Picasso’s Napkin (Part 2, “Kissin’ Cousins”)

I have some cousins; I’ll bet you do, too. Linda, John, Mary, Victor, Vernon, and Tim (born to one of my mother’s sisters). All in the same family, all having the same mother and father, all having been raised by the same parents in the same localities. But oh how different they are!

Isn’t it amazing how different children in the same family can be from one another. Now there are almost always some obvious similarities, too. But what makes each one unique, memorable, recognizable . . . are the differences.

Linda was the oldest, the most sophisticated; John was the mischievous one; Mary was the quiet, reserved one (except at times); Victor and Vernon were twins, but each had his own distinct personality and manner of speaking; and Tim was the baby, into absolutely everything. They are all grown now, of course. But I loved those cousins, and their individuality.

One way people deal with Scripture is to look for the common thread that runs throughout; they will refer to parts of the Old Testament and compare them with the New Testament, looking for the similarities. And sometimes . . . ignoring the stark differences. Often you will hear it said, “you should interpret the Bible with the Bible.” That might work . . . as long as you know what you’re doing.

But linking verses of Scripture together can be dangerous, too, of course. As in the case of the man who read from Matthew’s gospel and then flipped over to Luke’s gospel, looking for direction for his life from the Bible.

” He (Judas) . . . went away and hanged himself”
AND
“Go and do likewise.”

Matthew 27:5b; Luke 10:37b

This sounds comical, of course. And it should! Because to take a compilation of ancient documents, bound together in a single volume, and then randomly read them like one would read if seeking advice from the Magic 8 Ball . . . . Now that IS comical! And sad, too. Do people do it? Yes. ALL THE TIME.

Part of the reason is because we’ve been taught to use the Bible this way. But when you do so you not only are doing something dangerous (with regard to interpretation), but inadvertently you rob yourself of seeing the uniqueness of each book in the compilation. Remember, these ancient documents were not written as audition pieces in order to get into the Bible. Each one has its own author, recipients, occasion, and purpose. If you really want to know what they SAY, you must know each of those things.

_{No auditions for New Testament authors}

For example, using the illustration of my twin cousins, Victor and Vernon . . . the Apostle Paul had a couple of “twin” letters: Ephesians, and Colossians. There is a great deal of similarity between these two ancient documents, both likely written in the 60s A.D. And yet, their uniqueness shines through if the reader takes the time to notice. Their two messages complement one another, but they are not the same. Their terminology has some similarities, but also some stark differences. They both address the behavior of wives, husbands, slaves and masters, etc., and they both discuss “the mystery,” but whereas Ephesians talks a great deal about “the heavenly realms” (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12) and the Lord’s “power” (1:19; 3:7, 16, 18, 20; 6:10), Colossians emphasizes the “fullness” of God in Christ (1:19, 25; 2:9-10) and “the basic principles of the world” (2:8, 20), ascetic practices that threaten the Christian’s new identity.

Sometimes these letters were meant to be shared, as in the case of Colossians, where Paul asks that the church there exchange their letter with the Christians in Laodicea and vice versa (Colossians 4:16). Galatians was written to multiple churches in an area (Galatians 1:2), and 1 Peter was written to Christians “scattered” throughout several provinces (1 Peter 1:1). Some were written to individuals, e.g. 3 John, Philemon, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Luke & Acts.

Each document is unique. Are they in conflict with one another because they do not have the same message or use the same vocabulary? Of course not! If you wanted to tell someone how to get to your house you would not give identical instructions to someone living in New York City and someone living in San Francisco. They are two very different places; and different highways (or airports) would be used to get them to your home.

The documents we call “Scripture” do not have the same audience, do not all address the same issue(s), and do not have the same author. Sometimes, referring to them all as “God’s Word” can be misleading, making the reader unconsciously assume that since God is the ultimate source of the material the reader can “mix and match” (so to speak) at will. The fact is, even when the same author is writing (e.g. Paul) there are differences in the terminology used. Writing in the late 40s A.D. to Gentile Christians, recent converts to the faith, Paul says:

” . . . you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God . . . .”

1 Thessalonians 1:9b

This would have made little sense to a Jewish audience. Just as the following (written around the same time to Jewish Christians) would have made little sense to a Gentile audience:

“Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.”

Galatians 4:21-22

You can’t read Revelation (written in an apocalyptic style) in the same way you read Jude, even though they are situated right next to each other in the current canon. Genesis isn’t like Song of Songs (in fact, almost nothing is), and you can’t read Job like you read 1 Corinthians. James says that “faith without deeds is useless” and “dead” (James 2:17, 20, 26); by contrast, Paul says ” . . . by grace you have been saved through faith . . . not by works . . . ” (Ephesians 2:8-9). They don’t sound the same.

My cousins are very much alike in one sense, and impossibly different in another sense. 1 Corinthians was written in response to a series of questions Paul had been asked. Romans was written to help Gentiles to accept Jews back into the church after having been expelled by the emperor for 5 years. Jude had intended to write a letter about “the salvation we share” (Jude 3), but dire circumstances caused him to change his message (Jude 3-4). Over and over again the unique nature of each document is of utmost importance. Their intent dictated the words chosen, just as they do in any conversation, letter, email, or text you write today.

Picasso doodled and scribbled constantly, and the things he doodled are as varied as they come. Often he gave those scribblings away. But no matter how much variety there was in his doodles . . . they were still Picassos. The variety you find in Scripture works the same way.

If you want to flip open the Bible, point to a verse and read it to receive direction for your life . . . of course you can do so. But if you really want to understand what the words were meant to convey, well . . . that is a whole different project altogether. The “cousins” are waiting for you.

But we’re not done yet! We will tackle the subject of “inspiration” in the next blog entry. Hang on to your seats!!!!! It’s bound to be a bumpy ride.

What’s In a Word?

I wish I could remember the name of the movie, but I cannot.; I have googled it, but to no avail. I do, however, recall the basic plot. A Mexican farmer living on the U.S. border gets into a dispute with the local sheriff over his property line. A misunderstanding ensues, brought on by the collision caused by the nuance in languages. The Mexican man does not fully understand the words used by the American law officer, and the officer, in like manner, does not understand why the man who lives south of the border will not comply with his demands.

A standoff begins, a posse is recruited, and the Mexican man thinks he is being forced to defend his family and his property against the Americans. He dies in that valiant pursuit.

And it was all over the misunderstanding of a word. A life snuffed out because of a language barrier. It was so sad to watch. You could see the collision coming, and you wanted to jump into the TV set, stand between the two warring parties, and . . . translate.

What’s in a word?

Sometimes very little. But sometimes EVERYTHING.

Biblical translators are not flawless, of course. And they are controlled by a variety of forces: knowledge, theological bias, and tradition (to name but a few). That’s why committees of translators are created; this is to create an atmosphere of collaboration. The importance of precision and accuracy in translating Scripture is inestimable; a single word can make all the difference in understanding a passage or a concept.

One example of this type of misunderstanding, I think, is what has happens when many Christians read Matthew’s account of the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Matthew 14:13-21), and they erroneously conclude that the number fed that day far exceeded the 5,000 persons mentioned because Matthew said:

“The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.”

Matthew 14:21 NIV

The operative word here, of course, is the word χωρις (translated “besides” in the NIV, RSV, ASV, NASV, CSB, KJV, NKJV, Barclays, and “in addition to” in the NLT). The implication, of course, is that 5,000 “men” were fed (the word for males is used to differentiate from females), but that there were also women and children present. Clearly there was at least one “boy” present (strictly speaking, John 6:9 παιδαριον can be a young boy or girl) because Andrew gets the fish and the bread from him to feed the crowd.

A comparison of this story between the four gospel accounts is enlightening: Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15. Mark, Luke, and John do not mention women and children at all; rather they employ only the word for males (ανδρες). Matthew uses this word, too, but he alone adds to this expression the phrase that mentions women and children.

However, the word translated “besides” by numerous translations is a bit misleading here. It’s primary definition is “separate from” or “without” or “apart” as in the following selected examples:

• Matthew 13:34 ” . . . he did not say anything to them WITHOUT using a parable.”
• Luke 6:49 ” . . . like a man who built a house on the ground WITHOUT a foundation.”
• John 1:3 “WITHOUT him nothing was made that has been made.”
• John 15:5 “APART from me you can do nothing.”
• John 20:7 “The cloth was folded up by itself, SEPARATE from the linen.”
• Romans 3:21 “But now a righteousness from God, APART from law, has been made known.”
• 1 Corinthians 11:11 “In the Lord, however, woman is not INDEPENDENT of man.”
• Ephesians 2:12 ” . . . at that time you were SEPARATE from Christ, excluded . . . .”

There are many more examples, of course. Suffice it to say that the main intent of this word is not to imply the existence of additional things not being disclosed; rather, the exclusion of additional things. This is supported by the fact that women and children are excluded from Mark, Luke, and John’s telling of the story. Linguistically, Matthew’s inclusion of the phrase does not infer that women and children should be included. On the contrary, it makes it explicit they were not there.

The historical background referenced in John 6:15 enlightens the reader even more.

“Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him a king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.”

John 6:15 NIV

It would be useful in a future blog entry to discuss the political and religious atmosphere current at the time this miracle occurred. But in brief it can be said that many of the disciples of Jesus were looking for him to help them overthrow their oppressor, Rome, and establish the kingdom of David once again as had been prophesied. This idea even persists, oddly enough, after Jesus’s resurrection, as can be seen in the question of his disciples:

“Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

Acts 1:6 NIV

This seditious bent is also what Jesus is trying to prevent when he discourages his followers (even vehemently at times; see Matthew 16:16-23) not to refer to him as “Christ” (Messiah); a term so inflammatory that Jesus avoids it by referring to himself as “Son of Man.”

So . . . the Feeding of the Five Thousand (males) story is really about a large group of men who are planning a military and political coup. When one reads Matthew’s account of this story he/she would do well not to misconstrue the words that have often been translated in such a way as to imply a teeming, hungry crowd of men, women, and their children. There were just men there. Probably armed to the teeth.