666: The Chick-Fil-A Controversy and the Mark of the Beast

He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666. (Revelations 13:16-18, NIV)

Recently, Dan Cathy, President of Chick-Fil-A, ignited a firestorm by “admitting” that the owners of Chick-Fil-A support the traditional, biblical definition of marriage. As a result of his comments, Chick-Fil-A has been vilified in the press and political leaders in both Boston and Chicago are seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A from doing business. The controversy has raised serious questions for Christians in business. One of the questions is, “Can one hold Christian convictions and do business in the marketplace?”

This is not a new problem. Christians all over the world have faced this throughout history and even today. Furthermore, Revelation 13 addresses this very issue. I don’t have time to go into a full explanation of Revelation 13, but I do want to make a few observations. First, when the original readers first read this, the image of the Beast most likely caused them to think of the Roman Empire. While the beast was indeed the Roman Empire, he did not pass away with the fall of Rome.  The beast and his ten horns represent all the worldly rulers who persecute the Church.  They are the worldly governments throughout history who have blasphemed God and sought to destroy his people.

The mark of the beast has been grist for the rumor mill throughout the ages. In recent years, people have speculated that the mark would be a bar code imprinted on our hands, or a computer chip implanted under our skin that would be used to replace currency. Some groups are suspicious of Social Security numbers and cards, suspecting that they may be the mark of the beast.

People enjoy talking about the mark of the beast and offering up conspiracy theories in the same way that they enjoy a good ghost story. It is sort of fun to be spooked a little. However, if we focus on some sort of physical fulfillment of this prophecy instead of interpreting it in light of Scripture, we will miss the point. The result will be that we fear a false danger while the real danger goes undetected.

The idea of having a mark on one’s hand and head is not novel to the book of Revelation. In Bible days, slaves often bore the mark of their masters. We also find a similar symbol in the Old Testament in the book of Deuteronomy. The first person to command us to have a mark on our hands and our head was not the beast, but God through the prophet Moses.

In Deuteronomy 6:6-9, we read,

These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (NIV)

When the Pharisees of Jesus day read this, they took it literally. So, they wrote the law of God on little scrolls and put them in boxes on their hands and heads called phylacteries. However, that was not God’s point at all. When God instructed his people to bind the law of God to their hands and foreheads, he was commanding them to have the law in all that the do (hands) and all that they think (heads).

If we interpret Scripture in light of Scripture, we see that the image in Revelation about the mark of the beast corresponds to the image in Deuteronomy about the law. So, when Revelation tells us that the beast will require us to have his mark on our hands and foreheads, it is not warning us against computer chips or barcodes. Rather, God is telling us that the beast will not allow us to buy or sell (do business) unless we act like the world and think like the world. This is precisely what we are seeing today.

Our culture will tolerate our Christianity as long as we keep it away from how we live and how we think. However, if you want to get ahead in the world, then the beast will do all that it can to force you to think the way he does and act the way he does. Thinking and acting Christianly is totally unacceptable.

So, how do we respond?

1)      With courage. In John 16:33, Jesus said, “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” Our battle against the beast is temporary. Jesus has already won the war. So, do not give into fear.

2)      With prayer. Paul reminds us that the battle we are in is not against flesh and blood, “but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12). Therefore, we do not use the weapons of this world. There is a huge temptation for many in the Christian community to fight against the beast with the weapons of the beast. If you do that, you have already lost. You have taken his mark upon you. Think and act Christianly. Use the spiritual weapons of prayer and faith.

3)      With love. Remember, our fight is not against flesh and blood. So, do not demonize flesh and blood. The Beast is our enemy, not those who are his captives. Those who hold to biblical values must not think of themselves as superior to those who do not. Remember, the only reason anyone is a Christian is because of God’s grace. If that is true, then arrogance is impossible. That does not mean we are to be wishy-washy. It does mean we must be both humble and loving. We must love, truly love, those who oppose us. We must love those who engage in practices that the Bible says are morally wrong. After all, while we were still rebels without a clue, Christ died for us.

4)      With action. Responding in faith and love does not mean we are to be passive. In our country, we have been given power as citizens to affect those who rule. So, we must engage in the political process and elect those who will defend the rights of all people. We must fight for justice. Just as we do not want government to oppress us for our views, we must not use the same fascist techniques to oppress those who differ with us. Yet, if we do not engage in the political process, we have no one to blame when our rights are taken away. There is an election coming up and elections have consequences.

By the way, this does not mean that the church should engage in politics. The church as an entity has a different mission—to make disciples. However, those disciples do have a responsibility to engage in the world from a biblical worldview. This biblical worldview not only affects one’s religious convictions, but social, moral, political, and economic convictions as well.

Banned in Boston - Thoughts on Chick-Fil-A

On July 2, 2012, Dan Cathy, President of Chick-Fil-A was asked if he stood for traditional marriage. He responded by saying, ““Well, guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families – some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that ... We intend to stay the course. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles” (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 26, 2012)

A few years ago, Mr. Cathy would have been heralded as a model citizen for such comments. Nearly every study on economic, physical, emotional, and social well-being shows that the key factor is a stable family, including this one in The New York Times on July 14, 2012. For years, the Cathy family has put their money where their mouths are. Since the founding of the company, Chick-Fil-A has been closed on Sundays so that employees can go to church and spend time with families. They have started orphanages, supported family causes, and have engaged personally in helping others in numerous ways. Aren’t these the kind of good citizens we want? Apparently not.

Dan Cathy’s words have started a firestorm across the country. Mayor Tom Menino has vowed to block Chick-Fil-A from opening a restaurant in Boston because he doesn’t want a restaurant in the city “that discriminates against a population” (Never mind the fact that Chick-Fil-A does not discriminate in either its serving or hiring people of different views). Chicago city Alderman, Joe Moreno has now vowed to block the opening of a Chick-Fil-A restaurant in his ward because of his stance. Chicago mayor, Rahm Emanuel, supported him, saying, “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.”

This controversy is interesting on a number of levels:

1)      A generation ago, a company that supported gay marriage would find it difficult to do business in most of America. Today, any company led by someone who opposes gay marriage finds it difficult to do business.

2)      A generation ago, homosexuality was considered immoral. Today, the belief that homosexuality is immoral is considered to be immoral.

3)      This raises a frightening question: are we becoming a country where the government can ban or punish companies for their religious views? Some politicians in Boston and Chicago think that it is their moral duty to punish those who hold to biblical values. Isn’t this a form of fascism? Shouldn’t both liberals and conservatives be outraged at such actions? It should be noted that there have been both supporters of traditional marriage and supporters of gay-marriage who have said that the response of these politicians violates the Constitution. What is frightening is how many people have expressed their support. If a company can be threatened because of the religious views of its owner, then exactly what does the First Amendment protect?

The controversy raises a larger issue for Christians: What does it mean for us to live out our faith in the world? It seems that our culture has no problem with Christians holding certain religious beliefs, as long as these beliefs do not intrude into the real world. Sadly, we are often far too happy to accommodate. We have privatized our faith.

Some of this has come from a false understanding of tolerance. As Christians, we are in favor of tolerance. Anyone familiar with history knows that Christians have suffered from intolerant political systems. Fox’s Book of Martyrs is just one place where one might read of this, or just read the news of what is happening to Christians in northern Africa. So, we believe that various religious views should be tolerated.

However, tolerance does not mean that all religious views are equally valid. Yet, our culture says that it is wrong to say that anyone’s religious views are wrong. It is immoral to declare another person’s views immoral. The result of this is that our Christian faith has become in the words of one historian, “socially irrelevant, even if privately engaging.” Os Guinness, in his interesting book, The Gravedigger Files, calls this the Private Zoo Factor. He explains it like this: Let’s say that we are aware that a particular species like the Florida Panther is going extinct. We think, "Something must be done to preserve this species." So someone develops a program to breed them in captivity. The problem is this; how wild is a Florida Panther that is born, lives and dies in captivity? Have we truly preserved it? Guinness points out that we have done the same thing to our faith. We have put it in the "religious" sector of our life, but it has no impact on how we live. We have put our faith in a zoo where it cannot confront the "real world."

Increasingly, we find that our culture will tolerate our Christianity as long as we keep it in our private zoo. We are allowed to talk about it on Sundays in the privacy of our own sanctuaries. However, it will not be tolerated to bring it out in public. Holding Christians convictions is tolerable. Practicing them or speaking of them is totally unacceptable.

We have seen this before and, if Jesus tarries, we will see this again. This opposition to Christian living by the culture and by governments is not new but has been true throughout the church age. While we have not faced this sort of government pressure in the United States before, this has been normal throughout history and around the world. Jesus told us that it would be this way.

Matthew 10:24-26  ²⁴ "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. ²⁵ It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household. ²⁶ "So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.

In my next post, I will explain the connection between the Chick-Fil-A Controversy and the Mark of the Beast.

Does Praying During a Firestorm Matter?

In the June 27, 2012 issue of the Colorado Springs Gazette, Dr. Barry Fagin suggested that those who are praying for help against the wildfire are wasting their time (Prayer Warriors Accomplish Little When Fighting Wildfires). Dr. Fagin is not mean-spirited nor is a disinterested party. He lives in Mountain Shadows, the neighborhood that has been affected the most by the fires. His contention is that science and reason are doing more to fight the fire and save lives than all of our prayers. He concludes his article by requesting, “Please keep everyone impacted by this random act of nature in your kind and extremely rational thoughts.” Certainly, Dr. Fagin would agree that this is not a very “rational” statement. How does keeping anyone in your "kind thoughts" help?It is nothing more than sentimentality, which seems to be the very charge he levels against those who hope in prayer. At least prayer is appealing to Someone to do something. If that Someone is there, then prayer is productive. Prayer, at least, has the potential of being productive.  Kind thoughts do nothing.

Dr, Fagin’s main point is that prayer is counterproductive because the effects of prayer cannot be proven. People would be better off spending their energy doing something that actually solves the problem (like thinking happy thoughts?). I would agree with Dr. Fagin that the effects of prayer are not usually empirically verifiable. One can usually find another explanation for the results of prayer. In fact, Romans 1:18 teaches us that those who do not have the Spirit of God will seek any other possible explanation of events.  Of course, the lack of empirical verification does not prove that prayer does not work. I am sure Dr. Fagin would concede this point. He also would say that it is irrelevant.

The main problem with Dr. Fagin's argument is that he seems to misunderstand the nature of prayer. Prayer is not an incantation or magic lever that we pull to force the Almighty to comply to our wills. God is not under our control when we pray. Rather, prayer is communication with our heavenly Father. The same rules that apply to a child’s communications with her earthly father apply to prayer.

My daughter often pleads with me for things. One might call this prayer. Sometimes I respond by giving her what she asks. Sometimes I respond by not giving her what she asks. If all an outside observer saw was her pleading and never saw me, this observer might conclude her “prayers” make no difference at all. After all, there would be no way to verify empirically that her pleadings made a difference. Since I do not always give her what she asks, does that “prove” that her pleas never “work?” When I do respond positively to her pleas, how would the outside observer know that I would not have given her, her request without her asking? After all, correlation does not prove causation. So, must we conclude that the pleas of a daughter with her father are a waste of time? I do not believe that is a reasonable conclusion.

God cannot be manipulated through prayers or incantations. He is a Father who hears the pleas of His children and always does what is best for them.

One might ask, "How could a good God ever allow something like the devastation of the Waldo Canyon fire?" It is very hard to conceive of anything good coming out of this fire that justifies the amount of destruction. At present, we cannot understand why God would not answer our prayers by sending rain and putting an end to the destruction.

Yet, if God is God, then we must approach Him with humilty. That is, we must assume that he knows more than we do, that He is wiser than we are, and that He actually knows what He is doing.

Children and parents often disagree on what is best. However, in most cases we would assume that the thirty-five year old parent has a better understanding of what is “best” than the five year old child. In the same way, Christians assume that the infinite God has a better understand of what is best than the finite child who is pleading with Him. So, when God does not do what we ask, we do not assume that prayer is ineffectual. Instead, we assume that we pray to a Father who knows more than we do.

Our confidence in God does not hinge on Him obeying our prayers. Our confidence in God hinges on the cross of Jesus Christ. It is the proof that God brings beauty out of the ugliest events. It is also the proof that God loves us. After all, as the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 8:32, "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?"

So, Dr. Fagin, you can keep your happy thoughts. In the meantime, I will keep praying for you.

Resources on Marriage, Divorce and Same Sex Marriage

In Sunday's sermon on marriage and divorce (based on Matthew 5:31-32), I covered a number of topics that may have stirred some to want to engage in further study. Here are some resources that I found helpful with the various topics that were covered.

Good Books on Marriage
What Did You Expect? by Paul Tripp
The Meaning of Marriage by Tim and Kathy Keller
The Marriage Builder by Larry Crabb
Intimate Allies by Dan Allender and Tremper Longman

Resources on Divorce and Remarriage
Divorce and Remarriage - Position Paper of the Presbyterian Church in America
Divorce Recovery: Growing and Healing God's Way by Winston T. Smith
Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible by Jay E. Adams
Also, we offer Divorce Care at Village Seven. Classes will resume in September.

The Current Discussion on Same Sex Marriage
Why Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage by Kevin DeYoung
President Obama and Same Sex Marriage by Ed Stetzer
Same Sex Marriage Makes a Lot of Sense by Michael Scott Horton
A Christian Reponse to Same Sex Marriage by Michael Scott Horton
Presidential Hermeneutics on Same Sex Marriage by Don Sweeting
The Official End of Christendom? by Peter Jones

What Is Marriage? Harvard Journal of Law and Social Policy

Which is the Best Bible Translation?

For over two hundred years, the King James Version (KJV) reigned supreme as the English Bible. However, there are a number of reasons why it is not the best translation for daily use for most Christians. Among these reasons are: 1) Since the translation of the KJV, many more Greek manuscripts have been discovered that give us a better picture of what was in the original writings of the New Testament letters, 2) Since the translation of the KJV our knowledge the ancient languages and ancient cultures has increased. 3) Since the KJV, our understanding of linguistics has increased. Most importantly, 4) the KJV uses archaic language that is not easily understood (and often misunderstood) by modern readers.

For most people, the discussions about ancient languages and manuscripts seems a bit esoteric. Furthermore, these factors account for little difference in the most popular translations. The real issue is, which is the most accurate translation?

The problem of “literal” translations

While this seems like a straightforward question, is a bit more complicated. The question, “which is the most accurate?” can be taken in two ways? By most accurate, does one mean the translation that is the most literal or does most accurate mean the translation that gives the modern reader the most accurate understanding?

Some might think that the most accurate translation is the one that is the most literal. That is, a translation is accurate by translating word for word from the original language to English. However, there are times that a “word for word” translation leads to an inaccurate, misleading, or unintelligible translation.

For example, if a Spanish speaker wants to say “My nose is cold” in Spanish, she would say, “Tengo frio en la nariz.” However, a literal translation of that sentence into English would be “I have cold in my nose.” In this case, a word for word translation would be misleading. One might think this person is saying that she has a runny or stuffed up nose. So, even though it is a word for word translation, it is inaccurate and misleading.

If you say “Thank you,” to someone and he replies in Spanish, he would probably say, “De nada.” However, a word-for-word translation of de nada would be “of” [de] “nothing” [nada]. Yet, that does not make sense in English. Once again, a word for word translation would be misleading.

Another problem with trying to translate strictly word-for-word from one language to another is that most words have a wide range of meanings. Few words in one language have the exact same range of meaning as a word in a different language. Their meanings overlap, but they are not identical.

For example, consider the English word “capital.” If I said, “I am trying to raise capital to start a business in the Colorado capital of Denver (where the “D” should be a capital letter). I thought that was a capital idea. In Denver, murder is a capital offense.” In the first instance, the word “capital” means money. However, if I translated it consistently that way, then it would make sense. It would read, “I am trying to raise money to start a business in the Colorado money of Denver (where the “D” should be a money letter). I thought that was a money idea. In Denver, murder is a money offense.”

Another problem with a literal, word-for-word translation is that it usually does not sound very natural. The beauty of a phrase or passage can be lost by the literalness of the translation. The beauty and style are part of the meaning. That is, not only the meaning of the words, but how words sound, are part of the meaning of a passage of Scripture.

For example, Shakespeare said, “A rose is a rose by any other name.” A person might “translate” that as, “No matter what name you give to a rose, it is still a rose.” In one sense, the two sentences mean the same thing. In another, they are very different. The reader does not react to the second sentence in the same way he would to the first. In translating the Bible, the meaning is not only conveyed in the particular content of each word, but also in the sound and style of the sentence.

A final problem with literal translations is that there are times when a literal translation simply very difficult to understand in English. At times, the Apostle Paul writes very long sentences in the Greek. Because of the differences between Greek grammar and English grammar, these sentences are intelligible in the Greek, but would be very confusing in English. That is why most, if not all, English translations, break up some of Paul’s long sentences into shorter ones.

Bill Mounce, who was the New Testament Editor for the English Standard Version (ESV) as well as a member of the New International Version (NIV) translation committee writes, “I wonder if a ‘literal’ translation that makes no real sense in English can accurately be called ‘literal,’ or even a translation that makes a biblical writer sound almost illiterate. . .I am simply wondering if a ‘word of word’ translation that makes no real sense can in any way be called ‘accurate.’”[1]

The problem of non-literal translations

All translations require some interpretative work on the part of the translator. However, when one is dealing with the Word of God, the desire is to keep interpretation to a minimum. As Christians who believe in that the Bible is inspired (literally, God-breathed), we believe that the Bible is inerrant as originally given.[2] Because we believe that every word of Scripture, and not just the ideas, are inspired by God, we desire to have translations that reflect this most accurately. The less literal a translation, the more interpretive it is. Since our desire is to read God’s Word, and not merely an interpretation of God’s Word, the more a translation can reflect the original meaning and the original wording, the better.

In an attempt to “smooth” out a translation to make it readable to the English reader, some aspects of the original are lost. For example, in Galatians, the Apostle Paul uses the Greek word for “flesh” 18 different times. Yet, this one word is translated several different ways by modern translations. The chart below shows how both the NIV and the ESV handle this word.

Verse	NIV	ESV
Galatians 1:16	I did not consult any man	I did not immediately consult with anyone
Galatians 2:16	no one will be justified.	no one will be justified.
Galatians 2:20	The life I live in the body	the life I now live in the flesh
Galatians 3:3	are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?	are you now being perfected by the flesh
Galatians 4:13	because of an illness	because of a bodily ailment
Galatians 4:14	Even though my illness was a trial to you	and though my condition was a trial to you
Galatians 4:23	was born in the ordinary way;	born according to the flesh
Galatians 4:29	born in the ordinary way	born according to the flesh
Galatians 5:13	But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature	Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh
Galatians 5:16	the desires of the sinful nature	the desires of the flesh
Galatians 5:17	For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature.	For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh
Galatians 5:19	The acts of the sinful nature are obvious:	Now the works of the flesh are evident
Galatians 5:24	Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature	those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh
Galatians 6:8	The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction;	For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption
Galatians 6:12	Those who want to make a good impression outwardly	It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh
Galatians 6:13	they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh	they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh

In this instance, the NIV translates the word for flesh nine different ways and the ESV translates it five different ways. Neither translation is woodenly literal. Yet, each can be given to different misunderstandings. If a new Christian were to read the ESV, he might misunderstand what Paul is saying and think that the body itself is evil. He could fall into a dualism that sees the spiritual world as good and the physical world as evil. On the other hand, with both translations, especially the NIV, one misses the thread of “flesh” that Paul has woven throughout the book of Galatians. He will not see the connections that Paul might be making throughout the book, particularly in the way he uses the word “flesh” in chapters 5 and 6.

If the language sounds stilted or wooden, or it sounds like the Bible was written by someone for whom English is not their natural language, then part of the meaning and impact of a text is lost.

Bottom Line – Which is the Best Translation?

I don’t think there is a single answer to this question. Fortunately, there does not need to be a single best translation. I think most Christians are best served by having more than one Bible translation. Here are the translations I recommend for various uses:

English Standard Version – (Literal) Good for everyday use for most Christians. Also good for detailed study of a passage of Scripture. Tends to be more literal.

New International Version – (More Readable) Good for new Christians and for reading larger sections of Scripture. However, I must confess I do not like some of the changes they have made with the 2011 version.

New American Standard Bible – (Very Literal) This is the most literal translation Available. If you want to know what the Greek says, this is the Bible to get. However, it is lacking in beauty and readability.

The Message – (Very Readable) This is very dynamic and does a good job of conveying the sense in modern English. This is good both for those who are very familiar with the Bible and for those who have no familiarity at all. For those who are very familiar, this translation will shed a different light on certain passages. For those who are not familiar at all, this is the most readable translation available. However, it is not very literal and is highly interpretative. For most Christians, I would recommend this as a supplement to their study and not as their “main” Bible.

The Living Bible and The New Living Translation – (Very Readable) The Living Bible is a paraphrase. That is, the “translator” simply took the King James and put it into modern English. This Bible is very nostalgic to me because it was the Bible I used in my early years of high school and helped the Word come alive to me. Both of these are good for new believers and for reading large sections of the Bible.

---

[1] http://www.koinoniablog.net/2010/09/mounce75.html

[2] For more on this, see either the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy or the Ligonier Statement.

A History of the King James Bible

May 1 marks the 400th Anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible. In honor of the occasion, I will be posting some articles on the Bible, Bible Translation, and the authority of the Bible. This is the first in the series.

The Old Testament has 39 books which were written in primarily in Hebrew, although some portions of Daniel and Ezra were written in Aramaic. By the 3^rd century BC, many Jewish people were no longer living in Israel. As a result, for many of them, Hebrew was not their native tongue. A work was begun to translate the Old Testament into the common language, which at that time was Greek. This Greek translation of the Old Testament is called the Septuagint. We do not know a lot about the history behind this translation. However, we do know that it became very popular. When the New Testament writers quote from the Old Testament, they often use the Septuagint.

All 27 books of the New Testament were written in Greek because Greek was the common language of the day.

The Latin Vulgate

By the 4^th century AD, few people spoke Greek any more. In order to make the Bible accessible to the people, the church authorized Jerome to translate the whole Bible into Latin. There were some Latin versions already available, but none of them were complete and may not have been the most accurate. Jerome was uniquely qualified for this task because he was one of the few Christians who not only could read Greek (the New Testament) but also Hebrew (the Old Testament. His translation of the Bible was called the Vulgate. The word “Vulgate” comes from the same Latin word from which we get the word vulgar. This does not mean the translation is crude. Rather, it means common. The Latin Vulgate was a translation of the Bible into the common tongue.

Just as the Greek language passed away, so did Latin. However, instead of translating the Bible into modern languages, as the church had done with the Vulgate, the church insisted that the Latin Vulgate (itself a translation) was the official version. The church was concerned that, if the Bible was translated into the common language, people would come up with interpretations that were contrary to the official position of the church. So, in order to protect the teaching authority of the church, the church refused to translate the Bible into the common language and even banned modern translations. Even though nobody spoke Latin, church services were still conducted in Latin and the Bible was still read in Latin. Sadly, the Vulgate, which was meant to be a translation to make the Bible accessible to the people, became a tool to keep the Bible from the people.

Back to the Originals

The Renaissance (14^th – 17^th centuries) brought a revival of learning to Europe. With this, there was a renewed interest in studying the classical writings in Greek and Latin. This also created a renewed interest in reading the Bible in its original languages (Hebrew and Greek) rather than in the Latin translation. This was one of the factors that led to the great revival of the church we now call the Protestant Reformation.

One of the scholars who developed a keen interest in reading the New Testament in the original Greek was named Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536). However, Erasmus and other scholars were facing a challenge. As with all ancient documents, the original copies of the New Testament books no longer existed. Instead, there were various ancient copies, or manuscripts, scattered around the world. At this time, no one had a complete New Testament in the original Greek. So, Erasmus decided that he would gather the evidence and put together a New Testament in the Greek based on the best available copies.

At the same time Erasmus was putting together his edition of the Greek text, Cardinal Ximenes in Spain was working on one as well. According to some historians, there was some pressure on Erasmus to get his work to the publisher first. Consequently, he rushed the project, resulting in numerous typographical errors in the original printing. Also, there were some places where Erasmus did not have any copies of Greek manuscripts. In order to complete his Greek New Testament, he translated from the Latin back into the Greek. In the process, he created some Greek words that do not exist anywhere else. Some of these stayed in the Greek text (later called the Textus Receptus) and were used as the foundation for parts of subsequent translations of the Bible, including the King James Version.

Despite its flaws, Erasmus’ Greek New Testament was a tremendous advance in helping the church return to the Bible. Over time, others edited and improved Erasmus’ text. In 1633, the publishers marketed the Greek text by claiming, “you hold the text, now received by all, in which nothing corrupt.” This is how Erasmus Greek New Testament became known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text. It then served as the basis for Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible into German and even served as the foundation for the King James Version in English.

Early English Versions

In the 14^th century, John Wycliffe translated the Latin Vulgate into English. While there is some evidence that other parts of the Bible had been translated into English before Wycliffe, he was the first to translate the whole Bible. The English of the 1300’s was very different from the English of today or even the 17^th century when the King James Version was translated. Here is how Wycliffe translated John 3:16: “For God louede so the world, that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf.”

In 1526, William Tyndale, inspired by what Luther had done in translating the Bible into German, published his translation of the New Testament in English based on Erasmus’ text. Because the Roman Catholic Church was still in control of England, Tyndale’s Bible was not authorized and, like Wycliffe’s Bible before it, was banned. Tyndale was martyred in 1536 for his work in bringing the Bible to the people.

Tyndale never finished translating the Old Testament. One his disciples, Myles Coverdale, together with John Rogers, completed the work. In 1535, the Coverdale Bible, as it became known, was the first complete English version of the Bible ever published. It is safe to say that no man has had more influence on the English Bible and the English language than William Tyndale. His work became the foundation for all future English translations, including the King James Bible.

By 1539, Henry VIII was on the throne. He had broken with the Catholic Church. As a result, the people were now free to read the Bible in their own language. Coverdale was then hired by Thomas Cramner to publish an English Bible for public use. This was the first authorized English version. It became known as The Great Bible, primarily because of its large size—it measured over 15 inches tall.

In 1553, Queen Mary, also known as Bloody Mary, ascended to the throne in England. Under her reign, the Protestants once again suffered great persecution. During this time, John Rogers and Thomas Cramner were both burned at the stake. Myles Coverdale fled to Geneva, the home of the great Reformer, John Calvin. In 1560, they published a new English Bible, known as the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible had notes in the margins, much like today’s modern study Bibles. It also was the first English version to add chapter and verse numbers. The chapter and verse divisions that it used are now the standard for Bibles today. The Geneva Bible retained most of Tyndale’s original translation.

After the death of Queen Mary, the Protestants were able to return to England and the English Bible was allowed to be read openly. However, some of the English clergy did not like the distinctly Calvinistic and anti-establishment notes of the Geneva Bible. So, in 1568, they published a revised version of The Great Bible, which became known as The Bishop’s Bible. However, this Bible never became very popular. It seemed that people preferred the Geneva Bible.

The King James Version

In 1604, the Puritan clergy approached King James about producing a new English translation to replace the authorized Bishop’s Bible. The king accepted their proposal, but rejected their involvement. He did not like the Calvinistic spirit of the Geneva Bible (the very thing the Puritans liked). There is some evidence that his primary concern was that the Geneva Bible was undermining his authority as well as the teachings of the Anglican Church.

Even though this became the official translation of the Church of England, it was not warmly received by the people. There was just as much controversy surrounding it as today’s modern translations. The Puritans, including those who came to America, as well as other non-conformists, continued to use the Geneva Bible. Even when the English stopped printing the Geneva Bible, people continued to smuggle new copies in from Amsterdam. However, in the 18^th century, The King James Bible became the exclusive Bible for most churches in the English speaking world.

Over the years, the King James Bible has undergone revisions. In fact, there were so many revisions by different printers that in 1769, a new Standard Text was released. In fact, even though there are printings of King James Versions that claim to be the 1611 edition most likely are the Standard Text of 1769. While the text of 1769 differs from the 1611 version in about 24,000 places, most of these are changes in spelling.

The King James Bible was, and still is, a masterful translation. It is not as literal as some of our modern versions, like the New American Standard (NASB) or the English Standard Version (ESV), but might be considered more literal than the New International Version (NIV). Yet, it captures the beauty and the original text in ways that no other English translation has done to date. It has shaped our language and our religious practices. For many in the English speaking world, passages like the 23^rd Psalm or the Lord’s Prayer do not sound right unless one uses the form of the King James Version. Just like the Latin Vulgate and other translations that had gone before, some people—even to this day—believed that the King James Bible is the only inspired and proper Bible.

Since the English language has changed a great deal since 1611 (and even 1769), the King James Bible is not the best translation for most modern readers. However, we can all be thankful for the remarkable impact it has had on the church and the English speaking world.

Bibliography

Some of the material in this article comes from notes dating back to my college and seminary days. As a result, I no longer know the original source of the information. However, much of this data can be gathered from the following sources:

Bruce, F. F., History of the Bible in English

The King James Bible Trust, www.kingjamesbibletrust.org

Metzger, Bruce and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament.

Ryken, Leland, The Legacy of the King James Bible

Silva, Moises, Introduction to the New Testament, lectures given at Westminster Theological Seminary, available on ITunesU or www.wts.edu.

Church and Culture (Part 3)

The following was adapted from a my old blog that I posted on May 24, 2006.

A few years ago, Os Guinness wrote a book on the modern church growth movement entitled, Dining with the Devil. It comes from the expression, “If you are going to dine with the Devil, then you must use a very long spoon.” In our pursuit of relevance, I wonder if our spoon has been long enough.

In a nutshell, here is the problem: in our desire to be culturally relevant and reach lost people, we have worked hard to grab their attention and speak with relevance. Much of the results of this have been good. In many “contemporary” churches, we have seen many people come to church and eventually to Christ that never would have gone to church before. The truth of the Bible has not been veiled behind unintelligible cultural practices. Lives truly have been changed by the gospel.

However, churches have not just grown by attracting non-Christians, but by attracting Christians. People now crave relevance more and more. In reality, they want a church that entertains them and puts on a good show. We have created a church that values entertainment over doctrine. I heard a pastor of one of the largest churches in my denomination (a true megachurch) say, "If we changed our theology, a few people might leave. If we changed our music, half the church would be gone by next Sunday." I know many traditional church pastors who would say the same thing.

I agree that church should not be boring. God isn’t boring. It is the equivalent of a modern miracle how we preachers can talk about our amazing God in such a way that puts people to sleep. However, the danger is, when you build your church on having a good “show,” you now have created an appetite for entertainment that constantly needs to be fed.

While the contemporary church has been far more successful in reaching lost people than the traditional church (look at the PCA’s statistics on those joining by profession of faith and this is apparent), it also has grown by attracting people who are bored with their old church. If people come to your church because yours is more exciting than their old church, then they will leave when they find another church that is more exciting than yours.

This has created a consumer mindset in church members. The members of the church no longer see themselves as owners/ministers, but as consumers. Just as they will leave Safeway to shop at Wal-Mart, they will leave one church for another if it provides a better show or better services for their family. (For more on this, see http://www.faithworks.com/archives/church_hopping.htm)

We are seeing this all over the country. I can cite a number of examples in my own denomination where a church was once “the hot church” in its community, but now is experiencing decline because some other church has come that puts on a better production. The drive for cultural relevance has resulted in consumerism. Consumerism will eventually bite the church. It is a beast that cannot be contained.

Leadership Magazine published an article entitled iChurch: All We Like Sheep that illustrates this growing problem. It is long on diagnosis and short on prescription. However, that in itself may not be a bad thing. The first step in solving any problem is acknowledging that there is one. This article moves us toward that end.

What now?

So, now that we have seen the dangers of cultural relevance, do we return to cultural irrelevance? Of course not. That is unbiblical. We must continue to work to contextualize the gospel without compromising the gospel.

I do not know what the whole answer is, but part of it is that we must call people to radical discipleship. If people are living for the glory of God, living with a sense of mission, then they cannot live as consumers as well. So, we need to challenge people to see that their calling in Christ is not merely to pursue their own comfort, but to pursue the glory of God and the good of others.

Will this solve the problem? It depends on what you see as the problem. It won’t solve the problem of the church having a revolving door. Most people will always be consumers. They are fully enculturated and, until the gospel takes root, they will not be disenculturated. However, it will solve the problem for some because some will get it. If we help people to see that part of the message of the gospel is “Take up your cross and follow me”, the Holy Spirit will empower many to do just that.

I am not optimistic about reversing the consumerism trend. However, I am extremely optimistic that, if we focus as much energy on calling people to radical discipleship as we do on being culturally relevant, that we will see a new generation of disciples who will joyfully answer Christ’s call to live for Christ and His mission. When the traditionalist is willing to give up his tradition and the “contemporary” Christian is willing to give up his craving for personal fulfillment, then the church will once again be a powerful force in our world.