I have written on the nature of the bible before, but recently I have been questioned about three matters relating to this subject.
I have built ministry, church, and seminary on three foundational pillars – The Centrality of Jesus, the Bible’s authority, and dependence on the Holy Spirit. I have focused my work over the last decade largely on the centrality of Jesus and on the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, so perhaps I need to deal again with the nature of the bible.
Three Questions
A while ago a pastor friend of mine asked me to provide him with information on two questions he had to deal with. They were:
- Saturday as the Sabbath rather than Sunday
- The supremacy of the King James Version of the bible
Shortly after that, I was challenged in a bible study group with the theory that the Last Supper was actually on Wednesday and not Thursday. So that makes three queries in all, but all of them centre on the nature of the bible and how to understand it. Let me be a bit more specific.
Saturday as the Sabbath
It may be strange to many Jesus followers that some Christians regard Saturday as the only legitimate day for the church to gather for worship. After all, Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday, the first church met on the first day of the week (Sunday) as recorded in Acts 20:7, and the church has worshipped on a Sunday from the end of the first century onwards. However, Seventh-Day Adventists and a few minor church groups worship on Saturdays rather than Sundays. The main reasons are that:
- In the Genesis creation account, God rested from his labour on Saturday (Genesis 2:2-3),
- The Saturday Sabbath was established in the Mosaic law as a sign of the covenant (Exodus 315-17), and
- The fourth of the Ten Commandments concerns honouring the Saturday Sabbath. (Exodus 20:8-11)
These are all true, but how we regard them today depends largely on how we interpret the scriptures. One of the three cardinal interpretive principles I have long adopted is what I have called Exhaustive Reference.
This means that we need to consult all of the bible before settling on an interpretation of any particular part.
So what does the New Testament teach on Sabbath observance?
Well, Colossians 2:16-17, Galatians 4:10-11, and Romans 14:5 all teach that Jesus-followers do not require a Saturday Sabbath.
The second of my interpretive keys is the Christocentric Principle – What Jesus did, said, or revealed of the nature and purpose of the Triune Godhead. Referring to himself, he said that “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:8) He also said that “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27-28)
The third interpretive principle is Context – what does a text mean in the context of history, culture, or its location in a biblical passage or book? Now, the Old Testament references are in the historical context of the Old Covenant of Law. The Apostle Paul says this of the Law … well, read this for yourself so that you can see the closer context of the full passage – Galatians 3:21-25.
So then, Saturday Sabbath observance comes from understanding the bible as a book of rules to be obeyed, rather than an unfolding revelation of God’s nature, character, purposes and plans. It also comes from applying interpretative principles other than the three I have articulated.
The supremacy of the King James Version of the bible
Whole books have been written by promoters and critics of the King James Version only idea. Good Reads lists 35 titles and it is revealing to read through these. But few of you have the time or inclination to read any one of these books so let me rather summarise the main arguments against the contention that the King James Version (KJV) is the only inspired, accurate and authorised version of the bible (Thanks to Co-pilot AI):
The KJV is Not the Most Accurate Translation: The KJV was based on the Textus Receptus Greek manuscript, which is now considered less reliable than older and more accurate Greek manuscripts discovered since then. Modern translations, like the ESV, NASB, and NIV are considered more accurate as they are based on these newer, more reliable Greek and Hebrew sources. Some KJV-only advocates believe the KJV corrects the Greek, but this is not supported and the KJV translators themselves did not make this claim.
The KJV Language is Outdated: The KJV uses archaic language like “thee”, “thou”, and old English grammar that is difficult for modern readers to understand. Newer translations aim to convey the meaning in clear, contemporary English while remaining faithful to the original texts.
There are Many Reliable Modern Translations: Reputable modern translations like the ESV, NASB, NIV, CSB, and NLT are considered accurate and trustworthy by most biblical scholars. These translations use rigorous scholarly methods and are produced by teams of experts, not just a single translator. The existence of multiple translations is not a sign of corruption but reflects the difficulty of translating ancient languages into modern English.
The KJV Translators Did Not Claim Perfection: The preface to the KJV itself acknowledges that no translation can be perfect, and the KJV translators did not claim their work was inerrant or superior to all other translations. The KJV translators would likely have been open to using modern translations, as they recognised the limitations of their own work.
The proponents of KJV only have their ‘proofs’ that show that the KJV is the best and that the modern translations are aberrant. What I want to point out, however, is that the KJV-only idea stems from a view of the nature of the bible and the way it should be understood. Those who view it as such see the bible as a transcript of the exact words of God imparted to the various biblical authors. In effect, they hold that God dictated the whole bible. If this were the case, there could be only one translation in every language. This is because divine oversight would have to be applied to the modern language versions if the exact word order, phrasing, and meaning were to be retained.
The Last Supper, on Wednesday or Thursday
For hundreds and hundreds of years churches and theologians worldwide have accepted that the Lord Jesus shared his last supper on the Thursday evening just after 6 pm, died on the cross at 3 pm Friday, and rose from the dead before dawn on Sunday. However, some scholars of late have argued for a Wednesday night Passover meal. Some argue that this helps reconcile apparent discrepancies between the Gospel accounts, particularly between John and the Synoptic Gospels. Others suggest that ‘preparation day’ in the Gospels (Mark 15:42, John 19:31) refers to preparation for the Passover, not the weekly Sabbath. Some also contend that it provides more time for the events described between the Last Supper and the crucifixion. Most Wednesday Passover advocates also believe that the interpretation of the three days and nights in the tomb is a definitive consideration and I will deal only with this last argument in this article.
Three Days and Nights
The key verse cited is Matthew 12:40, which cites Jesus saying, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”. Three consecutive days and nights totalling 72 hours necessitates a Thursday crucifixion and therefore a Wednesday Last Supper. Underlying this contention is a trust in oft-used statements like, “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise,” (David L. Cooper). Another favourite is, “take it literally unless it is obviously meant metaphorically or symbolically”. (source unknown). Well, good luck with that when trying to understand the Book of Revelation!
The foundational belief underpinning such sayings and practices relates to the nature of the bible. As I mentioned before, If the bible is divinely dictated then we should understand everything in it just as it is stated.
So three days and three nights mean a period of 72 hours and nothing else. However, Adam Clarke wrote the following in his commentary:
‘Evening and morning, or night and day, is the Hebrew phrase for a natural day, which the Greeks termed nuchthemeron. The very same quantity of time which is here termed three days and three nights, and which in reality, was only one whole day, a part of two others, and two whole nights, is termed three days and three nights, in the book of Esther: Go; neither eat nor drink THREE DAYS, NIGHT or DAY, and so I will go in unto the king: 4:16. Afterward it follows 5:1. On the THIRD DAY, Esther stood in the inner court of the king’s house’.
There are other similar examples elsewhere in the Old Testament, for instance, Ezekiel 32:7-8 re Egypt, Isaiah 13:9-10 re Babylon, Joel 2:30-31 re Jerusalem in about 800 BC, and Danial 8:10 re Jerusalem in about 553 BC. (Also Gen 42:17-18; 1 Sam 30:12-13; 1 Kings 20:29; 2 Chronicles 10:5, 12). Based on this evidence, and Jewish rabbinical writing, Adam Clarke concludes ‘Thus, then, three days and three nights, according to this Jewish method of reckoning, included any part of the first day; the whole of the following night; the next day and its night; and any part of the succeeding or third day.’
My Understanding of the Nature and Purpose of the Bible
These three examples highlight that our interpretation of biblical texts is often influenced by how we understanding of the nature and purpose of the bible. Therefore, I need to set out my own understanding of this. I have written before on this subject, but for those who don’t want to read the entire article, here are the main points relevant to this current article.
The bible is a record of the perfect Word of God, in the imperfect words of human beings. Moreover, people who lived in a particular age and thought in terms of the prevailing world-view, recorded these imperfect words. It should be no surprise that the authors used pre-scientific concepts and flawed referencing and reporting methods. Scholars refer to this as cultural conditioning, but it goes beyond that to human frailty and limitation. This would constitute a real problem for those who believe that God dictated the scriptures, or directly impressed the thought on the scribes minds. These anomalies and apparent contradictions could, if admitted to, constitute a crisis of faith for those holding such a narrow view of biblical inerrancy.
The books of the bible are a holy collaboration between God and the people he chose to work with. Just as Jesus Christ, the living Word of God, is both man and God, so the scriptures are both a human and divine production; the written Word of God.
The bible is a compendium of many styles and genres, ranging from stories, through poetry, to teachings. Included in the mix, are also histories, prophecies, wise sayings, and apocalyptic visions. Some books, like Job and Song of Songs, defy classification. Some of the biblical characters are wicked, others are simply flawed, while yet others are saints. There are both positive and negative examples of character and behaviour and only sometimes does the author explain which aspects can be taken as models and which are warnings.
Measurements, times, periods, and so on are not necessarily scientifically accurate. For instance, the genealogies do not all contain an exact chronological timeline. Sometimes they are arranged into groups for effect, or they leave out generations to make some or other point. So, we cannot add back through the genealogies and conclude that Adam was created 6,000 years ago.
Some descriptions in the bible are symbolic and not a presentation of physical reality. For example, the devil probably does not look like a huge red dragon confined in the end times for exactly 1,000 years (Revelation 20:2-3). An enormous red dragon is an excellent symbolic depiction of the devil, and the 1,000 years represent the entire church age, starting when Jesus restrained Satan at the crucifixion.
It is obvious from the above that the bible cannot be read and understood primarily as a theological dictionary, chronological story, or collection of promises. Instead, the bible, in its totality, is a source of divine revelation concerning Jesus and his way of salvation. It is also the source of spiritual knowledge, advice, admonition, and encouragement. It is the written collection of writings that God uses to help us come to know Jesus, grow to be like him, and help others to do likewise. It is rich and complex, yet relevant and meaningful to all generations. It is an indispensable part of the Christian Faith and can rightly be called The Written Word of God.
Understand the Bible
We can only properly understand this marvellous book if we apply the principles of context, exhaustive reference, and Christocentricity. Context involves the interpretation of a biblical passage with reference to the history, geography, and culture of its original time of writing, and also with reference to its literary style and the logical flow of thought contained in the passages that both precede and follow it. Christocentricity is the interpretation of a passage with reference to what Jesus said, did and revealed of the nature and character of the Godhead.
Conclusion
I chose the three examples of Saturday Sabbath, King James Only, and The Last Supper because I thought they would, in themselves, be of interest to you. However, they are also current examples of the importance of properly understanding the nature of the bible. It is one of those bedrock doctrines that affect so much of what we as believers think and do. It probably rates in importance with how we view the nature and character of God the Father, the divinity of Jesus Christ the Son, and the role and necessity of the Holy Spirit in our lives and ministries.
