Reading the Bible Apologetically: A New Paradigm

Unless one has been in a coma for 30 years or cloistered away from human contact for decades, you know that secularism has had a major impact on Western Civilization. From the rise of the new atheism, to popular skepticism, to same-sex marriage, to post-modern nihilism, secularism has become the dominant default setting for many, if not most, Americans. As a result, Christianity and biblical morality have become counter-culture. The same Christian Faith that once dominated Western Civilization and brought incalculable progress to humanity is now seen as an impediment to “progress,” being viewed as a narrow-minded relic of bygone superstitions.

What has the Church done in response? Progressive churches surrendered, employing the dictum “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” Progressive Christians have become like a chameleon that attaches to the culture and changes color as the culture changes. Progressives have tried so hard to identify with the non-Christian and the secularist that they are now indistinguishable. The legacy of this approach can be seen in the dwindling congregations of mainline denominations who rally around the amorphous cry for “social justice” but somehow forgot about evangelism. It is a worthy endeavor to give a cup of cold water in Jesus’ name, but progressives have left out the part about “in Jesus’ name,” where social justice is also an evangelistic opportunity. Once cannot divorce Christianity from a life-transforming message of salvation offered by the grace of God through the finished work of Christ on the cross. Any effort to do so denies the essence of why Jesus came to earth, and substitutes a palliative, “feel good” religion for true conversion.

Conservative Christians, in stark contrast, often act like the proverbial ostrich that sticks its head in the sand. A heightened awareness of the impact of secularism on society has lead many evangelicals to circle the wagons and develop a “victim” mentality. When it dawns on the believer that society no longer holds Christians in the high regard it once did, there are two primary courses of action: (1) Get back to the biblical command to evangelize, making disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20), or (2) retreat from society, creating Christian ghettos where Christians feel safe from those dangerous non-Christians. A vast number of conservatives have chosen the latter, creating their own dictum of “if you can’t beat ‘em, separate from ‘em.” The effect is similar to the parents who keep their only child locked up in the attack for his own good, to protect him from the evils that lurk out in the world. When the poor lad is finally discovered, he is an underdeveloped, raving lunatic whose potential was destroyed because of the fear of the parents. In the same manner, the new monasticism that Christian isolation has created is neither healthy for the insulated believers, nor does it help those outside the walls who need the Gospel message.

The first step of fixing a problem is the awareness that there is a problem. The insular tendencies of average church people can be changed to comport with the biblical commands to “Go into all the world” (Matthew 28:19). A radical change in thinking and action would be ideal, but realistically, even small changes can get the church back on track. Years ago when I was a partner in a boat we kept in Newport Harbor in California, I enjoyed the occasional opportunity to motor to Catalina Island 26 miles off the coast. It was a one-hour and 40-minute trip at about 16 knots, and all I had to do was set the compass to 210 degrees once we left the mouth of Newport Harbor to reach Avalon Harbor on Catalina. What if I would have decided to use a trajectory of 209 degrees? I would have missed Catalina entirely. Even a one-degree change in course will result in a new destination. This is lesson for turning the church around—even a slight change can have a significant impact.

So, how may Christendom collectively return to a biblical model of engaging the secular society rather than isolating from it? How about starting with the way we read the Bible (for those Christians who don’t read the Bible, that is your starting point—start reading Scripture to learn what God desires of us). Many Christians read the Bible devotionally, seeking a closer relationship with the Lord. This is a great practice, but if one’s life is absorbed with the “inner life,” how does that help those around us who need to hear the Good News about Jesus? It doesn’t. Thus, here is a radical idea, in addition to reading the Bible devotionally, how about reading it “apologetically?” Let me explain.

First, although many believers are aware of what “Christian Apologetics” is, there are still many whose eyes glaze over at the mention of the term. I’ve begun using a substitute term—“intelligent faith”—in order to help people understand what we are talking about. “Intelligent faith” is descriptive of what apologetics is, namely a belief that is rooted in facts and reason. Apologetics comes from a legal term, apologia, that was used in the ancient courts in Athens to describe a lawyer’s defense of his position using evidence and logic. Peter uses the word apologia, when he says that Christians should “be ready at any time to make a defense of the hope that we have in Jesus.”  How is the Gospel of Jesus defended? By presenting reasons why it is true, e.g., we have a reliable record of what Jesus said and did, eyewitness and primary source accounts, etc.  

Back to reading the Bible apologetically. When I come to a passage such as Matthew 9:2-9, the account of the healing of a paralyzed man (also recorded in Luke chapter 5 and Mark chapter 2), there are many “takeaways” from the story—Jesus can heal, Jesus has the authority to forgive sin, others’ faith can have an impact on us. But when we analyze the text, we find skeptics who did not think Jesus could forgive sins. How can a skeptic be convinced of Jesus’ spiritual authority? Jesus told the paralyzed man “Your sins are forgiven.” But anyone can make that claim. Jesus could have tried to bolster his claim to forgive sins by saying, “I swear I can forgive sins.” But such a self-serving declaration has little, if any, evidential value. If someone is known to be an honest person, a claim without any supporting evidence might still be believed by some, but skeptics want more—usually empirical (“testable, verifiable”) evidence.

With the crowd watching Jesus provided the evidence needed, first asking the skeptics, “which is easier to say—‘Your sins are forgiven’ or ‘Rise up and walk?’” It is easier to say “Your sins are forgiven” because no one can prove or disprove whether sins were forgiven, since “forgiveness” is something that happens in the unseen, spiritual realm. Thus, Jesus adds, “So that you may know the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins,” he tells the paralyzed man, “Rise up and walk.” With all eyes on him, the man got up and walked. Jesus performed a visual, verifiable miracle to back up His claim that He can forgive sins. For the skeptics observing this, it was now reasonable to conclude that Jesus could, indeed, forgive sins, because He provided them with miraculous evidence of His healing ability. In fact, it would be unreasonable for them to continue to doubt Jesus’ ability to forgive sins after seeing the miracle.

Thus, the apologetic takeaway from the account of Jesus healing the paralytic is that Jesus used evidence to support His spiritual claims. This fact becomes more significant when Jesus says He is going to die on a cross for the sins of humanity. It was not uncommon for the Romans in the 1st century to crucify people who were seen as a danger to Rome. Why is Jesus’ crucifixion any different? Primarily because of who He was (claiming to be God incarnate) and the spiritual claim He attached to His crucifixion (that He was going to bear the sins of the world). In case someone was skeptical about whether Jesus was truly going to die for the sins of the world, Jesus offered evidence as to why anyone should believe that He would bear our sins. The evidence? He claimed He was going to rise from the dead on the third day as proof that His claims and promises were true. Thus, when Jesus rose, as testified by the eyewitnesses, it was reasonable to conclude that His message and claims were true.

If we re-orient our approach to reading the New Testament and start looking for all the evidence and reasons for believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, then we will start amassing talking points that can be shared with skeptics. There are examples on virtually every page of the New Testament. For example, in the Book of Acts, chapter 17, Paul visits Athens, and is confronted by philosophers. Paul gives them evidence and reasons why they need to drop their superstitions and see that Jesus demonstrated his divinity by rising from the dead. The result was stunning—even among the skeptical philosophers, “some joined him and believed,” others “sneered,” while others wanted to hear more. Paul’s willingness to present the Gospel set him up for rejection by some, yet some believed. The fact that some will reject the claims of Christianity should not come as a surprise, since Jesus alluded to the way to life being “narrow” (Matthew 7:14). Some are not ready, and perhaps among the Athenian philosophers who wanted to hear more there were additional converts. But some “believed,” and history tells us that one of the converts, Dionysius, later became a Bishop of Athens. The Mars Hill (Acts 17) event is an example of a passage that can be read apologetically, and ideas gleaned from the passage that provide a way to present the Gospel, i.e., “evangelism,” to those we come in contact with.

I challenge you to try to read the New Testament apologetically, looking for the evidence and reasons given by Jesus and the biblical writers for believing that Jesus is the Way to God. I trust that the truth of the Gospel will jump from the pages and encourage you to step out and share the evidence when opportunities arise. And part of evangelism is being sensitive to when there is an opening to mention the evidence for why Christianity is true. The more believers who take this approach, the better the church will do in fulfilling its role in reaching the world as opposed to hiding from the world. Jesus gave us the authority and evidence we need to turn hearts and minds to Him. He also gave us the charge to engage the world with the Good News. Are you ready to change your approach to reading the New Testament by one degree so that you become more effective in reaching skeptics and the unsaved? If so, we may see a new surge of evangelism, conversion, and a restoration of the reputation of Christianity.    

NIV? KJV? If God Has Spoken...

The Bible contains words that are presented as spoken directly from God. In other places the biblical writers record what they believe God revealed directly to them. In addition, the remainder of the Bible is considered by many to be inspired by God. Thus, the Bible is often referred to as the “Word of God.”

If the Bible is the Word of God and God has spoken in the Bible, either directly or indirectly, in what language did He speak, and what exactly did He say? The Old Testament (39 books-Genesis through Malachi) was written primarily in the Hebrew language, and the New Testament (27 books--Matthew through Revelation) was written in Greek. Few people in America read Hebrew or Greek, so most rely on an English translation of the Bible. But when one compares English translations, there is a great deal of difference in the wording. Why is this, and is this a problem?

The King James Version

Most English speaking Protestants, until the last 40 years, used the King James Version. Sometimes this is called the “Authorized Version.” Let’s clear up some misconceptions. James I of England, when he ascended to the throne of a united England and Scotland in 1603, wanted his new realm to flourish. He held a conference at Hampton Court and solicited ideas to make his kingdom great. One idea that was adopted came from Puritan John Reynolds, who recommended a “fresh translation” of the Scriptures (there were several English translations available at the time). King James liked the idea and “authorized” a new translation. Beginning in 1604, more than 50 scholars worked on the translation using William Tyndale’s early 16th century English translation as a template while consulting the best existing Hebrew and Greek texts to achieve a high level of accuracy.

The early 17th century was a “high water mark” for the English language, the time when William Shakespeare completed the last of his 37 plays. There is a certain beauty in the King James Version’s style, and what is often called its “thundering diction” made it the popular choice for 350 years (although, in the early years the KJV was not an instant success—it took several decades for the translation to gain popularity).

Into the mid-to-late 20th century many people memorized Scripture using the King James Version, and many favorite Christian hymns incorporate the KJV wording. This had a unifying effect on English-speaking Protestants, since most everyone was literally “on the same page.” The biblical marching orders were the same across the English-speaking world because of the common presence of the King James Version. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (I Corinthians 14:8). Through the mid-20th century, the Scriptural sound was the familiar voice of the KJV.

The Decline of the King James Version’s Supremacy

By the mid-20th century the supremacy of the KJV began to change, slowly at first, but then at a much more brisk pace. As a result, in the 21st century the King James Version has been supplanted by more recent translations, and the unity it brought has diminished. The effects of the recent rise of modern English translations include a wholesale lack of Scripture memorization and a decline in the reverential awe that accompanied reading the KJV. It is hard to escape the conclusion that in some ways Christendom was better off when the KJV reigned supreme.

Accuracy or Readability? Competing Goals Among Translations

The first major revision of the King James Version was completed in England in 1885, and was called the “Revised Version” because it was primarily a revision of the KJV. In America scholars had some concerns about the Revised Version, and in 1901 they completed their own revision of the KJV, commonly known as the “American Standard” Version (“ASV”). The ASV was revised in a translation that was completed in 1952 called the Revised Standard Version (“RSV”). This was the first serious challenge to the KJV’s dominance among English-speaking Protestants. The RSV intended to be a clearer version while maintaining literal accuracy. The RSV was also revised, most recently in 2001 under the name “English Standard Version” (“ESV”).

In 1971 a new translation from the prevailing Hebrew and Greek texts was completed, known as the New American Standard Bible (“NASB”). The NASB uses a “word for word” translation style, resulting in a translation very faithful to the original text, although some think the “word for word” approach makes the translation too rigid. An updated version of the NASB was published in 1995.

In the early 1960s portions of Scripture were released that were not translations at all, but paraphrases. First called “Living Letters,” the Pauline Epistles were presented in simple language that reflected the theology of the paraphraser Ken Taylor. Billy Graham helped popularize the Living Letters when in 1962 his ministry first printed 50,000 copies, and within the year distributed more than 600,000 copies. Ken Taylor’s entire paraphrased Bible was completed in 1971, taking the name “Living Bible.” It was a smash hit, not only in America, but world-wide, as many people enjoyed its “readability.”    

New International Version

The New International Version (“NIV”) was published in 1978, and updated in 1984. The purpose of the NIV was to provide a modern English Bible to replace the KJV, incorporating both “word for word” and “thought for thought” approaches to translating. In 2005 a revision was released called “Today’s New International Version” (“TNIV”). Another update of the NIV was published in 2011, and it dropped the “gender-neutral” language of the 2005 TNIV. Today the NIV is the best selling English translation of the Bible, and can be found in many (if not most) churches as their “pew Bible.”

Bible Translations After the King James Version

Bible translations come in two general forms: Those translated directly from the original Hebrew and Greek texts and those intending to revise existing translations. The other category, “paraphrases,” are not translations at all, and readers should understand that the purpose of a paraphrase, as confirmed by Living Bible creator Ken Taylor, is “rapid reading” as opposed to careful studying.

Regarding translations, some try to bring out the force of the original by attempting word for word translations (e.g., NASB) while others want to also bring the out the perceived thoughts of the writers (NIV). “Thought for thought” translations sacrifice grammatical accuracy for readability and comprehension, and like paraphrases, the “thoughts” presented in the translation are dependent on the theology of the translator rather than strictly the text.

A Look Back, A Look Forward

The unifying quality the KJV brought to English speaking Protestants for 350 years has not reappeared in the NIV, NASB, or any modern translation. There is no reason to believe this will change, so perhaps we should ask whether this even matters. I believe it does.

Protestants have no Pope, so there is no unifying figure for non-Catholic and non-Orthodox believers. What unites Protestants is the Scriptures, and the view that God has spoken through the text of the Bible. Unfortunately, the formerly unifying text—the King James Version—is now largely seen as obsolete (The New King James, published in 1982, tried to update the language, with some success, while keeping the KJV’s style, including its thundering diction). Thus, there is no unified way for Bible believers to memorize or quote Scripture other than the retro reliance on the KJV. Perhaps it was necessary for some to wean themselves from solely using the Authorized Version lest they become bibliolaters. However, those who bypass the KJV and its rich heritage are missing out on the beauty of a translation that served Christendom well for 400 years.

 God has spoken. Whoever wants to read what He, His prophets and the writers of Scripture said can study the original Hebrew and Greek texts, but that is impractical for most people. A more realistic approach for those who read the Bible is to make use of more than one of the many modern translations available today. These translations may lack the beauty, unifying effect, and nostalgia of the King James Version, but they are valuable modern language versions that communicate the timeless truth of Scripture.  As we look ahead, the more people read the Bible, in virtually any version, the more people are exposed to those timeless truths. Even without the unifying effect of a common translation of the Bible, a sovereign God is able to bring about unity, as Jesus prayed in John 17:21, “That they all may be one.”

More Than A Prophet

My wife Laurie is working on her Masters Degree in Christian Apologetics at Biola University in California. One of her classmates is from Nigeria. When he found out that in November 2016 we were headed to Nigeria to teach seminar, he suggested that we visit him and that I debate a Muslim on the question of “Is Jesus God?” I agreed to the debate Sheikh Hussaini Yusuf Mabera who had written a booklet entitled “The Bible Says: Jesus is not God.” You can watch the video of the debate here.

My preparation for the debate included reading several books and scouring many websites, both Christian and Muslim, to get a feel for how to approach the topic. Although I’ve taught for years about the deity of Jesus, this was a special opportunity to speak to Muslims who have only heard what their polemicists have told them, namely that Jesus is not God, and that the Bible has been corrupted. The Qur’an has some verses that say God (“Allah”) has no Son, and that he does not share his glory with anyone. However, Islam reveres Jesus as a prophet.

My research and preparation for the debate prompted me to consider putting my findings into a book. When Laurie and I got back from Nigeria, I outlined a book with the working title More Than A Prophet, then proceeded to bury myself in my office writing text. When I came up for air a couple of months later, I had a 20-chapter book with two appendices, and roughly a 150-page book. While I was in Indonesia last mont, I put the finishing touches on the book, and now it is available through Amazon. You can find it here.

More Than A Prophet (subtitle, The Identity of Jesus from the Bible, Qur’an and Early Sources) is divided into three sections: (1) Attributes of God Ascribed to Jesus, (2) Who Jesus, His Followers and His Enemies said He Was, and (3) Questions Muslims Ask.

The book is intended to set forth the reasons why Jesus is “more than a prophet.” I argue that since both Christianity and Islam hold Jesus in high esteem as a prophet (although Christianity holds Him to be more than that), then Jesus’ words ought to be believed. I demonstrate that many of the titles and attributes (i.e., characteristics or unique qualities, such as being the “Giver of Life” and the ability to forgive sins) that both the Bible and the Qur’an say belong to God alone are also ascribed to Jesus. After documenting each example, I ask the question, “How can a title (or ability) that belongs to God alone according to the Bible and Qur’an be ascribed to Jesus if He is a mere prophet? This is my way of not only showing Christians how to demonstrate that Jesus is God, but it also puts the burden on the Muslim to explain why, over and over, Jesus is said to possess qualities that belong to God alone.

Some Muslims have been taught to say that where the Bible and the Qur’an disagree (such as on Jesus’ death on the cross and His resurrection, which Islam rejects) the Bible must have been corrupted. I cover this baseless excuse by pointing out that (1) the Qur’an makes no such claim, (2) some Muslim scholars do not accept the claim that the Bible has been corrupted, (3) the facts show that the Bible Muhammad had is the same one we have today, and, (4) the Qur’an says that God gave the Gospel (called Injil in Islam) to Christians as a guide to mankind.

When the excuse that “the Bible has been corrupted” has been taken off the table, Muslims are left to deal with the text of the New Testament, especially the Gospels (Muslims have a low view of Paul’s epistles). Using primarily the Gospels, More Than A Prophet presents a solid case from the testimony of Jesus’ followers, His enemies (which makes their testimony especially powerful) and from Jesus Himself that He is God. In addition, in order to refute the claim that it was not until the 4^th century that Christians began believing Jesus was God, I give several examples of early Christians (from A.D. 110 to ca 200) who state Jesus is God. Finally, I even present a letter from a Roman governor who acknowledged in about the year A.D. 113 that Christians worshiped Jesus as “a god.”

Since the Bible does, clearly, present Jesus as God, Muslims are taught to ask, “If Jesus is God, and He died on a cross, how could God die?” This, and several other common questions asked by Muslims about how Jesus can be God are answered in the book.

If you have an interest in understanding the Bible’s teaching about Jesus being God, or if you have an interest in knowing how to talk to Muslims about Jesus’ deity, you should find More Than A Prophet very helpful. I trust that it will answer questions for both Christians and Muslims so that the truth about the identity of Jesus will be understood and believed. Inshallah!