Herod's troubling public promise

The story of how John the Baptist was killed is a strange story and was a part of my Bible reading today. John the Baptist did not shy away from controversy or confrontation. He has one of my favorite lines in the Bible: "You brood of vipers." It is such a colorful way to describe how he felt about the Pharisees and Sadducees coming out for baptism. He knew that they were doing it merely for the show and not because they were truly being repentant. So he called them a brood of vipers. I find it creative and intelligent. 

But that wasn't the only place that John confronted someone. He also told King Herod exactly what he was thinking as well. King Herod had married his brothers ex-wife, Herodias and John the Baptist was very vocal about it being wrong:

It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.

So Herod had him arrested and thrown in jail. While John might not have been afraid to tell Herod what he thought, you always take a risk when speaking boldly about the the king and his wife.

Herod both feared the people–they thought John was a prophet–and he actually had some fear of John himself. Herod thought that John was a righteous man and would actually take time to listen to John. Herodias, on the other hand, wanted John dead. Would it surprise you that this caused some friction between Herod and Herodias?

Turns out that Herod made a bad move. He was throwing his own birthday party and had invited noblemen, military commanders and important men in Galilee. As part of the party entertainment Herod's 12 or 14 year old stepdaughter Salome danced.

This wasn't some dance recital piece that she had been working on for the school talent show:

For when Herodias's daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests.

Herod was pleased so much and in such a way that he vowed to give Salome what ever she wanted up to half of his kingdom. It was a boastful promise and probably a figure of speech. Salome ran out to ask her mother what to ask for and Herodias said:

The head of John the Baptist.

This part of the story reads as if Herodias had put her daughter up to dancing for all the men at the party. I doubt that Herod and Herodias were winning any parents of the year awards. 

Herod was greatly troubled when Salome came back and asked for John's head on a platter:

And the king was exceedingly sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her.

Herod ended up giving Salome John's head on a platter and Salome gave it to her mom.

As depraved as Herod was, we can learn something from him. There is a lot of power in a promise made in public. These promises can work both for us and against us. We need to be careful what we promise to people. (Just ask George Bush Sr. about how making a very public promise can work against you.) We shouldn't make promises that are going to be difficult for us to keep. But they can also work for us. The power of a public promise–even if that promise is only made to one or two other people–is the very basis of how accountability works. As Christians when we are struggling with something often times it is much easier to over come those struggles with the help of someone else.

To that end I am making a public promise. The time between Christmas Eve and New Years Day is reserved for my family. This means that I am not going to be doing things that take me away from spending time with family. My wife is off that week and so this means that I will be taking that time off from blogging. So if any of you catch me breaking this promise please hold me accountable.

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Are there mistakes in your Bible translation? Part 2

Today I would like to continue dealing with Dr. Hoffman's article Five Mistakes In Your Bible Translation. You can read the first part of this series here.

As I stated yesterday Dr. Hoffman points out what he calls five mistakes in Bible translations. The three of the "mistakes" are merely part of the translation process due to the fact that translation work is not merely replacing word for word. Part of the issue is that both Greek and Hebrew grammar structure is very different than English. A Bible that strictly followed a word-for-word pattern would be–at best–very difficult to read. Dr. Hoffman also gave two examples where the wrong words were used in the translation. 

Yesterday I covered Dr. Hoffman's assertion that Isaiah 7:14 mistakenly uses the word virgin instead of young woman. This passage is very popular in the Advent season because it was quoted by Matthew in regards to the birth of Jesus. The other example of this that Dr. Hoffman talks about is his assertion that the Tenth Commandment is not saying that we should not "covet." He says:

The tenth Commandment, commonly but wrongly translated as "thou shalt not covet," illustrates how internal structure or etymology can be misleading. Like the English "host" and "hostile" that share a root but don't mean the same thing, the words for "desirable" and "take" in Hebrew come from the same root. It's the second word, "take," that appears in the Ten Commandments. But translators, not recognizing that related words can mean different things in this way, misunderstood the Hebrew and wrongly translated the text as "thou shalt not covet" for what should have been "thou shalt not take."

Dr. Hoffman doesn't go into great detail in this article but rather has a linked video (I read the transcript via Read It Later) that goes into greater depth. In that video Dr. Hoffman says:

The Hebrew verb in the 10th commandment (or, for some, the 9th and 10th commandments) is chamad. As usual, we learn what the word means by looking at how it is used elsewhere.

The clearest case against "covet" is Exodus 34:24, which has to do with the three pilgrimage holidays, for which the Israelites would leave their homes and ascend to Jerusalem. Exodus 34:24 promises that no one will chamad the Israelites land when they leave for Jerusalem to appear before God.

It's absurd to think that the Israelites were worried about leaving their land for a while because other people would then desire it. After all, other people could desire the land whether or not the Israelites were around.

So it's pretty clear that chamad doesn't mean "covet" or "desire" there.

Dr. Hoffman is exactly correct. We do learn what a particular word means by looking at how it is used elsewhere. He goes on to detail five different places where the Hebrew word Chamad (think BaCH, very hard CH from the bottom of your throat) is used. In those places he states that they support what he understands to be the meaning of the word. His understanding is that the word means "to take" and not "to covet or desire." But he ignores the thirteen other places (not counting the two places where it is used in the context of the Ten Commandments) that the word Chamad occurs. Why might he do this?

My guess is that to replace covet or desire in those passages with take would make even less sense than it does in two of his examples. These passages run counter to the point he is trying to make.

But even the passages that he cites do not actually make his point. 

In both Deuteronomy 7:25 and Joshua 7:21 Dr. Hoffman wants to replace the word "covet" with "take." But he never gives his full English translation of those versed. Based upon what he is saying in the video here are how the passages would read:

Deuteronomy 7:25 – The carved images of their gods you shall burn with fire. You shall not take the silver of the gold that is on them or take it for yourselves, lest you be ensnared by it, for it is an abomination to the Lord your God.

Joshua 7:21 – When I saw among the spoil a beautiful cloak from Shinar, and 200 shekels, then I took them and took them. And see, they are hidden in the earth inside my tent, with the silver underneath.

That just does not make sense. Dr. Hoffman states:

Just from this context, the verb could mean covet, but other than our preconceptions of what the text should mean, we see nothing to suggest that translation.

But that is exactly what we see when we look at how the word is used elsewhere.

Genesis 2:9 tells us that every tree in the garden was pleasing (Chamad) to look at and good for food.

Genesis 3:6 tells us that Eve saw that the tree produced fruit that was desirable (Chamad) for making people wise.

Job 20:20 says that an evil man with not let anything he desires (Chamad) escape from him.

Psalms 19:10 tells us that the Law of God is more desirable (Chamad) than gold or the sweetest honey.

I could go on but the point is that we do need to look at how a word is used in other places in order to get a sense of what it means. And all of these passages would not make any sense using some form of the word "take." That doesn't mean that the same word cannot mean different things at times. (That is one hot dog. That is one cool cat.) However, it seems to me to be pretty clear that Dr. Hoffman is mistaken in claiming that the Tenth Commandment is an error in translation.

I would suggest is that our understanding of what it means to covet or desire as used through out the Bible might be deficient. The usage of the word seems to convey more than merely wanting something; more than merely wanting something a lot. It seems to mean that we want something so much that we start to scheme how to get it...even if we never actually take it. And that is still a sin.

Further reading:

Here are all the places that Chamad is used in the Bible.

Are there mistakes in your Bible translation? Part 1

Over the weekend I came across the sensationally titled article Five Mistakes in Your Bible Translation on the Huffington Post website. It grabbed my attention and I decided that it was something that I must look into. So I read the article. I even read a number of the linked articles. And I have come to the conclusion that Dr. Joel Hoffman is really straining at gnats in order to make a name for himself.

The problem is that a headline like Five Mistakes in Your Bible Translation is, like most headlines, designed to grab your attention with a shocking statement. It is also not very often that the average person is going to read something about how translation work is done. So it seems to me that this particular headline was meant more to shake people's faith convictions than to convey the idea that every translation also includes some interpretation. This means that translation work is not merely a one for one word exchange. Rather it involves some judgments being made as to what a particular word or phrase means. Sometimes it is easy and other times it can be quite involved. This video is just a brief look at how it is not an easy process.

There are a few things that I would like to point out as it pertains to this particular article by Dr. Hoffman. The first thing that I must admit is that I know almost nothing about Dr. Hoffman. I have read his credentials but I am not familiar with his work or where he might fall into the overall picture when it comes to the Christian faith. The second thing is that I am in no way a Hebrew or Greek scholar. I studied each of the languages for a year in seminary and have a familiarity with the languages.

Dr. Hoffman gives five examples of these problems. There are two problems that he deals with most. The other three are merely examples of the trouble of translation work. In fact if you watch the video of the ESV translation team I linked above you will see examples of scholars doing exactly what Dr. Hoffman is saying that they don't do well enough. The problem isn't with Bible translation work rather the problem is that our language is slowly and subtlety changing. (Think about how the phrase "That is one cool cat" might be mistranslated.)

The two "mistakes" that he deals with most are also where I think he goes most astray. Let me deal with the second one first.

Dr Hoffman says:

Starting about 2,300 years ago, the Hebrew Bible was translated into a Greek version now known as the Septuagint. One shortcoming of that translation is its inattention to near synonyms. For instance, the Hebrew words for "love," "mercy" and "compassion" are frequently mixed up, because they mean nearly the same thing. Likewise, because most young women in antiquity were virgins and most virgins were young women, the Septuagint wasn't careful to distinguish the words for "virgin" and "young woman" in translation.

This is how the Hebrew in Isaiah 7:14 -- which describes a young woman giving birth to a boy who will be named Emmanuel -- ended up in Greek as a virgin giving birth. Though these facts about Greek and Hebrew are generally undisputed among scholars, the translation error remains, both because people are usually unwilling to give up familiar translations, and also perhaps because the Gospel of Matthew describes the virgin birth of Jesus by quoting the mistaken Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14.

Actually Matthew doesn't declare Mary a virgin based upon Isaiah 7:14. Matthew states that Mary was found to be with child before she had sex with Joseph and that the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit. What Matthew says is that Mary was a virgin and that it happened so that the prophecy given by Isaiah would be fulfilled. In fact, even if Isaiah did not mean to be explicit about the young girl being a virgin, it doesn't do anything to change what Matthew said. Both Matthew and Luke's telling of the events is what is important to our theology regarding the virgin birth of Christ. 

Matthew 1:18 says: 

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed (engaged) to Joseph, before they came together* she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

And Luke 1:26-34 says: 

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin**?"

How would changing Isaiah 7:14 change the meanings of these two passages? 

In short it wouldn't change a thing. 

On top of that the word used in Isaiah does not explicitly preclude the meaning of virgin. In fact we see this word explicitly referring to a virgin in Genesis 24:43 in referring to Rebekah before she married Isaac. This "error" as Dr. Hoffman put it is completely over blown and seems intended to create a stir around Dr. Hoffman's work. It also seems as if it is intended to create doubt around the validity of Scripture. While this does not answer all challenges regarding Scripture, this particular charge should not create any consternation for Christians. 

Tomorrow I will tackle Dr. Hoffman's charge that the 10th Commandment should not read "Thou shalt not covet."

Further Reading:

John Frame has a good article on the Virgin Birth of Jesus

* "Came together" means "had sex." Might this change how you hear the lyrics to the Beatles song Come Together?

** The original actually say "How will this be, since I do not know a man" which also means "had sex."

 

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Sword of the Spirit

Good friend, fellow Western grad and future super-pastor (FSP for short) Brad Kautz shared an excellent reflection on the Bible being a tool for us to use in life. In his reflection he talked about selecting the right tool for the job and I think that it is a very important thing to think about in terms of the Bible. In my small group last night we were talking about the Word of God in terms of being a sword. One of the verses that we were looking at was Hebrews 4:12:

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

We also looked at Ephesians 6:10-20 (specifically verse 17) which is talking about putting on the full armor of God which includes "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."

During our discussion we talked about how the Word of God is our only offensive weapon when it comes to Spiritual Warfare. One person shared how someone they knew that was not a Christian would always challenge them with the Bible. The non-Christian would claim to know the Bible better and would try and head off any discussion. This led us to talk about how the Bible can be misused by non-Christians (and even Christians) to make it say things that it does not really say.

In light of "FSP" Kautz's discussion on picking the proper tool for the job it is important to think about how those tools are used. One of the most important things about using a tool is to not use it in a way that it was not intended to be used. As a young lad I remember working on some sort of project where I was using one of my dad's ratchet wrenches (I really hope he is not reading this). I needed a hammer and instead of getting up and grabbing the hammer I decided to use the ratchet as a hammer. After a couple of good hard smacks the back came off the ratchet and parts started to spill out. Fortunately I was able to get them back in and while the wrench still worked it wasn't quite the same and looked obviously abused.

We do the same thing with the Bible when we start trying to bend it to say what we want it to say. We can fall into the trap of finding verses that make the point that we want them to make regardless of what the surrounding verses say. For example it is very easy to read Jeremiah 29:11:

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

And to claim that God has great plans for us. But we don't usually quote the immediately preceding verse:

For thus says the Lord: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place.

If we did then it would be clear that verse 11 doesn't really apply to us but rather it applies to the exiled Jews in Babylon. Of course that doesn't suit our desires.

The Bible is a great tool but it is just as Brad says:

And so a tool did provide me with something for reflection, although it was not a tool made by human hands and for human work, but the tool of God’s Word, provided by him, to strengthen and encourage us to serve him, to love him and to glorify him, now and forever

We need to remember that the Word of God is not a tool made by human hands and is not intended for human work. We need to take great care in handling it properly and to allow the "sword of the Spirit" be the Spirit's sword and not our own.



Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Difficult passages and the different genres of the Bible

How we should handle difficult passages can be an interesting and difficult process in and of itself. When we were dealing with the Abraham and Isaac passage in our Bible Study (part one of this discussion can be found here) someone asked a very good question.

"Can we understand this passage as a parable?"

Parables are short and simple stories that Jesus told in order to communicate a deeper spiritual or moral truth. Sometimes the story itself is very easy to understand but the meaning behind the story can be very complex. For example the Parable of the Sower found in Matthew 13 taken at a very basic meaning is fairly easy to figure out. And that is if you plant seeds in areas that are not good for growth then the seeds won't grow but if you plant the seeds in good soil then they will grow and produce well.

Jesus later explains to the Disciples that he uses parables to explain deeper spiritual meanings because it is easier for people to start with the simple truths. So when we start to investigate the deeper meaning of the parable we find that Jesus is not actually talking about farming but about how different people react to his teaching.

The thing about parables is that while they may be based in truth (there certainly are people that plant seeds), they are not tied to an actual event (Jesus was not referencing a specific person planting seed at a specific time.) So in terms of dealing with the story of Abraham and Isaac we have no indications that this story is a parable. It is a story that is told about specific and actual events.

So while it might be very tempting–and easy–to explain away the story as a parable, the passage does not allow us to do so. We have to deal with this passage in a different way than we would a parable.

But the question about how understand the story of Abraham and Isaac is an excellent one because it points out a very important fact about the Bible. It is not a singular work. It is a collection of books that were written by different authors that used very different styles of writing. On top of this the Bible uses different types or genres of writing within each book that need to be read with different lenses. There is Historical/Epic, Law, Wisdom, Prophecy, Poetry, Apocalyptic, Gospel, Parable, and Epistle/Letter. And that is not a complete list. Each of these genres are to be understood a little differently.

It is very easy to see this in the above parable example. We do not read the Parable of the Sower and think that Jesus was talking about a specific person or that he was an agricultural guru. Rather when we read it we take its meaning at face value. Jesus was communicating a truth through a story. We also see this in everyday use. If we came across a headline that said "Bears maul Packers" we would understand that headline in very different ways in different sections in the paper. We take the headline at face value. In the Sports section it has a different face value than if it were to appear above a story about a couple of animals running loose in a meat processing plant.

The same goes for the Abraham and Isaac passage. It is a very difficult story for us to understand but we have to take it at face value. It is a story about how God tested Abraham by giving him a command that seemed contrary and out of character for the type of command that God would normally give.