Not Recommended Reading: How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Part 2)

Having discovered the authors' biases early on in a book written to help others learn how to read the Bible profitably was disheartening, nor were those first two errors all that proved to be at fault. After erroneously championing the idea that man has a sinful nature and insisting that women have the right to preach and teach over mencontrary to 1 Timothy 2:8-15the authors continue to challenge other Biblical principles.

Texts

The authors weigh in on the subject of ancient texts but avoid dealing with anything controversial. They claim that the New King James, for example, "is based on poor, late manuscripts" (40), after which they imply that the New Revised Standard and the New International Versions are superior. Well, that's balderdash. After looking at a few examples of variations in translation, they conclude that, for Bible study "you should use almost any modern translation other than the KJV or the NKJV" (43, emphasis theirs). Is that right? The KJV of 1611 is considered a modern translation? Really? Furthermore, it is the opinion of this writer, after having read all the major translations (most of them more than once), that the New King James is the best translation available today.

The authors do not go into a controversial passage like Mark 16:9-20, which would reveal that the manuscripts that the NIV and the NRSV are severely flawed. The original RSV omitted Mark 16:9-20 from the text and put it into a footnote. Later editions restored it to the text due to the protest over its exclusion. The NIV includes it in the main text, but they put in a note that makes it clear they do not think it belongs. The fact is that it does belong; the two manuscripts which omit it (Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are the ones that are poor texts. The authors are remarkably silent on this subject.

So, instead they use as examples verses in which the variations do not really matter one way or the other. The first one they select is 1 Samuel 8:16 (40). They claim that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew text) has a better, more parallel translationthat Saul would take "the best of your cattle and your donkeys," instead of "your finest young men and your donkeys." The Septuagint may have a better text there, but not all modern versions use it. Some keep "fine young men" in the text and list "cattle" as an alternative in the footnote.

But what the authors did not share with their readers was the preceding portion of the verse where human beings are listed. Saul would take "their menservants and maidservants." Fine "young men" is a natural transition between servants and the animals to come. The need for a parallel is not needed in this instance. Besides, it makes sense that Saul would conscript young men to be soldiers. So which is the correct translation? It doesn't really matter, since both are correct. But Mark 16:9-20 matters a great deal.

The authors' second example involves a better criticism from Mark 1:2; the NKJ went with the King James, but all other translations have "Isaiah the prophet" instead of "the prophets." 1 Corinthians 6:20 is another legitimate case where the verse in the original Greek appears to not have included the words, and in your spirit, which are God's (a statement which is true). The New King James translators should have followed suit with all the other translations, but they did not. They did call attention to the differences in a footnote, however, but they probably do not belong in the text. These three examples do not prove the superiority of the NIV or the NRSVespecially when those translations possess serious deficiencies (41).

The Fruit of the Vine

We are passing over several statements about interpreting the Scriptures that seem strange in that most others have not taken such a view in order to get to more fundamental matters, such as the ridicule offered by the authors in this sentence.

Or else it is even argued that "wine" really meant "grape juice"although one wonders how that could have happened when Welch's processing and refrigeration were not available! (76).

How could men writing a book on interpreting the Scriptures be so ignorant? Are these not men who have studied Biblical issues? Have they never heard of the classic work, Bible Wines, written by William Patton, available since 1874? It's still available from Amazon.com; had they read it, they would not have made such an embarrassing blunder. Before Welch's, the ancients had four ways of keeping the juice of the grape from fermenting.

Hair

They say that, when men began wearing their hair long, Christians protested it based on what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:14: "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?" They did not analyze the passage; their response was to point out: "Yet most who quoted this textallowed for Christian women to cut their hair short (despite v. 15)" and "did not insist on women's heads being covered in worship" (76). This is the tu quoque fallacy, which argues by saying, "OK, I'm wrong, but so are you." Scriptures should not be examined this way.

Plurality of Elders and Enrolled Widows

The authors claim that 21st century Christians put their own traditions into the text, and they actually point out that few congregations today have a plural leadership as Paul required when he told Timothy to appoint "elders in every city" (Titus 1:5). They even go so far as to say Timothy was not the pastor, which is correct (77). Yet their point seems to be that the way the modern church has changed these things is all rightbased on the same tu quoque fallacy. They also point out that most churches today do not have widows enrolled, as discussed in 1 Timothy 5.

Well, why is that? In the first century, a man probably didn't leave his widow a $100,000 life insurance policy. She probably did not receive social security or funds from her husband's pension plan. They did not have Certificates of Deposit, stocks, or an investment firm. However, if a woman had none of these, the principles of 1 Timothy 5 would still apply.

Nothing has changed in society to justify a one-man pastor system. God's organization involved having neither a board to govern a congregation or a pastor. Two or more men must do soif they meet the qualifications; they are called elders, bishops, pastors, overseers, shepherds, or presbyters. The system may have been changed over the centuries by societal custom, but God never authorized a different pattern than the one found in the New Testament. The authors do not seem to object to that having been done.

Infant Baptism

Again, Fee and Stuart seem to think infant baptism is an optional matterinstead of trying to get to the truth. They write:

It comes as a total surprise to some believers when they find out that other Christians find support for infant baptism in such texts as 1 Corinthians 1:16; 7:14; or Colossians 2:11-12 (77).

First, it ought to be noted that the authors call both sides in the matter "believers" and "Christians." They are wrong because the New Testament does not authorize infants or anyone else to be "sprinkled." Second, it ought also to be noted that the word translated "baptism" refers always to immersion and never to sprinkling. Fee and Stuart know this fact, although they do not acknowledge it.

So, what about the claims? Paul said he baptized the household of Stephanus (1 Cor. 1:16). Supporters of infant baptism also use the household of Lydia (Acts 16:15). This is supposed to be proof that infants were baptized even though not one such child can be found in either passage. The argument is built upon an assumption that a household must have infants in it. Why? Are there not households whose youngest children are teenagers? Such an argument contains nothing logical and has no merit.

The second alleged "proof" cited was 1 Corinthians 7:14, which does not mention either baptism or salvation. The third passage was Colossians 2:11-12, which ironically mentions baptism as a burial rather than a sprinkling. Paul's point is that, for the Christian, we have a circumcision made without handsat baptism. Presumably the argument would go, "Since they circumcised male infants on the eighth day, then infants in the Christian system may also be baptized."

However, this misses the whole point. Sometimes when two things are compared, all the points are not parallel. Paul is possibly answering the Judaizing teachers, who had taunted, "Christianity has no circumcision." Paul replies, "Why, yes it does. And it occurs without hands when the body of sins is cut off" (or removed) by the blood of Christ.

Notice, however, the differences. In Israel, the practice was performed upon male infants. Baptism that makes one a Christian is for both males and females. Israelite circumcision was performed whether or not the baby co-operated or had any inkling of what was going on. No one can become a Christian in that way. Disciples must have faith in the working of God, which eliminates infants and children from being baptized. None of these alleged arguments remotely undermine the truth taught in the Scriptures. The reader must ask why Fee and Stuart seem to care so little about truth.

The Perfect

Once again, the Pentecostal theology of at least one of the authors (Fee) shows through when discussing 1 Corinthians 13. They lament that people think the perfect which will come cannot be the completed New Testament.

But this is the one thing the text cannot mean because good exegesis quite disallows it. There is no way Paul could possibly have meant this; after all, the Corinthians did not know there was going to be a New Testament (78).

The text means precisely the thing the authors refuse to admit, but why do they rail against it? One or both of them are Pentecostals, and they will not permit any interpretation of the Scriptures that goes against their theology. They either speak in tongues themselves or have close friends who dotherefore the text must mean something else. This is precisely the wrong way to read the Bible for all its worth.

In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul explains to the Corinthians that love is better than the spiritual gifts they so highly prized in two ways. The first is that love excels the gifts in quality (their intrinsic worth). The second way love is superior to the gifts involves permanence. The gifts shall be done away while love always abides. How do the authors know that the Corinthians had no knowledge of a future compilation of all the inspired Scriptures? Paul writes that it was in part but would be perfect (complete or whole). They could understand that.