Author: Steven

Minister at Glendale Road Church of Christ (Murray, KY)

What I Understand About Hamas and Israel

“For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” so wrote Paul to the Romans. My views on this war aren’t meant to absolve anyone of wrongdoing at any point in history.

Israel as a state has only existed since 1948. Yet, before then, Jews and Arabs lived in the region. The late prime minister of Israel, Golda Meir, said she had Arab and Israeli passports. There was no Palestine, she said. That notwithstanding, Palestinian supporters have contrived the existence of an Israeli state as colonialism. The British and American governments indeed had a hand in establishing this state, but they eventually became self-governing, no longer vassals of either. Being a Choctaw and knowing that my ancestors were driven from land they occupied for millennia, I sympathize with the Israelites because they occupied that land as far back as 1300 BCE. There was the exile to Babylon, but the Roman siege really dealt a blow to Israel. Still, Jews have lived in the area for a long time, so to have a state is something I can appreciate. My people became a self-governing body just a few years before Israel, so if Mississippians tried to fight us off the land, you might see how that would be regarded.

Hamas is a terrorist group. They’re not liberators, freedom fighters, or a militant group. They are classified as terrorists by the United States, Canada, the EU, and others. They are funded by Iran and Syria. They will not stop until Jews are killed, and Israel no longer exists. Israel hasn’t occupied Gaza since 2005, but they have supplied it with water and power until this aggression. Also, the Palestinians voted for this body to govern them. Their headquarters is in the basement of a hospital. They hide caches of weapons in mosques and near schools. They hide behind civilians, even children when facing members of the IDF. They have posted numerous videos of them beheading Israelites, including women, children, and elders. They have posted videos of them desecrating the bodies of dead Israelis. They have posted videos of them raping women, some of them very young, and some may be minors. Many of the people who support them are people Hamas would kill.

Israel is a democracy, the only functioning one in Arabia. Tel Aviv has a large and concentrated group of LGBT people who are not closeted. Do you think Hamas would tolerate that? Israel was on the cusp of making peace with Saudia Arabia, which would have tipped the scales away from the favor of Iran. Concern about classified information leaks from Trump’s presidency has been suggested as an impetus for this attack. Biden had unfrozen 6 billion to Iran, which many have said funded this attack, as well as funded Palestine. Biden’s actions were an undoing of Trump’s policies.

On top of this, Hezbollah has fired rockets as of today, and Israel has responded by bombing the south of Lebanon. Much like the invasion of Israel by the Egyptians and Syrians fifty years ago, Israel is now facing a war on two fronts. Yet, the Israeli Air Force, arguably the most dangerous in the region, has entered the fray. While Israel isn’t targeting civilians, some will perish in this war. Hamas, however, has targeted civilians in various ways. And they’ve been keen to share their exploits on social media. Beware, if you have a weak stomach or nerves, don’t look up these videos. It’s brutal and only shows how barbarous these terrorists are. Meanwhile, Israeli reservists from all over the world are returning to their homeland to defend it.

Shalom Israel. Shalom Gibbor Chayil.

When You See Jerusalem Surrounded By Armies …

Last night, my wife and I watched the movie Golda starring Helen Mirren. This film tells the story of the Egyptians and Syrians’ invasion of Israel in 1973. Just fifty years later, Hamas attacked Israel. Whenever something geo-political occurs with Israel, “end times” messages rise from the ashes like a resurrected Phoenix. These messages usually have three components: end times talk, antichrist talk, and events in Revelation.

First, we have lived in the last days since Pentecost (Acts 2:17; cf. Heb. 1:1–2; James 5:3; 1 Peter 1:20). It didn’t suddenly happen because of what’s occurring in Israel. Why not point to the invasion fifty years ago if that were the case? Second, beware of how one interprets Matthew 24, Revelation, Daniel, and other passages. Let’s start with Matthew 24.

Critical to understanding this passage is what Jesus said at the end of Matthew 23:36 and 24:34. Back up to Matthew 24:1–2; “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near” (Luke 21:20). Jerusalem was destroyed, and the temple was leveled in AD 70 by the Roman general Titus. Still, some held out and would not fall until AD 74 at Masada, when they committed suicide rather than suffer capture. Unlike before, the signs of such would be warfare (vv. 6–8). We must pause and look to Acts 5:36–37 and 21:38. The Zealots led the Jewish revolt that destroyed Jerusalem (which began in AD 66). The famines and pestilences are the results of warfare (v. 7) but also the results of earthquakes. Agabus foretold a famine in Jerusalem (Acts 11:27–30 [AD 54]). Earthquakes during Nero’s reign throughout Asia (Suetonius, Nero, §48). John Gill cites The Life of Apollonius and Orosius as recording earthquakes in Crete and various cities of Asia Minor. We must note that Jesus said that at these things, “the end is not yet” (v. 6). Verse three speaks of the end of the age and not the world. The Greek word aiōn means age or time. They were not asking about the end of the world but the end of the present state of things—the Jewish state (cf. v. 14).

Those persecuted are chronicled throughout the Bible and extra-Biblical sources, but we know that Stephen and James met their deaths while Paul was beaten, imprisoned, and tried. Those false prophets were noted: Simon Magus, those who taught another gospel (Galatians), Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17–18), and John wrote of false spirits going throughout the world (1 John 4:1). Romans 1:8; 10:18; & Colossians 1:23 said the message had been proclaimed worldwide. The abomination (Dan. 9:27; 12:11) is the Roman presence within the temple. Josephus records: “The Romans … brought their ensigns to the temple, and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them” (Wars, 6.6.1; cf. Luke 21:20). If this was referencing the second coming:

  1.  Fleeing to the mountains would do no good (v. 16; cf. 2 Peter 3:10–14).
  2.  There would be no need to fear for the Christian (v. 19–20; cf. 1 Thess. 4:13ff).
  3.  Housetops aren’t utilized today as they were then (v. 17).
  4.  Notice verse 34.

In verses 27-31, Jesus uses the term immediately, but before saying, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things are fulfilled.” Verse 27—when we read about the coming of the Lord, we must understand that “coming” isn’t always talking about His second coming. In Matthew 16:28, Jesus said that some standing before Him wouldn’t taste death until they saw Him coming into His kingdom. Sometimes, the usage dealt with a specific period or particular trial. The language of verse 29 is akin to Isaiah 13:10. In this passage, Isaiah describes the fall of Babylon in figurative terms. Jesus must have intended its meaning to be the same. These elements typically represented authorities and dignitaries in the Jewish mind (cf. Gen. 37:9ff). This could speak of the Jewish authorities (e.g., High Priest, Priests, and members of the Sanhedrin). This imagery proposes that Christ is coming. The Lord’s coming must represent His coming punishment on Jerusalem and not His second coming. For His coming with the clouds, see Daniel 7:13–14, which is about His ascension to the right hand of God.

One term that excites the mind is “antichrist.” You can find it along with interesting terms such as the mark of the beast, armageddon, rapture, and the thousand-year reign. The history of interpreting antichrist outside the Bible goes as far back as a disciple of John named Polycarp, who wrote, “For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist” (Phil. 7), which is essentially what John himself wrote (1 John 2:18). Antichrist was thought to be the Roman Empire throughout history. Popes of the crusade era said the Turks were the antichrist. The reformers believed the pope was the antichrist (Isaac Newton too). Puritans said Cromwell was the antichrist. Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc. Yet, in 1 John, there’s the mention of antichrists (plural). He also speaks of them as a present reality in his time, not as something to come in the near or distant future.

Most Evangelical commentators tend to assert that Revelation was written with three periods of time in mind: 1) things John saw in chapter one, 2) those that were in chapters two and three, and 3) those that would take place afterward, beginning with chapters four or six. Charles Ryrie—in his study, Bible notes—advocates the former while John MacArthur—in his Bible handbook—advocates the latter. What some Evangelicals argue for is that chapters six through twenty-two are end-time (eschatological) material that hinges upon a thousand-year reign. However, internal terminology would refute this claim.

  • “The time is near” (1:3; 22:10; cf. Matt. 3:2; 4:17)
  • These things “must soon take place” (22:6)
  • Jesus said he was “coming soon” (22:12, 20; cf. 1:1)

The terms in English and Greek speak to a swift course of action and certainly not one that would be delayed over two millennia. Granted: the judgment scene in chapter twenty appears to be the true end-time material that may be exempt from the interpretation. However, at what point does the contextual divide speak to the original audience and all thereafter come somewhere in chapter twenty and onward unless one holds to a more symbolic interpretation of the final three chapters? A case for understanding the time frame in which John’s original audience may have understood this prophecy is found when comparing his work to other prophetic literature.

Daniel was told to seal up his vision because it referred to many days from his time (Dan. 8:26). He was also told that the book was to remain sealed “until the time of the end” (12:4). As time went on knowledge would increase as to the culmination of these prophecies. He was urged to go his way because the words of his prophecy were “sealed till the time of the end” (12:9). Studying history along with Daniel’s prophecy reveals that it was not for another four hundred years that those kingdoms came which he had been told of (cf. Dan. 2). Therefore, Daniel would not live to see the fulfillment of the prophecies; hence his being instructed to seal the book. So, the sealing of a prophecy book looked ahead to a distant period.

When John wrote Revelation, the angel told him not to seal the words of his book (Rev. 22:10). Why? Because “the time [was] at hand.” If Daniel’s prophecy saw fulfillment some four hundred years later, and he was told to seal the book, would not John’s prophecy have been fulfilled long before the same time since he was told not to seal his book?

Rather than trying to discern the times because of what’s happening in Israel, let’s pray for Israel and Palestine. Let’s pray that God judges Hamas and all associated with this terrorism. My prayer is that peace may reign, but if it isn’t, that evildoers meet their end.

Why “Worship” Is Too Broad

I was conversing with someone at church who relayed the statement another made about worshipping in their car while the radio played on the Christian station. After they told me what was said, I replied, “I think the term ‘worship’ is too broad. There are three Greek terms translated as ‘worship’ in the New Testament, and they each denote something different that our word ‘worship’–which has become a catch-all term for anything we consider to be worship.”

The first thing we need is a real revolution in our relation to language ….  It simply no longer occurs to us that everything that we have all known for so long, and all too well, could be otherwise—that these grammatical forms have not dissected and regulated language as such since eternity like an absolute, that instead, they grew out of a very definite interpretation of the Greek [language].

Martin Heidegger

Andrew McGowan addresses this in his book, Ancient Christian Worship. The form for a wedding pronouncement as far back as 1549 entailed these words when the groom placed the ring on his bride: “With this ring I thee wed; this gold and silver I thee give; with my body I thee worship; and withal my worldly goods I thee endow.” Certainly, we’re not talking about the sort of worship one gives to God! McGowan observes that at that time, the sharing of wealth was worship.

Here are the terms we see in the New Testament.

  • Proskyneses—This term spoke to a person’s posture before another more worthy than they. We “bow” our heads for prayer when, decades ago, men would kneel. In some congregations, people stand during the reading of the Bible. In denominations, some will prostrate themselves at certain times. Our posture is reflective of our attitude. Some argue that we don’t have to have any particular posture but should be the posture of one’s mind and heart. However, our physical posture sometimes moves our mind and heart to be in sync. When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped [proskunesen] him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.” (Acts 10:25–26 ESV)
  • Latreia—This term was used regarding cultic forms of worship and the accompanying tasks. Anna, the prophetess, worshiped [latreuousa] “with fasting and prayer” (Luke 2:37). In Hebrews, the term is used in this particular vein as well when referring to the worship in the Temple and Tabernacle (Hebrews 8:5; 9:9; 10:2; 13:10).
  • Leitourgeo—“liturgy” is simply a transliteration of the Greek word used in the Bible several times. In Luke 1:23, it’s translated as “service” to describe Zechariah’s priestly service in the temple. It’s also used in sacrificial, worshipful contexts as “offering” (Philippians 2:17) and “worship” (Hebrews 9:21). We see it explicitly in Acts 13:2.

We have taken several terms and boiled it down to one word, “worship.” However, first-century Christians understood that it included one’s physical posture, a particular task or act performed, and a ritualistic nature to what was done. In some ways, we use the term correctly, but we may also use it as a catchall for what we believe is worship. The issue may not be resolved so easily, because even Augustine of Hippo encountered the same problem.

To make offerings and sacrifice, and to consecrate our possessions and ourselves . . . is the worship [cultus] that is due to the divinity . . . and since no Latin term sufficiently exact to express this in a single word occurs to me, I shall avail myself, where needed, of Greek. Latreia, whenever it occurs in Scripture, is rendered by the word “service” [servitus]. But that service that is due to humans, referring to which the apostle writes that servants must be subject to their own masters, tends to be referred to by another word in Greek, whereas the service that is paid to God alone by worship [cultus], is always, or almost always, called latreia in the usage of those who wrote down the divine oracles for us. So if we only used the word “worship,” it would not seem to be due exclusively to God; for we also speak of “worship” of humans, whom we celebrate with honors, whether in memory or in the present.

City of God 10.1.2

Leviticus 19:28 and Tattoos

The picture is of an eighty century Sudanese Christian woman whose mummy shows that she had a tattoo.

For disclosure, I have five tattoos. I didn’t get them before I was a preacher, but only in the last few years. No, I’m not having a mid-life crisis. I always wanted tattoos, but my dad told me to wait until I was older so I wouldn’t get something I would regret. I don’t regret any of them. On my left arm are three: the chi/rho symbol flanked on each side with alpha/omega. This was the symbol used by Emperor Constantine’s soldiers on their shields. Just beneath that one, the second is Deuteronomy 6:4 in Hebrew because that was the first verse I memorized while taking Hebrew classes. Under that is in Roman Numerals the date that I met my wife. I suppose you might say that my left arm is the arm of antiquity. On my right arm are two. The first is the seal of my tribe, the Mississippi Band of Choctaws. Under that is a tribal symbol that tells the story of our people.

I know some fellow Christians are opposed to tattoos, and they invoke Leviticus 19:28, which reads, “You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord” (NRSV). Robert Alter offers this note, “The polyvalent Hebrew noun nefesh often means ‘person,’ but in some contexts it refers to a dead person or corpse, and the implication of mourning here points to that meaning” (The Five Books of Moses, p. 630). My SBL study Bible simply says, “Pagan mourning rites.” Marking oneself as a sign of mourning was meant to convey a heightened expression of sorrow (Jer. 16:6; 41:5).

Dr. David Bernat observes that the noun translated as “tattoo” only appears here in all the Hebrew Scriptures. Its root, moreover, indicates writing of some kind but is unspecified. Abraham ibn Ezra (c. 1089-1167) interpreted with the connection to mourning, as have others I’ve mentioned above. Agreeing with this position was Moshe Isaac Ashkenazy (c. 1821-1898). His theological explanation was:

The reason for tattooing was to remember the beloved dead, and they would carve the person’s name or picture on their hand or arm with a needle…so they would be before them always…and this is a bad practice, since it denies the survival of the soul after dead…since according to our faith, after a short time, we will see the other person again after death, we should not try so hard to have keepsakes, and those who are particular about this, to the point that they cause pain to their own flesh with this harsh act, show that they are not confident that they will see their departed loved ones again, and if so, they are deniers of the immortality of the soul.

Here’s the thing: I could provide more rabbis and scholars who hold this view. Nevertheless, as a Christian, the law is no longer something by which I am bound in Jesus. I am justified by faith in him and not the keeping of the law. Furthermore, Christians who invoke this passage, if they are to remain logically consistent, must observe everything contained in Leviticus. Also, in keeping with the premise, what about plastic surgery or any other modifications one makes to the body?

In early Christianity, tattoos were degrading and reserved for criminals and outlaws by Roman Law. It was a form of public punishment, like wearing the scarlett letter. Some early Christians claimed that their tattoos appeared as a miraculous experience that referred to the wounds of Christ or the early martyrs (e.g., Macrina). The Montanist sect took Revelation 7:3 literally and would tattoo “slaves of God” on their foreheads. Coptic Christians have tattooed themselves as far back as the eighth century. Apparently, they branded crosses on their foreheads, temples, and writsts. After the Muslim conquest of Palestine and Israel, Christians were tattooed by the state with a cross on their inner right wrist. Pilgrims who go to the Holy Land often commemorate their experiences with a tattoo of a cross on their inner wrist. History also attests to medieval Christians receiving tattoos upon making pilgrimages to the Holy Land. In fairness, some of the Church Fathers were of the opinion that they should be prohibited, so there isn’t a uniform view throughout early Christianity and even into late antiquity.

If anything, I would view it as a matter of Christian liberty. If you don’t want them, don’t get them. If you get them, make sure it isn’t something that would be offensive to God. I know some will invoke “the body is a temple” passage, and that’s fine. But tell me you eat healthy and that you never played a sport that affects your joints and wellbeing. If we’re to interpret the passage in that vain, I’m sure I could use it against anyone throwing it at me. Let’s just leave it to personal choice and reserve judgment for things that really matter.

Translation is Interpretation

Translators have to make judgment calls all the time. Sometimes they hit the nail on the head, and other times they don’t. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that the job isn’t the easiest and they do their best. Let’s take one passage as an example: 1 Thessalonians 4:4

NIV: That each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable. 

NASB: That each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor. 

I would translate it as, “To know each one of you his own vessel how to acquire/possess in holiness and honor.” The term “vessel” was often used concerning a wife in antiquity because she received the seed of her male counterpart in sexual intercourse (cf. 1 Peter 3:7). Simply put, Paul may be giving instructions on acquiring and having a wife. Since the vessel was utilized as a receptacle, we see it elsewhere in Scripture: Paul was God’s chosen vessel (Acts 9:15), and indeed he received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17). Believers, too, were vessels meant for honorable use while unbelievers were for dishonorable use (Rom. 9:21; cf. 2 Tim. 2:20–21). The honorable were receptors of the Holy Spirit like Paul (Rom. 8:9–11) and mercy, while the dishonorable were receptors of wrath (9:23). Since her husband ruled the wife in ancient Rome, she was considered his possession. Therefore, the proper acquisition of a wife demands the husband avoid passion. One reason this interpretation is plausible is based on verse six, which discusses exploiting a brother or sister.

Passion was the dishonorable loss of self-control, according to the ancients. As one scholar put it, “Vices of excess bring shame upon those who commit them [1 Cor. 7:35-36; cf. 6:18].” The active form of decorum referred to a dignified appearance obtained through the control of elimination of all passions, particularly those relevant to drinking alcohol, overeating, and sex. Pleasures overindulged in were seen as filled with passion and ugly practices. What was Paul advocating? Paul likely encourages that men regard women as valued. Perhaps even Christian equality, friendship, and mutual openness. 

This was counter to the Greco-Roman view:

For this is what living with a woman as one’s wife means—to have children by her and to introduce the sons to the members of the clan and of the deme, and to betroth the daughters to husbands as one’s own. Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households. (Demosthenes 59.122; ca. 382–322 BC)

Avoid impurity to the utmost of your power before marriage, and if you indulge your passion, let it be done lawfully. But do not be offensive or censorious to those who indulge it, and do not be always bringing up your own chastity. (Epic. Ench. 33.8; ca. AD 55–135)

While it was not unusual for Roman citizens to have multiple sexual partners, homosexual encounters, and engagement with temple prostitutes, Christians stood out precisely because of their refusal to engage in these practices.

“One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives” (Tertullian, Apol. 39). 

 “[Christians] share their meals, but not their sexual partners” (Diogn. 5.7).  

Christians “do not commit adultery nor fornication” and “their men keep themselves from every unlawful union” (Aristides, Apol. 15).

In his defense to Octavius, Marcus Felix (c. third century) contrasts the sexual ethic of the pagan world with that of Christians:

Among the Persians, a promiscuous association between sons and mothers is allowed. Marriages with sisters are legitimate among the Egyptians and in Athens. Your records and your tragedies, which you both read and hear with pleasure, glory in incests: thus also you worship incestuous gods, who have intercourse with mothers, with daughters, with sisters. With reason, therefore, is incest frequently detected among you, and is continually permitted. Miserable men, you may even, without knowing it, rush into what is unlawful: since you scatter your lusts promiscuously, since you everywhere beget children, since you frequently expose even those who are born at home to the mercy of others, it is inevitable that you must come back to your own children, and stray to your own offspring. Thus you continue the story of incest, even although you have no consciousness of your crime. But we maintain our modesty not in appearance, but in our heart we gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage; in the desire of procreating, we know either one wife, or none at all (31).

Now, for argument’s sake, let’s say that he isn’t talking about having a wife. The other interpretation would be how one uses his or her own body in holiness and honor by avoiding fornication. Either interpretation is in keeping with Christian doctrine and morality. Yet, you see why some translations would prefer body to vessel.

A History of the English Bible

When considering the Bible in English, we have to begin in England. Christianity’s arrival in England is alleged to have occurred in the first century but is attested to by AD 200 (Tert., Adv. Judaeos 7). According to tradition, Aristobulus was sent by the Church at Tyre to Britain in AD 37. In Wales, there’s a town named after him, and Eusebius and Hippolytus attribute him as the first bishop in Britain. The first British Christian martyr was St. Alban in AD 304. Later, in AD 313, three bishops from London, York, and Lincoln (maybe?) attended a conference in Arles, France. 

The Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible since AD 400, but translations into local vernacular were emerging. English derives from the West-Germanic and Indo-European language family. Among the earliest English manuscript is the Anglo-Saxon Proto-English that dates to AD 995. As a matter of consistency, John 3:16 will be used to compare the evolution of the language. 

God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif. 

The fourteenth-century Oxford scholar John Wycliffe produced the first English manuscripts of Scripture. He opposed the established church because he believed it was contrary to Scripture, so the Bible in English for the common man to read became a goal. 

For god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perish not: but haue euerlastynge liif.

His manuscripts were produced from the Latin Bible, the only source available. Wycliffe so angered the Pope that he had his remains dug up, crushed, and scattered in the river forty-four years after he died. One of Wycliffe’s followers, John Hus, continued his mission and advocated that people should be able to read the Bible in their language and he opposed the tyranny of the Roman church. Hus was burned at the stake, and Wycliffe’s manuscripts were used as kindling for the fire. The year was 1415, and Hus’ last words were, “In 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous ninety-five theses to the door at Wittenberg—an act often regarded as the spark that began the Reformation. 

Many others would follow in this endeavor, but William Tyndale was the first to print the New Testament in English. At the time, this was forbidden, so he took these to be printed in Cologne.

However, his intention was discovered, and the printing was halted while he fled. Around 1526, he had 3,000 copies produced in Worms. Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake in October 1536. Only three copies of his Bible exist today. One of Tyndale’s disciples, Myles Coverdale, continued his work, translating the Old Testament and producing the first complete Bible in English in 1535—Coverdale Bible.  

The Great Bible was an English translation authorized by the Church of England in 1539, but a more significant English translation followed—the Geneva Bible (c. 1560). It was the first Bible to add numbered verses and chapters for quick reference—the works of Shakespeare quote from this translation. This was the standard version for over 100 years. It retained over 90% of Tyndale’s translation and was a significant source for the King James Bible (c. 1611). The Geneva Bible was the first English translation taken to America by the Puritans and Pilgrims. Nevertheless, when the King James Bible was published, they were so large that they were chained to the pulpits in every church in England. It was decades before King James surpassed the Geneva Bible. Here’s how it read when published in 1611: 

For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeuth in him, should not perish, but haue everlasting life.

A note of interest: the first Bible printed in America was in the native Algonquin language by John Eliot in 1663. 

Noah Webster, after whom Webster’s Dictionary is named, translated the Bible into the vernacular in 1833. Many remained loyal to the 1611 edition of the KJV and refused Webster’s version. Yet, in the 1880s, England produced the Revised Version to replace the KJV. More ancient manuscripts were discovered by this time, making a revision necessary. Until this time, the Bible had eighty books. In the 1880s, the Apocrypha was eliminated, giving us the sixty-six books we now have. Americans produced the American Standard Version in 1901 in response to the Revision Version. This was the standard version until 1971 when the New American Standard was printed. The NASB was considered the best word-for-word translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English that has ever been produced. In the same year, the first paraphrase of the Bible was created—The Living Bible. Another translation philosophy had arisen. 

A couple of years later, critics of the direct and literal translation wanted something they believed would flow better in English, so the NIV was produced. Until this time, the philosophy that guided translations was formal equivalence which aimed at matching the form and structure of the original as close as possible. The NIV translation philosophy would be dynamic equivalence, translating the ideas into contemporary language. Wherever there are poetic or archaic-sounding ideas, dynamic equivalence puts that into modern parlance for the reader’s sake. This new philosophy would make it so that a junior-high student could read and understand what the Bible was saying. 

The New King James Version was created in 1982 to update the wording for KJV loyalists. In 2002, an attempt was made to synthesize the NIV’s readability and the NASB’s precision, producing the English Standard Version—deriving from the NRSV. Next, we’ll explore some challenging passages to translate and how they’re resolved. 

The Earliest Bible Translations

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, with some portions appearing in Aramiac—specifically in Daniel and Ezra. The oldest copies of the Old Testament were discovered around the Dead Sea and are referred to as the Dead Sea Scrolls—dating to the third–second centuries BC. Before this discovery in the twentieth century, the oldest copy of the Old Testament was a Masoretic Text dated to AD 1008–09 (Leningrad Codex). The original Hebrew Bible contained only consonants but between AD 500–700, Jewish scribes known as Masoretes produced copies in which they added vowels to preserve pronunciation. This is the standard authoritative text used in synagogues and by Catholics and Protestants as the source text for their Old Testament translations. 

In the third century BC, seventy (or seventy-two) Hebrew scholars translated the Old Testament into Greek. This is the earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible and is often called the Septuagint, or LXX—referring to the seventy who translated it. We don’t know what copies they translated from, but it includes second-century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This is stated because the LXX has variants that differ from the Masoretic text. For example, Jeremiah 27:19–22: 

Septuagint (NETS) 19 … Even some of the remaining vessels 20 which the king of Babylon did not take when he exiled Jeconiah from Jerusalem, shall enter into Babylon, says the Lord.

Hebrew Bible (NRSV) 19 … and the rest of the vessels that are left in this city 20 which King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon did not take away when he took into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon King Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim of Judah, and all the nobles of Judah and Jerusalem—21 thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, concerning the vessels left in the house of the Lord, in the house of the king of Judah, and in Jerusalem: 22 They shall be carried to Babylon, and there they shall stay, until the day when I give attention to them, says the Lord. Then I will bring them up and restore them to this place.

I prefer to think of these differences like how we read the Synoptic Gospels—as variations rather than contradictions. There are many between the LXX and Hebrew Bible. The Orthodox Church uses the LXX for their Old Testament since the early church used it. This translation was the basis for the Old Latin, Coptic (Egyptian), Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, and part of the Arabic translations. 

The Samaritan Pentateuch was comprised in the second century BC (approx. 122 BC). It was written in Samaritan Hebrew in contrast to Tiberian Hebrew among the Jews. Samaritans only acknowledged the Bible’s first five books, and we have variations from the Old Testament. For example, in Acts 7:4, Stephen says that Abraham left Haran for Canaan after his father died, agreeing with the Samaritan Pentateuch; the Masoretic Text claims that Abraham’s father died sixty years after he had left (Genesis 11:32). In the Septuagint and the New Testament book of Acts (7:14), Jacob had seventy-five descendants rather than the seventy found in the Hebrew Bible. A few years later, portions of Scripture were translated into Aramaic since that was the most spoken language in Palestine. It’s known as the Targum, Aramaic for “translation.” 

The New Testament was written in Koine Greek in the first century AD. In the second century, however, the Old Testament was translated into Syriac, spoken by Jews in northern Syria. This version was called the Peshitta (“simple”). Later, Syriac Christians adopted it and added a Syriac version of the New Testament. 

Mount Ebal Produces the Oldest Hebrew Inscription

Years ago, one of my professors and I casually discussed God’s providence. Because my studies centered on the canon of the Great Books of the Western World, compiled by Mortimer Adler, I often read works based on the Enlightenment and unkind to faith. As we spoke, I made a point that around the time of these critiques was when archaeology was surging. While many “scholars” criticized the Bible for, as they claimed, not being based on history, archaeologists were discovering artifacts confirming the Bible’s history.

In Deuteronomy 27:15–26, Moses instructed the Levites to lead Israel from Mount Ebal with eleven curses against anyone who partakes in idolatry, dishonors their parents, or moves their neighbor’s boundary stone. In Joshua 8:30, Joshua built an altar on Mount Ebal after taking Ai, where he repeated the curses of Moses. In the 1980s, archaeologists sifted through Mount Ebal, cataloging discoveries. In 2019, discarded material thought to be irrelevant was examined further. Recently, an amulet was run through an x-ray tomographic measurement to reveal a hidden text—“You are cursed by God YHW.” The YHW is God’s name, often considered “Yahweh.”

One scholar believes the inscription dates to the 13th century BC, which was the time that Joshua and Israel settled in the land of Canaan. Others believe it is older, making this discovery the oldest Hebrew inscription. Before this discovery, the oldest Hebrew inscription dated to the late tenth century, which is the period during which Saul and David were kings.

What’s neat, at least to me, is how these discoveries confirm the biblical account and do so in the timeline established. Since some think this inscription is older than the 13th century—the timeline of Joshua—it is likely that it was during Moses’ lifetime—roughly the middle of the fifteenth century onward. While some continue to doubt the Scriptures, plenty of evidence confirms their historicity. Hopefully, we have faith enough that we don’t need this evidence to “prove” what we already believe. Instead, it is nice to see the confirmation of a divinely given, inspired Bible. 

Praying, They Were Singing

I’ve always been impressed with the verbiage of Acts 16:25. “About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them” (NRSV). What’s fascinating is the Greek verbiage, not the English. In English, singing and praying are two things, but in Greek, it’s seen as one and the same.

A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures reads: “Praying they were singing (simultaneously, blending together petition and praise).” Wayne Jackson’s New Testament commentary reads: “The Greek construction suggests they were ‘singing prayers.’” Alford’s Greek Testament notes: “…in their prayers, [they] were singing praises. The distinction of modern times between prayer and praise, arising from our attention being directed to the shape rather than to the essence of devotion, was unknown in these days.” Vincent’s Word Studies notes: “Lit., praying, they sang hymns. The praying and the praise are not described as distinct acts. Their singing of hymns was their prayer, probably Psalms.”

I find this so interesting because we distinguish prayer and praise, but in the early church, they were not as distinct as we made them out to be. There are many passages where prayer is isolated from praise (Matt. 26:39; Luke 22:44; Heb. 5:7; et. al.). Even in worship, prayer is sometimes distinguished from praise, but it’s often mentioned near to praise (1 Cor. 14:15; James 5:13; Rev. 5:8-9). These commentaries made me wonder if even those of the Reformation understood this concept better than we because Charles Spurgeon commented on Psalm 42 in his Treasury of David, “I would just as soon pray with machinery as to sing with machinery.” Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Orthodox philosopher and theologian David Bentley Hart’s New Testament translation accurately reflect this nuance. “And at about midnight, as they were praying, Paul and Silas sang hymns to God, and the prisoners listened to them.” I also consulted N. T. Wright’s New Testament translation, but he doesn’t reflect this. Most English translations don’t, but why are so many commentaries keen to point this out? Why not translate it as it should be?

Let’s Talk Revelation (Part 2)

In Revelation 7, we read about the 144,000. As you look at this passage, we can first note some information about the four winds. According to Jewish thought, four winds stood at each compass corner. These winds could destroy a nation (Jer. 49.36) or bring new life (Ezek. 37.9). Zechariah portrays these winds as chariots pulled by different teams of horses which leave the Lord’s presence and go out into all the earth (Zech. 6.5-7). Jesus taught that at His coming during the destruction of Jerusalem that the angels would gather the elect from the four winds (Matt. 24.31). 

We, next, observe the faithful being sealed. Ezekiel 9 sets the backdrop for the sealing of God’s faithful. This imagery of the seven executioners is present in Babylonian literature as well. There they punish those having committed religious offenses, as is the case here (Ezek. 9.4). The imagery of Ezekiel’s seven would have reminded the audience steeped in idolatry about the impending punishment that comes from Yahweh. The mark on their forehead in Hebrew was the taw. This was the last character of the paleo-Hebrew alphabet, and it looked like a modern “X,” or cross. Moreover, the Greek letter “chi” was equivalent to taw and was the first letter in Christ’s name in Greek. The church father Origen (A.D. 185-254) wrote, “A third [person] one of those who believe in Christ, said the form of the Taw in the old [Hebrew] script resembles the cross, and it predicts the mark which is to be placed on the foreheads of Christians.”

In Revelation, the seal separates God’s faithful from the faithless. A pseudepigraphical writing called the Psalms of Solomon was composed in the first century B.C. (it details Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem in 63 B.C.). It also gives a little insight into the marking of God’s people: “For the mark of God is upon the righteous for salvation. Famine, sword, and death shall be far from the righteous; for they shall pursue sinners and overtake them, and those who do lawlessness shall not escape the judgment of the Lord” (15.6-8). Sometimes branding in antiquity was also a sign of a slave (3 Macc. 2.29). In Christianity, sealing became symbolic. The Holy Spirit sealed the Asian churches (Eph. 1.13; 4.30). This wasn’t a physical mark, as some might think. It was a mark distinguishable only by God and His agents of wrath (cf. 2 Cor. 1.22), and it distinguished the faithful from the wicked (cf. 2 Tim. 2.19). This seal in Revelation is to protect God’s faithful, as in Ezekiel (Rev. 7.3).

Now, we arrive at 144,000. This list in Revelation of the 12 tribes differs from other lists (see Gen. 35.23-26; 49.3-27; Deut. 33.6-25): Reuben usually heads the list, but Judah does here likely because this is the tribe from whence Jesus, the lion of the tribe of Judah, came (Rev. 1.5; 5.5); and John included Manasseh while omitting Ephraim and Dan (see 1 Kings 12.29-30). Since this group is spared divine wrath but not earthly persecution, it may be that they will be those who complete the number of the slain souls under the altar (Rev. 6.9-11). These twelve tribes are used figuratively for Jewish Christians (James 1.1). Jewish Christians were predominant over the first decade of the early church. Staying with the Jewish identity, their being “first fruits” (Rev. 14.4) was also well founded as spoken of by the Jews (Jer. 2.3; Rom. 11.16; James 1.18). If this concerns Jewish believers, the great multitude in Revelation 7.9ff were Gentile believers. This could also reference the church — God’s new Israel (Gal. 6.16; cf. Gal. 3.7-9, 29).

Whomever they were, they sang a new song described as the roar of rushing waters, a loud peal of thunder, and harpists playing their harps. No heavenly creature could learn this song because participation is limited to those redeemed from the earth (cf. 1 Peter 1.12; Eph. 3.10) centered on redemption by the Lamb from the beast. They were “virgins” (cf. 2 Cor. 11.2) who were blameless (Rev. 14.4). This may mean that they maintained ritual purity before battle (Deut. 23.9-10; 1 Sam. 21.5; 2 Sam. 11.11). Later on, Babylon (Rome) is referred to as the mother of harlots (Rev. 17.3-5), and those who consort with her would have defiled themselves (cf. Rev. 2.22).

Let’s Talk Revelation (Part 1)

TIMELINE OF EVENTS

Most Evangelical commentators tend to assert that Revelation was written with three periods of time in mind: 1) things John saw in chapter one, 2) those that were in chapters two and three, and 3) those that would take place afterward, beginning with chapters four or six. Charles Ryrie—in his study, Bible notes—advocates the former while John MacArthur—in his Bible handbook—advocates the latter. A key passage to their supposition is 1:19, where it is written:

Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.

What Evangelicals argue for is that chapters six through twenty-two are end-time (eschatological) material that hinges upon a thousand-year reign. However, internal terminology would refute this claim.

  • “The time is near” (1:3; 22:10; cf. Matt. 3:2; 4:17)
  • These things “must soon take place” (22:6)
  • Jesus said he was “coming soon” (22:12, 20; cf. 1:1)

The terms in English and Greek speak to a swift course of action and certainly not one that would be delayed over two millennia. Granted: the judgment scene in chapters twenty and onward appears to be the true end-time material that may be exempt from the interpretation. However, at what point does the contextual divide speak to the original audience and all thereafter come somewhere in chapter twenty and onward unless one holds to a more symbolic interpretation of the final three chapters? A case for understanding the time frame in which John’s original audience may have understood this prophecy is found when comparing his work to other prophetic literature.

Daniel was told to seal up his vision because it referred to many days from his time (Dan. 8:26). He was also told that the book was to remain sealed “until the time of the end” (12:4). As time went on knowledge would increase as to the culmination of these prophecies. He was urged to go his way because the words of his prophecy were “sealed till the time of the end” (12:9). Studying history along with Daniel’s prophecy reveals that it was not for another four hundred years that those kingdoms came which he had been told of (cf. Dan. 2). Therefore, Daniel would not live to see the fulfillment of the prophecies; hence his being instructed to seal the book. So the sealing of a prophecy book looked ahead to a distant period.

When John wrote Revelation, the angel told him not to seal the words of his book (Rev. 22:10). Why? Because “the time [was] at hand.” If Daniel’s prophecy saw fulfillment some four hundred years later, and he was told to seal the book, would not John’s prophecy have been fulfilled long before the same span of time since he was told not to seal his book?

I Dug Deeper and No Longer Believe Joshua is a Book About Genocide

For the longest time, I struggled with the Book of Joshua. I thought it was a book about genocide mainly because that’s how most people, even many Christians, described it. One of the most complex parts of the book is how violent it is and how this reflects on God’s character. After all, it was in Leviticus (19:18) that God commanded Israel to love their neighbor as themselves. Jesus reiterates this too, so how do we face the rampant violence in the book?

I am wholly unsatisfied with Reformed theology’s explanation of the matter–the sovereignty of God and how we shouldn’t question what he does. Well, even that’s not biblical. People throughout the Old Testament question God, not to challenge his authority, but to understand.

I’ve read that “God so loved the world,” and “God is love.” That doesn’t seem very loving at all. That’s the kind of thing Zeus or Mars would have done. That sounds like a schizophrenic person. The first thing I admitted was that God IS love and that I must be misunderstanding the matter. Rather than laying my emotions on God, I put them on myself and decided I was wrong. That led me to a deeper study.

First, if we consider that Abraham lived around 2100 BC, we can place the mercy and longsuffering of God within a 700-year period. God promised the land to Abraham, but when he did, the sins of the Amorites weren’t complete (Gen. 15:16). God’s judgment/conquest of the land wasn’t something that he just planned at the last minute. He, in his omniscience, knew it would come to this. Yet, 700 years should be enough time for people to get their act together (cf. Deut. 9:5). Sadly, they did not, so God ordered their utter destruction (Deut. 7:1–2; 20:16–18). 

Second, we observe that God would preempt removing people from the land. He didn’t intend those folks’ complete extermination or annihilation, and Scripture states as much. God promised to send pestilence to the land before the conquest to drive them out little by little (Exod. 23:28–30; Deut. 7:22–24). He wanted to drive them out (Deut. 9:4), but if any remained, they would be destroyed. 

Third, archaeology has demonstrated something: cities like Jericho and Ai weren’t civilian centers but military outposts. Archaeology also discloses that the towns and cities in Canaan were nearly uninhabited in the period we believe the conquest occurred—the thirteenth century. Plus, after the “conquest,” we observe Canaanites living among the Israelites. The book of Judges points out how this cohabitation was problematic for Israel.     

Fourth, Israel was commanded to offer peace terms before battle (Deut. 20:10–13). Only the Hivites of Gibeon accepted the peace terms, but everyone else did not (Josh. 11:19). 

Fifth, not everything we read should be taken literally. This is often an error when reading the Bible, but ancient battle narratives were not written like modern books of history. Ancient war narratives contained battle idioms. When someone says, “It’s raining cats and dogs,” we know not to take that literally. The understanding is that the rain is heavy. Another part of ancient battle narratives is an exaggeration. While we expect a level of accuracy that conforms to journalistic standards, ancient writers wrote for literary effect. We might think of it, sometimes, as talking trash. Another example is how Joshua uses language to state that they took all the land, defeated all the kings, and utterly destroyed the Canaanites. The point was that God had exerted complete control over the land. As you read through Joshua, he often says that Canaanites still lived in the land.