Formerly a knuckle-head, now an earnest Christian, who is married to his best friend, the father of three, an evangelist of the Gospel, a Star Wars fan, and tries to be an all around nice guy.
It is said that famed American motivational speaker Earl Nightingale observed that humans are – for lack of a better phrase – “creatures of habit.” Another well-known motivational speaker named Hilary Hinton “Zig” Ziglar is reported to have shared similar views.
Ziglar is quoted as saying the following two statements: “When you choose a habit, you also choose the end of that habit,” and, “We build our character from the bricks of habit we pile up day by day.”These aphorisms speak for themselves.
Every person has a pattern of behavior that for the most part they rarely depart. Joe Smyth wakes up, showers, dresses, eats breakfast, takes the 8:15 AM to work, and then at 4:45 PM Joe finishes his daily paperwork, takes the 5:20 PM home, and eats dinner, watches a little ESPN, checks his email, and then goes to sleep. Then, the next day it starts all over again.
But wait, Joe Smyth is a Christian. Somewhere in his routine prayer, Bible study, the worship of God, his spiritual and moral maturation, and the sharing or defending of his faith must come into view – but where? That’s where the word habit comes into play – these actions must be made part of the routine, and over time, part of the habit.
Little wonder that Paul said to the church in Rome:
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:5-8)[1]
Notice the phrase “set the mind” and the other similar phraseology in this section of Romans, and observe that Paul is speaking of two routines – habits. One brings “life and peace” while the other brings “death” and hostility with God. Obviously, the zealous and devout Christian would choose the routine that brings life and peace.
How does a Christian begin to consider obtaining – or realizing – this goal? Paul is quite clear – it is the mind. In 8:5 Paul says a person must “give careful consideration” with the intention of espousing one side of a cause.[2]
The controversy is quite explicit in this passage, and Paul leaves the matter in the Christian’s hands. In fact, there are only two options with no middle ground. Logicians call this the two horns of a dilemma, where the selection of one option is equal to the rejection of the other option.
In essence, he says, “make up your mind decisively and espouse the principles which will guide your life to the end that you desire. If you want life and peace then follow the principles set forth by the Spirit, should you not take this decision then you have rejected the life and peace which are promised those who ‘set their minds on the things of the Spirit.'”
This passage articulates one major theme; namely, that in order to obtain spiritual goals a mind daily focused on the Spirit is essential. What we have here is a quest to obtain a spiritual habit, a spiritual routine, a spiritual lifestyle.[3] And this begins first in the mind, and then into action.
If your life was narrated like the opening few scenes of Stranger Than Fiction, where the number of steps it took to walk from one block to the next, where the time it took to wait for the bus was “clocked” to the minute and seconds, and even how many documents at work you sort through – would there be any time in your routine that included spiritual things on a daily basis?
If not, start the quest now by making room for spiritual things in your mind and routine.
Sources
Unless otherwise noted, all quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
(BDAG) Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature, 3d ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1066.
In Romans 8:5, the verb phrase “set their minds” comes from a present active indicative Greek verb (phroneo); meaning, that the action here is continuous – even habitual. There is no end to the action in sight, thus the Christ is to always keep in view the direction which thought (of a practical kind) takes” (Harry Angus A. Kennedy, Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Roberston Nicoll [New York, NY: Doran, 1901], 3:420; cf. James H. Moulton and George Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament [1930; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997], 676).
The modern Bible student must come to grips with the proliferation of Bible translations. Proliferation is a strong word. It suggests the idea that something is numerically multiplying (i.e. spreading) at a rapid rate. The 20th Century bore witness to the birth of several hundred translations of the Bible, dispersed throughout several languages and dialects.
For example, in 1965 John Reumann stated that the Bible had been translated into 1,215 languages and dialects in various testament formats (i.e. complete Bible, NT only, etc.). He goes on to describe the Bible as the most frequently translated book in the world.[1] Later in 1971, during the International Biblical-Pastoral Seminar at Rocca di Papa, Eugene A. Nida announced that 97 percent of the world’s languages had “some portion” of translated biblical text published, with ongoing translation endeavors occurring among 80 percent of the world’s languages.[2]
More recently, in 2001, Bruce M. Metzger observed that the American Bible Society’s registration for 2000 recorded that the new millennium opened with about 1,018 more translations in various formats and languages and dialects than in 1965.[3] Moving from these raw facts, it is obvious that there is abundant availability of some and even most of the entire Bible for every major language in the world.
Even within the English-speaking world, there is a large selection of Bible translations to choose from. The modern English reading Bible student must evaluate several factors when selecting a Bible translation; in other words, as Jack P. Lewis observes, a person must become aware of the issues involved and determine “what set of problems one prefers to live with.”[4]
I find Lewis’ observation to be one of the most important decisions a person can make in choosing which translation a person will use or not use. For no translation is perfect, and it would be foolhardy to press for a perfect translation. Because of this imperfection, one must consequently acknowledge the benefits and deficiencies in the translation of their choice, and learn to account for them in their studies.
The following piece is a consideration of a few problems or issues a person should at least be aware of when choosing or using a Bible translation. The treatment is brief, but we pray it to be helpful.
What is a Translation?
We embark upon this study with the following question, “what is a translation?” The verbal form “translate” comes from the Latin term translatus, it being the past participle of transferre, meaning, “to transfer.”[5] When speaking of literature, a translation is the result of scholarly work to transfer word thoughts from one language to another. It answers the question, “How would we say that in our language and culture?”
The work to be translated is called the source language, and the language the translation is being brought into is regarded as the receptor language. Essentially, a translation provides access to inaccessible documents – due to a language barrier (source) – by communicating them in the language and dialect of its new reader (receptor). This is the basic idea of a translation.
This would lead us then to consider what a translation is not. A translation is not an absolute and perfect reproduction of the original document; instead, there are certain limitations that preclude this from being completely possible. D. A. Carson makes this exact point in the following quotation:
Anyone who knows two or more modern languages well recognizes how difficult it is to translate material from one to the other in such a way that the material sounds as natural in the receptor language as it does in the donor language, and with the meaning and nuances preserved intact.[6]
To translate may be a difficult task, but the goal of every translator is to “retain as far as possible the characteristic qualities of the ancient writer […] or the best part of him will be lost to the English reader,” affirms Dr. Benjamin Jowett, translator of the Dialogues of Plato.[7]
It is this fundamental limitation to express everything in its plenitude that makes the endeavor to translate anything particularly frustrating. Despite the great labor and scholarly attention given to the task of translating, we still remain with a secondary source that reflects the essential drift of the original source.
The translation of the Bible should never be confused as the original Bible itself. Although a translation provides access to a foreign work by making it understandable, it is always subject to improvement due to limitations on transferring one language into another.[8]
Traduttore Traditore – “Translator, Traitor”
John H. P. Reumann explains in his work, The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars, the precarious position the translator is in by use of an Italian proverb, traduttore traditore – “translator, traitor.” Meaning, “the translator seldom brings across the sense fully and precisely and thus betrays his author.”[9] In other words, there will always be a certain level of depth that the original author’s work retains as its own possession, that the translation does not.
The translator is under the tremendous burden to present an intelligible translation that is accurate, understandable, and with the needed readability for its intended new audience. This tension has been long recognized; in fact, an ancient rabbi once said, “He lies who renders a verse as it reads with literalness, he blasphemes who makes additions.”[10] May we call this “The Strait of the Translator”?
Yet, while we have only considered the “genuine” betrayal by the translator above, there are times when dishonest betrayal is the result of theological, philosophical, and other external forces at work in the translator’s life. For example, in the various English New Testaments, the Greek term baptizo is frequently mistranslated – for which there is no excuse. In fact, it is not translated, for in most cases it is transliterated instead of being translated.
Here a differentiation must be made between transliteration and translation. A translation grants access to a linguistically foreign work by rendering it into the new audience’s language and dialect. Instead of rendering a foreign word with a word that more or less corresponds to it in the new language, a transliteration composes a word by finding corresponding letters that sound the same. Hence, a new word is often created in the new language and translation has not occurred – misleading or confusing the new audience.
Case in point, as soon as we introduced the term baptizo it is highly likely that the term baptism came to mind – based upon sheer phonetical resemblance (i.e. they sound the same). This is the goal of transliteration, to create this resemblance. However, the English word baptism is a rather generic term for an initiation ceremony for entrance into the Christian religion “marked by the symbolic use of water.”[11]The world of Christendom offered three forms – modes – of baptism: sprinkling, pouring, or dipping. This is hardly what the term baptizo meant when inspired authors employed this term.
Without providing an exhaustive analysis of this Greek term, we submit a few lines of thought. First, baptizo is part of a group of New Testament terms that share a common root (baptid-) – hence they share some similarities in meaning. Second, quite literally the term meant submerging, washing, dipping, and cleaning with water, and could also be used metaphorically for an overwhelming experience.[12]
Third, baptizo “was not nearly so technical as the transliteration suggests”[13]; hence, baptism creates an artificially technical meaning that is not exclusively there in baptizo. Finally, when employed in connection with salvation, baptizo has a singularapplication – immersion. In 1896, Joseph Thayer explained that in the New Testament baptizo is used particularly for “the rite of sacred ablution”; in other words, “an immersion in water” for the forgiveness of sin (cf. Acts 2:38).[14] The Christian community would do well to affirm the singular biblical model of Christian “baptism” as revealed in the New Testament – immersion in water.
As a side note, we would like to point out that transliteration is not to be viewed suspiciously, for it is a common feature in translations done for names, places, and certain situations of direct address. For example, in the New Testament, the apostle Paul is a transliterated phrase for apostolos Paulos (Gal 1:1). Likewise, in Luke 2:4, Joseph travels from Nazareth, Galilee, to Bethlehem, Judea. All of these names are transliterations from Greek expressions.
An interesting situation occurs in Matthew 27:46 at the cross, where Jesus shouts loudly, “Eli, Eli, lema, sabakthani?” Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but Luke wrote in Greek. Luke transliterates Aramaic into Greek for his readers (and then translates its meaning). Humorously, English translators must then transliterate Luke’s Greek transliteration into English, and then translate Luke’s translation into English as well. These examples are set forth to show the genuine need to transliterate phrases or words – it is all part of the process.
The Need for Bible Translation
The Bible did not drop out of heaven in its present prepackaged format. Quite to the contrary, it is an anthology (i.e. collection of writings) produced over a span of some 1500 years by authors from various socio-economic backgrounds and linguistic heritages.
The overwhelming majority of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (i.e. Classical Hebrew), though various portions are found composed in Aramaic (Dan 2:4b–7:28; Ezra 4:8–6:18, 7:12–26). Both languages are regarded as Northwestern Semitic languages along the Mediterranean Sea.[15] The documents of the New Testament are composed in Koine Greek, the third stage of the evolution of the Greek language “born out of the conquests of Alexander the Great.”[16]
Internal biblical evidence demonstrates that even the Israelites had a need for translation. In Nehemiah 8:1-8 it chronicles that at the reading of the Law, during post-exilic times, there were some people “who could understand what they heard” (8:2-3), while there were others who needed assistance to understand the reading by selected individuals ready to give the “sense” of the Law (8:7-8). At some point during exile in Babylon, the Israelites became more comfortable with Aramaic than Hebrew, becoming heavily reliant upon Aramaic interpretations (Targums) – oral and written.[17]
According to The Letter of Aristeas, a Greek translation of the Pentateuch was commissioned by Egyptian royal decree for housing in the famed library in Alexandria, Egypt, for academic purposes. The events detailed are to have taken place somewhere between 278 and 270 B.C. of Ptolemy Philadelphus’ reign as king of Egypt. Though scholarship is divided over the authenticity of the letter in its exact chronology of the origin of the LXX, an Alexandrian origin story is most likely.[18] It is clear that the Greek Old Testament was a much-needed resource for Hellenistic Jews scattered throughout the Mediterranean world.
The early church translated the various portions of the New Testament books, if not all, into various ancient languages in order to pass on the message of the gospel to the entire world. Without recounting all of these ancient translations, it is sufficient to say that they represent a wide geographic dispersion throughout the Roman Empire at the earliest of times in the movement.[19] The missionary imperative set forth by Jesus in Matthew 28.19–20 implies the reason why we translate the Bible – God’s revelation to humankind; consequently, it makes perfect sense why there are ancient translations intended chiefly for Christian use.
The Value of a Fresh Translation
Where the previous section addresses the basic need for a translation of the Bible to exist, this next line of reasoning focuses on the need of producing new translations. In the history of Bible translations in English alone, books are profusely available. We only submit a view of thoughts to help the curious reader make some sense of the situation the student of the English Bible faces today.
In the late 1500s AD, the English-speaking people had access to what we call the Geneva Bible. It was considered by many to be the most accurate translation of its time, and yet today one could scarcely find a copy of it in church pews. Why? In short, the arrival of the King James Bible displaced it, but it was largely a revision of the English Bibles of its time.
In the late 1800’s AD, the English Revised Version appeared (ERV), along with its American counterpart – American Standard Version (ASV). The ASV was thought to be vastly superior to anything then available because its textual basis for translations was so strong, but it failed to successfully replace the King James Version as the popular version of the Bible. Why?
We would run the risk of oversimplification if we did not admit at the beginning, that the popularity of translation used is the result of a confluence of several factors. But the main factor, it seems, in the popularity of any translation is that it speaks clearly and essentially to the people that will pour hours of attention to its pages (its contemporary readership). Two traits are essential then: it must be easy to read, and easy to be understood.
For these principles to be met in a Bible translation, a fresh translation based on the original languages must appear from time to time. Bible translations are therefore temporary things – and should there be doubt, the reader is encouraged to study the history of the Bible in the English language.
Biblical scholar and translator, Fredrick C. Grant, made this exact point:
If a translation is to be any good, it must be addressed to the times in which it is written. One reason why the Revised Version of 1881-85 failed and along with it the American Standard Edition of the Revised Version of 1901, was that it did not address the world in which men lived.[20]
They retained archaic expressions that by reason of language evolution had either gained new meaning(s) or had been abandoned by the contemporary vernacular. For example, notice the case of 1 Corinthians 16:13:
Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. (King James Version 1611)
Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. (American Standard Version 1901)
What is the possible meaning of the phrase “quit you like men”? The phrase comes from one Greek expression: andrizesthe, from andrizo. Appearing only once in the New Testament, it means “to play the man” (link). According to the papyri, instances of this term stress the firmness and courageous strengths inhering in masculinity which faces the world with forces that must be overcome.[21]
When compared with a translation produced one century later, the need for improvements over the ASV (1901) and its predecessors is clearly seen and required. The English Standard translation of the Holy Bible (ESV) renders andrizo, as follows:
"Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men [andrizesthe], be strong." (English Standard Version, 2001)
The meaning of this passage is, therefore, obvious after careful analysis of the Greek expression. In balance with some of the leadership problems in Corinth, it appears to be a closing general exhortation (so the force of the imperative suggests) whereby Paul challenges “the men to assume their God-given responsibilities and to assume the leadership in the church and in their homes.”[22]
To be sure, this is just one case out of many which could be easily demonstrated as test cases for the need of new translations.
Translation Philosophy Employed
In speaking about a philosophy of Bible translation, I think there is much to commend what Eugene Nida[23] wrote regarding translating the New Testament:
People have finally recognized that the professor and the gardener can communicate one with the other through the so-called “overlap” language which may be equally understandable and acceptable to both the learned and those with limited education. Producing translations in such a common form of speech is completely in the tradition of the New Testament, which was written in Koine Greek.[24]
Nida’s main point is to communicate a biblical translation in a vernacular that is accessible to all walks of life. Little wonder what the Bible says about Jesus and his teaching, “the masses heard him gladly” (Mark 12:37). One of the great strengths of Martin Luther’s work in the Reformation was to produce a translation of the Bible in the language of the German people. They had been forbidden access to the Bible in their own language, so access to the Bible and Luther’s plea for a return to the Bible was readily received.
More critically, there are two main philosophies in Bible translation.[25] When selecting a translation most conservative Bible students are concerned with a “word-for-word” translation. By use of this expression, the philosophy of formal equivalence is made reference. At the other side of the translation pool, is what may be called a “phrase by phrase” translation, formally called dynamic equivalence.[26]
What separates these two translation methods is how they achieve their goal: “how does one best communicate the text in translation?” Robert Martin contrasts formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence in the following way:
[F]ormal equivalence translators answer that the content of the original is best communicated when the translator consistently tries to parallel closely the linguistic form (i.e. structure, grammar, and exact wording) of the original. Dynamic equivalence translators, on the other hand, answer that the best way is to use the most natural form of the language of the reader (i.e., giving priority to the structure, grammar, and idiomatic expressions of contemporary English), whether or not this closely parallels the linguistic form of the original text.[27]
From a student’s perspective, a formal equivalent translation may be a bit harder to read, but it allows the reader to approach an essentially unbiased text to read and study the Scripture for themselves. Meanwhile, a dynamic equivalent translation will usually have a text that is a lot easier and clearer to read and study, but the reader is provided with a text that is highly interpretive.[28]
To be clear, each philosophy has its limitations, and cannot solve by themselves every translation hurdle a translator comes across. It must be understood, as Martin points out, that “every translation of the Bible is a mixture of formal and dynamic elements.”[29] Formal equivalent translations make exceptions to incorporate dynamic elements out of the necessity to render difficult passages; whereas, dynamic equivalent translations must have a formal relationship to the original text, otherwise it would not qualify as a translation.[30]
We believe that a balanced translation philosophy is that a translation needs to be as literal as possible, but free when necessary.[31] We conclude this section with the following words:
The translator must strive, therefore, to stay as close to the original as he can, so as not to lose those subtle messages reflected in tense, voice, mood, etc. This is certainly the ideal, where no clarity of message is sacrificed.[32]
Conclusion
We are not attempting to plead on behalf of one translation over another. No version has cornered the market, because sooner or later, the translation will be replaced by a more modern one that speaks in the language of its contemporaries.
No doubt some might find this study incomplete, and yes to some extent it is. However, the main goal here is to emphasize the need to be aware of some of the common issues one must be aware of.
Criticisms against this translation or that translation in order to elevate a pet Bible version have no place in the question of choosing a version. In all cases, we must decide what issues we are willing to live with when we select a translation, for none are perfect – no not one.[33]
Let us, therefore, find a translation that fits our particular study patterns and that compels us to focus on the Scriptures daily (Acts 17:8). For it is through study, learning, and obedience that we gain access to the Father (John 6:44–45).
Endnotes
John H. P. Reumann, The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars: Chapters in the History of Bible Transmission and Translation (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965), 1.
Eugene A. Nida, “Bible Translating in Today’s World,” The Bible is For All, ed. Joseph Rhymer (London: Collins, 1973), 55.
Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 9-10.
Jack P. Lewis, Questions You’ve Asked About Bible Translations (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications, 1991), 55. Lewis essentially argues that since there is no perfect translation and when a person settles upon using a certain translation they are, therefore, accepting to interact with the decisions the translation committee made in transferring the ancient and biblical languages into a modern rendition in the language of the reader.
American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd edition.
Donald A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), 85.
Frederick C. Grant, Translating the Bible (Greenwich, CT: Seabury Press, 1961), 136ff.
Reumann, Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars, 7.
Reumann, Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars, 6.
Lewis, Questions You’ve Asked, 8.
American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd edition.
William E. Vine, et al., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1986), 2:50.
Walter Bauer, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 164. Now referenced as BDAG.
Allen P. Ross, Introducing Biblical Hebrew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 13-15.
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 15.
Metzger, Bible in Translation, 20-24.
Reumann, Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars, 8; Everett F. Harrison summarizes the issue as follows: “Though the Letter of Aristeas ascribes the translation of the Law to the royal interest in literature, it is clear from the Letter itself, […] that the real inspiration for the version sprang from the need of the Jews in Alexandria for the Scriptures in their adopted language” (“The Importance of the Septuagint for Biblical Studies — Part I,” BSac 112 [1955], 345). Likewise, Charles K. Barrett writes in his, The New Testament Background: Selected Documents (New York, NY: Harper, 1961), that the Aristeas tradition is “almost certainly false, although here and there it shows glimpses of what appears to be the truth” (208).
This is not a wholesale endorsement of “all things” Nida, but the ideal translation Nida speaks of is quite desirous.
Nida, “Bible Translating in Today’s World,” 58.
To be sure, there are other assumptions or philosophies that filter into the two main translation models practiced among translators (feminist, gender-neutral, ethno-centric, etc), but formal and dynamic translation are the two most basic issues.
Daniel B. Wallace, “Why So Many Versions?,” Bible.org , pars. 30-39. Wallace discusses the objectives of each philosophy and flavors his discussion of them with a critique of the “positives” and “negatives” of each translation methodology.
Robert P. Martin, Accuracy of Translation (1989; repr., Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), 7; emphasis added.
Wallace writes, “A formal equivalence translation lets the reader interpret for himself. But too often, the average reader doesn’t have the background or the tools to interpret accurately. The net result is that he often badly misunderstands the text. On the other hand, a dynamic equivalence translation is usually clear and quite understandable. But if the translators missed the point of the original–either intentionally or unintentionally–they will be communicating an idea foreign to the biblical text” (“Why So Many Versions?,” pars. 37-38 – emphasis added).
Martin, Accuracy of Translation, 9.
Martin, Accuracy of Translation, 9-10.
My Greek professor, Dr. Clyde M. Woods used to state to us this principle, that a translation should always be as literal as possible, but free when necessary – i.e. when the translation is so awkward that a literal rendering would be unclear or misleading a reasonable non-literal rendering must be provided.
Wayne Jackson, The Bible Translation Controversy, 2d ed. (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2002), 10. I highly recommend this little book. It is “ounce for ounce” the most succinct and balanced presentation I have found.
“No version has appeared (old or new) which is above someone’s objecting to some of its renderings, it is quite conceivable that one might say, ‘I choose the reliability of a certain version.’ Even if out of all the passages in the book someone can come up with a few places where the version does not pass his shibboleth, it does not disqualify the whole. One need not deny that the problem exists. In fact, there is no excuse for anyone’s covering over any mistranslation that exists in any version” (Lewis, Questions You’ve Asked, 58).
The book of Joshua finds itself in a unique position in the Holy Writ. Few books express such a pivotal moment in Redemptive History as does the book of Joshua. Within its twenty-four chapters is found how, with Divine oversight, Joshua and the Israelites conquered and settled the land of Canaan. This was not, however, a haphazard situation but rather one of a destiny realized.
The materializing of God’s promise to Abraham was before their very eyes and in their very hands. A brief exploration of this promise and the physical features of the land will aid in understanding and appreciating the historical accounts in Joshua. Likewise, attention will be given the limitation of occupation God incorporated into the “deed” of the Land of Promise.
The Abrahamic Covenant of Faith
A major theme that runs through the book of Genesis is that God has called Abraham to dwell in a land which would eventually be given to him as a possession (i.e., Palestine; Gen 12:1-3, 13:14-15; Acts 7:2-4):[1]
Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Gen 12:1-3)
Furthermore, he would be the father of the Hebrew nation, Israel, through whom the Messiah would come to redeem a fallen humanity (Gen 22:17-18; Gal 3:16). The whole world was offered redemption (John 3:16) so that it would be the beneficiary of this promise – not just the Hebrews (1 John 2:2).
However despite this promise, and despite the panoramic view God gave Abraham (Gen 13:14-18), the great patriarch of the Hebrews never obtained the land as a possession. He had to obtain it through his descendants. The writer of Hebrews recalls the fact Abraham and his offspring did not literally possess the land while they dwelt on its soil.
By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. (Heb 11:8-10)
Beginning from chapter 12 of Genesis, the great patriarchs of the Israelites (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) dwell in a nomadic sense in the land promised to them by God – though never really possessing it. Possession of the land does not occur until after the period of Egyptian bondage, the wilderness wanderings, and then finally after the conquest of most of the Promised Land under Joshua and Caleb (Josh 11:23, 13:1).
Finally, before moving past this brief introduction to the promises of God to Abraham in Genesis 12, it is highly important to observe Paul’s insight on these passages related to the redemptive role Abraham’s “seed” would play. In Galatians 3, Paul argues how those who have Abrahamic faith will be justified in Jesus Christ.
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith (3:8-9).
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ (3:16).
The point Paul makes is that despite Abraham having many descendants, there is one particular offspring in mind that would bless all nations – Jesus the Christ. And it is through a faithful and obedient response to Jesus and his teaching that makes us children of Abraham (Gal 3:24-29). This is a vital aspect of the Abrahamic covenant, for it anticipated the Christian religion in its culminating redemptive work among all nations (Matt 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-16, Luke 24:44-49, John 1:1-14, Acts 1:8, 11:18).
Joshua and the Israelites Divide and Conquer
The book of Joshua is demonstrative proof that God fulfilled his land promise to Abraham. Israel must depend upon the Lord to conquer the land. The conquest is normally described as a three-pronged method of attack.[2] But the text does not describe the unfolding of these events in a strategic way. Initially, it was conceived to be an all-out conquest of the cities in the land much like Jericho and Ai; however, later conquests demonstrate to be more the result of preemptive strikes from other kingdoms upon Israel due to its successful military campaigns in the region.
First, the Israelites penetrated into the center of the Canaanite land (Joshua 6-9). The cities of Jericho (6:1-27) and Ai (7:1-8:29) were the first to experience the Israelite forces, as the Israelites initially took the land. And, the Gibeonite people were subjugated into servants, “cutters of wood and drawers of water for the congregation and for the altar of the Lord” due to their attempt at political deception (9:1-27). They claimed to come from a distant land, though they were an established group of inhabitants in the land with several cities all their own such as Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath-jearim (9:16-17, 22).
Second, the Israelites respond to a strike upon the newly acquired inhabitants (the Gibeonites) by a band of five aggressive Amorite Kings of southern Canaan (Joshua 10). These five kings are listed in 10:5: Adoni-zedek, the king of Jerusalem, Hoham king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon. Since, Gibeon was a renowned city with many valiant warriors, and it had now become a part of the Israelites who conquered Jericho and Ai, these kings embraced the “strike first” strategy. Little did they know that “the Lord fought for Israel” (10:14), and that their fate would end with their cities being conquered (10:16-21, 29-38) and by suffering execution under the hand of Joshua in Makkedah (10:22-28).
The Conquest of Canaan (Laney, Concise Bible Atlas)
At the end of this campaign, the chronicler[3] of these events concludes this aspect of the conquest with following words:
So Joshua struck the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings. He left none remaining, but devoted to destruction all that breathed, just as the Lord God of Israel commanded. And Joshua struck them from Kadesh-barnea as far as Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, as far as Gibeon. And Joshua captured all these kings and their land at one time, because the Lord God of Israel fought for Israel. Then Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to the camp at Gilgal. (10:40-43)
It was during this campaign that the famous “sun stood still” miracle occurred (10:12-13). Some dispute that the event was miraculous, but “conservative scholars are in agreement that this circumstance involved a genuine miracle, and that the account is not a mere poetic or mythological description of an ancient victory.”[4]
Finally, Joshua and company have a military victory over a northern Canaanite confederacy (Joshua 11). The land was conquered (Josh 11:16). It must be observed though, that the conquest was aided supernaturally by Divine intervention (Josh 5:13-15). Therefore, “the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it” (Josh 21:43, 44-45 NKJV). After some 500 years after the initial promise, the promise is fulfilled.
The Dimensions of the Land
The land awaiting the Hebrew nation was extremely remarkable. Both Abraham and Moses had been privileged to see its beauty (Gen 13:14-18; Deut 32:49). In his guide book, Guy Duffield writes that from Mt. Nebo “on a clear day, the entire land of Canaan can be seen inasmuch as it is so small – 150 miles from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.”[5] This is a “parallelogram about 150 miles from north to south and varying in width from 45 to 70 miles”,[6] and was highly diverse botanically, zoologically, meteorologically, and geographically.[7] One writer has said, “Within such small compass the country must have been unequalled for charm and variety.”[8] Even with a brief geographical overview of Palestine a value for the lands diversity can be ascertained.
Beginning from the land east of the Jordan River and venturing across the river into northern and southern extents of Palestine, the children of Israel found themselves in a very geographically dynamic territory. Carl Laney writes that the “land can be divided longitudinally into four distinct geographical regions: the coastal plain, the hill country, the Great Rift Valley, and the Transjordan highlands.”[9] While others have developed the subdivisions of these regions more exhaustively,[10] space here allows for only brief remarks as they relate to the conquest and settlement of Canaan.
The land on either side of the Jordan River is home to the historical narrative of the conquest implemented by the Israelites. The book of Joshua opens with the Israelites on the east side of the Jordan River. In fact, the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy catalog their conquest of this region, known as the Transjordan highlands (Num 31; Deut 2:26-3:11). The land spreads 150 miles from Mt. Hermon in the north to the southern tip of the Dead Sea.[11] The territory was subdivided and given to the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and to half of the tribe of Manasseh (Deut 3:12-22). This high plateau stands nearly at 4,000 feet, which “becomes higher as it extends southward, rising from two to five thousand feet in elevation.”[12] From the western side of this highland, it descends “steeply” down to the Jordan valley.[13] A key monument in the land would be Mt. Nebo, where Moses viewed the Promised Land before his death (Deut 3:23-29).
After crossing the Jordan River, the Israelites transverse a challenging topography throughout their conquests. In it they encountered the deep chasm of the Rift Valley and the mountainous geography of the western Hill Country. As the Israelites crossed the Jordan River, they where trekking through a great “fissure in the earth’s crust.”[14] The Rift Valley is “some 1,700 feet above sea level at the source of the Jordan River (near Caesarea-Philippi) and almost 1,300 feet below sea level at the Dead Sea in the south.”[15] This becomes a major border between the tribes one each side so that the “Rift made it virtually impossible for Transjordan to become integrally united with Samaria and Judah on a permanent basis.”[16]
After walking across the Jordan River, the Israelites encounter the Hill Country. This land is home to a roller coaster of valleys and mountain ranges. This is the backdrop of the central, southern and northern campaigns. This is the home of the rest of the Hebrew nation. North to south, the land consists of:
Upper Galilee, Lower Galilee, the hill country of Samaria and Judea, the “Shefelah” (a natural terrace on the western side of the mountains), and the Negeb (rendered ‘South Country’ in the Scriptures), which extends south of Hebron into the Arabian Desert.[17]
This land division stretches from the Upper Galilean region, where the elevations reach their zenith at nearly 4,000 feet, down through the Samaritan and Judean regions (where lower elevations exist) to the dry Negev plain.[18] One can appreciate then the notion that the Israelites were of a rugged deportment – this is probably accredited to their sojourn in the wilderness.
As the Israelites divided the land, many of their territories would include a portion of the coastal plain (Joshua 14-21). This beach front is “a band of sandy and alluvial soil bordering the Mediterranean Sea.”[19] North to South, it extends some 165 miles from the “Ladder of Tyre (Rosh Ha-Niqra)” to the “Wadi el-‘Arish”, all the while broadening the width of its land from 3 miles in the North to approximately “twenty-five miles” in the south.[20] “The whole coastal region readily lends itself to a threefold division: the Plain of Philistia, the Plain of Sharon, and the Plain of Acre.”[21]
The Divine Transplantation
Jehovah God fulfilled His promise to the Hebrew patriarchs and gave the Israelites the land of promise. The description of the land itself yields a very rugged picture, yet God gave these nomads victory over the established societies encountered therein.
Henry H. Halley captures the magnitude of such a feat. He declares that such a monumental liberation and migration of a nation could not be explained sufficiently with naturalistic conclusions. For Halley, it can be spoken of in no other terms aside from the miraculous:
Aside from various accompanying miracles, the Transplanting of a Whole Great Nation, bodily, from one land to another, meanwhile maintaining it 40 years in a Desert, was in itself one of the most Stupendous Miracles of the ages.[22]
What other explanation would there be for Pharoah to relinquish his profitable workforce – the slave labor of Israel? What other explanation would there be for the survival of millions of Israelites in the desert? Moreover, how can there be a reasonable naturalistic explanation for a nomadic force overtaking fortified cities?
No doubt, the naturalist – or skeptic – can raise criticisms; however, for the theist, the best and simplest explanation is found in Divine intervention. If God created the universe and has provided for every creature, then surely God can lead and provide a nation with liberation from slavery, and then set them on the center stage of the geopolitical tensions of the Mediterranean coastline.
Indeed, the greatest problem for the skeptic and atheist resides in Genesis 1:1 –“In the beginning God.” Such a tremendous experience should have yielded a sense of unwavering dedication to the God of their salvation (Exod 14:28-31), but, unfortunately, Israel’s history retells the cyclical problem of rebellion and idolatry.
It was this problem to which God addressed himself and anticipated in the Law of Moses. The Old Testament is transparent in God’s conditional relationship with Israel.[23] The relationship was dependent upon their faithfulness. Notice a sample of a few verses:
“And if you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth” (Deut 28:1).
And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them? I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they” (Num 14:12).
“Be very careful, therefore, to love the Lord your God. For if you turn back and cling to the remnant of these nations remaining among you and make marriages with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know for certain that the Lord your God will no longer drive out these nations before you, but they shall be a snare and a trap for you, a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good ground that the Lord your God has given you” (Josh 23:11-13).
“But just as all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you have been fulfilled for you, so the Lord will bring upon you all the evil things, until he has destroyed you from off this good land that the Lord your God has given you, if you transgress the covenant of the Lord your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them. Then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you, and you shall perish quickly from off the good land that he has given to you” (Josh 23:15-16).
The majority of the Hebrew Bible is the retells the story of the consistent Israelite rebellion against their God, God’s warning a recalcitrant nation of wrath, and then the culminating judgment brought upon them. One biblical student summarizes the situation in the following way:
Because of the accelerating rebellion of the nation, consummated by the murder of Jesus Christ, God rejected the Hebrew people. Inexcusably, the Jews rejected their own Messiah; accordingly, Jehovah repudiated that nation and determined to scatter them as dust (Matthew 21:44). Thus, in the providence of God, the Roman armies came against Palestine in A.D. 70, and Judaism was destroyed (cf. Matthew 22:7; 24:1-34); the Jewish “vessel” was smashed, and it cannot be put back together (cf. Jeremiah 19:11). According to Josephus, some 1.1 million Hebrews were slaughtered, and thousands were taken into slavery. All Jewish records were lost in that holocaust. Today, there is not a single Jew who knows his tribal ancestry (McClintock and Strong, 1969, 771). The physical nation of Israel is dead. The “Jews” that make up the State of Israel today (less than twenty-five percent of the world Jewish population) cannot legitimately be called a “nation.”[24]
Conclusion
The biblical record is clear that God had promised to Abraham and his children His covenant to bless them and to give them a land for their descendants (Acts 13:16-25). This land, as demonstrated by ample biblical references was a possession for as long as they remained faithful to God. Sadly, they showed a consistent spirit of rebellion, and as a consequence, a new covenant was to replace the Mosaic Covenant and fulfill the Abrahamic covenant.
Aside from physical blessings, this covenant had spiritual emphases as well – it anticipated the coming offspring that would bless all nations with salvation (Gen 22:17-18; Gal 3:16). Indeed, as the Hebrew writer observes, Joshua may have provided the Jews with a Sabbath rest after the conquest of Palestine, but Jesus provides a rest yet to be experienced – redemption in Heaven (Heb 4:1-10).
Works Cited
Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), 97.
I use the name “chronicler” due to the fact that Joshua is, like many Old Testament books, anonymous. Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman, III, stress that ascertaining authorship and date for Joshua’s composition is “bound up with larger historical and theological questions” than mere internal and external argumentation (An Introduction to the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994], 108). David Malick lists a number of features within Joshua (i.e. internal evidence) pointing to various authors; among them, Joshua (“eyewitness quality”) and others who finished the book later – “but not much later” (“An Introduction to the Book of Joshua“). Malick concludes his discussion of authorship by observing that since critical scholarship results rejecting Joshua authorship lacks unanimity, the traditional view that Joshua wrote the majority of the book that bears his name is therefore a good assumption. The book should be viewed as “true to form” written in the days of Joshua and the elders that outlived him (Josh 24:31).
Wayne Jackson, “How Do You Explain Joshua’s Long Day?,” ChristianCourier.com (Accessed: 22 Mar. 2002). This is a brief introduction to the subject, it would be worth consulting.
Guy P. Duffield, Handbook of Bible Lands (Glendale, CA: Regal, 1969), 140.
“Palestine of the Holy Land,” New Standard Reference Bible (Chicago, IL: Hertel, 1955), 756.
Wayne Jackson, Background Bible Study (1986; repr., Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2000), 1-18, 67-74.
Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life, updated ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 2.
J. Carl Laney, Concise Bible Atlas: A Geographical Survey of Bible History (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 41.
J. McKee Adams, Biblical Backgrounds, revised ed., rev. Joseph A. Callaway (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1965), 52-85.
Laney, Concise Bible Atlas, 79.
Laney, Concise Bible Atlas, 79.
Laney, Concise Bible Atlas, 42.
Laney, Concise Bible Atlas, 42.
Jackson, Background Bible Study, 3.
Laney, Concise Bible Atlas, 83.
Jackson, Background Bible Study, 3.
Laney, Concise Bible Atlas, 41.
Laney, Concise Bible Atlas, 41.
Laney, Concise Bible Atlas, 131.
Adams, Biblical Backgrounds, 56.
Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook, 24th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1965), 22.
So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. (Acts 1.7-9)[1]
When the Lord spoke these words, He was doing several things. First, He was emphasizing God’s control over future events. God would use His proper judgment to carry out His plan on this globe. Second, He was describing the ministry of the Apostles as being empowered by the Holy Spirit. Third, He emphasised the type of ministry they would be accomplishing as Jesus-witnesses. And Fourthly, He detailed in advance the geographical process of their expanding movement.
This latter aspect of Acts 1.7-9 is something that I ponder over quite a bit. The city of birth for the Christian movement is Jerusalem, for as Acts 2 demonstrates it is from there the movement expanded. The Book of Acts outlines a generic expansion process: Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth (1.8). It seems quite correct to agree with E. Earle Ellis’ analysis of “the end of the earth” as being an expression meaning the furthermost geographical points known on the Ancient Greco-Roman map.[2]
Now with the online community, I wonder how well the expansion of the spread of Christ, and the demonstration of ministry of his disciples is going. To be sure there are blogs, like this one, dedicated to sharing and defending Christian principles. There are those Christian megasites, mainline somewhat commercial website endeavors. However, there is also countless millions of individuals who share their faith online via chat rooms, emails – yes even the dreaded spam-mails, and through socializing websites like MySpace.com and Facebook.com.
I encourage all those Christians who are entangled within the world wide web to do like the early Christians did. Acts 8.4 says: “Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word.” Get out there in the ether-world and preach the unadulterated word!
Works Cited
Scripture references are from the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).
Ellis, E. Earle. “’The End of the Earth’ (Acts 1:8).” Bulletin for Biblical Research 1 (1991): 123-132 (Link);
All who strive for a life of faith must recognize a fundamental principle of Divine religion: a life of faith is grounded and developed through the incorporation of the word of God into their lives. It is only until we harmonize our lifestyle with the influence of the inspired word, that we can find ourselves progressing towards spiritual maturity (2 Tim 3:16-17). If we do the former, the latter will follow.
It is the proclamation of the events leading up to the redemptive work of Jesus and the continued ministry of his apostles set forth in the written gospel message of the New Testament that is “bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations” (Rom 1:5, cf. Rom 16:26). Paul puts the matter into focus in Romans 10:17 when he sets for the principle of faith: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
The question considered in this piece is focused on our attitude to Scripture’s application to our lives. We are asking, shall we dictate to Scripture regarding how we ought to live, or will we humbly submit to its teaching?
God and His Word
In Scripture, faithfulness to the instruction of God is paramount from both Divine and human vantage points (Hos 4:6; Psa 119). From the Divine side, God has often warned his people from adding to or removing from what He has entrusted humanity with (Deut 4:2; Rev 22:18-19). Little wonder, then, that Peter once said that if anyone should speak, they should “as one who speaks oracles of God” (1 Pet 4:11).
When Joshua, the son of Nun, succeeded Moses as the prophetic leader over Israel and representation of the Lord’s will, God gave him this encouragement:
Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. (Joshua 1:7-8 English Standard Version)[1]
As the representative of the Lord’s leadership among the Israelites, Joshua’s success depended upon his courage to live his life upon the line of faithfulness. Commentary on Joshua’s influence due to his faithfulness is found in the words of Joshua 24:31. This could only be accomplished after extensive meditation and determined application of the Mosaic law.
The opening Psalm of the Psalter echoes these sentiments quite vividly. Psalm 1 is described as “a blessing or beatitude that lays down the two ways of living, exemplified by the character of the just and the wicked.”[2]
Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. (Psalm 1:1-4)
The restatement of “meditation” of the “law” and the subsequent “prosperity” in the life of Joshua 1:8 is not coincidental. It is the foundation of a faithful life of obedience. To “fear God and keep his commandments” is the very fulfillment of the purpose of life (Eccl 12:13).
A millennium later, Jesus speaks to his disciples regarding the importance of abiding in his word. In the Gospel of John, Jesus affirms this principle quite clearly in John 8:31-32, where it is through abiding in his word (“the truth”) that individuals become free from sin. Later, at the close of his earthly ministry, Jesus appeals to the image of a vine and its branches with the emphasis upon the branches abiding in the life-giving vine in order to produce fruit (John 15:1-11).
The illustration stripped away from all metaphor, comes to a focal point in verses 9-11 where Jesus says:
As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." (John 15:9-11)
As Barnabas Lindars summarizes, “the loving relationship of mutual indwelling is pre-eminently a moral union. Hence, love is shown by the voluntary keeping of the Master’s commandments.”[3] We see, then, that love of God is expressed in faithful obedience to the divine commands reflected in a moral and spiritual lifestyle.
God’s Word in Human Hands
From the human vantage point, the application of God’s word derives from “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). The significance of the word translated “rightly handling” (Grk. orthotomeo) is expressed by William E. Vine:[4]
The stress is on orthos; the Word of God is to be “handled” strictly along the lines of its teaching. If the metaphor is taken from plowing, cutting a straight furrow, the word would express a careful cultivation, the Word of God viewed as ground designed to give the best results from its ministry and in the life. (Link)
W. E. Vine, M. F. Unger, and W. White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1984)
In order to properly apply Scripture to life, we must seek the true meaning of the biblical text. This is the human side of living by faith. In essence, God has given his word and expects humans to obey it in love; meanwhile, we must employ our minds to understand and apply his word (cf. 1 Cor 2:11-14; Eph 3:4).
There are several approaches many take to find out the nature of God’s will – that is, His desire or plan for a person’s life. Some randomly open the Bible and apply the first verse under the tip of their finger, and find some mystical application to their situation. Though insight is no doubt obtainable, this is not the most effective approach to incorporating God’s word into everyday life. Scripture was never designed to be approached in this fashion.
Others may have read through the whole Bible several times but still have not figured out what to do with the Bible. The pieces of the biblical puzzle are still scattered throughout their mind because they have never really studied the Bible – they have merely read the Bible as one would read a fictional title. Biblical literature was designed to be meditated upon, memorized, and rigorously studied. It is not literature to enjoy as a pastime or hobby.
We are therefore submitting for consideration the need to study the word of God in such a way that produces spiritual formation; as Paul has said elsewhere, “until Christ is formed in you” (Gal 4:19b). To do this, we must “attempt to hear the Word as the original recipients were to have heard it, to find out what was the original intent of the words of the Bible.”[5] This is the process of exegesis.
The word exegesis is actually derived from two Greek words, ek (“out”) and egeisthas (“to guide or lead”).[6] This is the process of drawing out “the meaning of the biblical text and explaining it.”[7] Biblical faith, and the obedience which is inherent in it, occurs when the meaning of Scripture is drawn out, that meaning is then articulated in meaningful ways, and then applied to contemporary circumstances. This is the noble handling of God’s word.
It is always easier to spout off some superficial interpretation of Scripture that is grounded in inadequate research than it is to produce a well-reasoned, well-understood explanation of a biblical passage or message. Bible study is for all, but it must be candidly acknowledged that there is a difference between the academic exegesis of the Bible and the exegesis usually explored by those untrained in biblical academics. This is an important distinction to address.[8]
Briefly, the non-academic must constantly rely heavily upon the “expert” scholar with the added difficulty of not being able to personally cross-examine “expert” research. However, more resources available today are written at the popular level for the non-expert so that, provided sufficient study, they may become more knowledgeable than ever before (biblical languages, cultural context, tools to study the forms of biblical literature, etc.).[9] This is a matter of mental industry and dedication (Ezra 7:6).
The opposite of exegesis is eisegesis, a word that likewise is derived from two Greek words, eis (“into”) and egeisthas (“to guide or lead”). Eisegesis is “the mistake of reading meaning into a text rather than deriving meaning from it.”[10] It may also be stated as reading into the text “meaning that one wants to get out of it.”[11] The point is: eisegesis is the exact opposite of exegesis. It is a hostile take over of the biblical teaching – intentionally or unintentionally.
In his work, From Scripture to Theology: A Canonical Journey into Hermeneutics, Charles J. Scalise uses the analogy of backpacking and camping to show the need for appropriate hermeneutics. Biblical “campers” must prepare for their trip, employing an important guidance tool for directing their theological travels – a map. The map is the biblical teaching, and it is, therefore, important to stay on the map for the right guidance.
Read carefully the following point Scalise makes contrasting exegesis from eisegesis. It should put the two Bible approaches into perspective:
Instead of Scripture functioning as the rule of doctrine, exaggeration of particular doctrines have sought to become the rule of Scripture. Proponents of a specific view have sought to read their particular opinions into Scripture (eisegesis) rather than letting the Scripture rule their view. Prooftexts have been claimed for an amazing variety of additions to and aberrations of the Christian tradition […] Christians who seek to claim authority for beliefs and actions supported by such scriptural pretexts are making maps where there is no biblical territory.[12]
C. J. Scalise, From Scripture to Theology (1996)
If exegesis is what we do to “stay on the map we are given,” then the opposite is to make, as Scalise observes, a map “where there is no biblical territory.” Shame on us should we fall into this hermeneutical snare. We should always be ready to be taught more accurately and adjust our understandings (our bearings) based upon the Map of Life (Acts 18:24-28).
God’s Word in Human Hearts
After considering the importance God places upon the observance of His word and observing the responsibility laid upon us to properly interpret the Bible, it would be a misfortune not to discuss the need to apply God’s word in the practical everyday life setting. Some seem to simply mentally enjoy the study and proclamation of God’s word, but fail to have the same zeal in the application of its spiritual instruction.
The biblical books were always composed in such a way that they are complete within themselves to teach and to be understood. For example, when Paul composed his letter to the Ephesians regarding “the mystery of Christ” concerning the inclusion of all nations – Jew and Gentile – into the redemption offered by God, he was confident that they would read the letter and perceive its instruction (Eph 3:1-7).
In order to apply God’s teaching to their lives in the most effective way, Christians must be personal students of the Bible. They must be people who hear the word, perceive it, give it space to grow and flourish. Their teacher must be God, and they must never settle for any scholar’s “explanation.” It is Jesus’ words that give life, not the words of the scholar, preacher, or teacher (John 6:68).
As Merrill C. Tenney once said:
[T]here is a danger of substituting the explanation for the text itself. Men read what Dr. X and Professor Y have to say about the text rather than let the text talk to them.[13]
M. C. Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief (1948)
The Bible is fully capable of inducing belief and providing instruction for faithful living. Knowledge of “the book” prevents destruction, and it is for this reason that Hosea lamented for Israel. They failed to allow Scripture to instruct them and guide them (Hos 4:6).
We must allow Scripture to dictate our behavior in public and in private, at work or at play, “at church” or out “in the world” – wherever we are, we must stay conscious of our responsibilities to “do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8 cf. Rom 12:1). To this point, the Lord spoke very clearly to his auditors (Matt 12:33-37). The genuineness of our faithfulness will become evident to those around us.
Jesus once spoke a parable regarding various souls in a field. It is recorded in three Gospel accounts (Mark 4:1-25; Matt 13:3-23; Luke 8:4-18). It was based on an agricultural backdrop, where a person scatters seeds in a field so that he could grow a crop. In this process the seed is tossed out liberally all around the field: “some here,” “some there,” “some over there,” and “some right here.”
Actually, Jesus set forth four places in the field – the pathway, the rocky soil, the thorny patches, and then the good soil. Each seed produced different results depending upon the soil it was embedded within. The seed that fell on the pathway was quickly devoured by the birds, the rocky soil produced superficial growth of the seed, and the thorn patches choked out the developing seedlings. Finally, the good soil developed seed exponentially, according to the ability of the seed to produce.
But when Jesus spoke this parable, the seed was to represent the word of God, and the different soils represent the different receptive hearts. One group (i.e. pathway) is so dense that the word of God will not penetrate their heart, others (i.e. rocky soil) have no real spiritual depth to them and the spiritual effects of the word only last temporarily, another group (i.e. thorn patches) were so occupied with the cares of life that there was no dedication to the word.
These three groups all have failed relationships with the word. But there are some (i.e. good soil) who have receptive hearts, they are tender and pliable before the God who created them and loved them. These are submissive to the word and develop spiritually, according to the person’s ability to develop spiritual vitality. These individuals allow the word to dictate the terms and conditions of their faith.
Finally, in connection with these thoughts, reflect upon the words of Paul as he speaks of the power of the Word of God:
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
God’s word should have full reign in molding the human heart. Heaven help those who desire to live in eternity with their God to be so minded.
Conclusion
Returning to the question which led to this study, shall we dictate to Scripture regarding how we ought to live, or will we humbly submit to its teaching? God has clearly shown that we must submit to his word in order to have a lifestyle representative of biblical faith. We must view the Scriptures are authored by God and, therefore, are capable to accomplish the task of spiritual formation.
God has always expected his word to be faithfully kept and never altered. We must exert great care in deriving our understanding from God’s word. And finally, the application is the only way to truly be the people that seek after God. Mere knowledge will lead to destruction, both knowledge and action are the keys to unlocking spiritual vitality in God’s way.
References
Unless otherwise stated all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
Roland E. Murphy, The Gift of the Psalms (2000; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 18.
Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (1981; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 490.
W. E. Vine, M. F. Unger, and W. White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1984; repr., Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1996), 2:289.
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All its Worth, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 23 (emphasis original).
Matthew S. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 54.
Jack P. Lewis, “The Importance of Biblical Languages,” Man of God: Essays on the Life and Work of the Preacher, ed. Shawn D. Mathis (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1996). Lewis specifically addresses the difference in ability between the minister who is a student of the word in its original language, versus the minister who simply preaches and studies from an English text. The former allows ministers to be more certain of their conclusions while the latter finds ministers encumbered with exegetical limitations. Basically, Lewis affirms, “If one is to be an expositor of Scripture, then he matures in that through a life-long study of the languages of Scripture” (162). The difference spoken of here equally resonates with the members of the congregations: it’s a matter of depth of personal certainty upon which a conclusion is drawn. Otherwise, heavy reliance upon “expert” opinion can be and often is costly.
I have seen flaws on both sides of the debate. On the one hand, I have seen students that know more of their English Bible demonstrated in their deep faith and devoted life than some academics caught up in their theoretical debates on hermeneutics. On the other hand, I have seen students make many egregious errors because they press a biblical passage from an English Bible beyond its intended meaning – an error that could have been relieved by appealing to a more in-depth study of the passage.
DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary, 50.
Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3d ed. (Louisville, KY: WJK, 2001), 52.
Charles J. Scalise, From Scripture to Theology: A Canonical Journey into Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 70 (emphasis added).
Merrill C. Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief – An Analytical Study of the Text (1948; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 21.
Adultery. Not exactly the warmest of words. For some, it evokes the pain that can only be felt from experiencing a broken home. For others, it is a reminder of what could have been if certain circumstances had presented themselves. There are some who think of this word as an obstacle that was overcome and they are survivors indeed. While yet still, there are others who are ever vigilant of all the steps that lead to this dreaded sin.
And finally, there are some who stand humbled in the rubble around them (a life destroyed), that was brought to fruition through that terrible act of adultery. They enjoyed their brief night in paradise, only to be awoken by the torrents of horror in the morning.
The Word Adultery
It is amazing that some who would set forth the claim that their interests are in teaching the Word of God hold a variety of views as to the nature and meaning of adultery contrary to the biblical data. Without considerable interaction with these distinct points of view, let us press on to consider some of the Old Testament evidence as to the meaning and nature of adultery. How does God represent it in the Hebrew Bible?
But where does the word adultery come from. The actual derivation of the English word for adultery is quite enlightening. It actually derives from combining a number of Latin terms into one:
The word adultery originates not from “adult”, as is commonly thought, but from the Late Latin word for “to alter, corrupt”: adulterare. Adulterarein turn is formed by the combination of ad (“towards”), and alter (“other”), together with the infinitive form are (making it a verb).
So, in English the word adultery has the idea of one person moving towards another person in order to make a new personal arrangement. Moreover, in some cases the Latin term adulterare carried the meaning of “to pollute” – taking something that is pure, and contaminating it.
When we say that someone has committed adultery, we are simply stating that a person has corrupted his or her marriage by introducing a third party. The marriage has been altered, changed, and polluted. The English word is quite graphic, but since the Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew we would be wise to consult the meaning of this term there.
The Old Testament Term
In the Old Testament, the primary Hebrew word for adultery is nā’ap. As with any word, it is part of a grouping of words with similar meanings. Many of these words emphasize a range of meanings; for example, they can take literal or figurative meanings, and even describe those who are married or betrothed who are unfaithful. However, nā’apis the found the majority of the time to state that a person has – as we say – “cheated” on their spouse.[1]
William Wilson notes that nā’ap “is confined to adultery in the exclusive sense of the term or fornication by a married person.”[2] James Swanson amplifies the meaning, stating that it refers to a person who has “sexual intercourse with [someone] other than a spouse, as a married or betrothed person, generally, a person of low social status.”[3]
One of the earliest appearances of nā’ap in the Old Testament is in the reading of the “10 Commandments” (Exod 20:14). God says transparently, “You shall not commit adultery.” This command is cradled between the “shall not’s” of murder and stealing, which should give us an indication as to the severity of adultery in the eyes of God (Exod 20:13, 15 cf. Lev 20:10).
Clyde Woods makes the observation that in this command, the “sacredness of marriage” is emphasized, and it is this “principle of social purity” that “provides the basis for numerous [other] laws regarding sexual relationships and offenses” (cf. Exod 22:19; Lev 18:1-18; Deut 22:13-30).[4] And in this connection, R. Alan Cole finds in Joseph’s rejection of Potiphar’s wife the fact that:
For a man to have intercourse with another man’s wife was considered as the heinous sin against God as well as man, long before the law, in patriarchal times (Gen 39:9).[5]
R. Alan Cole, Exodus (1979)
The holiness of God demands that the matrimonial bed be undefiled by extra-marital affairs (Heb 13:4). Some people defile their marriage by actually sleeping with someone other than their spouse (John 8:4), others have so saturated their minds with “daydreams” of scenarios to have affairs, that if circumstances presented themselves they would do it (Matt 5:28); and yet still, there are those who have slipped on more rings on their one wedding finger than many super bowl champions have on their whole hand – and with little to no effort (John 4:16-19). From the beginning, however, this was not God’s ideal plan for marriage (Matt 19:9 cf. Gen 2:24).
Literal and Figurative Adultery
Nā’ap may mean literal adultery, but it also carries figurative, or more precisely, a spiritual application as well. Swanson explains: “in some contexts this refers to religious adultery, usually in which Israel is viewed as the unfaithful female spouse to the Lord in a covenantal marriage contract.”[6] Wilhelm Gesenius likewise remarks, “it is applied to the turning aside of Israel from the true God to the worship of idols” (Jer 3:8-9, 5:7, 9:1, 23:14).[7]
Even as Jeremiah writes of the faithless one – the Northern kingdom of Israel:
The Lord said to me in the days of King Josiah: “Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me,’ but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore. Because she took her whoredom lightly, she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and tree. Yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to me with her whole heart, but in pretense, declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 3:6-10)
Judah had not learned the lesson of her sister Israel. The Northern kingdom of Israel’s fixation with idolatry is amply substantiated in the Hebrew Bible, and, in fact, was a foundational aspect of its administration and spirituality (cf. 1 Kings 12:25-33). It was this faithless one that committed adultery with stone and tree.
We see then that the literal usages of nā’ap enhance the figurative-spiritual uses. The literal and figurative uses share a reciprocal connection; that is to say, they enhance each other.[8] And, this makes perfect sense, for there are very few – if any – words that do not lend themselves to figurative or metaphorical uses.
Examples of Adultery in the Old Testament
Several times in the book of Ezekiel, the spiritual appraisal of Israel is pictured in terms of adultery. Principally, the first 24 chapters of Ezekiel address themselves to this theme. Chapters 15 through 17 explain the doom of Jerusalem by means of allegories and parables.[9] Within this framework, chapter 16 portrays the spiritual infidelity of the Hebrews in the unmistakably graphic picture of marital sexual infidelity.
Observe some snippets from the chapter that the English Standard Version translators call “The Lord’s Faithless Bride” (Ezek 16:1-58):
“When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine.” (vs. 8)
“But you trusted in your beauty and played the whore [were unfaithful; ESV footnote #2] because of the renown and lavished your whorings on any passerby; your beauty became his.” (vs. 15)
“At the head of every street you built your lofty place and made your beauty an abomination, offering yourself [“Hebrew spreading your legs”; ESV footnote #1; cf. ASV “opened thy feet […]”] to any passerby and multiplying your whoring.” (vs. 25)
“Adulterous [nā’ap] wife, who receives strangers instead of her husband!” (vs. 32)
With great precision, the prophet presents God’s anger and sense of betrayal with the imagery of adultery. As Samuel Schultz and Gary Smith summarize:
[I]n an allegory, Ezekiel compared Judah to a young girl that God cared for and married. But the bride ignored her husband and loved others (foreign customs, idols, her own beauty).[10]
Exploring the Old Testament (2001)
Jeremiah, a contemporary of Ezekiel during the Babylonian captivity, ministered in Jerusalem and abroad. Numerous false prophets declared that this captivity was merely temporary and that God would return them soon. In Jeremiah 29:1-28, the prophet sends a letter from Jerusalem to the captives in Babylon encouraging them in their situation, rebuking those who oppose the truth of God’s punishment upon Judah, and re-enforcing the fact that Judah will remain in Babylon for 70 years. One of the blistering comments rendered to the false prophets is that they were adulterers (Jeremiah 29:20-23).
Jeremiah says that Ahab and Zedekiah, the false prophets, “have done an outrageous thing in Israel, they have committed adultery [nā’ap] with their neighbors’ wives, and they have spoken in my name lying words that I did not command them” (vs. 23). This language is as transparent as Leviticus 20:10 where Moses writes, “if a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”
Adultery, literal or figurative, describes the most intimate of interactions. Literally, it refers to actual sexual encounters with someone other than their spouse. Spiritually, it expands upon the literal meaning of adultery and give it a figurative flavor stressing the deep treachery felt by God from his people who give their beauty to another.
Conclusion
Literally, then, adultery is sexual activity between a married person and a person who is not their spouse. Spiritually, then, adultery is spiritual and moral activity contrary to God’s teaching. While Old Testament and the New Testament are uniform in their presentation of adultery, space has been given to a brief investigation of the concept in the Old Testament. The Old Testament and New Testament are two testimonies that share the same conception of adultery, a behavior that Russell describes as, a “special and aggravated case of fornication.”[11]
This concept has not been altered or distorted through the passing of time; consequently, we have no right to redefine it in modern times, contemporary times, or in any subsequent generation to come, for God’s truth endures to all generations (Psa 100:5). He means what he says. Heaven help us to keep it secure and unaltered in our minds!
References
James Swanson, “nā’ap,” Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament), 2d ed., electronic ed. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997).
William Wilson, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, n.d.), 6.
Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.
Clyde M. Woods, Genesis-Exodus (Henderson, TN: Woods, 1972), 179.
R. Alan Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary (1973; repr., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1979), 160.
Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.
Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, electronic ed. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2003), 525.
Emmet Russell observes this exact point when he writes, “the figurative use enhances the literal sense, emphasizing the divine institution and nature of marriage” (Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. Merrill C. Tenney [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1967], 17).
By the language of the text, it appears to have been an average day during the Lord’s ministry in Galilee. The multitudes had flocked to the Good Master wishing to hear him speak and to request him to heal their infirmities. In this particular case, the Lord was teaching in a house and a paralyzed man was dropped down through the roof by his inventive and determined friends.
They trusted that Jesus could heal him, but it seems safe to ponder that they did not expect the Lord’s gracious response. Luke chronicles the narrative in the following manner:
And behold, some men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they were seeking to bring him in and lay him before Jesus, but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith, he said, "Man, your sins are forgiven you." (Luke 5:18-20 ESV)
The Lord’s first response was to give the paralyzed man a pardon. Jesus canceled the man’s transgressions. He overrode the situation and removed the burden of the man’s sins. What a profound event!
Many today wonder why the Lord forgave the man of his spiritual infirmities first, instead of meeting the principal need for which the man was brought – physical restoration. It could be the case that He had already intended to substantiate his Divine claims to forgive sins by means of a miracle, but we simply do not know why with any degree of absolute certainty.
In some sense, the question is irrelevant because the Lord’s activities are interrupted by the scribes and Pharisees. This gives rise to a unique situation where the Lord boldly argues for and asserts His Divine prerogative to forgive sins.
We continue Luke’s narrative:
And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, "Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" When Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answered them, "Why do you question in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the man who was paralyzed—"I say to you, rise, pick up your bed and go home." (Luke 5:21-24)
The miracle was immediate, the crowd was amazed, and the scribes and the Pharisees received an answer they would never forget – Jesus of Nazareth possess the ability and right to forgive sins!
On the Divinity of Christ
Tremendous amounts of energy and ink have been spent discussing the Divinity of Christ. The canonical documents are quite clear as to the Lord’s divinity. John 1:1-3 describes the existence of the Word, who was the agent to create the universe at the beginning (Gen 1:1; cf. 1 John 1.1). In conjunction with these thoughts are the words of John 1:14 that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (cf. Phil 2:5-10). The divine Word has made a human and his habitation was among mankind: he was a living and breathing human (in form and substance) capable of dying.
Paul speaks of the supremacy of Christ by saying that in Jesus the universe stands in “perfect equilibrium,” for in him it is “held together” (Col 1:17; Grk. sunistemi). If Jesus pre-existed in eternity, and then became human, and lived a human life in preparation for his divine ministry, it is not surprising, therefore, that Jesus incorporates the miraculous in His ministry. And though we cannot precisely and neatly slice Jesus into his divine and human sides, this is the great mystery of God in the flesh (1 Tim 3.16).
Yet for some who initially beheld his ministry, this was difficult to absorb. The scribes and the Pharisees, the noted Jewish leaders of the day, heard the words of Jesus, “your sins are forgiven you,” and immediately cataloged His action as blasphemous. How did they come to this conclusion? They properly reasoned “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” If Jesus is the son of Joseph and Mary, then it is logical to assume that Jesus is only human.
They were so close! The presupposition of the scribes and Pharisees is correct. Their working knowledge of biblical data and their perception of the situation is, at face value, true. This act of Jesus of Nazareth was therefore viewed as an arrogant hostile takeover of the prerogative of God (Exod 10:17, 32:31-33; Jer 31:34, etc.).[1]
Had Jesus simply been a mere mortal, they would be completely correct; however, they were dealing with a unique situation – Jesus is no mere mortal. He is the “Everlasting Father” (Isa 9:6), a Hebrew idiom meaning that he has an eternal existence (Micah 5:2; John 1:1).[2] Jesus is Immanuel, which means God among us (Matt 1:21-23). The Lord forgave the paralyzed man of his sins because He had the authority to do so. His authority is derived from His Divinity.
Was Jesus a Moralist?
Many have stumbled and erred regarding the nature of Jesus. To some, he is a great teacher, one that should stand at the top of the world’s “Top 10” of most influential religious leaders of human existence. They over-emphasize his humanity and praise his ethical and moral teachings (e.g. the golden rule). However, they cannot view him as a wonderful teacher of ethics and morals and at the same time deny his claims to divinity.
He was not a mere moralist who “inherited” and “perfected” a preexisting moral tradition from the Jews! And those who are so persuaded to think of Jesus in this light, C. S. Lewis stressed the inconsistency of this view:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said [in his teaching and about himself] would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that [option] open to us. He did not intend to.[3]
We believe that the Pharisees and Scribes held a similar view that many hold – that Jesus was a just great teacher. They were so close, but still so tragically far away from the real nature of God-Man Jesus.
Are You Close, or Yet so Far?
What will you do with Jesus? How will you view his teaching? His claims to Divinity? His claim to be your Redeemer? You will make a decision either way – actively or inactively – and that decision will ripple its effects in the deepest crevices of your life. Again, we ponder over this decision with the words of Mr. Lewis:
We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.[4]
The is a passage in the Gospel accounts that is often nicknamed “the Great Invitation.” It is in Matthew 11.28-30. In it, Jesus invites all who believe in him and his teaching.
Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
He promises that the life that he promises stems from his gentle and lowly heart, and promises rest for your soul. Someone has wonderfully said, that in verse 30 the pressure to successfully live out the teaching of Jesus “fits just right” according to each person’s burdens. We finally ask you: will you come so close to the truth of Jesus and his claims to divinity, or will come so close but yet stand so far off from the good life he promises. The answer is left in your hands. God bless you to do the right thing.
Endnotes
Note: Special thanks to Dr. Earl D. Edwards, Head of the Freed-Hardeman University Graduate School of Bible, for introducing me to this observation in a Bible class. It is not enough to simply observe that the Pharisees and scribes were wrongly charging the Lord with blasphemy, we must also appreciate that they had correctly reasoned that a human did not have this right or power – this was the sole possession of God.
Wayne Jackson, Isaiah: God’s Prophet of Doom and Deliverance (Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, 1991), 25.
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, rev. ed. (New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 52 (emphasis added).
biblicalfaith.online 