Surprise, surprise…I disagree with Greg Boyd...again.
On the face of it, I believe that Greg Boyd’s view of God, if I understand the openness theology correctly that men like Dr. Boyd hold to (i.e. that God knows everything knowable, but that future events are not knowable, therefore God doesn’t know the future), is such a change in the understanding of who God is that he has departed from what can be considered an orthodox theology and is a heretic.
That being said, I would like to address a few of his points from a recent blog post “Jesus’ Repudiation of Old Testament Violence” and then in a separate entry, I’ll offer a few counter thoughts that directly apply to what seems to be the issue when people try to reconcile what they understand as the difference between the vengeful and violent God of the Old Testament and the meek and peaceful Jesus of the New Testament.
From Dr. Boyd’s Blog –
I haven’t been following his blog, but the title of his recent post caught my attention. Apparently he has been blogging about “the problem of reconciling the Old Testament God of war with the God of the cross revealed in Jesus” lately and, for the life of me, I don’t understand how a Christian scholar doesn’t more easily see the resolution to this question. But I guess, there is no reconciliation needed if you properly understand both the Old Testament and New Testament, God, and salvation…but that is where my later thoughts tie into this issue.
Dr. Boyd references Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew when He addresses the Law and its standards,
38 "You have heard that it was said, `AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' 39 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (Matthew 5:38,39)
The Biblical context for the eye-for-an-eye standard is found in Exodus 21:23ff and Leviticus 24:17ff and in both cases Moses is writing about legal standards of governing the people. In other words, this is the law given so that an offender would know what his punishment would be if he were convicted of fighting and hurting or killing another (the person in view in Exodus is a pregnant woman’s prematurely born child). If the child is stillborn or dies because of the premature delivery, then the attacker’s life is forfeit. If the child is injured in any way, then you are to deal with the attacker in the same way – if the child loses an eye then so does the attacker.
23 "But if there is {any further} injury, then you shall appoint {as a penalty} life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (Ex 21:23-25)
I sincerely reject Dr. Boyd’s categorization of the Law here merely as violence and not as an act of justice for the wronged. On a side note, those concerned with social justice seem most blinded to actual justice in the punishing of criminals…but again, I digress.
This is the standard in their justice system, their penal codes. The parallel passage in Leviticus is the same, but it includes the gracious provision,
“There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the Lord your God.” (Lev 24:22)
This was the law of the land, regardless if you were the poorest of the poor or if you were the richest of the rich or even f you were an outsider. As I understand Jesus’ audience at the time and His words “do not resist an evil person” correctly, then He is not talking about the correct application of the Law as it was to be applied under the rule of Moses and the judges or the kings. Christ is not talking about legal punishment, but about the attitude of the one being offended. If someone is going to take something from you, your attitude as the offended party should not be to resist or fight back, but to give it to them. Christ is not revoking the legal standard or chastising the Old Testament Law in any way. Whatever else may be true of Jesus’ words here to the assembled masses, He is not repudiating the Old Testament Law and its “violent” punishments, although again – I object to the way that Dr. Boyd has categorized this.
Furthermore I think Dr. Boyd does a disservice to the Bible and to his readers in the way that he strings together his various comments. He begins with the punishment of an eye for an eye with its command to show no pity comparing it to Jesus’ admonition to turn the other cheek (where Dr. Boyd’s asserts that Jesus is telling people to show pity, something the text does NOT say) right before this amazing quote,
“the Old Testament allowed Israelites to hate their enemies and sometimes command them to slaughter them”
Thus, whether intended or not (c’mon, I don’t believe it was unintentional) he is further arguing for the vile nature of the “violence” of the punishments for criminals by linking it to the phantom idea that the Old Testament allowed people to hate their enemies. Yes God did command the utter slaughter of Israel’s enemies primarily in the conquest of the land, that is true. But to say that the “Old Testament allowed Israelites to hate their enemies” without trying to qualify what that means is utterly reckless. Hatred for hatred’s sake was never condoned nor was allowed as some non-wrong in Scripture. There is hatred of God’s enemies because God’s wrath was against them, holy indignation, righteous anger – but not a self-centered hatred of others because of a personal reason. Shame on you, Dr. Boyd.
Regarding Dr. Boyd’s comments relating Jesus’ rebuking of Peter:
Peter is rebuked for striking the ear off of one of the men coming to arrest Jesus because, as Dr. Boyd says, “Peter drew his sword in self-defense — acting in accordance with Old Testament norms.” Old Testament norms?!?!? So Dr. Boyd must believe that He would be Scripturally bound to not defend his wife or children from a rapist or murderer. I sincerely hope that he is hypocritical in his statement here, and that is no joke.
Leaving aside the issue of self defense and whether it only has its basis in “Old Testament norms” or is a belief that is consistent with the New Testament, why was Peter scolded? In both Matthew 26:53 and John 18:11, the reason given is so that Scripture would be fulfilled (Matthew 26:53) and that God had prepared this to happen (John 18:11). That is why it was wrong for Peter to come to Christ’s aid at that time. I am again amazed at the reckless mishandling/avoiding of the direct context of the situation he’s talking about. And by the way, Dr. Boyd, don’t forget to read Luke’s gospel where just before Jesus is arrested He tells the disciples to take a sword when the go out, and if they don’t have one now – to get one (Luke 22:36-38).
And finally, Dr. Boyd leaves us with his teaser thought on perhaps what may be going on in the Old Testament with the violence that is in there.
“Is it possible that some divinely inspired material is not supposed to reveal to us what God is like but what he is not like? Is it possible that some material is inspired precisely because God wants us to follow Jesus’ example and repudiate it?”
I’m not sure where to even begin in commenting on this bizarre hermeneutical idea. But I will deal with the example that he brings up; Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac. In an effort to give some sort of footing for his crazy “I commanded those people to do things that were wrong to show you that they were wrong” hermeneutic, here’s his explanation of what was going on in Abraham’s head.
“Abraham believed God told him to sacrifice his child, yet he trusted that God was not really like the bloodthirsty Canaanite god Molech and thus would not make him follow through with his request, even though he had no choice but to move forward in obedience. He trusted that God would supply the commanded sacrifice, if only at the last minute (Gen. 22:8).”
Perhaps I missed something in Genesis 22:8, but Abraham’s comment was “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” Now whether or not Abraham had any thought that God would miraculously have a lamb appear for them to use, or if he was looking forward to the coming Messiah, or if he was referring to the fact that God would provide the sacrifice – in Isaac the miraculously born child, this text doesn’t specify. But Scripture does tell us what Abraham believed, and that is found in Hebrews 11.
“19 He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.” (Hebrews 11:19)
I think that it would be more Biblically consistent to say that Abraham believed that since God commanded him to sacrifice his son and he also knew that this son was the promised heir and fulfillment of God’s promises who had to be alive to do those things, then if God made him sacrifice his son He would also raise him from the dead. Hebrews is clear that Abraham’s faith was not in God to provide a substitute lamb at the altar, but for God to raise the dead! Now whether or not these thoughts crossed Abraham’s mind or similar prayers came across his lips, we aren’t told. To base a theology of reverse psychology on this text, or to use this text as a proof text for this wacky idea, is as foolish as…well, it’s as foolish as open theism. So I guess it’s par for the course.
Soli Deo Gloria
I recently heard Tony Jones being interviewed on our local Christian radio station in the twin cities. I must say that prior to hearing this interview I had not read anything written by Tony Jones or heard him speak, I may have heard him referred to by others, but none of the specifics of any of these references ever managed to stick in my memory. The only thing that I knew going into listening to this interview was (a) his name, (b) his affiliation with Emergent Village, and (c) that he is, apparently, a big name in the emerging church movement.
There were many things about the interview that caused my blood pressure to rise and caused me to scratch my head, both at Tony Jones and at the apparent unpreparedness of the hosts who, for the most part, don’t seem to agree with much of what the emergent movement stands for. But before I get into the main concern that I have with this interview, I must make a few preliminary comments. Tony Jones seemed to use the same types of thought question evasion and debate tactics that I have heard before from Doug Pagitt, who is another emergent leader and happens to be a leader at Tony Jones’ church.
As a matter of fact, Tony Jones was asked basically the same question that Todd Friel (“Way of the Master Radio” host) asked Doug Pagitt, and it was this: can or will a Muslim go to heaven? Both Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt recoiled from answering this question by stating that they didn’t want to engage in a question regarding some hypothetical person. Jones went on to say that if he could have a conversation with this person and find that this person rejected Jesus as the incarnate Son of God, then he would be able to take a position stating that this person was going to hell. Even as frustrating as this kind of answer was to me, it was better than Pagitt’s response. Pagitt would not even truly engage the question on that level because he was reluctant to agree that heaven or hell were actual real places or states of existence in the afterlife as the Bible describes.
But getting back to Jones; why was his desire for personal conversational confirmation of what an individual Muslim may or may not believe about Christ to be frustrating for me? Simply put, if Tony Jones doesn’t understand that anyone who would consider themselves to be a Muslim therefore implicitly rejects the idea of the incarnation or of the Triune Godhead, then what in the world does he believe that Muslims believe about Jesus? I am not an expert on Islam, but I have never found any sect or any division of Muslims who would hold to an Islamic faith but also believe that Jesus Christ is the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Godhead.
I would even make the argument that anyone who would hold to something even close to the true nature of Christ would be associated with Christen-dom, even if only loosely. That being the case, even many groups inside of Christendom do not understand Christ rightly (I have argued in the past and I will continue to argue that believing in the wrong Jesus means that you are still in your sins). Historically speaking, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have always been considered to be cults, but now those lines, at least as far as the culture is concerned, are even being blurred to the point of no distinction. But even if we maintain the understanding that these false religions are not truly Christian, we still have to contend with false and heretical understandings of Jesus Christ inside of our ranks. Oneness Pentecostals reject the Trinity and believe that Jesus is the Father is the Holy Spirit with no eternal distinction in their persons. We can’t even get all who call themselves Christians to pass the Jesus test that Tony Jones wants to personally give to any and every Muslim before making any definitive statement about their eternal inheritance.
Furthermore, show me one religion or a group of people who believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, that He condescended to be incarnated as a man, that He claimed to be (and truly is) the only way of salvation and reconciliation with the one and only true God, and you will find a Christian.1 You will not find a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Baha’i, or anyone else. It may seem laughable that I even feel like I have to make this point, but this is an example of the knots that need to be untied when dealing with many people who would be in liberal (in interpretation, not necessarily in political affiliation), or emergent, Christianity. And this type of convolution or blurring the truth of Scripture is, in fact, possibly one of the largest problems with the emergent church.
And it is at this point that my absolute frustration because of the “same old, same old” from the emergent stream of thought turned into something more…focused. After hearing the entirety of the hour long interview, I can safely say that I was aghast by the way in which Tony Jones seems to view the substance of Scripture, the inerrancy of Scripture, and the way of interpreting Scripture. When Tony Jones was asked about what his ultimate authority is, he responded in this way,
“The ultimate authority is God as incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ and represented in the teachings of Scripture.”2
He then went on to clarify his statement by making the meaning of what he had just said more ambiguous that it previously was. “At every one of those steps, there are multiple interpretive steps that need to be made. How was Jesus representative of God? Christians have been debating that for 2,000 years. How do you faithfully interpret scripture as the inspired word of God? Christians have been debating that for 2,000 years.”3
Tony Jones seemed to clarify his statement of what the ultimate authority by referring some of the debates that have gone on inside of Christendom throughout its history. However, by design, he refrained from making a clear statement about which views inside of the history of the debates of the church correctly understand Christ and the teachings of Scripture. Is the Gnostic understanding of Christ and the Scriptures just as valid and true as the Judaizers or of the Biblical teachings contained in the Pauline letters? Is it just as valid to follow the interpretive methods of Athanasius as it would be to follow in the steps of Pelagius or Arius? As inclusive and intelligent as this type of position appears on the surface, after any quick examining of its substance, it is nothing more than a hollow nothingness of a statement. It lacks any clarity at all. He might as well as said that the ultimate authority is whatever you want it to be. Because, at the end of the day, that is what it ends up being with this perspective.
And when Mr. Jones was asked whether he agreed with a specific statement affirming the inerrancy of the Bible in its original autographs, he did not agree. Furthermore, he dismissed the very idea of affirming something intangible as being ridiculous. Regarding the autographs (the original writings of the Bible), Tony Jones stated that since neither he, nor no one else in the modern world, has ever seen the original writings of the Bible, how could he make a statement affirming what they said? “I would not affirm a statement about something that no one has and no one has ever seen. It’s a purely hypothetical statement.”4
Again, this may seem to be intelligent and a good position for a Christian to take, but this further compounds the problems with Tony’s ultimate authority. He can’t affirm anything about the inerrancy of the Bible; therefore its role as ultimate authority is compromised. And furthermore, if the question that needs to be asked to a Muslim relates to the person of Jesus Christ, how in the world could you ever say that the Muslim has a view that is wrong if what the Bible itself says about Christ is possibly wrong?
And finally, Mr. Jones went from a vague statement of authority, to questioning the reliability of the only real source (both the autographs that we don’t have and the manuscripts that we do have) of that authority, to then having a complete mob-rule mentality when it comes to communicating the truth of Scripture.
He builds his case for a non-authoritative model for preaching by stating that heresies and cults don’t come from a discussion group atmosphere. According to Mr. Jones, cults and heresies come from figures like David Koresh or Jim Jones. “I know that when David Koresh got to the end of a sermon, he never was like, ‘Ok, what do you all think about that?’ Jim Jones didn’t open it up for discussion time. He said, ‘ This is it, I preach to you with absolute certainty. I am the messiah. That’s how cults start, that’s how heresies start. When conversation is closed off and there is a single person or an oligarchy, the ruling few of an elite class, who say, ‘we have the Spirit, you don’t. We’re the only ones who get to interpret Scripture. All of you sinners out there, all of you people out there who are struggling with whatever you’re struggling with, you don’t get to. That’s the problem.”5
I have two major problems with what Tony Jones stated. First of all, how does he “know” what David Koresh or Jim Jones did or didn’t do at the end of every one of their sermons? Why should I believe him? What source material is he using for his conclusions? And since I have never seen all of David Koresh’s sermons and I wasn’t there in the Wako compound, how can I know for sure what he did or didn’t say or do? The second problem is Tony Jones’ mixing of the heresies and cults. I think that he is right about the formation of cults, but heresies do not always begin from a singular authoritative figure. They may be first promoted by one man or a small group of people, but they eventually become popular with the masses who, individually, may or may not necessarily be directly associated with the initial purveyor of the ideas. This is fairly a specific distinction, but it is supremely important because we should never be so foolish as to think that heresies only (or even primarily) come into play because of the presence of one dictator-like church boss.
And in an answer to the problems with having any type of authority or authoritative interpretation or communication of what the Bible does say about anything that he had attempted to bring out, Tony Jones puts forward his own idea of how the truth of the Bible should be communicated in sermons. The sermon [at Solomon’s Porch] is written, is developed, by a group of people on a Tuesday night called the Bible Discussion group, and anyone in the church is able to come – gay, straight, ya’ know…gambling addict, glutton, you name it – they can all come. And they, for two-and-a-half or three-hours, talk about this passage of Scripture that we’re going to be preaching about on Sunday. And it really is an open-source, wikipedia, kind of way to come up with a sermon. And then whoever is charged that week, most often it’s Doug [Pagitt], the “pastor”…they take that and they kind of boil it down to about 30 minutes. And then, at the end of that 30 minutes on Sunday evening, it’s opened up to everyone in the congregation.
We’ve got people at Solomon’s Porch who’ll sit there with their laptop open on their lap…talk about keeping you honest when you’re preaching, their googling what you’re preaching about and looking it up on Bible web sites, wikipedia, and everything else. And people will say, ‘Hey I found this, what do you think about that?’ or, ‘that reminds me of this verse, let me read it to you…”.6
So, both in preparation and in presentation, wikipedia and potentially any other web site or author, has as much influence on the message as the Bible does. And anticipating a question about his wikipedia hermeneutic that wasn’t asked by the interviewers, he said,"There are people who are still going to want to go to the encyclopedia Britannica because it’s some dude who’s got a Ph. D. from Oxford who’s going to write the definitive entry on Jesus Christ, or the Viet Nam war, or what have you. There are others of us, and I count myself among this group, who I trust the crowd at wikipedia where there are thousands of people editing the entry for Jesus Christ, or the Viet Nam war. I trust the crowd more than I trust the one guy with the Ph. D. from Oxford."7
Perhaps the best commentary that I can give to the main thrust of his above thought is to quote someone else. "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information."8
The first quote was from Tony Jones, a seemingly intelligent and spiritually mature member and leader of the emergent church movement, and it was said with seemingly a straight face communicating what he really believes. The second quote was from the NBC sitcom “The Office” as stated by the fictional bumbling buffoon, socially inept, and otherwise disaster of a boss named Michael Scott. He also made his comment in utter sincerity, but it was done so in the context of the program to show the utter foolishness of someone using wikipedia for the very reason that Tony Jones lauds its virtue. Whereas that makes the comment on “The Office” funny, it makes Tony Jones’ comments very tragic.
Finally, Mr. Jones’ statement, “I trust the crowd more than I trust the one guy with the Ph. D. from Oxford” was very tragically revealing. It was the wisdom of the crowd, rather than the God ordained authority, that led Aaron to make the golden calf at the foot of Mount Sinai. It was the wisdom of the crowd that led ten brothers to abduct their brother, sell him into slavery, and lie to their father for decades stating that their brother was dead. It was the pressure from the crowd, not an individual, that led Peter to act hypocritically around gentile believers in the young church. It was the judgment and fury of the crowd that called for the execution of the innocent Son of God.
Church leaders are never above question. We must be Bereans when it comes to anything that anyone says about God. Did the Bereans use coliseumpedia or the writings of Plato or Aristotle to test find out if what Paul was saying was true? No, they used the Scriptures. We should use the Scriptures, for they are inspired by God for all things concerning doctrine, life, and godliness (cf. 1 Peter 1:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:15,16). Modern scientific theory does not trump the Scriptures nor does it guide our interpretation. The Scriptures help us in understanding the natural world as well as our place in it. Psychology does not trump the Scriptures, nor do the theories of any psychological school of thought guide their interpretation. The Scriptures help us to understand the inner workings of the mind, knowing the inner workings of the mind does not give us a better insight as to what the Scriptures mean. Scripture interprets Scripture. We just need to be humble enough to see its clarity and teachable enough to change our minds lest we profess to be wise, but truly be fools.
1 And notice that I did not make any statements about man’s sinful nature, the substitutionary atoning work of Christ on the cross, of salvation by grace alone through faith, or any number of other key Biblical truths. Because, if I did, they would become the focus of discussion other than my main point – anyone who affirms Jesus, His deity, and His claims falls into the category of Christendom, if not Christian.
2 Tony Jones interviewed on KKMS Live with Jeff and Lee, 3/10/08 (hour 3).
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 http://dunderball.com/?q=taxonomy_menu/4/85
On leap day (yeah, I know it’s been a few weeks) my wife and I were blessed to have someone watch our children for us while we went on a date. Our date was nothing extravagant, but if you have (or have had) multiple little children, any excursion without children is extravagant. We went to Subway for dinner and enjoyed some uninterrupted conversation, we then went to Barnes and Noble to look for some books, and then we ended our evening relaxing for a bit at Caribou Coffee.
Our date was wonderful with but one exception. The reason I wanted to go to a book store was to look for a pulpit Bible to use when I’m preaching. The nearest Christian book store was too far away for us to get to, and so the nearest Barnes and Noble had to do. I should have been prepared for something frustrating, but I truly wasn’t. After overhearing a nice, sweet, grandmotherly lady ask a sales associate where to find a book about “The Secret,” we made our way to the religious section.
When I then made it to the few cases of Bibles (four side by side cases), I began to get increasingly disgusted. If I had been able to find what I was looking for, I would have found an NASB about the same size as my current one (perhaps a bit bigger) but with no cross-references or footnotes of any kind. I was not overly optimistic about being able to find one, but I thought that I’d give it a shot. It wasn’t the fact that I didn't find what I was looking that disgusted me; it was what I did find that disgusted me.
Now, remember, that Barnes and Noble isn’t the main place to go peruse all of the various editions and choices for Bibles. They did have a decent selection of sizes, fonts, and other packaging-type variations for some good translations (KJV and NKJV mostly), but they had a ton of other things that just started to turn my stomach. I noticed and counted 40 different versions and editions of the Bible. Here’s a list of the variations that I noticed:
Divine health NT (magazine Bible)
Becoming 2 (NT magazine)
Becoming 2008
Sanctuary – a devotional bible for women
Catholic Women’s devotional bible
Women’s Devotional Bible NIV
New Women’s Devotional Bible
Family Life Marriage Bible
Today’s Devotional Bible
Mom’s Devotional Bible
Recovery Devotional Bible
Couple’s Devotional Bible
The Devotional by Max Lucado
Women of Faith Study Bible
Maxwell Leadership Bible
The Everyday Life Bible:
The Power of God's Word for Everyday Living
John MacArthur Study Bible
Billy Graham Training Center Bible
Sportsman’s bible
Military Bible
Life Principles Bible
Literary Study Bible
Illustrated Study Bible
Harper Collins Study Bible
Essential Study Bible
NIV The Learning Bible
TNIV /The Message Parallel
Archeological Study Bible
New Extreme Teen Bible
NIV Student Bible
College Devotional Bible
Youth Walk (NIV)
Teen Study (NIV)
Student’s Life Application Bible
Catholic Teen Bible
Aspire – the New Women of Color Study Bible
Ultimate Teen Study Bible
Discover God Study Bible
Dead Sea Scrolls Bible
Daily Study Bible for Women
I think that I am just sick of the way that the Bible seems to be dealt with so casually that so many different people are trying to “corner the market” on certain demographics to make a profit on their cleverly marketed Bible. That being said, I am not taking a complete shot at the idea or presence of study Bibles as a whole or even at most of these individually. I happen to think that study notes are helpful (as commentaries are helpful), and if you can find a Bible that has study notes by a trusted group of theologians or an individual pastor or theologian (i.e. MacArthur, Scofield, Geneva, etc.), the notes can be very useful.
One of the chief things that got to me was the intense amount of variations done by the same group. Now, I like to read the NIV. I don’t preach from it or use it as my primary source for study, but I do enjoy the reading of it to help me get a grasp on some things. That being said, just of the ones that I noticed at Barnes and Noble, eleven of them were variations of an NIV Study Bible.1 Now, my concern is not with any one specific edition or study Bible, but I have to wonder what deep and meaningful differences could there be between the “Women’s Devotional Bible”, “New Women’s Devotional Bible”, and “Mom’s Devotional Bible” (perhaps you could even through in the “Women of Faith Study Bible” too). Yes, there are probably some differences, but how much different could they be? They’re all directed toward the same group of people and they’re all in the same translation. So what is the deal? Furthermore,
Almost more disturbing than the variations on study Bibles for women that the makers of the NIV put out is the fact that there are so many for various life situations. I envision a mom wanting to encourage her family in spiritual matters picking up her “Mom’s Devotional Bible” during her own private quiet time (the old “Women’s Devotional Bible” and even the previous upgraded “New Women’s Devotional Bible” are now relegated to the back of a bookshelf), but then when she wants to do a devotional with her husband, they both pull out their “Couple’s Devotional Bible”. Later that same day when it is time to do the family devotions, they all pull out their own “Daily Walk” family devotional Bibles.
I can’t, nor would I want to, judge any one person’s motivation for compiling a study Bible or devotional Bible. I have tried very hard to attempt to think that whenever any one of these study and devotional Bibles were put out, it was with the utmost respect for Scripture and a desire to correctly and effectively articulate and explain what God meant by what He said in His Word. So not judging the motivation of the producers, I do want to sit back and ask a question of the situation: just how much of the motivation to make different Study Bibles for teens, tweens, teen guys, and teen girls was based on the almighty dollar instead of the Almighty?
I have concerns with study Bibles in general (I’ll deal with that at a different time), but is it possible that the truth of the Bible itself is getting lost in the shuffle of all of the accessorizing, marketing, and general commercial exploitation of the Scriptures? I praise God that someone may be brought to salvation by reading through a “Divine Health” New Testament. Like Paul, I want rejoice that Christ is preached – whether it is done in pretense or in truth. But, how much of the muddled state of Christendom today is focused more on the packaging, the benefits, and the various life applications of the Bible instead of the God of the Bible Himself.
In my home, we have two children’s picture Bibles, a story-book Bible, two or three Study Bibles, and probably a dozen or so other versions of the Bible. I love the fact that both of my boys have a Bible that they can carry to Church (initiating habit forming behavior), that they can look at and “read” without my concern that the pages are going to rip too easily, and I love that they can associate with different stories. My oldest son usually turns to the page in his Bible that pictures the back of Jesus’ thorny crowned head to hear about Jesus when we sit down to read from his Bible. I have benefited in reading from the various translations that I have and studying what various theologians and commentators have written in order to expound and articulate what God meant by what He said.
So, again, I am not taking a shot at all different types of ways to communicate the truths of the Bible to different ages of people. I am just unsettled that as a prosperous society, we have produced a huge store of Bibles that, by the way that they are marketed, become outdated and somewhat useless for a new circumstance in life. There is a large difference in the understanding of a three, four, or five-year-old child and that of a man or woman at the prime of his or her mental acuity, discernment, and Spiritual growth. I understand that. And there seems very well to be a place for Biblical materials printed that are written at their level of understanding. But if that gets to a point where a child “needs” a devotional or study Bible for a pre-teen, then a tween, then a teenager (different for girls and boys), then (maybe finally) a college student, I am concerned that the focus tends to be more on the packaging and the commentary rather than on the substance. Is this multiplicity of editions of the Bible an example of a God honoring and blessed diversity, or is it a modern day example of money changers in the temple?
This very well could be a worthless rant of mine. I don’t think so (obviously, otherwise I wouldn’t have written it), but I am willing to be persuaded that my concerns are overblown. May the God of the Word move my heart (and your heart) to become evermore in need of the substance of His Word so that we can know and understand more about the God whom we serve.
1 Women’s Devotional Bible, New Women’s Devotional Bible, Family Life Marriage Bible, Today’s Devotional Bible, Mom’s Devotional Bible, Recovery Devotional Bible, Couple’s Devotional Bible, Women of Faith Study Bible, NIV The Learning Bible, Youth Walk, Teen Study
5 Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, `HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and `ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.'" 7 Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, `YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'" (Matthew 4:5-7)
Scripture alone is the final voice in all things pertaining to godliness, theology, and anything else in life. As Christians, we must be humble enough to bow our own desires and thoughts to the truth of God’s Word. Everything, from how I raise my family to how I interact in my political world, should be guided from a thorough study of and implementation of the Word of God.
It is hard to find any example that better displays the supremacy of Scripture than the example of Christ being tempted by Satan in the desert. In the broader context, Jesus rebukes the devil and answers the temptations put before Him by quoting Scripture as well as simply commanding him. I have always found it interesting that Jesus didn’t simply command Satan not to tempt Him, but He quoted Scripture to stand firm against temptation.
But even more than that, even Satan quotes Scriptures in an effort to have God sin before him. We must never be foolish enough to think that just because someone quotes Scripture and sounds authoritative, that doesn’t mean that the message being conveyed is true. Whether you hear Scripture from a preacher, teacher, evangelist, or anyone else, don’t simply ingest, digest, and manifest what they are proclaiming. Satan and his slick salesmen are very keenly aware of what the Scriptures say. In fact, I have heard it said before that if Satan had true and uncontrolled power over the world that it would look cleaner and nicer, it would be full of smiling people who filled up church buildings on Sunday’s and Wednesdays. But the church buildings would not preach Christ aright.
Now, whether that is truly how the world would look or not, I think that it gives a glimpse at one of the most tragically effective deceptions that the devil is adept at using. Church without God, Jesus without the cross, and the Scriptures without their context all lead to an abysmal “gospel” that is truly no gospel.
We must not be lackadaisical in our vetting of the preaching and teaching of our ministers and lay-teachers, nor should we be casually tolerant anytime anyone throws out a Bible verse or a biblical cliché. “God helps those who help themselves.” What Bible verse is that? It’s not in the Bible, but if I had a nickel for every time that I heard someone use that phrase in reference to Christianity and the God of the Bible, I would have no small fortune.
One of the favorite Scriptures for non-Christians, pseudo-Christians, and Christians alike to quote is from Jesus’ words on the Sermon on the Mount, when referring to Matthew 7:1 they say, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” And when this verse is brought out, it is often used as an offensive weapon against those Christians who see sin in our midst, whether in ourselves or in others, and have the audacity to call sin “sin”. Or if a Christian calls attention to a self-styled Christian teacher or a professed believer and notes that this same person betrays that they are not born again based on their actions, this same verse is brought out as a cudgel to put down this kind of judgmental attitude.
I forget where I first heard the best fitting response to the abuse of the words of our Lord from Matthew 7, but I find it to be so refreshing and true. So the next time that you are rightly making an identification of something as sinful, evil, wicked or false and you are doing so while not being pharisaical and executing a sentence or punishment (excluding church discipline, of course) on that individual in the place of God Himself, you may want to remember this concise retort.
“You say, ‘Judge not lest ye be judged.’ But I say, ‘Twist not Scripture lest ye be like Satan.’” - Unknown
Copyright © 2005-2010 Eric Johnson
