and humans have always had a strained relationship. Snakes are always portrayed in movies and popular culture as villains. Today we’re going to talk about one snake that wasn’t a villain. We’re going to go through this passage, and then I’ll close with three areas of application.

    “From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom; but the people became impatient on the way.”

    verse 4 and Background: The Israelites have come out of Egypt, met God at Sinai, sent scouts into the land, didn’t trust God, and were condemned to wander. They wander, Moses and Aaron make a big mistake and are condemned in ch. 20, Miriam and Aaron die (20:22-29), and they finally start to move toward the promised land. Then they are told by the Edomites that they can’t pass through, and they have to go toward the Red Sea. After wandering in the desert for 40 years, they’re finally starting to move. Now they’re backtracking (20:14-21), and they’re starting to grumble. Again.
    The word “Impatient” literally means “short.”

    “The people spoke against God and against Moses, ‘Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we detest this miserable food.’”

    verse 5: Israelites had previously complained (in 14:2ff, 20:3-5). They had also previously complained about the manna (Num 11). This is the last time they did it.
    1. Grumbling is a sign of the passive, inactive bystander. Active people are too busy to grumble. (R. Bewes)
    2. Grumbling affects the way we see reality. When we grumble, we aren’t seeing things clearly. The Israelites said “there is no food,” but clearly there was food every day. It was miraculous food that God provided them with day after day, but they couldn’t see it for what it was because they had already decided to grumble and feel sorry for themselves.

    “Then the Lord sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many Israelites died.”

    verse 6: Some translations say “poisonous,” and other more literal translations say “fiery.” Some commentators think that this is referring to literal fire, but most believe that “fiery” is a reference to the effect of the venom.
    The grumbling does not lead to provision of food and water, as it had previously, and we don’t hear about Moses interceding with God. What we hear about is judgment for their grumbling.

    “The people came to Moses and said, ‘We have sinned by speaking against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord to take away the serpents from us.’ So Moses prayed for the people.”

    verse 7: The people, realizing their sin, ask Moses to pray for the Lord to take away the snakes. The Israelites are actually beginning to show some humility and responsibility.

    “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.”

    verse 8: God didn’t take away the threat, like the Israelites asked him to, and like he did earlier (Num. 11:1-3, with the fire consuming the edges of the camp, and 12:10, with Miriam’s leprosy).
    Why? Maybe because in previous episodes, the Israelite repentance has been short-lived. The Israelites have been complaining since leaving Egypt, and every time that God has provided for them, they just went back to complaining.
    This time, he doesn’t take away the threat, he provides a mode of healing. There seem to be echoes here of 2 Corinthians 12, where Paul asks God three times to take away his “thorn in the flesh.” Instead of taking it away, God tells him, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.”
    How many times do we ask for the same thing? We want God to take away the thing that gives us pain. Sometimes he does. But sometimes he has a different purpose, and we have to trust him. Joni Eareckson Tada broke her neck in a diving accident when she was 17 and was paralyzed from the chest down. At first, she hated her disability, she hated her wheelchair. But eventually, she came to believe that it was part of God’s plan for her. She has used her disability to become an advocate for others with disabilities. In one of her books she prays, “I know I wouldn’t know you … I wouldn’t love and trust you … were it not for this wheelchair.” We so often pray for God to just take away the things that threaten us and make us afraid. Sometimes God does take those things away, but other times he doesn’t take the danger away but instead provides a way to handle suffering.

    “So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.”

    verse 9: Moses makes a bronze serpent, and people look at it and are healed. How could looking at a snake heal somebody? We live in the 21st century. We know about medicine, and we know that this is not the way it works – even if a snake on a pole is the symbol of medicine (the Rod of Asclepius).
    But it isn’t the snake on the pole that saves people. It is the faith in the one behind it that saves. This isn’t some magic snake. The only reason it had power is that God chose it as his way of healing. God does this throughout Scripture. He asks people to do things they think are silly because he wants people to put their trust in him.
    Looking is the same as believing and committing. When they looked at the snake, they believed that the Lord would heal them, and the Lord kept his promise.

    2 Kings 18:4: The Israelites forgot this when King Hezekiah had to destroy the snake because the people were treating it like an idol: “He broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it; it was called Nehushtan.” (“piece of brass”)
    The Israelites forgot that God was behind the serpent, and thought that in itself the serpent was magical. This is a natural tendency that persists throughout history. People keep looking for a silver bullet. This is why relics were so important in the Middle Ages. This is why books like “The Secret” are popular even today. We do this because putting our trust in something magical, or even in our own efforts, is easy, but putting our trust in God is hard.

    For those of us who live after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, even after all this the brazen serpent may still seem like it’s far away and we can’t relate to it. Thankfully for us, Jesus refers to this story and shows us how to relate to it.

    John 3:14-15: “And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”

    Like the serpent, Jesus on the cross was the embodiment of both the curse and forgiveness of the curse. Snakes were the curse, and a snake was put up on a pole for all to see. Sin is our problem, and sin is put up on the cross for all to see. 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” The cross is a visible sign of human failure, but also of God’s love. We look to an instrument of humiliation and death for a cure for our own humiliation and death.
    Jesus’ being “lifted up” has a double meaning. First, he was literally lifted up from the ground. Second, he was exalted. Not afterwards, but while he was on the cross. This doesn’t make sense to the world. Deut. 21:23 says that anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse.
    Just like the serpent on a pole, there isn’t anything special about a man hanging on a cross. On the same day that Jesus died, two criminals were crucified with him. When Jews of that day looked at Jesus on the cross, they saw a blasphemer. When Romans of that day looked at Jesus on the cross, they saw a rebel and an insurrectionist. When non-Christians today look at Jesus on the cross, they see a good teacher, and they think it’s a shame that he had to die. But when Christians look at Jesus on the cross, they see something different. Just like the serpent on a pole, God decided that a man on a cross would be the means he would use to forgive and give life to people. It may seem silly to think that just looking and believing would give us life. But God works in the things we think are silly and foolish and humiliating.

    3 applications:

    Don’t grumble; look to God – Regardless of the cause of your suffering, grumbling is not the response that God wants from you. Phil 2:14 says “Do everything without complaining or arguing.” If you complain, you’re going to end up focused on yourself and will miss out on what God wants to show you in your circumstances. Also, grumbling becomes a lifestyle.

    Look to God and not just the snake – Stay focused on God. Sometimes Christians get distracted by good things. In the Middle Ages, it was things like relics from saints. Today, it might be 7 steps to a happier life, or giving money or time to a ministry so God will bless us, or trying to get rid of sin on our own just by trying harder. These things aren’t bad, but if we look to them instead of the Cross, they’re not going to give us life. This is always a problem. John Calvin said the human heart is an idol factory. Every generation of God’s people has its own set of distractions that will pull it away from God. But we must look to the Cross.

    Look to God in Jesus and believe – If you are not a Christian, I ask you to believe that he can forgive you and give you life, and accept that forgiveness and life from him. Even if you are a Christian, you may feel that there is some area of your life that God couldn’t possibly want to forgive you for. Or you may think that Jesus died on the cross for your sins, but this really doesn’t affect your life from day to day. I ask you to look to Jesus on the cross, and believe that he is there because he loves you and wants you to be with him. Believe that he, like that snake, was lifted up to give you life, and accept that life from him. Trust him with your life, and he will take away the poisonous snakebite of sin that affects us all.

  • Truth Project 1: Veritology (What is Truth?)

    There has been an unusually slow trickle of posts lately, for which I do not apologize. Real-life obligations trump blogligations for me, and there has been a lot going on in real life lately. But that said, let me try to catch up on this Truth Project review thing.

    On March 4 we watched the first Truth Project DVD at our church, and then split up into small groups to discuss it. My group was one of the smaller ones, with about eight people in it, with two more to join us when they return from out of town.

    The first DVD is called “Veritology: What is Truth?” Veritology is not a word that can be found in the dictionary; it’s a combination of the Latin word for truth, “veritas,” and the suffix “-ology” The viewer is introduced to Del Tackett, the presenter, who delivers the lesson in a lecture-style format in front of a group of students.

    The point of this “tour,” as Tackett calls it – the whole series – is to “gaze upon the face of God.” Tackett is not interested in the participant filling up his or her notebook with useful stuff, but wants total transformation for the viewer. He wants us to see Christianity as an all-encompassing worldview – a way of seeing all of life.

    After giving a brief introduction, Tackett asks his students why Jesus came into the world. After answering “no” to several suggestions (“to redeem us,” “to fulfill prophecies,” “to save the world,” etc.), he refers us to John 18:37, where Jesus says to Pontius Pilate, “For this reason I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth.” Tackett then proceeds to show how important truth is to Jesus and to the biblical writers by pointing out several verses in which “truth” is mentioned. A few examples are John 1:17 (“For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”), John 14:6 (“Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”) and I Timothy 2:3-4 (“This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”).

    Tackett then asks how people react to the truth, and the answer is that often they “turn aside to myths,” (2 Tim. 4:4), “suppress the truth” (Rom. 1:18), “distort the truth” (Acts 20:30) and “exchange the truth of God for a lie” (Rom. 1:25). Jesus said that he came to testify to the truth when he was on trial. The real trial, Tackett says, is truth vs. lie. There is a “cosmic battle” between truth and reality, on the one side, and lies and illusions on the other. Sin is deceitful (Rom. 7:11; 2 Thess. 2:10; Eph. 4:22; Heb. 3:13) and takes people captive (2 Tim. 2:24-26). There is a battle between truth and lies, and Tackett calls this a “battle of worldviews.” Today’s world is still struggling to answer Pilate’s question, “What is truth?” – and this question, according to Tackett, could well be the most important question that we and our culture must answer.

    Tackett then enlists the help of Ravi Zacharias, Os Guinness and R.C. Sproul to define truth. He also enlists the help of the 1828 edition of Webster’s Dictionary, which defines truth as “conformity to fact or reality.” He alters this slightly to say that truth IS reality. By contrast, insanity is losing touch with reality and believing that lies are real. We all suffer, Tackett says, from common insanity: losing touch with reality. Our actions, Tackett says, reflect what we believe to be really real, and often we don’t act on what we profess to be real. The question Tackett leaves us with is, “Do you believe that what you believe is really real?”

    Positively, I thought that first, the DVD is extraordinarily well-presented. Focus on the Family has done a great job in packaging this product. Tackett is a winsome, likable presenter, and you get the sense in this first tour that he deeply cares for people, both Christians and non-Christians.

    Second, I think that Tackett presents his case very well. He relies heavily on Scripture for his discussion of truth, which is important when dealing with Christians, the intended audience. He frames the conflict that we face in our own lives, of truth vs. lie and reality vs. illusion, in a compelling way. Most of what Tackett says I don’t have any problem with at all.

    However, there are a few things about the first tour that rubbed me the wrong way. First, one of the earliest slides that Tackett presents is a compass. On the four ends of the compass are: Truth to the north, God to the east, Social Order to the south, and Man to the west. I found myself chafing against the idea that Truth is due north – it’s what we use to orient ourselves – and God is at another point of the compass.

    Second, I wasn’t sure I liked how Tackett responded to the suggestions of his students on why Jesus came into the world. I don’t think he was trying to be mean or dismissive, but nevertheless it came across that way. Perhaps, I thought when I watched it, this is because it is not really a classroom. Or rather, it is and it isn’t. It is a classroom, but it is also a recorded DVD lesson, and I’m sure Tackett had to move along with the lesson in order to keep it snappy and interesting. I’d like to think that if it really were a classroom, he would have come off as being less dismissive.

    Third, Tackett says that

    the truth claims of God are consistent and logical. They make sense. They work. And even in a fallen world, when we follow them, they lead to peace and prosperity and happiness.

    I think that following Jesus is the best thing we humans can do, but I would question whether this inevitably leads to “peace and prosperity and happiness.” It doesn’t seem to me that Jesus promised peace and prosperity and happiness in this world. If anything, he promised persecution to his followers (John 15:20, 16:33).

    Fourth, he states in the course of his lecture, “We think that postmodernism is so new. It’s not new at all! It’s the same old lie!” The problem that I have with this is that he has not given any indication of what he means when he says “postmodernism.” Making statements like this one, without defining terms, is bound to generate misunderstanding. I suspect that when Tackett says “postmodernism,” he means “relativism.” There are problems with equating postmodernism with relativism, but it would be helpful if he would at least make clear what he means.

    Finally, I agree with Tackett that truth is important, and I know that Jesus said he came into the world to testify to the truth, but I think that Tackett’s definition of truth has some problems. For one thing, the word “objective” kept creeping into his presentation. This threw up a red flag because I think the notion of objective access to truth and knowledge is a distinctively modern approach that is no more compatible with Christianity than its opposite: total subjectivity. Of course, when he uses the word “objective,” it is possible that he simply means “independent of the knower.” I would agree with this definition, though I think it would be best to leave out the word “objective” altogether. Overall, he is not clear what he means when he uses the word “objective,” and so I must caution against the idea of an objective knower. Tackett seems to be saying that there are only two choices when it comes to epistemology: objectivity or subjectivity. Instead, I would have appreciated it if Tackett had explored the third way of critical realism, which is a much more promising view of epistemology.

    Ravi Zacharias, in the course of the tour, defined truth as “that which affirms propositionally the nature of reality as it is.” This definition has problems both because truth is not exclusively propositional (I would say that the Bible is true, but it only partially consists of propositional statements), and humans should be humble about our access to reality as it is. Sin, after all, has affected our rational faculties and darkened our understanding. God says in Isaiah 55:9 that “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Truth may well be conformity to fact or reality (or, as Tackett re-words the definition, simply “reality”), but then the question must be asked: which one of us has objective, exhaustive access to reality? I think that while Christians can have confidence that the Christian story is true, and that what God has told us about himself is true, grasping after the ideal of knowing objectively, of having a “God’s eye view,” will lead us right back into the dead end of modernity. It looks to me like Tackett is dealing with the problems he sees with postmodernity by trying to lead his audience back into modernity, which has its own problems.

    Even though Jesus said that he came into the world to testify to the truth, he also said that HE was the truth (Jn 14:6). Instead of focusing on exclusively propositional truth, I think it is time we stopped overlooking the personal dimension: Jesus himself is the truth.

  • Communion as Worship (I Corinthians 11:17-34)

    This is the sermon I gave last Sunday, February 1, at my church. The audio can be found at the church’s Web site, http://www.bellinghamcovenantchurch.org.

    This is the fourth sermon in a series on worship, and one very important thing that the church does when it gathers together to worship is eat the Lord’s Supper together. It is a mysterious thing, and different Christians have tried to express that mystery through the many names that are used to call it: the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, the Eucharist, the Lord’s Table.

    Many of us only have a vague idea of what we’re doing when we take the Lord’s Supper. When I was 15, I was part of a Roman Catholic choir that sang in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. We sang at a Mass one morning, and after singing we all got in line and the priest gave us the “host” – a wafer. I grew up in a Baptist church, and I was used to eating cubes of white bread at communion. I had no idea what to do with this thing that had all these elaborate designs on it, so I put it in my pocket. It wasn’t until I got back to my seat that I looked around and saw everyone else eating theirs, so I took it out of my pocket and ate it without anyone looking. Turns out I probably should have left it in my pocket, because one of the Catholics in the choir scolded me later because only Catholics are supposed to take Mass in a Catholic church.

    This passage helps us to know more clearly what we are doing when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper together. It also helps us to understand good ways and bad ways to celebrate the Lord’s Supper by showing us the bad example of the Corinthian church. The passage comes in three sections. The first one has to do with what is wrong in Corinth. The second has to do with what the Lord’s Supper is supposed to be, and the third has to do with how to celebrate it.

    One: The nature of the problems in Corinth, and of this particular problem (17-22).

    Corinth was an old Greek city that fought hard against the expansion of the Romans. It was destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC, and then was re-founded by Julius Caesar in 46 BC. It is located at a strategic place in Greece, where the mainland meets the large southern peninsula called the Pelepponesus. It became a major trading center because of this location. It was one of the largest cities in the Empire, and it was one of the most influential because of its imperial backing. Status – what class or social group you belonged to – was very important in Corinth, and as a result many of the problems the church in Corinth had were because of their cultural preoccupation with status.

    This problem that Paul starts to deal with in verse 17 is one of those problems. The church in Corinth was a house church, or a series of house churches, like most early churches were. They would celebrate the Lord’s Supper every week, but they would conduct it like every other meal in their culture – that is, they would divide everyone up by status. The rich people were in a special room, and the poor people were out in the atrium. Even at one table, people were served different food based on their status. If you were rich and had high status, you’d get the lobster. If you had low status, you’d get a burger from McDonald’s. This is what was happening in Corinth. The rich, high-status people were getting together beforehand, gorging themselves and getting drunk, and the poor people would show up later and everyone would be laying around the table, belching.

    In verse 20, Paul says that because of this, they weren’t even really eating the Lord’s Supper. It was meant to be a common meal that was shared by everyone in the church, and the Corinthians made a travesty out of it by treating it like any other meal. They divided people up by class and they humiliated poor people.

    Today, it would be like saying, “We’re going to celebrate the Lord’s Supper today, and if your income is over $100,000, you can come first and have the biggest piece of bread.” And status doesn’t just have to do with money: it can be dividing people up by race, or by education, or how many children a person has, or whether people have tattoos, or whether people have children who are Christians – any difference has at least the potential to be divisive. If we divide over those things, we’re not really eating the Lord’s Supper either.

    Two: The nature of the Lord’s Supper (23-26).

    Paul decides that he’s got to remind the Corinthians of the basics. They have forgotten what the Lord’s Supper is all about, and so he takes them back to the Last Supper, the meal that Jesus ate with his disciples on the night before he was crucified. We could say a lot about what Paul says, because it’s packed with meaning. But for today, I’m going to point out four things that the Lord’s Supper is.

    First, It’s a memorial.

    “This is my body” and “Do this in remembrance of me.” Some of you may have come from a Catholic background, or you may just know that Catholics think the bread and wine actually turn into Jesus’ body and blood. There is a big theological word for this, called “transubstantiation.” They say that Jesus said, “This is my body,” and they say that he meant it was literally his body. But we don’t believe that, and here is an analogy that explains why. When Jesus said, “This is my body,” he was talking about the bread in the same way that we talk about photographs. I can show you a picture of myself and say, “This is me,” and you won’t be confused whether Elliot is the person speaking or the person in the photograph. In the same way, the bread does not literally and magically turn into Jesus’ body. Jesus’ disciples weren’t confused when he said “This is my body.” They didn’t ask, “Well, if that’s your body, then who are you?” They knew that when he said “This is my body,” he was talking about the bread as a symbol of his body.

    But some Protestant churches go all the way in the other direction, saying that the bread is only something we use to remind us of Jesus. Some churches don’t like to use the word “sacrament,” and call it an “ordinance” instead. They say that there’s nothing important or symbolic about the bread and wine, we just do it to remember.

    But we don’t go to that extreme either. We use the word “sacrament,” which just means “a symbol that has religious or spiritual significance for a community of faith.” Taking the Lord’s Supper isn’t just something we do to remember Jesus. It’s a symbol – like a flag, which represents the identity and aspirations of a nation, or a wedding ring, which represents the covenant commitment you have made to your husband or wife. Symbols are never just symbols. So the Lord’s Supper is “just bread and grape juice” in that they don’t magically turn into Jesus’ body and blood, but it is also not “just bread and grape juice” because it is a symbol. Paul himself says in chapter 10 of 1 Corinthians, The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?”

    If this is a little confusing to you, you’re not alone. I’ve been trying to explain symbols, but symbols can’t ever be fully explained. That’s why we use them – to signify something that we can’t fully put into words. There will always be some mystery when symbols are involved.

    To sum up this first point: We do this in remembrance of Jesus’ death and resurrection. It is a memorial, but it is not just a cerebral action. It’s not just something that happens in our mind. Eating and drinking turn it into something that we do with our whole being. As Gordon Smith says in his book, A Holy Meal, on the Lord’s Supper, “We need to come to the table regularly, when we feel like it and when we don’t, for the great danger is that we would forget. We can so easily forget. I do not mean that we no longer recall or believe that something happened. Rather, our forgetting is one of no longer living aligned with the reality and wonder of Christ’s death and resurrection. We fail to live in the light of this ancient event. So easily through neglect the cross and the resurrection no longer penetrate our present, enabling us to live in the light of the gospel.” (42-3)

    Second, the Lord’s Supper is fellowship (communion).

    In the church where I grew up, there were some impressive stained glass windows. There was one on the left of Jesus carrying a lamb, there was one on the right of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before his crucifixion, and there was one on the back wall of Jesus ascending up into heaven. At the bottom of all the windows, there was a little sign that said, “Given in memory of so-and-so.” At the front of the sanctuary there was a table, and on the table was written the words, “Do this in remembrance of me.” As a little kid, I thought that this was just a table given in honor of some person who had died, and I thought it strange that there was no name on it.

    But my little kid thoughts were not right. Jesus isn’t just a dear friend who has died, and who we remember by eating bread and drinking wine or grape juice. He’s alive, and he is here with us when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. That’s why we sometimes hear this supper called “Communion,” or fellowship. We are in communion with one another, and we are in communion with him. That’s what the big problem was in the Corinthian church: they weren’t celebrating the Lord’s Supper in the right way because they weren’t in communion with one another. They didn’t look at each other and say, “We are one. Jesus has made us one.”
    Even though it’s a little out of place, I’d like to mention what Paul says in verse 29 about “discerning the body.” The “body” that he is talking about is probably not the bread, or Jesus’ literal body. Paul is talking about divisions in the church, and so the “body” he is talking about is the body of Christ, the church.

    So the practical effect of the Lord’s Supper being communion is that we should not come to communion when we are not at peace with one another. If we are refusing to talk to someone, or holding a grudge against them, we should not be participating in communion. In the Lord’s Prayer we repeat the words that Jesus taught us to pray: “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” We need to be at peace before we participate in communion. If we want to be at peace with God, then we have to be at peace with other people.

    Of course, sometimes these things are out of our control. Here is where Paul’s words in Romans 12:18 are helpful: he says that we should be at peace with everyone, “insofar as it depends on us.” We should do everything in our power to be at peace with people before participating in communion. But if we have tried to be reconciled with another person – if we have written a letter and they don’t respond, or we’ve called them and they’ve hung up on us, or we’ve tried to talk to them and they’ve ignored us, then we’ve done all we can do.

    Third, the Lord’s Supper is a covenant renewal ceremony.

    “This cup is a new covenant in my blood.” Jesus is saying that his blood, his sacrifice, replaces the old covenant, or agreement between God and people, written about in Exodus 24:3-8. This is the new covenant that Jeremiah wrote about in Jeremiah 31:31-34, when God said that he would write the law on our hearts.

    All covenants are represented and remembered through symbolic acts. In the Old Testament, it usually involved animal sacrifice. An animal would be cut up into a few pieces. Part of the animal would be sacrificed – burnt up on an altar – and part of it would be eaten in a covenant meal.

    In the new covenant, Jesus is both the sacrifice and the one we are in covenant with. Earlier in 1 Corinthians (5:7), Paul called Jesus the Passover Lamb who has been sacrificed. In the church, those symbolic acts that we use to remember the covenant are baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Whenever we take the Lord’s Supper, we remember the covenant we made with God when we were baptized.

    So the Lord’s Supper is a covenant renewal ceremony. We come to the table to receive mercy and forgiveness for all the ways we have not lived up to who we should be, and to declare our intention to renew the covenant.

    Fourth, the Lord’s Supper is a declaration of thanksgiving and hope.

    “Eucharist” is one of the fancy words that is used to describe the Lord’s Supper, and it comes from the Greek word for thanksgiving, used here in verse 24. That’s all it means: thanksgiving. When we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, it really is a celebration. Jesus gave thanks, so we should too. We give thanks to God the Father for creating the world and us, we give thanks to Jesus for saving us by sacrificing himself on the cross, and we give thanks for the gift of the Holy Spirit to live in us and comfort us.

    The Lord’s Supper is often linked with the Passover, and it should be: the Last Supper was probably a Passover meal, and Jesus is referred to in the Bible as the Passover lamb. But the Lord’s Supper was also associated in the early church with the peace offering of Leviticus 7:11-18. It is a way to give thanks and celebrate.

    “as often as you eat this break and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” This meal that we share together doesn’t just look back at the Last Supper that Jesus shared with his disciples. It looks forward to another meal that Jesus will eat with us when he returns. This meal is called the Marriage Supper of the Lamb in Revelation 19. We look backward in thankfulness, and forward in hope.
    The Lord’s Supper should remind us that, even though things may be bad in the world now, that’s not the way things are always going to be. We don’t have to ignore the bad things in the world, and we don’t have to be fearmongers. We can look at the world realistically and say that things are going to be well in the end.

    This also encourages us in mission. We know that all will be well in the end, and this should encourage us to share this hope with our friends and neighbors.

    Three: How to celebrate the Lord’s Supper (27-34).

    Moving on to the last part of the passage, I’m going to talk a bit about how to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. I’m not going to talk about whether you should pass the plates or have little glasses or whether you should celebrate once a month or every week or four times a year. I’m going to talk about what should be going on in our hearts when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

    There are a few words here that have been misunderstood over the years in a lot of churches. They are found in verse 27: “in an unworthy manner.” These words have been used to encourage people to think that just because they are sinful, they can’t take the Lord’s Supper because that would mean they are taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner. But looking at the context, that isn’t what Paul means at all. When he warns the Corinthians against taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, he telling them that they shouldn’t abuse it. They shouldn’t make the Lord’s Supper about status.

    In verse 28, “Examine yourselves” doesn’t mean “make sure you don’t have any sin.” We come to the Lord’s Table to receive mercy, and if we waited until we were all without sin, no one would be able to come. Jesus is our host at this table, and Jesus ate with sinners! Jesus welcomes us at this table the same way he welcomed and forgave Peter after he denied him.

    “Examine yourselves” does not mean “make sure you don’t have any sin.” Rather, it means, “Repent of your sins so that you can come to the table with thanksgiving, knowing that your sins are forgiven.”

    “Discern the body” is talking about the Body of Christ, the church. The Lord’s Supper is a table of mercy where you can receive forgiveness, but is not just about you. It is not even just about you and Jesus. It is also about the Body of Christ, the church, coming together to celebrate Jesus’ death and resurrection. The Lord’s Supper is not just any meal; it is THE meal at which the church declares that we are ONE in Christ. The church is not a club of like-minded people getting together because we like the socializing. We are, or ought to be, a diverse group gathered around Jesus Christ. There should be no divisions at the Lord’s Table. If we divide ourselves, if we start to think that some are better than others, Paul says that it is possible that God will judge us.

    Jesus is the only thing that can keep us together. I read an article in the Washington Post recently called: “Why the Ideological Melting Pot is Getting So Lumpy.” Here is an excerpt:

    “About two in three Americans say they prefer to live around people belonging to different races, religions and income groups. In reality, however, survey research shows that people are increasingly clustering together among those who are just like themselves, especially on the one attribute that ties the others together — political affiliation.

    Nearly half of all Americans live in “landslide counties” where Democrats or Republicans regularly win in a rout. In the 2008 election, 48 percent of the votes for president were cast in counties where President-elect Barack Obama or Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won by more than 20 percentage points, according to the Pew Research Center.

    The clustering of Democrats in Democratic areas and Republicans in Republican areas has been intensifying for at least three decades: In 1976, only about a quarter of all Americans lived in landslide counties. In 1992, a little more than a third of America was landslide country.

    A third of both Obama’s and McCain’s supporters have said they “detest” the other guy.

    A consequence of such polarization is that large numbers of Americans no longer have much contact with people belonging to the other party. Many feel the views of their political opponents are not just wrong but incomprehensible.”

    This is the way the world is: people congregate with other people who are the same race, the same income, the same political affiliation. The Bible tells us that the church should not be like this. We are called to love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us. We are called to preach the gospel to the whole world; not only to people who are just like us. The Lord’s Supper tells us that we are one in Christ, and we should always be reminded to draw others into that fellowship. This is what the world needs.

    Finally, I’d like to reiterate that the Lord’s Supper is a time of hope. We don’t just look back during the Lord’s Supper; we look forward.
    If you don’t like getting together with the Body of Christ and celebrating the Lord’s Supper together, you probably won’t like the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. If it is all about you and Jesus, and you don’t think you need to be a part of a community of believers, then you’re going to hate what will happen when Jesus comes back. Because it’s not going to be just you and Jesus; there are going to be a LOT of people there. There are no lone ranger Christians. There are no Christians who can have a good relationship with Jesus without having good relationships with his church. Some of you may have had bad experiences, or been parts of dysfunctional churches, and I wish that had not been the case. But past experiences are no reason to give up on trying to be the community that Jesus wants us to be.

  • The Year of Living Like Jesus

    For the past two years, when I have gone to visit family in Grand Rapids, MI, I have gone to Rob Bell’s Mars Hill Church. I am an unabashed church tourist, and I enjoy going to well-known churches just to see what they are like. I’ve been to Saddleback, the Crystal Cathedral, McLean Bible Church, John MacArthur’s church (I forget the name), and even the other Mars Hill Church (the one pastored by Mark Driscoll) in Seattle.

    On neither of the occasions I visited Mars Hill did Rob Bell speak. I don’t know whether he just likes to take time off over Christmas or what, but both times I’ve gone I’ve heard Ed Dobson speak instead. Ed Dobson is the former pastor of Calvary Church in Grand Rapids, and he stepped down several years ago because he was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s Disease. Even though the church tourist in me would have liked to hear Rob Bell, I am grateful to have heard Dr. Dobson (no relation to the other Dr. Dobson) speak, and to have had the opportunity to learn more about who he is.

    This past year, after reading A.J. Jacobs’ The Year of Living Biblically (which I also read, and reviewed here), he decided that he was going to spend a year living as much like Jesus as he possibly could. He grew a beard, read the Gospels every week, prayed for his enemies, voted the way he thought Jesus would want him to vote, and even went down to the bar a few times (after all, Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a drunkard).

    Here is a link to the story (plus a video interview) on ABC News:ABC News: Spending a Year Living Like Jesus

    I pray that all Christians have the courage to do this kind of thing more deliberately.

  • Book Review: Jesus Wants to Save Christians

    Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile by Rob Bell and Don Golden. This is the third book published by Rob Bell, the first one with a co-author (Golden was lead pastor of Bell’s church, Mars Hill, 2005-2008), and the second one I have read. In it, Bell and Golden encourage their readers to see the Bible and the church through a particular lens. That lens is “exile” (hence the subtitle).

    The first four chapters (“The Cry of the Oppressed,” “Get Down Your Harps,” “David’s Other Son” and “Genital-Free Africans”) give a quick overview of the Bible through this lens. In the first chapter we follow the ancient Israelites from slavery in Egypt, to encountering God at Sinai, to living in Jerusalem, to exile in Babylon. The second chapter deals with the hopes of the Israelites while in exile. The “David’s Other Son” of chapter three is Jesus, and Bell and Golden focus on Jesus walking with two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke’s gospel. Jesus is the suffering servant referred to by Isaiah, and is also the new leader of a new exodus. The “Genital-Free African” of chapter four is the Ethiopian eunuch from Acts 8. His baptism by Philip is a sign that the “new exodus” has been extended beyond the Jewish people to everyone, since “Baptism is a picture of exodus” (p. 100).

    Chapter five is where the application (for lack of a better word) section of the book kicks in. For the first part of the book, Bell and Golden have been speeding through the Bible, and now they begin to talk about “Swollen-Bellied Black Babies, Soccer Moms on Prozac, and the Mark of the Beast.” (catchy chapter title, no?) In it, Bell and Golden connect the stuff they covered in the first four chapters to our own situation. And one of their most eye-catching assertions is this one:

    America is an empire.

    And the Bible has a lot to say about empires.

    Most of the Bible is a history told by people living in lands occupied by conquering superpowers. It’s a book written from the underside of power. It’s an oppression narrative. The majority of the Bible was written by a minority people living under the rule and reign of massive, mighty empires, from the Egyptian Empire to the Babylonian Empire to the Persian Empire to the Assyrian Empire to the Roman Empire.

    This can make the Bible a very difficult book to understand if you are reading it as a citizen of the most powerful empire the world has ever seen. Without careful study and reflection, and humility, it may even be possible to miss central themes of the Scriptures. (p. 121)

    In the next chapter, “Blood on the Doorposts of the Universe,” Bell and Golden give us a resource for resisting empire, and that resource is the Eucharist. God brought his people out of Egypt during the Exodus, Jesus became the new passover lamb, and the church celebrates this today:

    The Eucharist is about the church setting the table for the whole world.

    The Eucharist is about the new humanity.

    The Eucharist is about God’s dream for the world. (p. 167)

    The Epilogue wraps it all up:

    Jesus wants to save us from making the good news about another world and not this one.

    Jesus wants to save us from preaching a gospel that is only about individuals and not about the systems that enslave them.

    Jesus wants to save us from shrinking the gospel down to a transaction about the removal of sin and not about every single particle of creation being reconciled to its maker.

    Jesus wants to save us from religiously sanctioned despair, the kind that doesn’t believe that the world can be made better, the kind that either blatantly or subtly teaches people to just be quiet and behave and wait for something big to happen “someday.” (p. 179)

    I must say that I liked this book. I have heard critiques of Rob Bell, and I think some of them are valid, but in general I have to honor the guy for trying to make the gospel relevant to our culture. I think that Bell is mainly trying to reach two people groups: those who were raised in the church and are disillusioned by it, and those who don’t have any experience with church at all. It seems to me that some of the people making the loudest criticisms are people who are part of the church and are comfortable with the church the way it is. That doesn’t mean their criticisms are automatically not valid, but it does mean that they are not the audience Bell is shooting for.

    The “new exodus” theme was not new to me, especially after having taken a class on the gospel of Mark with Rikk Watts (whose thesis was published under the title Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark). I do wish, though, that Bell and Golden had given their readers a few more resources for following up this line of thinking. The idea that the arc of redemptive history can be seen as a “new exodus” is probably foreign to most of the people who read this book, and nods to a few more scholars besides Tom Holland would be helpful.

    I also wish that Bell and Golden had fleshed out their reasons for opposition to violence more. Several times in the book, the way of Jesus is contrasted with the way of violence (p. 87-8 and 133, among others), but no mention is made of the ambiguous passages in the Bible with relation to violence (like the conquest of Canaan) or of the fact that many Christians through the centuries have not been categorically opposed to violence. Entire books could be and have been written on this subject, but perhaps just a nod in the direction of some good ones for the benefit of readers would be good.

    Third, I don’t think that America is an empire in exactly the same way as ancient empires were empires. That is not to say that America isn’t empire-ish in some things that it does. But obsession with security and self-preservation can be critiqued biblically without busting out the “E-word.” My concern here is that the word will start to lose its meaning if it is thrown around so much. If what is meant by “empire” is “a state bent on violent means of self-preservation,” or “a state which uses a disproportionately large amount of resources,” then use a different term (maybe “hegemonic state”), because that’s not what “empire” means. I wish the authors had been as specific in this book as Don Golden was when he later wrote an article at God’s Politics that took a different angle on this issue. He wrote,

    America is not an empire like Rome; it’s a nation contingent upon a Beast of its own creation.

    What is that Beast?

    Instead of arguing about empire, we should be talking about Beasts because history has a new one, and it’s not America.

    The force that accepts no boundaries to its acquisition of wealth, whose disregard for the poor is matched only by its betrayal of the wealthy, is not a political state at all. The power that rules planet earth in our age is the unrestrained force of raw capitalism.

    I really do appreciate the clarification, but it would have been nice for Golden to acknowledge that the reason people are arguing about empire is that he’s the one who brought it up in the first place. If he doesn’t want people to get exercised about whether America is an empire, or if he thinks it distracts from the main issue of unfettered capitalism, then he should be more careful about the words he uses.

    Finally, I wish that they would move away from this spaced-out typesetting style. It makes me feel good that I can get through a 218-page book quickly, but it does get a little annoying after a while. I sure hope Zondervan isn’t paying these guys by the page.

    Despite my quibbles about the book, I think that this is a book that is needed in 21st-century America. It calls attention to aspects of the gospel that have been ignored for too long. The trick now is to live out a complete gospel, instead of just focusing on different (but still incomplete) aspects.

    P.S. – Scot McKnight has written a good review here.

  • How We Got the Bible: Translations

    “Translation… is a difficult, almost impossible, art to master. Languages vary so in their order of words, in their individual metaphors, and in their native idioms. The translator is thus faced with a choice between a literal, word-for-word rendering (which is certain to sound absurd and so be a travesty of the original) and something very much freer (in which cause he is liable to be accused of being unfaithful). – Jerome

    Philosophies of Translation

    Formal Equivalence (literal, or word-for-word)

    • These translations (like the NASB) try to use the same English word for a particular Greek or Hebrew word whenever possible. Their goal is to be comprehensible.
    • They also try to reproduce the grammar or syntax of the original language as closely as possible. For example, if the Greek or Hebrew has an infinitive, then an infinitive will be used in English.
    • These translations can help us to know when a particular word or phrase was important to a biblical author. For example, whenever Paul uses the Greek word sarx, a formal equivalent translation will use “flesh.”
    • However, formal equivalent translations can have problems translating idioms. Idioms are expressions whose meanings are not predictable from the usual meanings of the constituent words. For example, “to kick the bucket” doesn’t have anything to do with actually kicking buckets. Here’s a biblical example from 2 Samuel 18:25: “If he is alone, there is news in his mouth.” (NKJV, ESV) This is a Hebrew idiom that means “he has good news,” but it sounds strange and unnatural when translated into English. This is what Fee and Strauss call “Biblish,” which is an awkward cross between Bible language and real English.

    Functional Equivalence (idiomatic, or meaning-based)

    • These translations try to reproduce the meaning of the original in natural, easy-to-understand English. Their goal is to be natural. “Advocates of functional equivalence stress that the translation should sound as clear and natural to the contemporary reader as the original text sounded to the original readers.” – Fee and Strauss, 26
    • The guiding principle of functional equivalent translations is that accuracy concerns meaning rather than form. It’s not enough to reproduce the exact words of Greek and Hebrew (which is impossible, since something is always lost in translation). You need to convey what the words meant in the original languages as accurately as possible.
    • These translations, unlike formal equivalent translations, excel at translating idioms. They would translate the above passage “If he is alone, he is bringing good news.” (NCV, GNT) These translations are especially popular among young people and people who did not grow up in the church, because the words sound more natural to them than the “Biblish” that can be found in many more literal translations.
    • However, one drawback to these translations is that the reader has to rely more on the interpretations of the translator. Eugene Peterson is a great student of Biblical languages, but The Message is still the work of one imperfect person.

    Mediating (or a cross between A and B)

    • These translations (like the NIV and TNIV) try to strike a balance between formal and functional equivalence. Sometimes they are more literal, and sometimes they are more idiomatic. Their goal is to be clear.

    Gender and Translation (“gender neutrality” vs. “gender accuracy”)

    • Translation of anthropos – The primary meaning of this Greek word is “person,” not “man.” Greek has other words (like aner and arsen) when it means to say “man” or “male.” However, some Bible translations (like the TNIV) have caused controversy by the way they translate this word.
    Romans 3:28 (NIV): “for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law…”
    Romans 3:28 (TNIV): “for we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from observing the law…”

    • Translation of adelphoi – this word can refer to brothers, siblings (brothers and sisters) or people in a close bond or association. It depends on the context. In I Corinthians 1:10, for example, Paul is clearly addressing the entire church, which includes women. Therefore, the TNIV (2005) made a change from the NIV (1978):
    I Cor. 1:10 (NIV): “I appeal to you, brothers…”
    I Cor. 1:10 (TNIV): “I appeal to you, brothers and sisters…”

    • Translation of banim (Hebrew) and huioi (Greek) – Both these words can mean “sons,” “children,” or “descendants,” depending on the context. Newer versions like the TNIV and NRSV are often accused of making changes based on a feminist agenda. However, it is not that simple, as we can see from this example:
    Matt. 5:44-45 (KJV): “Love your enemies… that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” The KJV was translated in 1611, long before feminism, and yet here it translates huioi as “children” rather than “sons.”
    Matt. 5:44-45 (TNIV): “Love your enemies… that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” The TNIV translators follow the KJV, because they thought that the context did not specifically indicate “sons.”
    Matt. 5:44-45 (ESV): “Love your enemies… so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” The translators of the ESV (2001) were unhappy with the perceived liberalism of the NRSV (1990) when it came to gender language, so they have tended to translate huioi as “sons” and adelphoi as “brothers.”

    • Translation of masculine resumptive pronouns. These are pronouns (“he,” “she,” or “it”) that follow an indefinite noun or pronoun (“whoever,” “anyone”) and refer back to it.
    John 8:51 (NIV): “If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” The problem here is that the Greek is neuter, but English doesn’t have a neuter personal pronoun. All we have is “it,” which cannot refer to persons. The NIV translators chose to use “he,” even though there is nothing in the Greek to indicate the person who keeps Jesus’ word is specifically male.
    John 8:51 (TNIV): “whoever obeys my word will never see death.” The TNIV translators get around this by taking out the pronoun altogether. In other passages, they get around the problem of using masculine resumptive pronouns by using a singular “they.” An example of a singular “they” is “Everybody likes ice cream, don’t they?” Grammatically, “everybody” is singular, but most people use a singular “they” because the sentence “Everybody likes ice cream, doesn’t he or she?” sounds awkward. Because singular “they”s are becoming more accepted in contemporary English, it is more common to see them in recent Bible translations.

    The root issue here is that some translators believe that English usage with regard to gender is changing more than other translators. Thirty years ago, “man,” “mankind” and “brothers” could refer to both men and women, but many believe that is no longer the case, and alter their translations accordingly so that modern people can understand.

    The “King James Only” Controversy

    There are some people who will only use the King James Version for various reasons. Here are a few:
    • Because they just like its language best, and are used to it.
    • Because they believe that the manuscripts it is based on (the Masoretic Text for the OT and the Textus Receptus for the NT) are better than other manuscripts.
    • Because they believe the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus were supernaturally preserved over time.
    • Because they believe that the KJV translation is itself divinely inspired.
    • Because they believe that the KJV is a “new revelation” that can even correct the Greek and Hebrew texts.

    “Is there anyone learned or unlearned who, when he takes the [new translation] in his hands and perceives that what he reads does not suit his settled tastes, will not break out immediately into violent language and call me a forger and profane person for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient books, or to make any changes or corrections in them?” – Jerome, telling the pope that he did not want to translate the Vulgate, which went on to be the standard edition of the Bible for over 1000 years

    Further Reading:

    Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth.

    On the KJV-Only Controversy:
    D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism

    On the Gender Controversy:
    http://no-tniv.com (anti-TNIV web site),
    http://www.tniv.info/light/genderaccurate.php (pro-TNIV web site)
    Mark Strauss, Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy
    Wayne Grudem, The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy

  • How We Got the Bible: Textual Criticism

    I. What is textual criticism?

    “Textual criticism is the science and art that seeks to determine the most reliable wording of a text.” – Paul Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible, 24

    We have many manuscripts (mss) of biblical books, and no two manuscripts are exactly the same. They contain variants, or differences in wording.

    II. How much of the Bible contains variant readings?

    OT – one current critical edition has one textual note for each 10 words – meaning that 90% is without significant variation.

    NT – one current critical edition has notes on 7% of the words.

    III. How many manuscripts are there?

    We have over 5,700 mss from the Greek New Testament (only 60 are of the entire NT, but the vast majority are of complete books). The earliest one is a fragment of the Gospel of John from the early second century.

    We have another 10,000 copies in Latin

    We have between 10,000 and 15,000 copies in other languages

    We have more than one million quotations of NT writings from the church fathers

    By comparison:

    Thucydides’ History of the Pelopponesian War: 8 mss, the oldest dated to 900 AD. Also, a few fragments from 1st century AD

    Livy, Annals of the Roman People: 142 volumes, but only 35 survive. We have 20 mss, the oldest from 4th century AD

    Julius Caesar, Gallic War: only 9 or 10 mss of good quality; the earliest from 900 years after Caesar

    IV. What kinds of variants are there?

    A. Unintentional

    1. Mistaken Letters – confusion of similar letters, as in I Tim. 3:16, where the Greek for “the one who is” was sometimes confused with “God.”

    2. Homophones – substitution of similar sounding words. In Rom. 5:1, the Greek for “we have” and “we shall have” sound similar (there is only one letter difference, and those two letters are sometimes indistinguishable).

    3. Haplography – the omission of a letter or word, as in Judges 20:13. 9 out of 10 times in the OT, people from the tribe of Benjamin are called “sons of Benjamin,” but here they are just called “Benjamin.” Probably some scribe skipped the word for “sons,” because it looks very similar to the beginning of “Benjamin.”

    4. Dittography – writing a letter or word twice instead of once. Mark 3:16 contains the words “he appointed the twelve,” which may just be a repetition of the same phrase from verse 14.

    5. Metathesis – a reversal in order of two letters or words. Most manuscripts of Deut. 31:1 read “and Moses went,” but one reads “and Moses finished.” The difference between the two in Hebrew is that two letters have switched places.

    6. Fusion – two words that have incorrectly been joined together. Some manuscripts of Mark 10:40 read “but for whom,” and others read “for others.” The first variant is two words in Greek, and the second is those two words joined together.

    7. Fission – one word that has incorrectly been split apart. A few manuscripts of Rom. 7:14 have “on the one hand I know”(oida men) instead of “we know” (oidamen).

    8. Parablepsis – an omission caused by two words or phrases that begin or end similarly. In I Jn. 2:23 the phrase “has the father” appears twice. Some mss don’t have the words between the two, which means the scribe accidentally skipped from the first one to the second one.

    9. Other omissions or additions – sometimes a word or phrase is left out or added and we can’t tell why. For example, some mss lack the words “in Ephesus” in Eph. 1:1.

    B. Intentional

    1. Spelling or grammar changes – in Matt. 1:7-8, the name “Asaph” was changed by some scribes to “Asa,” because Asa was a well-known king of Judah from the OT (I Kings 15:9-24)

    2. Clearing up difficulties – In Mark 1:2-3, there is a combined quote from Malachi and Isaiah. Most early mss attribute it to Isaiah alone, but later scribes tried to clear this up by saying “in the prophets.”

    3. Harmonization (commonly between the gospels) – the phrase “it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek” was added to mss of Luke 23:38, probably to make it sound like John 19:20.

    4. Euphemisms – the substitution of a milder term for an unpleasant or more offensive one. In the OT, some writers did not want to write down the name of the god Baal, writing “shame” instead (2 Sam. 4:4).

    5. Theological changes – in Luke 2:41, 43, some scribes changed the words “his parents” to “Joseph and Mary” or “Joseph and his mother.” Apparently this was to protect the doctrine of the virgin birth.

    6. Additions – some mss of Luke 24:53 add the word “amen,” possibly because some scribes thought a gospel should end this way.

    Bart Ehrman claims that there are between 200,000 and 400,000 variants in NT manuscripts, which is more than the 138,162 words in the NT. That is a startling figure. But what does it mean?

    According to text critic Daniel Wallace, 70-80% of these variants are spelling differences that can’t even be translated into English and have no impact on meaning. For example, sometimes the Greek word for “John” is spelled with two n’s, and sometimes with one.

    Some of the variants are differences in word order. But Greek is different from English, in that word order doesn’t matter. There are many ways to say the exact same thing, but all differences in word order are counted as variants.

    “Only about one percent of variants are both meaningful, which means they affect the meaning of the text to some degree, and viable, which means they have a decent chance of going back to the original text.” – Daniel B. Wallace

    In spite of what some say, not a single essential Christian doctrine is refuted by a plausible textual variant. Not one.

    V. Examples of controversial text critical issues in the New Testament:

    A. John 7:53-8:11 – The Woman Caught in Adultery

    Most scholars believe that it was not originally in John, because it is not in the earliest and best mss, its writing style and vocabulary are different from the rest of the book.

    What difference does it make?

    B. Long Ending of Mark (16:9-20)

    Most scholars believe that it was not originally in Mark, because it does not appear in the earliest and best mss, and also has a different writing style from the rest of the book.

    What difference does it make?

    C. 1 John 5:7-8 – the “Johannine Comma”

    according to Daniel Wallace, it came from an 8th-century sermon. There are only four manuscripts that have it, and all are from the 16th-17th centuries. It is almost certainly not authentic; it is an intentional theological change.

    However, the doctrine of the Trinity did not come from this verse. The Councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451) affirmed this doctrine long before, and the NT is clear that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and these three are one. See Matt. 28:18-20, Titus 3:4-6, 1 Peter 1:2, etc.

    D. I Timothy 3:16

    The best mss read “He was revealed in flesh,” but some others read “God was revealed in flesh.” The first one is probably correct. Ehrman argues that this undermines Christian belief in Jesus as God.

    However, this is not the only place in the NT where Jesus is explicitly referred to as God. See John 1:1, John 20:28, and Hebrews 1:8, as well as other verses where it is not as explicit.

    Recommended Reading:

    Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus.
    Paul Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible.

  • How We Got the Bible: New Testament

    This is the third in my series of posts which consist of the notes I distributed as part of the Sunday School classes I taught this fall. Today we have reached the middle point of the first class.

    I. Criteria of Canonicity
    – the criteria used to determine whether a particular book should be in the canon or not. This list of criteria is not a list that we get from the early Christians. It is a list we came up with later, as we tried to understand why some books made it and others didn’t.

    A. Apostolicity – not just that an apostle wrote a book, but that a book was associated with an apostle or an apostle’s teaching.

    Apostolicity and the Gospels: All four gospels are anonymous; they don’t have anyone’s name on them. But Matthew and John, for as long as we can tell, have been associated with the apostles of those names. Mark and Luke were not apostles. But Mark was associated with Peter, and Luke was associated with Paul.
    Apostolicity and Hebrews: Hebrews was not accepted by the whole church early on, partially because of concerns about who its author was. Some thought it was Paul, but others, including Origen, thought it was someone else, like Barnabas or Apollos.

    There were other books, such as the Acts of Paul and the Apocalypse of Peter, that had apostles’ names on them, but were not traditionally associated with apostles and did not contain apostolic teaching. Thus, they didn’t make it (and they also didn’t meet the other criteria).

    B. Orthodoxy – a book had to be in accordance with the teaching of the church that had been passed down from the apostles.

    Some books of the NT appeal to received tradition explicitly: Gal. 1:9, 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6.
    The “Rule of Faith” – a summary of the doctrines held in common by apostolic churches.

    C. Widespread Use, or Catholicity – If a book, or collection of books, was used by many churches spread across a wide geographical area, that made it more likely that it would make it into the canon.

    Even though Paul’s letters were written to particular churches, and Revelation was written to particular churches, they both grew in their influence over time (as we can see, in the case of Paul at least, from 2 Peter 3:15).
    The Roman church had doubts about whether Hebrews was written by Paul. They eventually accepted it, however, because of widespread use (and antiquity and orthodoxy): the eastern churches used it, and attributed it to Paul. So Hebrews made it in because of its widespread use, despite the fact that there has always been disagreement about who wrote it.

    D. Antiquity

    This is closely related to apostolicity: if a book is written by an apostle or someone associated with an apostle, it must be old.

    Even some orthodox books, like the Shepherd of Hermas, or the Didache, did not make it into the NT because they just weren’t old enough.

    It is important to note as we conclude this section that this was not a bureaucratic move, or a power play. The canon wasn’t decided by one council, or one church. These four criteria were used over time, often several at the same time, to decide which books should be part of the canon.

    II. A Book That Didn’t Make it: the Gospel of Thomas

    III. Marcion (110?-160?)

    He is the first person we know of to establish a canon of scripture, but he was rejected as a heretic.
    He was anti-Jewish, thought that the God of the OT and Jesus’ father were not the same, and so disregarded the whole OT. His canon consisted only of 10 of Paul’s letters and an edited version of the Gospel of Luke.

    IV. The Muratorian Fragment

    This fragment was found in Italy, probably belongs to the second half of the second century, and is mutilated at the beginning. It is important because it is the earliest list of authorized books that we know of.

    Lists all of our NT books except Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 3 John. Luke and John are listed as the third and fourth gospels, so it may be supposed that the missing first part of the fragment refers to Matthew and Mark. It also lists the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter, though it mentions “some of our people will not have [it] to be read in church.”

    V. Eusebius (263?-339?), church historian

    His list includes all of our current NT, but says a few books are “disputed, but recognized by the majority”: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation.

    VI. Athanasius (293?-373), bishop of Alexandria

    The first writer (367) who lists exactly our 27 NT books without making any distinction of status among them.

    VII. Jerome (347?-420) and Augustine (354-430)

    By the time these two near-contemporaries wrote, in the late fourth century, the NT canon was fixed at 27 books. No council had declared on the matter. Rather, these were just the books that were passed on within the community as authoritative.

    The Council of Hippo (393) was not an all-church council, but it was probably the first to officially set the limit of the NT at 27 books.

    We can see that the formation of the NT canon happened gradually, over time. First, a core of books was seen as authoritative, and then others were added to that core. By the fourth century, 300 years after most of the NT was written, it was complete.

    VIII. John Calvin (1509-1564)

    “For him the authority of the New Testament, like that of all scripture, rested not on any church decree but on the self-authenticating quality of what was written, attested in the receptive heart by the inward witness of the Holy Spirit.” — Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 246-7

    Protestants still believe this about scripture. The authority of the NT is not based on the decision of a church council, but on the Holy Spirit, who prompted its authors to write and over time prompted churches all over the world to accept those writings as from God.