Reading the Bible in New Ways

For Christmas a few years ago, my mother-in-law gave me a new Bible, called the Chronological Study Bible (NKJV), which has all the books arranged chronologically. In many cases, even chapters are divided up and interspersed with pieces of other books and chapters. It's a little odd at first, like anything new. But once you get used to reading it, there comes a really wonderful satisfaction: it is reading the old, old story newly, with fresh insights on every page.

For example, today on pp.1106-7, there are passages from Luke 4 and 5, Mark 1 and Matthew 8. These are about the very beginning of Jesus' public ministry, and include the stories of his early morning prayer, the miraculous catch of fish, and healing the leper.

I'm ever moved by the fact that Jesus prayed early in the morning, and have always hoped I might learn to do this. This year I shall endeavor again to pray, in solitary places, before dark, or at least before noon.

But what really struck me is that, throughout these various passages, Jesus is shown as reclusive in some way, reaching out boldly to individuals, but NOT to crowds. Jesus avoided, even eschewed popularity. How can this be? I mean, how can it be that preachers and teachers have so missed this character of our Lord in the current age? We have made Popularity our idol, our goal, our measure of success and even the measure of God's blessing, while Jesus cared nothing for it and even avoided it.

Consider Lk 4:41:

Demons also came out of many, crying out and saying, "You are the Christ, the Son of God!" And He, rebuking them, did not allow them to speak, for they knew he was the Christ.

Nowadays, what healer would refuse to let the recipients of his miracles "testify" like this? Who would even assume it was the demons crying out, instead of the person being healed? NO! We will have testimonials and write them down and publish them everywhere we go, not rebuke them to be quiet. Why else would Jesus do this, but that he wanted genuine faith in his words, more than faith in his miracles? Yet words never make a man popular today. The man of persuasive and truthful words always loses the election to the man of good looks and popularity.

Next consider Mark 1:35-39, (Luke 4:43 is similar), where Jesus goes out early to prayer. When the disciples found him they said, "Everyone is looking for you." It was the moment they'd been waiting for, but Jesus was, in a sense, hiding from people to spend time alone with God. Then he said to them,

"Let's go into the next towns, that I may preach there also, because for this purpose I have come forth."

What? Leave now, just as we're getting a following? It makes no sense at all, unless we assume that to our Lord reaching some people everywhere was more important than reaching a lot of people in one place. Churches today can't even function if the minister is always visiting other places. He is the CEO, who makes the business and programmes successful. Yes, Jesus Christ would never be chosen as the pastor of your neighborhood church.

Finally, on my two page voyage through time, I read of his compassion on the leper. "If You are willing, You can make me clean," cries the pitiful man. To which Jesus responds by actually touching him, still with leprosy all over him, and says, "I am willing; be cleansed." Of course the man is completely cleansed and excited beyond control. But Jesus

strictly warned him and sent him away at once, and said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone."

Why? I remember when I was 8 or 9, a little girl who was Catholic told me that what she learned was this: Jesus told people not to tell anyone about him, and when he put his finger across his lips to indicate "be quiet", it made the little dimple that we all have under our nose, above our lip. Why would Jesus tell people not to testify about him? Clearly it was intended for this man, not all people, that he keep silent about his miracle. But why? Jesus also told him to go offer a sacrifice at the Temple and show himself to the priests "as a testimony to them". So it wasn't that Jesus wanted NO ONE to know. He did want the priests to know what he was doing; He just didn't want a crowd to follow him because of the miracles.

But wait! Most of us have always thought that Jesus did his miracles expressly so that people would accept and listen to him. But here he works to the opposite effect. "Keep quiet about this." It was impossible for the man, who went out and spread the news wildly. Now I cannot accept that Jesus was using trickery or reverse-psychology to get the man to advertise his miracle. And I will not accept that Jesus was feigning humility. He was telling the man what he wanted him not to do, so that crowds would not hear a testimony of miracles from this excited and obviously genuine man.

The only conclusion I can draw is that Jesus was avoiding popularity. Our bias makes this a very strange conclusion. We can't conceive of someone who wants to be obscure. Our age craves relevance, and without popularity and widespread acceptance, we think we have done nothing with our lives, especially preachers and evangelists.

I wish someone would offer a better explanation of why Jesus said such things, appearing to eschew fame and large crowds of enthusiastic followers, because I don't trust myself to interpret these things well. But until someone does, I confess, this interpretation is encouraging to me, because I've long since realized that, as Jesus said, "Woe to you when all men speak well of you." It is, in "this wicked and adulterous age" [Mt 16:4], a fearful thing to fit in with the popular consensus.

More Thoughts on the Updated NIV of 2011

As most of you know, the NIV Bible has been used by millions of readers since it first appeared in 1984 and is one of the best-loved translations for many reasons. But this year those who hold the copyright to the NIV have introduced an updated version on BibleGateway.com, and their plan is to replace the 1984 version with this new version. This new translation is not only needless and dishonest, but harmful in the following respects:

It is an attempt to win the approval of people. It is a capitulation to the whims of men and women of this godless age rather than a resolve to be faithful to the word of God. It will lead to the loss of a great and beloved translation, which is being replaced with a lesser, though newer one.

One does not need a crystal ball to see into the motives of the folks at Biblica, the newly named International Bible Society. For already, they have produced two similar translations under different names, first 1n 1996 the New International Readers Version, then in 2001 the Today's NIV. The updated NIV-2011 resembles the TNIV far more than it resembles the original NIV of 1984. Why take something really old and conform it to something newer that one already has in print? Why give the new translation an old name?

This move cannot be honest. Even Professor Moo's explanation defies common sense. He talks about "transparency", which is a modern euphemism for "conformity", in the way that chameleons are "transparent" by blending in with their surroundings. When I expected to hear "faithfulness to the original text", what I hear is "conformity to the contemporary English usage". (I am simply translating Dr. Moo's words for clarity and ease of understanding to non-academics.)

Conformity to what? To a culture steeped in feminism and immorality; conformity to a language that demands political correctness over truth; conformity to a Christianity that is increasingly lukewarm and unwilling to challenge people of this age.

I don't remember reading this goal in the 1984 version Translators' Preface. They write instead of "continuity with the long tradition of translating the Scriptures into English" and of "accurate translation, clarity and literary quality". The 1984 NIV was popular for all these reasons. The 2011 NIV is something else. 5% has been changed, by Moo's estimate, "not just here and there, but in every verse". It sounds as if what he means (if again I may "translate") is, "The spirit of this translation is updated, and you will sense it in every verse".

No clairvoyance is needed. The words of these translators tells it all. The 2011 Translators' Notes read: "When the original Bible documents first emerged, they captured exactly what God wanted to say in the language and idiom of ordinary people. There was no friction between hearing God’s Word the way it was written and understanding it the way it was meant."

Au contraire! The word of God has always rubbed some people the wrong way, because "the wisdom of God is foolishness to men". It rubbed the educated the wrong way because the New Testament was written in common Greek. It rubbed every Gentile the wrong way because it was written by Jews. It rubs all sinners the wrong way because it demands holiness. This goal of "reducing friction" is exactly the goal of making the Bible more acceptable to our generation, to make it less abrasive.

Then there is a scholarly argument that the KJV was out of date (after 400 years) and likewise the NIV is now in need of an update, if we would maintain the lack of friction they imagined the KJV had in its day. But after only 30 years, they suggest there is a similarity. Has our language actually changed that much in 30 years? Of course it hasn't. But our culture has changed dramatically; many, many things that didn't cause friction then rub people the wrong way now.

The point here isn't to argue whether some might need a newer translation, or one that doesn't cause any friction to their modern mindset. The point is, they've already given us such a translation twice. So why not just make these little updates to one of the two other NIV-like versions? The 5% changes to the original NIV would only constitute around 0.5% in the TNIV. Really! Here is an example, that is quite common. Look at Phil 3:10 in the old and new NIV and the TNIV:

NIV (2011): I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death

TNIV (2005): I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death

NIV (1984): I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death

Why replace the NIV with the TNIV? or give the TNIV the name NIV and leave the older, more familiar NIV in the dust? I have suggested that money or pressure from feminists are at the root of this move. I ask Professor Moo, then, please tell us the full rationale.

I was told by members of my church that strong language wasn't necessary in this matter, that I needed to be more "christian" in how I write. But sirs, the Bible is the word of God and you know this. I'm sure you value it as such, just as all true believers. It has always been a touchy matter to tamper with the words in this Holy Book. I will, then, be Biblical in my criticism. Romans 12:2 reads,

And do not be conformed to this world...

Is this not your goal in these changes? It is HIS word, not yours or mine. It is not for us to make it less abrasive, but to translate it faithfully and preach it boldly. The very roughness of the original, which you consider outdated, was assuredly rough to those who heard it then. You know this is true. It was never a politically correct book. Do not do this to the Bible.

What is more, it is unbecoming of us to conform the Bible to the culture in ANY age, especially one that is increasingly immoral. Spurgeon wrote (on March 28th in his devotional Faith's Check Book):

It is for the saints to lead the way among men by holy influence: they are not to be the tail, to be dragged hither and thither by others. We must not yield to the spirit of the age, but compel the age to do homage to Christ. If the Lord be with us, we shall not crave toleration for religion, but we shall seek to seat it on the throne of society.

Shall we adapt our Holy Bible to the whims of an unholy age? I trow not! Men, do not be the tail of society, be leaders. Do not follow feminists who take offense at the word He---for indeed this constitutes the bulk of the substantive changes you've made. Do not follow bean counters who've noticed the dismal sales of your TNIV. Do not foist upon Christians something totally changed in spirit from what we have loved and read. It will not be blessed by God. The Spirit in which it was surreptitiously replaced on BibleGateway back in January tells it all, it is a Spirit we do not know.

PS: My son just reminded me that I need to consider other people's view point (bias) on this, or I risk being ignored by all who don't share my own. I admit that 40 years ago, when the Living Bible and the NIV first came out, I heard the same points I'm making now being argued about those translations. I brushed them off as being from old-fashioned people who resented anything new. At that time, I did not consider these people's point of view at all. I'm older now, and I am a little better at recognizing my own as well as others' biases. I want to be fair. Thus, I do not condemn the TNIV or NIrV or ESV or any translation at all. I'm not on a crusade to bring back the King James. But I insist that replacing the NIV with the TNIV is needless and hurtful to Christian tradition. And I suspect, but not insist, that this move is purely driven by business goals (translated, "greed").

Copyright © 2011, by Christopher Kelly.