Do Gender Sensitive Translations Distort Scripture? Not Necessarily

Related Media

The recent flap over Bible translation has the potential to split significantly the evangelical movement by introducing a kind of litmus test of orthodoxy about how Bibles are translated. A major question is whether or not the debate is being conducted in the most focused manner possible. This essay is an attempt to look at the debate at one of its most fundamental levels, the rendering of specific, controversial texts. Almost all of the examples raised in this essay are examples that have been raised as cases where improper translation gender sensitive translation has taken place. I begin by explaining how translations differently approach such questions and describe themselves and then turn to look at examples of various types. Our question is a simple one: do gender sensitive translations distort Scripture in places where those who have concerns about such translations claim they do? Is the current dispute much ado about nothing, much ado about something, or much ado about Bible translation gone astray?

The following remarks appear in a combination of outline and text. I hope to help Bible readers sort through the recent controversies tied to the discussion of gender issues in Bible translation. This discussion is not intended as an endorsement of any version. Examples focus on the recent release of the TNIV version as that version has been the particular focus of recent discussion. But other translations also make these kind of renderings and fall within the scope of this discussion. The following remarks serve as an explanation of the issues tied to these recent controversies. The goal is that the reader appreciates the translation issues involved in the production of various Bible translations that relate to gender sensitive renderings. Both sides in this debate have good intentions: each desires to render the Bible as clearly as possible to its English speaking audience and is rightly concerned that such rendering carefully reflect the text’s meaning. That commitment to Scripture is why so much emotion has surfaced in the discussion. Clearly rendering the truth of God is the goal. Each side believes they are giving proper respect to the Word of God as God’s word to us. Examining the disputed texts one at a time helps us see if either goal is being unduly compromised.

I. ON APPROACHES TO GENDER SENSITIVE TRANSLATION

1. Two Approaches to Basic Translation Theory that Underlie the Debate

To begin with, it is important to consider how the gender sensitive translations relate to the bigger issues of translation theory. There are two fundamental approaches to translation theory as a whole (regardless of whether one is concerned to be gender sensitive in the translation or not). These are “dynamic/functional equivalence” rendering and “formal equivalence.” (1) “Dynamic/functional equivalence” means translators are trying to render the force of the passage. Here one’s goal is to be clear about the fuller meaning of the passage with concern for it making good sense in the “target” language (i.e., the language into which the text is being translated). For our versions, the target language is English, as the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic are rendered into English. The phrase “dynamic/functional” appears here because some call this approach dynamic equivalence and others call it functional equivalence, but the same thing is meant. In contrast, (2) “formal equivalence” means rendering the passage as precisely as possible in conjunction with the forms and expressions of the original language of the text. Formal equivalence means making renderings that keep the gender, number, lexical and grammatical force of the originating language as much as is possible and still be understandable in the target language. This is often labeled a “literal” translation.

In general, gender sensitive renderings tend to embrace dynamic equivalence, while those opposed to gender sensitive renderings prefer formal equivalence in translation. Sometimes lines of difference are drawn right here at the start.

But is there one type of gender sensitive translation or are there variations in how gender sensitive translations are made? The short answer is that there are variations in how gender sensitive translations are made. To really appreciate the discussion, one needs to be aware of these types of gender sensitive translations.

2. More Basic Definitions: Two Basic Approaches to Gender Sensitive Translations

Descriptively speaking, there are two basic types of gender sensitive approaches to translation: ideological gender sensitive renderings and translational gender sensitive renderings. I am presenting these two terms to describe gender sensitive renderings in order to classify clearly the variations within gender sensitive translation. These terms are not currently in common use, but they best define what is going one with these translations. They can be defined as follows:

A. Ideological Gender Sensitivity: This type of translation seeks to “degenderize” the Bible (that is remove all language that is male specific and excludes women as a result). The argument is that the Bible arose in an era of patriarchcalism (where men ruled the culture and women were seen as less than equal). In this approach even male metaphors for God and/or Jesus are changed to more neutral language (so Jesus is not called “Son of Man” but “son of a human being”).

B. Translational Gender Sensitivity: This approach renders terms to make clear the gender scope of passages, especially when they use an all-encompassing reference to man or mankind to address both men and women. So, for example, the rendering of a term that is translatable as “men” is made into “men and women” when the meaning intention or application of a passage is broad and not gender specific.

Individual translations run along a spectrum involving these two approaches. In other words, different translations may have varying degrees of each type of translation. Some are thoroughgoing in their ideological rendering. Others try to keep to a translational rendering. Some mix the two. Identifying the particular approach requires looking at how a series of texts are handled to see which type of rendering is being applied. Unfortunately most translations do not use these adjectives to describe the type of gender sensitive renderings they are employing. The reader must figure it out by examining a series of examples within the translation.

However, both these gender sensitive approaches are usually “dynamic/functional equivalence” renderings as opposed to “formal equivalence.” Nonetheless, ideological gender rendering is very different from translational gender rendering in the amount of changes it makes to surface the dynamic element in translation. Generally speaking, translational renderings are more restrictive and will make fewer changes than ideological renderings will. Dynamic equivalence translations are common today. Among the better known are the Living Bible, the New Living Translation, and Today’s English Version.

So how do gender sensitive translations describe themselves? Do these descriptions help us understand what they are attempting to do?

3. The Problem with Common, Current Terminology about Gender Sensitive Translations

Unfortunately the three normal names used today for gender sensitive translations do not necessarily reveal the type of gender sensitive translation theory applied. Common expressions for these translations today are “gender-inclusive translations,” “gender-neutral translations,” or “gender-accurate translations.” “Gender-inclusive” means that the translation has included the careful consideration of gender in making its renderings. The translation has focused itself on these passages with special attention. Often gender inclusive translations are ideological in their approach. “Gender neutral” often means that the translation has tried to be as “neutral” in the presentation of gender as possible. These translations can be of either type: ideological or translational. “Gender accurate” means that the translation has attempted to be accurate with regard to the rendering of gender. Usually this points to a translational approach. Each of these three terms (gender inclusive, gender neutral, and gender accurate) tend to show up in newspaper and periodical reports about translations, sometimes synonymously. However, these three descriptions are inadequate in classifying the translation’s approach to gender sensitivity (i.e., ideological or translational). Thus, the gender labels “inclusive,” “neutral” or “accurate” alone do not often help us understand how gender is being translated, despite the claims implied in their definitions.

What is needed is an explanation of the type of gender sensitive approach taken by the translation in question. Of these three commonly used terms (inclusive, neutral or accurate), the clearest is “gender-accurate.” When this term is used, the translator or version is claiming that the rendering is an attempt to be accurate with regard to gender issues in translation. This means that the version desires to be accurate with regard to the original intent of the text. But again to really tell what gender sensitive theory is being applied (ideological or translational) requires the examination of a series of specific examples.

Of course, one can have either goal (including accuracy) and not execute it. This is another reason why one has to look at specific passages as well as what is claimed by the translation.

As if these issues are not enough, there is the question whether gender sensitive rendering of the type we have described is even worth attempting. This is a completely different approach to the question. It adds a third approach to the discussion beyond ideological gender sensitivity and translational gender sensitivity. It is the view that gender sensitive translation should only take place within the formal guidelines of translation with a reliance on formal equivalence. It is this third view that leads into the basic dispute, but it has been a common approach to translation.

4. A Third Approach to the Question and the Nature of the Dispute

So the presence of this third approach raises the question of whether this type of gender sensitive translation should be attempted at all. This third approach argues that issues of gender should be subsumed under the formal limits of the meanings of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words used. This approach we shall call the non-gender neutral school. Those who object most strongly to gender sensitive types of translations (in either its ideological or translational form noted above) tend to prefer “formal” equivalence translation theory. The non-gender approach argues that such gender sensitive renderings should not call themselves translations at all, but paraphrases. In fact, the introductions to most translations do explain their most basic theory of translation [see section 1 above]. If they do explain themselves, then they usually will make the point as to whether they are dynamic or formal equivalent in approach. They may even address generally how they handle the issue of gender. But in doing so, they will speak of gender inclusive, gender neutral, or gender accurate to do so. These categories, as we noted in section 3 above, are not always helpful in describing what is really going on.

The non-gender approach also will acknowledge the difference between the two basic theories of gender sensitivity noted above in section 2. In general, they see translational gender sensitive renderings as far better than ideological renderings. Yet they still argue that both approaches, as a matter of translational principle, suffer from severe problems. They argue that it is better for the vast majority of individual passages and for the sake of accurate translation not to try to render passages in terms of gender sensitivity. Thus, this third school will often oppose such translation as a matter of translational principle.

The dispute on this point arises from a disagreement about whether it is wise as a matter of translation theory to render the overall scope of the passage rather than the grammar of the individual words (i.e., its gender and number). In other words, the debate is over what is gained and lost in such translations, including whether a distortion of the meaning of God’s Word results. The gender sensitive approaches argue for changing “man” to make clear the scope of the passage. Ideological renderings argue one should do this throughout translations at every level. Translational renderings argue that it should only be done in contexts where a broad intention is clearly indicated by the context. The non-gender neutral approach argues it should only be done where it is explicitly expressed in the linguistic terms. This third approach generally argues that where there is doubt, leave the wording alone. Perhaps a good example illustrating the problem in English is how we use the phrase “you guys.” In parts of the Northern and Midwestern United States, we use this term in many contexts as a shorthand when addressing both men and women. So the question is, how should one translate such a phrase if one were in the Southern United States? Should it be left as “you guys” (so non-gender neutral approach) or be rendered into “you men and women” (so the gender sensitive approaches to show its force in context). Coming to the Bible, the question for all translators is, should a translation now moving into a second language (from Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic into English) leave “man” alone (so non-gender neutral group)? (In Greek, there are four different ways to express the idea of “man,” but those terms do not always mean “adult males.”) Or should the translation make clear that the intent of the address is broad when the context may well suggest this (so the gender neutral group that is attempting a translational gender sensitive rendering)? Translators of all schools consider these translational questions and make judgments about the meaning and the context of the passage. Some say “do not ever infer a broader context in the rendering” (so most non-gender neutral groups), others “sometimes it is OK” (some non-gender neutral groups in a few places and a few translational sensitive groups), others “wherever possible” (many gender sensitive groups), others “always” (the more radical ideological gender inclusive translations).

There is a recent example that is causing much of a stir. The TNIV is attempting a translational gender sensitive rendering within its larger revision of the NIV. It is less radical in its changes than most gender sensitive translations. Most (but not all) of the committee that translated this volume are not egalitarian (i.e., they do not believe women can do everything in ministry or can occupy every office). So most of them hold more traditional, conservative views on the role of women. They appear not to have a “politically correct agenda” they are pushing, in as much as they do not make a change in every location where a politically correct text would. They simply claim that they are attempting to translate the meaning of the text faithfully. This goal was their claimed intent whether it comes to issues of gender that are changed in the TNIV or a larger number of other, mostly stylistic changes the TNIV made. Of the changes from the NIV in the TNIV, 70 percent are not related to gender issues, 30 percent are. The TNIV changes 7 percent of the NIV text, and 2 percent relate to gender renderings.

People can discuss whether the TNIV is successful or not, but questioning the integrity of those making the effort is not a good question to raise early on. No one carries a blank slate into such discussions, but one of the functions of a translation committee, which in this case also engaged in outside consultation, is to try and blunt the excessive introduction of such bias. Since those who belong to the TNIV committee have a high view of Scripture and a substantial majority of them hold to traditional views on the women’s question, it is not a given that a political agenda, conscious or unconscious, guided their deliberations. A better place to start than either side impugning motive or suggesting a subtle slippage into cultural influence is to examine the texts themselves for the translational issues these passages do indeed raise. That is what I seek to do. So a survey of the issues and some examples follow. The examples are rendered in a way that someone who does not have formal training in Greek and Hebrew hopefully can follow. Imagine yourself a translator. How would you handle texts in these contexts and render them clearly and succinctly in a translation? But before we turn to specific examples, let us very briefly consider some history of translation that indicates that this translational question is not a new one but one that has actually been around for a long time.

II. A FEW NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF GENDER SENSITIVE TRANSLATIONS IN EARLY ENGLISH AND GREEK TRANSLATIONS: THE PROBLEM IS AN OLD ONE

William Tyndale published the 1st English NT in 1526. He rendered huioi (often rendered “sons”) in Matt 5:9 as “children,” a gender neutral rendering.

In the OT, the seventeenth century KJV rendered ben (or its plural) “son” or “sons” 2,822 times, and as “child” or “children” 1,533 times, or right at 35 percent.

Hosea 2:4 gives us an example as it discusses Gomer's three children, two sons and one daughter. The Hebrew of Hos 2:4 reads translated formally, “Upon her sons also I will have no pity, because they are sons of whoredom.” Yet the KJV, ASV, NIV, and NRSV all opt for “children.” Even the LXX, dating from about 100 BC, also uses the Greek neuter term for children (Hos 2:6 LXX: tekna). Thus the principle of such translation has been around a long time.

III. MOVING TO SPECIFIC CONTEMPORARY EXAMPLES

1. Moving to Specifics about Translations: Some Observations on the Current Status of the Discussion

We have many translations today in part because different versions (1) hold various views about the amount of formal or dynamic equivalence to give to a translation. (2) They also differ in goals as to the appropriate style and vocabulary level into which to render the text. For example, children’s translations will use a simpler English and less complex vocabulary in rendering the text. (3) There also is discussion on what Greek manuscript text base they are translating. (4) Then there is the decision about how to handle the question of gender in translation.

A. It is often valuable to use a variety of translations, because no single translation is perfect. This is because translation often involves judgment on what rendering is most satisfying in a given context (regardless of gender issues).

B. Translation must be contextual, working one passage at a time and that process can ask gender specific questions about the context. A translation should not be evaluated for whether it asks gender questions but how it well it renders each of the passages in question in relationship to its meaning in context.

C. Translational options in such texts are just choices about what rendering is most adequate. Often in the decisions the translator makes there are both gains and losses in respect to the meaning. Often one either removes ambiguity in an effort to gain clarity or keeps ambiguity at the expense of clarity in order to maintain formal accuracy. The attempt is usually to get the best contextually driven meaning in the most efficient way.

D. It is often the case with any translation that individual experts in the language will prefer the way another translation renders a particular passage. This preference may include suggesting that in a given translation several passages are less than ideally rendered and could be improved.

E. It is this last point that also contributes to the number of translations we now have. It also explains the tendency of many individual versions to periodically update themselves. The translators seek to take the overall critique of their translation seriously and hope to improve it when they update it.

F. Judgments about how well or poorly a translation has accomplished its goals will differ. The success depends on how well or poorly the translators executed their goals and what their goals were. However, the same is true for those who critique translations. There is always the factor in the critique of how the critic views the translation’s goals. If the critic thinks the goals are flawed, he or she will rate the translation accordingly.

G. For careful translators the standards of evaluation are usually twofold: (1) to give careful attention to the original meaning of the text being translated and (2) to ensure that the text is clearly rendered.

2. Some Specific Examples To Consider in Thinking Through Gender Sensitive Translation

Here are some examples to walk the reader through the translation process. It shows the kind of choices one faces in terms of possible options that a translator of the Bible faces. In the cases where options exist, a dividing symbol of / is used. In other cases, the options are merely summarized. In each case, it is recommended the reader look at the few verses before and after the text in question to get a sense of the context. Now imagine yourself as a translator. How would you render these texts in their context? Read the discussions and consider the options. Then make the call. This will give you a sense of the factors a translator must weight in deciding on specific wording.

A. Genesis 1:26-27: Is the context clear that the reference to a„da„mincludes both male and female (see Genesis 1:27 and the reference to male and female)? What should be the translation at the start of the verse? Should it be God created man/mankind/human kind/humanity in his own image? Is either generic “man” or “humanity” or “human kind” is acceptable for “God created man”? Are any of these translations really wrong? Which is clearer? One might argue that for clarity the rendering of “humanity” is a better rendering in the target language to show the scope of who is created in the image of God [i.e., both male and female], since “human kind” is awkward and “man” might imply only males are meant. “Mankind” is also a solid rendering.

A claim that a„da„m has “male overtones” and thus the term must be translated “man” is linguistically naïve. Such a rendering could serve as an example of a confusion that words have a base meaning they carry in all their uses. This is major linguistic mistake. The word simply has distinct senses in distinct contexts within a range of meaning a term can possess. The restrictive claim for “man” can underexpress the text's sense in this context where male and female are explicitly invoked. A rendering of “man” with an appreciation of its generic force, however, is a good rendering of this text.

But note the claim of error in not translating this term as “man” leaves a misimpression. The misimpression is that a serious error has been committed when such is not the case. This is why examples have to be assessed one passage at a time, and claims of error have to be evaluated. Such a charge in Gen 1:27 exaggerates the meaning of the term a„da„m. It claims that inherent male headship is indicated. The claim is that a reference to “man” excludes woman or humanity, or at least minimizes such a broad reference. But how can one make this linguistic argument when the Genesis context is clear that “man” (i.e., a„da„m) in Gen 1:27 includes male and female? This claim actually may be guilty of a theological error and risks suggesting that there is an inherent maleness in the woman (since the term here describes both). This reading, supposedly orthodox, actually risks dissolving the very creative distinction of gender God built into the creation. Ironically, it is a distinction that the argument for male headship wants ultimately to protect. (In this case, the error that emerges in arguing for “man” is not intended by the translator but emerges from trying to defend a translational principle in a less than satisfying way. Many translational errors are innocent like this in their intent.) In this example, the rationale for reading the term in its most common rendering of “man” as male leads to a likely misreading of textual meaning. Other renderings are better and clearer.

A few additional cases exist where gender inclusiveness helps a translation involving a„da„m. Gen 6:7: “I will blot out a„da„m (“humanity”) whom I have created…” The allusion is to the judgment of the flood where both men and women are intended. The same applies for Gen 9:6:“Whosoever sheds the blood of a ‘human being’(a„da„m).” Thisdescribes murder, which is not limited to eliminating men.

B. Matthew 12:12: In Matt 12:12, a similar rule applies to anthro„pos, where the text reads, “how much more valuable is a human being/is a man/are people than a sheep.” Again target language clarity would suggest that human being is an excellent rendering. It keeps the singular force of the example but renders the gender force clearly. But “are people” is not a bad rendering in terms of force. This is because the reference to man is not to any individual man but as a representative of the species. Yet, in terms of clarity and smoothness, this rendering of “people” is a little awkward in terms of the parallelism between people (plural) to a sheep (singular). So overall, the clearer rendering is “a human being.”

Now some might argue that a Greek term anthro„pos can be rendered “people” when it is generic but not as “a human being,” because as a singular it retains its focus on maleness. The BDAG lexicon names such a rendering as possible for anthro„pos but it does not name this verse (p. 81, 1b). Thus, such a rendering is lexically possible here. So why not retain the singular human being here in a context where the issue is the value of a given person as compared to a sheep, not just the value of a male person? This keeps one closer to the singular, representative form of the original Greek and still renders the term in an appropriate lexical way. Walking through this example shows the series of judgments a translator wrestles with in a given text. Both gender issues and those of grammatical number are in play in this example.

C. Psalm 34:20: “The Lord protects all of his/their bones, not one of them is broken.” Does one translate singular “his bones” or “their bones”? The choice by some versions to render the singular “his” as “their” is an attempt to acknowledge that the Psalm is about the group of the righteous (see vv. 15, 17 [understood from v. 15], and v. 21), not just about one individual. The righteous are both male and female, not just male. The individualizing language of the verse is an illustration that picks up on how God defends one person, a man, as an example of how he defends any who are among the class of righteous (Jesus included, since the verse is also mentioned in John 19:36). So how does one translate this verse?

Note that either rendering “his” or “their” can work here conceptually. The advantage of the singular is that it clearly indicates the specificity of the illustration. The advantage of the plural is that it reminds the reader that a class of people is in view theologically which serves as the base behind the individual example. What is true of this one righteous person (a man whose bones are spared) is true of all who are righteous, male or female. Each rendering risks gaining and losing something at the same time. Each is acceptable, and neither is unorthodox. The mistake is to claim otherwise. Some reject a translation of “their” and claim that the individuality of the messianic prediction of John 19 about Jesus is lost, but this charge is linguistically naive. The moment one appreciates that a class of people is appealed to here in the Psalm, then it is clear that the text fits Jesus as well as one of the righteous. Messianism is not impacted by either rendering. It is true, however, that the maintaining of the singular more clearly preserves the example and more explicitly parallels the connection to the passage’s later use in John 19. As such, it might be better here to render “his.” But the other rendering is not as wrong as some suggest. The plural opts to make explicit the connection to the group of righteous. The ultimate allusion to Christ, though less obvious, also fits this “broader” rendering properly understood.

D. 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men/humankind/humanity (anthro„poi), the man/person/human (anthro„pos) Christ Jesus.” Once again the options noted are not examples of choosing a right or wrong translation. The basic translation question is, “Is the key to Jesus' role as mediator that he mediates for males or for men and women?” There also is the aesthetic need to be sensitive to the word-play in both halves of the passage involving anthro„pos. The BDAG lexicon also opts for a generic rendering (p. 81, 1d). Now here the objection has been that a rendering of “human” compromises Jesus' maleness which also is in play here. But the question is which rendering might surface more confusion — a use of generic “men” or a rendering of “humans”? Which point is more central, the redemption of humanity or Jesus' masculinity? Everyone knows Jesus was male! I'd argue again that rendering the verse humankind/human is a totally acceptable way to translate the verse. No issue of orthodoxy is present. If one also wishes to highlight Jesus' maleness, a note in the margin, common to translations, would fix the apparent oversight. Once again my argument is not that the different choices lead to wrong translations, but that to insist on only one rendering in cases like this is too linguistically restrictive, cutting the translator off from viable, and in some cases, solid translational options. Any particular rendering loses something of the full force of what is going on. In fact, in some cases, like this one, any choice ends up losing some of the overall force because of the differences between Greek and English. This situation can occur in rendering between two languages and is why translators work so hard to try to get it right and yet sometimes differ on their translation of a given text.

E. Ephesians 6:4. Might we have failed to translate this text correctly? Is it possible that our propensity to read the text as male-focused has caused us to miss the point in this verse? The BAGD lexicon notes that hoi pateres can mean “parents” (p. 635, 1a; BDAG, p. 786, 1b; citing Heb 11:23 (to„n patero„n autou); Plato, Leg. 6 p. 772b, plus a few other texts). Contextually the appeal in the previous address to the children is to honor mother and father (i.e., the parents, see Eph 6:1-2). In every other pairing in Ephesians 5:22-6:9, the same paired groups are addressed in each half of the exhortation (husbands-wives, slaves-masters). Perhaps the exhortation here is to both parents and not just the father. At the least such a rendering should be seriously considered, not rejected. On the other hand, one could argue that fathers are purposefully singled out as head of the home. So the traditional rendering also can be defended. That rendering would argue that the normal pairing as seen in the other units is broken here because of the cultural (and/or theological) expectation that men were the heads of ancient households.

Note two things about this example. First, the TNIV did not change this example. They rendered it in the traditional form, “Fathers, ….” If gender change had been an “agenda” for this translation, then this text would have been changed as well. (Interestingly, the translation did not treat all such examples the same way, as Luke 1:17 was changed from the “hearts of the fathers to their children” to the “hearts of the parents to their children.” Why one was changed and the other left alone is something only the committee can explain to us.) Second, either choice in such examples risks missing the text’s meaning (if the wrong choice is made), and the problem could exist going either way. Either Paul had parents in mind or just fathers. In this case, it is not entirely clear which is meant. This is another reason why care needs to be given to each choice — and why one should have some appreciation for the difficulty of making a choice. Here is another good candidate for a marginal note giving the option not taken in the text of the translation.

F. Hebrews 2:6 and 2:17: The issue here is how Jesus is described in his function of identifying with people. Two passages in Hebrews 2 are often discussed when the issue of gender sensitive translations is considered. Hebrews 2:6 can read, “What is man/a human/are mere mortals/the human race, that you are mindful of him/them, or the son of man/human beings/a human being/mankind, that you care for him/them?” Traditionally this passage is rendered “man” and “son of man” with singular references: “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him?” This is a solid, accurate rendering. However, are the alternatives really so wrong or so off the mark as to be a major problem?

The verse is a citation of Psalm 8, where it is the creation of humanity that is in view. The Hebrew term here for the first reference to man is ‘enosh. In the second line, the reference to “son of man” uses an idiomatic phrase that simply means “a descendant of a human.” The term is not a title in the psalm but a phrase used in parallelism to the first mention of “man” as mankind in the previous line. The psalm is not extolling the creation of males, but of humans created in the image of God, a psalm in praise of God’s act in Genesis 1. So renderings that refer to a human being would be generic of the class of humans God has created. In addition, the use of the plural where the singular is present in Hebrew simply makes explicit this generic force. Now one could honestly debate whether these alternative renderings are really better than the more traditional reading, but nothing major is lost in the alternative, other than some detail of formal equivalence in the translation. For the psalmist’s point is not the creation of males, but of humanity. At the most, what would be lost is the idea that humanity started with Adam, but this is Adam as an example of the humanity God created in his image. Ultimately Adam in God’s image refers to a creation of the male and female. It is the creation of that general role for all people, which is encased in Adam’s creation that amazes the psalmist.

What about the use of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2? Some argue that the loss of the rendering in 2:6 of “son of man” into a reference to human(s) (either singular or plural) loses an important christological element in the passage. However, this is not correct. First, as we noted, the phrase “son of man” is not a title in Psalm 2, it is a description which simply means the descendant of a man/person (i.e., a human being). Second, no where else in the New Testament does the Son of Man title for Jesus get linked to its usage in Psalm 8. Rather the Old Testament text that has christological significance and is cited in the New Testament as such is Daniel 7:13, where the term is also not a title but a description of a human figure who receives judgment authority from the Ancient of Days (a reference to God). Jesus turned the Danielic description into a title in his ministry. But Hebrews 2:6 is not yet describing Jesus. He is brought into the discussion in 2:9. He is connected to the language of Psalm 8 not at the level of the son of man phrase but as one who “for a little while was made lower than the angels,” that is, through the next line of the psalm. So the allusion back into the psalm and its overall portrait is clear enough without any appeal to the son of man phrase. Hebrews 2:6 is about the creation of humanity. So the likelihood of any christological significance in 2:6 is not great. Thus no loss of meaning is likely in the alternative rendering, even though one might be quite content with the traditional rendering as well. In fact one might make a case that a move from singulars to plurals is not necessary in this passage. A gender sensitive rendering could be made with singulars as well. What would remain is the representative use of “him” at two points in the verse. This use of the third person masculine pronoun is a perfectly good use of English and in certain contexts where it has already been established that the usage is broad, can be maintained as a generic reference, preventing some awkward English style. The previous reference to a human being that indicates humanity is male and female makes it clear that such a use of the singular is generic. The BDAG lexicon renders the text this way for 2:6a (p. 81, 1d). So one can render this text, “What is a human, that you are mindful of him, or a human being, that you care for him?” That rendering gives a good sense to the passage. However, any one of several options give a good sense for the meaning here, including “What are mere mortals, that you are mindful of them, or human beings, that you care for them?” or “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him?”

What about Hebrews 2:17? Here the text can read, “Therefore he had to be made like his brothers/brothers and sisters/humans in every respect, so that he might become a merciful high priest.” Now the question here is twofold. (1) Is the point that Jesus had to be like a male to be a merciful high priest? Or is the point that was it his humanity that lets him be a merciful high priest? It is his sharing in humanity that allows him to qualify. 2) Does a rendering that includes sisters in every respect clearly communicate in English? Although it is not technically wrong in terms of force, the inclusion of sisters in every respect can be overread in English to be saying more about the gender of Jesus than the passage intends and as such is not as clear a rendering as one might want. So a gender sensitive rendering of humans here honors the plural of “brothers” (adelphoi) yet also communicates the non-male force of the point here. As such, it is a better gender sensitive rendering, although brothers and sisters here is not wrong in terms of what it is attempting to affirm. Rather, it is less than clear. So render, “Therefore he had to be made like humans in every respect, so that he might become a merciful high priest.”

G. Acts 20:30: Here Paul is warning the Ephesian elders of the danger of false teachers arising. The issue is whether the verse should be translated, “From your own selves will arise men (andres) speaking twisted things,” or “From your own selves will arise some speaking twisted things?” The premise for translating “men” is that the bulk of teachers in the early church would have been men, especially if the reference is to false teachers arising from within the elder group, which is possible in this context. This is a good, cultural argument from the first century. The premise for the broader reference is that the point is that false teachers will emerge from within the believing community as a whole, which could mean men or women, even though it would more likely be men. This is because both men and women teach in the church, even if that is seen as women most often or always teaching only women. The reference to the “flock” in v. 30 could well point to such a broad context for this remark. That women might fit here can be seen by what did happen at Thyatira, where the false teaching of one called Jezebel later plagued the church (Rev 2:20). Thus a gender sensitive rendering here might be possible and is not misleading, if the pool of potential teachers is seen as coming from the church as a whole rather than just from elders. Here one’s choice about the scope of the context will influence the rendering. If the context is broad, looking to the whole church then the rendering is an acceptable one. The BDAG lexicon makes the point that it is possible to translate ane„r with “someone,” although they do not mention this passage in the entire entry (p. 79, 2; Rom 4:8 is an example with the previous line referring to “those whose iniquities are forgiven,” so it is likely that people, both male and female, are meant)

These examples show the kinds of decisions translators must make. In many cases they must make multiple decisions in one context with one term or phrase. In all the cases, a gender sensitive rendering was possible without diverting into a rendering that necessarily raised a major doctrinal issue. In some cases, it was a solid candidate as a preferred rendering, in a few it was not. But part of the point of the many examples is to show how the discussion is very much a case-by-case study.

One final argument remains. It is that the Greek noun for “man” (ane„r) should never be rendered “human” or in a way that includes women (either “men and women” or a generic “those”). The claim for this limitation is that there is no clear example of such usage. However candidates for such generic reference to humans or to “ladies and gentlemen” to audiences that are mixed do exist in both the Old (if one is thinking about the force of the Greek in the LXX) and New Testaments. Here one could consider Psalm 84:5, 112:1, 5. Renderings of a generic “those” (84:5) or “person” (112:1, 5) make the point that the psalm is not just praising males, but the righteous person, who in the text is called man as part of a generic class. Romans 4:8 has already been mentioned as an example. More to the point are several texts in Acts, where a broad crowd is addressed (Acts 3:11-12; 13:38; 17:22; 19:35; 21:28; 22:1; note in many of these examples how the nearest antecedent for the audience is expressed in broad terms like “the crowd” or “the people”). In each of these contexts the address appears to be to a mixed audience. So the application of the desired response is for anyone in the audience who would respond. A gender specific rendering of “men” might suggest that only the men were being addressed. Some might wish to argue for this limitation in this ancient patriarchal culture. However, it really is a point that would need specific defending, given that the application in terms of the response called for by the speaker is for the benefit of anyone who is hearing the speech. Here is a case for which our modern “you guys” being used as a shorthand form of initial address may well be the better parallel. The biblical examples in this paragraph all use ane„r. The options here again show the nature of what is being discussed by each side with reference to how to render these texts. Gender sensitive renderings in some of these cases are likely to be adequate renderings for these texts. They are neither necessarily wrong nor are they doctrinally offensive.

3. A Few Examples from the Spirit's Use of His Own Text: The Use of the OT in the NT

Here we consider some examples where Scripture is quoted within Scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What kind of things do these examples show us?

A. Acts 4:11- “This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, but which has becomes the head of the corner.” This citation of Ps. 118:22 changes the pronoun of the OT by adding a reference to “you” that the OT does not possess to drive home the fulfillment of the passage in those who reject Jesus. This kind of explanatory addition, which fits conceptually with the reading of the text is not too radical for the Spirit to perform in rendering the divine text. The claim that this is revelation so the Spirit can do it does not make the example irrelevant, since we do not wish to suggest that what the Spirit does is inherently illegitimate or misleading. These are good examples of renderings for sense (i.e., a dynamic rendering).

See also the use of Deut 32:21 in Rom 10:19, where again an explanatory “you all” is added to the text to make its force clear.

B. Three New Testament Texts Citing Old Testament Texts Show How Common This Kind of Move Is. (Note how each NT citation in the examples below is introduced by a formula looking back to what God or the human author said so the impression is that the text is being cited and quoted.) Key differences between the texts are noted in italics.

1) “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news” (Isa 52:7)

“As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news.’” (Rom 10:15)

2) “There is no fear of God before his eyes” (Psa 36:1)

“As it is written (v. 10)… , ‘There is no fear of God before their eyes (v. 18).’” (Rom 3:10, 18)

3) “Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.” (Psa 32:1)

“David says the same thing … ‘Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.’” (Rom 4:6-7)

Apparently Paul did not feel constrained by limitations in his rendering of these Old Testament texts that some have suggested for such texts. Paul makes such a move even in theologically polemical contexts where he is making a case for his view of sin and salvation — and the wording of texts is important to his argument.

C. 2 Corinthians 6:18- “and I will be a Father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” The italics in this verse show where the changes are from the OT text being noted. Note here the corporate application of the singular language of 2 Sam 7:8, 14, where the promise is expanded to include men and women explicitly. This text occurs in a context where Paul is stringing together OT citations. The original text in the OT reads: “I will be a Father to him, and you shall be a son to me.” Again Paul's text reads, “I will be a Father to you [all], and you all shall be sons and daughters to me.” Note also the inclusion of the phrase “you all” to drive home the point. Should we accuse the Spirit of gender bias by the inclusion of daughters here, or His/Paul’s move from singular to plural?

I quote Carson here because he says it so well:

Note carefully what the apostle Paul has done. He has taken the third-person singular (“he will be a son to me”) and rewritten it as a second-person plural — not only a second-person plural, but in terms that expand the masculine “son” into both genders: “you shall be sons and daughters to me.” Nor is it the case that Paul is simply citing the common Greek version — some form of the Septuagint (LXX) — without worrying too much about the details, for here the LXX follows the Hebrew rather closely. Nor can one easily imagine that Paul was ignorant of the Hebrew and LXX texts. Even the more biblically literate in the Corinthian congregation would have been familiar at least with the Greek text …. There are complex reasons why Paul can argue this way, bound up with an important typology that needs to be explored. But the least we can say is that the apostle himself does not think that Hebrew singulars must be rendered by Greek singulars, or that Hebrew “son” should never be rendered by Greek “sons and daughters.” No one, I think, would quickly charge Paul with succumbing to a feminist agenda. (The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998, p. 20)

Now it is claimed by some who want to question the relevance of this example that quotation does not equal translation. However, one should not ignore the introductory formula to this text which says “even as God said” (so Paul is explicitly citing revelation from the past in 6:16). There also is the claim to nullify the example that we have a patching together of passages here (and there is some of this earlier in the citation). However, this also is less than likely for the specific portion of 2 Samuel 7 under discussion here. The supposed patch text to get to the plurals and to the addition of daughters is Isaiah 43:6. A closer look makes this Isaiah suggestion unlikely. That verse reads, “Bring my sons from distant lands and my daughters from the remote regions of the earth.” The only reason this text is suggested as influencing the wording is the presence of sons and daughters close together. However, the theme of that verse and the intervening material make an allusion to it less than likely. This potential allusion also cannot explain the move from third person masculine singular to a second person plural inclusive of women. It also cannot explain a third person plural that is explicit in including daughters. So Paul cites and expands 2 Samuel 7:14 without feeling bothered by it, while saying God said this (not God is now saying it as a matter of current revelation). Even if the claim that one should distinguish translation from quotation is true (and it is a point to be taken seriously), the kind of move Paul makes here within the quotation proves too much. For Paul reports the text as God’s speech and yet the expansion is seen as acceptable in principle. The change is acceptable because it makes a theological point that is in line with what God is doing. Paul brings out the force of what God intended to accomplish with his promise. At the least this example shows that such a move is not a theological affront to the presentation of God’s Word or to God himself since he inspired the change.

4. Summary on the Specific Examples

These examples show that the standards are not applied within Scripture by God in as detailed a way as some might wish. The test of appropriateness in translation work may not be as confined as some suggest. At least three of the first five examples are all cases where a single passage is clearly being cited and thus translated. Now the additional claim might be that these texts are Scripture, so translation constraints do not apply to God in rendering his own Word. But the point I am making is that what God has done has a legitimacy that his actions would not violate. The Old Testament text is pointed to as something that was said and that verifies a point now being made. The legitimacy of the argument depends on the legitimacy of the reading of the textual point and its rendering. God through the Spirit appears not to be bothered by the kind of limitations some are insisting upon. So perhaps those limitations should not be elevated to quite the status some wish to give them. The plea here is not for the freedom to translate as we wish or to perform an agenda. That is clearly wrong and should be avoided. Warnings that we be careful about translation are worth hearing and taking seriously. However the plea is for the recognition that translation can be slightly open when it comes to pointing to the scope of the intended force of a text without violating the key intention of that text. (The same principle can be seen in the way God has inspired the words of someone speaking, when rendering them in parallel accounts where the same utterance is in view. Moves between second [“you”] and third person [“this”] also happen in such texts, as Matt 3:17, Mark 1:11, and Luke 3:22 show.) The plea is to allow room for what God seems to allow for within the reproduction of Scripture within Scripture itself. The standard should be both accuracy and clarity, but with an appreciation that sometimes judgments are being made and that sometimes people may get it wrong without intending to mislead.

IV. ADDENDUM: RESPONSE TO WAYNE GRUDEM’S Are the Criticisms of the TNIV Bible Really Justified? Interaction with Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, Peter Bradley, D. A. Carson, and Bruce Waltke (JBMW 7/2 [Fall, 2002]): 31-66

As part of this conference you deserve the “latest” discussion. So I respond to those points in this essay by Wayne Grudem where he questions what I have said here. First, let me note one point Grudem made that was correct. In my original draft in discussing Psalm 34:20, I made reference to John 12. Wayne was right to note on p. 51 that the text was John 19:36 and the original references were typos. I leave the others addressed in the essay to explain their views on points the essay raises about them.

I begin at a key point. Grudem asks on p. 51, “Should translation exercise “translational gender sensitivity” in order to make clear the “gender scope” of passages as I have claimed in this piece? Unfortunately in quoting my definition, he leaves a crucial detail out, especially when the issue is trustworthiness or claims of distortion of Scripture. He said correctly that my definition specified the goal of such translation as rendering “terms to make clear the gender scope of passages.” He goes on to note that I say this is especially appropriate when “passages use an all encompassing reference to man or mankind to address men and women.” However my point and definition were not so simple. I had in mind the current context of claiming that such a translation is a distortion of Scripture. My definition came with one more sentence of clarifying explanation to get at the distortion issue. It read, “So, for example, the rendering of a term that is translatable as “men” is made into “men and women” when the meaning intention or application of a passage is broad and not gender specific.” The point of this explanation in the definition is that such a rendering is not a distortion either when this is the meaning or the application is broad. That is how my definition relates to the title of my essay. Remember that dynamic equivalence aims at rendering meaning clearly and has less priority on the form of the text. This is why considering the scope of the text can be appropriate.

In “A WORD TO THE READER” (pp. vii-viii- Walking with Jesus edition), the TNIV says the following about its goal in translation. “The first concern has been the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the meaning of the biblical writers. This has moved the translators to strive for more than a word-for-word rendering of the original texts? Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, accurate communication of the meaning of the biblical authors demands constant regard for the contextual meaning of words and idioms and frequent modifications in sentence structures. In other words, the TNIV makes it clear it is a functional equivalence translation.

Grudem has two complains with my category. First, he says the term “gender sensitive” prejudices in favor of the TNIV. But this is not the case. It simply underscores the kind of translation the TNIV is and describes what its aim in translation is, in rendering the text in a functionally equivalent manner it is attempting to be gender sensitive. Really what Grudem is complaining about here is that the TNIV is not formally equivalent enough for him, and so he feels I prejudiced the case. But I will note that in writing my piece I both supported and critiqued certain TNIV renderings on the basis of the principle stated in my definition. Now Grudem’s standard for gender sensitivity is to translate “exact meanings and nuances of Greek terms and thus translates those precisely and faithfully into English.” (p. 51). Note that this is a “formal” standard and also is unrealistic in execution, as anyone who translates knows that nuances are lost in translation between two languages. In saying this, of course, what he goes on to say correctly is that we should translate as accurately as possible. This is the most sensitive thing to do. On this point we agree, but on its application we differ. Grudem prefers a tighter formal equivalent, while arguing for a very limited meaning to some “masculine” terms of the Greek. Those translations that refer more often to women while doing translational gender sensitive renderings do so because they believe that is the meaning of the text. They argue that this is the intended scope of the textual meaning with contextual justification for the move as subsequent debates over these passages have shown. Just as a text with male specific meaning when rendered gender inclusively to include women can say too much, a passage rendered on the basis of form only as male when it is intended to be generic says too little. This complaint, then, fits both sides. It is a danger each side faces when translating. This is why in determining gender scope we must go context by context, not merely appeal to a lexeme and its form. That is precisely what we have attempted to do in the above cases–make a contextual case of the scope of the passage by looking at its specific contextual features.

Grudem in his second objection to my definition says my standard is vague. However, it is because he quit reading the definition. The appeal to the meaning intention of a given passage is an appeal to context as the rest of my essay shows. He complains that no one would translate, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” to “you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or husband?” IF one is translating formally, then he is correct, but if one rendered its force, would the other rendering distort the passage? I think not. The command is uttered to promote marital faithfulness for any spouse, even though it does so formally through the example of a man. The other rendering is “freer” but is it a distortion of the intent of the passage’s exhortation? I might even agree with Grudem that I would not change the example if I were translating, but neither would I call the other rendering unfaithful to Scripture or its intent, which is the primary goal of a dynamic rendering. If the rebuttal is, but this kind of rendering is not really translating the text, then the reply is what kind of translation does it fail to be? The answer, of course, is that it is not a formal enough rendering and it fails as that. However, that is not the kind of rendering this style of translation claims to be. So should we blame a translation for failing to be what it never intended to be? So we see that this debate is less about lexical meaning than about philosophy of translation with one side arguing that only a certain kind of translational theory is faithful. This may claim too much for formal equivalence, as we have attempted to show.

In Grudem’s complaint of my willingness to accept a rendering in Psalm 34:20 of “He protects all of their bones, not one of them will be broken,” he argues that I have an unease with male examples because of current cultural influence. This impugning of motive is unfair and has a sense of divination about it. How does he know that is my concern? My concern in permitting such a rendering is that the corporate and individual dimension of the text is still retained (“their bones”- i.e., any righteous person [not just a male], “not one of them broken” [all or each one is spared]). Thus, I think the rendering is not a distortion of the text in its Old Testament context but a possible rendering of it, highlighting this corporate element, somewhat at the expense of the male specific example, but very much in line with the thrust of the psalm which addresses the righteous. In sum, distortion and untrustworthy are too strong a set of terms for such differences in rendering—and that is the key point of my essay. Interestingly, here the TNIV in rendering a probable allusion to the Psalm in John 19:36 has retained the singular referents, “Not one of his bones will be broken.”

Now to the use of the OT in the New (pp. 48-49), Grudem appeals to the fact that we all distinguish between translation and application. This is true. However, the issue we are discussing is the distortion or untrustworthiness of the Word of God. That the biblical writers can cite the scope of a text or further specify its referents in making their application is an expression of their faithfulness to the text, not a distortion of it. This response, then, is simply another complaint that some more free, translational gender sensitive translations are not formal enough for some. My reply is that we should affirm the value of both types of renderings. We recognize that formal rendering often leaves ambiguity where it exists in the expression of the text, while dynamic renderings, when carefully done, try to draw out the text’s meaning in ways that the Bible also handles itself in spots for the sake of clarity in exposition.

I regard as ad hominum Grudem’s point that if my view of the use of the OT were adopted we should simply retroject back the NT rendering into the original OT setting. Two points can be made here. The first is that the NT writers often used an inferior (“untrustworthy?”) translation vis-a-vis the original Hebrew, to make their points when they cited the LXX, often making use of its unusual wording that in spots is more “functional” equivalent than “formal” equivalent in character. It apparently was good enough for them, even though it was a vernacular edition rendered for Hellenistic Jews. Second, is that the issue we are discussing in my view is not merely how translation can and should be done, but when do we know we have distorted the Word. I would argue that such NT renderings of the OT would NOT be regarded as distortions of OT meaning even as they develop the text and its scope (often with formula that leave the impression they are citing the text!). These internal biblical examples serve as an important standard for this dialogue as discussing how translation gets done, given the key charge involves a claim of distortion for the changes in such a version.

One final point does not involve a criticism of my study but a lexical claim. It is that aner should almost always be translated men or man (A. 4 of the Colorado Springs guidelines), with the additional claim that even where aner is the equivalent of tis (see BAGD, 67, 6), aner means “someone, a person, (but always male)” (p. 59). This dispute is important because Grudem claims there is no unambiguous example of aner including a woman within its referent. In other words, it is not a generic term. If Grudem is right, then his complaint for passages where aner is used would be legitimate. But let’s understand what the overlap with tis means by looking at some examples for that term and then some other examples using aner.

In Matthew 11:27 (using tis), the verse reads, “no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone (tis- not just males) the Son decides to reveal him to.” Here tis is not gender specific but clearly generic. If aner overlaps with tis in respect to meaning as the lexicon says, what rule precludes it from carrying this generic scope? Matthew 16:13 reads, Who do people (not just males) (tina) say this Son of Man is? Again the reference is generic.

The best examples using aner broadly are Matthew 12:41 and Acts 17:22, 34. In Matthew, the text reads that “the people of Ninevah (andres Nineuitai) will stand up at the judgment.” Here the term is clearly generic. It parallels usage in Jonah 3:5. The LXX renders a Hebrew ish in Jonah 3:5 with andres when the entire people declare a fast as they repent upon hearing Jonah (more on this point later). In Acts, it is the men of Athens (andres Athenaioi) who are addressed and yet v. 34 makes it clear that one of the respondents is a woman, Damaris. Now one could argue that only men were allowed up on the Aeropagus, so the response is later for this woman, but one must also note that nothing in the context (not even kai meaning “also”) gives the impression here that her response came at a different time than that of Dionysius, one of those at the Aeropagus, or more importantly, that she is reacting to a distinct speech. Such an understanding has to be imported into the context. She is simply highlighted as one who responds. At the ETS conference in November, John Piper in effect said this was a good example.

Grudem also downplays the significance of the idiom kat’ andra, although he does recognize it as an exception. It means “man for man” or “individually” and clearly has a generic quality, but his deflection of the point that the idiom does not appear in the NT is irrelevant. What the “exceptional” idiomatic example shows is that the lexical scope of aner in certain cases can include women.

One final point needs to be made here. In the LXX, the term aner renders the Hebrew term ish, which can also be generic. This seems to suggest that in ancient usage those who used the language saw these terms are overlapping. We all acknowledge that the LXX has influenced NT expression, so this is yet another reason to be cautious about making too categorical an assertion about aner in the context of biblical Greek. In sum, there is enough evidence for aner overlapping with terms that are generic to suggest that it too can be generic when context permits it. This is the kind of evidence Grudem is asking for and deserves to have produced. My claim is that such evidence exists where a generic meaning for aner is more likely than the alternative, suggesting the category is a legitimate one for the term. Interestingly the newer Bauer lexicon under aner has the equivalent to tis category as well and has added Romans 4:8 and James 1:12 to the list as well as citing as examples Psalms of Solomon 6:1 and 10:1, where there is a mention of blessing to all who fear the Lord and pray to him and the context is about all the righteous and pious (BDAG, 79, 2).

Grudem concludes his piece [p. 63] in a way that suggests people who engage in the kind of translational gender sensitivity like that of the TNIV are intentionally or unintentionally violating God’s command in Deuteronomy 4:2, by adding to God’s word or deleting it against His will. It seems to me that the Spirit’s use of the OT in the NT shows that God’s standards in terms of communicating the meaning and scope of his Word are not as tight as this largely rhetorical, closing complaint suggests. To explain meaning by rendering the scope of a text is not to add or delete from the Word; it is to clarify what is already there — what was already intended.

V. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

1. Some Final Matters

Let us consider some final questions. First, some may ask, if this kind of gender sensitive rendering produces all of this disturbing reaction, why bother and create a problem where one did not exist? “Leave well enough alone” might be the cry. One can understand this sentiment. But the fact is the effort may teach us all to appreciate the Word better. In addition, one may reply that there is value in creating a translation that shows where the limits of gender sensitive rendering may well lie by striving for gender accuracy. One need not or should not change figures related to God as Father or Jesus as Son (or figures where God is portrayed exercising “motherly” characteristics, either). However, in texts that are written and intended to refer to people (male and female) or humans as a class addressed as “man,” it can serve the church well to make such renderings clear where they are present. This is not political correctness (though gender sensitivity in our culture may have made us more sensitive to the issue). It is an attempt to render more clearly and faithfully Scripture and its intended scope in terms of who is addressed in many texts. (A few generations ago, controversy surrounding the race issue made us all more racially sensitive. The church today has acknowledged that some of that was good for all of us, including the church). Finally, it may actually be the case that such a rendering makes the actual meaning of the text clearer in spots and helps readers read and understand the text more accurately. I do not subscribe to the view, as is often claimed by gender sensitive translations, that English has changed so much that gender sensitive renderings are necessary. But I do acknowledge that when gender sensitive rendering is done carefully, it actually helps us appreciate the meaning of the biblical text in a less potentially ambiguous way than not rendering the text with such sensitivity.

Second, one may ask, should we really be comfortable with people changing the unchanging Word of God? The question is another fair one. We need to think carefully about what inspiration affirms. Remember that inspiration applies to the original form of the Word. God’s work of inspiration applies to the production of a text. That base is what is unchanging and is what is inspired. Translations are our best attempts to render that product faithfully, but translations are not infallible or inerrant in themselves. So the effort to render the Bible more clearly is potentially a good exercise. Such renderings will inevitably have some variation in them because of the complexity and judgments involved in the translation process (as we have seen). With each new version, judgments will be made whether that version does so as well as another version. The question should be whether the translation is faithful to the inspired Word. Every person with ability in the language will surely find texts in any translation that he or she thinks could be more accurately or more clearly rendered. Those judgments will continue to be made about versions and their quality as a whole as well. However, let us be careful not to make matters appear worse than they are in evaluating these various versions and how they are attempting to do the job. What service do we perform for the church if we claim a translation is a distortion of God’s meaning and teaching when it may well not be? Without such a cloud of suspicion, let us work together to make all translations the best they can be. Translations and paraphrases each have their value as they seek to bring out the complex dimensions of the difficult task of translating God’s Word and its depth clearly. Sometimes the best way to see the whole of the depth of God’s Word is to work with a variety of solid translations. Some translations also could better serve the reader by making more effective use of brief marginal comments to make the dynamics of their translation (and potential ambiguities of the text) clearer. It is here in my judgment where most recent efforts to make a gender sensitive translation have failed us. They have not shown the unsuspecting reader clearly enough where the moves have been made so the reader can get a sense of the judgment made and what the alternative may well be. So to all translations I would urge that they use marginal notes of alternative renderings more often, particularly in cases where there is serious uncertainty or dispute about the rendering. It is here that the NET Bible has done readers a great service by providing detailed notes and explanations of renderings. I am not arguing for such detail in other versions, but at the key places where translators know there are matters where discussion arises.

Finally, I wish to address the “inaccuracy” lists that are currently circulating about certain translations. They make a point to say that hundreds of inaccuracies are present. They leave an impression that a serious problem exists and that the Word of God has been badly distorted. One should realize, however, that what is taking place on such lists is that a few basic classes of changes are being examined and listed. Usually such lists will have six to ten basic categories to examine. Since the translation in question has made such changes as a matter of translational theory, one change will lead to several changes of the same type throughout the Bible. Thus lists that speak of hundreds of errors are only as legitimate as the accuracy of the claim that a given class or classes of changes should not be made. Our list of passages above has covered a variety of these kinds of changes. We have discussed the use of “man” as generic, the shift from singular to plural, and changes in pronouns between renderings. These are key categories in the discussion. We have suggested that none of them is necessarily wrong as a matter of principle and that each text should be taken one at a time. Each translation needs to be examined for the changes in question. It would be best to let each translation speak for itself if they supply such explanations, as well as checking such lists before making a judgment. However, the issue is not the number of inaccuracies such lists raise because the number will always be high given that many texts fall into such categories. The real issue is whether the basic categories they discuss are really as problematic as suggested.

These exercises in working with specific texts help the reader grasp the issues by taking one through the process one must undertake to translate. Having seen some key examples, one can make a better judgment as to whether such gender sensitive translation is necessarily problematic in rendering the sacred Word of God. One can also keep in mind what factors one must weigh in coming to a decision about the debate and about the proper rendering of the biblical text. Such a test shows that many of the problematic examples are not so problematic after all, while in a few cases good questions have been raised about specific renderings. The result is that we have more than much ado about nothing, but we do not have a case of Bible translation gone astray. As with any translation we have a series of passages that need careful attention, one text at a time.

2. A Plea

Let's not make an issue of orthodoxy from something that Scripture itself seems to treat with some freedom. Let's acknowledge what we are doing when we translate. Let's distinguish between attempts to render with gender accuracy for translational reasons from other efforts which more clearly try to distort the meaning of the text on clear ideological grounds. Such ideological renderings are worthy of harsh criticism. It also might help that when translations make a rendering in this direction that they supply in the margin the alternative wording, so readers who are concerned about the details can appreciate the nature of the rendering and be aware of the judgment the translator made. This can be done with very brief marginal notations giving the alternative as is often done in modern translations.

So in sum, does gender sensitive translation distort the Scriptures? Not necessarily. Let's let translators do their job and not unnecessarily restrict their translational options in bringing out the text’s meaning. Let’s keep them accountable to being accurate to the Word, but do so with an appreciation of the difficulty and complexity of their task. If I may paraphrase, their work is hard enough without adding burdens to them that our fathers, the writers of Scripture, did not bear.

Three Books and One Article that Discuss the Issues

If you wish more detail on the basic principles of this dispute than I can trace here, see the following books and article. The books by Carson and Strauss defend the possibility of certain kinds of gender sensitive translations as a matter of translation theory. The book by Poythress and Grudem argue that most of what such translations do is flawed, even though in principle it holds to the possibility of such rendering. The article by Grudem responds to pieces for gender sensitive translation by a variety of authors in light of the most recent TNIV controversy. These works are not listed in any order of preference, but in alphabetical order. All the writers are evangelicals who hold a high view of scriptural inspiration (i.e., inerrancy). All also hold to traditional views on the role of women in the church.

Don Carson, The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (Baker)

Wayne Grudem, “Are the Criticisms of the TNIV Bible Really Justified? Interaction with Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, Peter Bradley, D. A. Carson, and Bruce Waltke” (JBMW 7/2 [Fall, 2002]): 31-66

Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem, The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy (Crossway)

Mark Strauss, Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy (InterVarsity Press)

Profezie Messianiche

Related Media

Introduzione

Una delle prove che autenticano l'ispirazione della Bibbia, la quale allo stesso tempo autentica le dichiarazioni di Gesù Cristo quale il Figlio di Dio e unico Redentore del mondo, sono le molte profezie adempiute le quali trovano il loro adempimento nella persona e nella vita di Cristo, Gesù di Nazareth. Noi abbiamo nelle Sacre scritture, una lista di profezie che si estendono su centinaia di anni e ancor di più, trovano il loro completo adempimento nel breve tratto di vita di un trentenne, Gesù di Nazareth molti dei quali si sono adempiuti in un giorno. Queste profezie veramente completano gli scopi degli scrittori dei Vangeli nel loro focalizzare attentamente sulla persona, parole, ed opere di Cristo.

“Ma queste cose sono state scritte affinché voi crediate che Gesù è il Cristo il Figlio di Dio e affinché, credendo, abbiate vita nel suo nome.” (Giovanni 20:31)

“Ma tutto questo è avvenuto affinché si adempissero le Scritture dei profeti». Allora tutti i discepoli, lasciatolo, se ne fuggirono.” (Matteo 26:56)

Allora egli disse loro: «O insensati e tardi di cuore a credere a tutte le cose che i profeti hanno detto! Non doveva il Cristo soffrire tali cose, e così entrare nella sua gloria?». E cominciando da Mosè e da tutti i profeti, spiegò loro in tutte le Scritture le cose che lo riguardavano. (Luca 24:25-27)

Poi disse loro: «Queste sono le parole che vi dicevo quando ero ancora con voi: che si dovevano adempiere tutte le cose scritte a mio riguardo nella legge di Mosè, nei profeti e nei salmi». (Luca 24:44)

Le seguenti venticinque profezie del Vecchio Testamento, trattano gli eventi intorno la crocifissione di Gesù Cristo incluso il Suo tradimento, prova, morte e sepoltura. Esse furono emesse da più bocche in un periodo di 500 anni, e poi tutte si adempirono in ventiquattro ore, il giorno in cui Egli morì per i peccati del mondo.

Profezie Relative
la Crocifissione di Cristo

1. Venduto per trenta pezzi d'argento

Profezia: Zaccaria 11:12 Allora dissi loro: «Se vi pare giusto, datemi il mio salario; se no, lasciate stare». Così essi pesarono il mio salario: trenta sicli d'argento.

Adempimento: Matteo 26:14-15 Allora uno dei dodici, di nome Giuda Iscariota, andò dai capi dei sacerdoti, e disse loro: «Quanto mi volete dare, perché io ve lo consegni?». Ed essi gli contarono trenta sicli d'argento.

2. Tradito da un Amico

Profezia: Salmi 55:12-14 Poiché non è stato un mio nemico che mi ha schernito, altrimenti l'avrei sopportato; non è stato uno che mi odiava a levarsi contro di me altrimenti mi sarei nascosto da lui. 13 Ma sei stato tu, un uomo pari a me, mio compagno e mio intimo amico.Avevamo insieme dolci colloqui e andavamo in compagnia alla casa di DIO. (Vedi anche Salmo 41:9; Zacc. 13:6).

Adempimento: Matteo 26:49-50 E in quell'istante, accostatosi a Gesù, gli disse: «Salve, Maestro!». E lo baciò caldamente. 50 E Gesù, gli disse: «Amico, cosa sei venuto a fare?». Allora essi, accostatisi a Gesù, gli posero le mani addosso e lo presero.

3. I soldi gettati al Vasaio

Profezia: Zaccaria 11:13 Ma l'Eterno mi disse: «Gettalo per il vasaio, il magnifico prezzo con cui sono stato da loro valutato». Allora presi i trenta sicli d'argento e li gettai nella casa dell'Eterno per il vasaio.

Adempimento: Matteo 27:5-7 Ed egli, gettati i sicli d'argento nel tempio, si allontanò e andò a impiccarsi. 6 Ma i capi dei sacerdoti presero quei denari e dissero: «Non è lecito metterli nel tesoro del tempio, perché è prezzo di sangue». 7 E tenuto consiglio, comprarono con quel denaro il campo del vasaio, come luogo di sepoltura per i forestieri.

NOTA: Da notare che sia nella profezia che nell'adempimento, troviamo affermato che (1) era argento; (2) c'erano 30 pezzi (Matt. 27:3); (3) loro furono gettati; (4) furono gettati nella Casa di Dio; e (5) i soldi furono usati per acquistare il campo del vasaio.

4. I Discepoli lo Abbandonarono

Profezia: Zaccaria 13:7 «Dèstati, o spada, contro il mio pastore e contro l'uomo che è mio compagno», dice l'Eterno degli eserciti. «Colpisci il pastore e siano disperse le pecore; poi volgerò la mia mano contro i piccoli

Adempimento: Matteo 26:56 Ma tutto questo è avvenuto affinché si adempissero le Scritture dei profeti». Allora tutti i discepoli, lasciatolo, se ne fuggirono.

5. Accusato da falsi Testimoni

Profezia: Salmi 35:11 Testimoni spietati si levano contro di me e mi domandano cose delle quali non so nulla.

Adempimento: Matteo 26:59 Ora i capi dei sacerdoti, gli anziani e tutto il sinedrio, cercavano qualche falsa testimonianza contro Gesù, per farlo morire, ma non ne trovavano alcuna; sebbene si fossero fatti avanti molti falsi testimoni, non ne trovarono. Ma alla fine vennero avanti due falsi testimoni

6. Ricevette Percosse e Sputi

Profezia: Isaia 50:6 Ho presentato il mio dorso a chi mi percuoteva e le mie guance a chi mi strappava la barba, non ho nascosto il mio volto all'ignominia e agli sputi.

Adempimento: Matteo 27:30 Poi, sputandogli addosso, presero la canna e con quella lo percotevano sul capo.

NOTA: Da notare i particolari che corrispondono sia nella profezia che nell'adempimento (1) Egli doveva essere percosso, (2) Egli venne percosso sulla faccia (così come sulle altre parti del corpo). Vedi Luca 22:64. (3) Egli doveva ricevere sputi, e (4) e ricevette sputi in faccia.

7. Muto davanti ai suoi accusatori

Profezia: Isaia 53:7 Maltrattato e umiliato, non aperse bocca. Come un agnello condotto al macello, come pecora muta davanti ai suoi tosatori non aperse bocca.

Adempimento: Matteo 27:12-14 Accusato poi dai capi dei sacerdoti e dagli anziani, non rispose nulla. 13 Allora Pilato gli disse: «Non odi quante cose testimoniano contro di te?». 14 Ma egli non gli rispose neppure una parola, tanto che il governatore ne fu grandemente meravigliato

8. Ferite e Lividi

Profezia: Isaia 53:5 Ma egli è stato trafitto per le nostre trasgressioni, schiacciato per le nostre iniquità; il castigo per cui abbiamo la pace è caduto su di lui, e per le sue lividure noi siamo stati guariti.

Adempimento: Matteo 27:26,29 26 Allora egli liberò loro Barabba; e dopo aver fatto flagellare Gesù, lo diede loro, perché fosse crocifisso. . . . 29 E, intrecciata una corona di spine, gliela posero sul capo e gli misero una canna nella mano destra; e, inginocchiandosi davanti a lui, lo schernivano dicendo: «Salve, o re dei Giudei!».

9. Cedimento sotto la Croce

Profezia: Salmi 109:24 Le mie ginocchia vacillano per il digiuno e il mio corpo si è fatto magro per mancanza di grasso.

Adempimento: Giovanni 19:17 Ed egli, portando la sua croce, si avviò verso il luogo detto del Teschio che in ebraico si chiama Golgota Luca 23:26 Mentre lo conducevano via, presero un certo Simone di Cirene che veniva dai campi, e gli misero addosso la croce, perché la portasse dietro a Gesù.

NOTA: Evidentemente il Signore era così debole che le Sue ginocchia cedettero sotto il peso della pesante croce. Quindi dovettero farla portare a qualcun altro.

10. Mani e Piedi Forati

Profezia: Salmi 22:16 Poiché cani mi hanno circondato; uno stuolo di malfattori mi ha attorniato; mi hanno forato le mani e i piedi.

Adempimento: Luca 23:33 E quando giunsero al luogo, detto del Teschio, là crocifissero lui e i malfattori, l'uno a destra e l'altro a sinistra.

NOTA: Cristo fu crucifisso nella consueta maniera Romana e, le mani e piedi vengono forati da punte enormi per assicurare il corpo alla croce di legno. Vedi Giovanni 20:25-27 “ . . . Se io non vedo nelle sue mani il segno dei chiodi, e se non metto il mio dito nel segno dei chiodi e la mia mano nel suo costato . . . Poi disse (Gesù) a Tommaso, metti qua il dito e guarda le mie mani, stendi anche la mano e mettila nel mio costato; ” ecc.

11. Crocifisso coi Malfattori

Profezia: Isaia 53:12 Perciò gli darò la sua parte fra i grandi, ed egli dividerà il bottino con i potenti, perché ha versato la sua vita fino a morire ed è stato annoverato fra i malfattori; egli ha portato il peccato di molti e ha interceduto per i trasgressori.

Adempimento: Marco 15:27-28 Crocifissero pure con lui due ladroni, uno alla sua destra e l'altro alla sua sinistra. 28 Così si adempì la Scrittura che dice: «Egli è stato annoverato fra i malfattori».

12. Prayed For His Persecutors

Adempimento: Luca 23:34 E Gesù diceva: «Padre perdona loro perché non sanno quello che fanno». Poi, spartite le sue vesti, le tirarono a sorte.

Qui Gesù, come previsto da Isaia, “ha interceduto per i trasgressori” che lo inchiodarono alla croce.

13. La Gente Scosse la Testa

Profezia: Salmi 109:25 Sono diventato per loro un obbrobrio; quando mi vedono scuotono il capo

Adempimento: Matteo 27:39 E coloro che passavano di là lo ingiuriavano scuotendo il capo,

14. La Gente lo Derise

Profezia: Salmi 22:8 dicendo: «Egli si è affidato all'Eterno; lo liberi dunque, lo soccorra, poiché lo gradisce».

Adempimento: Matteo 27:41-43 Similmente, anche i capi dei sacerdoti, con gli scribi e gli anziani facendosi beffe, dicevano: 42 «Egli ha salvato gli altri e non può salvare se stesso, se è il re d'Israele, scenda ora giù dalla croce e noi crederemo in lui; 43 egli si è confidato in Dio; lo liberi ora, se veramente lo gradisce, poiché ha detto: io sono il Figlio di Dio.

15. La Gente Attonita

Profezia: Salmi 22:17 posso contare tutte le mie ossa; essi mi guardano e mi osservano.

Adempimento: Luca 23:35 E il popolo stava là a guardare, ed anche i magistrati col popolo lo beffavano, dicendo: «Egli ha salvati gli altri, salvi se stesso se veramente egli è il Cristo. l'eletto di Dio».

16. Le Vesti Spartite e Tirate a Sorte

Profezia: Salmi 22:18 Spartiscono fra loro le mie vesti e tirano a sorte la mia tunica.

Adempimento: Giovanni 19:23-24 Or i soldati, quando ebbero crocifisso Gesù, presero le sue vesti e ne fecero quattro parti, una parte per ciascun soldato, e la tunica. Ma la tunica era senza cuciture, tessuta d'un sol pezzo da cima a fondo. 24 Dissero dunque fra di loro: «Non stracciamola, ma tiriamola a sorte per decidere di chi sarà»; e ciò affinché si adempisse la Scrittura, che dice: «Hanno spartito fra di loro le mie vesti, e hanno tirato a sorte la mia tunica». I soldati dunque fecero queste cose.

NOTA: Che esattezza la profezia inspirata! Gli indumenti erano da spartire fra loro, ma la tunica sarebbe stata tirata a sorte. Queste furono asserzioni dall'apparenza quasi contraddittoria a meno che vengano spiegate dalla registrazione della scena alla croce.

17. Il Grido per il Suo Abbandono

Profezia: Salmo 22:1 <<Al maestro del coro. Sul motivo: La cerva dell'aurora. Salmo di Davide.>> Dio mio, Dio mio, perché mi hai abbandonato? Perché sei così lontano e non vieni a liberarmi, dando ascolto alle parole del mio gemito?

Adempimento: Matteo 27:46 Verso l'ora nona, Gesù gridò con gran voce dicendo: «Elì, Elì, lammà sabactanì?». Cioè: «Dio mio, Dio mio perché mi hai abbandonato?».

18. Gli fu Dato Fiele e Aceto

Profezia: Salmi 69:21 Mi hanno invece dato fiele per cibo, e per dissetarmi mi hanno dato da bere dell'aceto

Adempimento: Giovanni 19:28-29 Dopo questo, sapendo Gesù che ogni cosa era ormai compiuta, affinché si adempisse la Scrittura, disse: «Ho sete». 29 Or c'era là un vaso pieno d'aceto. Inzuppata dunque una spugna nell'aceto e postala in cima ad un ramo d'issopo gliela accostarono alla bocca.

19. Rimise se stesso a Dio

Profezia: Salmi 31:5 Nelle tue mani io rimetto il mio spirito; tu mi hai riscattato, o Eterno, Dio di verità

Adempimento: Luca 23:46 E Gesù, gridando con gran voce, disse: «Padre, nelle tue mani rimetto il mio spirito». E detto questo, rese lo spirito.

20. Gli Amici Stavano a Distanza

Profezia: Salmi 38:11 I miei amici e i miei compagni stanno lontani dalla mia piaga, e i miei vicini si fermano a distanza

Adempimento: Luca 23:49 Ma tutti i suoi conoscenti e le donne che l'avevano seguito dalla Galilea se ne stavano a distanza, osservando queste cose.

21. Nessun Osso Spezzato

Profezia: Salmi 34:20 Egli preserva tutte le sue ossa, e nessuno di esse è spezzato.

Adempimento: Giovanni 19:33,36 33 ma, arrivati a Gesù, come videro che era già morto, non gli spezzarono le gambe ... 36 Queste cose infatti sono accadute affinché si adempisse la Scrittura: «Non gli sarà spezzato alcun osso».

NOTA: È interessante notare che altre due profezie, riguardanti le Sue ossa ebbero indubbiamente un adempimento esatto, anche se ciò nella Scrittura non è asserito con svariate parole. Possiamo tirare le nostre conclusioni da una inferenza onesta. (1) Salmi 22:14 “tutte le mie ossa sono slogate”. Appendendo sulla croce per mani e piedi,facilmente si slogherebbero le ossa, specialmente quando ricordando che il corpo fu appeso alla croce mentre giaceva in terra. (2) salmo 22:17 “posso contare tutte le Mie ossa.”; Fu appeso alla croce nudo (Giovanni 19:23) e tutte le Sue ossa così poterono essere viste facilmente. Per il fatto che la trazione del corpo e gli spasmi del tormento della crocifissione farebbero le ossa più prominenti del solito.

22. Il Cuore Rotto

Profezia: Salmi 22:14 Sono versato come acqua, e tutte le mie ossa sono slogate il mio cuore è come cera che si scioglie in mezzo alle mie viscere.

Adempimento: Giovanni 19:34 ma uno dei soldati gli trafisse il costato con una lancia, e subito ne uscì sangue ed acqua.

NOTA: Il sangue e l'acqua che fuoriescono dal lato forato, presentarono un'evidenza che il cuore era letteralmente scoppiato.

23. Il Suo Fianco Trafitto

Profezia: Zaccaria 12:10 «Riverserò sulla casa di Davide e sugli abitanti di Gerusalemme lo Spirito di grazia e di supplicazione; ed essi guarderanno a me, a colui che hanno trafitto faranno quindi cordoglio per lui, come si fa cordoglio per un figlio unico, e saranno grandemente addolorati per lui, come si è grandemente addolorati per un primogenito

Adempimento: Giovanni 19:34-37 ma uno dei soldati gli trafisse il costato con una lancia, e subito ne uscì sangue ed acqua. 35 E colui che ha visto ne ha reso testimonianza e la sua testimonianza è verace, ed egli sa che dice il vero, affinché voi crediate. 36 Queste cose infatti sono accadute affinché si adempisse la Scrittura: «Non gli sarà spezzato alcun osso». 37 E ancora un'altra Scrittura dice: «Volgeranno lo sguardo a colui che hanno trafitto».

24. Oscurità su tutta la terra

Profezia: Amos 8:9 In quel giorno avverrà», dice il Signore, l'Eterno, «che io farò tramontare il sole a mezzodì e oscurerò la terra in pieno giorno.

Adempimento: Matteo 27:45 Dall'ora sesta fino all'ora nona si fecero tenebre su tutto il paese.

NOTA: Gli ebrei calcolavano dodici ore dall'alba al tramonto. Questo fa si che la sesta ora era circa mezzogiorno, e la nona ora circa le tre del pomeriggio.

25. Seppellito nella Tomba del Ricco

Profezia: Isaia 53:9 Gli avevano assegnato la sepoltura con gli empi, ma alla sua morte fu posto col ricco, perché non aveva commesso alcuna violenza e non c'era stato alcun inganno nella sua bocca,

Adempimento: Matteo 27:57-60 Poi verso sera giunse un uomo ricco di Arimatea, di nome Giuseppe, il quale era pure discepolo di Gesù. 58 Costui si presentò a Pilato e chiese il corpo di Gesù. Allora Pilato comandò che il corpo gli fosse consegnato. 59 E Giuseppe, preso il corpo, lo avvolse in un lenzuolo pulito; 60 e lo mise nel suo sepolcro nuovo, che egli si era fatto scavare nella roccia; poi, dopo aver rotolato una grande pietra all'ingresso del sepolcro, se ne andò.

Profezie del Vecchio Testamento
Relative alla persona di Cristo

1. La Sua Prima Venuta

Il Fatto: Gen. 3:15; Deut. 18:15; Sal. 89:20; Isa. 2:2; 28:16; 32:1; 35:4; 42:6; 49:1; 55:4; Ezec. 34:24; Dan. 2:44; Mic 4:1; Zacc 3:8.

Il Tempo: Gen. 49:10; Num. 24:17; Dan. 9:24; Mal. 3:1.

La Sua Divinità: Sal. 2:7, 11; 45: 6-7, 11; 72:8; 102:24-27; 89:26-27; 110:1; Isa. 9:6; 25:9; 40:10; Jer. 23:6; Micah 5:2; Mal 8:1.

Di Umana Generazione: Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 21:12; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; 2 Sam. 7:14; Sal. 18:4-6; 50:22-23; 89:4, 29-30; 132:11; Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5; 33:15.

2. Il Suo Precursore

Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1; 4:5.

3. La Sua Nascita ed i Suoi Primi Anni

Il Fatto:Gen. 3:15; Isa. 7:14; Jer 31:22

Il Luogo: Num. 24:17, 19; Mic 5:2

Adorato dai Magi: Salmo 72:10, 15; Isa. 60:3, 6

Sceso in Egitto: Osea 11:1

Il Massacro degli innocenti: Ger 31:15

4. La Sua Missione ed Ufficio

La Missione: Gen. 12:3; 49:10; Num. 24:19; Deut. 19:18; Sal. 21:1; Isa. 59:20; Ger. 33:16

Sacerdote come Melchisedek: Salmo 110:4

Profeta come Mosè: Deut. 18:15

Conversione dei Gentili: Isa. 11:10; Deut. 32:43; Sal. 18:49; 19:4; 117:1; Isa. 42:1; 45:23; 49:6; Osea 1:10; 2:23; Gioele 2:32.

Ministero in Galilea: Isa. 9:1-2

Miracoli Isa. 35:5-6; 42:7; 53:4

Grazia Spirituale: Sal. 45:7; Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 53:9; 61:1-2

Predicazione: Sal. 2:7; 78:2; Isa. 2:3; 61:1; Mic 4:2

Purificazione del Tempio: Sal. 69:9

5. Il suo Scopo

Rigettato dai Giudei e dai Gentili: Sal. 2:1; 22:12; 41:5; 56:5; 69:8; 118:22-23; Isa. 6:9-10; 8:14; 29:13; 53:1; 65:2

Persecuzione: Sal. 22:6; 35:7, 12; 56:5; 71:10; 109:2; Isa. 49:7; 53:3

Entrata Trionfale in Gerusalemme: Sal. 8:2; 118:25-26; Zacc. 9:9

Tradito dal suo Amico: Sal. 41:9; 55:13; Zacc 13:6

Tradito per Trenta Pezzi: Zacc. 11:12

Morte del Traditore: Sal. 55:15, 23; 109:17

Acquisto del campo del Vasaio: Zacc 11:13

Abbandono dei Disepoli: Zacc 13:7

False Accuse: Sal. 27:12; 35:11; 109:2; Sal. 2:1-2

Muto sotto le accuse: Sal. 38:13; Isa. 53:7

Beffe: Salmo 22:7-8, 16; 109:25

Insulti, Colpi, Sputi, Flagelli: Sal. 35:15-, 21; Isa. 50:6

Pazienza Durante la Sofferenza: Isa. 53:7-9

Crocifissione: Sal. 22:14, 17

Offerta di Bile e Aceto: Sal. 69:21

Preghiera per i Nemici: Sal. 109:4

Grido sulla Croce: Sal. 22:1; 31:5

Morto prima del Tempo: Sal. 89:45; 102:24

Morto con i Malfattori: Sal. 53:9, 12

Morte attestata dagli Sconvolgimenti della Natura: Amos 5:20; Zacc 14:4-6

Spartizione delle Vesti: Sal. 22:18

Ossa non Spezzate: Sal. 34:20

Forato: Sal. 22:16; Zacc 12:10; 13:6

Morte Volontaria: Sal. 40:6-8

Sofferenza Vicaria: Isa. 53:4-6, 12; Dan 9:26

Seppellito col Ricco: Isa. 53:9

6. La Sua Risurrezione

Salmo 16:8-10; 30:3; 41:10; 118:17; Osea 6:2

7. La Sua Ascensione

Salmo 16:11; 24:7; 68:18; 110:1; 118:19

8. La Sua Seconda Venuta

Salmo50:3-6; Isa. 9:6-7; 66:18; Dan 7:13-14; Zacc. 12:10; 14:4-8.

Dominio Universale ed Eterno: 1 Chron. 17:11-14; Sal. 72:8; Isa. 9:7; Dan 7:14; Sal. 2;6-8; 8:6; 110:1-3; 45:6-7

J. Hampton Keathley III, Th.M. laureato nel 1966 al Seminario Teologico di Dallas e primo pastore da 28 anni. Hampton scrive attualmente per la Fondazione Studi Biblici e occasionalmente insegna il Greco del Nuovo Testamento al Moody Northwest (un ramo dell'istituo Moody Bible) in Spokane, Washington.

Related Topics: Christology, Prophecy/Revelation

English

Il Peccato Insito come Inimicizia verso Dio: Ulteriori Considerazioni

Introduzione

Nel primo e secondo capitolo abbiamo imparato che, secondo Romani 7:21, il potere del peccato nei credenti e` tuttora grande, cosi` grande che l'apostolo vi si riferisce come a una legge. Il peccato insito lavora costantemente in ogni Cristiano, specialmente quando il Cristiano ha deciso di ubbidire, ed e` puramente per merito della grazia di Dio che la sua forza puo` essere neutralizzata. E sebbene esso [cioe` il peccato] non abbia, per cosi` dire, un dominio legale su di essi [cioe` i Cristiani], tuttavia avra` potere su alcune cose in loro.³⁴ Pertanto, come legge insita, esso ha una certa misura di dominio e capacita` di provocare. Esso continua a perseguire la sua opera persino nei cuori piu` santificati! Credere diversamente e` avere un'idea sbagliata sia riguardo alla vostra esperienza che riguardo alle Scritture, e vivere nell'illusione.

Stabilite le fondamenta con principi generali nel primo e secondo capitolo, Owen comincia a dare, nei capitoli dal terzo al quinto, principi specifici riguardo al modo di operare del peccato insito. Nel terzo capitolo egli afferma che il peccato risiede nella cittadella della natura dell'uomo, vale a dire il suo cuore. E poiche` il cuore e` imperscrutabile e piu` ingannevole di qualsiasi altra cosa, e` li` che il peccato ha un grande potere. Nel quarto capitolo Owen ha dato un altro principio particolare per aiutare a capire perche` il peccato ha un cosi` grande potere nei credenti: essendo esso pura inimicizia verso Dio, pervade l'intero nostro essere e si oppone alla totalita` di Dio`. Esso e` universale nella sua presenza dentro di noi e nel suo operare contro Dio, infetta la totalita` dell'anima, e odia tutto cio` che Dio e`.

Arriviamo ora al quinto capitolo. Questo capitolo puo` essere suddiviso in tre parti essenziali. Primo: Owen fornira` ulteriori prove del fatto che il peccato e` inimicizia verso Dio stesso. Questo risultera` evidente nella sua costante avversione (cioe` odio e ripugnanza) verso Dio sia nelle emozioni che nella mente. In questo consiste il terzo principio particolare di Owen (avendo visto il primo principio nel terzo capitolo e il secondo principio nel quarto capitolo). Secondo: che il peccato sia inimicizia verso Dio puo` essere visto negli svariati modi in cui esso si oppone a Dio. (Owen trattera` questo elemento nel prossimo capitolo). Terzo, e finale: Owen fornisce cinque modi per prevenire l'avversione indotta dal peccato.

Una Dettagliata Discussione dell'Argomento del Quinto Capitolo

L'Inimicizia del Peccato Ulteriormente Provata nella sua Avversione verso Dio

Riesaminando, Owen dice due cose. Primo: il peccato insito odia Dio ed e` in opposizione alla totalita` di Dio in ogni cosa che facciamo. Non possiamo accingerci ad alcun bene spirituale, senza trovare il peccato pronto a bloccarci.

Ogni avversione verso l'impegno che mira a ottenere la comunione con Dio; ogni apatia verso l'impegno; ogni carnalita` o impegno solo formale, scaturiscono tutti da questa radice... Hai un qualche dovere spirituale da compiere e hai intenzione di raggiungere una comunione con Dio? Osservati, tieni d'occhio le tue propensioni: esse cominceranno a svolazzare e girovagare, e questo grazie alla loro avversione verso cio` che tu hai in mente... Ti sara` permessa un'esteriore, fisica presenza all'adorazione verso Dio, in cui non c'e` interesse, ma il cuore sara` mantenuto molto distaccato.³⁵

Secondo: e come richiamo, Owen si riferisce a quelle persone che affermano di essere completamente libere dalle lotte contro il peccato insito. Egli considera questa cosiddetta liberta` una finzione che puo` essere fondata sull'ignoranza della propria reale condizione (essi sono cioe` nell'oscurita` e non nella luce), oppure essa sorge da un cuore non-rigenerato che non conosce ne` Cristo ne` il potere del peccato insito (perche` il peccato non si preoccupa di loro).

Pertanto, in cio` che segue, Owen ha realmente a cuore coloro che conoscono Cristo veramente e la loro esperienza con il peccato insito durante la pratica dei loro doveri spirituali.

Avversione nelle Emozioni

L'inimicizia del peccato insito verso Dio si manifesta ripetutamente e costantemente nelle nostre emozioni, specie nei momenti in cui cerchiamo di avvicinarci a Dio. Forse queste emozioni in qualche modo diminuiscono quando lo Spirito di Dio e` tremendamente su di noi ma, nella maggior parte dei casi, possiamo vedere questa avversione nelle nostre anime anche quando amiamo Dio, vogliamo obbedirLo e ci rivolgiamo a Lui in comunione. Sfortunatamente ci lasciamo spesso andare a queste sensazioni e veniamo in questo modo distratti dal nostro dovere di avvicinarci a Dio. Owen dice che, mentre a volte queste inclinazioni contro Dio sono segrete, altre volte non lo sono affatto:

si`, qualche volta ci sara` una violenta inclinazione opposta, tanto che l'anima preferirebbe fare qualsiasi cosa, accetterebbe qualunque diversivo, piuttosto che applicarsi vigorosamente a fare quello a cui l'uomo interiore aspira, sebbene cosi` facendo si ferisca. E` stanca ancor prima di cominciare e dice: 'Quando sara` finito questo lavoro?'... E` una grande conquista fare cio` che vorremmo, sebbene siamo molto lontani dal fare cio` che dovremmo.³⁶

Avversione nella Mente

La legge del peccato si trova anche nella mente. A questo proposito ci viene comandato da Dio di rivolgerci a Lui con parole di supplica per il nostro caso e discutere con Lui riguardo a cio` che Egli ha in mente. Owen cita qui tre testi a supporto del suo argomento.

Giobbe 23:4 Esporrei davanti a Lui il mio caso e riempirei le mie labbra di ragioni...

Isaia 43:26 Fammi ricordare cosa accadde! Discutiamo! Provami tu che hai ragione!

Osea 14:2 Ritorna dal Signore e pentiti! Digli: Perdona completamente la nostra iniquita`; accetta la nostra preghiera di penitenza, cosicche` possiamo offrirTi, invece di tori, il sacrificio di lode delle nostre labbra.

Cio` che Owen vuole dimostrare da questi testi e` che, quando ci rivolgiamo a Dio in preghiera, le nostre menti dovrebbero essere ricolme dei pensieri di Dio stesso riguardo a noi e alla nostra condizione (come pure la Sue promesse e il ricordo di come Egli si e` comportato con noi in passato). Dovremmo essere pronti a trattare con Dio personalmente quando ci rivolgiamo a Lui, in accordo con le verita` su cui abbiamo meditato e con cui Dio si e` rivolto a noi piu` di recente. Spesso pero` noi cominciamo questo processo di implorante meditazione, perche` di questo si tratta in realta`, solo per sprecarlo a meta` percorso. E` vero che molti Cristiani rimangono infantili nella loro fede perche` non hanno mai imparato a trattare privatamente con Dio in questo modo, ma la loro ignoranza non e` la radice del problema. Al cuore di tutta la materia c'e` invece il peccato insito. Alla fine, la loro apostasi puo` essere causata da un terribile peccato che ha orribilmente macchiato le loro coscienze, oppure da una graduale negligenza nei loro doveri di comunione con Dio. Riguardo a quest'ultima, Owen commenta:

E questo e` stato l'inizio dell'apostasi di molti professori e la sorgente di molte insensate, indulgenti , opinioni. Trovando nelle loro menti e propensioni quest'avversione verso l'intimita` e la costanza dei loro privati doveri spirituali e non sapendo come conquistare e prevalere contro queste difficolta` grazie a Colui che ci rende capaci, essi sono stati inizialmente indotti a una certa negligenza, prima parziale, poi totale, di questi doveri, finche`, avendone perso completamente la consapevolezza, essi hanno lasciato una porta aperta a ogni peccato e licenziosita` e, pertanto, a una piena e totale apostasi.³⁷

Ancora una volta la causa di questa apostasi e` il potere e l'ingannevolezza del peccato insito. Quando ci lasciamo andare alle spinte del peccato, gli forniamo maggiore forza. Se non stiamo cercando di mortificare il peccato, gli stiamo infatti permettendo di conquistarci. Non esistono vie di mezzo, perche` il peccato vive in noi per soggiogarci. Lasciarlo in pace, vuol dire lasciarlo crescere.

L'inimicizia del Peccato e` Ulteriormente Evidenziata dalla Sua Opposizione verso Dio

Owen trattera` a lungo di questa verita` nel prossimo capitolo. La citiamo qui per amore di completezza, in quanto egli ha iniziato questo capitolo commentandola. Proseguiamo a esaminare cinque modi in cui Owen dice che possiamo trattare l'avversione che il peccato produce in noi.

Cinque Modi Di Prevenire gli Effetti della Legge del Peccato

Mantieni l'Anima in uno Stato di Santita` Universale

Il principio fondamentale riguardante il prevenire e il trattare con il frutto e gli effetti dell'avversione causata dal peccato insito, e` di mantenere l'anima in uno stato di santita` universale. Cio` che Owen vuole dire con questo principio e` semplice: dobbiamo mantenere purezza e liberta` dal peccato in tutto cio` che facciamo, sia esso privato o pubblico, perche` il permettere l'esistenza del peccato in un'area, significa dargli l'opportunita` di infettare ogni area. Ci deve essere un'armonia nella nostra obbedienza. Il risultato della santita` universale e` il generale indebolimento del peccato insito e quindi della sua avversione (cioe` odio e repulsione) nelle propensioni e nella mente.

Poiche` questa [cioe` l'ubbidienza universale] indebolisce l'intera legge del peccato, altrettanto fa con tutte le sue caratteristiche, e particolarmente con questa avversione... Un rispetto universale per tutti i comandamenti di Dio e` l'unico modo di preservarci dalla vergogna, e non c'e` nulla di cui abbiamo motivo di vergognarci maggiormente, se non dell'abortire nei nostri cuori cio` che siamo chiamati a fare...³⁸

Sforzati Di Prevenire l'Avversione Fin Dai Primi Segnali

Ci e` stato insegnato dall'apostolo Pietro di vigilare in preghiera (1 Pietro 4:7), cioe` assicurarci che nulla, dall'interno o dall'esterno, ci impedisca effettivamente di pregare. E cosi` come vigiliamo in preghiera, altrettanto dobbiamo fare con qualunque altro dovere. Dobbiamo essere vigili nel prevenire la tentazione, cosi` come dobbiamo esserlo contro l'avversione causata dal peccato. Quando esso solleva la sua odiosa testa; quando vediamo la sua disgustosa attitudine verso Dio e verso la santita`, specialmente quando cerchiamo di fare il bene (come lo chiama Paolo), usiamo allora tutte le grazie ³⁹ che conosciamo per tagliarlo fuori.

Cosi` come non dobbiamo dare spazio a Satana, altrettanto dobbiamo fare con il peccato. Se non lo si previene ai suoi primi tentativi, esso prevarra`. Voglio dire che, quando vediamo che il peccato ci impedisce di fare qualunque bene dobbiamo fare, come dice l'apostolo [Paolo]... non permettiamogli, mediante una vigorosa, santa e aggressiva pratica della grazia, o delle grazie, che vanno agite e messe in atto particolarmente in quel dovere, di confabulare con l'anima e insinuare il suo veleno nella mente e nelle propensioni. ⁴⁰

Non permettere ad Alcuna Avversione di Prevalere fino alla Conquista

Il nostro primo principio riguardava la crescita e lo sviluppo di uno stato di santita` nella nostra obbedienza verso Dio. Nel secondo principio abbiamo visto che, nel fare questo, dobbiamo prevenire persino i primi segnali di avversione verso Dio e verso la Sua volonta`. Ora veniamo al terzo principio associato. Se vediamo che l'avversione sta cominciando a operare in noi e tenta di trattenerci dal praticare i nostri giusti doveri verso Dio, impediamole di assicurarsi la vittoria. Dobbiamo fare questo con diligenza per evitare che il nemico all'interno prenda il sopravvento. Come dice l'autore di Ebrei:

6:11 Ma noi vogliamo ardentemente che ognuno di voi dimostri il medesimo zelo per il compimento della vostra speranza fino alla fine, 6:12 cosicche` non diventiate pigri, ma piuttosto imitatori di coloro che, mediante la fede e la perseveranza, ereditano le promesse.

Ora, ci sono molte cose che cercano costantemente di portarci fuori strada attirando la nostra attenzione. Alcuni di noi, dice Owen, vengono distratti dalle preoccupazioni per gli affari, altri dal potere delle tentazioni. Alcuni si sentono ogni volta sconfitti, scoraggiati dalla loro stessa oscurita`. Comunque, qualunque sia la causa delle nostre distrazioni, nessuna e` pericolosa quanto l'inerzia causata dall'avversione prodotta dal peccato. E` qui che l'anima si dice: Sono stanca di lottare. Lascia che il peccato faccia il suo corso. Questo, naturalmente, porta all'insensibilita` del cuore e alla rovina finale. Ecco che ancora lo scrittore di Ebrei capi` questo problema.

12:3 Onde evitare di stancarvi e perdervi d'animo, pensate a Colui che ha sopportato una cosi` grande opposizione contro di Se` da parte dei peccatori.

Owen dice che l'ammonizione a non permettere all'avversione, causata dal peccato, di governare le nostre esperienze, e` consistente con Romani 12:12 e 6:12 dove l'apostolo dice: Pertanto non permettete al peccato di regnare nei vostri corpi mortali ubbidendo ai suoi desideri. Prevenendo l'avversione causata dal peccato insito, e sottomettendo il suo desiderio di avere completa vittoria, noi otteniamo che, sotto la direttiva e il potere dello Spirito, il peccato non regni nei nostri corpi mortali.

Smettere i doveri, completamente o in parte, a causa dell'avversione del peccato verso la spiritualita`, significa dare al peccato il predominio e ubbidire ai suoi desideri. Non cedere quindi, ma affronta il conflitto; spera in Dio e sarai tu a prevalere, Isa. XL. 31. 'Coloro che sperano nel Signore acquisteranno nuove forze; essi si alzeranno in volo come le aquile; correrranno senza affaticarsi, e cammineranno senza stancarsi.' ⁴¹

Owen e` talmente convinto della nostra vittoria in questa materia, a patto che resistiamo, che dice: Ma cio` che ora appare cosi` difficile, diverra` ancora piu` difficile se cediamo; ma se manteniamo la nostra posizione, prevarremo. E` il Signore stesso che lo dice.⁴²

Mantieni Umilta` alla Luce dell'Imminenza dell'Avversione

Le tre precedenti direttive erano focalizzate sul (1) mantenere la santita` in tutta la nostra obbedienza verso Dio; (2) sforzarsi di prevenire persino i primi segnali dell'avversione verso Dio e verso i nostri doveri spirituali, e (3) non permettere all'avversione di fare conquista alcuna, rubandoci la vittoria. Ora, in questa quarta direttiva, Owen si focalizza sul nostro bisogno di coltivare un profondo senso di umilta` e di santa vergogna a causa dell'avversione verso le cose spirituali e la santita`, avversione che continua a persistere nella nostra natura.

Owen domanda cosa possa esservi di piu` efficace nel trattare l'avversione verso Dio (cioe` nelle propensioni e nella mente) e per camminare umilmente con Lui, del considerare come, costantemente e con efficacia, questa avversione rimanga sempre in noi. E` veramente umiliante considerare quanto Egli ci abbia amato; quanto Si sia spinto lontano per assicurarci la salvezza; in quale misura Egli continui a lottare ogni giorno con noi, e poi vedere quanto le nostre anime siano miserabili e quanto poco Gli vogliamo bene. Perche` mai, dopo che Egli ci ha dimostrato una tale gentilezza senza limiti, dovremmo trattarLo slealmente come facciamo? Owen lo dice bene:

Che iniquita` abbiamo trovato in Lui? E` forse Egli stato un deserto verso di noi, o una terra di oscurita`? Abbiamo mai perso qualcosa nell'avvicinarci a Lui? No; non e` forse il luogo dove esiste tutto il riposo e la pace che abbiamo ottenuto? Non e` forse Lui la fonte e la sorgente di tutte le misericordie, di tutte le cose desiderabili per noi? Non ci ha forse offerto il benvenuto al nostro arrivo? Non abbiamo forse ricevuto da Lui piu` di quanto il cuore possa immaginare o la parola esprimere? Cosa porta quindi i nostri stupidi e miserabili cuori a nutrire una tale maledetta, segreta antipatia per Lui e per le Sue vie? Vergognamoci, e rimaniamo quindi attoniti nel considerare cio`, e camminiamo con un senso di umiliazione a causa di questo per tutti i giorni della nostra vita. ⁴³

Sforzati di Colmare la Mente con la Bellezza e l'Eccellenza delle Cose Spirituali

Sebbene si sia parlato veramente poco nei circoli evangelici della bellezza e del fascino di Dio, Owen fa giustamente notare che l'anima non perseguira` gioiosamente i propri doveri e lotte per la santita`, se non trova un'attraente bellezza in cio` che adora, cioe` in Dio. E` per questo che gli uomini, i quali hanno perso ogni senso della bellezza della vera adorazione spirituale, spesso inventano [e continuano a inventare] metodi di adorazione esteriormente pomposi e attraenti, con immagini, dipinti, raffigurazioni che essi chiamano 'Le bellezze della santita`'.

Che l'anima si sforzi quindi di abituarsi alla bellezza dell'obbedienza, della comunione con Dio, e di tutti i doveri di diretto accesso a Lui, cosicche` possa deliziarsi in essi. ⁴⁴

Sommario del Quinto Capitolo

Abbiamo appreso nel primo e secondo capitolo che, secondo Romani 7:21, il peccato insito e` cosi` costante nel suo operare, che l'apostolo vi si riferisce come a una legge, un'irresistibile legge interiore. Nel terzo capitolo abbiamo appreso che il peccato ha un cosi` grande potere, perche` il cuore e` imperscrutabile (solo Dio lo comprende totalmente) e ingannevole come nessun altra cosa. Poi, nel quarto capitolo, Owen aggiunge un'altra ragione particolare riguardante il potere del peccato insito, cioe` che esso pervade la totalita` della nostra anima ed e` nemico della totalita` di Dio; e` universale nella sua presenza dentro di noi e nell'operare contro Dio.

Nel quinto capitolo Owen aggiunge un altro modo in cui il peccato agisce come inimicizia verso Dio. Lo fa producendo una costante avversione (cioe` odio e ripugnanza) verso Dio, sia nelle propensioni che nella mente. Nelle propensioni ci attira lontano dai nostri doveri di preghiera e comunione con Dio. Molti di noi indubbiamente interpretano queste sensazioni come Dio non mi ama veramente. Come neonati in Cristo non abbiamo imparato a riconoscere queste sensazioni e a vederle per cio` che realmente sono: le iniziali azioni del peccato insito per produrre odio verso Dio e verso il Suo volere. Il peccato insito lavora pero` per produrre avversione verso Dio anche nella mente. Manchiamo di meditare come dovremmo sui pensieri di Dio (cioe` sulle Scritture) e di relazionarci con Lui personalmente come dovremmo, perche` le nostre menti vengono distratte e deviate.

Per finire il capitolo, Owen fornisce cinque metodi in cui possiamo agire per prevenire gli effetti di quest'avversioine prodotta dal peccato insito. Primo: dobbiamo mantenerci in un universale stato di santita`; dobbiamo implicitamente obbedire volentieri in ogni cosa, non solamente in alcune. Secondo: dobbiamo sforzarci di prevenire l'avversione fin dai primi segnali, sia che essi siano prevalentemente nelle propensioni o nella mente. Dobbiamo bloccare l'avversione prima che cominci. Non dobbiamo darle nessun punto d'appoggio! Terzo: se comincia, non dobbiamo lasciarle avere la vittoria. Non dobbiamo lasciare che ci devii dai nostri doveri verso Dio e permettere allo scoraggiamento di impedirci di pregare e essere in comunione. Dobbiamo ottenere la vittoria, che e` certamente nostra attraverso lo Spirito che risiede in noi. Quarto: alla luce della costanza e forza dell'avversione che persiste nelle nostre anime anche dopo che siamo salvi, camminiamo in profonda umilta` davanti a Dio, il nostro Dio, che ci ama totalmente e la cui gentilezza e` senza limiti. Una simile umilta` sara` molto efficace nello sconfiggere l'avversione e nell' indebolire il peccato insito. Quinto e finale: colmiamo la nostra mente di pensieri riguardanti la bellezza e l'eccellenza delle cose spirituali e di quanto attraente e glorioso sia Dio, Padre del nostro Signore Gesu` Cristo. Cerchiamo di comprendere e meditare sulla bellezza della Sua santita` e non permettiamo alla nostra adorazione di degenerare in qualche forma di idolatria.

³⁴ VI:164.

³⁵ VI:182-83.

³⁶ VI:184.

³⁷ VI:184.

³⁸ VI:185-86. Questo e` un punto importante per la chiesa in Nord America che ha quasi totalmente distorto la propria ubbidienza in una spontaneita` priva di direzioni. Come Cristiani, abbiamo certi santi obblighi verso Dio, siano essi originati da sensazioni spontanee oppure no. Noi, in cui lo Spirito risiede, siamo sottoposti alla legge di Cristo e dobbiamo fare progressi in santita`, ispirati dalla grazia e diretti dalle Scritture, perche` questa e` la nostra elezione e chiamata (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 7:1). Noi non possiamo profondamente dipendere e cooperare con lo Spirito nella trasformazione, se operiamo sulla base di un modello di crescita spirituale che eleva, al di sopra di ogni altra cosa, la liberta` umana e la spontaneita`. E` vero che siamo stati resi liberi, ma e` dal peccato che siamo stati resi liberi perche` potessimo servire Dio in modo accettabile e amare la gente profondamente. Liberi da non significa nulla finche` non si arriva ad afferrare il liberi per.

³⁹ Per grazie Owen probabilmente intende qui cose come la preghiera, la Parola di Dio, la meditazione sulla croce e il potere dello Spirito, la vergogna per il peccato, l'amore per Dio, ecc.

⁴⁰ VI:186.

⁴¹ VI:187.

⁴² VI:187.

⁴³ VI:187-88.

⁴⁴ VI:188.

Related Topics: Hamartiology (Sin), Theology Proper (God)

English

The God Who Relates: A Response To John Sanders, The God Who Risks

Related Media

In recent years, a group of evangelicals have criticized the traditional or classical view of God and have proposed what they have called the “openness” view. At its core, the openness view affirms “two basic convictions: love is the most important quality we attribute to God, and love is more than care and commitment; it involves being sensitive and responsive as well.”¹ Pinnock seems to add a third basic conviction of the view, that the future is open to God. “Philosophically speaking, if choices are real and freedom significant, future decisions cannot be exhaustively foreknown. This is because the future is not determinate but shaped in part by human choices. The future is not fixed like the past, which can be known completely. The future does not yet exist and therefore cannot be infallibly anticipated, even by God. Future decisions cannot in every way be foreknown, because they have not yet been made. God knows everything that can be known – but God’s foreknowledge does not include the undecided.”²

In a recent issue of Christianity Today, an unsigned editorial entitled “God vs. God” presented the issue as “two competing theologies vie for the future of evangelicalism.”³ The editorial concludes with a call for evangelical theologians in both camps to do their homework, providing four issues for further research.⁴ First, “openness theologians [need to] take as full an account of the biblical language about God’s foreknowledge and immutability as of the Greek philosophical influences that shaped classical theism.”⁵ Second, “classical theists [must] return to a more robustly biblical approach to talking about God.”⁶ Third, “classical theists [must] make a full account of the meaning embedded in the Bible’s anthropomorphisms – not to explain them away but to unpack them, and not to treat them dismissively.”⁷ Fourth, “both sides [need to avoid reading] the words of Scripture outside the context of twenty centuries of interpretation.”⁸ This final call is particularly relevant to American evangelicals. We need to read the Scripture with the insights provided by the history of interpretation. We must avoid the tendency toward individualism in biblical interpretation. Novelty must be checked against the voices of the past. We need to remember, as the editorial reminds us, that “the Holy Spirit has not been snoozing since he inspired the New Testament.”⁹

As an evangelical theologian who holds to the traditional view of God, I have chosen this paper as a first installment on my homework assignment. But before I do, please allow me to present my position at the outset. I am a classical theist in the Baptist tradition. I believe that the biblical revelation presents a God who is absolutely sovereign over his creation. Nothing happens in this world apart from his sovereign will. God’s knowledge of the future is as comprehensive as his knowledge of the past and the present. The future is thus not open to God and his plans are never at risk. This conviction is not based simply upon a proof-text or two, but upon my reading of the Scripture within a community that understands the Scripture in this way. I believe that the openness view of God is inconsistent with the overall tenor of the biblical text.

One of the proponents of the openness view of God is John Sanders. Sanders wrote the chapter entitled “Historical Considerations” in The Openness of God. In his recent book, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, Sanders argues that the biblical view of God’s relationship with his people and his world is that God is a risk taker.¹⁰ For Sanders, risk taking is essential to a personal God who relates on a personal level with his created beings. The traditional view of God’s providence which holds to exhaustive knowledge of all things and comprehensive control over God’s creation, according to Sanders, results in an impersonal, distant, non-relational deity.

Sanders begins by positing out two basic models of divine providence. According to the “no-risk” view, “no event ever happens without God’s specifically selecting it to happen. Nothing is too insignificant for God’s meticulous and exhaustive control.”¹¹ This is the model of classical theism. The “risk” view of providence begins with the assumption that “if God is in some respects conditioned by his creatures, then God takes risks in bringing about this particular type of world . . . God has established certain boundaries within which creatures operate. But God sovereignly decides not to control each and every event, and some things go contrary to what God intends, and may not turn out completely as God desires.”¹² According to this model, “God sovereignly wills to have human persons become collaborators with him in achieving the divine project of mutual relations of love.”¹³ Thus, Sanders also calls his model “relational theism.”¹⁴ Sanders insists that “the key element in the debate over providence is not the type of omniscience God has but the kind of sovereignty God has decided to exercise.”¹⁵

Sanders has developed the question is such a way as to make the contrast between the two views clear, perhaps too much so. Are these the only possibilities? Is it true that risk and relationship are so intertwined that to deny risk is to deny that God enters into relationship with his creatures? In short, does the affirmation that God exercises sovereign control over all the minute details of his creation mean that he cannot enter into a personal relationship with human? Is it not possible that a loving God relates on a personal and intimate level with his creatures and yet maintains sovereign control over his creation? I believe this is the model of God we find in Scripture and that Sanders has set up a false dichotomy.

In a paper of this size, it is impossible to deal comprehensively with a nearly 400 page book. I’ve chosen to deal only with several of the biblical texts Sanders discusses in support of his view. One of the strengths of his book is that Sanders does not hide from the texts that seem to contradict his view. At issue is the plausibility of his interpretation of those texts.

Sanders begins his treatment of the biblical data with a discussion of the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis. He draws several implications from God’s creative activity. First, “God freely creates an environment and sovereignly establishes boundaries that are ‘good.’ ”¹⁶ Second, “the doctrine of creation draws a strong distinction between God and his creatures as well as a significant relationship between them.”¹⁷ As the Creator who speaks things into existence, we clearly see an “infinitely qualitative distinction” between creator and created, yet this creator reveals himself in a dynamic personal relationship with his creatures. Third, “God establishes structures over which humans have no control without thereby eliminating all freedom and development.”¹⁸

God established boundaries for the first humans. He gave them freedom to eat from all the trees with the one explicit prohibition against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Here, Sanders insists, is the introduction of sovereign risk. In this environment, rejection of God is implausible, but God has taken a risk by allowing the possibility of their disobedience. In responding to the serpent’s temptation, Adam and Eve make the implausible choice; they choose against God. “Now God has to adjust his project in response to this horrible turn of events.”¹⁹

There is little in this reading of creation which would not be affirmed by classical theists, up to the suggestion that the fall caught God by surprise. Even Sanders admits that God has established structures in creation over which humans have no control, and that he has done so without violating their freedom. But his reading of the fall is particularly problematic. He assumes that this rejection of God by his human creatures caught him by surprise and necessitated his response to their action. On the contrary, classical theists affirm that God knew in advance what their choice would be and that he had already planned for their redemption.

According to Sanders, the following chapters of Genesis demonstrate that “despite God’s continued efforts to work with his creatures, sin becomes ever more pervasive.”²⁰ Ultimately God is grieved by their rebellion and “regrets his decision to go ahead with the creation in light of these tragic consequences. He is extremely disappointed at how things are turning out.”²¹

Sanders makes much of God’s choice of Noah. In him, Sanders says, “God ‘saw’ someone in whom he could take pride, someone who was going in the direction God intended. Consequently, God does not give up hope and will continue his project through Noah’s family. In Noah God finds a possibility for a future that is open despite the pervasiveness of sin.”²² According to this interpretation, God saw a righteous man and was pleased to have someone he could trust to preserve his project.

The text of Genesis 6, however, seems to demand an entirely different reading. As Sanders quotes accurately, “Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Gen 6:8)²³. If Noah found favor/grace in God’s eyes because of Noah’s righteousness, then God’s grace toward him was earned and thus was not grace at all. Rather, as the following verses imply, Noah found favor in God’s eyes and, as a result of God’s gracious initiative, “Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time” (Gen 6:9). I believe that the order of these two verses is significant. Righteousness is due to God’s grace; it is never earned by works. (“Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.” Rom 4:4)

Sanders interprets the Abraham story similarly. He says, “In the course of his life, Abraham develops a relationship with God. Abraham’s faith in God matures by fits and starts, and God’s confidence in Abraham grows. The divine goal of developing people who love and trust him in such a way that they collaborate with God toward the fulfillment of the project finds success in this patriarch.”²⁴ But, according to the biblical record, we are introduced to Abraham when God calls him (Gen 12:1; Acts 7:2-3).²⁵ We know nothing about Abraham prior to this call of God, which seems to imply that Abraham responds to God’s gracious initiative. Further, Abraham’s walk of faith is anything but consistent. It seems much better to read the Abraham account as an example of God’s faithfulness to him, in spite of his “fits and starts,” rather than an increasing of Abraham’s faith that leads to God’s increasing confidence in him.

When he comes to the Joseph stories, Sanders admits the plausibility of a “risk-free” reading of the text. However, he insists that “Joseph’s remarks in Genesis 45 should be read in light of his more reflective comments in 50:19-21.”²⁶ In Genesis 50:20, “Joseph suggests that what they intended for evil, God intended for good. I take this to mean that God has brought something good out of their evil actions.”²⁷ That seems to be exactly what Joseph says here, but what about Joseph’s interpretation of his brothers’ actions in Genesis 45? Sanders insists that in the earlier text, “Joseph plays down the human factor and elevates the divine factor in order to allay their fears. After reconciliation is assured, Joseph remarks that what they intended for evil, God intended for good.”²⁸

If I understand him correctly, Sanders is insisting that Joseph was duplicitous in his dealings with his brothers. In order to “allay their fears,” he stressed that it was God who was responsible for his current condition. Of course, Joseph did not really believe this, as his later comments make clear. Joseph really meant to say that he was in Egypt because of his brothers’ sin. Joseph meant to say that his rise to power was not due to God’s grace but due to his hard work and initiative. God used both the evil that Joseph’s brothers had performed and the good that Joseph had achieved and worked all of it for good.

The language that Joseph uses in Genesis 45 is unambiguous and clear. This is one of the strongest texts supporting a comprehensive view of God’s sovereignty, or at least it records Joseph’s conviction about God’s sovereignty. In verse 5, Joseph tells his brothers that they should not be distressed and angry with themselves because they sold him into slavery. He never denies their responsibility for his condition. He never denies that their behavior was sin. However, he also tells them that “it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you.” Apparently Joseph is attributing his life experiences to the sovereign will of his God. But Joseph is not yet through. In verse 7, he tells them, “But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.” Note that it was God who sent Joseph to Egypt, at least in Joseph’s interpretation of the events. Finally, in verse 8, Joseph says, “So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God.” These are strong affirmations of God’s sovereign control over Joseph’s life. Does Joseph really mean to say that God is the cause of his being in Egypt? Does he mean to say that even the sinful acts of his brothers were part of God’s plan for his life? I think so.

Then in Genesis 50:19-20, Joseph again reassures his brothers after the death of their father. He tells them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” Apparently in Joseph’s view of God’s sovereignty, humans are responsible for their evil choices (intentions) but ultimately God’s intention will be fulfilled. Apart from some theological agenda, there seems no reason to use one of these texts to reinterpret the other, especially since they both seem to say the same thing.

In a section entitled “The Potter and the Clay: An Examination of So-Called Pancausality Texts,”Sanders agues that the traditional view has treated texts like Jeremiah 18:6, Isaiah 29:16; Proverbs 16:9; 21:1 as “clear didactic passages” and has over-generalized from them.²⁹ He cites as an example, Calvin’s inference that God sending the storm that caused Jonah’s trouble at sea means that “no wind ever arises or increases without God’s express command.”³⁰ According to Sanders, this is to attempt to prove too much. Just because God sent one storm does not mean that every storm is due to God’s specific intentional decree.

Of course, Sanders is correct. But Calvin’s view that God exercises control over the wind and storms is not based solely upon the text in Jonah.³¹ Rather, it is based upon Calvin’s understanding of God’s revelation of himself in the whole of Scripture. And this is exactly the point. Sanders’ view is that Scripture does not reveal such a God. It is this thesis he is attempting to prove.

So how does Sanders deal with Jeremiah 18?

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: ²“Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” ³So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. ⁴But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.

⁵Then the word of the LORD came to me: ⁶“O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. ⁷If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, ⁸and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. ⁹And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, ¹⁰and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

¹¹“Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, ‘This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.’ ¹²But they will reply, ‘It’s no use. We will continue with our own plans; each of us will follow the stubbornness of his evil heart.’ ”

Sanders stresses that the emphasis in this text is on God’s prerogative to change his plans regarding Israel. “Jeremiah repeatedly speaks of the conditional (‘if’) in connection to both the clay (Israel) and the potter (God). If Israel repents, then God will relent. If Israel is recalcitrant, then God may change his mind regarding the promised blessing (vv. 7-10) . . . The fact that Israel can take the initiative violates the metaphor, since clay cannot take initiative. So the relationship between Yahweh and Israel is not exactly like that of a potter and clay.”³²

Well, of course not. This is a metaphor. God is using an analogy to communicate with his people. How should we interpret the metaphor? Is not part of the emphasis that God is the creator of his people? Is not part of the force of the metaphor that clay cannot thwart the plans of the potter? Sanders argues that if “the clay does not turn out as anticipated, the potter changes his mind and works the clay into something else. But why would the clay not turn out the way God intended? Either because God is not a skilled enough potter, or because there is some defect in the clay.”³³ In this case, the defect is obviously in the clay. It is called “sin.” Rather than thwarting God’s plan, however, this metaphor seems to teach that God continues to be the potter. He continues to mold and remold his clay as he intends. Sanders’ view empties the metaphor of its point of comparison, since he takes both the clay and potter as active agents.

Sanders’ conclusion summarizes his view.

The so-called pancausality texts refer to specific actions of God and must not be understood as generalizations about divine action. Moreover, God is indeed a potter and a king but one whose clay and subjects sometimes cooperate with and sometimes rebel against divine initiatives. At times the rebellious subjects even kill the king’s messengers. The clay refuses to be shaped in the direction the potter desires. In response, God sometimes brings events to a determined head and at other times allows events to go their way. This results in a messy view of providence. Deism and pancausality offer more straighforward perspectives in which God uniformly does nothing or uniformly does everything. But God has sovereignly decided to providentially operate in a dynamic give-and-take relationship with his creatures.³⁴

In addition to completely destroying the metaphor of clay and potter, Sanders has now linked the “traditional” view with deism as the two extreme alternatives to his view. Either God himself causes everything that happens or God causes nothing. In between these two alternatives, Sanders drops his relational, openness view of providence. These are not the only options and, beyond that, Sanders has built a straw man to represent the traditional view. Very few theologians have ever argued that God causes everything that happens. Many events are caused by the choices of humans and other personal beings. God does not commit acts of evil, but he does allow other beings to commit such acts. The traditional view simply affirms that these events are part of God’s plan for his world. They are not surprises to which he must respond. They are not unknown to him until they occur, as in Sanders’ view.

Sanders uses a similar technique to drive a wedge between God the Father and Jesus when he discusses Jesus’ healing ministry according to the traditional model. He writes: “Jesus is not going around ‘cleaning up’ the diseases God has spread (as is the case if one affirms divine pancausality). Jesus and the Father stand against that which destroys the health that God, as our Creator, intends for us.”³⁵ If Jesus’ healing miracles were a sign of the presence of the kingdom, as seems likely from Jesus’ response to the disciples of John in Matthew 11:4-5, then the healings do not simply “reveal God’s opposition to sickness.”³⁶ Furthermore, according to Sanders’ view, the fact that Jesus left so many unhealed raises a real problem, not to mention that sickness has continued to this day. Does God no longer oppose sickness, or is he somehow unable or unwilling to remove it completely?

Sanders’ treatment of New Testament texts begins with an examination of selected events in the life of Jesus. Particularly noteworthy is Sanders’ assertion that “The Bethlehem massacre was not the will of God and was not planned beforehand by God. Instead, it reveals that the will of God in its fullness may not be fulfilled in all situations.”³⁷ Rather, it seems better to take this as an illustration of God’s comprehensive will, that not even the wicked actions of a pagan king would thwart God’s plan. The survival of the Christ child was not contingent upon God’s miraculous intervention at the last moment in response to some unforeseen peril, but was planned down to the smallest detail. Although Sanders insists that providence is not primarily based upon God’s knowledge of the future, this seems a clear case in which affirmation that God was aware of this event long before it occurred affects one’s interpretation of its significance.

Sanders further insists that the cross was not planned prior to creation, but was a decision which the Father and the Son came to understand in Gethesmene.³⁸ Judas’ betrayal was also not part of God’s plan, but another of the many choices of humans to which God must respond. What about those texts which seem to contradict his view? According to Sanders, 1 Peter 1:20 (“He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake”) merely affirms the incarnation of the Son as part of the divine project, but not the crucifixion. Ephesians 1:4 (“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight”) teaches corporate election in the Son. Revelation 17:8 (“The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come”) ought to be interpreted as teaching that names are written in a book from the foundation of the world. This is also to be understood as corporate election, “not specific individuals selected by God for salvation.”³⁹ Even in Revelation 13:8, which Sanders admits “is a bit more problematic,” (“All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world”), the point is that our names are written in the book before the foundation of the world, not that the death of Christ was so ordained.⁴⁰ Sanders also note that another option is to understand the language of “from the foundation of the world” as praise for God’s wisdom. Thus, this is a reference to “the extremely long time that God’s wisdom has been working toward the salvation of his sinful creatures.”⁴¹ Sanders is at least consistent in his reading of these texts, but it is a consistency which seems to empty these texts of their intended meaning.

Furthermore, does not the fact that names are written in a book prior to the foundation of the world indicate something about the knowledge of the one who wrote them there? In addition, does not the fact that those written there do come to faith in Christ in history indicate something about the sovereignty of the one who wrote them there? Sanders does not deal with these issues.

But what about Acts 2:23, which says that Jesus was handed over to the Jewish leadership according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God? Certainly Sanders will admit that this text does not support his view. All this text affirms, Sanders says, is that God delivered his Son “into the hands of those who had a long track record of resisting God’s will. Their rejection did not catch God off guard, however, for he anticipated their response and so walked onto the scene with an excellent prognosis of what would happen.”⁴² Of course, it is probably not coincidental that Sanders does not mention that God seems to have predicted Jesus’ death in Isaiah 53 and other texts. Sanders would apparently consider these prophecies to be examples of how good God is at predicting the future, even though it remains unknown to him.

Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 10:24-33 is often used to defend a comprehensive view of God’s providence. Jesus tells his followers not to fear those who can kill the body. Rather, they ought to fear God. Then he uses the illustration of birds and hair to show God’s concern for his own. “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered” (vv. 29-30) This seems to indicate not simply that God is aware, or has knowledge of every sparrow that falls, but that a sparrow cannot fall without the exercise of God’s will. Sanders insists that the text is not teaching that. Instead, Jesus here teaches that God wants his people to be encouraged despite the difficulties and persecutions they will face. He calls on them to trust God in the face of suffering. “They may be persecuted and killed for following Jesus, but they should not be anxious about what happens to them. Even if they die for his sake, their heavenly Father cares for them.”⁴³

Of course, we can agree with Sanders that this is the major stress of the passage. This, however, does not seem to deal with the explicit language of the text of Matthew 10:29-30. But, since this language does not fit into Sanders’ theological grid, he simply dismisses it with several apparently rhetorical questions. “Does this mean that God keeps a ledger of sparrows and hair follicles? Or does it mean that no sparrow dies and no hair falls out without God specifically decreeing that it be so?”⁴⁴ I will not presume to know how God keeps track of sparrows and hair, but the latter question seems to demand a positive answer, on the basis of Matthew 10:29 alone.

What about the man born blind (John 9)? Sanders argues that this miracle was “an opportunity for God’s glory to be manifested in compassion and healing.”⁴⁵ Sanders accurately notes that Jesus’ disciples incorrectly assumed that this man’s blindness was caused either by his or his parents’ sin, a misunderstanding Jesus corrects. He does not, however, deal with Jesus’ response to them in verse 3, “This happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” What happened? The man was born blind. Jesus seems to affirm that the man’s blindness was intentionally produced so that God could be glorified in his healing. This seems to indicate that the reason why this man was born blind was so that Jesus could heal him. Was Jesus’ healing of this man a divine accident? Was he one of many blind men in a pool from which Jesus could have chosen any one to perform this miracle? Or was this a specific case of a specific blind man who was blind from birth just so Jesus could come along and heal him? I choose to believe the latter because I think this is the reading strongly implied by Jesus’ words.

When we come to eschatology, certainly Sanders will admit that God’s plan will be accomplished? Not exactly. Sanders insists that “God is yet working to fulfill his promises and bring his project to fruition. The eschaton will surprise us because it is not set in concrete; it is not unfolding according to a prescribed script.”⁴⁶ Here he distinguishes between predictions, which are fulfilled only once and promises, which are fulfilled repeatedly.⁴⁷

The promises of God should be understood as part of the divine project rather than as some eternal blueprint, a project in which God has not scripted the way everything in history will go. God has a goal and the routes remain open . . . the master weaver utilizes the possibilities open at any given time in order to weave his purposes into the tapestry. The tapestry is not finished, and God is weaving alongside us to produce it. This is an eschatological model of God’s relationship to the world: God is going to do more, but it is not possible for us to predict the precise way it will go . . .We have reason to hope in the Spirit, for the work of the Spirit is not yet done and the way into the future is not closed and sealed . . . Though the Spirit may not get everything he desires, we have reason to hope because we have a God with a proven track record of successfully navigating the vicissitudes of human history and redeeming it. We have confidence that God will bring his project to the fruition he desires because God has proven himself faithful time and again.⁴⁸

This is an amazing claim. God’s plan for the future is always in peril, for it depends on the choices humans make. God seldom gets everything he wants; he has to settle for what he can get. God will ultimately bring his project to fruition, but he will probably not get everything he desires. He will make the best of what he can do with what is available to him.

Sanders claims that one of the strengths of his model is that it provides “better approaches to life-application issues such as evil, prayer, guidance and a personal relationship with God” than the traditional view.⁴⁹ I fail to see the apologetic value in his model. How much more hope there is in a God who knows the past, present, and the future and is working out his plan in the world he created. How much more confidence is provided by a God who is never surprised, who has the power to accomplish everything he desires, and who has ordained both the beginning and the end. How much more assurance is found in a God of unmatched power who has everything under control, including the future. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob both promises things to his people and predicts what will happen. Because of his knowledge and power, none of those promises or predictions can be thwarted by the decisions of his creatures.

We return now to where we began, to the call for homework. The writer of the editorial does not make the point explicitly, but the purpose for the homework assignment seems to be so that there can be meaningful dialog between advocates of the two views. This is a call that I want to affirm and reissue today.

Ironically, the very next issue of Christianity Today includes a letter from a Corresponding Editor expressing “strong dissent” to the editorial. The letter concludes, “Nothing good along this line can be expected for evangelicalism. It is unfortunate if the holders of the heretical view of the ‘openness of God’ could now boast of the ‘openness of Christianity Today.’ ”⁵⁰ What makes this letter even more ironic is that this issue of Christianity Today has a cover story on Islam. In that article, “Islam USA: Are Christians Prepared for Muslims in the Mainstream?” Wendy Murray Zoba quotes Robert Douglas, former director of the Zwemer Institute of Muslim Studies and now director of the Chicago Center for Urban Mission. Douglas says, “When it comes to reaching Muslims, multitudes of people have stumbled for cultural, social, and linguistic reasons, before they ever had the opportunity to stumble at the cross. . . . There is a desperate need for evangelical Christians to take the time to understand Islam and not to buy into the stereotypes that are floating out there. . . . We will have to work hard at building relationships with Muslims, which means a Christian presence where Muslims are concentrated.”⁵¹

If evangelism of Muslims and other non-Christians requires understanding them and their views and building relationships with them, how much more ought evangelicals who attempt to convince other evangelicals of the error of their thinking engage in Christian dialog? Very few of us would sit very long for a conversation that began with a condemnation of us as heretics. Should we be surprised when openness theologians reject such attempts at dialog?

What is needed in the current “God vs. God” debate is that advocates of both sides understand each other’s position and then engage in meaningful dialog over the meaning of the text of Scripture. If we believe that the openness view is heretical, that brings an even greater responsibility to behave Christianly toward those who hold that view, in an attempt to lovingly correct them and restore them to orthodoxy. How could we be more compassionate and caring toward those outside the faith than those who claim to be fellow evangelicals?

¹Richard Rice, “Biblical Support for a New Perspective,” in The Openness of God, by Clark Pinnock, et al. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 15.

²Clark Pinnock, “Systematic Theology,” in The Openness of God, by Clark Pinnock, et al. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 123.

³Anonymous, “God vs. God,” Christianity Today (February 7, 2000), 34.

⁴In my opinion, one of the problems with the contemporary debate is that it is often presented as if there were only two camps. In reality, there is a great deal of diversity within the two camps. Seldom is an issue simple enough to divide it into two polarized positions. On the other hand, there clearly are two broad perspectives and the proponents of the openness model intentionally distance themselves from what they call Classic or Traditional Theism. See Pinnock, et.al, The Openness of God.

⁵“God vs. God,” 35.

⁶Ibid. The editorial continues: “Biblical revelation, and not a suspect theological traditionalism, must be the starting point for fresh theological reflection in every generation. If classical theists fail to be biblical, they will surely lose the debate where it counts, in the churches.” Of course, in a church that is largely biblically illiterate, some might say that this battle is already nearly lost.

⁷Ibid.

⁸Ibid.

⁹Ibid.

¹⁰John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998).

¹¹Sanders, The God Who Risks, 10.

¹²Ibid., 10-11.

¹³Ibid., 12.

¹⁴Ibid.

¹⁵Ibid.

¹⁶Ibid., 42.

¹⁷Ibid.

¹⁸Ibid., 43.

¹⁹Ibid., 48.

²⁰Ibid., 49.

²¹Ibid.

²²Ibid., 50.

²³Unless indicated otherwise, biblical quotations are from the New International Version.

²⁴Ibid.

²⁵The record in Gen 11 seems to make Terah, Abram’s father, the major character. Stephen’s sermon provides a clearer picture of the chronology. God appeared to Abram in Ur and it was Abram who initiated the move. Although the patriarch’s name when called by God is Abram, it is later changed to Abraham by the Lord. For ease of reference, and in recognition of the anachronism, I have chosen to refer to him consistently by the later designation.

²⁶Ibid., 54-55.

²⁷Ibid., 55.

²⁸Ibid.

²⁹Ibid., 81.

³⁰Ibid.

³¹See John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Library of Christian Classics, vol. 20, edited by John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1.16.5.

³²Sanders, The God Who Risks, 86.

³³Ibid.

³⁴Ibid., 87.

³⁵Ibid., 98.

³⁶Ibid.

³⁷Ibid., 94.

³⁸He does affirm that the incarnation was planned from the creation of the world, but not the cross. Ibid., 100. Sanders does not explain his understanding of the purpose for the incarnation.

³⁹Ibid., 102.

⁴⁰Ibid.

⁴¹Ibid.

⁴²Ibid., 103.

⁴³Ibid., 113.

⁴⁴Ibid.

⁴⁵Ibid., 114.

⁴⁶Ibid., 125.

⁴⁷Ibid., 126.

⁴⁸Ibid., 127, 129.

⁴⁹Ibid., 19.

⁵⁰Roger Nicole, “A Dissenting Voice,” Christianity Today (April 3, 2000), 10.

⁵¹Wendy Murray Zoba, “Islam USA: Are Christians Prepared for Muslims in the Mainstream?, Christianity Today (April 3, 2000), 40.

Was hinter dem Blut steht: Die wahre Bedeutung der Passion Christi

Related Media

Übersetzt von Michael Schmid

Mel Gibsons Film Die Passion Christi hat sowohl von weltlichen als auch von christlichen Kritikern eine weit verbreitete Reaktion hervorgerufen. Zum größten Teil waren diese Kritiken positiv - was auch ganz angemessen ist. Weltliche Kritiker, obwohl sie nicht immer Gibsons pro-katholische und pro-christliche Perspektive zu schätzen wissen, schätzen zumindest die kinematographische Macht des Films. Christliche Kritiker, insbesondere evangelikale Christen, loben den Film für dessen getreue Darstellung der Leiden, die Jesus Christus ertragen hat. Die Resonanz der Öffentlichkeit war überwältigend positiv: neue Rekorde in Besucherzahlen und Einnahmen wurden schon früh aufgestellt. Mel Gibson verdient Lob dafür, dass er einen bedeutenden und einflussreichen Film produziert hat, der eine emotionale Reaktion von den Zuschauern erzwingt.

Ohne Frage ist die am meisten erwähnte Eigenschaft des Films dessen graphische Natur. Der Film besteht aus zwei Stunden unerbittlicher und mutwilliger Brutalität, zusammen mit fast unaufhörlichem Blutvergießen, sowie Qual und Folter. Nur eine äußerst gefühllose Person könnte diesen Film sehen und dabei keine emotionale Reaktion haben. Das Blut Christi ist im Film besonders hervorstehend. Von der Blutlache am Boden nach Seiner Auspeitschung, zum Tröpfchen Blut, das über seine Augen tropfte, nachdem Er die Dornenkrone aufgesetzt bekam, bis hin zum Blut, das am Kreuz von Seiner Seite strömte - Sein Blut ist überall.

Was für eine Bedeutung hat das Blut Christi? Der Film gibt keine deutliche Antwort auf diese Frage. Aber die Bibel - Gibsons Inspiration für den Film - gibt eine Antwort darauf. Gottes Wort macht deutlich, dass es ohne Blutvergießen keine Vergebung der Sünden geben kann (Hebräer 9,22). Jesu Tod war mehr als ein besinnungsloser und grausamer Mord eines unschuldigen Mannes durch eine irregeführte jüdische Bande. Jesu Tod war Gottes Mittel, um der ganzen Menschheit die Erlösung anzubieten! Durch Seinen Tod hat Jesus die Strafe der Sünde ein für allemal bezahlt. Mit Seiner Auferstehung hat Er den Tod besiegt und die Berechtigung erworben, all denen, die es offenherzig annehmen, die ewige Errettung zu verschaffen.

Der Unterschied zwischen dem christlichen Glauben und allen anderen Religionen ist, dass der christliche Glaube die einzige Religion ist, die das Sündenproblem der Menschheit ausreichend löst. Die Realität der Bosheit in dem Herzen eines Menschen braucht kaum angeführt werden. Nur ein einfacher Blick auf die täglichen Nachrichten macht dies offensichtlich. Jeder Mensch ist von Natur aus schlecht geboren, was in einer Neigung zur Sünde resultiert. Das Problem ist, dass ein Mensch in solch einem sündigen Zustand niemals in den Himmel gelangen kann. Des Weiteren kann keine Menge eigenes Bemühen die perfekte Gerechtigkeit erlangen, die der Himmel verlangt. Deswegen hat Gott in der größten Äußerung wahrer Liebe Seinen Sohn gesandt, von einer Jungfrau geboren, um als Stellvertreter für die gefallene Menschheit am Kreuz auf Golgatha zu sterben.

Heute werden alle, die Jesus Christus zur Vergebung der Sünden und zur Gabe des ewigen Lebens vertrauen, ganz und gar gerecht gesprochen, in demselben Augenblick, in dem sie an Ihn glauben. Die persönliche Errettung geschieht allein durch den Glauben in Christus - nichts mehr und nichts weniger. Daher ist die Botschaft von Gibsons Film in Wirklichkeit eine Botschaft der Hoffnung. Weil Jesus für uns gelitten hat, geblutet hat, und gestorben ist, können wir unsere Sünden vergeben haben und die Gabe ewigen Lebens empfangen. Haben Sie Ihren Glauben in Jesus Christus für Ihre persönliche Errettung gesetzt?

Preach the Word

Related Media

Bible Study help for preachers and teachers (Some hints, helps, methods and ideas for those who want to share the Word of God effectively.) MAY GOD BLESS HIS WORD TO YOUR HEARTS AS YOU GO THROUGH THIS MATERIAL. There is material here for the Preacher, the Teacher, and those who would like to know their Bible better.

In addition to this disk, you would do well to have a Bible study program on your computer. I use the PowerBibleCD from http://www.powerbible.com

The Word of God itself says, Preach the Word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (II Timothy 4:2)

We might keep this saying in mind:"I preached as never sure to preach again; and as a dying man to dying men." - Richard Baxter, 17th Century

The text is found in II Timothy 2:2. "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

This material is based on fifty years of experience in the Lord's work. I am still active in the Lord's work as of this date, August 16, 2003. I still preach revival crusades, Lecture at conventions of the Fellowship of Christian Magicians, Do Kid's Krusades/Platform VBS's, and children's camps. In the winter I do programs and preach among the "Winter Texan" retirees in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.

Scriptures quoted here are from the King James Version.

I. Preaching, The Prerequisites

"And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. II Timothy 3:15-17

A. One who would preach must first of all, have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. He must know from the Scriptures that he has been saved from sin, and know what it means to trust Christ alone for salvation.

B. He should be able to teach someone else the basic plan of salvation, that is:

1. God Loves YOU. John 3:16

2. All have sinned and need salvation. Rom.3:23, Isaiah 64:6

3. Christ died for our sins. Romans 5:6-9

4. Christ is the Son of God and God the Son. Matt. 3:17, John 1:1-14

5. Christ is risen and alive today. I Cor. 15:3,4

6. Christ is the only way to Heaven. John 14:6 Acts 4:12

7. Salvation is a gift, not earned by works. Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8,9

C. He must maintain a regular daily devotional life of Bible reading and prayer. You cannot talk for God if you do not walk and talk with God.

D. He must believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that God has promised to honor His Word. Isaiah 55:11

E. He must have a good testimony and a good reputation, both before the church and before the world. I Tim. 4:12

F. His own heart must be right with God: no sin allowed to remain, whether of thought, word or deed. Psalm 66:18, I John 1:9.

G. His life must be fully surrendered to the Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 12:1,2

"I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day;
I'd rather one should walk with me than merely tell the way.
The eye's a better pupil and more willing than the ear;
Fine counsel is confusing, but example's always clear;
And the best of all the preachers are the men who live their creeds,
For to see good put in action is what everybody needs."
Edgar Guest

II. The Problem Of What To Preach

"Woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel." I Cor.9:16 "Preach the Word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, with all longsuffering and doctrine." II Timothy 4:2

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." Mark 16:15

A. It is the message of the Gospel by which we are saved. I Cor. 15:1-4

B. The essentials of the Gospel are:

The fact that God is holy and man is sinful.

Christ died and rose again, taking the punishment for our sins.

Man's best efforts all fall short, and we are hopelessly lost if we trust in our own goodness and efforts. God's grace offers a free salvation that cannot in any way be earned or merited.

We must come to Christ humbly trusting Him alone for our salvation. We must receive it as a free gift.

Our assurance of salvation, forgiveness and Heaven are based on the Word of God alone. John 5:24, I John 5:13

Preaching the Gospel is making the truth of salvation as clear as possible, and using enough Scripture so that the Holy Spirit will be able to:

Convince from the truth of the Scriptures

Convict of the sin in the life, and

Convert the soul from trusting self to trusting Christ,

Change the life inwardly and outwardly.

Preaching the Gospel is our part. Only the Holy Spirit of God is able to convince, convict, convert and change lives.

The Gospel may be preached with a Bible story such as:

Naaman II Kings 5:1-14

The Brazen Serpent Numbers 21:5-9

Nicodemus John 3:1-18

The Prodigal Son Luke 15:11-24

The Philippian Jailer Acts 16:22-34

Or texts such as:

Isaiah 45:22 Look and Live! (See Brazen Serpent)

Isaiah 53:6 Go in at the first All, and come out at the last All.

John 1:12 Who are the Children of God?

John 3:16-18 The unpardonable sin - terminal unbelief

John 3:36 The only two groups of people in the world

John 5:24 Passed from death to life!

John 6:37 An invitation with a promise

Romans 1:16 God's Dynamite (Gr. Dunamis - power)

Romans 4:5,21 God's Grace and our Faith

Romans 5:6-9 Christ died for Ungodly, Us, You.

Romans 6:23 God's gift, vs. the devil's wages.

Romans 10:9,10,13 Believe, Confess openly, Call.

B. It is the preaching and teaching of the Word of God that produces spiritual growth. I Peter 2:2, II Peter 1:2-8

C. Be alert to the spiritual needs of the group to which you will be speaking.

Are they merely church attenders, or non-attenders?

Earnest Christians, or hope-so Christians?

Young or old?

Those with Bible knowledge, or very little Bible knowledge.

D. Prayerfully search the Scriptures for God's leading as to what you should preach.

E. Take into consideration any special occasion on the calendar, in the news, or in the life of the church. This is often good for the introduction of the message.

F. Keep a notebook or disk file of ideas for sermons. If you get an idea during your daily Bible reading, jot it down for later research.

Learn to take notes on sermons you hear or read. (Keep those that are good, get rid of the rest.) Turn to this notebook or file for ideas when you have to prepare a sermon

G. Remember that in every congregation there may be:

Sinners who need salvation

Suffering believers who need comfort

Backsliders who need restoration

Carnality that needs to be rebuked

Errors that need to be corrected

People who are confused, needing direction

Those who need to be assured that the Lord is real, and that His Word is true.

THEREFORE, DON'T PREACH YOUR DOUBTS, OR YOUR GRIPES, OR YOUR NOTIONS, YOUR OPINIONS, YOUR POLITICS OR YOUR VIEWS,BUT PREACH THE WORD OF GOD WITH ALL THE AUTHORITY THAT GOES WITH IT!

"For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." II Corinthians 4:5

III. Preparation For Preaching

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth." II Timothy 2:15

A. Have an aim or goal. What do you seek to accomplish in the lives of individuals? If you aim at nothing, you will be sure to hit nothing.

You may want to:

Win people to Christ

Strengthen new Christians

Teach some specific doctrine

Create a greater love, and worship of the Lord

Help in some area of personal living

Expose some cult or doctrinal error

Challenge believers to live dedicated lives

Exhort believers to serve Christ is some specific way

B. You must have a Scriptural foundation for your message

There are three types of sermons:

Topical - One theme or topic, but using a number of portions of the Bible to develop the overall teaching of the Bible on the subject.

Good resources are available for this:

The Thompson Chain Reference Bible

Nave's Topical Bible

The New Topical Text Book

and others

Textual - This method develops an outline from a single verse or a short passage of Scripture. You will want to check lexicons for meanings of words, and cross references for other verses that will help in the understanding of the passage.

Some helpful materials:

Power Bible CD or Online Bible Software with cross-references and lexicons.

The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Vine's Expository of New Testament Words

Other Reference works and software.

Expository - The teaching of a book or longer passage of the Bible, usually as a series of messages. Consecutive teaching that does not let you ride some hobby or avoid difficult passages.

Helpful materials:

Bible dictionaries and atlases

Bible handbooks for background information

C. Do not force the Bible to fit your views. Let the Bible teach you.

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, or you may have nonsense.

D. Every text must be interpreted in the light of its context.

John Wycliffe wrote, "It will greatly help thee to understand Scripture if thou mark: (take notice of) not only what is spoke or written, but of whom, and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, in what circumstances, considering what goeth before, and what followeth after."

E. Be aware of differences.

Pay attention to whether God or man or satan is speaking.

Know the difference between Old & New Testament truth

O.T. Judaism. Obey and you will be blessed.

N.T. Church You have all blessings in Christ. Obedience is out of love & gratitude

Is the passage talking to believers or unsaved?

Is it a parable (story with a meaning) or an event?

Is it appropriate for today?

F. Keep in mind some definitions of terms.

INSPIRATION refers to God's stamp of accuracy and authority on that which is recorded in the Bible.

REVELATION refers to those parts of the Bible revealed by God that would not otherwise be known. (Illustration: Historical sections of the Bible are inspired, but not a revelation of otherwise unknown information.)

ILLUMINATION is when the Holy Spirit makes a Bible truth clear as a believer reads the Bible.

INTERPRETATION is determining what the passage meant when it was written.

APPLICATION is the way we use a portion of Scripture to meet a present need. There is only one correct interpretation to any portion of the Bible, but there may be many applications.

G. Make notes! Lots of notes! (If you are doing it on computer, print it out, sort it out, and then put it in order on your word processor.) If you are doing it on paper, keep all notes on one side. (Many good ideas get lost because they were on the back of a sheet of paper.)

Collect your ideas, key verses, quotations, poems, illustrations, etc. Spread them out, pray about it, and put them in order.

DWIGHT L. MOODY ON SERMON PREPARATION:
"I have no secret. I study more by subjects than I do by texts. If when I am reading, I meet a good thing on any of these subjects, I slip it into the right envelope and leave it there. I always carry a notebook, and if I hear anything in a sermon that will throw light on that subject, I put it down and slip it into the envelope. Perhaps I let it lie for a year or more. When I want a new sermon, I take everything that has been accumulating. Between what I find there and the results of my own study I have material enough.

I am all the time going over my sermons, taking out a little here and adding a little there. In that way they never get very old. I am never ashamed to repeat a sermon."

(D.L.MOODY LIVED BEFORE THE TIME OF FILE FOLDERS SO HE USED LARGE ENVELOPES WITH TOPIC NAMES ON THEM. IN THIS DAY OF COMPUTERS, IT IS MUCH EASIER TO COMPILE INFORMATION.)

DEVELOP YOUR MESSAGE TOWARD A CLIMAX, NOT JUST A CONCLUSION. KEEP YOUR GOAL OR AIM IN MIND.

A message is not just 3 points and a poem. It is not just a way to fill up 30 minutes of time.

People have come for a message from God for their souls. We dare not give them anything less.

There was an old uneducated preacher from the south who was asked how he prepared his sermons. His answer was, "I read myself full, think myself clear, pray myself hot, and then I let's go!" Perhaps he had something.

IV. The Pattern For The Sermon

"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." I Cor. 1:21

"Let all things be done decently and in order." I Cor.14:40

A. A sermon must have an introduction. Often the introduction will make the difference in whether or not the congregation will pay attention to the sermon.

The purposes of the introduction:

To get the attention of the people

To arouse interest in the subject

To introduce your text or topic

To relate the subject to some occasion

To make the people want to listen

The introduction may be:

A rhetorical question - one you will answer

Your text

An observation or illustration

A quotation on your subject. (You may agree or disagree with the person quoted.)

The background of your Scripture passage

B. A sermon needs a well organized body of truth so that God's people will not go away hungry and the unsaved will not go away unaware of their need of Christ as Saviour.

The body of the message may have several points, but only one aim or purpose. The truths presented should be illustrated out of present day living, and then applied to current experience.

A simple outline of this is to:

State the truth - Illustrate the truth - Apply the truth

C. A sermon should have a CLIMAX, NOT JUST A CONCLUSION. The entire sermon should build toward this to accomplish the aim of the sermon.

I heard a preacher deliver an excellent message, with a heart-touching illustration of leading a person to Christ on their death-bed. The aim was accomplished, but the preacher had more in his outline, and he went on to finish the outline. He could have given an invitation at the end of the illustration, and forgotten the rest of his outline,and he would have been far more effective.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TEACH EVERYTHING YOU KNOW OR HAVE STUDIED FOR

THE MESSAGE TO BE EFFECTIVE. Be like a good salesman - close when you have made the sale.

A conclusion may be a poem, an effective illustration, or some other portion of Scripture that reinforces your text.

D. The conclusion of a sermon may tie the whole sermon together, and end with an invitation or a challenge.

A SERMON SHOULD HAVE ONLY ONE CONCLUSION!

E. A sermon is a message from God's Word that should inform the mind, stir the emotions, and move the will to action or a decision.

F. The preacher should double check the sermon for aim, clarity, doctrinal accuracy, good illustrations, and a message from God, not just the preacher.

NEVER ASSUME THAT EVERYONE IN FRONT OF YOU IS REALLY SAVED. ALWAYS INCLUDE THE GOSPEL IN SOME WAY.

G. "Sir, we would see Jesus." John 12:21

V. The Presentation Of The Sermon

Public speaking takes various forms. A lecturer presents a set of opinions, views or truths for the information of the hearers. A political speaker presents his or her position on issues with a view to persuading the audience to agree, or support that position. A teacher presents information in a way that he or she may analyze how much has been learned. This is done by examination, discussion or other participation. A sermon is the presentation of Biblical truth in a way that will warm the heart, challenge the mind, and affect the life. It may lead to an invitation to respond for salvation, dedication or other commitment. A model for preaching is in Nehemiah 8:8. "So the read in the book of the law distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading."

A. Preaching is communicating God's truth. Learn how to project your voice so that even without a public address system you will be heard clearly in the back row. Don't shout, but speak from the diaphragm. Don't use a "Holy tone." or "preacher voice." Speak a little more slowly than you normally do.

Stand up to be seen

Speak up to be heard

Sit down to be appreciated

(Some of us learned this as Stand up, speak up and shut up. Some never learned the last point.)

B. The text of Nehemiah 8:8 gives an outline of the simplest and best kind of preaching.

Distinct Bible reading - State Clearly

Gave the sense - explained and illustrated

Caused them to understand - present application

C. The apostle Paul had a burdened heart

"I am debtor." Romans 1:14

The preacher must have a love for the Lord and a concern for souls. Be earnest. Put your heart into your preaching.

D. Paul also had a prepared mind.

"I am ready" Romans 1:15

Being well prepared is essential to a good message. Being well prepared is the best way to overcome fear or stagefright. Remember, people have come for a message from God for their souls. Dare we give them less than our best?

E. We have a glorious Gospel!

"I am not ashamed." Romans 1:16

Have a vision of the holiness of God, the sinfulness of sin, the lostness of the lost, the reality of Heaven and Hell, and PREACH FOR A VERDICT!

F. Ask God's blessing on His Word before and after the sermon.

G. Keep records! Your memory is not perfect. Keep a final outline as a record of what you preached. Make notations on the back of it as to date, place, results, etc. You may want to keep a paper or computer file (database) of such things as: Subject, Text, Title, date, place, and possibly a consecutive number.

"I love to tell the story, 'tis pleasant to repeat
What seems each time I tell it, More wonderfully sweet.
I love to tell the story, For some have never heard
The message of salvation From God's own Holy Word.
I love to tell the story, 'Twill be my theme in glory
To tell the old, old story of Jesus and His love.

Some Gospel Outlines For Preaching

(God has to do the saving. Merely using a formula or and outline does not guarantee results. Pray for God's blessing on His Word. He has promised that it will not return to Him void.))

The Roman Road To Salvation

WHO IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOD'S HEAVEN? NO ONE.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: Rom. 3:10

WHO HAS SINNED? EVERYONE.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Rom. 3:23

HOW CAN I EARN SALVATION? YOU CAN'T.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Rom. 4:5

HOW CAN ANYONE BE SAVED? TRUST CHRIST ALONE.
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Rom. 5:6-8

SALVATION MUST BE RECEIVED AS A FREE GIFT.
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 6:23

CAN I BE SURE I AM SAVED? YES!
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom. 8:1

WHAT SHOULD I DO? BELIEVE IN CHRIST AND CONFESS HIM OPENLY BEFORE MEN. ACKNOWLEDGE HIM AS YOUR SAVIOUR.
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Rom. 10:9,10

GOD'S PROMISE.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Rom. 10:13

The Gospel On Your Fingers

I HAVE SINNED (Thumb points toward me)
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Rom. 3:23

GOD LOVES ME (First finger points to Heaven)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

CHRIST DIED FOR ME (Middle finger longest, important)
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1 Cor. 15:3

I RECEIVE HIM AS MY PERSONAL SAVIOUR (Ring finger)
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:12

I AM SAVED (Little finger)
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Acts 16:31

The A - B - C Of Salvation

A - Admit that you are a sinner in God's sight.

B - Believe that Christ died for you.

C - Come to Him, Call on Him, Confess Him openly before men.

How Salvation Works

GOD'S LOVE PLANNED IT
John 3:16

CHRIST'S DEATH PAID FOR IT
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2 Cor. 5:21

THE HOLY SPIRIT WORKS IN HEARTS
And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. John 16:8-11

THE WORD OF GOD BRINGS THE MESSAGE TO US
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Pet. 1:23

FAITH REACHES OUT TO TAKE IT AND CLAIM IT.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph. 2:8,9

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Rom. 5:1

The "ALL" Plan of Salvation

All have sinned

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Rom. 3:23

All of our righteousness is as a filthy rag in God's sight.

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Isa. 64:6

All of us have gone astray by going our own way, All of our sins were laid on Christ.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isa. 53:6

He died for all. We must accept this truth and Him.

And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 2 Cor. 5:15

Four Things God Does Not Know

God does not know of any sin that He does not hate.

God does not know of any sinner He does not love.

God does not know of any other way of salvation than the cross of Christ.

God does not know any better time to trust Christ than RIGHT NOW.

If this material has been a blessing to you, please let me know.

Glenn C. Tompkins, Th.D., 384 Point Lane, Walling, TN 38587, 931/761-5067

Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church)

Rencana Penyelamatan Tuhan

1 John 5:11-12 Dan inilah kesaksian itu: Allah telah mengaruniakan hidup yang kekal kepada kita dan hidup itu ada di dalam Anak-Nya. Barangsiapa memiliki Anak, ia memiliki hidup; barangsiapa tidak memiliki Anak, ia tidak memiliki hidup.

Bagian ini mengatakan pada kita bahwa Tuhan telah memberikan hidup kekal dan hidup ini ada didalam AnakNya, Yesus Kristus. Dengan kata lain, cara untuk mendapatkan hidup kekal adalah dengan memiliki Anak. Pertanyaannya, bagaimana seseorang bisa memiliki Anak Allah?

Masalah Manusia

Terpisah Dari Tuhan

Isaiah 59:2 tetapi yang merupakan pemisah antara kamu dan Allahmu ialah segala kejahatanmu, dan yang membuat Dia menyembunyikan diri terhadap kamu, sehingga Ia tidak mendengar, ialah segala dosamu.

Romans 5:8 Akan tetapi Allah menunjukkan kasih-Nya kepada kita, oleh karena Kristus telah mati untuk kita, ketika kita masih berdosa.

Menurut Romans 5:8, Tuhan menunjukan kasihNya kepada kita melalui kematian AnakNya. Kenapa Kristus harus mati bagi kita? Karena Alkitab menyatakan bahwa semua manusia telah berdosa. “Berdosa” artinya tidak mengenai target. Alkitab berkata “Karena semua orang telah berbuat dosa dan telah kehilangan kemuliaan Allah” (Rom. 3:23). Dengan kata lain, dosa kita memisahkan kita dari Tuhan yang kudus sempurna (dalam kebenaran dan keadilan) dan karena itu Tuhan harus menghukum dosa manusia.

Habakkuk 1:13a Mata-Mu terlalu suci untuk melihat kejahatan dan Engkau tidak dapat memandang kelaliman.

Kesia-siaan Usaha Kita

Alkitab juga mengajarkan bahwa tidak ada kebaikan manusia, usaha, moral, atau kegiatan keagamaan yang bisa diterima Tuhan atau bisa membuat seseorang masuk sorga. Manusia bermoral, manusia beragama, dan manusia tidak bermoral dan tidak beragama ada diperahu yang sama. Mereka tidak bisa memenuhi syarat Allah. Setelah membahas tentang manusia tidak bermoral, manusia bermoral, dan manusia beragama dalam Romans 1:18-3:8, Rasul Paulus menyatakan bahwa baik Yahudi dan Yunani ada dibawa dosa, yaitu “Tidak ada yang benar, seorangpun tidak” (Rom. 3:9-10). Selain ini ada beberapa ayat Alkitab yang sama:

Ephesians 2:8-9 Sebab karena kasih karunia kamu diselamatkan oleh iman; itu bukan hasil usahamu, tetapi pemberian Allah, 9 itu bukan hasil pekerjaanmu: jangan ada orang yang memegahkan diri.

Titus 3:5-7 pada waktu itu Dia telah menyelamatkan kita, bukan karena perbuatan baik yang telah kita lakukan, tetapi karena rahmat-Nya oleh permandian kelahiran kembali dan oleh pembaharuan yang dikerjakan oleh Roh Kudus, 6 yang sudah dilimpahkan-Nya kepada kita oleh Yesus Kristus, Juruselamat kita, 7 supaya kita, sebagai orang yang dibenarkan oleh kasih karunia-Nya, berhak menerima hidup yang kekal, sesuai dengan pengharapan kita.

Romans 4:1-5 Jadi apakah akan kita katakan tentang Abraham, bapa leluhur jasmani kita? 2 Sebab jikalau Abraham dibenarkan karena perbuatannya, maka ia beroleh dasar untuk bermegah, tetapi tidak di hadapan Allah. 3 Sebab apakah dikatakan nas Kitab Suci? "Lalu percayalah Abraham kepada Tuhan, dan Tuhan memperhitungkan hal itu kepadanya sebagai kebenaran." 4 Kalau ada orang yang bekerja, upahnya tidak diperhitungkan sebagai hadiah, tetapi sebagai haknya. 5 Tetapi kalau ada orang yang tidak bekerja, namun percaya kepada Dia yang membenarkan orang durhaka, imannya diperhitungkan menjadi kebenaran,

Tidak ada kebaikan manusia yang berkenan pada Tuhan. Tuhan sempurna dalam kebenaran. Karena itu, Habakkuk 1:13 mengatakan pada kita bahwa Tuhan tidak bisa bersekutu dengan orang yang tidak sempurna dalam kebenaran. Untuk bisa diterima oleh Tuhan, kita harus sebaik Tuhan. Dihadapan Tuhan, kita berdiri telanjang, tidak berdaya. Sebanyak apapun hidup baik tidak akan membawa kita kesurga atau memberikan kita kehidupan kekal. Jadi apa jalan keluarnya?

Solusi Tuhan

Tuhan tidak hanya sempurna dalam kekudusan (merupakan karakter kesucian yang tidak bisa kita dapatkan melalui usaha kita) tapi Dia juga sempurna dalam kasih dan penuh belas kasih dan kasih karunia. Karena kasih dan anugrahNya, Dia tidak membiarkan kita tanpa harapan dan jawaban.

Romans 5:8 Akan tetapi Allah menunjukkan kasih-Nya kepada kita, oleh karena Kristus telah mati untuk kita, ketika kita masih berdosa.

Ini kabar baik Alkitab, isi dari injil. Ini pesan mengenai Tuhan memberikan AnakNya menjadi manusia (Tuhan yang jadi manusia), hidup tidak berdosa, mati dikayu salib untuk dosa kita, dan dibangkitkan dari kematian membuktikan bahwa Dia Anak Allah dan nilai kematianNya menggantikan kita.

Romans 1:4 dan menurut Roh kekudusan dinyatakan oleh kebangkitan-Nya dari antara orang mati, bahwa Ia adalah Anak Allah yang berkuasa, Yesus Kristus Tuhan kita,

Romans 4:25 yaitu Yesus, yang telah diserahkan karena pelanggaran kita dan dibangkitkan karena pembenaran kita.

2 Corinthians 5:21 Dia yang tidak mengenal dosa telah dibuat-Nya menjadi dosa karena kita, supaya dalam Dia kita dibenarkan oleh Allah.

1 Peter 3:18 Sebab juga Kristus telah mati sekali untuk segala dosa kita, Ia yang benar untuk orang-orang yang tidak benar, supaya Ia membawa kita kepada Allah; Ia, yang telah dibunuh dalam keadaan-Nya sebagai manusia, tetapi yang telah dibangkitkan menurut Roh;

Bagaimana Kita Bisa Menerima Anak Allah?

Karena apa yang sudah dicapai Yesus Kristus bagi kita dikayu salib, Alkitab berkata “Dia yang adalah Anak memiliki hidup.” Kita bisa menerima Anak, Yesus Kristus, sebagai Juruselamat kita melalui iman, dengan percaya pada pribadi Kristus dan kematianNya untuk dosa kita.

John 1:12 Tetapi semua orang yang menerima-Nya diberi-Nya kuasa supaya menjadi anak-anak Allah, yaitu mereka yang percaya dalam nama-Nya.

John 3:16-18 Karena begitu besar kasih Allah akan dunia ini, sehingga Ia telah mengaruniakan Anak-Nya yang tunggal, supaya setiap orang yang percaya kepada-Nya tidak binasa, melainkan beroleh hidup yang kekal. Sebab Allah mengutus Anak-Nya ke dalam dunia bukan untuk menghakimi dunia, melainkan untuk menyelamatkannya oleh Dia. Barangsiapa percaya kepada-Nya, ia tidak akan dihukum; barangsiapa tidak percaya, ia telah berada di bawah hukuman, sebab ia tidak percaya dalam nama Anak Tunggal Allah.

Ini artinya kita semua datang kepada Tuhan dengan cara yang sama: (1) sebagai orang berdosa yang menyadari keberdosaannya, (2) menyadari bahwa tidak ada usaha manusia yang bisa menghasilkan keselamatan, dan (3) berserah penuh hanya kepada Kristus melalui iman untuk mendapat keselamatan.

Jika anda ingin menerima dan percaya pada Kristus sebagai Juruselama pribadi anda, anda bisa menyatakan iman anda dalam Kristus melalui doa pengakuan disa, menerima pengampunanNya dan meletakan iman anda pada Kristus untuk diselamatkan.

Jika anda sudah percaya Kristus, anda perlu belajar hidup baru dan berjalan bersama Tuhan. Kami mengusulkan anda memulainnya dengan ABCs for Christian Growth. Seri ini akan membawa anda langkah demi langkah kedalam kebenaran dasar iman dalam Firman Tuhan dan menolong anda membangun dasar yang kuat bagi imanmu dalam Kristus.

Panggilan ke dalam Komunitas

Related Media

Penerjemah: Yoppi Margianto

Pernahkah seseorang menunjukkan Anda sehelai kertas dengan ribuan titik di situ, tetapi tanpa terlihat suatu pola tertentu, kemudian mengatakan kepada Anda bahwa bila Anda memperhatikan dengan seksama titik-titik itu dengan cukup lama, maka akan muncul suatu gambar pada kertas itu? Sebagian dari Anda mungkin tahu apa yang saya maksudkan. Sebenarnya Anda telah melihat “gambar” itu sebelumnya, kemudian Anda mengamati titik-titik itu dan menjadi yakin bahwa suatu gambar muncul meskipun kenyataannya tidak ada gambar sama sekali. Alhasil Anda melihat seekor kupu-kupu, palu dsb, sebagaimana yang Anda pikirkan sebelumnya. Ingatkah Anda akan efek 3-D dari sebuah gambar?

Hal yang sama berlaku juga di dalam pemahaman Alkitab. Kadang-kadang kita harus mengamati teks dengan cukup lama untuk mengenali suatu gambar tertentu. Kita tidak menciptakan gambar itu ex nihilo (dari tidak ada); teks itulah yang memunculkannya di dalam pikiran kita, meskipun gambar itu selalu ada dalam teks itu. Masalahnya bukanlah bahwa mata kita tidak bekerja dengan baik, melainkan bahwa kita telah dibelokkan dari melihat hal itu. Hal ini terutama nyata pada waktu kita berusaha mengenali fokus korporat di dalam pengajaran para rasul. Karena kita (penulis) hidup di Barat di mana orang-orang begitu gandrung akan individualisme dan menjauhi kehidupan kelompok/komunitas, kita mengalami waktu-waktu yang jauh lebih sulit dalam melihat komunitas yang dimaksudkan Paulus, dan kita sulit menghargainya.¹ Misalnya, di dalam 1 Korintus 3:16-17 Paulus berkata:

Tidak tahukah kamu, bahwa kamu adalah bait Allah dan bahwa Roh Allah diam di dalam kamu? 17 Jika ada orang yang membinasakan bait Allah, maka Allah akan membinasakan dia. Sebab bait Allah adalah kudus dan bait Allah itu ialah kamu.

Di dalam tata bahasa Inggris kata ganti orang “you” dapat menunjukkan baik tunggal maupun jamak, baik seorang maupun banyak orang; jadi, kontekslah yang menentukan. Namun faktanya banyak pembaca berbahasa Inggris, pada waktu mereka membaca pernyataan Paulus di dalam 1 Kor 3:16, menganggap bahwa yang dimaksudkan Paulus dengan “you” adalah tunggal. Mereka menganggap bahwa Paulus sedang menekankan pada individu. Maka mereka setelah membaca ayat ini biasanya mereka berkata, “Aku adalah bait Roh Kudus.” Sesungguhnya hal ini melenceng dari maksud Paulus. Kata ganti tersebut dalam bahasa aslinya adalah jamak.² (Dalam bahasa Indonesia, pernyataan kejamakan di sini sebenarnya sangat jelas, karena digunakan kata ganti “kamu” dan bukan “engkau”. LAI secara konsisten menggunakan kata ganti “engkau” untuk tunggal dan “kamu” untuk jamak, penterj.) Rasul Paulus tidak mengatakan bahwa tiap-tiap orang percaya di Korintus adalah bait Roh Kudus, melainkan bahwa gereja sebagai satu keutuhan, itulah bait Allah. Jadi gambaran itu adalah korporat, bukan tunggal. Kita tidak perlu mengerti bahasa Yunani untuk memahami hal ini. Cukup bagi kita untuk menyingkirkan penghalang di mata kita dengan membaca konteksnya secara teliti. Maka kita akan “melihat” bahwa Paulus sedang berbicara tentang gereja lokal di Korintus sebagai satu kesatuan, bukan hanya sebagai orang per orang di dalamnya (band. 1 Kor 3:1-23).

Kita secara otomatis melakukan hal-hal yang sama mengenai “manusia lama” dan “manusia baru” di dalam tulisan-tulisan Paulus. Kita mengindividualisasikan pernyataan-pernyataannya ini dan, terutama dalam budaya kita, kita mem-psikologikan-nya. Padahal semua pernyataannya itu bukan menunjukkan “engkau” sebagai individu (atau sesuatu dalam engkau), melainkan “kamu” yang dilihat dalam konteks hubungan. Karena itu, pernyataan-pernyataan tersebut berfokus pada kelompok atau korporat yang dilihat secara etis/rohani; bukan semata-mata pribadi dan psikologis.³ Dengan melakukan itu, kita membuat gunung dari Paulus menjadi hanya sebuah bukit!⁴

Jadi apa artinya ini bagi kita? Apa yang diharapkan dari gereja sekarang terhadap fokus kehidupan kelompok yang ditekankan oleh Perjanjian Baru? Berikut ini adalah sebagian yang terpenting: Pertama, kita perlu memohon kepada Allah untuk mengampuni kita akan keakuan kita. Kita juga perlu meminta-Nya menolong kita untuk secara tulus menerima kenyataan kesatuan kita sebagai tubuh Kristus. Kita tidak menciptakan tubuh ini maupun memberikan pamrih kepadanya; malahan tubuh inilah yang bergerak menyelamatkan kita semua, dan Roh Kudus-lah yang berkarya membawa kita sebagai kesatuan di dalam Kristus. Karena itu, tidak ada tempat untuk kita memegahkan keakuan kita.

Kedua, kita perlu menyadari bahwa keyakinan, sikap, dan tindakan kita memiliki konsekuensi dalam komunitas Kristus di mana kita ada. Kita tidak dapat semata-mata percaya atau hidup sesuka kita tanpa mempengaruhi orang lain.⁵ Kita pasti mempengaruhi saudara-saudara kita melalui keputusan yang kita ambil, meskipun mungkin kita berkali-kali mendengar, bahwa sepanjang “tindakanku tidak menyakiti orang lain, tidak ada masalah.” Bila Anda mencuri sesuatu dari pekerja Anda atau membunuh jiwa Anda dengan pornografi, meskipun Anda melakukan yang terakhir di rumah Anda sendiri tanpa ada orang yang tahu, keduanya sama-sama memberikan akibat yang serius bagi orang-orang di sekitar Anda. Anda tidak hidup di dalam ruang hampa; Anda hidup di dalam suatu hubungan. Dari sepuluh kali kesempatan, sembilan kali Anda jatuh ke dalam pornografi, maka ketagihan Anda itu akan bertambah besar melalui hubungan Anda, misalnya dengan teman atau kenalan. Seandainya pun Anda masih dapat mengontrol kemurnian hubungan Anda, tetap Anda tidak dapat memberi makan jiwa Anda dengan kotoran moral lalu berjalan dengan benar di dalam interaksi Anda dengan yang lain! Semakin banyak kita memberi makan jiwa kita dengan dosa, semakin lemah hasrat kita akan kebaikan.

Ketiga, kita perlu menyadari bahwa dalam kehidupan dan penyembahan sebagai satu tubuh-lah, yang utama, meskipun bukan yang eksklusif, kasih Allah menjadi sedemikian pribadi dan dapat dikenali oleh kita. Di dalam Efesus 3:14-21, Paulus berkata, “

3:14 Itulah sebabnya aku sujud kepada Bapa, 15 yang dari-Nya semua turunan yang di dalam sorga dan di atas bumi menerima namanya. 16 Aku berdoa supaya Ia, menurut kekayaan kemuliaan-Nya, menguatkan dan meneguhkan kamu oleh Roh-Nya di dalam batinmu, 17 sehingga oleh imanmu Kristus diam di dalam hatimu dan kamu berakar serta berdasar di dalam kasih. 18 Aku berdoa, supaya kamu bersama-sama dengan segala orang kudus dapat memahami, betapa lebarnya dan panjangnya dan tingginya dan dalamnya kasih Kristus, 19 dan dapat mengenal kasih itu, sekalipun ia melampaui segala pengetahuan. Aku berdoa, supaya kamu dipenuhi di dalam seluruh kepenuhan Allah. 20 Bagi Dialah, yang dapat melakukan jauh lebih banyak daripada yang kita doakan atau pikirkan, seperti yang ternyata dari kuasa yang bekerja di dalam kita, 21 bagi Dialah kemuliaan di dalam jemaat dan di dalam Kristus Yesus turun-temurun sampai selama-lamanya. Amin.

Jadi, melalui kehidupan, interaksi dan penyembahan korporatlah kita belajar akan arti dan pentingnya penebusan Kristus dan kita mengalami karya-Nya yang terjadi di dalam gereja dan di dunia. Perjanjian Baru tidak pernah berbicara tentang kehidupan yang individualistik dan masa bodoh seperti yang telah lama berurat akar di dalam masyarakat Eropa, Amerika dan Kanada. Kita tidak pernah ditakdirkan untuk menjalani kehidupan sendirian, dan kita menipu diri kita bila kita berpikir bahwa kita sungguh-sungguh dapat melakukannya sambil tetap menjaga kerohanian kita. Memang benar bahwa kemurnian gereja ada yang kurang ada yang lebih, dan bahwa diperlukan hikmat, doa dan bimbingan sebelum memilih sebuah gereja, namun “hidup sendiri” bukanlah pilihan bagi orang Kristen yang taat. Buatlah komitmen kepada satu gereja, untuk menerima darinya dan melayani di dalamnya dengan kekuatan yang disediakan Allah.

Keempat, komunitas orang-orang seringkali diumpamakan sebagai rantai, dan kekuatan dari suatu komunitas lokal seringkali dikatakan terletak pada ikatannya yang terlemah. Pada waktu seseorang yang tidak memiliki Roh Allah mendengar kebenaran ini, ia akan berkata kepada dirinya sendiri, “Saya harus menguatkan diri saya supaya saya tidak menjadi ikatan yang terlemah.” Tetapi bila orang Kristen yang mendengar kebenaran ini, fokusnya bukanlah pada bagaimana ia dapat menjadi lebih kuat, melainkan bagaimana ia dapat menguatkan saudaranya supaya saudaranya itu menjadi sesuai dengan yang dimaksudkan Allah. Dengan memandang seperti itu terhadap saudara kita, sesungguhnya kita sedang menjalankan suatu kehidupan yang ke dalamnya Allah telah memanggil mereka dan menjanjikan berkat berupa kehadiran-Nya.

Renungkanlah hal ini, dan dapatkanlah pelajaran dari Tuhan untuk Anda. Jika Anda sedang bergumul dengan dosa tertentu, mintalah bantuan gembala atau teman yang dapat dipercayai dan yang rohani. Anda tidak perlu melepaskan diri dari genggaman dosa dengan kekuatan Anda sendiri. Ada umat Allah yang dapat menolong Anda. Bila Anda merasa Anda tidak mempunyai apa-apa untuk diberikan, pergilah kepada pemimpin Anda dan bertanyalah kepadanya bagaimana Anda dapat belajar lebih banyak tentang karunia rohani, lalu gunakanlah karunia-karunia itu untuk mengasihi dan melayani orang lain. Juga, belajarlah membaca Alkitab melalui lensa korporat ini, maka Anda akan mulai “melihat” fokus Allah pada komunitas sebagaimana pada masing-masing individu. Akhirnya, ingatlah bahwa Anda adalah bagian dari suatu komunitas yang terjalin dengan rapi di mana “jika satu anggota menderita, semua anggota turut menderita; jika satu anggota dihormati, semua anggota turut bersukacita.” (1 Korintus 12:26)!

¹ Pengakuan akan fokus korporat di dalam Perjanjan Baru ini memang sedang bertumbuh di kalangan Evangelikal, meskipun sangat lambat.

² Kejamakan kata ganti tersebut dapat terlihat dari kata kerja oidate and este, dan kata umi`n jelas adalah jamak. Tetapi mungkin ada orang yang mengatakan, “Rasul Paulus sedang berbicara kepada jemaat, jadi jelas ia menggunakan kata ganti jamak. Tetapi ini tidak berarti bahwa Paulus memberikan fokus pada mereka sebagai kesatuan. Ia hanya menginginkan bahwa tiap-tiap anggota menyadari bahwa Roh Allah berada pada masing-masing mereka.”

Memang hal ini mungkin, tetapi tidak dapat dibuktikan. Pertama, masalah di dalam 1 Korintus 1-4, yang menjadi konteks ayat ini, berbicara tentang perpecahan di kalangan pemimpin jemaat. Sangat tidak mungkin di dalam mengurusi persoalan perpecahan ini, Paulus malah menekankan semangat individualisme dengan meyakinkan tiap-tiap orang sebagai individu yang memiliki Roh Allah. Kedua, ia menyebut mereka sebagai “bait Allah” bukan sebagai “bait-bait Allah” secara individu (band. 1 Kor 6:19-20 untuk perikop yang memberikan fokus pada individu, meskipun perikop tersebut tidak bermaksud menekankan individualisme). Jadi jelas bahwa, baik dari konteks historis maupun sastra, Paulus sedang berbicara kepada jemaat di Korintus sebagai satu kesatuan.

³ Untuk bacaan lebih lanjut tentang topik ini, lihatlah artikel saya “Old Man and New Man in Paul”).

⁴ Sebenarnya kami dapat memberikan banyak bacaan untuk hal ini, namun ruang memori tidak memungkinkan. Tetapi hal ini hanya membuat permasalahan ini menjadi lebih ironis, bahwa orang-orang yang mengklaim diri mereka sebagai umat pemilik Alkitab, yakni kaum evangelikal, justru seringkali kehilangan sesuatu yang sebenarnya terlihat dengan jelas!

⁵ Kita memiliki martabat (dignity), yakni kemampuan kita untuk mempengaruhi orang lain untuk perubahan yang positif, baik dan rohani. Tetapi kini di dunia yang sudah jatuh ini, kita juga memiliki kebejatan (depravity), yakni potensi kita untuk mempengaruhi orang lain untuk berbuat jahat, dosa dan tidak rohani.

Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Devotionals, Election

English

Menganggap Semuanya Kebahagiaan? Jangan Bercanda!

Related Media

Penerjemah: Yoppi Margianto

Pembukaan: Palu, Kikir dan Perapian

Allah menggunakan berbagai macam pengujian dalam hidup kita untuk membentuk, menyadarkan, dan mematangkan kita, membuat kita menjadi orang-orang yang menyerupai Kristus. Sumber-sumber pengujian ini dapat diumpamakan dengan beberapa hal, misalnya sebuah palu, sebuah file atau sebuah perapian.

Palu adalah sebuah alat yang berguna, tulis A.W. Tozer, tetapi tidak bagi paku. Bila ia mempunyai perasaan dan otak, pasti pendapatnya akan berbeda. Karena paku hanya tahu bahwa palu adalah musuhnya, bahkan musuh yang brutal dan tanpa perasaan, yang selalu memaksanya untuk tunduk, dipukul sampai masuk ke dalam suatu tempat. Itulah pandangan paku tentang palu, dan pandangan itu benar, kecuali untuk satu hal. Paku lupa bahwa baik dirinya maupun palu sama-sama merupakan hamba dari tukang yang sama. Jadi seandainya paku dapat mengingat bahwa palu dipegang oleh si tukang, maka kemarahannya terhadap palu pun akan lenyap. Si tukang bangunanlah yang memutuskan kepala siapa yang akan dipukul berikutnya dan paku yang mana yang akan digunakan untuk memukul. Itu adalah hak mutlaknya. Seandainya si paku menyerah kepada kehendak si tukang kayu dan sedikit saja dapat memahami rencana si tukang kayu di masa depan, maka ia akan menyerah kepada palu itu tanpa mengeluh.

Kikir lebih lagi menyakitkan, karena urusannya adalah menggigit logam yang lunak, memotong dan menyingkirkan ujung logam itu sampai logam itu terbentuk sesuai keinginannya. Tetapi sesungguhnya, bukan kikir itu yang memiliki keinginan, karena ia hanya melayani tuannya, sebagaimana logam itu juga. Sang tuanlah dan bukan kikir itu yang memutuskan seberapa banyak yang harus dibuang, bentuk apa yang harus dibuat pada logam itu, dan seberapa lama pengikiran itu akan berlangsung. Jadi, biarlah sang logam menerima saja keinginan sang tuan dan tidak perlu mendikte kapan dan bagaimana ia harus dikikir.

Perapian adalah yang paling mengerikan. Kejam dan ganas, ia melalap apapun yang dapat dibakarnya yang memasukinya dan tidak pernah mengurangi amukannya sampai semuanya menjadi abu. Siapapun yang menolak untuk dibakar pasti akan luluh dan tidak berdaya, tanpa kehendak atau rencana sang perapian. Ketika segala sesuatu sudah luluh dan terbakar, barulah si perapian meredakan amukannya yang merusak.¹

Penderitaan sama sekali tidak menyenangkan. Kadang-kadang Allah menggunakan sebuah palu—atau paling tidak mirip seperti itu—dan di lain waktu Ia menggunakan kikir yang menyakitkan. Bahkan Ia dapat menggunakan perapian, meskipun mungkin tidak sering, karena Ia tahu bahwa kita terbuat dari debu. Penderitaan mungkin membuat kita lelah dan tak berdaya, tetapi satu hal yang harus Anda ingat sebagai orang Kristen, adalah bahwa Allah bersama dengan Anda dalam seluruh pergumulan itu. Ia telah memfokuskan seluruh energi-Nya pada diri Anda dan tidak akan meninggalkan Anda sendirian, meskipun mungkin saat itu Anda merasa Ia telah meninggalkan Anda dan menjauh dari pemikiran Anda.

Bagaimana Seharusnya Kita Meresponi Penderitaan (dan Mengapa)

Bagaimana seharusnya kita meresponi penderitaan? Kadangkala kita menolak keras penderitaan itu. Sangat sulit bagi kita untuk memikirkan bahwa Bapa kita di surga tega mengijinkan hal itu terjadi, merancangkan penderitaan sebagai bagian dari rencana-Nya bagi hidup kita. Kita bertahan di dalam ilusi ini meskipun Alkitab dengan jelas mengajarkan kita bahwa Allah menciptakan baik terang maupun gelap, baik damai maupun malapetaka, meskipun semuanya itu demi kebaikan kita.

Terdapat beberapa alasan mengapa kita harus menderita. Kadangkala kita menderita karena kita telah bertindak dengan tidak sabar dan salah mengambil keputusan. Maka kita masuk ke dalam proses tabur tuai, dan Allah mengijinkan hal itu terjadi untuk mengajar kita bahwa kemuliaan-Nya dan kebaikan kita, itulah yang selalu dipikirkan-Nya. Bukan berarti bahwa Anda tidak dapat meminta Allah untuk mengakhiri pencobaan ini. Mungkin saja Ia berkata, “Tidak,” tetapi di dalam hikmat dan belas kasih-Nya yang tak terbatas, Ia dapat mengabulkan permintaan Anda bila Anda merendahkan hati dan berbalik kepada Juruselamat Anda. Namun mungkin lebih baik bagi kita untuk meminta hikmat dalam situasi seperti itu, daripada meminta Allah untuk lekas-lekas menyelesaikannya. Biar bagaimanapun, belas kasihan Allah tetap tak terbatas, dan Ia pasti mendengarkan umat-Nya yang berseru meminta pertolongan (Keluaran 3:7)!

Tetapi ada waktu-waktu di dalam hidup kita ketika kita menderita meskipun kita merasa tidak melakukan kesalahan. Kita semua menyadari bahwa setiap hari kita berbuat dosa, tetapi itu tidak sama dengan kita secara sadar melakukan dosa yang berat atau membangun suatu sikap yang tidak percaya atau moral yang cemar. Pendeknya, ada waktu-waktu ketika kita menderita—baik karena orang lain maupun keadaan-keadaan yang dipakai Allah bagi kita—semata-mata karena Allah sedang bekerja di dalam hidup kita untuk memurnikan, menguatkan, dan memperbesar ruangan di dalam hati kita bagi-Nya. Renungkanlah, apakah akhir-akhir ini Allah membawa sebuah palu dalam kehidupan Anda? Apakah Ia sedang bekerja dengan sebuah kikir? Atau apakah Anda merasa seperti sedang berada dalam perapian? Apa sesungguhnya hikmat Allah yang bisa Anda peroleh dalam situasi seperti ini? Dengarkanlah Yakobus berbicara:

1:2 Saudara-saudaraku, anggaplah sebagai suatu kebahagiaan, apabila kamu jatuh ke dalam berbagai-bagai pencobaan, 3 sebab kamu tahu, bahwa ujian terhadap imanmu itu menghasilkan ketekunan. 4 Dan biarkanlah ketekunan itu memperoleh buah yang matang, supaya kamu menjadi sempurna dan utuh dan tak kekurangan suatu apapun. 5 Tetapi apabila di antara kamu ada yang kekurangan hikmat, hendaklah ia memintakannya kepada Allah, yang memberikan kepada semua orang dengan murah hati dan dengan tidak membangkit-bangkit, maka hal itu akan diberikan kepadanya. 6 Hendaklah ia memintanya dalam iman, dan sama sekali jangan bimbang, sebab orang yang bimbang sama dengan gelombang laut, yang diombang-ambingkan kian ke mari oleh angin. 7 Orang yang demikian janganlah mengira, bahwa ia akan menerima sesuatu dari Tuhan.

Penderitaan tidaklah menyenangkan. Dan Yakobus pun tidak mengatakan bahwa itu adalah kesenangan! Melainkan ia berkata, “Anggaplah sebagai suatu kebahagiaan.” Pergi ke Disneyland jelas merupakan kesenangan. Namun menderita setiap hari karena penyakit, kehilangan pekerjaan, atau mengalami kerugian…, jelas semua itu bukan kesenangan! Tetapi pengujian seperti itu dapat kita jalani dalam sukacita, kalau kita menganggapnya sebagai sebuah palu, kikir, atau perapian!

Mungkin Anda bertanya, “Bagaimana aku dapat menganggap pengujian-pengujian yang mengurung aku seperti kawanan serigala lapar, sebagai kebahagiaan?

Bukankah para psikiater berkata bahwa sikap seperti itu sebenarnya menunjukkan penyangkalan semata-mata? Dan bukankah para ahli berkata bahwa orang-orang seperti itu harus mendapatkan pemulihan atau didiamkan saja sebelum akhirnya meledak?

Tetapi sekali lagi, Yakobus tidak berkata, “Jangan akui bahwa engkau sedang berada dalam peperangan yang keras sekarang.” Ia tidak berkata, “Matikanlah rasa sakit itu, dengan menonton film, atau bentuk-bentuk hiburan yang lain.” Sesungguhnya ia mengatakan kepada kita untuk mempertimbangkan (consider, LAI: menganggap) pencobaan-pencobaan kita itu, artinya, ia mendorong kita untuk memiliki pemahaman yang dalam akan apa yang sedang terjadi di dalam kehidupan kita. Dan ia meminta kita untuk melakukan hal itu dengan cara tertentu, berdasarkan apa yang akan terjadi di dalam dan melalui kita sebagai hasilnya.

Pertama, Yakobus mendorong kita untuk mempertimbangkan, atau memandang pencobaan-pencobaan itu sebagai kebahagiaan. Dan, ia tidak sedang bercanda! Kita didorong untuk menyambut kesulitan seperti kita menyambut seorang teman lama. Bayangkanlah seorang teman yang tidak pernah berjumpa dengan Anda selama bertahun-tahun. Bayangkanlah bertemu dengannya lagi. Apakah Anda akan memalingkan muka Anda? Apakah Anda akan menawarkan teman Anda itu sikap yang marah, pahit dan cemberut? Tidak! Anda akan mengundangnya ke rumah. Anda akan membuka hati untuknya dan menerimanya dengan sukacita! Begitulah juga seharusnya dengan pencobaan… paling tidak menurut Yakobus.

Namun Yakobus tidak hanya meminta kita untuk menyambut pencobaan-pencobaan dengan sukacita! Sukacita kita jangan dicampur dengan apapun, hanya sukacita saja, yang mengalir seperti aliran air, tak ternodai oleh ketidakpercayaan atau kepahitan.

Tetapi mengapa? Mengapa kita harus menganggap pencobaan-pencobaan di dalam hidup kita sebagai kebahagiaan? Jawaban: Karena kita tahu bahwa pencobaan sedang digenapi di dalam kita. Kita diberikan kesempatan untuk mengecapnya supaya kita dapat menjadi semakin serupa dengan Kristus dalam hal kesabaran dan ketekunan. Pendeknya, kita dimatangkan dan diperlengkapi, dengan suatu iman yang murni dan tak tercemar. Kita mengalami pengujian supaya kita tidak kekurangan apapun!

Pernahkah Anda berpikir seperti itu sebelumnya? Bila Anda sangat rindu untuk bertumbuh di dalam Kristus, untuk menikmati keintiman yang lebih dalam dengan-Nya, dan untuk mencerminkan ketekunan-Nya di dalam pengalaman hidup Anda, maka Anda sudah menjadi orang Kristen yang semakin menyerupai Kristus! Pada akhirnya, keluarga Anda yang diuntungkan. Pada akhirnya, gereja Anda akan diberkati. Pada akhirnya, dunia akan diubahkan!

Tetapi terdapat kenyataan kedua yang memampukan kita untuk bersukacita di tengah-tengah pencobaan dan itu adalah: pada waktu kita diuji, mesti ada Seseorang yang memberikan pengujian itu! Jadi, kita tahu bahwa kita tidak sedang menderita untuk sesuatu, melainkan untuk dan dengan Seseorang… Kita sedang menderita bersama dengan tangan Kristus sendiri yang penuh darah tertikam paku. Ia telah merancangkan suatu pengujian yang khusus supaya melaluinya Ia akan menggendong kita—Ya menggendong kita, dengan tangan-Nya yang berlubang paku itu!

Kesimpulan

Jika Anda sudah mengenal Dia, dan hari ini tidak ada pencobaan yang khusus yang sedang Anda jalani, pertimbangkanlah diri Anda sedang diberkati dan bersyukurlah kepada Tuhan. Tetapi bila Anda mengenal-Nya, dan Anda sedang melewati api hari ini, anggaplah hal itu sebagai suatu sukacita; sambutlah pencobaan-pencobaan itu seperti Anda menyambut teman lama! Ketahuilah bahwa Kristus sendirilah yang sedang mengerjakan rencana-Nya yang besar di dalam hidup Anda dan bahwa tidak ada sesuatupun yang dapat memisahkan Anda dari kasih-Nya (Roma 8:38-39). Dia sedang mengerjakan buah-buah rohani di dalam diri Anda supaya Anda dapat semakin matang dan lengkap dan supaya Anda pada akhirnya dapat menikmati-Nya lebih lagi.

Bila Anda tidak mengenal Tuhan hari ini, maka dengarkanlah apa yang sedang Ia katakan kepada Anda melalui kesulitan hidup Anda. Anda tidak diciptakan untuk “menanggungnya sendirian.” Anda dirancang untuk suatu hubungan dengan orang lain, dan yang terpenting, dengan Pribadi yang Utama. Pengujian adalah ketukan Allah pada pintu hati Anda. Jangan katakan kepada-Nya bahwa Ia salah alamat. Melainkan, sambutlah Dia dan perhatikanlah bagaimana segala sesuatu akan berubah!

¹ A. W. Tozer, The Root of the Righteous, dikutip di dalam Charles Swindoll, ed. The Tardy Oxcart, 581.

Baik di dalam Hidup-Nya, Maupun di dalam Mati-Nya

Related Media

Penerjemah: Yoppi Margianto

Untuk membantu jemaat dalam pergumulan melawan dosa, bapa-bapa gereja, para Reformator, kaum Puritan—telah mendapatkan inspirasi melalui Alkitab untuk meringkas etika rohani menjadi hanya dua daftar, yang dikenal sebagai “tujuh dosa maut” dan “tujuh kebajikan” untuk kehidupan yang suci. Yang pertama terdiri dari kesombongan, iri hati, amarah, kemalasan, ketamakan, kerakusan dan hawa nafsu. Yang kedua meliputi hikmat, keadilan, keberanian, kesederhanaan, iman, kasih dan pengharapan.

Mahatma Gandhi, meskipun bukan seorang Kristen, juga mempunyai daftar “tujuh dosa maut”, yang dinyatakannya dalam bentuk kontras: kekayaan tanpa usaha, kesenangan tanpa hati nurani, pengetahuan tanpa karakter, perdagangan tanpa moral, ilmu tanpa kemanusiaan, penyembahan tanpa pengorbanan, politik tanpa prinsip.

Kebenaran dalam hal ini adalah bahwa semua orang telah kehilangan kemuliaan Allah dan karena itu harus bertanggung jawab kepada-Nya (Roma 3:23). Kita semua telah melakukan dosa-dosa—dalam berbagai kadar—seperti yang terdapat di dalam daftar di atas. “Kita sekalian,” tulis Yesaya, “mengambil jalannya sendiri.” (Yesaya 53:6) Dan saya pikir setiap orang di bumi ini, melalui hentakan pergumulan di dalam hati nurani mereka, pasti sadar akan hal ini, meskipun mereka tidak pernah membaca kesaksian Alkitab ini.

“Pada waktu saya melayani di Angkatan Laut tahun 1958,” kenang Chuck Swindoll, “Saya ditempatkan di Okinawa di mana terdapat sebuah leprosarium. Waktu itu saya bermain di band divisi ketiga di Korps Marinir, untuk tampil di bagian utara pulau Okinawa.

Saya memang tahu tentang penyakit kusta, namun saya belum pernah melihat secara langsung seperti apa orang kusta itu, dan saya benar-benar tidak siap untuk apa yang saya lihat. Mereka tidak punya jari. Ada yang wajahnya hanya separuh. Ada yang telinganya hanya satu. Saya menyaksikan apa yang disebut orang sebagai sampah masyarakat, yang bahkan tidak mampu untuk memberikan tepuk tangan bagi pertunjukan kami. Saya melihat di setiap wajah mereka, baik laki-laki, perempuan, tua maupun muda, suatu jeritan kesedihan. Kami memang memainkan musik bagi mereka, tetapi kami tidak dapat mentahirkan penyakit mereka.

Di dalam Alkitab, kusta adalah gambaran akan dosa. Dan kita tahu bahwa penyakit ini ditahirkan dan bukan disembuhkan. Hanya darah Yesus yang memiliki kuasa untuk mentahirkan kita dari kondisi kita yang penuh dosa. Kini saya mengerti ketika Alkitab berkata, ‘Maka tergeraklah hati-Nya oleh belas kasihan.’”¹

Di mata Tuhan, kita sungguh merupakan orang-orang kusta secara rohani (band. Mat 5:3). Dan kesadaran akan kondisi kita yang rusak ini—suatu kesadaran yang semakin jarang ditemui di zaman ini—adalah syarat utama untuk dapat mengalami kehidupan yang diubahkan, memahami kasih-Nya. Tiap-tiap kita pasti mengetahui apa arti melukai hati orang lain dengan sengaja, atau mengutuki Allah, melakukan gosip tentang tetangga kita, melawan kehendak yang Mahakuasa, menunjukkan kedengkian terhadap seseorang yang diciptakan menurut gambar Allah, menggunakan Allah untuk kepentingan pribadi, membenci orang lain, menginjak-injak darah Kristus dengan cara melakukan dosa secara sadar dan terus-menerus dan menganggap bahwa Ia mudah saja memberikan pengampunan, membuat rencana jahat untuk kepentingan sendiri dengan mengorbankan orang lain, meminta Allah datang hanya bagi Anda, membiarkan isteri Anda tidur dengan hati yang sakit, menggunakan kasih karunia sebagai tempat pelarian dari api, mengumpat orang di jalan raya, menghina Allah, menelanjangi pasangan Anda dengan kata-kata di depan banyak orang—dan masih banyak lagi.

“Masalah utama di dunia ini terletak di hati dan pikiran manusia,” kata Albert Einstein. “Bukan masalah fisik, melainkan masalah etislah yang utama. Hal yang menakutkan kita bukanlah ancaman bom atom yang dahsyat, melainkan kuasa kejahatan di dalam hati manusia.” Pendapat Einstein ini benar.

Siapa yang memahami kedalaman kasih Allah yang tak bersyarat itu dengan lebih baik? Apakah orang yang telah lebih banyak diampuni? Ataukah, orang yang sedikit diampuni? Sebenarnya—dan saya pikir Yesus pun setuju—kategori terakhir tidak pernah ada. Kita semua telah begitu parah menentang kekudusan Allah dan menghina kesempurnaan-Nya. Kita semua memerlukan suatu pengampunan yang tak dapat dibayangkan. Kita akan memahami kasih-Nya bila kita mengerti kenyataan ini! Bila tidak, kita akan mencemarkan kasih-Nya ke dalam bentuk-bentuk perasaan sentimental semata.

Kasih Allah mengalir dengan bebasnya dari tangan yang berlubang paku di Kalvari. Baik di dalam hidup-Nya, maupun di dalam mati-Nya: Yesus dikelilingi oleh orang-orang berdosa. Bahkan di saat-saat-Nya yang paling kritis, yaitu saat Dia sangat merasakan kebutuhan akan Bapa-Nya, Yesus tetap dikelilingi oleh orang-orang berdosa, yakni dua orang pencuri. Sepanjang pelayanan-Nya, para pemimpin agama mengkritik-Nya karena pengajaran-Nya tentang bait Allah, hukum Allah, dan Sabat, namun sebenarnya mereka menolak semua yang diajarkan-Nya itu karena mereka menolak Pribadi-Nya. Dan mereka sedemikian menolak-Nya oleh karena orang-orang yang berada di sekeliling-Nya. Ia adalah sahabat pemungut cukai, pelacur, dan orang-orang berdosa (Markus 2:13-17)! Ia adalah sahabat mereka! Apakah Anda paham hal itu? Yesus bukan sekadar kenalan dari orang-orang berdosa yang “hina dan kotor”… melainkan Ia adalah sahabat mereka!

Apapun yang telah Anda lakukan di dalam hidup ini, tidak ada pelanggaran yang terlalu berat yang tidak dapat diampuni-Nya dan dibebaskan-Nya dari diri Anda. Ia sangat cakap berkarya di tengah orang-orang seperti kita. Ia tahu bagaimana mengasihi orang-orang berdosa, termasuk para politikus dan pelacur, pecandu narkoba dan penjual obat bius, orang yang paling busuk sampai yang paling suci. Ia tahu bagaimana menilai tiap-tiap mereka, dan mereka semua membutuhkan belas kasih-Nya, karena semuanya telah berdosa terhadap-Nya.

Yesus tidak hanya mengasihi kita dalam kondisi kita sekarang, Ia juga ingin memimpin kita keluar dari pemikiran, kebiasaan, dan karakter yang telah mengguncangkan pernikahan kita, menghancurkan bisnis kita, merusak rumah tangga kita, dan menimbulkan berbagai penyakit pada diri kita. Ia adalah Raja bagi suatu permulaan yang baru! Tidak maukah Anda datang kepada-Nya sekarang, dengan kerendahan hati, dan menerima kehidupan dari Dia yang telah menghabiskan hidup-Nya dengan orang-orang seperti kita dan kemudian memberikan diri-Nya bagi kita?

¹ Charles R. Swindoll, The Tale of the Tardy Oxcart and 1,501 Other Stories (Nashville, TN: Word, 1998), 524.

You are here

Do Gender Sensitive Translations Distort Scripture? Not Necessarily

I. ON APPROACHES TO GENDER SENSITIVE TRANSLATION

1. Two Approaches to Basic Translation Theory that Underlie the Debate

2. More Basic Definitions: Two Basic Approaches to Gender Sensitive Translations

3. The Problem with Common, Current Terminology about Gender Sensitive Translations

4. A Third Approach to the Question and the Nature of the Dispute

II. A FEW NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF GENDER SENSITIVE TRANSLATIONS IN EARLY ENGLISH AND GREEK TRANSLATIONS: THE PROBLEM IS AN OLD ONE

III. MOVING TO SPECIFIC CONTEMPORARY EXAMPLES

1. Moving to Specifics about Translations: Some Observations on the Current Status of the Discussion

2. Some Specific Examples To Consider in Thinking Through Gender Sensitive Translation

3. A Few Examples from the Spirit's Use of His Own Text: The Use of the OT in the NT

4. Summary on the Specific Examples

IV. ADDENDUM: RESPONSE TO WAYNE GRUDEM’S Are the Criticisms of the TNIV Bible Really Justified? Interaction with Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, Peter Bradley, D. A. Carson, and Bruce Waltke (JBMW 7/2 [Fall, 2002]): 31-66

V. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

1. Some Final Matters

2. A Plea

Three Books and One Article that Discuss the Issues

Profezie Messianiche

Introduzione

Profezie Relative la Crocifissione di Cristo

1. Venduto per trenta pezzi d'argento

2. Tradito da un Amico

3. I soldi gettati al Vasaio

4. I Discepoli lo Abbandonarono

5. Accusato da falsi Testimoni

6. Ricevette Percosse e Sputi

7. Muto davanti ai suoi accusatori

8. Ferite e Lividi

9. Cedimento sotto la Croce

10. Mani e Piedi Forati

11. Crocifisso coi Malfattori

12. Prayed For His Persecutors

13. La Gente Scosse la Testa

14. La Gente lo Derise

15. La Gente Attonita

16. Le Vesti Spartite e Tirate a Sorte

17. Il Grido per il Suo Abbandono

18. Gli fu Dato Fiele e Aceto

19. Rimise se stesso a Dio

20. Gli Amici Stavano a Distanza

21. Nessun Osso Spezzato

22. Il Cuore Rotto

23. Il Suo Fianco Trafitto

24. Oscurità su tutta la terra

25. Seppellito nella Tomba del Ricco

Profezie del Vecchio Testamento Relative alla persona di Cristo

1. La Sua Prima Venuta

2. Il Suo Precursore

3. La Sua Nascita ed i Suoi Primi Anni

4. La Sua Missione ed Ufficio

5. Il suo Scopo

6. La Sua Risurrezione

7. La Sua Ascensione

8. La Sua Seconda Venuta

Il Peccato Insito come Inimicizia verso Dio: Ulteriori Considerazioni

Introduzione

Una Dettagliata Discussione dell'Argomento del Quinto Capitolo

L'Inimicizia del Peccato Ulteriormente Provata nella sua Avversione verso Dio

Avversione nelle Emozioni

Avversione nella Mente

L'inimicizia del Peccato e` Ulteriormente Evidenziata dalla Sua Opposizione verso Dio

Cinque Modi Di Prevenire gli Effetti della Legge del Peccato

Mantieni l'Anima in uno Stato di Santita` Universale

Sforzati Di Prevenire l'Avversione Fin Dai Primi Segnali

Non permettere ad Alcuna Avversione di Prevalere fino alla Conquista

Mantieni Umilta` alla Luce dell'Imminenza dell'Avversione

Sforzati di Colmare la Mente con la Bellezza e l'Eccellenza delle Cose Spirituali

Sommario del Quinto Capitolo

The God Who Relates: A Response To John Sanders, The God Who Risks

Was hinter dem Blut steht: Die wahre Bedeutung der Passion Christi

Preach the Word

I. Preaching, The Prerequisites

II. The Problem Of What To Preach

III. Preparation For Preaching

IV. The Pattern For The Sermon

V. The Presentation Of The Sermon

Some Gospel Outlines For Preaching

The Roman Road To Salvation

The Gospel On Your Fingers

Profezie Relative
la Crocifissione di Cristo

Profezie del Vecchio Testamento
Relative alla persona di Cristo