One of my chief ambitions in life is teaching people how to study the Bible. That may seem strange, or like something for those new to the faith but I believe the need is common. To some, it seems like a strange notion. After all, what is so complex about it? You read the Bible and accept what it says. Right?
In truth, we learn without realizing it and never ask whether the method is right or not. We learn by seeing it done. Further complicating the issue is that most Adventists (I can’t speak for those from other backgrounds who might be reading this) learn their Bible study methods through evangelists, who have to summarize and simplify and resort to quoting the texts that seem to speak most clearly (whether they mean what they’re said to mean or not).
One result is that people can string a few texts together to make a compelling point but they don’t know why another person’s similar but opposing string is wrong (besides their preference for their own string). Another result is a lack of confidence or success in studying the Bible without a prepackaged study guide.
I write from the inside. All I have written here once described me. I don’t mean to project my own experience on everyone else but I do know many people who have had the same experience. When I finally learned to study for myself, the exciting world of God’s truth opened up to me. I don’t have all the answers but, in the next few posts, I will share some of those I do have.
I just picked up a new translation called the English Standard Version. It is new enough that I have not yet seen literature to oppose it. But it will come. And I know what it will say. Regardless of the translation, it always says the same things. And it always makes exhaustive efforts to show how this new version changes the “true text” of the King James Version (starting with the assumption that the KJV is always correct). It always incites fear that this new translation is part of the New Age or similarly sinister conspiracy.
At first I was compelled by these arguments, then I learned Greek and Hebrew and began to compare translations more intelligently. I found that the King James Version doesn’t always reflect the original text most accurately. I found that the chief examples given for how the new translations undermine important doctrines (like the Sabbath or the divinity of Christ) are usually cases where the new translation is truer to the Greek or Hebrew.
Should these differences challenge us? Yes. If we are really after the truth of God, and not just trying to defend the way we always thought about it, we should be grateful for the new windows into God’s truth that these translations open.
When a new translation of Scripture hits the bookstore shelves, the Christian world should get excited about this fresh look at God’s truth. We should read with eager anticipation of new insights that escaped us before. Instead, most Christians hold fearfully to a translation made 400 years ago when English words had different meanings and a consistent translation method had not been developed.
I don’t have to wonder whose plan this was.
It is quite likely that you have been annoyed by my last post, because it seems to ignore certain texts that many consider “slam dunks” against women in ministry leadership. I have debated the merits of examining each of those texts here and decided against it for the time being. There are some good, logical arguments made from these texts and some ridiculous ones (and some of the most popular are the most ridiculous).
But the real divide between the two schools of thought is philosophical. How one interprets the words of Paul (to restrict or allow women in ministry leadership) is directly linked to how one relates to the historical contexts of these texts. Those who allow for the known cultural setting of Paul’s instructions tend to conclude that women are not timelessly excluded from ministry leadership. Those who disallow the cultural element from their equation tend to conclude that women are timelessly excluded from ministry leadership.
Keeping in mind that none of these texts commands us to regulate whether women lead (and so keeping God’s sovereignty in tact) there is still value in settling this philosophical question. It has implications for how we interpret other parts of Scripture as well.
I believe the cultural element must be taken into account. And, once again, we must be consistent in this. If we universalize Paul’s reminders to the assertive women of his day to tone it down (1 Corinthian 14:34-40), we must also universalize his similar advice to others. For instance, he told slaves to submit to their masters (see Ephesians 6:5). If we ignore the first century cultural setting that told women to be silent (unless they were prostitutes) or the chaos at the church of Corinth that Paul is addressing so we can universalize the prohibition against women leading, we must also ignore the cultural setting that allowed for human trafficking and universalize Paul’s endorsement of slavery. The same interpretive scheme produces both conclusions. We must either accept both conclusions or neither conclusion. Many other examples could be given (like excluding women from the promises of salvation because Paul uses masculine terms to express them).
Allowing for the cultural setting doesn’t excuse you from finding the guiding principles and applying God’s message to your time and place. It allows you to be confronted by the real biblical truth more fully.