The Wealthy Jesus

A common misunderstanding is that Jesus Christ was a poor man. This understanding has led many Christians through the ages to exalt poverty as a more spiritually elevated state than prosperity, as if poverty was what is involved in “sharing his sufferings” (Philippians 3:10). Critics of the so-called “health and wealth gospel” might point to Jesus’s own poverty as an exemplar for Christian living, berating those “prosperity preachers” who teach that the application of biblical principles can lead to freedom from sickness and want.

It might appear that some passages in Scripture suggest Jesus was poor. Jesus himself declares that “the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20). And Paul states, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor . . .” (2 Corinthians 8:9). But neither of these statements need be understood to imply economic poverty on Jesus’s part. Jesus’s statement simply means that, in his traveling ministry throughout Galilee and into Judea, he was seldom at his home in Nazareth. And Paul’s statement need not apply to Jesus’s material poverty; it describes his emptying himself of his pre-incarnate state “in the form of God” (Philippians 2:6) to become a “servant,” in order to be subjected to death on the cross for the redemption of his followers. Indeed, Paul completes his statement by adding, “that by his poverty you might become rich.”

What is the Gospel evidence that Jesus was, in fact, not a poor beggar but was fairly wealthy, at least by local Galilean standards? Let’s look at a few facts.

Jesus is called a “carpenter” (Mark 6:3) and the son of a carpenter (Matthew 13:55). The Greek term tekton does not mean someone who just saws up pieces of wood and makes things out of them, or does incidental repairs. It really denotes what we today would call a contractor, or builder; the term can also refer to someone who works with stone, or who thatches roofs. Joseph was a well-known businessman of Nazareth, who passed the business along to Jesus and, no doubt, his brothers James, Joses, Judas and Simon. Like all Jewish teachers, Jesus had a trade that brought him an adequate livelihood before he was baptized by John and set out on his traveling mission.

In his three-year preaching career, as Jesus traveled with his disciples, he was adequately provided for. A group of women, one of whom was the wife of one of Herod’s officials, accompanied them to care for their needs (Luke 8:1-3). Jesus chose some men of substance to accompany him; Simon Peter, Andrew, James and John were in the fishing business and at least part owners of boats and other equipment. Levi (Mark 2:14), equated with Matthew (Matthew 9:9), was a publican or tax collector; in the Roman system a publican contracted with the government for a certain amount, and then could collect as much as possible and keep the excess for himself. In following Jesus, Levi gave up a comfortable, if despised, life style; he did not come to Jesus out of a state of economic deprivation. If, like the publican Zacchaeus, he gave away part his wealth to the poor and redressed anyone who had been defrauded (Luke 19:8), he doubtless brought the rest into the disciples’ common treasury. That treasury, managed by Judas Iscariot, maintained funds adequate to provide for the poor (John 13:29) as well as for the disciples’ own sustenance.

Sending out the seventy on a mission to preach the kingdom of God and cast out demons (Matthew 10:7-10), Jesus instructed them not to take money with them or extra clothing — an instruction unnecessary unless the disciples already had such things available for their use. When Jesus taught the 5,000 men (plus women and children) at Bethsaida, and needed to provide a meal for them, the disciples proposed to buy food (Luke 9:13), and therefore they must have had sufficient resources to do that.

As his passion approached, Jesus rebuked the suggestion that a jar of expensive ointment with which a woman anointed him might better have been sold and the proceeds distributed to the poor. “You always have the poor with you,” he stated, “and whenever you will, you can do good to them” (Mark 14:4-8). His statement implies not only that the disciples had the means to help the poor, but also that they were not themselves identified with “the poor.”

Finally, as Jesus’s body hung upon the cross, the Roman soldiers, who customarily divided among themselves the clothing of the crucified, demurred at dividing Jesus’s seamless tunic (John 19:20-24). Evidently it was an unusually well made, expensive garment as opposed to the cheaper clothing of their usual victims.

When the Gospel record is consulted for details of this sort, it becomes clear that Jesus Christ, in his earthly ministry in Galilee and Judea, was not the penniless mendicant he has sometimes been made out to be. His suffering was not that of an economically poverty-stricken man, but that of the Son of God who bore the weight of the sin of his people. Critics who deride the so-called “health and wealth” gospel have no warrant for doing so in the recorded life style of Jesus himself.

And, we have to ask, what is the evangelistic impact of something other than a “health and wealth” gospel? How does a “sickness and poverty gospel” strike you? “Look, I serve the Lord and I’m sick and I’m poor — don’t you want to be like me?” You will look in vain for anything like that in the New Testament.

A World Without America

Disparagement of the United States is rife among the nation’s media and educational elite. For example, it's commonplace to hear of elementary and secondary school textbooks that call into question the rightness of American actions in wartime. A preacher in whose congregation our current President sat for many years is noted for his outburst, “God damn the United States of America!” In the eyes of major forces shaping public opinion, the United States has become what Islamic militants call it: “the Great Satan.” Those who believe in American exceptionalism — the idea that the United States has an historic purpose to promote and embody the liberty and welfare of all peoples — are belittled and silenced.

Do we think America is perfect? Of course not — and certainly not under its present leadership. But if America, as we’ve known it for two and one-half centuries, is such a defective and evil nation, let’s rewrite history as though the United States never existed.
_______________________
After the colonies’ misguided revolt was crushed, Governor-General Benedict Arnold led in the formation of a greater “New England” incorporating all British settlements along the North Atlantic coast. British loyalists, driven out during the abortive revolt, returned to assume their rightful leadership and social position, heartened by the public execution of revolutionary leaders including Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington. By the end of the nineteenth century, however, New England had become a Dominion exercising a high degree of self-rule, though still under the British crown. The southern colonies, never substantially tied to New England, formed their own entity known as Virginia. Eventually, Virginia was able to secure its complete independence from Great Britain and, to this day, maintains its own distinctive institutions such as a slave economy. It is estimated that as much as 57% of the inhabitants of Virginia today are slaves of African descent.

The territories of both New England and Virginia extend as far west as Louisiana, which became independent of France in the mid-1800s. The Louisianian government has resisted incursions into its territory by white settlers from New England or Virginia. Internecine warfare between tribal groups in the upper Mississippi and Missouri basins has rendered the region largely devoid of the agricultural or industrial activities typical of European settlement. Louisianian policy has always been to avoid disturbing the culture of the aboriginal peoples of the region, with the result that many of these native peoples live in a constant state of insecurity and privation.

At the western extent of the continent, along the Pacific coast and inland for some thousand kilometers, stands the Republic of Mexico. This largely agrarian region, where climate and terrain make agriculture possible, is still organized according to the “rancho” system, with aboriginal peoples living in a near-serfdom to the Spanish-speaking aristocracy. Several good ports, such as at Mission San Francisco or near Mission Reina de los Angeles, remain largely undeveloped for trade with the Far East. This is, in part, because no railroads exist across the continent, through Louisiana, to allow goods to reach markets in the populous Atlantic region. Customs regulations across two international boundaries, and unstable conditions in areas not settled by Europeans, hinder other trade by land. Commerce by sea must contend with the lengthy and dangerous voyage around Cape Horn. A canal through the Isthmus of Panama has been proposed, but no entity exists with the resources to construct it.

The Republic of Texas won its independence from Mexico in 1836 after a protracted struggle, and exists today as an enclave of European settlement along the Gulf coast and inland. The intervening position of Louisiana renders it difficult for Texas to maintain close ties with Virginia, and it has pursued its own developmental path. Texas mounts the largest military force in the continent, equipped with the most modern assets, due to the constant specter of a Mexican effort to reconquer its lost territory.

Turning elsewhere in the world, we look first to Europe where the situation remains bleak. Great Britain and France, with Britain’s allied Dominions, were able to resist the German Kaiser’s advances in the war of 1914-1917, but the Kaiser’s abdication and subsequent inflationary conditions in Germany rendered the nation ripe for the emergence of a new leader. Chancellor Adolf Hitler led Germany’s resurgence as a military power. His ambitions for “Lebensraum” for the German peoples resulted in another major war which left Great Britain and France in total defeat, and in a state of devastation from which those nations have not fully recovered. Today German rule extends throughout most of Europe. Only the Soviet Union remains outside National Socialist control, free to promote its own Communist ideology which has extended itself through large portions of Asia and Latin America. Jewish people who managed to escape Hitler’s European campaign to exterminate them have been able to find only a few havens of security elsewhere, principally in portions of Africa. Those who, earlier, had hoped to establish a Zionist homeland in Palestine found their hopes dashed through the resurgence of militant Islam in the Near East, and the lack of support from any powerful nation.

As for the Pacific region, the Emperor of Japan holds sway over a vast region that includes China, Korea, Indo-China, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand and the islands of the South Pacific. The expansion of the Japanese Empire met with little resistance, especially from the opposite rim of the Pacific Ocean. Mexico lacked both the will, and the naval and air assets, that might have checked the Japanese advance.

In the field of science and technology, physicists are at a loss to know how to fully harness the power of electronics, or to explain the relation of energy, mass and the speed of light. Mysteries about the origin and extent of our universe might begin to be clarified if larger and more powerful telescopes could be designed, or even placed into orbit around the earth. As it is, space is still principally the domain of the Soviet Union, which placed men on the moon in 1972. Recent ventures into space by Germany and Japan only heighten one’s fears that orbiting vehicles could become instruments of intimidation and warfare. With the development of telecommunication instruments and computers for scientific and military use, one hopes to see the day when such technological devices will be applied to the needs of ordinary people. Mechanized vehicles for personal travel (so-called “automobiles”) remain available only for the privileged few. Thus far, few governments have allowed any firm to widely market consumer applications in these areas.

One wonders how history might have turned out differently if there had been, in the place of New England, Virginia, Louisiana, and Mexico, a strong and prosperous nation extending across the continent of North America. Would such a nation have been able to deal with the issue of slavery; produce technical innovators or harbor scientists of the highest caliber; build a “Panama Canal”; rescue and rebuild Europe after Hitler’s devastation; hurl back the aggression of the Japanese Empire; resist the advance of Soviet Communism; allow a free market for the development of consumer electronics, personal vehicles, and other goods; or support an “Israel” as a homeland for displaced Jews? Would such a nation have had the strength to extend its vision for human betterment to the rest of the globe? Had such a nation existed, this would be a much different world.

The Digital Difference

After starting out in a ministerial and academic career I found my path blocked and had to start over in the business world. I took a temporary job with Rand McNally and just never bothered to leave. Twenty years later, in 2001, I retired from there. During that time I got involved with computers. Today my wife and I operate five computers, and I do web site design and have a small web site hosting operation. While working for Rand McNally, I came to see the connection between computers and the Word of God.

Computers, you see, are really dumb. You’ve all heard the expression GIGO — “Garbage in, garbage out.” You can’t get a correct answer out of a computer if you put in the wrong information. Another thing about computers is that everything is digital. That means that information is stored in “bytes” that are either turned off or turned on. A piece of computer information can’t be half OFF and half ON. It has to be one or the other.

Anthropologist Gregory Bateson pointed out, decades ago, that information is “a difference that makes a difference.” In other words, information is the difference between one thing and another; in a computer it’s the difference between ON and OFF. If everything is the same — all ON, for example — no information is conveyed. We learn nothing from a blank screen, what computer geeks call the BSOD or “blue screen of death,” except that something’s wrong with the computer.

God’s Word, too, is digital; it’s “the difference that makes a difference.” We see this, for example, in the Old Testament all the way from Genesis to Malachi. In Genesis, God creates by making a difference. He says, “Let there be light,” and divides the light from the darkness, just as in a computer the bytes are either ON or OFF. In Malachi 3:18 the Lord says, “Then once more you shall distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve him.” That’s a digital difference. It reminds us of Jesus’ words in Matthew 12:30: “He who is not with me is against me.” Our faith is digital; our byte is either turned ON or it’s turned OFF.

We know that God is a regular user of the Internet. In fact, his universe is one big Internet, and his search engine is even more powerful than Google. He’s always out there looking for information. As 2 Chronicles 16:9 says, “For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth.” Jesus reminds us that God is seeking worshipers who will truly worship him (John 4:23). He’s looking for those who would serve him.

Paul, in Romans 12:1, appeals to us to present ourselves to God as our “spiritual service of worship.” Actually, the Greek expression is ten logiken latreian humon, “our logical service.” Computer people speak of the logic of a program — the reasoning behind how the bytes are arranged, either ON or OFF. God is looking for logical servers — people who will serve him with a commitment that is clear, giving him the information he needs to use them effectively.

Lots of things can go wrong with a computer, as we all know! Files can be corrupted with bad or incomplete information, our hard drive can “crash,” an Internet server may not be putting out the web site we’re looking for. At such times we get an error message, like the white screen that says, “This page cannot be displayed” or “Server not found.”

As the Lord points his URL (Uniform Resource Locator, or web address) at me or looks for me with his search engine, is he going to find me ready with the information he’s looking for? Is my byte turned on, is my drive working, are my files uncorrupted? Or will he get that screen that says, “Server Not Found”?

Originally published in ReUnion, newsletter of Union Congregational Church, North Aurora, Illinois, November 2004.

Am I a Maker or a Taker?

Recent political debate about how entitlements are stressing the Federal budget has raised the distinction between Makers and Takers. What percentage of the U.S. population are Makers, contributing to Federal revenues through the taxes they pay? And what percentage are Takers, who put nothing in but take out benefits the taxpayers are providing for them? And how long can we sustain a situation in which the benefits Takers receive exceed the resources the Makers provide through the taxes they pay — a scenario that requires the Federal government to go deeper and deeper into debt?

As a “retired” recipient of Social Security benefits for a decade now, I wondered whether I myself had become a Taker instead of a Maker. With a work record beginning in 1958, I wondered whether the FICA withholdings from my paycheck through the years, plus my employers’ matching FICA taxes, were still paying for my monthly benefit. Or had my “contributions” been exhausted by this time, so that I’m being supported by other taxpayers? My question led me to some research, and the creation of a spreadsheet to figure out the answer.

The first step was to capture the record of all my wages that had been subject to the FICA tax; that was easily obtained through the Social Security web site. Then I had to apply the FICA rate (combined for me and my employers) for each year to my wages. (When I started work the rate was 4.5%; when I retired the rate was 15.3%.) The result was the amount of money that was put into the system each year on my behalf.

But that amount had to be adjusted to correspond to 2013 dollars. To do that, I used the average price of a gallon of gasoline each year, divided into the 2012 average of $3.29. For example, in 1960 my FICA combined tax was a mere $15.78, and gas was 31 cents a gallon. In terms of today’s purchasing power, however, that $15.78 became the equivalent of $167.47. I set up the spreadsheet to convert each year’s FICA tax to 2013 dollars. In this way $124,000 of FICA input became equivalent to more than $400,000 today.

I was ready to answer my question: was I still a Maker? I totaled all my Social Security benefits since I retired, at 65½ in 2004, through the year 2012. I used the total benefit, including the Medicare premiums that were deducted. (Yes, we “geezers” pay a premium for our Medicare!) I then subtracted what I have received thus far from the total of my FICA input as adjusted for inflation.

I am happy to report that I am still a Maker — there is still money in my “account” that was paid in on my behalf throughout a work record of 46 years. Estimating my monthly Social Security benefit in years ahead (it will go up some, of course), at age 74 I still have about ten years to go before I transition to Takerhood.

But wait — there’s more to the story! My annual FICA payments were simply absorbed into the Federal Treasury every year. The so-called “Social Security Trust Fund” is a myth. Politicians just took my contributions to the retirement system and used them to make themselves look like better managers of the nation’s budget. But what if my FICA payments had been shielded from raiding by demagogues, invested in the stock market, and allowed to grow?

To figure this out, I looked at the Dow Jones Industrial Average since 1958 and compared the closing average each year with the previous year’s close. That gave me a growth (or reduction) factor for my hypothetically invested accumulated FICA input. For example, in 1981 the Dow closed at approximately 875; in 1982 it closed at 1047, nearly a 20% increase. I took the accumulated total in my “account” for 1981, added my FICA input for 1982, and applied the 120% factor to the sum, resulting in a new accumulated total as the base for the 1983 calculations. Those calculations would use the 1983 DJIA closing average to calculate the new factor — and so on down the spreadsheet.

True, the market has its ups and downs. In the 70s it had some negative ratios, and during that time my hypothetical investment accumulation sometimes dropped below the raw FICA total. However, since then the market has “taken off.” Over the years, in fact, the market has had an annual increase in value of better than 9%. As a result, if my FICA input into the Social Security system had been permitted to grow in this way it would today total around 2½ million dollars. I could not live long enough to become a Taker, instead of a Maker!

A trained economist could probably refine my amateur approach to this question, but I believe his result would have been substantially the same. The point is: if you worked for four decades or more, paying into the Social Security system, and are now receiving retirement benefits, you probably can’t be accused of being a Taker instead of a Maker. The title of Taker should go to someone else.

Published in the DAILY GATE CITY, Keokuk, Iowa, January 10, 2013.

Who Am "I?"

In asking this question, I’m not looking for a theological answer — although the answer, if there is one, certainly has theological implications.

I’m not asking, for example, “Who am I in the mind of God?” — a question that expects an answer something like “You are a child of God made in his image.” Nor am I asking “What is my identity as a person?” — a question that wants to be answered in terms of my self-perception in relation to social roles, cultural identity, or personal values.

The question “Who am I?” can be answered that way, and the answers are important. But notice that my question isn’t really “Who am I?” The question is “Who am ‘I’?” with quotation marks around the “I.” In other words, despite all the possible answers to the question about who I am, I still haven’t answered the underlying question: What is that “I” that asks the question in the first place?

Presumably each one of us who can think about the question experiences an “I,” but can any of us tell where that “I” is located? “I” am not the same as my physical body, because “I” can experience that body as an “outside observer.” That is, if my body is in pain it isn’t my body that feels the pain; rather, “I” experience the pain as an issue my body is raising for me. The same is true for pleasure I enjoy through my body. My physical body is an expression of, or a sensory vehicle for, my “I,” but it’s not coextensive with the “I” who I am. So my “I” isn’t located in any part of my body, including my brain or nervous system. It can’t be localized in any cerebrum, neurons, ganglia and the like. Whoever “I” am, I have no physical location that I can pinpoint.

Does this suggest that if my physical body should cease to function — if it dies — the “I” who I am is not lost, since it isn’t part of that body? People through the ages have thought so, and have posited the idea of immortality for what has been termed the “soul.”

The biblical words for “soul” (Hebrew nefesh, Greek psyche) refer to an individual life, as lived through the body. But for the Israelite — and the biblical perspective is throughout Israelite at heart — the soul is more than the isolated individual. A person’s soul includes all that he experiences as a concern — family, property, reputation and the rest. It is roughly equivalent to what one psychologist has called the “psychological environment” (and note that the word psychology is based on the Greek word for the soul). Once again, however, who is the “I” that lives within the realm of the soul? Once the “soul is poured out” (Job 30:16), as in death, is there still an “I” that endures? If so, where is it?

Christians have spoken of heaven as the abode of that enigmatic “I,” but what and where is heaven? Certainly heaven has never been located astronomically, or cosmologically, within the vastness of this physical universe (though I once heard a preacher claim it was a planet somewhere!). Moreover, authentic biblical Christian theology doesn’t speak of immortality, or of “going to heaven,” but rather of resurrection — when that elusive “I” once again manifests itself through a body in the restored creation. As to where that “I” is in the interim, the Scriptures are mostly silent; the Apostle Paul suggests only that if he departs he would be “with Christ” (Philippians 1:23).

So the question “Who am ‘I’?” can’t be answered within the confines of four-dimensional space-time. The most real thing to me — the “I” who I am — is not equated with any material entity that can be detected with physical instruments. My experience of who “I” am coincides with what the Bible says about the foundation of reality: that which is visible, experienced within the space-time universe, originates out of that which is invisible: “What is seen was made out of things which do not appear” (Hebrews 11:3). It’s not the things we see as physical entities that will endure, but that which is to be found beyond the four dimensions of our perception: “The things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:18).

Although I can’t put my finger on the “I” that I am, that “I” is more enduring than what is visible around me or that which I can experience through bodily sensation. As the Apostle Paul stated, “even things that are not” are able to “bring to nothing things that are” (1 Corinthians 1:28). All of these thoughts relate me to the Creator who brought all into existence. From ancient times perceptive thinkers have recognized this, including the Greek poet the Apostle Paul quotes in Acts 17:28: “In him we live and move and have our being.” We derive our being from the One who calls Himself “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14).

What Jesus Said About Homosexuality

Recently I happened to be attending a Sunday service in a very liberal congregation — in fact, one not even claiming to be Christian. The minister’s sermon was an attempt to explain away all the biblical passages condemning homosexuality — the “clobber passages,” he called them. Essentially he had two ways of getting around them. Either they don’t really refer to homosexuality, but to some other type of abuse; or they are irrelevant, because the Bible isn’t an authority for people today. Or both.

In the course of his sermon the speaker mentioned having seen a pamphlet entitled “What Jesus Said About Homosexuality.” When he opened the pamphlet, it consisted of a set of blank pages. The back cover explained that, of course, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. The minister’s story got a good laugh from the congregation, but it got me thinking: Why didn’t Jesus have anything to say on this topic? Why did that pamphlet have nothing in it but blank pages?

Well, suppose the speaker had seen a pamphlet called “What Jesus Said About Partial Birth Abortion?” That would be empty, also. There are many things Jesus never spoke about. I doubt that he ever said anything about smoking, drug abuse, computers, the Hubble telescope, Einstein’s theory of relativity, the printing press, or flush toilets. I think you can figure out why Jesus never mentioned these things.

Why didn’t Jesus talk about homosexuality? It wasn’t an issue in the cultural setting in which he moved. Homosexuality was common in the Graeco-Roman world, but for the world of the Jewish people the issue had been settled by the Law of Moses — the Law from which Jesus said nothing would be removed till it had achieved its purpose (Matthew 5:18). Passages such as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 had resolved the question for the community which Jesus was addressing; there was no need for him to bring up the subject. The New Testament community accepted the same attitude toward homosexual practice, as reflected in passages such as Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11.

Listening to the sermon in this liberal congregation (they don’t even use the word “church”), I had some ideas about why Jesus never taught about homosexuality, and wanted to discuss them with the minister. However, he had something else to do after the service and I didn’t get a chance to speak with him. Our conversation wouldn’t have made a difference, anyway, because this particular group seems to be all about supporting the gay community, and not much else. In fact, the previous evening the church had hosted a fund-raising spaghetti supper for the local LGBT group (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender). I was brought along as a visitor, but when someone asked me about my stance I made it clear that I was present as a guest, not a supporter. (The spaghetti was good, anyhow.)

If I had been given the opportunity to discuss exactly why Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality, I would have tried to go deeper into the question of why the Bible contains passages forbidding it. I would have attempted to get at the biblical view of humanity, as created in the image of God “male and female” (Genesis 1:27). The human body is obviously designed in such a way as to promote a form of activity that is heterosexual. Using that body in another way is to deny that design, and in fact to deny the image of God. Indeed, it is to deny God himself, which is why Paul names homosexuality first in listing those practices that display a refusal to acknowledge God (Romans 1:18-28).

Of course, if one denies that God is real, or that there is any design to the universe, then my arguments carry no weight — as they wouldn’t have done in this liberal congregation. But from what scientists are learning today about the origin and structure of the universe, and about how living organisms are able to reproduce their own kind, the denial of God’s design makes less and less sense. It is sad to see people who think they are “progressive” still stuck in the science of a generation or two ago.

Choosing an English Translation of the Bible

In choosing which English version of the Bible to use, one is wise to consider the differences between various translations. These differences might include (1) the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, or whatever other version, upon which the translation is based; (2) the time period in the development of the English language during which the translation is made; (3) the “philosophy” of the new translation, i.e. whether the translators opted to stay as close to the original wording as possible, or whether they opted to use expressions more in keeping with current cultural usage; and (4) the theological-cultural bias of the translators. Here are some considerations:

(1) The King James translators of 1611 used the “received” or Alexandrian text of the Greek New Testament that was transmitted through the Middle Ages. Since then other, more ancient, manuscripts such as the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have been rediscovered and made the basis for printed editions of the Greek New Testament. The Hebrew Masoretic text was stabilized in the early Middle Ages, but since the King James was issued new discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, have in some cases suggested that the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (the “Septuagint”) may preserve an earlier version of some passages than what appears in the Masoretic text. Additionally, some English versions for Catholic use were translated from the Latin text, not directly from the Hebrew and Greek. These differences in the “original” texts used for the English translation will occasionally produce differences between translations, although in most cases the differences are not theologically significant.

(2) Obviously, the time period in which the translation is made also governs the choice of English words used, because the meaning of English words can change over time. For example, today the word “should” suggests an “ought to,” whereas originally it meant simply a future possibility. As an example, when we read Proverbs 22:6, “Train up a child in the way he should go,” the meaning originally was not advice to bring up a child in the correct way, but a warning that a child must not be allowed to grow up however he wishes. “Prevent” today means to restrict or hold back something, whereas originally (in the King James) it meant simply to “precede,” or ”go before.” Thus when we read, in Psalm 119:147, “I prevented the dawning of the morning,” the meaning is not that the speaker kept the sun from rising, but that he arose before sunrise.

(3) The translation philosophy also produces differences between translations. Some translations try to hold closely to the original language's wording and word order, as far as that makes sense in an English sentence. Examples of such translations are the King James (KJV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV, 1952), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the English Standard Version (ESV). Other translations pursue the “dynamic equivalence” philosophy, trying to reproduce not the original wording but the original idea as it might be expressed in today's culture. This often results in paraphrase that doesn’t reflect the wording of the original languages. Examples are the Living Bible, the New Living Translation (NLT), and Peterson’s“The Message.” The New International Version (NIV, TNIV) seems to try to strike a medium between these two approaches.

(4) Finally, theological and cultural bias of the translators produces differences in English versions. The prominent example of this is the use of “gender-neutral” language where the original text might use a word we, today, consider “male.” Such versions will use “they,” for example, instead of “he” in a verse describing a recommended action or behavior, in order to generalize the application. (Never mind that “they” is plural, not singular!) Or they will read “brothers and sisters” where the original uses the word for “brothers,” which was understood to be all-inclusive. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is an example of this type of translation, though the gender-neutral approach also shows up in the TNIV, NLT and elsewhere. “Liberal” denominations, obviously, prefer such versions because they fit into their particular cultural agenda.

My personal preference is to use a more literal modern version (RSV, ESV) for personal study and public reading, and to do the cultural transition to the possible meaning in today’s world through teaching and preaching. The Bible was not written in casual, conversational language but was written for public use in worship, or proclamation within an assembly of people. The writings of the prophets, for example, were largely composed orally as poetry and then presented in a public setting as a word of judgment or encouragement for the community. Jesus’ teaching was probably composed for repeated declaration in the various places he went during his ministry, which is why we have variations of the same teaching in the different Gospels. Even the letters of Paul were meant to be read in the churches and circulated among them. So the Bible, when read publicly as in a worship service, should have a certain “ring” to it that elevates it above ordinary conversational speech. The RSV-ESV type of translation is better in that setting. For individual reading to supplement that, the “dynamic equivalence” versions can be helpful as long as the reader keeps the translators’ bias and intention in mind, and does not take the translator’s wording as an indication of the precise meaning of the original text. (Admittedly, the precise meaning is, in many cases, a matter of interpretation regardless of the operative translation philosophy.)

In some ways the particular English version doesn't matter that much if the interpreter (teacher, preacher, private student, etc.) has a concept of what John Wesley called “the whole scope and tenor of Scripture.” It is always a temptation to over-interpret specific verses, or even specific words, and neglect the sweep of the Bible's overall message. That message comes through regardless of the particular translation used. Certain biblical themes need to be kept in view regardless of which passage we are trying to expound. Examples of these over-arching themes are creation-restoration, covenant, mission, promise, blessing, dominion — and, of course, these themes all overlap.

The Bible is a witness to the long-range purposes of the Creator, as expressed through these themes. Focusing on differences between translations, verse by verse or word by word, can take our eyes off the big picture, in the same way that focusing on issues that divide denominations or doctrinal traditions can divert our attention from the overall thrust of Christian faith.