Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Most Misused Bible Verse
Just today on my Facebook page, a friend complained about how her church is “homophobic.”I asked what they said that was homophobic. If they’re liberally using homosexual slurs or saying God hates gays or announcing that we should persecute homosexuals, then I’ll agree her church is homophobic. If they’re just preaching that homosexuality is a sin, she needs to come to terms with the fact that what they’re preaching is exactly what the Bible says. If you think that saying homosexuality is wrong is homophobic, then the Bible is a homophobic document.
But that’s not really what inspired this post — that would be all the commenters chiming in about how Christians are “not supposed to judge.” The verse that they are alluding to is Matthew Chapter 7, Verse 1, where Jesus says to his follower “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
In my opinion, this the most abused and least understood scripture used in modern popular culture. It upsets me every time I hear someone misuse that verse.
Saying a certain behavior is sin is “judging” and unchristian? So what if somebody murders somebody and I say, “That’s wrong”? What if a guy is molesting children and I say, “That’s wrong”? What if I say homophobia is wrong? Aren’t all these instances of me judging behaviors? And that means I’m no longer following the teachings of Christ!?
That’s funny, because, if I recall correctly, Christ spent quite a lot of time judging certain behaviors. He didn’t mince words condemning the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, the money-changing in the temple, the pride of the wealthy, or even the pride of his own apostles. He even condemned thinking bad things. And his disciples followed suit in judging behaviors and condemning all sorts of things, including people’s private sexual behavior.
What Christ meant in saying “Judge not” was that we should not be self-righteous; that we shouldn’t immediately think the worst of everybody; that we shouldn’t obsess over others’ flaws while ignoring our own; and that we should be charitable to others in the way we hope God will be charitable to us on judgment day. He did not mean that we can’t call a sin a sin, or that we shouldn’t warn individuals about behaviors we believe will lead to spiritual destruction (again, something we see Jesus and his disciples do again and again in the New Testament).
When most people reference that verse nowadays they are latching on to it without context and using it as a cop-out to avoid having to seriously deal with politically incorrect Bible verses and teachings (and ignoring mounds of other Bible verses that contradict their interpretation of that verse)
Are there any other Bible verses you can think of whose meaning has become mangled by modern society?
Published in General
Most mis-applied verse in my book is the same as the most mis-translated verse.
Christians know it as “I am what I am.”
The Hebrew is in the future tense: “I will be what I will be.”
This single translation leads to seismic differences in theology and worldview.
I missed this post while I was on an incorrect password freeze-out for about a week. I am surprised no one has mentioned what I think is the champion of misappropriated biblical sayings which is “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” which is used as a religious justification for “You didn’t build that.”
People have used it that way with you? Ugh. Nobody’s ever used that with me, but that would sure be annoying.
I hadn’t heard that before. Still, what are those differences? In either case, the gist seems to be that God is not answerable to human beings. As modern philosophers put it, He is the Prime Mover.
In the American Catholic interpretation, the translation is: “This is what you will tell the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.” By this translation, God is saying that He is existence itself. He is not a particular being, but rather Being. That really puts us in our place!
It also underscores that God is not a Divine Watchmaker who Created and left us to our own devices. Our very being is ever dependent on His presence, an extension of His own Will. Thus, to fully be human and to fully be one’s individual self as designed by Him is to be in alignment with that design and, in turn, with His divine Will.
My personal favorite “bible quote” is one that I have heard employed by our scholar in chief, “brother’s keeper”. Man oh man have I heard liberals bandy that one about. To the effect that, as the Bible tells us, “We are our brother’s keeper.” I always find it so laughable when people bring this one out because I feel it shows that they really haven’t bothered to read Genesis very closely. As the quote is Cain’s weak attempt at an alibi to his brother’s murder when God questions him.
On the contrary! At the time, G-d was virtually unknown to the world. Pharoah showed genuine confusion: the G-d of the Jews was not in the phone book.
It is up to US to make him known. “I will be as I will be” ascribes the prime moving responsibility to those of us who seek to have a relationship with Him and, in turn, make others aware of mankind’s purpose on this earth. After all, not only are we made in G-d’s image, but our very souls are sparks on loan from the divine. We are His agents.
The mistranslation also changes G-d from a timeless entity to one for whom there is to be a progression, a change over time. It is the difference between seeing history as cyclical and seeing it as a pathway to an unknown future.
Wow. That is even a bigger departure from the text than “I am what I am” is. The words in Hebrew are “Ehyeh asher Ehyeh” – “Ehyeh” means “I will be” and “asher” is a connector, meaning “what” or “that”. Eliminating the second word is radical.
Is it possible that we do not share the same Hebrew original?
The ESV Strong’s cross reference identifies the Hebrew as “יהוה yhwh”. It uses the English “I am who I am” with a note identifying “I am what I am” and “I will be what I will be” as alternate translations. Some translations have used “I am that I am”.
Traditional Christian understanding of the meaning revealed by this name is not what you suggest. We do see it as identifying God as unchanging. It tells us that God is self existent, not defined in relation to others.
The New Testament includes usage of a shortened version, such as
John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “ Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
It was written in Greek, but most likely spoken in Hebrew or Aramaic, so we can’t say for sure what the exact words were. His listeners understood He was declaring that he was God, though.
I don’t disagree with anything you said. It seemed you started your comment to disagree with something I said. I think our comments are in confluence.
I too had never heard this before, but Wikipedia agrees with you. I’m not so sure it’s a “seismic difference” though. I read your following comments. Christians don’t see history as cyclical. We are on a journey toward the end. We too are under obligation to make Him known. Now as far as seeing God evolving over time, that does seem significant. But is that true, Jews see God as evolving?
Matt: The Hebrew is unambiguous, regardless of how it may have been mistranslated through the ages (sometimes because it went from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English). Though of course I do not disagree that the language differs from traditional Christian understanding.
Manny: The reason why it is a seismic difference is because it lies at the heart of the difference between the Greek/Christian worldview and the Jewish worldview. That difference hinges on the relative importance of mankind in the world, and the extent to which we are obliged to complete G-d’s creation.
Here it is a nutshell: Jews believe that we can bring about the completion of the world. Many (if not all) Christians believe that grace exists regardless of our actions.
It comes down to who is the Prime Mover. In Judaism, it is mankind who has the task of making G-d great in the eyes of the world.
Very interesting. Thanks!
Christians believe God is eternal, as opposed to merely infinite. This means that God is not immobile within time, but rather exists beyond time. After all, as best we can judge from modern scientific knowledge, time is an aspect of the material.
Of course, we are then faced with the paradox that Jesus, as one Person in the Trinity (a relationship within Himself — thus “God is love”), is both Creator (immaterial) and human (material). Faith and reason must never be at odds, but there are limits to our knowledge and reasoning; the mysteries.
Pivotal to the Christian understanding of the Torah and New Testament is the belief that they were inspired, rather than dictated, by God. As usual, God acts through the filter of human personalities. Thus, though study of the original languages and cultures is strongly valued, we do not expect translations to be exact.
As one personality emphasizes God’s justice and another emphasizes His mercy, so translations vary by emphasis. We don’t have to pick one exclusively. I have always liked the King James version of the psalms for its focus on beauty in praise.
Of course, there is the temptation to select whichever translation best suits one’s own moral preferences. But, as I say, we do not (or should not) neglect study.
Sorry for the confusion. I only responded to Tommy’s comment because you and another Member had decided to address it. I wasn’t responding directly to your comment.
It’s always fascinating reading your take on religion, iWc. I would just like to point out that there are Christian groups whose views have surprising similarities to what you’re saying. We Mormons also believe in a God that does progress, that is not static; and that being His children, created in His image, we are expected to do the same.
-E
Thanks for this post, the level of biblical illiteracy that we are surrounded by today is a constant source of frustration for me. Believer or no, it is worth attempting to understand the bible.
My choice for most misused and misunderstood verse is…
“…an eye for an eye…” (I know it is longer than that, but this snippet is what is used to condemn the barbarity of the bible and more broadly retributive justice)
First, this was an injunction on disproportionate retaliation. You can take no more than an eye for an eye.. you cannot kill someone for stealing something from you, this segment of the verse is basically saying that the punishment should fit the crime
Second, this was never meant literally. I mean, there are few crimes that this would make any sense for (rape?). It is impossible to exactly replicate the offense in almost all cases.
Third,this verse also states that *an* eye for *an* eye. This is a statement of equality before the law. A prince’s eye is no more valuable than a peasant’s.
I nominate “…an eye for an eye…” as the most misused and misunderstood verse in the bible.
Vagabond: I’ve come to understand “eye for an eye” differently.
It makes all individuals equal. There is no life more valuable than another. Status or wealth or position does not make a person worth more life.
It commands an end to the practices of vendetta and feuds. A man’s family, relatives, even friends cannot be punished for the crimes of the man, even murder. As a result, it seeks to end bloodshed. Once the man is punished for his crime, even murder, the matter is settled.
I may have not stated my case well, then, because I agree completely with your summation of the verse. I think we are in full agreement.
One of my least favorite misused scripture tactics: telling me that my love of lobster implies I cannot be against same-sex marriage and remain morally consistent.
Worse, I have a friend who will make comments like that and follow it up with “Christians don’t even know their own Bible.” While her statement is inadvertently true in individual cases, it’s usually delivered with a smug sense of someone who just drove your car through your front picture window and told you it was your fault for lending them your keys.
It may be me, too. I’ve been up since 4am. I don’t always think right when I’m up that early.
That’s quite alright. All your comments here have been excellent.
Wow, you have really taught me something here. I wonder if most Jews understand this. I have never picked up on it before, and I happen to be married to a Jewish woman. Her and her family are mostly lapsed, if that word is appropriate for Judaism. Any particular book you might recommend that might flesh out the implications?
Most of my peeves have been mentioned already. But here is one that is particularly annoying that no one has mentioned yet: Luke 2:14, the angels are in the sky above the shepherds and singing: “Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth on whom his favor rests” Many people and translations leave off the italicized words entirely, but they are there in the text. It kind of narrows the scope of the event significantly.
I’m certain I don’t deserve this sour judgment on my intentions. Did I piss in your cornflakes of late? What “pet peeve” are you speaking of? My only pet peeve would be presumptuousness.
My inquiry is to be expected on the issue with which this post opened. Whether a homosexual act is a mortal or venial sin is relevant to (though not dispositive of) the concern of Knotwise’s friend that the church itself is homophobic.
Judging by the varied answers, I’d say it was worth a comment, if not your time.
I am publishing what will become the definitive work this very summer.
Interesting. I hadn’t heard this before. Why is it translated differently?
-E
Apparently, translators approached the Greek word εὐδοκίας differently. Luke 2:14, in the KJV , is rendered as “good will to men,” where as in NAS or INT it is “with whom He is pleased”. The word apparently only appears in one other location (Phillipians 2:13) and there all the translations agree on “good pleasure”. I’m not an expert in Greek translation, but it seems to me that either translation is reasonable, and neither translation is controversial. The birth of the Messiah (and his subsequent mission) was a great event for all men, and most especially for those who follow Him.
-E
I’ll throw one of my pet peeves in the mix: Matt 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” People use this one a lot (often in conjunction with 1 Cor. 13:8) to dismiss the idea of prophets or prophecy. However, note that Jesus is warning against prophets that are false, not against the idea of prophets altogether; and the subsequent 5 verses explain how to discern between true and false prophets.
-E
Manny – sorry. My last comment was flippant, and the result of using my phone. I can do better.
I have written a book which has been accepted by a highly reputed Jewish publisher. It is in editing now, and while the first version is written for a Jewish audience, there is a glossary for those who are willing to work at it. I plan a more “general audience” version as well which will be accessible to those who have only a passing familiarity with the Torah. The first version should go to press this summer.
I guarantee mind explosions.
When it is available, I’ll do a Ricochet signing party. :-)
There is more continuity than you may realize. We also believe that God set Israel apart to show His greatness to the world. His covenant with Abraham promised that his offspring would be a blessing to the nations. He entered creation as a descendant of Abraham and completed the work that Adam failed.
On the next point, I’ll go one further. God gives grace despite our actions.
Many stop at that thought and see it as forgiveness and nothing more. It is much more. God does not simply grant forgiveness and leave you unchanged. His grace changes the believer so he repents of his sins and truly desires to serve God.
Great. I’m interested.