We can’t live biblically if we are not aware of the historical gap between our world and the worlds of the Old and the New Testaments. Thus, a historical-bridge proposal would be an important technical proposal because it can bridge this historical gap. First, the books of the Scriptures were not written in a vacuum. God spoke in specific historical settings and used the language of the day to connect with real historical humans like you and me. Therefore, understanding the terminology of the time and the historical background are both essential to understanding the message of the Scriptures and, consequently, being able to distinguish between what is essentially biblical and what was constrained by social/historical setting.
A couple of examples may clarify this previous point. Try to read a newspaper or a novel from last century, and you will probably struggle with the proper…
We can’t live biblically if we are not aware of the historical gap between our world and the worlds of the Old and the New Testaments. Thus, a historical-bridge proposal would be an important technical proposal because it can bridge this historical gap. First, the books of the Scriptures were not written in a vacuum. God spoke in specific historical settings and used the language of the day to connect with real historical humans like you and me. Therefore, understanding the terminology of the time and the historical background are both essential to understanding the message of the Scriptures and, consequently, being able to distinguish between what is essentially biblical and what was constrained by social/historical setting.
A couple of examples may clarify this previous point. Try to read a newspaper or a novel from last century, and you will probably struggle with the proper meaning of some words and phrases. Not only were some words/ phrases used differently but also the historical and social contexts of the time employed their own terms. To be more specific, imagine yourself reading a political column in a newspaper from the 1960s; you may encounter terms such as “iron curtain” or “The Cold War.” The proper meanings of these terms were familiar to contemporary readers of this period due to the historical setting in the 20th century. This is not so for you, though; you might need some googling or background knowledge to familiarize yourself with these terms and to be able to relate to the spirit of the time.
Another example from the Scriptures is the many feasts in the life of ancient Israel. These feasts were significant in a unique way in the life of Israel. Their importance exceeded the purpose of reminding Israel of her God. These feasts were associated with the seasons of the harvest and were part and parcel of the life of the people in the Land [ almost all these feasts, except the Passover, were associated with the harvest]. In other words, God intended to have a relationship with His people that is fundamentally related to their everyday life in the Land. Although this concept of feasts differs from our current setting (assuming a contemporary Christian setting), a common truth unites us with this setting. It is this close relationship with our Lord. God didn’t change, and He still seeks those who seek an intimate relationship with Him. Finally, many solid background resources (Introductory works, Commentaries, and Study Bibles) can bridge this historical gap for contemporary readers. Thus, there is no language barrier or any other legitimate excuse for not bridging the historical gap between our world and the worlds of the Scriptures for a better understanding of what is essentially biblical.
Insightsfrom Jordon, William George, The Majesty of Calmness.
• The man who is calm does not selfishly isolate himself from the world, for he is intensely interested in all that concerns the welfare of humanity. His calmness is but a Holy of Holies into which he can retire from the world to get strength to live in the world. He realizes that the full glory of individuality, the crowning of self-control, is the majesty of calmness. (p.12).
• Hurry has ruined more Americans than has any other word in the vocabulary of life. It is the scourge of America and is both a cause and a result of our high pressure civilization. (p.14).
• The man who is not self-reliant is weak, hesitating and doubting in all he does, He fears to take a decisive step because he dreads failure, because he is waiting for someone to advise him or because he dares not act in accordance with his own best judgment. (p.28).
• Failure is one of God’s educators. It is experience leading man to higher things; it is the revelation of a way, a path hitherto unknown to us. (p.39).
• No rule for higher living will help a man in the slighter until he reaches out and appropriates it for himself until he makes it practical in his daily life until that seed of theory in his mind blossoms into a thousand flowers of thought and word and act. (p.46)
To begin with, one should distinguish between being biblical and being literal. To clarify the difference, I recall one preacher who used to assert to his congregation that the prime principle of biblical hermeneutics is to interpret the Scriptures literally, “when Jesus said He is the door, He meant what He said.” He once said. I can still recall his words because his example contradicts his hermeneutical claim. Jesus did not mean that He was a physical door, but He used figurative language to convey the meaning to his audience, who perfectly understood what He meant. In fact, the Bible is full of passages that contain figurative language and imagery, and the biblical interpretation is not to literalize those passages. On the contrary, literalization would be twisting the meaning of the Scriptures and missing the correct message of the Bible.
Unfortunately, our above preacher is not the only minister who adopts poor hermeneutics. Many preachers and youth pastors are clever at inventing creative devotional messages that are detached from the intended meaning of the biblical passages they preach from. Please understand this: to be biblical is not the same as to be literal, but rather to understand the Scriptures on their own terms. Building on this critical distinction between being biblical and biblicism, I introduce my proposals for being biblical. These proposals can be divided into two main categories: technical and theological. Technical proposals deal with how to read and understand the Scriptures properly. In contrast, theological proposals deal with thoughts and priorities essential for an individual or an institution to be biblical. In the following lines, I will begin with technical proposals.
This first of these technical proposals is linguistic in nature; we should remember that the Bible was not originally written in the English language but in biblical Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic [The books of the Old Testament are mainly written in Hebrew, except portions from Danial, Ezra and Nehemiah, and few scattered verses in Genesis and Jeremiah that were written in Aramaic. Almost all of the New Testament was written in Koine Greek except for a few words.]
What we have in our hands then are English translations of the original. Therefore, it is wise to compare different English translations in order to gain a broader understanding of what we read. When it comes to Bible translations, there are two major approaches, as shown in the following table:
Approaches to Bible Translations
[Table’s data gathered from different sources, for example, the Preface of the NKJV Translation by Thomas Nelson.]
Formal equivalence
Dynamic equivalence
The formal equivalence or word -for word translations, such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) & English Standard Version (ESV). Pros: These translations strive to maintain the original structure of the biblical text. They realize that meaning cannot really be separated from the structure. Cons: as they opt to keep the original structure, some passages sound awkward, and the English reader misunderstands some idioms.
The dynamic equivalence or thought-for-thought translations, such as The New Living Translation (NLT) Pros: these translations strive to convey the same message of the biblical text in clear and understandable English, producing the same impact as the original text without the difficult or awkward structure of the original text. Cons: as they strive for clarity and to ease things for modern readers, they sometimes overlook many insights from the original structure—for instance, word order and intended ambiguity.
Some translations attempt to take a mid-way between the two approaches. That is to balance word-for-word and thought-for-thought approaches. Whether this approach is possible or not, this inquiry is beyond the purpose of this essay, but it is good to know that this is what CSB and NIV translators aim to accomplish. At any rate, I advise any sincere reader of the Scriptures to counsel at least two different English translations: one formal and one dynamic. However, suppose the passage you try to understand is difficult. In that case, you might need to counsel more than two translations to gain a broader insight into the biblical text’s structure and flow of thought.
The second proposal is a literary one, and it is related to the structure of the text [syntax & context]. To understand any text, one should pay attention to how words and phrases related to one another and how a verse or paragraph relates to its surroundings. This is called “immediate context.” While understanding syntax is essential for those who care about specific details, it can only benefit those who know the original languages. On the other hand, context can serve as a faithful guide to those who know and those who don’t know the original languages. Even if you don’t know the original language, you can read a Bible verse in its immediate context. A term gains its proper intended meaning not from a lexicon but from the immediate context in which it fits. The immediate context to terms is like the good natural soil to seeds. For instance, you could look up a word in a lexicon to find a wide range of meaning/ meanings. Still, to narrow down your choices of the intended meaning by the biblical author, you should read the word in the light of the immediate context in which it originally occurred. Thus, it is not an exaggeration to say that Immediate context is key in interpreting any term or passage of the Scriptures. [Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral. 2nd ed (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006), 39.]. To be continued…
“To be biblical is simply to align oneself with the claims of the Bible.” said an old friend of mine.
Unfortunately, my friend’s claim is not as simple as it appears. As they say, the devil is in the details; there are many sub-questions that stem from the question of how to be biblical. For instance, is believing in a literal six-day creation essentially biblical? Should a local church have a single or multiple elders? Should women cover their heads at church, or is it just a cultural issue?
Moreover, are these issues primary or secondary in determining whether an individual or an institution is biblical? The difficulty arises from the fact that we often disagree on what is really biblical, what is primary, and what is secondary according to Bible’s teachings. As a result, being biblical requires that we have some common ground in approaching the Bible.
Nonetheless, Christians widely disagree on this issue. For some Christians, being biblical is being literal, taking every statement in the Bible as literally as possible (fundamentals). These Christians often find it easier to interpret the Pauline epistles because they contain straightforward teachings for the church. However, they struggle with interpreting many Old Testament passages, the Gospels, Hebrews, and the book of Revelation. For instance, they tend to interpret many Proverbs as promises [which is not intended by the original author.] In other words, Proverbs about rewards of obedience are interpreted as promises. This approach confused many Christian parents in their endeavor for biblical parenting. They, moreover, struggle with the imagery in the Psalms and the seemingly contradicting narratives of the Gospels. Thus, they end up enforcing their theology on passages that do not fit their rigid literal systems!
Other Christians focus on specific passages as foundational to their denominations. This selectivity is especially apparent in many mainline Protestant denominations. For example, Presbyterians usually highlight passages supporting election and predestination. On the other hand, Methodists seem to stress passages suggesting human responsibility. Baptists would insist on immersion as the proper way to perform baptism and cite specific passages to support their claim. Finally, other Christians are more concerned with their traditions and liturgies than being biblical (many Catholics and Orthodox Christians). That said, today, many Christians from all backgrounds still struggle with the question of being biblical. Being biblical, thus, is not a question of one’s home church or whether one recites/memorizes some verses but a question of credibility and identity. To be continued…
More than a decade ago, I began to feel uncomfortable with people who frequently use phrases such as “God told me, the Lord spoke to me, or the Holy Spirit revealed to me.” Those familiar with the charismatic movement in the 90s and early 2000 may better understand the reason for my unease. During these days of charismatic revivals, many Christians- myself included- were caught in attempts to hear God’s voice and maintain a relationship with the Holy Spirit. Some of those brothers and sisters used to suggest ridiculous things and sanctify them by annexing the phrase “God told me!” I recall one Christian girl who accepted to marry a non-believer because “God told her to.” Another student at a Seminary used to say that God told him to share the Gospel when he goes to this specific group of people in one particular foreign country, but not with any other group [ by the way, he ended up being a missionary in an entirely different country!]Thus, I grew increasingly suspicious of these claims as I observed the disappointing and sometimes damaging results of these unbiblical charismatic claims.
However, I recently became more concerned. Some claim to be “biblical” and often recite verses from the Scriptures. They use these verses as proof texts for any claim or procedure they want to impose over others. In fact, if the former group was mostly deceived or naive, the latter is more likely to be deceivers, narrow-minded, and, in many cases, jerks. These Christians are not biblical but rather legalistic. Like the Pharisees in Jesus’ day, they stick to the letter without regard to the Spirit (2 Cor 3:6). Many of those neo-Pharisees are limited to social media platforms and small churches. Still, some of those legalistic leaders are more sophisticated and influential. They claim to be faithful biblical Christians who defend the orthodox Christian faith against all others [ According to these legalistic ministers, others are either less biblical Christians, progressive Christians, or even non-Christians]. They often use their knowledge to create a culture of guilt and strife among simple Christians. Whether they believe their claims or are they only aiming for power and fame is beyond the inquiry of this essay. Instead, the goal of this essay is to suggest a simple guideline for a truly biblical approach to the Bible. To foster a faithful reading of the Scriptures so Christians from different backgrounds can be more biblical [ in the correct sense] in their walk with the Lord. By providing this guideline, Christians taking this essay’s proposals seriously can avoid falling prey to those legalistic “biblical” jerks. To be continued…
Out of Egypt 