Is the Bible That Big of a Mystery?

I would argue that a person who looks to the larger and immediate contexts, and perhaps historical contexts, is in a greater position to understand the text than a person who “knows” the languages but argues from a single word. What really needs to happen is for people to understand that one who knows the language understands the primacy of context in interpretation, and in doing so, will see that the languages (i.e., what is being said) in the Bible can be understood even in a translation.

“there are so many societal and political and ethical issues in the contemporary world that need study to allow a minister to be able to counsel a congregation to be relevant. Language study becomes irrelevant in light of those demands.”

The problem with this is that so much of these are based on understanding the text, and an understanding of the text must understand language in context. This can be done without learning Greek or Hebrew, but it is more helpful to know the languages when those who advocate a particular position are basing their interpretations on something faulty that would be cleared up by knowledge of the language.

All I can say is, thank God for commentaries. Oh but wait, I’m studying the languages so that might be the wrong answer 🙂 But still, thank God for commentaries!

And actually I think that an attitude against studying the languages is just as arrogant as those who make it all about studying the languages, especially if that attitude is generated by an overly confident leader who supposes that his own resources are sufficient, or worse, garnered by that secret knowledge.

Also, on this I wholeheartedly agree,

But this also meant that the layperson is responsible to find solid-character teachers who have devoted themselves to knowing the scriptures well. And those teachers have a sacred duty to explain the text in a way that the layperson can grasp. Further, they have a sacred duty to show laypeople how to study the Bible for themselves. After all, if the Bible truly is perspicacious, then laypeople should be able to figure out its meaning from a translation.

Obviously we have to have those who study the languages to even have translations available for the rest of us to read and study!

And I also agree, as Lisa said, that there should not be an attitude against anyone studying the original languages the Bible is written in. There is a lot to be gained I am sure by a thorough knowledge of these languages.

But I do, as I have expressed several times in other places on this blog when the subject has come up, have a big problem with the thought that is expressed at times in one way or another here that we can’t really know what the Bible is talking about unless we do know those languages. In the first place, that basically means that for those of us that haven’t been in places where we can learn them, there is no hope for us at all. Second class Christians as Dan Wallace mentioned above?? (Or maybe even less then that.)

I also think it is a quite an insult to those that have given much of their life work to making the Bible available in languages that people can understand–be that English or the native language of a people group in Africa.

And the very fact that different translators render parts of Scripture in different ways and that lexicons don’t always seem to agree on the meanings of words tells me that knowing the languages isn’t a guarantee that we will automatically understand everything in the Bible correctly either. Several folks, have in fact, spent much time on this blog debating the meaning of just one Greek word and they never did come to agreement on it!

If the Holy Spirit is indeed active in making His truth known to us, it seems to me that He can do that through a translation as well as through the original languages, can He not?

Good article, Dan. I think you nailed it on both sides. We certainly need to strike a happy medium in our churches in order to bring both good Bible scholarship and understandable doctrine together.

Otherwise we make the whole Bible out as a completely foreign language known only to scholars, or on the other extreme, leave it to strictly random interpretation. Either one is dangerous.

Dan,

I agree with you that a Pastor or Christian leader ought to know the original languages. I have often heard “amateurs” make exegetical pronouncements based on the meaning of a single word as found in Strong’s Concordance. One needs to understand the grammar, the syntax, as well as the lexical meaning of words in order to properly understand a written document. Otherwise, God could have just given the Bible in alphabetical order and we could look up each word.

I do take issue with you, however, on the perspicuity of Scripture. A RCC leader is reported to have said in the 16th century that if you allow each person to interpret the Bible for himself, there will be as many interpretations as their are interpreters. While this is certainly hyperbole, it is true that there are hundreds if not thousands of various sects in Protestantism, all claiming that there beliefs are based on the Bible.

Someone might argue that the basic message of salvation is clear even if other doctrinal details are not. I disagree. If the way of salvation is so clear and obvious in Scripture, then why is there not unanimous or at least nearly unanimous agreement among those who accept the Bible as the Word of God on how one is to be saved?

I think you could make the point that the New Testament says clearly that one needs to believe (have faith) in Jesus in order to be saved (e.g. John 3:16). But there is still a host of questions:

1. What exactly is faith?

a. Is it merely intellectual assent? Grace Evangelical Society answer in the affirmative. A former colleague of yours, Zane Hodges, came very close to holding this view.

b. Is it more than intellectual assent but less than submission to the Lordship of Christ? Another colleague of yours, Charles Ryrie held this.

c. It is submission to the Lordship of Christ? John MacArthur is famous for this view.

These three views are not compatible or harmonizable. One is right and the other two are wrong or they are all wrong.

(continued from above)

2. Is faith alone enough for salvation?

a. Followers of Alexander Campbell would say no, baptism is needed.
b. Many Lutherans and Anglicans would say baptism is needed.

3. How does one acquire faith?

a.Calvinists (monergists, i.e, salvation is solely God’s work) say that it is a gift from God.

b. Arminians (synergists, i.e., man cooperates with God in salvation) say that faith originates in man.

4. What is the necessary object of faith?

In other words, must one have faith in God or must that faith be specifically in Jesus Christ in order to be saved? Evangelicals for the most part would answer it must be in Jesus Christ although many of them leave the door open for “those who have never heard the gospel” to have some type of belief in the God of nature and thus be saved.

5. If one has to believe specifically in Jesus Christ in order to be saved, the next question is what must one believe about him?

Must one acknowledge that he is co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father or may one believe that he is somehow a notch below God the Father, albeit still divine. Virtually all evangelicals would say the former because this debate was fought in the early church and Athanasius defeated Arius. But why was there a dispute in the first place if the Scripture is perspicuous? And was Arius some evil man who denied the Bible? No, he was following what he honestly thought the Scriptures taught.

So, is the Bible really crystal clear on how one is to be saved? I don’t think it is. It seems to me that if the Bible were really the Word of God, it would be clear and unambiguous throughout but at the very least it would be plain on how one is to be saved.

Thank you all for your input and insights. Someone said that an understanding of the context is more important than focusing on a single word in the original language. That is usually true, but it is also beside the point. The person who knows Greek and Hebrew can do both; the person who does not know the languages can only do one of these. If the seminary graduate thinks that word study is the same as exegesis, then either he went to a really bad school or wasn’t paying attention. At DTS, we tell students that there is a gulf between us today and the ancient biblical writers. Our task is to bridge that gulf with as many tools as possible. This includes understanding the historical background, social context, narrative styles, literary context, and language of the authors. Those who can’t read Greek can do most of these things; those who can can do all of them.

Ken, you also made several good points. But I will again say, I believe that the central message of the Bible is clear. The fact that all 3 branches of Christendom affirm that Jesus Christ is fully divine (thus, Arius is out), that he rose bodily from the dead, and that he atoned for our sins, is remarkable. When there are rifts, spits, 1000s of denominations, etc. that would seem to tear the body of Christ into a million pieces, the fact that the 3 branches of the Church have this fundamental agreement is astonishing. Of course, there are now liberal Protestants who have departed far from this confession, but they too, for the most part, know that their view is not in line with scripture.

As for Hodges, MacArthur, Ryrie, etc.: Yes, they have different views on what one must do to be saved. But here’s the question: do you really think they they viewed the other men as unsaved?

Dan,

Thanks for the reply. You are right that the 3 major divisions of Christendom are united on the deity and physical resurrection of Christ, and that he atoned for man’s sins. However, they disagree on how that atonement is to be applied. What good is the atonement if it is not applied?

As for Hodges, Ryrie, and MacArthur, I doubt that they thought the others were unsaved; however, they probably should if what they have written in their books is true. MacArthur does teach that many people have a false faith because it does not include submission to the Lordship of Christ. Hodges or at least some of his followers would argue that those who believe in Lordship have added works to grace thus destroying grace. Ryrie, I think takes a more balanced position and would not question the salvation of the other two groups.

As for your points on the importance of knowing the languages, I would add that it is crucial to be able to evaluate arguments one reads in technical commentaries and theological literature. Even if one loses some of his skills in the languages, he should still be able to read with comprehension arguments based on the language and utilize grammars and other resources to follow the arguments.

As much as one benefits from the languages, the greatest problem is learning to read and to read with understanding. They cannot grapple with the text in English, much less in Greek or Hebrew. The ability to read well in context is almost an insurmountable problem.

Comment #7 Ken Pulliam

“Is Bible really crystal clear on how one is to be saved? I don’t think it is.”

The entire Ministry, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus is about salvation through Him and Him alone. Paul asserts this 70 billion times in the epistles. Jesus says “I am the Way and the Light.” “No one reaches the Father but through me.” “I am the alpha and the omega.” Seems absolutely definitive and crystal clear to me. You are saved by living as Christ-like as you consciously can and it is not an event but a process.

Carl,

I must ask you where you believe faith and being “born again” fits into your definition of how to be saved?

Cherylu,

I believe that the narrative of Christ and the central moral code of the Bible is unambiguous. But with respect to discerning the nature of the trinity, and historic patterns of hierarchy and subordination among humans, we need Latin, Greek and Hebrew. This is very dependent on interpretation.

What one finds is the enormous diversity and the different factors contributing to doctrinal development. We find patterns of human organization ranging from the RC to the Brethren. All of these derived from the same text.

But we can be sure that the scriptures teach that we should love our neighbours as ourselves. We just don’t know how we should justly subordinate them. Knowing these original languages simply opens the eyes to how much we don’t know about this – how much depends on interpretation.

But don’t we really just need to know how to act morally? The scriptures are clear that we are worse than unbelievers if we do not provide for our family. We need to take on the proper responsibility and authority for this task and to love our neighbours as ourselves. We know for a certainty that this is right and just.

I want authority, a job, decision-making, etc to feed my family. I want a democratic civil government to maintain the peace. Why do others want hierarchy and subordination in human relations? I honestly don’t know.

Perhaps others who don’t study the ancient langauges at all would answer these questions betther than I. But for me, I would always personally refer to the original text. And when I look up a word in LSJ or BDAG I also read the examples given their in their original context. I do refer to great gobs of ancient literature as context as well as the scriptural text itself.

The chief result is that I know what I don’t know. Quite a lot! I also know that others don’t have clarity on these issues either. So why would they recommend some of the things they do.

Ken, I wonder if Hodges, Ryrie, and MacArthur would all subscribe to the Reformed principle of the perspicuity of scripture. I suspect that they would. And although at times the rhetoric gets a bit heated, at bottom I think they would all say that the fundamental things to believe are the same, just as the Catholic and Orthodox would say. What’s interesting here is whether the Reformed idea of perspicuity of scripture would allow for Catholics and Orthodox to be saved within their systems. For some yes; for others, no. But part of what is interesting here is this: The Reformers knew that their view was quite different from that of the RC church. Yet, they could claim that scripture is clear. You have also pointed out a variety of viewpoints as though this necessarily proves that scripture is not clear. There’s a logical fallacy in that approach because it assumes either that the core of what is believed is different among these authors/groups or that the assumptions that are behind the interpretations are all the same. But that is hardly the case.

Sorry my fomer comment is quite garbled but I have a very poor connection at the moment with limited time.

[…] Read the whole post here: Is the Bible That Big of a Mystery? […]

Any requirement that a minister have a mastery of at least one biblical language would make it nearly impossible for a lot of “second career” types to get seminary educations. Two of my favourite priests (both men with PhDs) really struggled in seminary. One managed to get a fairly solid grasp on Greek but completely failed to make any progress with Hebrew. The other actually chose his seminary because it would not require him to learn a biblical language. The sad fact is that is a rare person who achieves anything but basic literacy in new language past their early 20’s. I don’t want to down play the importance of Greek and Hebrew (I grieve my own lack of fluency) but I don’t want lose the talents of these excellent men either.

Hi Dan,

I agree, which is why I said that one who really knows the languages is trained to read in context. The problem is that I’ve run into a lot of Classicists who are usually just trained to read in volume, or self taught enthusiasts who do word studies but don’t know the rules that guide lexicography in order to come up with something accurate. There are also so many Bible colleges and seminaries that only train their pastors to use the resources, rather than actually learn the languages. In these cases, the person reading in English who learns to ponder the larger discourse and historical context towers over these others. I guess we could call them posers, but I don’t want to sound too harsh with it. It’s usually all well intentioned, as you know, but it becomes dangerous as those who don’t even know the little bit of language these others have end up making them their theological authorities. Of course, both is the ideal. It’s good to hear DTS is still like other top schools that teach language comprehensively (something I knew well from my very well trained professors who went there). If all schools did the same, the debates concerning proper methodology would go the way of the Dodo.

Hodge, your lament is reminiscent of James Barr’s in his epochal Semantics of Biblical Language. He complained about seminarians who simply learned enough to be dangerous: word studies and atomistic exegesis. I certainly hope that man have heeded Barr’s warnings of now, nearly 50 years ago.

[…] Dan Wallace: Is the Bible that big of a mystery? […]

“a lot of Classicists who are usually just trained to read in volume”

I think this is key. Someone who has read in volume has read far beyond the Biblical text. They bring to the Bible a knowledge of Greek formed elsewhere. They are familiar with the usage of words in many different contexts, not just a text whose interpretation they have already been taught. Classicists can also be trained in linguistics and discourse studies. This is not unheard of.

When a study like the Junia study or the kephale or authentein study is published, I have typically read almost every word of these lists in their original context. It is surprising to see how often an occurrence of the word is clipped from context, and an unaccepted meaning is assigned to the word in order to further the interests of the study. I have found that this happens consistently.

Others have published on this and I do think that there is general agreement that in each of these studies a key example has had to be reinterpreted. Even the very best exegetes benefit from interaction with their peers. Anyone at all can fall into the various exegetical fallacies.

Sue,

My point is that Classicists don’t generally study linguistics. They study the languages for mass reading. Because of this, they make numerous mistakes in importing meanings from other places into a foreign context. What you see as a strength is actually a great liability when not accompanied by linguistic training concerning the nature of context and the words and grammar contained therein. I had many Classicists learn linguistic guidelines in classes I taught, so they can then pick up those things later and their classical training is a great service to them at that point, since it does do a great amount of good in reading the languages when done so “by the rules.” Otherwise, there is a tendency to look at other texts, import, and override the obvious contextual meaning in a current context. That simply confuses rather than sheds light, and as such, it would have been better had they not learned Greek or Latin at all.

Hodge,

This may be true. I don’t really know. Those I have had contact with are recognized as scholars and linguists. I don’t think that grads of the NES program, linguistics dept and classics dept at U of T are looked down on by DTS. I have sat under many profs who were active in well known Bible translations.

“Otherwise, there is a tendency to look at other texts, import, and override the obvious contextual meaning in a current context. That simply confuses rather than sheds light, and as such, it would have been better had they not learned Greek or Latin at all.”

If this is so, then why would one look at other occurrences of the word. Why would you want to know what the word means in the language itself in other contexts. And yet many studies are undertaken in this domain.

But are you suggesting that no author can ever express something that is contrary to what the reader would predict if the space had been left blank?

It is on this basis, what you have described, that Martin Luther realized that the female apostle Junia was really the male apostle, Junias. And it is on the basis of this very same context, that Dan Wallace realized that Junia, a woman, was not an apostle.

If we depend on context, who are we to believe, Martin Luther or Dan Wallace? How shall we decide?

If seminary programs were rated on the amount of language study required, then Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary of the WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) has to rank near the top!

To ENTER, at least 8 semesters of Attic or Koine Greek is required and at least 4 semesters of Biblical Hebrew from traditional students, and the whole NT and significant portions of the OT are read in the original languages…

It is on this basis, what you have described, that Martin Luther realized that the female apostle Junia was really the male apostle, Junias. And it is on the basis of this very same context, that Dan Wallace realized that Junia, a woman, was not an apostle.

You just sneak this in whenever you can, don’t you? Even on a thread of a different topic?

Sue, please don’t make this thread about gender issues or pick fights with Dan Wallace.

Also, it’s interesting that you say this

When a study like the Junia study or the kephale or authentein study is published, I have typically read almost every word of these lists in their original context. It is surprising to see how often an occurrence of the word is clipped from context, and an unaccepted meaning is assigned to the word in order to further the interests of the study. I have found that this happens consistently.

Yet, you suggest that etymology of a word should extend beyond the range of how the author would have most likely intended it and impose a standard by which the author could employ language outside of the context of which they are speaking. That is contradictory and could result in skewed authorial intent.

For our Greek exegetical papers at DTS, our word studies consist of examining the usage in the classical period, the koine period, how it was used in the LXX and the NT. While the classical period is helpful in shaping the most likely meaning of the word, we can’t impose that meaning on the NT usage if it is demonstrated that the word functioned differently according to how the author used elsewhere and according to the context.

#25 David : Aiee, carrumba! Muchos estudio Muchos palabras. Muchos libros. Muchos linguas. (I think this is semi passable Spanish). Under the program you described, when would a man or woman learn all the other stuff about religion and preaching? He or she would have to live like a gazillion years like some of those OT fellows(allegedly). Age wise they would be ready to enter the Kingdom before they could enter the ministry. Do these folks ever take on a pastoral ministry? And in Miami, you would have to know Spanish, Creole, and Caribbean English dialects too to be able to deliver all the Bible stuff to a congregation. And sign language for the deaf, too? Here in Miami you also have to know ethnic sign language of the type to use when someone cuts you off in traffic. Upon my word! (no pun intended)

#12 cherylu: Oh yes of course “born again” and faith absolutely crucial. But being saved is not an event(which is proposed and guaranteed by some dominations). but a process of endless growth. I am 61 now. Got the BA/MA religion and almost entered Presbyterian seminary. Did 34 years high school American History teacher instead. I am a recovering alcoholic. And although I thought I had faith and lived a pretty decent life I was not born again until I got hooked up with a particular 12-Step program. I see that my addiction blocked a true relationship with Jesus. Now clean and sober 8 yrs. 3 mos. I am born again having been able to accept the glorious healing and restorative power available through the invitation of Jesus.

Lisa,

I do believe that this is relevant to the post, and to Hodge’s comment. I am not suggesting in any way, shape or form that anyone is not doing excellent exegesis. I am saying that mistakes are made and that volume reading, being familiar with literature is a good thing.

“Yet, you suggest that etymology of a word should extend beyond the range of how the author would have most likely intended it and impose a standard by which the author could employ language outside of the context of which they are speaking. That is contradictory and could result in skewed authorial intent.”

Take authenteo, it is related to gender, but what can I do? There is only only one occurrence previous to the NT. The other examples are related but not the verb authentein. They have been excluded from most studies because they typically mean something like “murder” and don’t seem to relate to 1 Tim. 2:12, although some people still think they do.

However, the Baldwin study presents two cases of the verb. One is from the Philodemus fragment. The other from a fragmentary letter called BGU 1208. In the study as originally published by Baldwin, it was claimed that both of these occurrences of authenteo demonstrated that the word meant ‘to exercise authority.” Since Linda Belleville did her excellent study, and I published the fragments on the internet, this claim has been withdrawn at least by Dr. Kostenberger, who now states that there is not enough lexical evidence to tell us what the word means.

So now the word authenteo is considered to have no lexical evidence to support its meaning. Now one can say that it means “to exercise authority” because it is supposedly clear from context that it must mean that because it is about women, and stands in parallel with “to teach.” It is then said that teach must always have a positive meaning, But this is not accurate as we see in Titus 1.

So we don’t really have evidence as to what the word means.

It is claimed that context and authorial intent tells us that it must mean “to have authority.”

However, going back to BGU 1208, and Hippolytus, we can see that in these cases, it means “to compel” or “to control” and to do this is a definitely negative manner. This negativity is denied because it is in parallel with “to teach.”

In the past, the context and the other evidence was taken into consideration. There were no known cases, where the word authenteo, was used in a positive manner to refer to human leadership, until several centuries later. But the meaning also came to be used in a very negative way and opens up a new study which most people have left aside.

From this early evidence, Jerome translated authenteo with dominari, and Erasmus translated it into Latin with autoritatem usurpare.

Lexical evidence suggests that the word had this meaning. Jerome and Erasmus give the word a seemingly negative meaning, not one that could ever refer to church leadership.

But on the basis of authorial intent and context, theologians today argue that it means that women cannot lead in church. This meaning was unknown for this word.

I do not think that this meaning “yo lead in church” is supported by any evidence. There is no reason from the text that this word could not mean “women should not control or dominate.”

This word is still open to interpretation. Should women be silenced by those who write that authorial intent must be to tell women that they cannot lead in church? Is that really enough?

Most of those who have seen this word and its cognates, feel that it refers to a known wrongful behaviour, just as the men were fighting,

I don’t have the answer, but I do want to point out that the Baldwin study was originally published with the citation from the Philodemus fragment included as “evidence” that authenteo meant “to have authority” and a classicist recognized right away that this citation had been wrongly cited. I do think that this is important.

Dr. Wallace, I am happy to be in agreement with you.

1. Knowledge of the original language is extremely valuable (i.e SOMEBODY has to do it). This for the simple reason that what the Holy Spirit gave by inspiration is a TEXT, textS really. These are in human language. Therefore, it is through these that the texts may be understood. You have to look for your keys where you dropped them, even if the light is better under the street lamp.

2. However, it is just as true that what a human language can communicate, another human language can communicate. Thus, the Bible translated. translated WELL, provides everything (for all practical purposes) that the original text does. At least that needs to be the goal, the purpose of the translation.

One problem is, however, that not all translations are created equal. It needs to be translated WELL. We do have some good ones, very good ones. The difficulty is that what many well-meaning conservative advocates deem a GOOD translation is little different from an interlinear gloss, a calque. Like an emaciated cow you can see the bony structure of the original showing through. This approach essentially means that while you have direct access to each word, since they are all English. You STILL need an interpreter skilled in the original languages to sift through the text and bring out the flow of argument.

Hence, the more “literal,” i.e. word-for-word your “translation” is the less it is real English, and the more you need a guide.

On the other extreme, let me be quick to point out, you have “Loose Canons?” (sic, pun intended) If I appear to be advocating non-word-for-word translation, freewheeling-ness for its own sake is no recommendation. Case in point is the execrable The Message. The problem here is not the liberties it takes with the structure, but the liberties it takes with the meaning.

So hurrah for Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic), for GOOD exegesis, and for GOOD translation.

Very interesting comments and debate here. But concerning reading the Bible in any translation (English or otherwise] vs reading the Bible in the original languages…well, I still remember what an upperclassman in seminary told me when I was deciding whether to expend the time and effort in learning the original languages. He replied, “Reading the Bible in English vs the original languages is like watching a movie in ‘black-and-white’ vs watching the same movie in ‘technicolor.'” Yes, we have excellent English translations that are wonderful (and I rely upon them a lot). But there’s nothing quite like reading the Bible in ‘technicolor.’ I believe that the role of ‘pastor-teacher’ is to bring out the ‘colors’ in our English translations. But Dan’s warning is good for pastor-teachers to heed! Did not Paul say “knowledge puffs up?”

Now, I guess the analogy would be IMAX 3-D.

Let me say at the outset, this being the first time I am disagreeing with Michael, I’m probably in error, soley due to the amount of respect he’s earned of me. I sincerecly mean and and am not just setting up an argument.
I must take issue not with the substance of this article – the importance of learning the original languages, but the reality of this within the temporal expression of “the church”, ie seminaries, ministires, Bible colleges, etc.
As someone who’s been barred or seriously hindered from most institutions where such an education is offered, I’ve developed a different understanding of rigurous study when it comes to the Bible and ministry requirement.
I thoroughly agree with the spirit of this article, and if the church provided training in such a way that it’s truly available to all who are called to ministry, then I’m all in. However, I can’t take part in heaping requirements not clearly stated in the Bible for ministry such as many of these institutions require. In other words, I agree that pastors should learn the original languages, but not that is should be a requirement because then I myself would be barred from going what God is burning in my heart to do – expound His Word.
If the church more aligned is training with all who may be called (instead those who fiit into a mold), regardless of chronically-ill spouses, no finances, no ability for 25-hour a week internships with no healthcare or way to suport one’s family, then I’d be more comfortable mandating such policies.
Ironically, it’s Michael’s ministry which fills such a void in the church exactly because many of us can’t live up to what I believe are increasingly unrealistic requirements of many institutions training for ministry.
In closing, I mean all these comments in love, I will always thoroughly wish I could’ve attended Michael’s alma matter and wasn’t attempting to disparage all seminaries/ministries. I am only attempting to call attention to what may be…

Earnie, your record on not disagreeing with Michael is intact. This one was written by Dr. Wallace.

Questions from a Christian with education in Bible languages:

1. If the Geneva Bible was your only Scriptural resource, would you have the same understanding of the world, of life and of it’s Creator–the I AM–and your relationship with Him as you do today?

2. Would you, for reasons of discipleship, give a new Christian the KJV or even the NKJV? (BTW, my primary Greek/Textual Criticism professor and friend contributed to the development of the NKJV)

3. What did Paul mean by “baptism for the dead?”

4. Why are there such differences–sometimes important differences–in interpretation of the Bible, despite careful use of the original languages? I’m thinking of something as fundamental as the Arminian and Calvinist debate.

In short, the Bible and it’s…affect on our lives, can be a rather great mystery. And don’t you often think of God’s responses to Job about such mysteries while you’re trying to grapple with them yourself? 🙂

Sue,

Personally, I think the immediate context of both Rom 16:7 and 1 Tim 2:12 offer a great deal of knowledge apart from but also in connection with the broader immediate context of St. Paul’s writings (cf. 1 Cor. 14:34).

Oh, by the way, thanks Dr. Wallace for your remarks.

Vladimir

Sue,

I never argued that reading in volume was inherently a bad thing. I said it was great asset to the individual when accompanied by linguistics. The problem is when one has masses amounts of material and does not know how to use it. I’ll give you an example. Jack van Impe has memorized the entire Bible. Is that a good thing? It would be if he actually could interpret it in context; but his interpretive methodologies are absolutely awful. Hence, his mass of knowledge ends up being dangerous and a bad thing, since he can’t use it correctly. Reading in volume is a great sword to have only if its not swung wildly into a friendly crowd.

Sue,

I would suggest you read books such as Dan suggested:

The Semantics of Biblical Language, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, Semantics of New Testament Greek, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, etc. It would be a great help to you, and a great relief from frustrations in this perpetual conversation, if you would read these and apply them to your word studies. I think you would see what we’re talking about when you bring up these etymological and other diachronic issues.

Dan has given a balanced presentation of both the value and the limitations of Bible study in the original languages. Our Bible is important to us because we have made it so. However, I don’t believe it was Jesus’ intent for us to rely on written words. He sent the Spirit as our guide, and that guide is a living spirit, not to be frozen into the words and contexts of a particular culture. Righteousness and love are spiritual attitudes, appreciated universally. In other words, one who understands the Gospel in Greek doesn’t necessarily understand it better than someone else. It’s interesting that the audience at Pentecost miraculously heard the message in their own languages rather than miraculously understanding the Greek (or whatever) that the Galileeans spoke.

Perhaps the reason Jesus Himself didn’t write anything for us is because He realized the drawbacks of an official text, that people would debate words and meanings as Israel did with its Law. It’s a human tendency, at least in our culture. And that people would spend much time seeking ancient understanding, as if that is necessary for receiving and living and growing in the Spirit.

Rayner,

All Scripture is [fn] inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for [fn] training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. II Timothy 3:16:17

You said this: Our Bible is important to us because we have made it so.

And this: Perhaps the reason Jesus Himself didn’t write anything for us is because He realized the drawbacks of an official text, that people would debate words and meanings as Israel did with its Law.

I don’t think I can reconcile your statements with what Paul said about the written Word to Timothy. Certainly the Spirit is our guide as you have said. But He also uses the writen Word to guide us.

#41 cherylu So Paul says all scripture inspired by God is profitable….. Of course we know he refers to OT, but what would he think if he knew that all his stuff would be canonized by the proto-orthodox? That his words would be considered scripture? I don’t think he considered his own stuff scripture so do we have inconsistency now when we consider his stuff scripture?

In that course doing exiJesus stuff, the Jesuit proff excused me from the final exam because I pointed out what I thought was a most sarcastic and screamingly funny passage also from II Timothy: “And Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord reward him according to his works.” cherylu in my response #28 I gave sincere answer to your question in #12.

Carl,

I guess you can throw out the New Testament if you want and not consider it authoritative and just go by the Old Testament. But then, where are you going to learn about Jesus, salvation, etc? That leaves a huge, gaping hole and is a place that I am not now and never will be prepared to go.

If men decided (by the help of the Spirit) what made up the Old Testament Scriptures, why do people sometimes seem to question that the same is true for the New Testament? It seems to me that if you question the New, you are going to have to question the Old on the same grounds. And if you are questioning the New Testament as being Scripture, you can’t use the II Timothy verses to say the Old Testament is inspired by God either, can you? If that is the case, then Paul could of been just speaking something of his own opinion when he wrote those verses in II Timothy.

Carl,

PS. I meant to thank you for answering my question. I had been really wondering where you were coming from.

#43 cherylu. Throw out NT? Oh certainly not at all. Just trying to spice this discussion with a little tongue in cheek theological questioning. None of us could be Christians without NT. As a matter of fact, for penance and discipline, my latest project is to hand write 4 Gospels. A little each day. Finished Mathew. Started Mark. But been a little lax lately and turned 61 on the 18th so I better get amovin, right?

But I do have some problems with OT. One being NT God would never have Christians going around murdering and slaughtering their “enemies” like Israelites esp in the 40 year thing. Murdering and looting surrounding tribes? Inspired Word of God? Will of God? Blessings of God? Kinda contradicts that “thou shall not kill” thing and the “love” thing. Huh? Hmmm. I am not interested in connection and communion with such a god* as that.

*small “g” intentional.

Actually, Paul probably considers NT writings Scripture as well. For instance, cf. 1 Tim 5:18, where both Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Luke are quoted as Scripture. So Luke is placed with Deuteronomy as inspired Scripture. Ya know, Deuteronomy, that book that teaches God commanding the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites. But this is a digression from the post, so I’ll stop here until another post on that subject surfaces.

How can Paul consider NT writings as scripture? Little if anything has been written prior to his death, although he does have oral tradition. Paul is executed in 65AD If Mark written 65-75 he would not have read that one. If Mathew late 80’s he would not have read that one. If Luke written late 90’s he would not have read that one. Same with John late 90’s. However other scholars inject Luke written 60 – 65 and as Paul’s companion Paul probably discussed Luke’s stuff and “peeked” at his pre book notes, so to speak. Could have assisted in authorship too, perhaps?
So looks like Paul doesn’t have much Gospel stuff to read. Now I think I can speculate that he has access to a multitude of eye witnesses and oral tradition of Q and maybe pieces of Q beginning to be written and assembled as semi book like sources in diverse little pieces here and there geographically. So Paul doesn’t have much of anything of what we call NT scripture when he writes.
Re #46 Hodge “…Deut. ….God commanding the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites.” Yep, don’t like God instigator and abettor in murder. OT God also very anthropomorphic(angry, jealous, vindictive, wrathful, conditional, etc) Gotta problem with that god too. He’s really the same model of gods of all Mesopotamian and Egyptian people and that of Greeks and Romans as well. A difference being He’s exclusively “their” God chosen by Him. So how can that God speak to the 21st Century Christian (and all those prior to us from First Century)if He’s such a scary fellow an allegedly not available to Gentiles? Of course Paul answers the last /question for us in that God OT and Messiah is not exclusive property of Jews.

OK, I’ll bite one last time just to say this, and then I’m out until this topic comes up:

Well, of course, if you a priori set dates for the Gospels, you can then go on to reject that Paul is the author of 1 Timothy; but what you can’t do is say that Paul believes Q (oral or written) is Scripture in accord with Deuteronomy. That’s not what the text says. How can Paul consider any OT text Scripture when it was written in AD 1985? See how that bad reasoning works. We consider the evidence first and then conclude (very cautiously and in estimation only) the dates of these texts. As I said, however, most see what I am saying as a fact and conclude that 1 Timothy must not be written by Paul.

The consistency of Marcionism, of course, is to reject most of the NT along with the OT, since the NT incorporates and validates much of the OT text.

Second, gods in the ancient Near East are also said to love and save their followers. By your logic, you ought to reject the biblical God on that basis as well.

Finally, God kills people every day. He decides the lifespan of a person, and according to Jesus, a person cannot therefore add a single cubit to his lifespan. Does your god have nothing to do with human death? I’m taking it also that you are completely oblivious to the creation-chaos motif in Scripture that requires a good God to destroy chaotic agents in order to save His people. Maybe superficial theologies ought to hold off from accusing the Scripture and look at the four fingers pointed back at them.

[…] a post entitled "Is the Bible that big of a mystery," Dan Wallace explores the tension between the necessity of learning biblical languages and the […]

Sue has been banned if you are wondering why she is not commenting. Reason: Because her comments were always going to the egal/comp debate and were off track.