“I prefer a period there.” – A Tale of Personal Bible Interpretation
This post was contributed by Scott F. Ferguson at the Evangelical Church of Fairport in Rochester, NY. I am adding a link to a clip from a sermon where I heard a similar commentary to what Scott is criticizing.
Listen Here: Chuck Smith on John 9
I heard a well-known radio bible teacher a while back working through the opening verses of the 9th chapter of John. You know the story. This is the record of the incident of Jesus & his disciples encountering a man blind from birth. They ask Jesus, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (v. 2, HCSB). “Jesus answered, ‘Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.'” (v. 3, KJV)
At this point the teacher chimed in and said, “Now I believe the [KJV] translators made a mistake here. I don’t think there should be a colon after ‘parents’. I prefer a period there.” Then he went on to say how in the Greek there is no punctuation (true in the manuscripts) but that it is added for clarity (also true). By his own admission on previous occasions, however, this revered bible teacher doesn’t know Greek (at least not fluently; he knows some Greek words). Granted, I don’t know Greek either.
But I do know that those that actually work on bible translation do know Greek and that they wouldn’t just insert the colon for the fun of it. The underlying sentence structure in the thoughts in vv.2-3 must warrant punctuation like this. Right?
So I did some checking. At the end of this note are the same verses from 13 different bible versions (translations), including the KJV which the radio teacher was using and objected to.
Now, on this teacher’s side, 1 translation (the World English) out of the 13 puts a period at the end of “parents”. Why does he object to the colon?
Because this (he thinks) makes the following clause (v.3) a conclusion, and that by substituting a period for the colon the passage then reads as 2 distinct thoughts: v. 2 concludes Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ burning question about why the man they were facing was born blind, then v. 3 picks up a new thought. But why was this so important to him that v.3 not be a conclusion?
Because his theology does not allow for a God that would purposely see to it (“ordain”, “predestine”, “foreordain”, “decree”) that someone be born blind in order that God can display His own glory by working in/through that person, in spite of overwhelming biblical evidence to the contrary. But I know that this respected church leader believes that God can and does use people for His own glory. In fact, I’m pretty sure this pastor/teacher would say he himself has been used by God for His glory. But I guess for him it is only OK to be used by God if you agree to it first; it is not OK if you don’t.
We have to be so careful when dealing with the Word of God that we don’t import (eisogete) our own ideas/thoughts/concepts or image of God into the pages. I’ve done it myself, and will most certainly do it again. When our personal theology (“I think…, I prefer…”) doesn’t line up with biblical theology, we need an attitude adjustment — we need to adjust our attitude to that of Holy Writ.
“I prefer a period there.” Scary words.
————————-
13 Bible Translations
ASV: ” 1 And as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?3 Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”
HCSB: “1 As He was passing by, He saw a man blind from birth.2 His disciples questioned Him: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” Jesus answered. “[This came about]* so that God’s works might be displayed in him.”* The bracketed text has been added for clarity.
KJV: ” 1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”
NASB: “1 As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.2 And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?”3 Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.”
NKJV: “1 Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth.2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.”
YLT: ” 1 And passing by, he saw a man blind from birth,2 and his disciples asked him, saying, `Rabbi, who did sin, this one or his parents, that he should be born blind?’3 Jesus answered, `Neither did this one sin nor his parents, but that the works of God may be manifested in him;”
NIV: ” 1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3″Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.”
NLT: ” 1 As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. 2 “Rabbi,” his disciples asked him, “why was this man born blind? Was it because of his own sins or his parents’ sins?”
3 “It was not because of his sins or his parents’ sins,” Jesus answered. “This happened so the power of God could be seen in him.”
WEYMOUTH: “1 As He passed by, He saw a man who had been blind from his birth.2 So His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned this man or his parents that he was born blind?”3 “Neither he nor his parents sinned,” answered Jesus, “but he was born blind in order that God’s mercy might be openly shown in him.”
BBE: “1 And when he went on his way, he saw a man blind from birth.2 And his disciples put a question to him, saying, Master, was it because of this man’s sin, or the sin of his father and mother, that he has been blind from birth?3 Jesus said in answer, It was not because of his sin, or because of his father’s or mother’s; it was so that the works of God might be seen openly in him.”
DARBY: “1 And as he passed on, he saw a man blind from birth.2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this [man] or his parents, that he should be born blind?3 Jesus answered, Neither has this [man] sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be manifested in him.”
WEBSTER: “1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man who was blind from his birth.2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”
WORLD ENGLISH: “1 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth.2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”3 Jesus answered, “Neither did this man sin, nor his parents. But, that the works of God might be revealed in him,”
Randy,
I have read many of your posts and appreciate the time it takes for you to develop and write your thorough criticisms of the Calvary Chapel movement, but have to wonder one question. Why put so much time into tearing down, criticizing, and proving Chuck Smith will on occasion misinterpret scripture to fall into his human philosophy? He is responsible to God as to how he interprets the Word…
Chuck Smith leans blatantly Armenian, we all know that. But so do many Christians who I am pretty certain I will see in Heaven. I am a Calvary Chapel attender in Oregon and we are currently doing an exegesis of Romans and recently hit on Romans 9. Our pastor couldn’t have preached the message more Reformed if he had Calvin write it himself.
I think stereotyping the entire Calvary Chapel “denomination” is a little bit harsh personally. I am a born again Christian and attend Calvary because it is a body of believers who love the Lord, love each other, provide for the homeless, support missions, and teach the Word well.
I understand you have the freedom to write how you will and it probably makes you feel pretty good about yourself correcting a man who is the foundation of a movement which has birthed thousands of churches, but geez brother… maybe you could give it a rest for awhile and focus your efforts writing about God’s Sovereignty and spend time reaching individuals who need Jesus rather than criticizing those who are…
Blessings,
Keith
ps Your denomination isn’t without its doctrinal faults either my friend… I have one question about your denominations misinterpretations of scripture. How can you compare circumcision to baptism? NT Baptism did not replace OT circumcision and therefore infant baptism is not a Biblical mandate. In my careful study I have concluded, (and most theologians concur) Col 2 does not correlate the physical act of circumcision with baptism in the way OPC interprets it.
Just a thought…
Keith,
Thanks for spending time on the site. I don’t criticize the Calvary Chapel movement because it feels good. I criticize it because it misrepresents the God of scripture, and is a scandal in the sense of being an offense and a stumbling block that needlessly hinders serious people from considering the Christian faith and coming to Christ. While I think it’s great that someday you will go to heaven, I think it is sad that you think that is good enough reason for Christians to quit growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I know… I know… You think you are growing in grace and knowledge, and in a certain sense you are; but it’s mixed with many lies and misrepresentations of who God is, what He has declared, is doing, how he communicates and interacts with his people, what He calls his people to be doing and what He has promised for his people.
I see though that it has struck a chord for you and that you are anxious to now tear my denomination down. Unfortunately the baptism debate isn’t for those who hold to dispensationalism, am fairly comfortable with folks disagreeing and can provide a biblical answer for why I believe what I do! I too once believed what you did and understand why you believe what you do. Your system of interpreting scripture is a product of the 19th century and I don’t expect you to understand the differences between Paul’s theology and the sectarians Darby or Scofield by visiting my blog
The debate is between baptists who hold to a covenantal framework and presbyterians who hold to a covenantal framework. Col 2 is not a proof text for infant baptism and really has very little to do with the conversation. The issue is the framework for how we view the bible as a whole. Is there one people of God (gentiles grafted in and made partakers of the promises of God and heirs of Abraham?) or two separate peoples of God (one with an OT and one with a NT). Thanks for the thought though! As much as you think infant baptism is unbiblical I think your entire dispensational framework is unbiblical. Though, like many other dispensationalists I bet this is one of the first times learning that you are a dispensationalist or that there is such thing as dispensationalists, or that your denomination believes that God will return to the OT way of doing things, build a third temple and take pleasure in animal sacrifices again!
Now if I were stereotyping the entire Calvary Chapel “denomination” I would be pointing out things that happened in my own Calvary Chapel and applying it to all of them. However, you should note that the large spectrum of my writing concerns the Calvary Chapel confession of faith and creed “Calvary Chapel Distinctives” in which all Calvary Chapels must agree to in order to become one. It won’t take long to recognize that Calvary Chapel actually believes the bible contradicts itself, that Christ has left it up to man to decide what sort of church leadership model fits best for His church, that Calvary Chapel is nothing more than a reactionary movement against the early pentecostal movement and has very little to do with the Christian faith prior to the 20th century AND that the Calvary Chapel movement, as well intentioned as it was seriously lacks any sort of biblical grounding or consistent interpretation of scripture.
I find it amazing that folks like you can come on my site, write long tirades about how much you disagree with me and how I would better spend my time evangelizing or praying instead of criticizing and yet, you are full of thoughtless criticisms! Has it ever occurred to you that the kingdom of God has more to do with sitting in a prayer closet, passing out tracts and selling post-mortem fire insurance? Have you considered that loving God with all of our heart, soul, strength and MIND might also include what Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 10:5-6 “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” Has it occurred to you that unity amongst the brethren won’t occur if we all sit in our denominational bunkers and refuse to rally around the Word of God and hold one another accountable to a consistent interpretation of it? Do you realize that is why the reformed community prospers in doctrine and teaching and in spite of the differences amongst the reformed community there is a deep unity amongst the brethren? Do you realize your sectarian, modern evangelical “church” has created an anti-intelectual bubble unique to all Christiandom in all ages and has done more hindrance to the Kingdom of God than good? Do you realize the hypocrisy in your criticism against all criticism?
As for your pastor teaching through Romans 9 like “Calvin.” It really demonstrates your myopic understanding of good teaching. Do you realize that even if he were to teach the most accurate sermon on Romans 9 you and he (if he holds to all that you and Calvary Chapel does) hardly understands what he has preached? Romans 9 doesn’t stand alone in scripture, while I am doubtful you know or understand what Calvin would say on the topic he really isn’t our guide either.
In either case Happy New Year! I trust that in this year and the years to come your theology, doctrine and practice will grow more and more consistent with the word of God. Enjoy the good gifts of God and may all your feasting be to the glory of the risen King.
Something for Baptists and evangelicals to think about:
The Baptist doctrine of the “Age of Accountability” is nowhere to be found in the New Testament.
Isn’t it strange that God provided a means for the babies and toddlers of his chosen people in the Old Testament to be part of his Covenant promises but is completely silent about the issue in the New Testament?
Jesus seemed to really love the little children… but he never mentions even once, if the Baptist/evangelical view of salvation is correct, how a Christian parent can be assured that if something dreadful happens to their baby or toddler, that they will see that child again in heaven.
In the Baptist/evangelical doctrine of adult-only salvation, God leaves our babies and toddlers in spiritual limbo! A Christian parent must pray to God and beg him that little Johnnie “accepts Christ” the very minute he reaches the Age of Accountability, because if something terrible were to happen to him, he would be lost and doomed to eternal hellfire.
Do you really believe that our loving Lord and Savior would do that to Christian parents??
Dear Christian parents: bring your little children to Jesus! He wants to save them just as much as he wants to save adults! Bring your babies and toddlers to the waters of Holy Baptism and let Jesus SAVE them!
The unscriptural “Age of Accountability” is the desperate attempt to plug the “big hole” in the Baptist doctrine of adult-only Salvation/Justification:
How does Jesus save our babies and toddlers?
Gary
Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals