Understanding the Bible

The central truths of the Bible are simple and easy to understand. They are summarized in what we call the "gospel" as set forth in verses such as John 3:16. The first step in gaining a more detailed knowledge of the Bible is to simply read, read and read the Bible itself so as to build an overall "scope" of the Bible as a whole. The details will then fit within this overall understanding. Since few of us have the ability to read in the original languages of the biblical writers we must use the next best alternative - Bible translations or versions. To avoid confusion and to help with memorization it is probably a good idea to use one particular version as one's basic text for reading and study (this is a matter of choice since they all have their good and bad points), but it is also helpful at times to use different versions for comparative purposes. In this way one gets the benefit of the understanding of different translators. Some versions are meant to be more literal while others are meant to be more "free." In between the two is a sort of golden mean - "dynamic equivalence." The above chart illustrates graphically many modern versions. Each version has its own particular translation goal and should be read in that light.

Compare the Versions Titus 3:4-7

KJV

But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done , but according to his mercy he saved saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to hope of eternal life.

GNB

But when the kindness and love of God our Savior was revealed,he saved us. It was not because of any good deeds that we ourselves had done, but because of his own mercy that he saved us, through the Holy Spirit, who gives us new birth and new life by washing us. God poured out the Holy Spirit abundantly on us through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that by his grace we might be put right with God and come into possession of the eternal life we hope for.

NRSV

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

REB

But when the kindness and generosity of God our Savior dawned upon the world, then, not for any good deeds of our own, but because he was merciful, he saved us through the water of rebirth and the renewing power of the Holy Spirit, which he lavished upon us through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that, justified by his grace, we might in hope become heirs to eternal life.

NAB

But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

Phillips

But when the kindness and love of God our savior dawned upon us, he saved us in his mercy - not by virtue of any moral achievement of ours, but by the cleansing power of a new birth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, which he poured upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior. The result is that we are acquitted by his grace and can look forward in hope to inheriting life eternal.

NIV

But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us,not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

The Unvarnished NT

But then the kindliness of our savior God appeared, His love for us humans. Not because of any redeeming deeds we did ourselves but of his own mercy he saved us. Through the washing that bestowed new life, the renewal brought by the holy spirit, which God poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our savior, that we might be acquitted by means of his grace and be heirs to the hope of everlasting life.

**

PDF Version

by Richie Temple

Cary, North Carolina

There are few things more destructive to the development of a godly Christian life than the promotion of rumors, speculations, myths or lies.  Time and time again in history rumors, lies or seemingly harmless speculations have led to gross perversions of Christian principles and many times to the destruction of lives on a mass scale. The truth is not something to be played with according to one's own changing preferences and tastes.  It is something to be sought for honestly, upheld bravely and promulgated in humility.  Paul spoke directly to this need to search out and jealously guard the truth:

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth      (II Tim. 2:15).

Although this verse is very familiar to many people in the fundamentalist and evangelical traditions (usually in its KJV form "rightly-dividing the word of truth") not all seem to realize the incredible harm and injury that can be done by not strictly adhering to it as a principle.  If there is one thing above all else that should be a fundamental principle of biblical study (and biblical application!) it is honesty tempered with humility.   Over the centuries literally millions of people's lives have been affected by erroneous teaching and often times vicious applications of biblical "truth." This has been true not only within the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions but also in the Protestant churches of the reformation and the many denominations and groupings that have sprung from them down to this century.  The massacres of the crusades, the tortures of the inquisition, the countless pogroms of the Jews throughout history, the fascism of Nazi propaganda and South African apartheid have all sought support for their philosophies and actions in the pages of scripture.  Anyone who doubts that such a thing still exists need look no farther than the wholesale "ethnic cleansing" performed by "Christian" ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia as well as similar situations in regional wars of the former Soviet Union.  In each of these cases appeal is made to a scriptural basis for fanatical beliefs held and murderous actions perpetrated.

Today, as throughout the last two thousand years, the Christian world abounds in conspiracy theories and apocalyptic scenarios revolving around the second coming of Christ.  Often these scenarios come complete with date-setting (e.g. a well known international cable news station proclaims 2007 as the "probable" date) in direct contradiction of plain and obvious statements by Jesus and the apostles (Matt. 24:36; Acts 1:7).

Each of the many authors, preachers or  groups who take such positions claim to see the fulfillment of predicted biblical "end-time" signs in the current events of today.  Apparently this is done in ignorance (or disparagement) of the fact that generation upon generation of other Christian believers have done the very same thing in almost every century since the time of Christ - only to be disappointed -  sometimes with devastating mental, emotional, spiritual, material or even physical consequences to themselves or to others.

Let it be plainly said:  Christian believers, especially leaders, have a grave responsibility before God to live lives that are "self-controlled, upright and godly in this present age while we wait for the blessed hope ... " (Titus 2:12-13).  Each of us will one day "give account of ourselves to God" and this "accounting" will include, among other things, "every idle word" we may speak (Rom. 14:12; Matt. 12:36).  The qualities of self-control, uprightness and godliness should be in our thinking, our actions and our speech.  We, of all people, should not be "blown here and there" (Eph. 4:14-15) by the latest "prophecy, report or letter" promoting the idea "that the day of the Lord is at hand" (2 Thess. 2:1-2).  Nor should we allow ourselves to "deceived" by other "distortions of truth" (Acts 20:30-31) concerning any matter - especially when authority is claimed on the basis of special "spiritual insight," "revelation," "Jesus," or "an angel, told me,"  or like unproveable sources (I Thess. 5:21-22).

  The Apostle Paul showed great concern about the harm to people's lives caused by such speculations, distortions and erroneous teachings.  In speaking to Timothy he commanded:

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.  These promote controversies rather than God's work - which is by faith (I Tim. 1:3-4)

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge:

Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction.

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.  Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

They will turn away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry (2 Tim. 4:1-5).

Obviously, there is a grave responsibility for those who teach the scriptures to accurately present "the word of truth" to others.  There is also a responsibility to do this with humility and with a sincere willingness to change when one finds that one is wrong - in part or in whole.  But perhaps, above all, we must all learn to separate speculation from solid biblical evidence and to designate speculation clearly as such.  We should also be willing to honestly say we don't know the answer to certain sections of scripture and to present our understanding of particular topics as "possibilities" rather than "certainties" in areas of disagreement or uncertainty. In short, we need to follow the Bereans' example and "to search the scriptures to see if these things are so" - no matter who teaches them (Acts 17:11).  If the Bereans were right to do this with what the great apostle Paul taught should you or I be offended when people do the same with what we teach or write?!  The answer is, of course, obvious. 

When Will the Kingdom Come?

Any discussion of the timing of the second coming of Christ must keep firmly in mind that from the biblical perspective, God's coming kingdom has already been inaugurated by the first coming of Christ and by the giving of the "firstfruits of the Spirit" to every believer in Christ (Rom. 14:17). From the biblical perspective the whole period of time (however long it may prove to be) from Christ's resurrection and the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost until his future return is "the last days" (Acts 2:17; cf. I Cor. 10:11).  During this time of "the last days" Christian believers have a clear mission which should govern their thoughts, words and deeds:

It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:7-8).

However long or however short the time may prove to be before our Lord's return the Christian mission and responsibility is the same.  It is not altered by world events of a religious, political, economic or cosmic nature (nor, I might add, does expertise in the Bible automatically make one an "instant expert" in such fields as history, economics, politics, etc.).  Instead, the mission and responsibility of the church is always the same because this time period is, in a very special sense, the "day of salvation" - the time when the salvation accomplished through Christ's first coming is now being offered to the world.  For those who accept this salvation the blessings of God's future kingdom have already begun!

E. Earle Ellis speaks directly to this issue in his book Pauline Theology (Eerdmans, 1989), pp. 5-14:

The Old Testament prophets predicted the "last" days or latter days in which God would accomplish the final redemption of his people and the destruction of their enemies.  Later "apocalyptic" writings emphasized that this last or "eschatological" redemption would be "revealed" by God at his sovereign pleasure and would encompass not only the nation but the whole created order.  They interpreted the redemption in terms of both a continuity and a catastrophic discontinuity between the present age and the new cosmic creation, that is, the coming age of the kingdom of God ...

In the teaching of Jesus the arrival of the kingdom is said to take place in two stages.  The first had already appeared in his ministry and was to be revealed shortly [with the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost] in an even greater degree in the midst of the present age.  The second stage, the arrival of the kingdom in universal judgment and final redemption, was reserved for Jesus' future second coming, his parousia as the glorious Son of man.

The coming of the kingdom of God in the resurrection of Jesus and in the activity of the Holy Spirit in the church effectively diminished the importance of the precise time of its final consummation.  While the "delay of the parousia" was a problem for early twentieth century Christian scholars, there is little if any evidence that it was a significant problem for the early church.  From the beginning Paul considered the parousia expectation to be equally relevant for believers who were alive and for those who had fallen asleep in death ...

In Pauline perspective, the transition from death to resurrection is equivalent to the transition from non-being to being (Rom. 4:17);  thus, for the unconscious dead the parousia of Jesus Christ is immediately imminent, only one moment into the future, and thus for the living that moment is never very far (chronologically!) into the future.  Living in the imminence of Christ's return is, therefore, the privilege and the proper stance toward life of every generation of Christians.

Who is "Spiritual"?  Who is "Greatest"?

Who then is "spiritual" or  who is "greatest" in the kingdom of God? Is it those who have attained to some deep spiritual "wisdom" or "insight"?  Is it those who have finally unlocked the mysteries of angels, spiritual manifestations or the spiritual world? The biblical answer to this question is plain through-out the New Testament.  Jesus himself stated it in the simplest of terms in response to the request of James and John to sit at his right and left hand in the glory of his kingdom.

...whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.  For even the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:42-45).

It is clear from such statements that when the Bible speaks of the "mature" or the "grown-up" amongst Christians it is speaking primarily of those Christian believers whose lives reflect a humble and selfless life of Christ-like love and service to others.  It is not speaking of those who are supposedly "initiated" into some deep, hidden secrets that only the "super-spiritual" can understand.  This is confirmed in I Corinthians 3:1-4:

Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly - mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it.  Indeed, you are still not yet ready.  You are still worldly.  For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly?  Are you not acting like mere men?  For when one says, "I follow Paul, and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not men?

Paul is speaking here to Christians - people who have the Spirit of God and who, indeed, are "the temple of the holy Spirit" which dwells in them (I Cor. 6:19).  And yet he uses the adjective "spiritual" not to describe those who are tapped into hidden spiritual secrets or those who are "experts" in spiritual manifestations.  Instead, he addresses as "spiritual" those Christian believers who by virtue of disciplined renewed mind living have cultivated and produced the "fruit of the Spirit" in their lives.  The spiritually "mature" in Christ are the same as the "greatest" in the kingdom of God - they are the ones who like Christ "take up their cross daily," laying down their lives as "a living sacrifice" in the light of spreading and living the gospel message (Rom. 12:1-2).

It was in interaction with this Corinthian church that Paul confronted a group of believers who thought that they were indeed "super-spiritual" - so much so that G.E. Ladd says they "claimed access to a wisdom that secured a perfected salvation ... and a quality spirituality ... that led to utter indifference to the flesh."  As Ladd continues:

This esoteric knowledge led to a haughty indifference to the scruples of the unenlightened (I Cor. 8:1).  The deliverance from the flesh expressed itself in two different ways, both by indulgence and denial.  "All things are lawful to me" (I Cor. 6:12) expressed the freedom of these pneumatikoi ["spirituals"]; and, as the context clearly shows, this freedom was understood to allow unhampered indulgence of bodily appetites, including sexual abuses...

But Paul would entertain no such "spirituality."  For him the message of the cross was the supreme wisdom of God.  To understand its meaning and significance was to understand "the wisdom of God in a mystery."  There was no "higher truth" beyond that.  In short, in the NT the "spiritual" or the "mature" are

not an esoteric circle initiated into special inner secrets of spiritual truth; they are simply mature believers who understand the meaning of the cross and live consistently with this truth ...       (A Theology of the NT, p. 422-423).

[For an excellent study of these subjects I highly recommend Gordon Fee's The First Epistle to the Corinthians in The New International Commentary of the New Testament series published by Eerdmans]

**

PDF version

by Richie Temple

Cary, North Carolina

I thought this would be a good time to revisit and expand on some of the topics that have been covered to date in this column Notes & Quotes on the Bible - especially relating to the topic of the Church.  This is primarily for the benefit of new readers as well as in response to questions that we've received over the last couple of years.  I should note that all past issues of The Unity of the Spirit are available from the address on the back of this issue.  Feel free to write by letter or e-mail.  In order to address topics in this issue as specifically as possible I will use a question and answer format.

Question 1:

Isn't the Church of the Body of Christ the "mystery" that wasn't made known until it was revealed to the apostle Paul?  And doesn't this mean that there can't be anything about this Church in the prophecies of the Old Testament and the Gospels?  And doesn't this mean that Israel and the Church are two separate and distinct entities with two different biblical programs?

Answer:

No, no and no.  The New Covenant Church of the body of Christ stands in direct continuity with the Old Covenant people of God, Israel.  This continuity is explicit on almost every page of the New Testament documents - the Gospels, Acts and NT Letters - where Old Testament scriptures are quoted as being fulfilled in the New Testament period by the New Covenant Church (e.g. Acts 2:16f; 3:17f; Rom. 1:2; Gal. 3:6-29; etc.). This continuity is also implicit in the OT language and concepts that are used to describe the New Covenant Church (e.g. "seed of Abraham," "Israel of God," "circumcision," "church," "temple," "people of God," "holy nation," "saints," "elect," "royal priesthood," "spiritual house," etc.)  In short, what was foretold and/or foreshadowed in the Old Testament scriptures finds its ultimate fulfillment in Christ and, therefore, in his Church (II Cor. 1:20; Col. 2:17).  

The Old Testament scriptures clearly foretold the coming of a New Covenant that God would set up with the house of Israel (Jer. 31:31f).  The New Testament clearly and specifically shows that this New Covenant finds its fulfillment in what Christ accomplished for the Church (Luke 22:20; I Cor. 11:17-34; II Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:7-8; etc.).  Christ had told his disciples, "On this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18) and the rest of the New Testament shows him doing just that (e.g. Acts 2:47b; 26:12-18; Eph. 2:19-22; etc.).  

Thus, the New Covenant people of God were clearly foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures and the New Covenant Church was clearly established - and is built by - Christ himself. There were, however, "mysteries" or "secrets" that had not been made known about this New Covenant people of God.  One of these secrets is called the "mystery of Christ."  Properly speaking, the mystery is not the one body of Christ or the Church of the body of Christ.  Instead, the mystery had to do with the composition of the Church of the body of Christ - the New Covenant people of God.  This mystery is specifically explained in Eph. 3:6:

This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus (Eph. 3:6 NIV). 

The key word here is Gentiles.  The point being made is that through believing in Christ, Gentiles share equally in all that God has promised and now made available to his New Covenant people "in Christ."  The corporate nature of the people of God was not a mystery.  It was implied throughout the OT in language about Israel.  It also was implied in specific OT prophecies about the Messiah such as the "chosen servant" of Isaiah and the "one like a son of man" of Dan. 7 - both of whom were portrayed as the corporate representative of God's people. Nor was it a mystery that the Church - the New Covenant people of God - would be "one in Christ."  In fact, the oneness of the New Covenant church "in Christ" is specifically stated in John 17:

My prayer is not for them alone.  I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.  May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.  I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:  I in them and you in me.  May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me (John 17:20-23). 

These words which were spoken long before the apostle Paul was given his special revelation about the mystery of Christ could not be more emphatic: the Church was to be "in Christ" and "Christ in" the Church as well.  What was a mystery was the composition of this Church - not that there would be such a Church  incorporated "in Christ" - i.e., in the Messiah.

F.F. Bruce sums up the NT teaching about the "mystery of Christ" in his commentary on Ephesians 3:5-6:

The "mystery of Christ" into which Paul has received such exceptional insight is the content of the "revelation of Jesus Christ" of which he speaks in Gal. 1:12 ... Paul sometimes uses the term "mystery" of one particular element in his message - the transformation of believers into spiritual bodies at the last trumpet (I Cor. 15:51) or Israel's final restoration as the goal of its temporary relegation in favor of the Gentiles (Rom. 1:25).  But his use of the term in Ephesians to denote the gospel in its fullness is in keeping with his general practice.  The gospel which he received on the Damascus road by "revelation of Jesus Christ" was the law-free gospel which he proceeded to preach throughout the rest of his life; and precisely because it was law-free it was applicable to Gentiles as to Jews (the law being the barrier that had formerly kept them apart).  The incorporation of Gentiles along with Jews in the new people of God - incorporation by grace through faith - was implicit in that gospel.  This incorporation is the aspect of the "mystery of Christ" which is now [Eph. 3:6] emphasized.

This is a mystery in the sense that it was not made known to human beings in other generations.  Similar language is used in the doxology at the end of the letter to the Romans, where Paul's gospel, "the preaching of Jesus Christ," is said to be "the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages" (Rom. 16:25), and in Col. 1:25-27, where the "word of God" which Paul is commissioned to make known is called "the mystery which has been concealed for ages and generations."  In Col. 1:27 this mystery is summed up in Christ, dwelling in the hearts of Gentile believers as their hope of glory.

Elsewhere Paul insists that his gospel is no innovation.  It was promised in advance though the prophets in the holy scriptures (Rom. 1:2); it was preached beforehand to Abraham (Gal. 3:8).  That faith was the principle by which God would justify men and women, Gentiles as well as Jews, was not a truth concealed in earlier generations.  It is a truth attested, according to Paul, in the Law, the Prophets and the Writings.  He adduces evidence from the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings to establish that Christ came not only "to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs" regarding their descendants but also "in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy" (Rom. 15:8-12), and in this evidence he finds the scriptural basis for his own Gentile mission.

That God would bless the Gentiles, then, was not a new revelation.  What then was the new revelation, the mystery hitherto concealed?  It was this:  that God's blessing of the Gentiles would involve the obliteration of the old line of demarcation which separated them from Jews and the incorporation of Gentile believers together with Jewish believers, without any discrimination, in the new, comprehensive community of God's chosen people.

This had not been foreseen ... what has now been revealed is the plan of God that human beings without distinction - Gentiles as well as Jews - should on the common ground of faith be his sons and daughters in Christ.  "If children, then heirs" (Rom. 17).  To Abraham God had pledged a noble heritage of blessing, and of that heritage Abraham's descendants were the heirs ... But now the divine plan has been revealed that "all families of the earth" should through the gospel not only be blessed in Abraham's posterity but should be reckoned among his posterity, children of Abraham because they all share the faith of Abraham, who "is the father of us all" (Rom. 4:16).  Gentile believers are therefore with Jewish believers "fellow-heirs" of all the blessings pledged to Abraham and his descendants - "heirs of God," in fact, "fellow-heirs with Christ," as Paul puts it elsewhere (Rom. 8:17).  For, as readers of this letter have already been told, it is in Christ that believers receive their inheritance and have been sealed with the Spirit as the guarantee of their eventual entry upon it (Eph. 1:13-14).

Gentile believers, moreover, have been incorporated into the same body as Jewish believers; they are fellow-members of the body of Christ ... Even proselytes from paganism to the Jewish faith were debarred from a few minor privileges which were reserved for Israelites by birth.  In the new community there were no such restrictions.

In adding that Gentiles were "joint-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel," Paul emphasizes a truth which he had taught at some length in Gal. 3:6-29.  The promise was made to Abraham; it was fulfilled in Christ, Abraham's offspring par excellence, "that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Gal. 3:22).  "If you are Christ's," Paul continues, it makes no difference whether you are Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female: "you are Abraham's offspring, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29).  [The New Int. Com. on the NT, The Epistles to the Colossians to Philemon and to the Ephesians, pp. 313-316, Eerdmans].

In short, the New Covenant people of God, the Church, is clearly foretold in the pages of the OT (e.g. Jer. 31:31ff) and clearly spoken of and established by Christ himself.  OT prophecies about this new covenant people of God are specifically said to be fulfilled, and/or confirmed, throughout the pages of the New Testament.  What was not foreseen was that this body of believers in Christ would be composed of both Jew and Gentile on an equal basis - as one new man in Christ - thus, creating the true "circumcision" (Phil. 3:3), the true "seed of Abraham" (Gal. 3:29), and the true "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16). 

[See also Vol. 2 Issue 2 and Vol. 2 Issue 3]

Question 2:

But doesn't the term "bride of Christ" refer to Israel while the term "body of Christ" refer to a new and distinct church entity?

Answer:

No.  There are several expressions used to denote the New Covenant people of God. The word "church" is only one among many terms including "temple," "building," "house," etc.  Describing the church as a "bride" is one metaphor emphasizing certain truths while "body" is another metaphor emphasizing different truths.  This is an emotional subject with many, but F.F. Bruce again explains the matter in his commentary on Ephesians:

The conception of the church as the body of Christ helps us to understand how Paul can not only speak of believers as being "in Christ" but also of Christ as being in them.  They are "in Christ" as members of his body, "baptized into Christ" (Gal. 3:27); he is in them because it is his risen life that animates them.  Similarly, in the organic analogy of John 15:1-8, the branches are in the vine and the vine at the same time is in the branches.

He uses it [the term "body of Christ"] when he wishes to bring out certain aspects of the relation between church members, or between the church and Christ; when he wishes to bring out certain other aspects, he uses other terminology.  From other points of view, for example, the church is thought of as the bride of Christ (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:22-32), or as the building of which he is either the foundation or the chief cornerstone, and so on.  Some theologians, indeed, treat the conception of the church of the body of Christ differently from those other conceptions, admitting that they are metaphorical while insisting that the term "body of Christ" is to be taken "ontologically and realistically."

But if they were right, one could go to make assertions about the church's relation to Christ, on the analogy of the relation which the human body, with its parts and their functions, bears to the head, beyond what Paul has to say.  It is better to recognize that Paul speaks of the church as the body of Christ for certain well-defined purposes, and to follow his example in using such language for these same purposes.  It can be appreciated that those presentations which bring out the vital relation between Christ and the church are more adequate than others (there is no organic relation between a building and its foundation-stone ... ); for this reason the head/body and husband/wife analogy have an especially firm grasp on reality [The New Int. Com. on the NT, The Epistles to the Colossians, Philemon and Ephesians, pp. 71, 70, Eerdmans].

[See also, Vol. 2 Issue 2]

Question 3:

But isn't the Church of the body of Christ the subject of a special "dispensation" or "administration" that was hidden in God until it was revealed to the Apostle Paul?

Answer:

No.  The word that is sometimes translated as "dispensation" (KJV, NKJV, etc.) or "administration" (NIV) does not refer to a period of time.  It is the Greek word "oikonomia" which primarily means the "stewardship" or "administration" of a household.  This stewardship or administration is usually used in an "active" sense in the NT.  It is therefore often equivalent to "stewarding" or "administering" or  the "putting into effect" of something. Andrew Lincoln explains further the nuances of the word oikonomia in his commentary on Ephesians 1:10:

Oikonomia can refer to (1) the act of administering, (2) that which is administered, an arrangement or plan, and (3) the office or role of an administrator, a person's stewardship;  it is often difficult to decide which nuance is in view with a particular usage.  In the Greek world oikonomia was regularly used for God's ordering and administration of the universe. Here in 1:10 it also appears to have the active force (cf. 3:9), while elsewhere (cf. 3:2; I Cor. 4:1; 9:17; Col. 1:25) it refers to Paul's apostolic role and office [Word Biblical Commentary, Ephesians, pp. 31-32, Word Books, Dallas).

There are a great variety of terms used to translate oikonomia in the different Bible versions. But it is never used to describe a period of time like an "age" or "epoch" as is usually done in classic dispensationalism.  Instead, in Ephesians 1:10 it is God himself who will "put into effect" (NIV) his formerly secret plan "to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ."  In a similar way, Paul was given the stewardship of "stewarding" or "administering" or "putting into effect" the grace of God as revealed in the "mystery of Christ" (Eph. 3:2, 9 and Col. 1:25-27).  He did this by making it known to others through his apostolic ministry.

[See also Vol. 2 Issue 2]

Question 4:  

But doesn't the Bible teach that the Christian hope is different from the hope of Israel?  Isn't the Christian hope "heaven" while the hope of Israel is a "kingdom" on earth? 

Answer:  

No.  In the Bible there is one God, one people of God and one hope for all of God's people.  Jesus, as the Messiah of God, is also the one Lord and Christ for all of God's people - Old Testament and New.  When he "comes" in glory he will raise all "those who belong to him" (I Cor. 15:23).  This one biblical hope is summarized in Jesus' own saying:  

"Your Kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10).  

In biblical thought the future hope, reward, or inheritance, of God's people is "stored up" (Col. 1:5) or "kept" (I Peter 1:4) in heaven until the time of Christ's return when he will establish God's "heavenly kingdom" (II Tim. 4:1,18) in a renewed earth.  In a sense then, the biblical hope is "heaven on earth."  The idea that an inheritance, reward, kingdom, city, etc. is "kept in heaven" until the time of its being received in the future is simply a Hebraic way of thinking and speaking that is reflected throughout the New Testament.   The NT, for example, teaches that Abraham and the other OT Patriarchs looked for a "heavenly country" (Heb. 11:16).  In the same way, the "reward" of Jesus' disciples is "in heaven" but they will only receive it when they "inherit the earth" - i.e., the "kingdom of heaven" or "kingdom of God" (Matt. 5:1-12).  These are the same truths that are taught by Paul in II Cor. 5:1-5 when he speaks of a "heavenly building", "heavenly house" or "heavenly dwelling".  In short, as we have born the image of the "earthly" so we will bear the image of the "heavenly" - at Christ's return, when we "inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 15:42-57). 

The NT scholar G.R. Beasley-Murray sums up the biblical  perspective about the use of such "heavenly" language:

While the majority of Christendom has been in the habit of thinking of "heaven" as the place for which the children of God are destined, Jesus makes the startling statement that the meek are to possess the earth.  This accords with the prophetic and apocalyptic traditions almost in their entirety ... The Kingdom of God comes from heaven to earth, and earth will be fitted to be the scene of such rule" [Jesus and the Kingdom of God, p. 163, Eerdmans].

When NT langugage is understood according to its original intent t is plainly that the hope of Abraham, Moses, David, and all the OT saints is the same hope as that of the NT saints:  "eternal life" in the coming age of the kingdom of God.

[See also Vol. 2 Issue 1 and Vol. 3 Issue 2]

Question 5:

But don't the Old Testament and New Testament foretell the coming of a "millennial" kingdom for Israel which will fulfill God's Old Testament promises to it as a nation?  And doesn't the term "kingdom of God" as used in the Gospels, Acts, NT Letters, etc. refer to this "millennial" kingdom which is spoken of in Revelation chapter 20?

Answer

No, and no.  There is nothing about a "millennial" [one thousand year] reign of Christ anywhere in the Bible except in the Book of Revelation.  It is "revealed" only in Rev. 20.  The Old Testament expectation about the coming "kingdom of God" which is to be ruled by the "Messiah" is always that it will be "everlasting" or "without end."  Look at a few examples:

For unto us a child is born, to us a son in given, and the government will be on his shoulders.  And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of peace.

Of the increase of his government there will be no end.  He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time and forever (Isaiah 9:6-7).

In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed ... it will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever (Dan. 2:44).

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with clouds of heaven ... He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him.  His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever - yes, for ever and ever (Dan. 7:13-14, 18).

This expectation for an everlasting kingdom - not a one thousand year reign - is consistent throughout both the Old Testament and New Testament with the single exception of Rev. 20.  Look at Luke 1:31-32 which reflects the NT view all the way through:

You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.  He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.  The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.

All of the references by Jesus, Paul and the other NT writers to the "kingdom of God" can only fit within the Old Testament perspective of this kingdom being a kingdom that is "everlasting" or "without end."  It was also expected to be a kingdom with no evil, death or corruption of any kind and inhabited only by the righteous who had been made immortal (Luke 20:34-38; Matt. 25:31-46; I Cor. 15:50-57).  This can especially be seen in Jesus' parables about the kingdom of God (e.g. Matt. 13:24-30; 47-50; etc.).  Because of this the consistent NT expectation is that "the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9; etc.).  There is no "neutral" third category - one is either "righteous" and made immortal or "unrighteous" and burned up.  In short, in NT thinking the kingdom of God would usher in the "age to come" (Luke 18:29-30).  A time when there would be a "universal restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21), or the "making new of all things" (Matt. 19:28-29), or "a new heaven and earth, the home of righteousness" (II Pet. 3:13).  

Almost all NT scholars recognize these truths and it is for this reason that the subject of the "millennial" reign of Christ, which is only spoken of in Rev. 20, is so controversial.  The picture of this millennium simply cannot fit the picture of the "kingdom of God" that is elsewhere consistently portrayed throughout the NT.  For in the millennium of Rev. 20 there are both immortal and mortal people while there is also evil, death and destruction.  For these reasons the millennium is the subject of a great deal of controversy among Christian NT scholars.  There is however a great deal of unanimity that the millennium is nowhere spoken of outside the Book of Revelation. Consider the following statements by NT Christian scholars concerning this subject of the millennium:

Only in Rev. 20 do we find any NT teaching about the millennium [Robert H. Mounce, The New International Commentary on the NT, The Book of Revelation, p. 356-7, Eerdman's].

When we turn to the New Testament, we find no trace of belief in a millennium in any writer other than John [G.B. Caird, Black's New Testament Commentaries, The Revelation of Saint John, p. 251, Hendrickson Pub.]

We cannot pause here to discuss the question of the millennium ... Rev. 20 is the only passage in the Bible which speaks of it and, whatever be its interpretation, it supplies a very slender base for the elaborate and exact theories that have been erected upon it [John Bright, The Kingdom of God, p. 241, Abingdon Press].

The idea of a limited messianic reign on earth of specified duration, falling immediately prior to the inauguration of the eternal reign of God on earth, is not found in the OT or in any Jewish writing of John's day.  What one does find, however, in both the OT and intertestamental writings, is a firm hope in the eternal reign of God on earth that begins with triumph and reign of God's Messiah [Robert Wall, New International Biblical Commentary, Revelation, p. 235, Hendrickson Pub.].

The millennial reign of Christ in Rev. 20 must be understood in the light of the Book of Revelation as a whole and not read back into the statements of other OT or NT biblical writers.  Even in the Book of Revelation itself the millennium does not take place in "the age to come."  Instead the age to come begins in Rev. 21 when the "former things pass away" and "the new heavens and earth" "come down from heaven."  In contrast, everywhere else in the NT the age to come begins immediately at Christ's return.

NT scholar Richard Bauckham summarizes the issue of the millennium in the light of the overall NT teaching about the Christian hope for the "kingdom of God":

It should be emphasized that no other passage of scripture clearly refers to the millennium.  To apply OT prophecies of the age of salvation specifically to the millennium runs counter to the general interpretation of such prophecies, which find their fulfillment in the salvation already achieved by Christ and to be consummated in the age to come.  This is also how  Rev. itself interprets such prophecies in chs. 21f.  Within the structure of Rev. the millennium has a limited role, as a demonstration of the final victory of Christ and his saints over the powers of evil.  The principal object of Christian hope is not the millennium but the new creation of Rev. 21f. [Richard J. Bauckham, New Bible Dictionary, "Eschatology," p. 347, Tyndale]

[See also Vol. 2 Issue 1 and Vol. 3 Issue 2.   And, for a good explanation of how the millennium may fit within the NT doctrine of the two ages see G. E. Ladd's book The Gospel of the Kingdom, chapter 2 "The Kingdom is Tomorrow," esp. pp. 35-39.]  

**

PDF version

by Richie Temple

Cary, North Carolina

Bible study is a subject of intense interest for most Christians and any believer who has spent much time reading and studying the Scriptures can testify to their life-changing truth.  In the Bible the character, will and purposes of the living God are revealed to mankind climaxing in God's plan of salvation which he brings to fulfillment in Christ Jesus, his Son.  This central theme of the Bible is emphasized in Paul's letter to Timothy:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

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 (II Tim. 3:14-17).

God's will is for "all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (I Tim. 2:4).  It is the Scriptures that point the way. First, the Scriptures are intended to bring people to "salvation though faith in Christ Jesus."  Second, the Scriptures provide "training in righteousness" for the saved people of God.  In short, God's plan of salvation - both its doctrinal and practical aspects - is the main theme of the Bible around which everything else revolves.  In this light, we offer some very simple principles to focus on in Bible study:

(1)  Focus on the central theme of the Bible: God's plan of salvation which he brings to fulfillment through his Son, Jesus Christ.

The main character of the Bible is God and the main story line of the Bible is God's plan of salvation which he brings to fulfillment through his Son, Jesus Christ. It follows that God's plan of salvation should be the central focus of all Bible study.  All other biblical topics should be subjected to, and understood in the light of, this overall theme.  The Bible is not a twentieth century "how to succeed" book filled with "principles for success" based on worldly standards.  Nor is it a book of esoteric mysteries designed to tickle our itching ears.  Instead, it is a book about a living God and the accomplishment of his purposes for his people and creation - all to the praise of his glory.  It should be read, studied and understood in this light.

The Bible points to and focuses on the climactic "mid-point" of God's plan of salvation - the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the salvation accomplished through these events.  This salvation, which the Old Testament foreshadows and foretells, is announced, recorded and explained in the pages of the New Testament.  Each NT "Gospel" comes to a climactic crescendo in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ because it is in these events that salvation has been "won" for the people of God.  The Book of Acts and the NT Letters then set forth an explanation of the significance of these salvific events as embodied in the "gospel" message. In short, through his sacrificial death Christ has paid the ransom price for the sins of all mankind forever and through his victorious resurrection God has made him Lord over God's people and creation.  This event marks the beginning of a new age in God's plan of salvation for mankind.  Paul sets forth a summary of this "gospel" or "good news" in I Corinthians:

Now brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you have received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you, otherwise you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures ... this is what we preach, and this is what you believed (I Cor. 15:1-11; cf. Rom. 10:9-10). 

It is this "gospel" of salvation concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that is "of first importance" in the Scriptures and it should be our initial and abiding point of focus in Bible study. By focusing on this victorious mid-point of God's plan of salvation we can see the whole biblical picture in proper perspective.  We can look backwards to the time of God's preparation and promises in the Old Testament and then forward to the giving of God's Spirit on Pentecost as well as to the final consummation of God's kingdom at Christ's return.

All of the NT Letters present salvation from an "already" but "not yet" perspective of fulfillment and should be understood in this light. Believers have "already" received the firstfruits of the Spirit and are therefore "saved." But we have "not yet" received the fulness of  the "salvation" that is to be revealed at Christ's return; therefore, we still have "the hope of eternal life."  This is set forth clearly in Titus:

But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.  He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:4-7).

(2)  Read and study the Bible in the light of the original intent of each inspired writer and in accordance with each book's historical, cultural and linguistic background.

The Bible should be read intelligently and understood in the light of the original intent of each inspired writer.  The belief that "all Scripture is inspired by God" does not mean foregoing reason or doing away with historical, cultural and linguistic study.  In order to get the most out of Bible study certain facts are simply essential to know.  First, the Bible is a collection of written documents of various kinds.  They were collected over many centuries and finally put in the form in which we have them today.  These "books" are arranged logically. For example, in the New Testament: the Gospels, then Acts and then the NT Letters. 

Originally, however, each New Testament Gospel, Letter, etc. was written independently to a specific group of people to address specific situations and needs.  Each of these NT documents focused on some aspect of the "gospel" of Jesus Christ.  But the inspired writers of these documents did not write them with the idea of their being put into a NT "canon" of Scripture - this occurred much later with the final form of our present canon being completed only in the 4th century.  Originally each NT document was a self-contained "Gospel," "Letter," etc. and should be read as such.  Since they each focus on some aspect of the "gospel" they all fit together "thematically."  However, to try to make them fit together in every detail like a giant jigsaw puzzle is to go beyond their original purpose.

Let us remember, it is the "gospel" - the good news of Christ's death and resurrection - that is "the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes" (Rom. 1:16).  This "good news" is not a complicated message.  Even a person who cannot read can understand it and live in the light of it.  It is so simple, in fact, that its primary truths were all symbolized in what became the central focus of the gatherings of the early Christian churches - the Lord's Supper.  The key to Bible study is to begin with and focus on this "gospel" of salvation.  Then, branch out from there to gain a wider scope and understanding of the Bible as a whole.

**

PDF version

by Richie Temple

Cary, North Carolina

Most of us are not Bible scholars nor do we need to be.  The "gospel of salvation" (Eph. 1:13) is a simple message and when explained correctly it is easy to understand.  All of the NT books revolve around this same theme.  However, if we are going to teach the Bible in our fellowships, churches, Bible studies, etc. then we have a responsibility to be as accurate as we can in what we present.  To do this it is helpful to not only read the Bible itself but also to consult Bible study aids that are prepared by experts in biblical studies. The last half of the 20th century - especially the last 25 years - has seen a virtual explosion in such study aids and this will be our focus in this article.

First though, a few preliminary comments may be helpful.  It is common knowledge that many Bible believing Christians prefer to "just read the Bible" rather than to use Bible study aids.  The fact is, however, that we all read the Bible under the guidance and tutelage of others whether we know it or not.  To begin with, every version of the English Bible that we use today - i.e., KJV, NIV, etc. - is the result of a painstaking effort by the translators and editors of that version to understand the "original" text and to translate it into equivalent English that communicates its message faithfully.  This very process requires knowledge of the original biblical languages, history, culture, etc. and - unbeknownst to many - forces the translator to make interpretive choices in the words he or she chooses for the translation.  In addition, it is even more obvious that most people who read the Bible also listen to sermons, teachings, etc. - all of which are aids for helping us to understand the Bible.  The question is not then, if we should use study aids?  Rather it is, which study aids will we use and/or which teachers will we choose to listen to? 

In this light, the Book of Acts presents a wonderful record that is very instructive for those of us who are interested in coming to a better and more detailed understanding of the Bible:

Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go South to the road - the desert road - that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.  So he started out and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians.  This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet.  The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet.  "Do you understand what you are reading?"  Philip asked.

"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?"  So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:

"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the sheerer is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.  Who can speak of his descendants?  For his life was taken from the earth."

The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?"  Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

Who among us has not felt at times like the Eunuch as we endeavor to read and understand the Scriptures?  Who has not at times felt like he needed help?  In this light there are three specific points in this record that can serve as basic principles for us in our own reading and study of the Scriptures:

(1).  Read, study and memorize the Bible.  This is the first thing that should be noticed about the eunuch.  He was reading the Scriptures in order to gain an understanding of them.  He was searching for truth. This is so very important for no matter what else you do you must read the Scriptures if you want to understand them. Without doing this there is not much point in trying to proceed any further. For it is impossible to gain a good knowledge of the Bible as a whole without putting forth a great deal of time and effort.  Few things in life that are worthwhile come easy and biblical understanding is certainly not one of them.  In this light it must be emphasized: any sincere quest for understanding the Bible must rest on the foundation of one's own reading, study and memorization of the Scriptures.

(2).  We should seek help in understanding the Bible from those who are better trained in the Scriptures. Is there any other field of study where this is not true?  The Eunuch in the passage above needed help in understanding the Scriptures from someone who was better trained in the Scriptures than himself.  First, he read them for himself.  Then he sought help from someone else. The principle responsibility lies upon ourselves for making the necessary effort to study the Bible and then to seek out those resources or teachers that/who can best help us.  They don't just automatically or instantaneously appear on our desks, beside our easychairs, or under the Christmas tree. 

(3).   The focus of our study should be God's plan of salvation which he brings to fulfillment through his Son, Jesus Christ - both its doctrinal and practical aspects.  The focus of what Philip taught "beginning from that very Scripture" was "the good news about Jesus."  This is where all biblical study should begin and where its central and abiding focus must be.  The purpose of Bible study is not to find things that will tickle our itching ears.  It is to enable us to understand and live in the light of God's wonderful plan of salvation.  Keeping this focus will help us avoid all kinds of charlatans who would have us believe and follow "some new thing" which they have just discovered in the Bible.

In the light of these three basic common sense principles we will now set forth a listing of recommended aids for Bible study - focusing on the New Testament. All of the works listed are works by Bible scholars of outstanding abilities who are experts in the original languages, history and cultures of the Bible.  These authors are all believers and range from conservative to somewhat liberal in their Scriptural viewpoints.  They encompass many different denominations from evangelical Protestant to Roman Catholic.  The works chosen are chosen solely on the basis of the quality of the scholarship.

The one common denominator in all of these scholars - in addition to their scholarly abilities - is their "already" but "not yet" viewpoint of the fulfillment of "salvation history" in the New Testament.  In other words, all of the scholars below view the NT as presenting the culmination of God's OT promises to his people through the coming of the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ.  With Christ's first coming the power of God's kingdom was manifested on earth;  through the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost the firstfruits of God's kingdom has already been received; and finally, the second coming of Christ will usher in the final establishment of God's kingdom in a renewed and glorious earth.

One should choose from these works carefully.  Before buying any of them look them over in bookstores or borrow them from libraries to see if they'll be useful for you. As with any book, one should read the preface and introduction of each work listed in order to most effectively use them in the light of their plan and purpose.  The following listings are our top recommendations but this does not imply that we agree with all that is said in any of them or that there are not many other useful works as well.  It is assumed that our readers are able to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions as they use these works. Each study aid will be listed by either author or title or commentary series. Well known titles are abbreviated for the sake of space. All books listed are available from CBD (Christian Book Distributors) unless otherwise noted. Call them - ph. 1-978-977-5000 - for a free catalog and information on membership, etc. through which you can get even more discounts. Out of print books are listed (OP) and must be found in used bookstores or wherever you can find them. They will only be listed if they are of exceptional quality.  The recommendations below are based on the quality of the particular work, their availability and the price.  Choose wisely according to your own needs.

Recommended New Testament  Study Aids:

1.  Bible Versions:  

The Bible can be understood in any of the major English versions that are used today such as the NIV, NASB, NRSV, KJV, NKJV, NAB, etc., - if they are diligently read!  Since all of these versions are fairly accurate, the number one guiding factor in choosing a version should be that it is "reader-friendly" - i.e., it is a version that you can and will read!!  The KJV is certainly beautiful, reverent, even majestic, but it is also archaic and by far the least accurate of any of the versions above. Beyond that, they all have their strong and weak points. Whichever version is chosen as your main text annotations may be necessary for accuracy sake.  Several other versions should also be used for comparison purposes.  It is also useful to have a Greek-English Interlinear to help you get a sense of the underlying Greek text.  I recommend Marshall's which comes in several formats with certain major versions in the margin.  Read the "Introduction" in each Bible version and interlinear so as to understand and use it properly.

2.  The NIV Study Bible:

The NIV Study Bible is the single most useful and complete study aid that I know of for the non-technical student of the Bible.  It is full of useful information - background, word definitions, maps, diagrams, commentary, short concordance, scripture cross-references, etc.  It is conservative in its outlook towards Scripture but recognizes the necessity for historical, cultural and linguistic study to properly understand the Bible.  This is a good place to start when looking for word definitions, background information, etc.  There are also other good Study Bibles keyed to other versions which can be used.

3.  New Bible Dictionary:

Next to a good Study Bible this is by far the best study aid for the general student of the Bible.  It should be the first study aid to turn to when studying any topic. The NBD is conservative in outlook and the articles are written by many outstanding biblical scholars. There are a lot of other good Bible Dictionaries - both single and multi-volume - which you can choose from to supplement this one. 

4. Word Meanings: Strong's or NIV Concordance; Vine's; Thayer's; BAGD and NIDNTT:

Study Bibles have concise definitions of most key words and this is all most people need. Beyond this the most useful method of studying individual words is through the five works listed above, all of which are linked by Strong's numbering system.  The works above are listed in order of increasing complexity.  You should look these over in a bookstore before buying them to see if they'll be useful for you and also to be sure that you get the edition that has the Strong's numbering system in it. They don't all have this.  As always, read their Introductions. Vine's and Thayer's are both somewhat out of date and Vine's is also biased by its dispensationalist views; but, they are both still a good starting place in studying a word. The two best works on words linked to Strong's numbering system are the one volume A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Literature by Bauer, Arntd, Gingrich and Danker (BAGD) and The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT) - in 3 volumes plus one volume of extremely useful indexes.  These are more complex but are very useful, highly regarded by scholars and are widely referred to in other Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and other references.  Very basic Greek - at least the alphabet - is helpful or necessary with some of these.

5.  A Theology of the New Testament :

It is vital to properly understand the New Testament perspective of "Salvation History" in order to understand NT concepts and words properly. A Theology of the New Testament by George Eldon Ladd is an excellent tool for doing this. This work explains the NT perspective of salvation history in clear terms and then goes through the entire NT in a logical manner dealing with almost every important NT word, concept and issue.  The indexes in this work are also excellent and make it possible to look up almost any verse, subject, etc. of importance and to study them in-depth.  Though this book is a little out of date, it is still the best single work on NT theology for the general student of the Bible.  It is considered a classic by most evangelical scholars and offers a good bridge into the world of more detailed New Testament commentaries.   

Recommended New Testament Commentaries:

Bible commentaries are indispensable for serious study of the individual books of the Bible. But, they are not for everybody. They should be used as references to help with background, word meanings, setting, etc. in order to understand a book or section of scripture in its original context. Some of these are written well enough to be read straight through, but they should never take precedence over your own reading, study and memorization of the Scriptures themselves. The commentaries below are listed in order of increasing complexity under each NT book as well as by the author and title of the series in which they appear. Two cheap and useful series in their entirety are Tyndale and NIBC. For the best overall quality of research, usability, readability and price I would choose the NICNT series. All abbreviations are explained at the end. OP means "out of print" but can usually be found.

Matthew:

1. Richard T. France, Tyndale and NICNT

2. Donald A. Carson, Expositors, 2 Volumes

These are both excellent commentaries that complement each other well throughout. I generally prefer France's because it is a clearer format but Carson's is more detailed. France's original work in the Tyndale series has recently been greatly expanded to become the much more detailed commentary for the NICNT. It's good to compare the views of the eschatological discourse of Matt. 24 by these commentators. The most detailed commentary on Matthew is the ICC contribution by Allison and Davies which is in three volumes. It is loaded with information but sold for an exorbitant price.

Mark:

1. Larry Hurtado, NIBC

2. William Lane, NICNT

The NIV Study Bible notes are usually sufficient for Mark. Hurtado's commentary is somewhat dry but it is solid in background material with good end-notes after each chapter. Lane's commentary has more detail and a real reverence for the subject but I'm not sure many really need a commentary of this size on Mark. Mark is pretty straightforward except for sections like chapter 13.

Luke:

1. E. Earl Ellis, NCBC (OP)

2. Joseph Fitzmyer, Anchor, 2 Volumes

E. Earl Ellis' commentary on Luke is a classic and though the NCBC series is (OP), it is well worth trying to find this particular volume. There is a lot in this commentary that you won't find anywhere else. It is written in a succinct style with an excellent Introduction. Fitzmyer's commentary is the standard: very detailed with lots of learning displayed. The format is clear and the Introduction ties together Lucan theology in Luke/Acts. This commentary is quite complex. It is always of interest to see what Fitzmyer has to say on any subject, but this two-volume set is also quite expensive.

John:

1. F.F. Bruce, Eerdmans (not part of a series)

2. Raymond Brown, Anchor, 2 Volumes

Bruce's work is a straightforward commentary of the biblical text that emphasizes the new age of salvation from John's perspective. It also contains a good deal of pertinent background information that relates to the context. For the most part it avoids reading Nicean ideas back into the text. Brown's commentary is something of a classic and comes in two volumes that are filled with many insightful comments and very good notes on the text. Brown also aims to summarize and interact with all major commentaries on John before his. Be prepared for a lot of speculation on setting, sources, etc. as well as a major dose of sacramentalism in this work.

Acts:

1. F.F. Bruce, NICNT

2. Joseph Fitzmyer, Anchor

3. I.H. Marshall, Tyndale

Comparatively speaking, there are not that many good commentaries available on the Book of Acts. The above are excellent and are by renowned scholars. Bruce’s is in a clear format and covers most of what is needed. It is especially good at showing the NT fulfillment of OT themes throughout. All of these commentaries also provide an opportunity to tap into these scholars’ wide and deep knowledge of the historical background of the NT which is so necessary to understanding both Acts and the NT Letters.

Romans:

1. F.F. Bruce, Tyndale

2. Douglass Moo, NICNT

3. Joseph Fitzmyer, Anchor

There are many, many good commentaries on Romans that one can learn a great deal from. Bruce's commentary is somewhat of a classic. It is compact and concise but in no way lacking in theological content. It is a wonderful exposition of the gospel message throughout with an extremely helpful Introduction on Paul's theology. Moo’s commentary has a tremendous amount of useful information and is popular amongst Evangelicals. It is very well done and fairly easy to use. However, Joseph Fitzmyer's commentary on Romans is simply the best. It is a masterpiece of learning, precision and sound judgment. Though detailed, it is presented in a very clear format. The Introduction offers a superb summary of Paul's theology. Of the many other commentaries on Romans that truly have something to offer Fitzmyer's contribution stands out for its overall clarity and its scope and understanding of every aspect of the subject. Any student of Romans should have this commentary for constant reference.

I Corinthians:

1. Richard B. Hays, Interpr.

2. Gordon Fee, NICNT

These are two outstanding commentaries and both are highly recommended for those who have a special interest in this book of the Bible. Hays' commentary is full of insightful and forceful remarks from beginning to end with a lot that you won't find anywhere else. It's easy to read and a joy to read. Fee's commentary is a blend of extremely detailed scholarly work and pointed comments that need to be heard by many in the church today. Both commentaries are very good on the "spiritual matters" of I Cor. 12-14 and on "eschatological" thought throughout - esp. chap. 15. In short, students of I Corinthians are very well served by these two commentaries.

II Corinthians:

1. Colin Kruse, Tyndale

This is a brief, solid commentary that is easy to read and follow but not lacking in insightful commentary. Well written with sound judgment throughout.

Galatians:

1. R. Alan Cole, Tyndale 

2. Ronald Y. K. Fung, NICNT

3. F.F. Bruce, NIGTC

Cole's commentary is a clear and excellent exposition of the heart of the gospel as set forth in Galatians despite its brevity. Fung's work offers a detailed exposition of justification by faith together with a good understanding and presentation of the many other issues in Galatians as such as the role of the Spirit, continuity between the OT and New, etc. Bruce's commentary is detailed and extremely precise. The NIGNTC format in this case is not difficult to follow even if you can't read Greek.

Ephesians:

1. G.B. Caird, Paul's Letters From Prison (OP)

2. F.F. Bruce, NICNT with Ephesians, Colossians & Philemon

3. Andrew Lincoln, WBC

Anyone who can find G.B. Caird's Paul's Letters from Prison (OP) would also be well advised to do so. This is an outstanding work that deals with Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon. There is much is this small volume by Caird that you'll have a hard time finding anywhere else. Fortunately, others have built on his work. For insightful understanding of Paul's thought Bruce's commentary is first class and it comes together in one volume with his commentary on Colossians and Philemon. Together with Caird's this is my favorite and it’s a super value! Lincoln's commentary is detailed, massive and theologically rich. It is loaded with valuable information but also loaded with Greek and the WBC series, though excellent for serious students, is not easy to follow. 

Philippians:

1. Gordon Fee, NICNT

2. Gerald Hawthorne, WBC

G.B. Caird's work Paul's Letters from Prison (OP) is the best if you can find it. Fee's and Hawthorne's larger commentaries also have a lot to offer in understanding Paul's theology and thought within the setting of this Letter. Fee's is now considered the standard but his understanding should especially be compared with Caird.

Colossians:

1. F.F. Bruce, NICNT with Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon.

2. James D.G. Dunn, NIGTC with Philemon

As above in Ephesians and Philippians Caird's work is outstanding. Also, as above in Ephesians Bruce's work is solid as usual and comes in one volume with his commentary on Ephesians and Philemon. James Dunn offers a great deal in his commentary that you won't find anywhere else - especially in his understanding of Col. 1:15ff. Above all, he offers a solid and consistent exposition of the text in the light of true Jewish/Christian monotheism. 

I & II Thessalonians:

1. David Williams, NIBC

2. F.F. Bruce, WBC

The NIV Study Bible has excellent notes on I and II Thessalonians and most people won't need much more than that. Williams' commentary is good, especially if it is used with, and compared with, The NIV Study Bible notes. Bruce's detailed work is first class and is a model of sound scholarship. It is cautious in judgments about matters that are debatable from the text. He sets forth the major alternative views and then his own solid judgments.

I & II Timothy and Titus:

1. Gordon Fee, NIBC

2. I. Howard Marshall, ICC

Fee’s commentary is a generally good commentary with a strong defense of Paul's authorship and a good Introduction and endnotes. It is easily accessible to the generally educated reader of the Bible. Marshall’s commentary is an in-depth masterpiece that requires advanced knowledge of biblical studies. However, it is one of the finest commentaries in existence today on any book(s) of the Bible.

Hebrews:

1. F.F. Bruce, NICNT

An excellent commentary throughout with the usual solid emphasis on the continuity and liberating effects of the new covenant gospel message that is so characteristic of Bruce. 

James:

1. Douglas Moo, Tyndale

2. Peter Davids, NIBC

The notes in The NIV Study Bible are excellent on James. Moo's work is solid and doesn't go in for speculation beyond the plain meaning of the text. Davids' is good, with good end-notes, but should be compared with Moo's, especially on the subject of "works" and on the setting of the Letter.

I Peter:

1. Peter Davids, NICNT

2. J. Ramsey Michaels, WBC

3. Paul Achtemeier, Hermeneia Series (see note below)

All three of these are excellent commentaries on I Peter with a good grasp of the main themes and are very helpful on the more difficult sections. Davids' is much easier to read and follow but Michaels' has a lot of interesting detail and sound comments. I’d highly recommend it but for the technical difficulty of the WBC format. Achtemeier's is an education in itself and a true masterpiece, but mainly useful for those with a working knowledge of Greek.

II Peter & Jude:

1. Richard Bauckham, WBC

Outstanding. There is much to be learned from Bauckham's massive work, but it is highly technical.

I, II & III John:

1. I. H. Marshall, NICNT

A straightforward exposition of the text with a good presentation of the balance necessary in understanding the Semitic language of John with his use of absolutes such as "light and darkness," "love and hate," etc.

Revelation:

1. G. E. Ladd, Eerdmans (not part of a series)

2. Robert W. Wall (NIBC)

3. NIV Study Bible and The Harper-Collins Study Bible or Commentaries by Robert Mounce (NICNT) and David Aune (WBC)

Any interpretation of the Book of Revelation should not be allowed to override the clearness and simplicity of Christian beliefs and practices that are set forth consistently throughout the rest of the NT. The first two commentaries recommended above set forth most of the various viewpoints on Revelation that are worth considering. Both of these are extremely cheap, readable and usable. Ladd’s skill in understanding and explaining Revelation in the light of biblical eschatology as a whole is outstanding and his exposition of the text is always edifying and interesting, even if one disagrees with his interpretation at times. Wall’s forty page Introduction and his End-notes at the end of each chapter are extremely useful and his exposition of the text is a good balance to Ladd’s. Many other commentaries have a lot to offer. Robert Mounce’s work (NICNT) is also generally solid throughout and David Aune’s new commentary (WBC) in 3 volumes is by far the most up to date, detailed, and scholarly, but it is too complex for most people. It should also be noted that Mounce provides the study notes for The NIV Study Bible on Revelation and Aune provides the study notes for The Harper Collins Study Bible on Revelation. I recommend buying Ladd’s and Wall’s commentaries and using the Study Bible notes for the other two. 

Abbreviations:

NIBC: New International Biblical Commentary

Interpr: Interpretation

Expositors: Expositors Bible Commentary

NCBC: New Century Bible Commentary (OP)

NICNT: New International Commentary on the NT

Anchor: Anchor Bible Commentary

WBC: Word Biblical Commentary

NIGTC: New International Greek Testament Commentary

ICC: International Critical Commentary

OP: Out of print

**

PDF version

 by Richie Temple 

Cary, North Carolina

In this issue of The Unity of the Spirit we are going to be setting forth a review and recommendation of books for Christian believers who are interested in in-depth study of the Bible and in subjects closely related to the Bible. In part, this will be a revision of an earlier issue published in the Fall of 1998. Nevertheless, there will be a great deal of new information presented and it is hoped that it will be information that is useful for those who are searching for a greater in-depth knowledge of the truth. It should, of course, come as no surprise that the most important book that will be recommended is the Bible itself. In doing this we are following the pattern of most of the great figures of the Bible, both Old Testament and New, whose own lives were rooted and grounded in the Scriptures. We begin, therefore, by setting forth the biblical view of the Scriptures themselves.

The classic view of God’s inspiration of the Scriptures was set forth by the apostle Paul in his Second Letter to Timothy and it serves as a good example of the view of all faithful Jews and of the early Christian churches about the inspiration of the Scriptures:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

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 (II Tim. 3:14-17).

In their original context these verses referred primarily to the Old Testament Scriptures since most of the New Testament Scriptures had not yet been written or collected into what we today call the New Testament canon. During the Old Testament era all faithful Jews viewed the Scriptures – that is, the holy, or set-apart, writings - as inspired by God (e.g. Psalm 1, 19, 119, etc.).

These Scriptures began to be written down and collected by Moses many centuries before the time of Christ. They contained the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, the calling of Abraham and God’s covenant people Israel, the giving of the Mosaic Law, and most importantly, the promises of God that ultimately would be fulfilled through Christ in the New Testament. These Scriptures gave the Old Testament people of Israel their guide for daily living in all aspects of their lives as well as promises for the working out of God’s purposes for the world through them. When looked at from a New Testament, or spiritual, perspective the main story line - always operating behind the scenes - is about God’s plan of salvation. This eventually focused on the promise of a coming Messiah, or Christ, who would bring about a new covenant relationship between God and his people and, ultimately, establish the glorious kingdom of God in a new heavens and earth forever.

When we come to the New Testament Scriptures, we see that the promised Messiah, or Christ, based his whole life and ministry on the Old Testament Scriptures and consistently confirmed their divine inspiration (e.g. Matt. 4:4; 15:1-9; 22:29). In fact, Christ saw himself as the fulfillment of those Scriptures and he stated that the entire Old Testament testified of him (Luke 24:45-49). In short, the New Testament writings can best be understood as being the collected witness and explanation of the fulfillment of God’s promises to his covenant people in the Old Testament. The late NT scholar F.F. Bruce summarizes this understanding of the New Testament Scriptures:

“The NT stands to the OT in the relation of fulfillment to promise. If the OT records what ‘God … spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets’, the NT records that final word which he spoke in Son, in which all the earlier revelation was summed up, confirmed and transcended. The mighty works of the OT revelation, culminate in the redemptive work of Christ; the words of the OT prophets receive their fulfillment in him.” (FF Bruce, “Bible”, New Bible Dictionary, p. 137).

All of the New Testament writers shared this view of the relationship of the Old Testament to the New and it is set out in The Letter to the Hebrews:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe (Hebrews 1:1-2).

Thus, the Scriptures were based first and foremost on all that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, had taught his apostles. These truths were then handed down to the other disciples either by word of mouth or, eventually, in written form – a process summarized by Luke:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good for me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you might know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4).

The New Testament Scriptures also clearly indicate that God, through Christ, continued to guide his apostles in their understanding of the truth both by direct revelation (e.g. Gal. 1:11-12) and through the guidance of God’s Spirit (e.g. Eph. 3:2-6). These truths were then written down and sent to the different churches. In fact, Paul’s Letters seem to be specifically spoken of as, or on a par with, Scripture:

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (II Pet. 3:15-17).

All of the writings, or Books, of the New Testament were either written by apostles or by close associates of the apostles. It is precisely for the reason that they were considered to be an inspired and faithful presentation of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and of the truths of the new covenant that he established, that they were later collected and put into the form – i.e., the New Testament - that we have today. Ultimately, however, the greatest evidence for the inspiration of the New Testament Scriptures comes from their own internal evidence, and, from their manifest success in helping believers to understand the “gospel” – the “good news” of God’s salvation accomplished through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is, after all, one of their chief purposes as expressly stated in the Gospel of John:

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (John 20:30-31).

**

PDF version

by Richie Temple

Cary, N.C

Christ’s Proclamation: the Gospel of the Kingdom of God

When studying the Bible it is always necessary to remember that the one subject that should be of first importance is the gospel – that is, the good news of salvation concerning the coming kingdom of God and the Lord Jesus Christ.  Before the day of Pentecost, the gospel focused on the good news of the coming kingdom of God.  The Old Testament Scriptures had promised the coming of the Messiah, or Christ, who would establish the everlasting kingdom of God in a renewed and glorious earth.  The chief focus of Christ’s entire earthly ministry was to proclaim, explain and demonstrate the true nature of God’s kingdom through all his words and deeds.  This can be clearly seen by a couple of examples from the Gospels:

After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God.  “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God is near.  Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:14-15).

At daybreak Jesus went out to a solitary place.  The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them.  But he said, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.” (Luke 4:42-43).

For every pious Jew this proclamation of the kingdom of God meant that the “ time had come” when the Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming of Christ, the destruction of evil, the resurrection of the dead, the last judgment, and the final establishment of the kingdom of God in a renewed and glorious earth were “at hand.”  It was necessary therefore to repent – to turn from sin to God – so as to escape the wrath to come and to receive eternal life in the coming age of the kingdom of God.  

It cannot be emphasized enough that proclaiming, explaining and demonstrating this coming kingdom of God was the central focus of Christ’s earthly ministry. It is suggested that the reader go through the Gospel of Luke and note each time that the term “kingdom of God” is used and look at their contexts.  In addition, it is also necessary to note the inter-relationship of terms such as kingdom of God, eternal life and salvation.  Biblically, salvation is a comprehensive term. It refers primarily to forgiveness of sins and therefore escape – or salvation - from the condemnation of the final judgment.  As a result, rather than being condemned, the believer will inherit the gift of eternal life – life of the age to come - in the glorious kingdom of God.  It is towards this goal that the whole biblical story – from Genesis to Revelation - moves.   

Two records in the Gospels that explain the centrality of the kingdom of God in the thinking of all New Testament believers are John 3:1-17 and Luke18:18-30.  In the first, Christ indicates that it is necessary to be born again if one is to enter the kingdom of God.  How is that done?  The Letter of I John chapter 5:1 says “whoever believers that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.”  But this could not occur until after Christ’s death and resurrection and the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost.  In the second record in Luke, Christ shows the difficulty of entering the kingdom of God by our own efforts – i.e., by keeping the Mosaic Law.  However, Jesus makes it clear that entering the kingdom of God, though perhaps impossible for men, is possible with God.  However, there is a divine necessity for Christ “to give his life as a ransom for many” because of the weakness and sinfulness of man – in other words, mankind needs a Savior.

The New Covenant Proclamation: The Gospel of Salvation

The Gospels, therefore, indicate that there was a problem that required Christ’s sacrificial death, resurrection and the giving of the Spirit.  It then records Christ accomplishing these events and portrays this as the fulfillment of the new covenant promised in the Old Testament Scriptures (Luke 22:14-20).  The necessity of these events and their fulfillment of Old Testament promises was made clear by Christ himself:

“’I tell you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.’ And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this is remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. (Luke 22:18-20).

Then he opened their minds so that they could understand the Scriptures.  He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning a Jerusalem.  You are witnesses of these things.  I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:45-49). 

Since the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost, it is these “Christ-events” that have become the focus of the “gospel.”  Thus, after the life, death and resurrection of Christ and the giving of the holy Spirit on Pentecost there are some basic changes, or rather additions, to the “gospel” message.  It still focuses on the good news of eternal life in the coming kingdom of God because that is its final goal.  This can be clearly seen by continuing through the Book of Acts and noting all the references to the kingdom of God as summed up in Paul’s teaching in the last two verses of Acts: 

“For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him.  Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 28:30-31). 

Despite this continuing focus on the coming kingdom of God, after Pentecost the central focus of the “gospel” shifts to the death and resurrection of Christ and the giving of the Spirit to all who believe in him. The new covenant has been established and Christ has become the means by which redemption and salvation have now been accomplished for all who have faith in him.  This shift in focus is evident in the apostles’ teaching in Acts and in all of the New Testament Letters.  In short, Christ died for our sins and God raised him from the dead making him Lord over God’s people and creation.  He is the “firstborn” from the dead; therefore, the resurrection has already begun.  In addition, he has already entered into his glory and has become the prototype for those who believe in him.  Thus, the one who preached has become the one who is preached and salvation becomes dependent on his accomplishments.  In short, those who believe in the life, death and resurrection of Christ are forgiven of their sins and are thus “saved” from “the wrath to come”, i.e., God’s final judgment of condemnation against sinners.  They receive the “firstfruits” of God’s Spirit, becoming children in God’s family, and, as heirs of God, have the hope of eternal life in the coming kingdom of God.  

This is truly “good news!”  And that’s why the apostles and disciples were so committed to it and so excited about it.  When the apostle Paul went on his missionary journeys his chief priority was to set before the people this “good news” (e.g. Acts 13 & 14).  He explained the importance of this “gospel” in his First Letter to the Corinthians:

Now brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you have received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you, otherwise you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures ... this is what we preach, and this is what you believed (I Cor. 15:1-11; cf. Rom. 10:9-10).

It is this "gospel of salvation” (Eph. 1:13) concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that is "of first importance" in the Scriptures. All of the central truths of this gospel of salvation are summed-up in the new covenant message as beautifully symbolized in the Lord’s Supper (I Cor. 11:23-26). That is why the early Christians churches focused their gatherings around it. The key to Bible study is to begin with, and focus on, this "gospel" of salvation. Then branch out from there to gain a wider scope and understanding of the Bible as a whole.

**

PDF version

by Richie Temple

Cary, North Carolina

Bible study is a subject of intense interest for most Christians and any believer who has spent much time reading and studying the Scriptures can testify to their life-changing truth.  The Bible, however, should be read intelligently and understood in the light of the original intent of each inspired writer.  The belief that "all Scripture is inspired by God" does not mean foregoing reason or doing away with historical, cultural and linguistic study.  In order to get the most out of Bible study certain facts are simply essential to know.  First, the Bible is a collection of written documents of various kinds.  They were collected over many centuries and finally put in the form in which we have them today.  These "books" are arranged logically. For example, in the New Testament: the Gospels, then Acts and then the NT Letters. 

Originally, however, each New Testament Gospel, Letter, etc. was written independently to a specific group of people to address specific situations and needs.  Each of these NT documents focused on some aspect of the "gospel" of Jesus Christ.  But the inspired writers of these documents did not write them with the idea of their being put into a NT "canon" of Scripture - this occurred much later with the final form of our present canon being completed only in the 4th century.  Originally each NT document was a self-contained "Gospel," "Letter," etc. and should be read as such.  Since they each focus on some aspect of the "gospel" they all fit together "thematically."  However, to try to make them fit together in every detail like a giant jigsaw puzzle is to go beyond their original purpose.

Most of us are not Bible scholars nor do we need to be.  The "gospel of salvation" (Eph. 1:13) is a simple message and when explained correctly it is easy to understand.  All of the NT books revolve around this same theme.  However, if we are going to teach the Bible in our fellowships, churches, Bible studies, etc. then we have a responsibility to be as accurate as we can in what we present.  To do this it is helpful to not only read the Bible itself but also to consult Bible study aids that are prepared by experts in biblical studies. The last half of the 20th century - especially the last 25 years - has seen a virtual explosion in such study aids and this will be our focus in this article.

First though, a few preliminary comments may be helpful.  It is common knowledge that many Bible believing Christians prefer to "just read the Bible" rather than to use Bible study aids.  The fact is, however, that we all read the Bible under the guidance and tutelage of others whether we know it or not.  To begin with, every version of the English Bible that we use today - i.e., KJV, NIV, etc. - is the result of a painstaking effort by the translators and editors of that version to understand the "original" text and to translate it into equivalent English that communicates its message faithfully.  This very process requires knowledge of the original biblical languages, history, culture, etc. and forces the translator to make interpretive choices in the words he or she chooses for the translation.  In addition, it is even more obvious that most people who read the Bible also listen to sermons, teachings, etc. - all of which are aids for helping us to understand the Bible.  The question is not then, if we should use study aids?  Rather it is, which study aids will we use and/or which teachers will we choose to listen to? 

In this light, the Book of Acts presents a wonderful record that is very instructive for those of us who are interested in coming to a better and more detailed understanding of the Bible:

Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go South to the road - the desert road - that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.  So he started out and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians.  This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet.  The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet.  "Do you understand what you are reading?"  Philip asked.

"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?"  So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:

"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the sheerer is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.  Who can speak of his descendants?  For his life was taken from the earth."

The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?"  Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

Who among us has not felt at times like the Eunuch as we endeavor to read and understand the Scriptures?  Who has not at times felt like he needed help?  In this light there are three specific points in this record that can serve as basic principles for us in our own reading and study of the Scriptures:

(1).  Read, study and memorize the Bible.  This is the first thing that should be noticed about the eunuch.  He was reading the Scriptures in order to gain an understanding of them.  He was searching for truth. This is so very important for no matter what else you do you must read the Scriptures if you want to understand them. Without doing this there is not much point in trying to proceed any further. For it is impossible to gain a good knowledge of the Bible as a whole without putting forth a great deal of time and effort.  Few things in life that are worthwhile come easy and biblical understanding is certainly not one of them.  In this light it must be emphasized: any sincere quest for understanding the Bible must rest on the foundation of one's own reading, study and memorization of the Scriptures.

(2).  When reading the Bible we should always endeavor to understand it according to its original intent and meaning and, then, to determine how it applies it to our lives today.  Therefore, when reading and studying the Bible we should always ask ourselves two very basic and important questions:

1. What was the inspired writer’s original intent and meaning of the Scriptural passage that we are reading?

2. How does this Scriptural passage apply to me and to other fellow Christian believers today?

Now certainly the great majority of Scripture can be understood in the plain sense in which it is read without any great need for further research.  But the key to this is always reading the Scriptures in their historical, cultural and linguistic contexts.  To do this we often need to consult experts in the field of biblical studies.  Is there any other field of study where this is not true?  The Eunuch in the passage above needed help in understanding the Scriptures from someone who was better trained in the Scriptures than himself.  First, he read them for himself.  Then he sought help from someone else. The principle responsibility lies upon ourselves for making the necessary effort to study the Bible and then to seek out those resources or teachers that/who can best help us.  They don't just automatically or instantaneously appear on our desks, beside our easy chairs, or under the Christmas tree.  In sum, if we are to understand the Scriptures correctly we must put forth the effort that is necessary to do so

(3).  The focus of our study should be the gospel; that is, God's plan of salvation which he brings to fulfillment through his Son, Jesus Christ. The focus of what Philip taught "beginning from that very Scripture" was "the good news about Jesus."  This is where all biblical study should begin and where its central and abiding focus must be.  The purpose of Bible study is not to find things that will tickle our itching ears.  It is to enable us to understand and live in the light of God's wonderful plan of salvation.  Keeping this focus will help us avoid all kinds of charlatans who would have us believe and follow "some new thing" which they have just discovered in the Bible.

**

PDF version

By Joe Flory

Pittsboro, NC

 “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways” writes the author of Hebrews in the opening line of his letter, according to The NIV Study Bible.  And that is just what a prophet does: he or she speaks directly to a specific person or group of people and shares God’s message with them.  Micah of Moresheth is one of these prophets.  He lived in Judah in a time when the majority of God’s chosen people were steeped in sin, were being led astray by power-abusing rulers, judges, and false prophets, and were threatened by a powerful Assyrian empire.  Micah repeatedly warned the people of the impending doom that awaited them if they would not turn from their disobedience toward God, but also assured them of the ever-present hope of peace for God’s people in the future.

Prophecy is one mode of communication by God to his people.  The generally accepted idea of prophecy involves predicting the future. Telling a nation what the future holds for them if they do not change their ways, a nation that claims to worship Yahweh but unashamedly disobeys His commands, can show the fruits of prophecy through the repentance of those to whom it is directed. King Hezekiah, the king of Jerusalem from 715-686 b.c. is a clear example of this (Jeremiah 26.19).  Upon hearing Micah speak of Jerusalem’s coming destruction, he turned to the Lord, and according to the New Bible Commentary, it turned out that only Jerusalem survived in all of Judah during the Assyrian invasions between 721 and 701 b.c.

With a logical study of the Old Testament, as pointed out by LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush in their book, Old Testament Survey, one can see how prophecy is primarily intended for the people of the nation at the time of the prophet through whom God is speaking, and that predicting the future is just one way of getting through to people. It isn’t just a condemnation of a group of people or a crystal ball to the future, it is a revealing of a clearer picture of God’s plan and purpose, “a window that God has opened for his people” so that they can better recognize God’s will, and in turn more effectively live for him (LaSor 230). A healthier understanding of prophecy itself can be attained when it is seen as “God’s message to the present in the light of the ongoing redemptive mission” (LaSor 229).  Applying this perspective when reading or hearing prophecy can expose God’s love for his people.

I’m pretty sure that not a single one of the prophets with written accounts in the Bible had it on their minds that someone in the 21st century a.d. would be reading their prophecies and trying to understand them. Therefore, it is our job to try and better understand what was on their minds by gaining a general knowledge of the historical setting and people during a particular prophet’s time.  Micah was a man from Moresheth Gath, a village in Judah approximately twenty-two miles southwest of Jerusalem and known today as Tell el-Judeidah (New Bible 822).  It is believed that he prophesied between 750 and 686 b.c. during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.  During this time, the Assyrian Empire was invading and annexing Israel.  The Assyrians were cruel and tyrannical, and according to David J. Zucker in his book Israel’s Prophets, “Fear of their inhuman torture of those who opposed them was a conscious part of Assyria’s foreign and military policy”.  

Micah wrote mostly relating to the impending doom of Israel, but attached to that is the hope that lies in God’s forgiveness.  He also attempts to shed light on the dark lives of power-hungry rulers, judges, and false prophets.  Micah was a contemporary of the prophet Isaiah.  The two prophets both share a similar passage in each of their books in the Old Testament concerning peace that is to come (cf. Isa 2.2-4, Mic 4.1-3).  Micah is also mentioned in the book of Jeremiah, and even though they never met, as Jeremiah lived a century or so after Micah, a certain sense of unity is apparent amongst the true prophets (Jer 26.18).  In addition to Jeremiah in the Old Testament, Jesus Christ in the first century a.d. quotes a passage from Micah and revealed to his twelve disciples it’s meaning (Matt 10.35-40).

Micah begins his book by outright stating that “the word of the Lord” came to him and that he had a vision from God, a common statement among prophets (Mic 1.1, Isa 1.1).  To further show his authenticity, purpose, and confidence in his position as a prophet he later claims he is “filled with power, with the Spirit of the Lord, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression, to Israel his sin” (Mic 3.8-9).  A bold statement that backs up his bold prophesies.  He goes on to warn Israel of the Lord’s coming due to their transgressions and sins against Him (1.3-5).  Micah, forewarning towns in the area of his hometown of potential ruin, uses the meanings of their names against them in a clever play on words.  “In Beth Ophrah roll in the dust” he cautions the town whose name in Hebrew means house of dust (1.10).

Chapter two begins Micah’s intentions to expose those who abuse the power that is given to them.  Raised in a small village himself, Micah speaks out for the poor and lower class citizens who are affected by greedy landowners and the like (2.1-2).  False prophets are first explained and rebuked in verses 6-11.  A vivid picture of the wretchedness of unjust rulers is painted in chapter three, and again the corruption of false prophets is apparent and their motives laid bare: “if one feeds them, they proclaim ‘peace’; if he does not, they prepare to wage war against him” (3.5).  Micah immediately contrasts these false prophets with himself, who is filled “with the Spirit of the Lord” (3.8).  

The boldness and evidence of the Spirit comes through in Micah’s fearlessness of going against the grain in claiming that Israel’s rulers “distort all that is right” and that “her leaders judge for a bribe, her priests teach for a price, and her prophets tell fortunes for money” (3.9-11).  Blind to their own hypocrisy, they ignore their disobedience to God’s commandments and claim the excuse that God is among them and that no tragedy will come to them.  After more warnings, God delivers a message of hope and a forecast of a time of peace, the last days, when “they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks” (4.3).  Thus begins his prophecies concerning the end times and the Messiah.

Chapter six is a beautiful portrayal of a courtroom scene depicting the Lord charging Israel with unjustly wronging Him.  As the Lord cries “What have I done to you?  How have I burdened you? Answer me”, Israel proposes to give burnt offerings and other traditional sacrifices that can be given without true repentance, but Micah lets them know that “He has showed you [Israel], what is good…to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (6.1-8).

Chapter 7 ends the book of Micah in three distinct parts.  Micah first describes the hopelessness and betrayal that ultimately comes from trusting in man, and then he shares his view: “But as for me, I watch in hope for the Lord, I wait for God my Savior; my God will hear me” (7.7).  The second section warns Israel’s enemies not to delight in Israel’s temporary slump because it is just that, temporary.  The final conclusion is an encouraging reminder of the depths of God’s mercy and compassion.  It is a closing remark aimed at pushing Israel to rely on their faith in the God that has promised them deliverance.

It was a pleasure to read the Book of Micah.  Though I don’t pretend to understand all of his prophecies, I appreciate the beauty of the way they were written and the constant reminder to God’s people to keep hold of their trust in Yahweh and to value that above all else.

Works Cited

LaSor, William Sanford, David Allen Hubbard, and Frederic Wm. Bush. Old Testament Survey. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. 270-275.

“Micah.” New Bible Commentary. 21st Century ed. Leicester: Inter-Varsity P, 1994.

The NIV Study Bible.  Kenneth Barker, gen. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Zucker, David J. Israel’s Prophets: An Introduction for Christians and Jews. New York: Paulist P, 1994. 131-136.

Editors Note: “The principal purpose of the OT rites and ceremonies was to enable men to ‘draw near’ to God.  They cleansed the body and thus removed the ceremonial defilement which prevented access, but they did not cleanse the heart or take away sins.  They were therefore symbols of the cleansing which God himself immediately effected apart from this ritual; but more than symbols, they were also the means God used to encourage the humble and give confidence to the repentant to approach him, by indicating the gracious will to forgive and receive such… God’s intention was that both ritual and repentance should be united, the former giving vital expression to the latter, and the latter giving meaning to the former” [J.D.G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, pp. 16-17].

**

PDF version

by Richie Temple

Cary, North Carolina

As I write this opening letter for this winter edition of The Unity of the Spirit I am in the midst of enjoying a winter break from my job of teaching high school history and government at Woods Charter School in Chapel Hill, N.C.  I certainly enjoy teaching my subjects at school, and more importantly, working with my students and fellow faculty members.  However, it’s been nice to have more time to read and study my favorite book - the Bible.  All my life the Bible has been my primary and unchanging source for spiritual strength, nourishment, and guidance.  Indeed, as the Apostle Paul states in II Timothy I have always believed it be “inspired by God”:   

“But as for you [Timothy] continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation though faith in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is God-breathed [inspired by God] 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.” (II Tim. 3:114-17 NIV).

When I was a young boy I had no sophisticated doctrine relating to biblical inspiration; instead, I was taught that the Bible was God’s word and I read it in that light. My parents taught me this truth, my church taught me this truth, and not unimportantly, it was also generally accepted as true in the culture of the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s of the American South where I lived.  However, for me there was something far more important than any of these outside factors in convincing me to believe the Bible to be true.  Very simply, when I read it for myself it touched the very depths of my own heart and related to me truth that made sense out of the world in which I lived.  To put it another way, the Bible had a “ring of truth” to it that is unmatched by any other literature of the world that I have ever read since that time.  This is important because no amount of talk “about” the Bible will ever convince anyone of its truth.  It must be read and allowed to speak for itself in order to be properly understood and appreciated.  It also must be approached with an honest and seeking heart and with the humility, openness, and faith of a child looking to God for guidance as his heavenly Father.  

As with most people in the 1960’s I began my reading of the Bible with the King James Version (KJV or AV, published in 1611 with many revised editions thereafter) and then increasingly used the Revised Standard Version (RSV, published in full in 1952 two years before my birth in 1954) since it soon came to be the version that was most used in the Presbyterian Church in which I grew up.  The KJV was beautiful and great for memorization, but it was also difficult for me to understand because of its archaic English.  The RSV, which was a revision of the KJV, was much easier to understand but lacked some of the beauty of the KJV.  Nevertheless, between the two of these versions I was able to read, learn and memorize a great deal of the Bible. As a result, I gained a passion as far back as I can remember for understanding the truth of the Bible – a passion that has never waned in my heart and life.  

A great breakthrough in my own understanding of the Bible was the publication around my high school years (early 1970’s) of two new versions of the Bible: Good News For Modern Man and the New English Bible.  These two Bibles were modern “free” translations of the Scriptures.  That is, instead of translating primarily “word for word” from the Hebrew and Greek texts, they translated “meaning for meaning.”  Since I was taking Spanish at the time it was not difficult for me to understand why this method of translation could enhance understanding for the reader.  For example, who amongst us when translating from Spanish to English would ask someone “How many years do you have?” just because this is literally what is said in Spanish?   These two versions became my primary texts for reading the Bible throughout my high school years.  They were a “God-send” for me in that I could understand the message of the Bible so much better with each of these than with either the KJV or the RSV.   I devoured these newer versions and have never lost my love for reading and comparing such “free” versions of the Bible with more literal versions because of the insight that these translations can often shed on the meaning of the original text.  

Of the major versions that have been published in the last fifty years or so I do not believe that there is any one version that is much better than the others.  They each have their strengths and weaknesses but, within a certain range, they are all adequate for being one’s main text for reading.  I would normally recommend that someone use a version that is fairly literal as his standard Bible for personal reading, studying, and memorization.  Then use other versions for comparison or for special purposes.  

  Since the mid-1980s I have used the New International Version (NIV) as my primary Bible for reading and memorization while using many others for comparison (NKJV, NRSV, REB, NJB, etc.).  Now, however, after the recent publication of the English Standard Version (ESV, pub. 2001) and the Today’s New International Version (TNIV pub. 2004) I use the ESV, NIV, and TNIV almost equally.  Also, an excellent free translation I use and recommend the NLT 2004 edition. All of these are excellent translations with their own strengths and weaknesses.  Together they offer a wealth of Biblical understanding immediately available at a believer’s fingertips - literally, because they can now be compared online. 

  I would suggest that most people should choose a main Bible that “works” for them.  Use this as a primary Bible for reading, and then, supplement it with a comparison of other versions. Any of the major versions will do.  Then read, read and read the Bible.  By doing this you will gain a scope, understanding, and “feel” for the Bible as a whole.  Then, the parts of the Bible will fit within that whole.  Without doing this, however, a person will always be without a sound basis for understanding the truth of the Bible. Therefore, let us read the Bible.  Let us read it and let it speak, for itself, to us.  Then we will be able to say with the prophet Jeremiah,

“Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and Thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart; for I am called by thy name, O Lord God of hosts.” (Jer. 15:16 KJV). 

**

PDF version

By Richie Temple

The truth of the Bible is self-evident for those who read it with a heartfelt desire to know and live for God.  There is a very simple reason for this.  As the Bible states and confirms time after time throughout its pages, “all Scripture is God-breathed” or “inspired by God” (II Tim. 3:16).   This, however, is not the general view of Western intellectual society today.  One example will suffice. 

Yesterday’s mail brought to us our weekly edition of The Economist, my favorite news magazine on current events and international affairs.  It is a British publication that I’ve been reading for over 25 years beginning in my college days when I studied history and international relations.  Since it is in good “Oxbridge” style I find it very informative not only about world events, but also about the English language.  However, occasionally it veers off into making comments about spiritual and religious matters.  When this occurs it usually can be counted on to echo the usual anti-Christian sentiments of Western intellectual skepticism and secularism.  Yesterday’s issue was no exception to this rule.  It contained the review of a new book entitled The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason.   The review begins with the following statement,

 “This book will strike a cord with anyone who has ever pondered the irrationality of religious faith and its cruel and murderous consequences…” 

It then goes on to say in words that typify the entire book that 

“The least educated person among us simply knows more about certain matters than anyone did 2000 years ago – and much of this knowledge is incompatible with scripture.”

  Such statements, though common enough in intellectual circles, betray a predetermined bias that sees what it wants to see, rather than engaging in a sincere search for truth.  Such statements reveal more about the people speaking them than about the Bible itself.  My own personal experience would be the exact opposite of this statement because the more I’ve learned and experienced in life, the more I’ve become convinced of the truth of the Scriptures.  More importantly, however, such statements also contradict the personal and collective experience of millions of Christians through the centuries – educated and uneducated - who have received comfort, strength and spiritual guidance from the self-evident truth of the “God-breathed Scriptures.”

But what does the Bible mean by the phrase “God-breathed”?  Is it to be taken literally as though God literally breathed his word into the scriptures, such as through human agents by means of inspired dictation?  Or is it meant to be taken figuratively to simply describe inspiration from God in a more general way as he inspires the biblical writers through his Spirit and guides the process of forming the Bible through his providential care.  Here we touch on an important matter in anyone’s search for biblical truth because any close reading of the Scriptures themselves will show that the latter option is the only sense in which the Bible can correctly be said to be “God-breathed.”  Though the Greek word theopneustos can be literally and correctly translated as “God-breathed” as the NIV does in II Tim. 3:16, a comparison of major English Bible translations throughout the centuries will show that translators have always understood this phrase in the less literal sense of “inspired by God” and that this translation best conveys the meaning of the phrase.  Compare the following:

“All scripture is inspired by God” (Wycliff Bible, the first major English NT translation    from Latin, in the year c. 1380-83)

“All scripture is inspired by God” (William Tyndale, the first major English NT translation from Greek, in 1525-6) 

“All scripture is inspired by God” (Miles Coverdale, 1535)

“All scripture is inspired by God” (The Great Bible, 1539)

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (The King James Version, 1611)

“All scripture is inspired by God” (Revised Standard Version, 1952)

“All scripture is inspired by God” (Phillips Modern English, 1957)

“Every inspired scripture” (The New English Bible, 1961, and its revision, The Revised English Bible, 1989)

“All Scripture is inspired by God” (Today’s English Version or Good News For Modern Man, 1966)

“All scripture is inspired by God” (Jerusalem Bible, 1966, and its revision, the New Jerusalem Bible, 1985)

“All Scripture is God-breathed” (The New International Version, 1972)

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (New King James Version, 1979)

“All scripture is inspired by God” (The New Revised Standard Version, 1990)

“All Scripture is breathed out by God” (English Standard Version, 2001)

There is an obvious consistency in these versions over the centuries in translating “inspired by God”, or some close variant, rather than the very literal “God-breathed” (NIV) or “breathed out” (ESV).  Though both of the latter translations are literally correct, they can imply something that the Greek word does not actually convey in its New Testament meaning and usage.  It is especially surprising that the NIV would translate this word so literally given its translation philosophy of placing meaning over form when necessary.  For further insight on the meaning of this word The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology explains the meaning of the Greek word theopneustos as follows:

“The adjective theopneustos means literally “God-breathed”.  It does not imply any particular mode of inspiration, such as some form of divine dictation.  Nor does it imply the suspension of the normal cognitive faculties of the human authors.  On the other hand, it does imply something quite different from poetic inspiration.  It is wrong to omit the divine element from the term implied by theo-, as the NEB [and REB] does in rendering the phrase “every inspired scripture”.  The expression clearly does not imply some Scriptures are inspired, whilst others are not.  The sacred scriptures are all expressive of the mind of God; but they are so with a view to their practical outworking in life.” [NIDNTT, Vol. 3, p. 491, ed. Colin Brown].

It is, of course, incorrect to think that the Bible must be literal throughout for it to be true throughout.  No language or literature anywhere in the world, or at any time in history, works this way.  It is simply the nature of language and literature that truth can be conveyed in both a straightforward literal form or in a variety of figurative forms.  Given our limitations as human beings, figurative language, which we use throughout every day, is many times the best way to convey truth because it allows us to present truth in a variety of ways that are more vivid and real to people’s experience and understanding than literal language itself.  All Scripture is truly “inspired by God” for the Bible is the God-inspired record of God’s words and works, written in history, in the words of men.  It is, par excellence, the Book of Books and the one book upon which most of that which is good in our Western heritage was built upon.  

  Unfortunately, a couple of weeks ago I was reminded of the fact that the Bible no longer forms a basis for a common knowledge, language and source of allusion in the Western world as it once did.  While teaching a U.S. history class I remarked concerning a specific incident that “the handwriting was on the wall.”  After noticing many blank faces, I asked how many of them understood this expression.  The response, from a class of about twenty 10th graders (ages 15 to 16), was one hand being raised.  After further inquiries to find out whether my initial assessment was in fact correct I had no choice but to face an all too common conclusion – knowledge of the Bible is on the way out in American and Western culture.  Though my disappointment was abated somewhat by the fact that the one person who did know the allusion knew it well enough to explain it to all her fellow students, such occurrences in which knowledge of the Bible is shown to be practically nil amongst a large portion of American youth have become the norm.  This, of course, is a great loss not only to the future well being of our society in a spiritual sense but also simply from the point of view of understanding our Western heritage, and for those of us who are Americans, U.S. history itself – a history founded upon and built upon truths found in the Bible.  

In fact, no other book in history has had the profound effect on Western society that the Bible has had.  Especially, from the Reformation of the 16th century to the mid-20th century the Bible held a unique position as the common fountainhead of truth, wisdom and allusion for all aspects of life for much of the Western world.  In his book From Dawn to Decadence: Five Hundred Years of Western Cultural Life, Jacques Barzun described this position the Bible once held:

“The Bible was a whole literature, a library.  It was an anthology of poetry and short stories.  It taught history, biography, biology, geography, philosophy, political science, psychology, hygiene and sociology (statistical at that), in addition to cosmogony, ethics and theology.  What gives the Bible so strong a hold on the minds that once become familiar with its content is its dramatic reporting of human affairs.  For all its piety, it presents a worldly panorama, and with particulars so varied that it is hard to think of a domestic or social situation without a biblical example to match and turn to moral ends.” (p. 28). 

The Bible, of course, remains this same vast anthology of truth today despite its loss of popularity and familiarity in Western culture.  In fact, its truth is self-evident to those who desire to know and live for God.  No other literature of the world even comes close to matching it.  Though many people in religious, academic and education circles talk about “the religions of the world” or “the scriptures of the world’s major religions” as though Christianity and the Bible were simply “one religion amongst many other equally good religions” or “one set of holy writings from amongst many other equally holy writings”, the truth is that very few of these people have ever actually read any of these other “scriptures”, except perhaps, in a very superficial way.  Nor do most of these people have anything more than a very peripheral knowledge of the Bible.  This is easy to tell for two simple reasons.  First, when you listen to such people talk or read their writings the superficiality becomes immediately apparent.  And second, when a person gains a deep knowledge and understanding of the Bible as a whole all other literatures immediately pale in comparison.  

The late British biblical scholar F.F. Bruce made this last point very well.  Bruce, who was originally educated as a Latin and Greek Classicist before turning strictly to biblical studies, was so highly respected for his knowledge and familiarity with the Bible and other ancient literatures that he at various times held the Presidency of the Society for Old Testament Studies and the Society for New Testament Studies.  This is an almost unheard of honor in such highly specialized fields of study.  When writing about the preparatory nature of the Old Testament in its relationship to the New Testament in his book The Books and Parchments: How We Got our English Bible, he describes the view of some Hindus on this matter:

“On the other hand, the contrary difficulty is experienced in India, one hears, where the Old Testament is uncongenial to the intellectual heritage of educated Hindus.  Hindu thought is abstract, impersonal and static, whereas the Old Testament outlook is concrete, personal and dynamic.  The Indian sometimes says the Old Testament reflects a morality and a conception of God, which lower than that of the best Indian religion, and asks why the ancient literature of his own people should not play for him the role of gospel preparation, which the Old Testament plays for others.  A cursory comparison of even the earliest and purest literary monuments of Indian religion with the Old Testament may well fill one with surprise that such an idea could ever be entertained; but it certainly has been and still is entertained, and not by Indians only.  Perhaps it all depends on what one means by “morality” and “religion.’” [p. 71].

As one who teaches World history and who is thus expected to have some familiarity with the literature of the world’s ancient religions I would echo Bruce’s sentiments.  I have yet to read any of the world’s ancient “scriptures” apart from the Bible that did not fill me with an abhorrence and distaste for both its religious and moral aspects.  For example, this summer I read through the entire Koran to prepare myself for the school year.  It was a very informative, distasteful and unpleasant experience.  That anyone who has read it and is also deeply familiar with the Bible would consider it to be in any way comparable to the Bible would be very surprising to me.  It reflects a bizarre religion of bondage, a history of war and oppression and a literature that is full of fables, tales and deceptions.  In fact, its style and subject matter fit in well with the fabricated and obviously unbelievable stories of the so-called New Testament Apocrypha which includes such 2nd to 5th century forgeries as The Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Philip, etc. - from which the popular fiction novel The DaVinci Code draws its false inspiration.

But this last comment is illustrative.  It is often said, “a little knowledge of a subject is a dangerous thing.”  This is certainly true when it comes to the Bible in general and Christianity specifically.  Many people have just enough superficial or peripheral knowledge of these subjects to think that they actually know something about them, yet it is often these same people who would accept The DaVinci Code’s assertion that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene, simply because such a possibility is alluded to in the so-called Gospel of Philip – a non-canonical book - despite the fact that this would be a clear contradiction of the New Testament record itself.

But, in contrast, when the Bible is read deeply and consistently with an open heart the results are almost always dramatic and long lasting in their effect on people’s lives.  When the famous Christian writer C.S. Lewis was an atheist at Oxford University in England he began his turn to Christianity when a fellow Oxford atheist told him that the New Testament documents actually had a high historical reliability.  Intrigued, he decided to read the New Testament for himself in the original Greek, which he knew as a Professor of Medieval Literature.  What he read shook him to the core because as an expert on literary fables, style and writings he recognized that the Gospels he was reading belonged in a totally different class.  They were eyewitness historical accounts of real events – not fables or tales as he had been taught and heard.  Simply put, their power unleashed upon him the conviction that the Bible was “inspired by God”.  What followed was the conversion of one of the most influential Christians of the twentieth century.   

**

PDF version

By Richie Temple

There is a wonderful record in the Book of Nehemiah of a time when the faithful Israelites who had returned from exile to Judea gathered together to hear the Old Testament Law of God read and explained to them by Ezra and the Levites.  Let us compare this account in two different versions.  This will help us understand as clearly as possible the meaning, or sense, of what is being said:

“They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear (or, footnote, ‘translating it’) and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read” (Nehemiah 8:8, NIV).

“They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly (or, footnote, ‘with interpretation’), and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.”(Nehemiah 8:8, ESV). 

This record, which is translated similarly in all major translations, teaches us that when Ezra and the Levites read the Book of the Law to the assembly of Israelites who were gathered to hear it that day that their primary goal was to give the “meaning” or “sense” of the text to the listeners.  It may very well be that the biblical text was in Hebrew and that it had to first be translated into Aramaic before being explained; however, it is also possible the listeners understood enough Hebrew but simply needed a clearer interpretation of its meaning.  At any rate it is clear that the end goal was not gaining”word for word” knowledge of the text, but rather, understanding the original meaning or sense of the text so that the people of Israel could apply that original sense or meaning to their new situation in Judea.  

This biblical account is a great example for us today and illustrates the two basic steps, or principles, involved in trying to properly understand and live according to the truth of the Bible.  These two principles can be briefly summarized as follows:

1. We must understand the original intent and meaning of the biblical writers in the light of their own historical, literary and cultural context.

2. We must then apply that original intent and meaning of the biblical text to our own present day situations.

Though this may seem simple enough and, even, obvious to many people, it is not the way that most people go about understanding and applying the Bible today.  Most people appeal to “the plain sense of the text.” They simply read it, or hear it, and then understand it according to a “what it means to me” way of thinking and then apply it according to a “common sense” way of living.  Fortunately, the “what it means to me” way of thinking often coincides with the original meaning and intent of the biblical text and the “common sense” application of it is usually in line with the general sense of scripture as a whole – that is, “to love God” and “to love one’s neighbor as oneself.”  

If either the interpretation or the application were way out of line with the general overall sense of scripture most people would recognize that there is probably some problem with one or the other.  That, of course, is because most people retain a general sense of right and wrong and most people live with at least a modicum of common sense.  However, relying on this methodology for understanding and living according to the Bible is subject to both to grave errors.  It also potentially, leaves the Bible open to be interpreted and applied according anyone’s own personal whims, or even, evil manipulative intent.  The consequences of this can be catastrophic for individuals, for marriages, for families, for churches, for societies and for nations as a whole as the history of the world has shown.  It must always be remembered that the “plain sense” to a modern reader can often be wrong.  We must seek, instead, what would have been the “intended sense” or the “original sense” of the biblical writers.  

  Suppose someone wrote you a letter and you were unclear about what that person was saying.  What would be the best way to clear up the failure to communicate effectively?  Some possible choices are:

1. To guess about the meaning intended.  

2. To supply one’s own preferred meaning. 

3. To say that it means anything anyone wants it to mean. 

4. To try to find out the author’s original intent and meaning.   

  Obviously, only #4 is a correct choice.  And so it is with understanding the Bible.  The process of doing this is at times difficult and requires a study of the historical times, culture, vocabulary, etc. in which the documents originally appear.  Though this may take time and effort, it must be recognized that there is no other proper way to understand the Bible just as, for example, there is no other proper method for understanding the U.S. Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution.  How then does one begin this process? A few fundamental principles are as follows:

1. Read, read and read the Bible for scope and overall context.  The details of the Bible will always fit within the scope and context of the Bible’s overall structure and themes. 

2. As you read ask yourself two basic questions: 

   1. Do I understand what is written? 

   2. How does what is written apply to me? 

3. To get help in understanding the Biblical text we should use: 

   1. Several good English versions of the Bible along with a Greek-English Interlinear for the New Testament. 

   2. Several good study Bibles, Bible Dictionaries and Bible Commentaries to see what Biblical scholars say about the passages that you are reading.  Compare what these different scholars say in the light of what seems to be the most reasonable understanding of the text from your own personal reading and study of that text.  

To understand the Bible well we must maintain humility, honesty and integrity in our quest for truth.  We must also read widely and deeply, not only the Bible itself, but also works that can help us understand the original intent and meaning of the Biblical text. Though we can know and understand the most important truths of the Bible without having a vast and deep overall knowledge of the Bible, we cannot be faithful interpreters, guardians, or teachers of the Bible as a whole if we do not possess a scope, knowledge, understanding, and feel for the Bible as a whole.  The first step in doing this is to find and use a good translation or version of the Bible, or better yet, several good translations or versions.  Then, to use them most effectively we must understand the nature of translation itself and which translations or versions of the Bible can best help us to properly understand and then apply the truth of the scriptures to our lives today.  That will be the subject of our next Notes & Quotes on the Bible.

**

PDF version

by Richie Temple

Cary, North Carolina

The most important principle for understanding the Bible properly is to read, read and read it in order to gain a scope and feel for its main themes and overall content.  This, of course, is true with any book.  However, since the Bible was originally written in mostly Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) all that is available for the normal speaker of modern languages is to read translations or versions of the Bible.  In its technical sense the word translation refers to an original attempt to translate from one language into another while the word version refers to any revision or new edition of that translation.  In practice, however, these words tend to be used interchangeably by the common man and often even by scholars as well.  Fortunately, for the speaker of English there are many excellent translations and versions to use for Bible reading and study that are built on a long and rich history of biblical scholarship.  Many of these can be used confidently as one’s main text for reading and many others can be used in a comparative sense as aids in Bible study.   It would, however, be a great mistake to think that any particular version or translation is the authoritative version.  Instead, each has its own strengths and weaknesses – a fact that is almost guaranteed to occur because of the process of translation itself.  

  We should always remember that the main reason for reading the Bible is to gain spiritual nourishment so that we are “equipped for every good work” (II Tim. 3:16-17).  Using a single version as your main text and augmenting it with other versions can greatly aid this process.  Since the Bible is, in effect, a book of books organized with two major divisions – the Old Testament and the New Testament - the task of Bible study is in many ways much more difficult than the study of a single book.  Fortunately, there is a unifying theme, which ties it all together and simplifies the process of understanding.  That theme is God’s plan of salvation, which he brings to fulfillment through his Son, Jesus Christ. The 20th century NT scholar F.F. Bruce summarizes the key points of this plan of salvation and shows how it helps to unite the Bible as a whole:

 “The Bible's central message is the story of salvation, and throughout both Testaments three strands in this unfolding story can be distinguished: the bringer of salvation, the way of salvation, and the heirs of salvation. This could be reworded in terms of the covenant idea by saying that the central message of the Bible is God's covenant with men, and that the strands are the mediator of the covenant, the basis of the covenant, and the covenant people. God himself is the Savior of his people; it is he who confirms his covenant-mercy with them. The bringer of salvation, the mediator of the covenant, is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The way of salvation, the basis of the covenant, is God's grace, calling forth from his people a response of faith and obedience. The heirs of salvation, the covenant people, are the Israel of God, the church of God.

The continuity of the covenant people from the Old Testament to the New Testament is obscured for the reader of the common English Bible because "church" is an exclusively New Testament word, and he naturally thinks of it as something which began in the New Testament period. But the reader of the Greek Bible was confronted by no new word when he found ekklesia in the New Testament; he had already met it in the Septuagint as one of the words used to denote Israel as the "assembly" of the Lord's people. To be sure, it has a new and fuller meaning in the New Testament. The old covenant people had to die with him in order to rise with him to a new life - a new life in which national restrictions had disappeared. Jesus provides in himself the vital continuity between the old Israel and the new, and his faithful followers were both the righteous remnant of the old and the nucleus of the new. The servant Lord and his servant people bind the two Testaments together” (The Origin of the Bible, pp. 11-12, Tyndale Pub.).

All of the major Bible translations and versions present this central theme of the Bible in a way that can be understood by the generally educated reader.  Though they have a great number of, mostly minor, differences among them, it is easy to overstate the importance of these differences.  Sometimes arguments can break out over translations that even cause divisions within the people of God.  This is happening to day in a battle between users of two new translations, the English Standard Version (ESV) and the Today’s New International Version (TNIV).   Unfortunately, this is nothing new.  It has happened all too often in the history of Christianity including Jerome’s translation of the Latin Vulgate in the 4th Century and Tyndale’s translation of the Bible into English in the Reformation of the 16th century.  While some of the issues involved are not minor, they are not of such major proportion that they should cause division within the body of Christ. When this does occur it is often a matter of becoming so engrossed in the details of translations that the central over-arching theme of God’s Plan of Salvation is lost.  In other words, it is a matter of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

As I stated in an earlier article I do not believe that any of the major Bible translations and versions published in the past 50 years are much better than the others in terms of reading and understanding the Bible as a whole.  They all have their strengths and weaknesses and are all based on the solid scholarship of biblical scholars who, at least in the great majority, love God and are trying to convey accurately the meaning of the Scriptures in a way that people can understand.  In addition, all of these scholars and translation committees agree in general on the basic principles of translation, though each favors a particular translation philosophy that would place them at a particular point on a scale stretching from a more literal translation to a more free translation.  Most importantly, all of these translations can be read with confidence and enjoyment in understanding the central truths of the Bible as a whole. 

For reference I present below a scale of many of the best of these major Bible translations that are now in use.  I have put in bold print the ones that are my favorites and which I most use and recommend to others.  With the exception of the King James Version (KJV published in 1611) and the Revised Standard Version (RSV completed in the early 1950s) all of these translations and versions have been completed since the 1970s.  All of the versions listed on the second or third lines are revisions of earlier translations or versions that are listed on the first line above them. They move from very literal (word for word) on the left to very free (meaning for meaning) on the right:

Literal              Balanced                 Free

NASB KJV  RSV  NIV NET  NEB JB CEV LB

        NKJV   NRSV TNIV REB NJB   NLT

                    ESV                     NLT 2004

        In choosing a version to be one’s main text for reading and memorization there are two important factors to consider.  First, one should consider readability. It simply makes no sense to choose a Bible that is not readable for you and thus will discourage you from reading it.  Second, the translation you choose should be a faithful rendering of the meaning of the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts.  We must always remember that the most important goal of translation is to convey the meaning of the original text as clearly as possible into the target language so that the reader can understand properly what the original text means.  The above chart is only an approximation but it is useful for understanding the differences in translations.  My own personal favorites for use as a main text for reading, study and memorization are the more literal ESV, the balanced NIV/TNIV and the freer NLT 2004 edition.  A person could use any of these as his main text if he consulted the others as well. But other combinations could be used equally well.  The key is to consult across the spectrum of literal to free, and for in-depth study, the more the merrier. 

  Generally speaking, the more literal the translation the less likely there will be interpretative error in the translation.  However, it is also true that the more literal the translation the more likely it is that the translation will have a wooden, unnatural feel to it and the more likely it is that there will be ambiguities left in it that are not in the original text itself.  All of this can lead to discouragement on the part of the reader and break the flow of reading. On the other hand, there are some free translations that, though very readable, are so interpretative that they can at times also be very misleading.  Thus, one can read along quickly, easily, and with understanding of what is said, and yet, being misled at the same time.  In all cases with all translations the original intent and meaning of the inspired biblical writer is the only proper and stable control for both translation and interpretation.  Without that everything deconstructs into subjective chaos. 

One issue that has come up in the last twenty years or so is that of the use of gender inclusive language.  This issue revolves around the question of how to translate the generic form of “man” = “human being” = “person” along with corresponding pronouns into English without causing ambiguity or the impression of gender bias.  Without getting too far into the details of this debate, I will only say that as a high school history teacher I deal with this issue every day and it is, in fact, a real issue.  In fact, I find myself using gender inclusive language more and more without even thinking about it in my own speaking and writing.  It is simply the way most young people think and speak and also the normal manner of discourse in the press and the arena of public affairs.  

Recent surveys indicate that when English-speaking people hear the word “man” used in a sentence 80% of them take it to mean someone of the male gender.  The same is true of the generic “he”.  Because of this when a translation translates the generic “man” as “man” rather than as “person” or “human” or “one”, etc. they risk grave misunderstanding on the part of the average reader.  Though one can make a strong case that the word “man” should be retained in its generic form based on: (1) its proper generic meaning in the Biblical texts, (2) its proper generic meaning in the English language, (3) retaining continuity with its generic historical usage in all forms of literature, and, finally (4) not bowing to political correctness driven by a feminist agenda, the plain fact is that English usage has changed dramatically in recent years and it is not likely to change back any time soon.  Due to these facts and based on the goal of communicating meaning in a way that can be understood effectively almost all of the more recent translations and versions have adopted gender inclusive usage in some way, ranging from mild usage to more extreme usage.  

The NIV was translated just before the era of gender inclusive versions began and it has promised that it will not be revised from its present form. The TNIV is called a new version.  The ESV has generally found a good balance on this issue while still not going far enough at times.  The NRSV, TNIV, NLT, etc. have each in their own way gone somewhat too far at times in their gender inclusive versions while at other times finding just the right balance.  Let’s look at an example in I Timothy 2:4-6:

“Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave himself for a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” (NKJV).

“Who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for men – the testimony given in its proper time.” (NIV).

“Who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” (ESV).

“Who wants all people to be saved and to come to come to the knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus himself human, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.  This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.” (TNIV).

All of these translations of this section of Scripture are “correct.” However, the NIV is the least clear as to meaning since there is possible ambiguity throughout in its use of “man”.  On the other hand, the TNIV is the clearest as to the meaning of the text without leaving any possible ambiguity that could be misunderstood.   In my view, when the original text says “man” in its male gender meaning the translation “man” should be retained, even when this “man” is representative of others.  A footnote can make clear the representation (e.g. see Psalm 1 in ESV).  When, on the other hand, “man” is used in the original to refer to “man” in its generic form it is often – though not always - better to translate it as “person”, “one”, “human being”, etc. (e.g. see Rom. 3:28 in ESV, TNIV). 

Another problem is how to translate pronouns corresponding to the generic “man”, “person”, “one”, or “human being”. Though from one point of view it is valid as a translation technique to pluralize the third person singular pronoun “he” in its generic sense to “he or she” or “they” in order to avoid any hint of gender bias, it often produces some very awkward, strange or unnatural English.  Thus as is often the case, going to an extreme to overcome one problem results in creating other problems including very unnatural English.  Compare, for example, the same versions above on Romans 14:1-5.  In this case the English of the ESV is natural, consistent, and understandable (as are the fully pluralized renderings of NRSV and the NLT) while the language of the TNIV sounds unnatural even though gender misunderstanding has been eliminated.  One can certainly ask, “Would the original text have sounded so unnatural to the original readers?” I don’t think so.  Nevertheless, I wouldn’t want to make too much of this issue.  Usually, the translation choices of the NRSV, TNIV, NLT, etc. in this regard do not affect the sense of the passage in question and they can alleviate a common misconception in translation.      

In conclusion, I must emphasize that a student of the Bible needs to learn to properly use the Bible or Bibles that he reads and studies.   He should learn all the different translation philosophies and methodologies listed in the chart above and make full use of the benefits of them all.  And at a minimum, every Bible reading person should read the Preface and Introduction of any version he’s going to seriously use so as to get the most out of it and so as not to abuse it due to misconceptions.   In addition, almost all Bible versions have their own web-sites now that give you a wealth of information about their own versions and their corresponding translation philosophies. Finally, never allow anyone to limit you to using a particular version or versions of the Bible.  Some churches, Bible study fellowships, etc. use a common text - usually, for good reasons; however, this should not prevent you from making full use of the other versions in your own private study. Read, study and enjoy the Bible – it is our fountainhead for spiritual truth and spiritual nourishment.  And, it is the greatest literature in the history of the world.

**

PDF version