YUCKABUCK'S TWO CENTS

but going through such a revolution in my beliefs that I do not feel confident blogging about anything.

ANSWERING A BIBLE QUESTION (AND ADDRESSING WHO HAS AUTHORITY)
The question has been asked what did Jesus mean by this:

MT 23:5 "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them `Rabbi.'
MT 23:8 "But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Ahh...this former Catholic thinks that is a good question!

Also, didn't God say in the Law, "Honor your Father and Mother?"

KINGDOM CONTEXT

When reading the gospels (not to mention the rest of the New Testament) we must always keep in mind that the context for everything that Jesus said is His own proclamation that "the Kingdom of God has come" (Matthew 3:2, 12:28, Mark 1:15, Luke 11:20). This changes everything. How important was the Kingdom of God to Jesus? Look at how he grades John the Baptist: a prophet in Israel would have had enormous authority- but in referencing the prophet John (the Baptist), Jesus says, "Yeah, he's cool and all that, but the least person who has experienced the Kingdom is on higher footing" (Matthew 11:11, my paraphrase).

The Rabbis at the time were seen as the authority to be believed and obeyed, but Jesus came and asserted His own authority, and even had the audacity to begin a new community, in effect a new "12 tribes of Israel." (Today we call this community the "church" and recognize that it is made up of people of all ethnic backgrounds and not just Jews.) The "King" brought the "Kingdom," and nothing in the world could remain the same. The inbreaking of the Kingdom of God meant that all the previous power structures and lines of authority were null and void ("old wineskins" Matthew 9:16-17), and the new situation created by the presence of the King (Jesus) and the revealing of His power (the Kingdom) meant that an all new community with different power structures was being created.

GOD WANTS TO BE GOD OVER ALL

Jesus redefines the power structures of the time, declaring that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ (Mark 3:32-35), and no one is "over" another (Mark 10:42-45).



Going back to Matthew 23 and the phrase in question, the "rabbi" sentence is perhaps easier to grip, but the command to call no one "father" (even my own Dad?!) is tougher. But the main point is probably summed up by Jesus when He says, "The greatest among you will be your servant" (23:11). This same phrase is repeated in Mark 10:43, where Jesus had said that His followers were not to be like the Gentiles and "lord it over" and "exercise authority over" others. In the Jewish culture of the day, both rabbis and fathers were seen as authorities. Jesus is saying that they are to be downgraded a bit! I think this phrase also has to be read in light of the Mark 3 passage, which implies that the new bonds of relationship that are created when we enter the Kingdom takes precedence over the bonds of blood (see also Matthew 10:34-39). In the Kingdom of God, GOD IS KING, and is the only authority. All the old power structures have lost their authority, for "even the least in the Kingdom" is greater than the Law, the Rabbis, a prophet, or anything else.

Instead of authority referring to a hiearchy of command, a "pecking order" so to speak, in the Bible "authority" refers to God's sovereignty as doled out to a particular person for a particular task. God doesn't want anyone "over" another because He wants to be the only ultimate authority in our lives.

REJECTING GOD AS KING

A similar contrast between man's authority and God's can be seen in the Old Testament. After God rescued His people from Egypt He did not grant them a king, but gave them "judges," whom God granted authority for a specific task. The judges do not seem to have been particularly awesome leaders, except that they were effective in finishing whatever specific task God had raised them up for. The people rejected this setup, and demanded a king "like all the other nations"(1 Samual 8:5). God decides to grant their request, but He makes it clear that "they have rejected me as their king" (1 Samual 8:7). God even promises to give Israel a king with a heart like David's, and God "will establish the throne of his kingdom forever" (2 Samual 7:13). But it is still not God's plan to exalt human authority by setting up a king. Notice who God ultimately brings to fulfill this prophecy: a man who is really God in the flesh (Matthew 1:22-23). With Christ as our King, all authority is once again in the hands of GOD.

The main question, then, is WHO YA GONNA OBEY?

HONORING BUT NOT OBEYING PARENTS

The Bible does tell us to honor our parents (Exodus 20:12, Ephesians 6:2). We should still honor our parents, though keep in mind that the word for "honor" merely means "ascribe weight to." It doesn't mean that once we have left the house we still have an obligation to obey our parents! That is exactly what Jesus is coming against here. There is no more power structure with a father, a rabbi, a pastor, a bishop, a pope, or anybody else above another Christian. Jesus is clear that our main authority is GOD.

Another place in Scripture where you can see this is Luke 11:27-28:

LK 11:27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you."
LK 11:28 He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."

Once again, the old structures (mother/ father) are downgraded in light of the new bonds formed by making God our King ("obeying God"). By the way, this verse causes trouble for some Catholic views of Mary that exalt her simply because she was Jesus' mother. Blood ties are simply not carried over into the Kingdom, whether it be family ties, or a spiritual privilege from being descendants of Abraham (Luke 3:7-9, Matthew 21:43).

AUTHORITY AS PICTURED IN THE BIBLE

Here is my thesis: I believe authority is not vested in a position, whether it be "pastor," "pope," or "husband." But God grants authority in situations. In those situations, I should recognize where God has poured out authority and guidance, and follow that. The Roman culture saw all authority as being vested in hierarchical positions. They had their many legions of soldiers, and each one knew where they stood in the chain of command. But the church was not to have a chain of command, per se. The church recognized God as its ultimate authority, and only submitted to penultimate authority when they recognized God's leading and/or authorizing behind it. Here is an example, concerning governments:

ROMANS 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Are we to submit to the government simply because it is in a position "over us," and we are "under it?" No. We are to submit because because we are to recognize that God has established government as a penultimate authority. And when we recognize that the government is telling us to do something that does not reflect God's ultimate authority, we are to disobey. If authority was merely in a position, then are we to obey a government that tells us to reject Jesus? Surely not! For "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

RECOGNIZING THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

Even the Bible has a limited authority- it has authority where God has granted it, but it is not unlimited authority, for one reason because it does not address every question under the sun. When we read the Bible and try to apply it to today's problems, we are really extrapolating from the authority of Scripture. In those cases, we are praying for the help of the Holy Spirit to lead us into the correct applications for today. In other words, we are asking God the Spirit to provide more authority for those places where the Bible stops short. The final authority is still GOD.

WHO IS THE MINISTER HERE?

But what about in the church? The Bible is clear that "leaders" are "servants" (Mark 10:34-45, Matthew 23:8-12) The job of a "pastor" is to equip US to DO THE WORK OF THE MINISTRY. He is not "the minister," WE ARE! (See Ephesians 4:11-13).

It is true that the Bible does say:

HEB 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.

But this should be read keeping Romans 13:1 in mind, that "there is no authority except that which God has established." Why must they give an account? Because they were given authority for the specific task of discipling, teaching, and training the church to carry out God's work. They did not have the authority of a position, but rather the obligation of a calling. They were the "elders," who had followed Jesus longer than the rest. The Christians who were not as far along in their walk were to recognize the authority of leaders who had followed Jesus longer than they did, and they were to submit to their instructions. Yet any authority these "old saints" had was a derived authority from God, and if they stepped out of the realm of His leading, then they were not acting in His authority. The authority in the church is GOD.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE BELIEVER

Today we hear much about the "authority of the believer." We are told by some that we have been given the authority to cast out demons and take authority over sickness. While I believe this is true, we must always remember the nature of derived authority: it's only there when it's there! We have not been given a "blank check from God," like some teachers in the Word-Faith camp have said. Even Jesus did not go willy-nilly, casting out whatever He wanted. He clearly followed the Father's leading:

JN 5:19 Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

All authority rests with God, and even the Son of God in the flesh would not deviate from God's authority. When God has given authority for casting something out or taking authority over an illness, then we should follow that leading. For the authority of the believer comes from GOD, and is not inherent to us just because we are in the position of a believer.

AUTHORITY IN THE HOME

Perhaps this will make it clearer. Here is my view on the whole "Head of household, Submission thing." Note that I am NOT saying that this is what Matthew 23:8 means, but that this might give a picture about what I mean about authority and submission, which is related to the Matthew 23 verse. (I am not giving much biblical proof here, for that would take a book.)

Ephesians 5:21 tells us to "submit to one another," before Paul goes on and describes what that would look like in the typical Ephesian household of his time (Husbands should love as Christ, wives should submit as to Christ, etc.). We should never forget that the context for "wives submit" is verse 21, which tells everyone, including men, to submit to one another. I believe authority is not vested in a position, whether it be "pastor," "pope," or "husband." But God grants authority in situations. In those situations, I should recognize where God had poured out authority and guidance, just like He raised up judges with specific authority for specific situations (see above). And even though I am "the Man," sometimes it isn't poured out in me.

When it came to whether ot not my daughter should be homeschooled, God poured the authority in me. Angela recognized God's authority in the things I was saying, and she submitted to it, even though she didn't like it at the time. (I had said no to homeschooling.) But she has since recognized that we did choose the wise thing. But sometimes I recognize that God has granted HER authority in a matter. In those times, I SUBMIT TO HER. In all of this, it is clear that the authority is NOT in me being a husband or her being a wife. The authority is all GOD'S, which is the point of what Jesus was saying.

I apply the same view to other authority as well. I submit to leaders in the church because I recognize that God has granted them a measure of authority in the faith, not because they are "over me" and I should submit.

And I still call my Dad "father," though I did not submit to him when he wanted me to stay Roman Catholic. And I have no problem with Catholic priests being called father- rather I have a problem with the whole hierarchical structure that the priests are a part of. But you see that the issues here are much deeper than whether or not a priest is called "father." It touches things like how much authority one's own father should be granted, and who has final authority in a marriage.

(I should plan a post on the Headship/Submission issue, after I post again about the authority/inerrancy of Scripture and why I am not a liberal.)

In Wesley's Notes on the Bible, he says:
"The Jewish rabbis were also called father and master, by their several disciples, whom they required,1. To believe implicitly what they affirmed, without asking any farther reason;2. To obey implicitly what they enjoined, without seeking farther authority. Our Lord, therefore, by forbidding us either to give or receive the title of rabbi, master, or father, forbids us either to receive any such reverence, or to pay any such to any but God."

UPDATE

DID I READ SOMETHING INTO MATTHEW 23?

I was worried that my take ( above ) on Matthew 23:8 was a case of "overexegeting," reading too much into a passage. ("Eisogesis" is when we read something into a passage that is not there at all. "Overexegeting" is when we are legitimately looking at the passage, but drawing huge conclusions from the tiniest clues, usually going farther than the evidence demands.)

I asked myself if I was perhaps "overexegeting" the passage, asserting that the whole context of the passage is related to issues of authority, submission, and obedience. For example, verse 5 begins by having Jesus criticize the Pharisees for doing everything "to be seen by men." Isn't that the main point of the passage? Could it be as simple as, " He means do not use these names to be praised by men," as one commentor said?

Perhaps. It is a theme of Jesus' that Matthew dwells on, for example in the Sermon on the Mount:

MT 6:1 "Be careful not to do your `acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
MT 6:2 "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
MT 6:5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

So there definitely is a point here about using titles in order to receive praise from others.

However, I think that I have not missed the point of the passage, for these reasons:

1) First, it does not seem that to understand Jesus' commands this way would really solve a problem. We could drop using titles or else start using humble ones, but still ascribe to those individuals the same amount of authority and recognition. For example, the greek word for "Deacon" means servant, but has it not become an "authoritative title" in some places? Would Jesus only desire an outward change, that does not get to one's inner heart? Not likely.

2) The key to the Matthew 23 passage is in the contrasts: There are earthly teachers, but you have the Christ. The are earthly fathers, but you have one heavenly Father. This is why I say that the passage deals with authority and who you should (ultimately) submit to. Rather than changing the titles but retaining the power structure, Jesus is saying the exact opposite- You can still call someone "daddy," but your obedience is to God first. The power structure has changed, but labels are only useful when the proper lines of authority behind them are submitted to God.

PROLOGUE TO A "READING THE BIBLE ARIGHT" SERIES

I have been thinking a lot lately about how to interpret the Bible, and in what ways is it inspired, and in what ways is it not. While reading a book called "The Remaking of Evangelical Theology" (see here), I had a huge surprise. This is going to take some setting up, though.

HISTORY LESSON
The book chronicles the rise of the Christian Fundamentalist movement, and then the rise and current course of the Evangelical movement. I described some of the history involved here, in a post called About "Separation" and Christian Bubbles. In a nutshell, the "Fundamentalists" were the defenders of the faith versus the liberal "Modernists" who were taking over denominations and schools around the first 40 years of the 20th century. The Fundamentalists ended up losing the battle. BIG TIME. They became very mean spirited and condemned everybody who didn't believe everything that they did. Later, a group of former Fundamentalists came along, who tried to engage the culture again, instead of hiding in Fundamentalist schools that had been formed when the liberals kicked them out of all the existing ones. This group was called the Evangelicals, and included Billy Graham and Fuller Seminary. And they were condemned by the Fundamentalists as well.

THE FUNDAMENTALIST'S PROOF FOR THE GOSPEL
A mild shock came over what all the battles were about: the inerrancy of Scripture. This was basically the WHOLE issue. Not whether miracles were real, whether God existed, whether Jesus rose from the dead, whether drums belong in church . It was over whether or not every word and idea in the Bible was without error.

The REAL shock came in finding out WHY "inerrancy" was THE CRUCIAL ISSUE:
Because the Fundamentalists said that if the Bible was NOT completely infallible, then Christianity falls to the ground.

Stop and think a moment. I was always under the impression that this was a liberal accusation: "Since I can find errors in the Bible, I don't believe that it's true when it says that Jesus rose from the dead." Therefore, the Fundamentalists (rightly) tried to defend the Bible, showing how it is inspired by God, and how many "contradictions" disappear when it is interpreted correctly. That's one of the reasons I was writing about how to interpret the Bible.

But I was WRONG. Liberals had never really made this charge very often yet. Fundamentalists like J. Gresham Machen asserted the infallibility of Scripture as THE PROOF that the gospel was true. And it was the same Fundamentalists who asserted that if the Bible is not infallible in EVERY thing it says, whether about God, Jesus, astronomy, biology, botany, or history, then Christianity was FALSE. Hence, the doctrine of inerrancy became THE test of whether or not you were faithful or not. Depart one inch from full inerrancy, and you were called LIBERAL and condemned.

Some Christians at the time saw this as suicide. "Wait, you're telling people that if they look at the Bible and see errors in it, then they should not believe anything it says?! Are you nuts?" And indeed, the Bible has lost much of its prestige in the culture since that time. All it took was for someone to point out that Jesus was not technically right when he asserted that "the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds," and then they would reject the Bible. Or some other such "mistake," whether real or imagined.

THE CLASSICAL PROTESTANT POSITION
However, the book I am reading asserts that this was not the historic Protestant position, though I haven't checked his sources yet to confirm this. He claims that such stalwarts of faith from Martin Luther to John Calvin to John Wesley did not believe in inerrancy that way. Instead, they all pointed to 2 Timothy 3:16-

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Those rejecting Fundamentalist Innerancy would say that the Bible itself says that it is useful for training in "righteousness," not in biology or astronomy.

A funny example mentioned in the book concerns Calvin, who said that the Bible uses the ideas that people of the time the books were written would have believed. He claims that the Bible says that the moon is bigger than Saturn, which is clearly wrong, but that it does not affect faith because the bible is not meant to teach astronomy. (Well, I thought it was funny, because I have no clue what verse he's referring to!)

In this view, the inspiration of the Bible instead pertains to what we should believe about God, Jesus, the Spirit, sin, atonement and salvation. Wesley supposedly makes a similar comment in regards to botany, probably referring to the mustard seed verses. Obviously, these ideas would also apply to how a Christian interprets Genesis 1 and then responds to evolutionary theory. Darwin may indeed be in need of debunking, but perhaps not by asserting that "God made all the creatures during the six days of creation, and none of them evolved from any other." In other words, the Bible gives us a Theology of Creation, but it may not give us the details of how God did it.

On a side note, the Fundamentalists came up with terms for these positions. They call their position "Unlimited Inerrancy," and the older position "Limited Inerrancy." They chose those terms because "limited" sounds like less faithful.

FINDING WHERE I FIT?
It seems that the rules on interpreting the Bible that I have learned point to what the Fundamentalists would call "Limited Inerrency", since I put the biblical author's intention above everything else. As Gordon Fee pointed out, if the author was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then the author's intention behind what he wrote will also be God's intention for that part of the Bible. So, our first question is always, "What seems to be the author's intention in writing this passage?" For example, looking at Genesis 1, if it seems that it was Moses' intention to accurately describe the details of creation, then teaching about biology and geology would be part of the Bible's intention here. ("God created the world in 6 days of 24 hours each, and we should burn Darwin's books!") However, if Moses' intention seems to be to show how God's Hand was guiding everything from Day 1, and he is expressing that in a poetic way that is not meant to be taken as a strict scientific account, then teaching the details biology and geology were NOT God's intention here.

However, I am leaning towards the classical Protestant position, for a few reasons. First, the Bible does not say it is infallible. It just says it is good for training in righteousness. Second, the Bible does not point to itself as the proof of the gospel. The gospel itself was always asserting itself upon people who heard it preached. (That's a simpler way of saying what theologians mean when they say that the Bible is "self-authenticating."). Romans 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes."

THEN VERSUS NOW
In the gospels and Acts, the miracles of Jesus, and his followers were proof that the Kingdom of God had come. 1)People were to see the miracles, and then extend their belief to what they had not seen: the resurrection of Jesus. 2)They would have the ability to do this as they heard the gospel preached, which came with the divine convicting power of the Spirit. 3)Once believing, they would have the experiential confirming presence of the Holy Spirit as proof that they had entered the Kingdom of God. This pattern did not always happen this way exactly, but it's a pretty good summary of how things went. Nowhere is there mention of believing that the Bible is infallible.

But it's pretty obvious to see why Christians would retreat to the position that inerrancy was the key. 1) Nobody believed anymore that the gospel should be preached along with demonstrations of the Spirit's power (ie. miracles of healing and deliverance). That was just for the "apostlic age." 2) And nobody believed that the Spirit provided a confirmation after believing, except the Pentecostals (and they thought it could only be tongues, of course, which was close to the biblical pattern but not exact) and their forefathers in the Wesleyan/Holiness groups (Wesley's "witness of the Spirit" also hit on some of the biblical idea, but not completely). Of course, both of these groups were considered theologically beneath the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, so here was another experiential proof of the gospel lost. 3) The only thing remaining was the Spirit's convicting power shown whenever the gospel itself was preached, and that was certainly seen in the evangelistic campaigns of D.L. Moody and Billy Graham. But even here, as many Christians did not even know how to communicate the gospel to their neighbors in words that were current and relevant, the thought of relying on this may have seemed hopeless.

But to construct a philosophical/theological system that rested everything on the truthfullness of the Bible? That seemed doable! Isn't that why we send our brightest believers to seminary and teach them as much philosophy and logic as their brains can handle? We can proove the gospel that way, and we'll never have to answer any messy questions like why didn't somebody get healed. And no one will ridicule us by calling us "holy rollers."

Whatever I believe about inerrancy, I cannot agree that the Christian faith stands or falls on how infallible the Bible is. The apostle Paul asserted that there was actually a thing that would cause Christianity to fall apart: "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins" (1 Corinthians 15:17). The resurrection of the Son of God is what Christianity stands or falls on, not competing views of the Bible.

REPLY TO THROWALL
See his comment here.

I do not think Jesus "changed his message or standards to avoid offending sinners or even religious leaders." But He was very clear on what His message was, and did not get bogged down in side issues. He was called the "scandalon," the "stumbling block," because His message itself was offensive to many and still is.

To use a current Christian cliche, I believe that we should be concentrating on offending people with "the offense of the gospel." Of course we cannot avoid offending people over various things, which is why the Spirit leads Christians to be full of "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Galatians 5:22-23). But we should try to offend the most over the gospel, and the least over other things.

Sometimes there is a definite conflict. For example, some people may be offended at the anti-abortion stance of most Christians. Even though the pro-life issue is only tangentially related to the gospel, it is still a very important thing that I believe we must stand up for. But I believe some other things have been blown out of proportion by a modern day desire of some Christians to return to "Christendom," when Christians had all political power in Europe and the church ruled society.

To borrow and then twist Throwall's words, I am saying that, "If we are not careful, we will be responsible for sinners dying in sin because we" found too many ways "of offending them." To use a less controversial example (to the world but not to the church!!!), it is obvious that if certain people are turned off of the gospel because they attended a church service where people were singing songs in a style from the 1800's, then perhaps it would be wise to have another church service where the worship style is at least from the 1900's. I do not want to be responsible for people going to hell because I demanded they swallow "Here I raise mine Ebenezer; hither by thy help I'm come" and "Heavenly portals loud with hosannas ring!."
The gospel is crucial. Jesus did not say," Believe that I am the son of God, I died for you, and also believe that drums and guitars are evil; and you shall be saved." He also did not say. "Believe that I am the son of God, I died for you, and pass the Defense of Marriage Act; and you shall be saved." But I think many Christians are going about in a manner that is unwise, and giving exactly that idea to unbelievers. I am a conservative republican, but my politics are way, way less important than whether or not my neighbor meets Jesus.

My biblical basis for this is spelled out in the updates to the same-sex marriage post (here). In a nutshell, it seems to have been the apostle Paul's practice to place everything at the disposal of making the gospel "attractive" (Titus 2:10). For example, Paul engaged in a huge battle with people who said that gentiles should be circumcised in order to continue the christian walk that they had begun by faith alone (see Galatians). He even says that he hopes God damns to hell those who were spreading this idea (Galatians 1:9, what the greek literally means)! However, when Paul wants to take Timothy along with him, he circumcises him "because of the Jews who lived in that area" (Acts 16:3)! Paul did not change his personal beliefs or standards, but he saw that whether or not Timothy was circumcised was not very important in the light of whether or not the Jews in the area would accept the gospel.

Paul sums it up nicely in 2 Timothy 2:4, "No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs--he wants to please his commanding officer." In the marriage post, I tried to give a rationale for why I think many have gotten in too deep with politics. Paul opened a door for us to engage in changing injust social structures such as slavery, and so we went through it, but don't know when to stop. It is a simple fact that in today's polarized political atmosphere, many people see "Christian" as synonymous with "Republican." And responsibility for that lies at the feet of Christians in the church who have put politics ahead of the gospel.

Around 1993-1994, I thought that if Republicans could just take over the Congress and White House, then God would have His way in our country like we haven't seen in years. Well, they did. And not too much has changed! I am not removing myself from politics or voting. But I want my life to be an example of the gospel, not Republican ideals. I'm not perfect and I may offend somebody. Fine, I will humbly repent. But they might also be offended because they saw that I had given my life over to a crucified man who claimed to be the son of God dying to restore my standing before God. Now THAT'S something for them to be offended by! And I won't apologize or compromise on that.

Capital punishment from the perspective of a confused Christian
This is meant as a riff off of Dr. Ben Witherington's post, which can be found here . It began as a comment, but was obviously too long, so I moved it here and expanded it so as not to sound too incoherent. I have been struggling with the issue of a Christian's involvement in politics, rethinking previously held assumptions, so I am looking more at what a Christian who is in political office should do, rather than only whether something is right or wrong in the abstract. Indeed, the flaw in many Christian debates over capital punishment (CP) is that there is much talk about whether CP is morally justified, but not much about whether it can be justly administered as well. (Dr. Witherington does address this, see below.) We could see CP as morally justified, but never carry it out because we are unable to carry it out justly. These are actually TWO separate arguments, not one. (Much of this was influenced years ago in college by Norman Geisler's book on Christian Ethics.)

Comman Christian arguments for capital punishment:
1) The Bible commands it in Genesis 9:6, predating the Old Testament law.
2) The Old Testament Mosaic law commands it.
3) CP. should be carried out in order to keep the person from murdering again.
4) CP. should be carried out as a deterrence, ie. it keeps others from murdering because of a fear of punishment.

It should be noted that number 1 is a strictly theological reason. While it is definitely true that murder is "killing God in effigy" (for the one killed was made in the image of God), that is not a valid reason for someone in a political office in a pluralistic country. To be logically consistent, we would also have to ban ALL non-Christian religions, as well as atheism, and then explicitly set up a Christian theocracy. (Which leads to point number 2...)

It seems to me that the entire OT law (number 2) is designed to bring about a theocracy, "the Kingdom of God on earth," so to speak. That's why its ethic is absolute and uncompromising. Unless there is an absolutely perfect people, then God will not "dwell among them." The people were to show that they could (on their own) meet the demands of the covenant. If they did, then all of the promised ("eschatological") blessings of Deut. 28 will acrue. If not, then the promised curses would instead appear. That's why every every adulterer must be immediately stoned- otherwise God would not continue to dwell in the community, but would reject the people, as He ultimately did anyway.
(Note to biblical theologians: Of course "eschatalogical" is an anachronism here, for we are not dealing with true eschatology in Deut., but this is the stuff that later biblical themes of promise/fulfillment will come out of.)

What this means for the Christian is that he or she should not use an appeal to the OT to justify capital punishment, for it would be ripping the idea out of its explicitly theological context. We are not to "purge the evil from among you" in the way it is meant in Deut. 13:5! (Lest we become Christian Crusaders or Jihadis!)

But we also should not use an utilitarian argument (no. 3 and 4), such as saying that we should employ capital punishment in order to "keep others from being killed." The end does not justify the means. This would be faulty logic, not to mention destructive if applied to other areas of life as well. (Yes, the "end" of using an "end justifies the means" argument does not justify the means of using it. Got that? I have no clue what I just wrote!) I cannot accept strictly utilitarian arguments.

So, what does a Christian in government do, who is charged with overseeing the safety and security of the people who he or she represents??? If one wishes to support capital punishment, you can't resort to relativism. You can't appeal to Genesis 9:6 ("murder is killing God in effigy"), nor to the OT covenant, which are guidelines for setting up a theocracy, as decribed above.

Common Christian arguments against capital punishment
:1) Christ calls us to non-retaliation in the sermon on the mount.
2) CP is premeditated murder itself.
3) Human life is infintely sacred and valuable.
4) The application of CP is unjust.
5) The culprit may accept Christ later in life.

If one wishes to oppose capital punishment, your choices also seem to be lacking. Christ calls us to personal non-retaliation, but Matt 5 is not addressing the proper actions of government. His ethical admonitions all flow from the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God (see here), which when it comes in fullness, will almost by definition supercede all other governments. While there are different interpretations of speculative eschatology, surely none of them have a direct one-one application to our modern political systems! Number 1 falls.

Not being an expert in Hebrew, I'm told that the word used for murder in Ex 20:13 refers to an action with malicious intent. It does not refer to the dispassionate exercise of punishment carried out by the state. Nix on number 2.

Number 3 is NOT a biblical argument. There are things more valuable than human life, such as serving God. If not, then it would be wrong of me to ever die for my faith. (And it would have been morally wrong for Christ to die on the cross for our sins, because his human life would have been more sacred and valuable than our salvation.)

Number 5 is another utilitarian argument ("the end of this person getting saved years from now justifies the means of his NOT experiencing full punishment for his crime now"). This is also another theological argument which seems to say that an unsaved life is more valuable than anything else. (This avoids the problem of Christian martyrdom: A Christian's service to God is more important than their life, but an unsaved person's continuing on in this world is more important than anything because they may yet become Christian.) A problem with this argument is its inherent uncertainty. The person MAY become Christian, but they may not; and IF it is morally justifiable to exercise CP for other reasons, then to refrain here may actually be a morally wrong action, ie. a "sin of ommission."

Also, as a theological argument, it begs the question of what other theological agendas we should pursue in politics. If we campaign for transmuting death sentences because of the importance of conversion, should we also campaign for the lawful establishment of Christianity, and for the removal of all reference to other religions or at least to overtly secular ideas in media? If our children were not exposed to other religions, or even modern pop music, won't they be more receptive to Christianity?

Also, it is possible to employ utilitarian arguments regarding the application of CP (number 4), as Dr. Witherington does in his post:

"In the first place a good case can be made that many innocent persons have been put on death row and executed. Can the executing of even one genuine killer justify the repeated taking of innocent life (since we are not all-knowing and make mistakes in our judgments of others)?"

While being very true, this is stated as an utilitarian argument, and is therefore logically suspect in my opinion. What if we have proven conclusively that we have caught the guilty person? Perhaps we should say that CP should never be caried out unless it has been proven beyond a doubt that we have the guily person? (And a high threshhold of guit would have to be determined!) Yet, this means that we might sometime actually exercise CP in rare cases, so it does not address the issue of CP being morally right or wrong in itself.

AN ANSWER????????
At this point I throw up my hands and confess that I really don't know what the answer is.Is CP right? Is CP wrong? Is CP right in itself, but wrong in its application? Should our agnosticism (both in the rightness of CP, as well as the guilt or innocence of culprits) make us reject CP as too final a solution?

Perhaps one solution is to ask what it would mean in this situation to "go the extra mile?" I'm not referring to going the extra mile with culprits, but with the culture. Jesus and Paul spoke of Christians "choosing to be cheated," so to speak. Choosing to endure injustice, so that the gospel would gain a hearing. (see here for an explanation of this principle, as applied to the debate over same-sex marriage). Earlier I said that IF CP was actually morally justified, then it might be a "sin of ommission" to seek not to carry it out appropriately. But what if that is the price of the cross? What if not seeing justice done "completely" in this life is the extra burden we place on ourselves, in order that the wider culture may see the gospel in a different light?

In other words, if we are in a culture that is more liberal, we should forego seeing it carried out, so that we will not bring reproach on the gospel. If we are in a more conservative culture, then we should emphasize that CP is always wrong unless we have ruled out completely that the person may be innocent. How this would work out in modern America, which is so polarized politically, I have absolutely no idea...

Thanks to Amanda Warren for stimulating my thinking on this topic.
1) My "old" position, at the beginning of this post:
The "traditional" definition of marriage is too ingrained in the institutions and ideas of our American culture to helpfully be changed to include homosexual unions. Therefore I think that there should be "civil unions" which give same-sex couples all of the legal rights and privileges of heterosexual marriage, but does not encroach on the "traditional" definition of marriage. This would also ensure that no lawsuits would be brought against Christian churches who refuse to perform "marriage" ceremonies for same-sex couples, thereby protecting their freedom of religion.
2) What would Jesus do?
MT 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Jesus would not have been upset about the so-called "homosexual agenda," and would not have defended the "traditional" definition of marriage. (Though He surely would have taught on why God's ideal is a heterosexual union.) He would not have resisted the homosexual advocates, but would have gone the "extra mile."
What would the extra mile have looked like today? For all the churches to say, "Okay, fine. Broaden the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions." But then also say, "We no longer perform 'marriages,' but we do perform 'Christian unions,' which are only between heterosexual couples and do not confer any worldly benefits at all. If a Christian couple is still interested in the legal benefits of 'marriage,' they should also see a Justice of the Peace to have the appropriate ceremony performed."
3) The point?
Many Christians today demand that the same-sex couple be the ones to bend. Either they must, A) never have anything that commpares to marriage, or B) have something that compares to marriage, but it should be given a new, made-up name like "civil unions."
But didn't Jesus call Christians to sacrifice themselves for the world? Aren't Christians to be the ones to take it on the chin? Shouldn't we be the ones to change our "name" for something? Why turn people away from Christ over an eight letter word? Even if we called it "potato," wouldn't it be the same concept of a union before God of two people committed to each other? The apostle Paul says,
1CO 6:7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
Shouldn't we "die to ourselves," in order that the world would see the love of God in us? Of course, for this to work, all the churches in the country would have to be onboard. I guess that's the rub. How many churches out there really have Christ as their pattern? and how many have given up on the path of Christ, and are instead trying to win the "culture war" using the political weapons of their particular party, whether Republican or Democrat.
Perhaps I will give up my current position, which is only based on pragmatism and a cynical distrust of the ability of American churches to actually put the interests of others before themselves?
***********************UPDATES************************
4) Jesus and Marriage
Of course Jesus wouldn't back down from sin, or change His idea of what God commanded. I am not saying that we change our ideas of what is sinful or allowed for Christians. I did say, "He surely would have taught on why God's ideal is a heterosexual union." However, my point is that He would not have gone to the lengths that many Christians are going today. He would have affirmed marriage as between a woman and a man, but would He have stood in the way of the world wanting to change the definition? (That is what I meant by "defending the traditional definition.")
For example, in Matthew 19:2-12, Jesus responds to a similar quibble about marriage, namely divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Moses allows a man to divorce a woman "who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her." The dispute at the time was between the two rabbinnic schools of Shammai and Hillel. Shammai emphasised "something indecent," meaning unfaithfulness of various sorts. Hillel emphasised "becomes displeasing," which could be something as small as she burned his dinner. Jesus very clearly teaches on the topic, and clearly sides with Shammai (and God).
However, Jesus did not embark on a political campaign to restrict how Moses' decree of divorce was interpreted. He did not seek to pass any laws regarding divorce. Instead, He proclaimed and taught about the Kingdom of God (and Himself as the doorway to it), and expeceted those who responded to the call to have a righteousness that "surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law" (Matthew 5:20). Perhaps we should do the same in our current situation? There is a difference between affirming what God says, and passing laws that affect how everybody, Christian or not, should live.
5) Our first stumbling stone- the apostle Paul opens a door
Where did we get our interest in political activity? Instead of giving a long historical lecture, I would like to look at some verses that open a door for Christians to engage in the political world.
1CO 7:17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.... 20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
To me, this passage is critical. Paul is frequently faulted for "supporting slavery." He did no such thing. But he pointedly did NOT embark on a political campaign to end it. He was preaching the gospel, and thought that was more important. But in this text, he adds a caveat- IF you can get your freedon, then do so. At this point the door has been cracked open. We are not to mindlessly "remain as we are," for if the situation changes we can change with it. (See also Paul's letter to Philemon, where the escaped slave who has become a Christian decides to return to his master, but Paul entreats the master to not take him back as a slave, but as a brother.)
Should the situation change to where we can procure freedom for all slaves, then we should do it. In the 18th and 19th century, political developements such as democracy in America and England allowed for full abolition. These were Christians who were leading the way, such as William Wilberforce in England (spurred on by John Wesley). These were good political campaigns that were spurred on by love of neighbor.
But where does it end? At what point have we gone too far?
6) Our second stumbling stone- the apostle Paul puts up a doorstop
For Paul, there was a definite boundary on our activity in the world- namely , we should not bring reproach to the gospel. If people are going to be upset at us, it should be because they do not like the message of Jesus' salvation for all, purchased through His death and resurrection. For example, Paul's letter to Titus says:
TIT 2:1 You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. 2 Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance. TIT 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. TIT 2:6 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. TIT 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
Some would like say that these commands are given because they are God's "traditional roles," and are God's ideals for all cultures, particulary the part about wives being "subject to their husbands." But seeing all of these as norms for all time would contradict the previous verse where Paul tells slaves that they can obtain freedom if the chance arrives. The text clearly says what Paul's motivation is for telling Christians to generally live in line with the patterns of the society of his time, except where it would be sinful.
-so that no one will malign the word of God (probably meaning the gospel, not the Bible- see here, part 2)
-so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us
-so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
For Paul, the advance of the gospel was of paramount importance. For example, after arguing in many of his letters that believers do not have to obey the Law of Moses anymore, he himself tells us that "To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law" (1 Cor 9:20). Not only that, but when he prepares to take Timothy with him on his missionary trip in Acts 16:3, he has Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews who lived in that area." In Acts 21, he joins in some Jewish ritual purifications in order to keep peace with the "many thousands of Jews (who) have believed." His priority is clear:
"On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ." (1 Cor 9:12)
7) The American church today and the idol of Christendom
We have given up putting our hopes in the spread of the gospel, and are instead interested in "winning the cultural war." But I have some things to say that might be hard for many American Christians. First of all, we have never been "a Christian country" (see here ). We certainly were founded by many who were Christians, and Christian ideas were certainly involved, but that is not the same as being a "Christian country."
This one is going to be rough: The promise in 2 Chronicles 7:14 has NO application to America:
if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
This clearly refers to Israel, who are "called by God's name," and it was based on the promises of Deuteronomy, where God says He will establish them as a people in the land He will give them.
Ever since the Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, Christians have flirted with the idea that we can take over governmental power and impose a kingdom of God on earth. It is an idol that we must destroy.
I believe that many Christians in America today see their only hope in politics. George W. Bush, or the Republican party will save us. Nobody says this, but many live like it. I used to. But is is a false gospel, which should be rejected. I am not saying that we should not be involved in politics (the apostle Paul gave us an open door), but I think many are in over their heads and need to step back. It has been shown that when people in America hear "Christian," they also think "Republican," and vice versa. This did not happen through mere political involvement, but through desparate and uncritical political involvement. And it surely impedes the advance of the gospel. The apostle Paul would pull his hair out. And Jesus mourns for those who will never consider the claims of the gospel because they see it tied to a certain poltical agenda.
8) Love the sinner, hate the sin
We are always told that we should hate the sin, but love the sinner. But how does one actually do that? I am trying to define a way where we can actually do that. Let's show homosexuals that we really do love them. I have always seen the threat of lawsuits against churches as one result of legalizing same-sex "marriages," and so I opposed them. "Let them have their own category, called civil unions." But this where I was brought up short by the Sermon on the Mount. WE are the ones who should be inconvenienced (willingly!). WE are the ones who should put others first. Therefore, why don't WE change? If the connection of a legal contract ("marriage") and a religious union ("marriage before God") causes problems, then why don't we choose to give up our privileges (1 Cor 9:12,15,19, Matthew 5:38-42)? We will no longer perform "marriages" but will still join (heterosexual) couples together in the eyes of God.
If we say we are defending the "traditional definition" of marriage, then why aren't we also seeking to outlaw all divorce, except for "unfaithfullness?"
If we would go the "extra mile" with same-sex marriage, THEN the country would know that we are not invested in politics, but in the gospel. THEN they might choose to consider its claims. And THAT is what Jesus and the apostle Paul and the Bible wants above all.
When Jesus returns and sets up the Kingdom of God, HE will enforce the traditional definition of marriage. But I think we have gone through the open door Paul gave us too far. We have neglected the other side of the coin. For in the same passage that Paul tells slaves to get their freedom "if they can," he also says:
1CO 7:29 What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
We should use the things of this world (politics), as if not engrossed in them. Are we?

Well, my place of employment has totally crowded out time to do much blogging. Plus I am bummed out that perhaps I will not get to go to seminary this year either. I feel like the misfit toys in the old Rankin/Bass version of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, still waiting for Santa to finally remember me here. I am not sure if I will keep this blog for long theological essays only, as I was originally using it for. I have in mind a series on the "end times," but no time to write it.

STATEMENT OFTHE PROBLEM

"The Word of God" is certainly one of the most important topics that a Christian could ponder. Yet here we run into a bewildering array of views. On the so-called liberal side, there is the opinion that the Bible is not an infallible spiritual guide, or that even if there is an "infallible Word of God," then the Bible only obliquely represents it (as in Neo-Orthodoxy). However, I want to respond to a position on the extreme right; the idea that God has inspired and preserved one infallible Scripture for English speaking people, namely, the King James Version. On another blog, I have briefly discussed the textual issues, but here I want to respond to the idea that there can only be one "true Word of God" in every language.

Evangelicals believe that the Bible that God inspired was, in fact, the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that came from the hands of the biblical authors themselves, which are called the "autographs." From one point of view, the only fully inspired "Bible" would be a complete textually restored Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament. That was and is God's Word in written form, and our English translations are only facsimiles of it.

Does this mean that we do not have God's Word in English? What if I don't know how to read Greek? Does the Lord demand that I learn Greek and Hebrew in order to understand His Word? What does the Bible say about God's Word, and especially about God's Word in other languages?

PART 1- THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

The best place to begin is to see what the New Testament writers thought about the Old Testament. First, it's obvious that the written words of the Old Testament were seen by Jesus and the early Christians as coming from God and having divine authority in their lives. But let's unpack that a little more. In Romans 3, Paul throws out something interesting:

RO 3:1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

Paul says that the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God, referring to the Old Testament. What God said to Moses, Isaiah, King David, etc., were "the very words of God." In other words, GOD'S WORD was what He spoke to the prophets and writers of the Old Testament. This is not exactly the case with our English Bibles. Paul does not say that the very words of God were also entrusted to the Greeks, for as a trained Pharisee, Paul knew that the Old Testament was in Hebrew. He also knew that what he was writing in his letters was a Greek translation of those Hebrew words. He separates his Greek renderings from the "very words of God" in Hebrew. I am not saying that we do not have God's Word, but our English translations are not the "very words of God." They are instead "the very words of God given in Hebrew but translated into another language, in this case English."
Second, to show that even though a translation is not "the very words of God," it is STILL God's Word; note that the New Testament does many times quote the Old Testament- in Greek. For the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek (and called the Septuagint) a few hundred years before Jesus. This Greek translation WAS the Bible of the early Christian church, especially before the New Testament letters and gospels were gathered together into one book and copied and spread around. When the Old Testament was quoted (in Greek), it was given the full authority of God, and called "Scripture," as in 2 Tim 3:16 (more on this verse below):
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
(In fact Timothy is told to "devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture"; 1 tim 4:13, which for him would probably have been the Septuagint.)
Notice that nowhere in the New Testament does a writer say that you must only use God's Word in Hebrew, or that the Septuagint is the only preserved version of God's Word to Greek speaking people. It was recognized by Paul that the Jews had been given "the very words of God," but he has no problem expounding God's Word from the Greek, frequently quoting the Septuagint, yet never saying that the Septuagint was somehow more special than any other possible Greek translation.

PART 2- THE WORD OF GOD IN THE BIBLE

Before turning to how we should view the New Testament, we must pause and look at the phrase "the Word of God." What many people miss, is that the phrase "word of God" in the Bible rarely refers directly to the Bible.

1) It refers firstly to God's speaking directly to a person:
GE 15:1 After this, the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision
1KI 12:22 But this word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God
LK 3:2 the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert
JN 3:34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.

2) Secondly, in the NT, it refers to the message of the Gospel:
AC 4:31 spoke the word of God boldly (they shared the gospel)
AC 8:14 Samaria had accepted the word of God (the gospel)
2CO 2:17 we do not peddle the word of God for profit (Does NOT mean they were Gideon’s and only handed out Bibles for free!)
2CO 4:2 we do not use deception, nor do we distort the WORD OF GOD. On the contrary, by setting forth THE TRUTH plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if OUR GOSPEL is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. (Word of God, Truth, and Our Gospel are synonyms.)

3) Thirdly, THE WORD OF GOD in the Bible is above all else, CHRIST:
JN 1:1 In the beginning was the Word
REV 19:13 He is dressed in a robe, and his name is the Word of God

There are tons more examples, just not enough time. To sum up point 2:

There is NO place in the New Testament where the phrase "word of God" UNAMBIGUOUSLY REFERS TO THE BIBLE. (No, not even Hebrews 4:12.) The closest thing is Psalm 119, and even there "word" is synonymous with God's "ways," "precepts," commands," and "statutes," which is not a clear-cut identification with the text of the Old Testament.

PART 3- GOD GAVE US SCRIPTURES

Frequently, in the New Testament, the Bible is referred to as "Scripture" (33 times in the NIV, Greek "graphe"). Jesus calls it "Scripture," and quotes often from it. This is the also the word 2 Tim 3:16 uses. Look at it again, for it is one of the most important verses about the Bible that is in the entire Bible:

2TI 3: 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

In Greek, Paul calls Scripture "theopneustos," which literally means "God-breathed," as in the NIV. (The KJV "given by inspiration of God" reflects the idea well, but is not nearly as literal as the NIV. It's interesting to see the "literal translation" engage in "thought for thought" translating, and the "thought for thought" version getting more literal!)
Therefore, our Bibles should probably be called "God's Breath." (Obviously no one will seriously make that change in terms!) God's Word (which is Jesus, which is also the good news about Jesus, which God speaks inwardly to our hearts) certainly comes to us through our reading of "God's Breath." Whenever we read our English versions, He “breathes" into it; at least when it is using words that communicate the message and ideas that He is wanting to say. Wherever a Bible translation (any one) is communicating ideas that are NOT what God is saying, then God is NOT speaking through it at that place.

(I am not trying to push one of the doctrines of "Neo-orthodoxy," that the Bible "contains" God's word, but is not synonymous with it; or that some parts of the Bible are God's Word, and others are not. Read on, please.)

I'm just trying to show how the Bible talks about how God Himself works through the Bible when we read it. His Word (more than just the Bible) speaks directly to our heart:
HEB 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
The writer is talking about more than the Bible, for he or she refers to God's sight as well. This is describing the very action of God in speaking to people throughout the world. Because God's Word is more, much more, than a written record in a certain language, God is able to speak to us through any of our Bibles.

PART 4- THE ARGUMENT STATED LOGICALLY

Here is another way of putting this: Think of the category of GOD'S WORD as a big circle:

(Click on the picture to see it more clearly.)

Since the Bible considers "God's Word" to be more than just the words of the Bible, as it includes God's speaking to our hearts as well as the general message of the Gospel (see PART 2), then the Bible would be a smaller circle inside the larger circle of God's Word.

Also, since the apostle Paul and other New Testament writers had no problems quoting the Hebrew Old Testament in Greek, frequently from a Greek translation (see PART 1), then we may add our translations to the category of God's Word, recognizing that they are not 100% identical to the original Scriptures, which of course were in different languages that may have conveyed different ideas than we have available to use in our own. The circle for our imperfect translations would be partly outside the big circle, but would mostly be concentric with the circle for the Bible as orginally given.


(The farther away a translation is from what God intended to say, the farther away from the circle of Scripture and God's Word it is depicted. Thus, the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation has various part outside the circle due to their changing some verses to fit their theology, and the Book of Mormon is completely outside the circle.)


However, if God's Word is shrunk down to mean only the Bible, then we are left with the problem of NOT having God's Word available to us EXCEPT in the original parchments or scrolls of the original writers.........and then we must hope that maybe perhaps God has also inspired a Bible in OUR language........and then we must somehow pick one particular version that has had some success, and christen it as divinely inspired itself:
(See figure 5.)


This seems to be the point where the King James Only position deviates from Scripture. The "Word of God" is completely equated with the Bible, and then specifically with the King James Bible. Either view does not square with how the Scriptures use the phrase "the word of God." Obviously, if the "word of God" is shrunk to mean only the Bible, then there might be an argument over which Bible- the King James, or maybe another translation? Yet when it is seen that the "word of God" in the Bible is actually more wide ranging than just the Bible (again, see Part 2), then we can see that we are not stuck having to pick only one version as authoritative, while condemming the rest.

However, as Christians who believe in 2 Timothy 3:16, we also acknowledge that the "Word of God" that God has chosen to put in the Bible is our only infallible and authoritative rule for our faith, doctrine, and practice. If anyone else comes along, claiming to have a "word of God" that adds to or contradicts the Bible, then we reject that "word." Even if someone comes along with a "word of prophecy," we know that the Bible (any version!) tells us to "weigh" that word, and to see if it really is God's direction, but also to never give it the same authority as Scripture. God's AUTHORITATIVE word is given in Scripture- both the Hebrew and Greek originals as well as our English renderings, in so far as they represent the originals. The gray areas where we argue over the correct textual reading or the correct translation of a word in no way impinge on the fact that God's Word has been transmitted to us, and has been translated into our language so that everyone may read and understand without a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.

We can be sure that God's Word IS bigger than the Bible, and that's why we can be sure that ALL OF THE BIBLE is God's Word (even.....gasp! ...the Song of Solomon), and that when we read a translation, we have God's actual Word translated in written form.

PART 5- GOD'S WORD IN ALL OF OUR BIBLES

I actually came to believe the Gospel (as Protestants understand it) through reading the Roman Catholic translation (New American Bible, NAB)- because it was God's Word. Even if the human translators mess it up in places, God still speaks through His Word. For example, God can (and does) speak through the Jehovah's Witnesses translation (New World Translation), even though they have twisted several of the verses, including John 1:1, in order to push their pet doctrines (Jesus is not God, etc.). And God certainly speaks loud and clear through the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, NAB TEV, ESV, etc.

Finally on this point, it is to God's glory that He so deigns to speak to us through all of our fallible translations, instead of making every Christian learn to read Greek and Hebrew in order to read His Brea..uh...His Word. BUT, this is why we must make every endeavor, with His help and grace, and led by His Spirit, to see that we have the best rendition of what He first "breathed" to the writers of the Bible (the best Greek texts); and that our English translations are rendering the ideas of the foreign languages (Greek and Hebrew) into English into the best way so that people of every time (not just people in 1611) can read, understand, and hear God speak to them.

BECAUSE I believe that ALL of our English translations are God's Word, and are not to be identified with only one specific version; that is why I desire to spend my life:
-engaging in Textual Criticism, in order to refine our understanding of what the Greek New Testament (and Hebrew Old Testament) originally said.
-studying the languages, grammar, customs, and ideas of the people who wrote the Bible, so as to better understand what they meant in what they wrote.
-learning to preach and teach the same Word of God in a way that frees God up to speak ever more boldly to those listening.