How About An Unhyphenated-Study Bible?
Perhaps I am writing on this topic, albeit a short entry, either because of:
(a) weariness (I need to take a break from reading final exams and essays!),
(b) a sense of cynicism, or
(c) a desire to provoke in a positive way.
This afternoon I visited our campus bookstore and noted that we are now selling a women’s study Bible. What does this mean, I wondered? Will this edition be of no value to me? And yet if you visit Christian bookstores across our land, you will find men’s study Bibles, young people’s study Bibles, layman study Bibles, feminist study Bibles (I haven’t seen a chauvinist one yet!), and the like. Perhaps someday we’ll have an AARP or a gender-neutral study Bible!
I thought of an interview that Christianity Today conducted in the 1980s with the respected New Testament scholar, F.F. Bruce, now deceased. He was asked if he was an “evangelical Christian.” His response: Why not be “an unhyphenated Christian”? Over the years, I have chuckled at that keen retort. Am I a liberal Christian? A conservative one? An evangelical one? A middle-of-the-road believer? A “Baptist” Christian? A “Christian Church” Christian? Why not simply: A disciple of Jesus?
And so we impose labels on our Bibles now. I am particularly disturbed at study Bibles that, at least to me, imply that what a text meant and means as discussed in a men’s study Bible would differ from one prepared for women. Now I am not talking about being insensitive to the way we should apply Scripture. I think the disciples in early days and even in later centuries beyond would be puzzled by such designations. What the text meant and what it means was not and should not be limited to one’s gender or theological perspective.
When we come to the book of Revelation we have study Bibles named after C.I. Scofield or C.C. Ryrie. Why not simply A Study Bible? Why not a study Bible that has no theological or gender or national ax to grind or cause to plead or theological system to defend or promote? Why not a study Bible that offers to the best of the editors’ and contributors’ abilities the best attempts to understood what the text meant and means along with showing what the text has meant through the centuries?
Why this posting? See (a), (b), and (c) in the first paragraph.
Technorati Tags: Bible
Related posts:
One of your best posts yet.
I’m always reluctant when I have any measure of disagreement with someone of Dr. Lowery’s capabilities and accomplishments, but let me offer one observation.
Isn’t there a supportig example from scripture? The four gospel writers give us (through God’s inspiration) four unique views of the ministry of Jesus. Is this fundamentally different from providing diverse exegetical focus through targeted study bibles?
Thanks for sparking the idea and opening up the conversation…
Good point, Doug. But a key point that I make is when certain study Bibles are attempting to impose a theological system on a book of the Bible or the entire Scripture that is not rooted in solid exegesis, let alone application. For example, God was not a Calvinist nor was he a dispensationalist. That may be a surprise to many. The Gospel authors contextualize the message of Jesus but do not impose a theological system or application that would not reflect the author’s original intended meaning, something that is often done in either the exegetical notes or the application notes.
You mean God’s not a white, mid-western, conservative, republican?
I see what you mean. One of my oldest Bibles is a Scolfield study bible and on nearly every page is a reference to his particular dispensational understanding.
Thanks, Doug, for the interaction! I wonder if God listens to much talk radio as well!
I don’t want any of us to miss an important point you raised about the gospels. Our God is a cross-cultural God and that is why we have four gospels. Often when I teach an overview of the four gospels either here or abroad, I ask people: What gospel would you use to lead someone to Christ and help that person grow in Christ? One gospel may be especially appropraite for one group or person. I have a series of lessons entitled “Four Gospels, One Gospel.”
One more thing. One of the first study Bibles I was ever given was a Scofield and it marred my understanding of Scripture for many many years. For example, if you look at the notes on the Sermon on the Mount, the reader is told that Matt 5-7 is meant for the millennium (or something to that effect) and not for today! Wow!
Thanks for visiting the site.
Bob,
Don’t know if you have seen this, but IBS has come out with a TNIV that has all chapter, verse, and subject headings removed. It’s called The Books of the Bible. They even have reordered the canon, putting Luke-Acts together and Samuel-Kings. Finally, a Bible that helps the reader understand a text in its context!
http://www.thebooksofthebible.info
So what is the answer? Which gospel would you use to lead someone to Christ?
I’ve always directed people to start with John if they are new to Jesus and Bible study. It seems to be written with the least “assumed.”
Do you have a different perspective on the best “gateway” gospel?
There are “answers” to my question, depending upon where and whom. If I were talking about becoming and being a disciple of Jesus in Romania, I would use Mark because of the intense opposition to the Christian faith. If I were conversing with a Jew (I am currently doing this with a Rabbi in Israel), I currently cannot use the NT because he won’t recognize it, but I can use the OT because that is Scripture to him. Perhaps someday I can introduce him to Matthew because of his use of the OT. I have found Matthew an intriguing Gospel to share with college students because of his five blocks of teaching material (5-7, 10, 13, 18, 23-25). You need to know a bit about the person you are attempting to disciple. Our country is cross-cultural more and more.
Thanks, Doug Welch, for the heads up. You know for years I have been suggesting we study Scripture without chapter and verse divisions. What is the website for IBS? How do I get a copy?
Biblical Christians should beware of the TNIV. Several evangelical pastors and scholars have expressed their concerns over the innaccuracies found in the TNIV text due to their stance on creating a “gender-inclusive” translation of the Bible. You can find more info here…
http://www.genderneutralbibles.com/./tnivconcerns.php
Dr. Lowery, Thanks for the post. I’ve often wondered myself why we can’t take the “hyphen” out of Christianity. Paul put it best, I think, in Galatians when he wrote “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Is it possible, in American society, to just be a Christian? Or are we destined to be separated by man’s titles?
I’ve had a Scolfield Bible for around 40 plus years now. It has helped me a greatly. What do you think of the King James version and its origin? Would like to know your thoughts on how accurate it is.