Archives For Bible

What If Jesus Wasn’t Born in Bethlehem?

December 6, 2012 — 2 Comments

I don’t know if you happened to catch the CBS special on the birth of Jesus a few years ago. What I wanted to address in this post is the objection it raised concerning Jesus birth in Bethlehem. John Dominic Crossan, a one-time Catholic monk now turned Christian-skeptic, states,

Born in Bethlehem… nobody else seems to know anything about it in the New Testament…. It doesn’t seem, for example, that John, in John’s gospel, has any idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Crossan is referring specifically to John 7:40-44 which states,

Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” Others were saying, “This is the Christ.” Still others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? “Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” So there arose a division in the multitude because of Him.

Since John doesn’t say anything more on the subject, Crossan concludes that John, like the multitude, isn’t aware of Jesus birth in Bethlehem. And many scholars agree with him.  Among them is Mark Goodacre who addresses this issue in this installment of his popular NT pod.

Does John think Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem?

But is this the point that John is making. Does John want us to believe that Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem? Crossan assumes that if John knew of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem he would have corrected the people’s error. What he fail to recognize, however, is that beneath the text John is implicitly judging the people for their failure to know the scriptures. 

If we continue reading John 7:45-52, we find the emphasis on Jesus coming from Galilee. 

The officers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, “Why did you not bring Him?” The officers answered, “Never did a man speak the way this man speaks.” The Pharisees therefore answered them, “You have not also been led astray, have you? “No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?  “But this multitude which does not know the Law is accursed.” Nicodemus said to them (he who came to Him before, being one of them), “Our Law does not judge a man, unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” They answered and said to him, “You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee.”

Everyone knows that Jesus came from Galilee and based upon this they conclude that Jesus cannot be the Messiah – the descendant of David. The Pharisees are so bold in this assertion that they challenge Nicodemus to “search” the scriptures to “see that no prophet arises out of Galilee.”

What do we actually find in scripture?

We find that Galilee is only mentioned six times in the Old Testament. And one of these six instances is the well-known prophecy in Isaiah 9:1-7.

But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish; in earlier times He treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. The people who walk in darkness Will see a great light; Those who live in a dark land, The light will shine on them… For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

Does this verse have any connection with John? Absolutely!! The very next verse after John 7:52 should be John 8:12. Remember, John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition which all modern Bible translations recognize.  In John 8:12, Jesus declares,

I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.

On the surface, John never mentions Isaiah 9. However, if we listen to John’s contextual clues we see what John is saying.

John is building into this scene a great deal of dramatic irony.  He’s reminding his informed audience of Jesus’ fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy and as and the same pointing out the pride and ignorance of Israel’s supposed scriptural authorities.

Just as the Prophets proclaimed Christ’s birth in Bethlehem, so they also prophesied his coming from Galilee. If John points to Jesus’ fulfillment of this Isaiah prophecy, how can we suggest that John doesn’t believe Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Micah too?

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” Therefore, He will agive them up until the time When she who is in labor has borne a child. Then the remainder of His brethren Will return to the sons of Israel. And He will rise and shepherd His flock In the strength of the LORD, In the majesty of the name of the LORD His God. And they will remain, Because at that time He will be great To the bends of the earth. And this One will be our peace.

Sounds a lot like Isaiah 9.  

John implicitly points to Jesus’ fulfillment of Isaiah 9:1-7.  He says nothing about Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. Crossan, like the multitudes, however,  looks at the surface and fails to recognize its true significance. 

In Christmas, Culture, Gospels
permalink

Why God Shut Zachariah’s Mouth

July 26, 2012 — Leave a comment

As we saw in yesterday’s post, Luke and it’s sequel Acts clearly lay out the pattern that all who are filled with the Spirit have their mouths opened in witness and praise.  Jesus says in Acts 1:8

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses…

It makes it all the more remarkable than to find Luke, the gospel of the open mouth, beginning not with an open mouth but with an old man having his voice taken from him.

You’ve heard the story.  We hear it almost every Christmas time.

The angel Gabriel tells Zachariah the priest he’s going to have a son. But the priest needs proof.  

“How can I be certain?  My wife and I are well passed childbearing years.”  

The angel snaps back.  “Your mouth will be shut because you did not believe the good news.” (Luke 1:5-23)

Wow!  Did you get that?  This isn’t just a story.  It’s a warning.  

Zachariah’s inability to speak is made all the more striking when compared to another who receives the same Good News. Get this!  Luke parallels Zachariah’s story with the announcement made to Mary.

  • Situation: Like Zachariah and Elizabeth, Mary is unable to have children.  They are old.  She is a virgin (compare 1:5-10, 26-27)
  • Message: Like Zachariah, the angel comes to Mary with the miraculous good news. (compare 1:11-17, 28-33) (Don’t be afraid (1:13, 30), You will have a son (1:13, 31), You will name him… (1:13, 31) He will be great… (1:14-17, 32-33))
  • Question: Like Zachariah, she asks “How” – though it’s a very different sort of question then the one Zachariah asks. (compare 1:18, 34)
  • Response: Like Zachariah, she gets an answer. (compare 1:19-20, 35-38
  • Elizabeth Reaction: And Like Zachariah, she journey’s to Zachariah’s home where Elizabeth proclaims the glory of what God has done. (compare 1:21-25, 39-45)

Point after point, Luke takes pains to reveal the comparisons in these two accounts.

And then suddenly the pattern is broken – and its broken in MARY’S SONG (1:46-55)!  Mary’s mouth is opened and she sings a song almost ten verses long.

See the parallels and the break!

  • Zachariah:  Situation – Message – Question – Response – Reaction – (        )
  • Mary:          Situation – Message – Question – Response – Reaction – SONG!

Zachariah is silenced.  His song is clearly missing.  He should have sang a song after Elizabeth speaks.  But he doesn’t.  He can’t.  Instead he sits silently watching and listening to this young girl sing a song that he himself is unable sing.

Why is Mary’s mouth opened when Zachariah’s is shut?  

It’s comes down to the very different responses they have to the good news.

  • Zachariah doubts the message.  “How shall I know this?”
  • Mary believes. “How will this be?”

For Luke, these two stories aren’t just about the birth of John and Jesus.  It’s the very message of Luke’s Gospel and Acts.  Be careful how you receive the Good News – the Gospel, Luke warns.  To those who believe their mouths will be opened, but the mouths of the those who disbelieve will be shut.

The good news is that there’s hope even for Zachariah.  Though it comes late, his mouth is opened when he humbles himself and submits to the good news.  When he names his son John, as the Angel instructed, Zachariah, like Mary before, is “filled with the Holy Spirit” and at last sings His song (1:67-79).

Question: When have you experienced your mouth opened in witness and praise?  Have you ever had it closed because of a refusal to believe?

In Christmas, Devotions, Gospels
permalink

What Happens When You’re Filled with the Spirit

July 25, 2012 — 3 Comments

My kids and I get a kick out of the opening scene of Kung Pow.  After watching a baby in diapers fighting off a horde of bad guys, we laugh and quote the villain in his strange nasally voice.  

Oopen da mowth.

I can’t help think of those words as I write this blog.  According to the bible, the sign of the Spirit is an open mouth.

Well not just an open mouth but more specifically, a mouth opened in witness and praise.  Jesus says in Acts 1:8,

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses…

And this is what we find in Luke’s Gospel and Acts (Luke’s sequel).  Those who are filled or receive or have the Holy Spirit come upon them OPEN THEIR MOUTHS.

  • Elizabeth exclaims in a loud voice. (Luke 1:42-43)
  • Zachariah prophecies. (Luke 1:67-79)
  • The 120 “speak in other tongues.” (Acts 2:4)
  • Peter testifies (Acts 4:8)
  • The believers “speak the word of God boldly.” (Acts 4:31)
  • Cornelius and his household speak in tongues (Acts 10:44-46)
  • Paul curses Elymas (Acts 13:9)
  • The Ephesian disciples speak in tongues and prophesy (Acts 19:6)

And its the same in the Old Testament.

  • In Numbers, the 70 elders prophecy. (11:25)
  • And in 1 Samuel 19:23-24, Saul too prophesies.

It’s interesting that the Spirit’s filling is often compared to having too much to drink.  For instance,

  • When the crowds heard the disciples speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost they thought they were drunk. (Acts 2:13-15).
  • And Instead of getting drunk, Paul instructs the Ephesians to be “filled with the Spirit.” (Ephesians 5:18)

How does inebriation compare with the Spirit?  

Once again its the open mouth.  A person who is drunk loses all inhebition to speak or even sing.  Think Karaoke bar.  But even before Karaoke, bars have always been a place of speaking and singing.

Note how Paul follows this call to be “filled with the Spirit.”

Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.  Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Ephesians 5:19-20).

To speak and to sing praise to the Lord is to allow the Spirit to move in and through you.

Ok.  So if the filling of the Spirit is evidenced in the open mouth here’s what it’s not.

It not JUST tongues.  I for one speak in tongues.  And I believe those who speak in tongues have been filled with the Spirit.  But I also believe it’s simply wrong to reduce the Spirit’s filling to an “initial physical evidence.”  Can we as Pentecostals truly say that Billy Graham was not filled with the Spirit when we know the Spirit’s filling is empowerment for witness (Acts 1:8)?

It’s not JUST the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).  The fruits of the Spirit are most definetly connected with the Spirit’s filling.  But the fruit of the Spirit is an inward condition of the heart.  It’s not the outward manifestation – specifically the open mouth.

Has you’re mouth be opened in inexhaustible witness and praise?  If not, then wait, pray and seek.  If it has, is your mouth still open today?

What do you think?

In Devotions, Gospels, Theology
permalink

Two Things to Admire about the New Voice Translation

July 18, 2012 — Leave a comment

In preparation for our bible study tonight, I’ve been using Thomas Nelson’s new Bible translation – the Voice. If you haven’t had a chance to check it out, you need to. I’ve added a link to a free .pdf copy below.

A Cool Format

Here’s what I instantly loved about the Voice. It’s written in a screenplay format. Character dialogue stands out from the page like a script.

It’s perfect for reading in groups. Instead of having people read a few verses one after the other you can now read the part of Jesus or John or the narrator. It’s made to be voiced.

But it’s useful for personal study as well.

When I taught at Canby Bible College I provided my students with a copy of each gospel without chapter and verse divisions. I then I’d ask them to highlight the dialogue in colors according to character.

The reason is that the identity of the person speaking and what they are saying is more indicative of narrative divisions than our chapter and verses – which sometimes get it wrong.

Dialogue also clues us in on important narrative themes. In the Gospel of Matthew, for instance, the Scribes and Pharisees always call Jesus teacher and never lord while the disciples always call him lord and never teacher. That is one important exception.  Judas, right before he betrays Jesus with a kiss!  But of course we can’t know this unless we pay attention to the dialogue.

The Voice encourages its readers to do just that.

An Important Focus

The format points to the Voice’s even more important focus – helping readers connect with the story of scripture.

The Bible isn’t like a modern novel or movie. It’s a collection of books written by more than 40 different authors on three different continents over the course of 1400 years. And if that wasn’t enough to confuse a generation immersed in modern ways of story telling, the last book is separated from our own time by 2,000 years.

Ancient customs and idioms don’t easily translate into our language and culture. For instance, how might a translation of “it’s raining cats and dogs” sound in spanish? To cope with the apparent disconnect many modern translations become a clutter of charts and footnotes to explain these details to readers.

The voice cleans the page up by bringing out such information within the translation itself. It does this through a Thought-For-Thought method of translation.

Instead of searching for near equivalent words and ordering those words in ways similar to the original text, the Voice translators tried to capture the thought of the biblical writer through phrases that more adequately reflect the authors meaning.

A word like repent for instance becomes “seek forgiveness and change your actions” in Mark 1:15. And “Christ” once again becomes “anointed one” rather than Jesus’ last name.

Tying the whole translation together is the theme of God’s Voice. Genesis 1:1-2 reads

In the beginning, God created everything: the heavens above and the earth below. Here’s what happened. At first the earth lacked shape and was totally empty, and a dark fog draped over the deep while God’s spirit-wind hovered over the surface of the empty waters. Then there was the voice of God.

I love that! The theme is sounded again in the Gospel of John’s opening verse.

Before time itself was measured, the Voice was speaking. The Voice was and is God. This celestial Word remained ever present with the Creator; His speech shaped the entire cosmos. Immersed in the practice of creation, all things that exist were birthed in Him. His breath filled all things with a living, breathing light – a light that thrives in the depths of the darkness blazes through murky bottoms. It cannot and will not be quenched… The Voice took on flesh and became human and chose to live alongside us. (John 1:1-14)

A Great Failure

Translations are never perfect. As I said in a previous post, translation is a balancing act between accuracy and clarity. It’s an impossible task that is never quite right. But I really do like the way that this translation fails. I’m looking forward to using tonight.

If you’d like to experience the Voice yourself you can receive a free .pdf download of the New Testament here.

In Bible, Devotions
permalink
unnamed

3 Reasons You Shouldn’t Read the King James Bible

July 11, 2012 — 31 Comments

Without fail!  It happens every time I talk about bible translations.  Someone approaches me and says they’ve heard that the King James Version is the most accurate translation around.

I’m sorry.  It’s not.

  • I know its the version your family read, you’re church read and the one you’ve studied, memorized and cherish.
  • I know its the most widely distributed translation in English.
  • I know it was accurate for its time.

But it’s really time you shelve the King James Version and pick a new translation!  Here’s why.

15

1. The KJV is not based on the most accurate manuscripts.

If you read the KJV you’re reading things the Biblical authors DID NOT WRITE.  It’s not that it’s translators were in some secret conspiracy to deceive the masses.  They weren’t.  They were working with the best copies they had at the time.  But these copies had errors – errors which entered the text over 1400 years of hand copying hand copies.

The vast majority of these errors were small and unintentional.  If you’ve ever tried copying a lengthy handwritten document you may have experienced some of the following.

  • errors caused by sight.
  • errors caused by hearing and transcription.
  • errors caused by lapses in memory.

But some copyists intentionally changed the text – a fact that later copiers could not rectify because all they had was the copy in front of them.  It’s similar to the errors created and passed on in the game of telephone.  The famous 4th century Bible translator Jerome said,

They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning, and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own.

These copyists made

  • spelling and grammar changes
  • harmonistic alterations
  • factual corrections
  • conflations
  • and even support for certain doctrines

The later is clearly evident in 1 John 1:7 where the King James reads,

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

It’s great proof text for the trinity.  The problem is that no church writer quoted it when the doctrine of the trinity was being hammered out in the 3rd and 4th century.  The reason is that not one manuscript contained these words until the late middle ages.  It’s an insertion and not at all what John wrote.

And it’s not the only one.

2. The KJV is not the language we speak today.  

The King James Version may sound poetic but it’s not easily understood by the vast majority of modern English speakers.  And it’s not just because of the thees and thous.  You may have heard some of these words.  But can you tell me what they mean?

abjects, afore, agone, amerce, artificer, bethink, bewray, botch, bray, by and by, caul, chargeable, concupiscenece, coping, cotes, cumbered, dissimulation, doleful, durst, emerods, fan, felloe, firkin, froward, gainsay, grisled, holden, holpen, ignominy, lade, lees, lucre, minish, mote, paps, paradventure, platted, quick, remission, requite, shambles, sheepcote, slow bellies, superfluous, thitherward, twain, unction, wimples, wont 

OK, I’m sure you could get close to their meaning if you read them in context.  But are you sure its the right meaning and not just a faulty guess?

You can learn a lot about the English language from reading the King James Version.  But is that the point of reading the Bible?  To broaden our vocabulary?  I don’t think so.

The dedication to the King James version is the same love Catholics have for language of Latin.  It’s traditional.  It’s what we’ve always done.  But stop and ask yourself does it still work?  Is it helpful?  Or are the people in the pews just hearing someone speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:19).

3. There are better versions available!  

It’s perfectly acceptable to read the King James Version IF nothing better is available.  I’ve often read it when it was the only Bible I could find.  But that’s not often the case today!  There are two other translations, the NASB and the ESV which are based upon more accurate manuscripts and that use the King James Word-For-Word method of translation.  While the New KJV attempts to modernize some of the KJV’s language it still does not address the underlying manuscript issues.

What do you think?

In Bible, Devotions
permalink