Different Christian cultures

Invitation to an Arab community

In the spring of 1982, I attended a Bible study with others in an Arab village in northern Israel. What I experienced that evening made a deep impression on me. In Israel there are many Arab Christians who have been preserving their heritage for centuries. We came to a private house. On the first floor was a large room for community meetings. When we arrived, there were already many there.

In the room, the women (with headscarves) sat separately from the men. All of them had a Bible with them. It was just another evening of Christian fellowship. People met to study the Bible together. In front was a plain table and a few chairs. The pastor (or Bible teacher) sat there. There was also a translator for us. The pastor, I mean, had this job part-time.

The language was Arabic. It was translated into French especially for us. I had the dubious honor of translating from French into German or English, which was not easy for me as a Dutchman. I tried it, but failed miserably. It was not essential. We were allowed to share in the life of this Christian community for one evening.

I don’t remember what the topic was. What stayed with me, however, was much more important. For the first time I saw people encouraging each other with great confidence in the Bible. The meeting lasted all evening. A question came from the community and the teacher responded by spontaneously giving a study throughout the Scriptures. By heart, he knew where the question belonged. He cited dozens of passages to outline a development in the Bible and give a nuanced answer to the question. His understanding came from constant and decades-long study of the Bible. It was an expression of a Christian culture.

Visiting the Norwegians

About two years later I received an invitation to another Bible study, now in Holland. The evening was organized by the Norwegian Brothers (Norwegian Movement). Here, too, I had an impressive experience. The theme was given. The Bible teacher showed an amazing knowledge. Throughout the evening he spoke and lectured from the entire Scripture, without any model.

When Bible passages hail on such an evening, one is of course speaking to a very narrow circle of people. Only a few people can classify it. An average church citizen would probably have run out screaming after fifteen minutes. However, that is not what I took away. It became clear to me that his understanding of the Bible was based on decades of study. What the Bible teacher exemplified was “his” Christian culture and in it was contained – in a certain way – a great richness.

Fulfilled by the words of the Bible

The above experiences could be supplemented with others. I do not mention them because I approximately agree with the teachings of these groups. But I was curious enough to just go there once. The experience showed me that dealing with the Bible could be quite different from what I had experienced in the churches and free churches around me. That was my “aha!” experience.

There is nothing on call that you have not previously stored in your own brain and heart.

It is also known from other groups and movements that the Bible holds an important position – far more important than in most churches and communities today. One takes Scripture seriously, learns from it, teaches from it. This is how a foundation of faith is formed. However, this is only one way of understanding Christianity. I mention this type because it was before the days of the Internet. As easy as it is today to look up certain things, it used to take a lot of effort (we’ll get to that). These people saw the Bible as a source of spiritual wealth, imbibed the Word, and were filled with what the Bible said (cf. Col. 3:16). Thus, this wealth could also be passed on (Col 3:17). One makes the Bible one’s own, internalizes the statements. There is nothing on call that you have not previously stored in your own brain and heart.

These short stories and anecdotes are only meant to show that “our” way of believing only tells something about ourselves. Most Christians in the West do not live such a culture. What and how we believe and how we live our Christianity has to do with our time, with our tradition, with our experiences. Already in this country, there are great differences between churches and free churches in the way living faith is expressed. This has nothing to do with “right” or “wrong”, but with “different”. There are many more ways to live out of a living faith. This explicitly also applies to the way we deal with the Bible and what role Scripture has in our understanding of faith. This is not an evaluation or opinion, but an observation. However, this can help us give context to our understanding of faith.

Learning by heart

There are two other stories I would like to mention briefly. They were told to me and I did not experience them myself. However, they show how one can still deal with the Bible as well.

Thus, a priest spoke of being called once by a Jewish woman. She had heard about Jesus, and that this Jesus was a Jew. Now she wanted to know if the possible was also important for her. What could the pastor tell about this Jesus? The latter asked if she had a Bible at home? For then he could refer to passages in the Tenach (the Old Testament). She replied in the negative. Then there was silence for a moment before she said, “But I memorized the book of Isaiah when I was a child.” The priest then used the Book of Isaiah to explain to her the promise of the Messiah and the expectation of Israel, as well as pointing out the fulfillment in Jesus, as Christians recognize this.

Another Bible teacher told of an encounter in Israel. He was a guest of an Arab friend. They talked about the Bible. His host then mentioned he was going to call his 12-year-old son. This one had memorized the Gospel of Mark. The son came. A tea was served. Then the Gospel of Mark was recited.

For me, these are extraordinary stories. You speak of a culture that no longer exists in the Western churches. The Bible was internalized, or first (partially) memorized.

Access to the Bible

How the Bible was lost to the community

Access to the Bible was not the same in all times. The first churches did not have a Bible as we know it today. In the synagogues there were scrolls with the books of Moses, usually also other scrolls that included other books of the Tenach (Old Testament). There was not even a consensus in the 1st century about which books belonged to the Old Testament. The New Testament as we know it today was just written. The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were commissioned by a certain Theophilus and Luke had recorded the two books for him. Letters from Paul were in circulation, as were the other letters. In addition, there were countless “fake news” stories circulating as well. The canon of the New Testament was defined much later.

However, texts were written and read. For example, Paul mentions that he had once left various parchments and scrolls in Troas while passing through (2 Tim 4:13). Timothy was to take these for Paul. However, not everyone could write (well), which is why there were scribes at that time (Acts 19:35). Those who could not read could listen (cf. Rom 10:17). Anyone who could write and read was considered a scholar. The Greek word used for this in the New Testament is grammateus. One could casually speak of “grammarians”. It is also the term for Jewish scribes (e.g. Mt 7:29, Mt 8:19).

As the clergy grew in importance with the later state church, the reading and study of the Bible was placed in “professional hands.” There were practical problems for access to the Bible in the spread of the Church: the Church spread in countries where Hebrew and Greek were no longer the local languages. Greek and Hebrew and Latin were the languages of scholars. The people mostly did not know their way around there. These two challenges (emergence of a clergy as well as growing unfamiliarity with the original languages) kept the Bible away from most believers for many centuries. Here it should be remembered that there were not only the state churches. Living Christian fellowship has existed throughout the ages outside the mainline churches (see, for example, John W. Kennedy, “Torch of the Testimony”).

Until the introduction of the art of printing and the Reformation, the distribution of the Bible was possible only through handwritten copies. Books were therefore expensive. Owning books was reserved for a few. Only scholars, monasteries and churches, and well-heeled nobles could afford copies of the Bible.

A Bible concordance lists all the places where a word is found in the Bible edition. After the Bible concordance to the Latin edition, a Hebrew Bible concordance followed in 1437 and 1447, and in the 16. and 17th century concordances to the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) and the Greek New Testament. It is very interesting to read about these developments. For the current article, we should only be aware that until the printing art and the Reformation, there was no Bible for the common people, nor aids for better understanding.

So if today a certain understanding of the Bible is cultivated and, for example, believers are advised to have a daily quiet time with Bible reading, then this has only been possible for a few hundred years (!).

Popularization of the Bible text

Luther’s translation made the Bible available in German for the first time. The first edition appeared in September 1522, with the New Testament only. A complete edition including the Old Testament had to wait several more years.

Printing revolutionized and popularized the distribution of texts and made books affordable to a much larger number of people. Luther’s translation was still partly based on the Latin Vulgate, which was well known to him. There was a first Greek text, edited by Erasmus of Rotterdam and published in letterpress. Luther also had access to various Hebrew texts, but Hebrew was by no means part of the standard repertoire of a theologian. Luther made Hebrew his own, primarily through self-study. Everything was pioneer work and much had to be corrected over time. (> More on the Luther Bible.)

Now, for the first time, people could read the Bible for themselves. However, there were no aids. Bible concordances could change that. First English Bible concordances appeared in the 16th century. A famous version is the Crudence Condordance from 1737. The work was comprehensive, easily accessible in English, but not without errors. Revised editions can still be purchased today.

One hundred years later, in 1839, George V. Wigram published his first Bible concordance, “The Englishman’s Greek and English Concordance to the New Testament,” and in 1843, “The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance to the Old Testament.” They are phenomenal works that are still available today. I myself use them all the time. All occurrences of a word, arranged by Hebrew words and grouped by grammatically distinct groups, are reproduced here in English. This allows anyone who is proficient in English to also do word studies in Hebrew and Greek. When you think about how books like this came to be, it’s amazing. People wrote down and organized each entry by hand on cards, then compiled the information into lists and printed them.

One should be aware of this: We have arrived in the middle of the 19th century. It has been less than 200 years since such aids were printed in larger numbers. Not only do we live in a privileged time, but it was very different recently. Many other tools have been produced since then.

Revivalist movements in the 19th century

In 1814, the réveil started in Switzerland, mainly in French-speaking Switzerland. The revival movement within the Reformed churches in western Switzerland soon spread toward France. The followers saw the state church as having fallen away from the true Christian faith. The movement has led to innovations. As a result, the Reformed Church saw a large increase again (I wonder if that would work today?).

One of the achievements of that time was that Bible study was given a place again, because in the revivals greater priority was given to the teachings. Out of this movement, the free churches later emerged in Switzerland.

Parallel to the Réveil, there were revival movements in other countries as well. While in Switzerland this renewal took place within the Reformed state church, in the USA, England and other countries many people left the churches and new movements or even new denominations emerged.

Example:

Earlier the Bible concordances by George V. Wigram were mentioned. He resigned from the Anglican Church and became active with the Plymouth Brethren (from which the Brethren churches grew). He was a contemporary and supporter of John Nelson Darby, who is seen as the founder of dispensationalism, even though he draws on much earlier insights of some church fathers. (For more on dispensationalism, see the post, “What is Dispensationalism?”).

In the second half of the 19th century, revival was linked to increased Bible study. On the one hand, the emphasis on doctrine led Wigram, for example, to produce his concordances (because it was important to be able to examine the fundamentals of the faith). On the other hand, the concordances led to more and more people being able to examine the Bible (for now we can verify that “these things thus behave,” Acts 17:11).

Many “Bible-believing churches” and ideas active today date from this time. Many movements outside the state churches in particular have inherited dispensationalism. “Biblical texts are usually regarded by dispensationalists as free from error, and their interpretation is guided by the principle of verbal inspiration.” (Wikipedia). Many conservative Christians will agree with such a statement about the Bible. This self-image thus stems from the second half of the 19th century.

The central concept here is the doctrine of the “verbal inspiration” of the Bible, that is, the interpretation according to which there is a literal divine inspiration of every single letter in the Bible. However, this verbal inspiration doctrine is also not very old. It is missing in the Bible and is only interpreted into it. It is a reaction to the contra-reformation and dates back to the 17th century. More on this in the article “Is the Bible reliable? (2)”.

So the 19th century is an extremely exciting time theologically. One should imagine that during many centuries the study of the Bible was reserved for the clergy. There was no access to the Bible, or there were no tools like Bible concordances. In the 19th century, the Bible was popularized in an unprecedented way. The Bible was examined, errors in doctrine and translation were discovered, and many things were set in motion.

I own, among other things, a reprint of the New Testament by Nathaniel Scarlett, originally printed in 1798. This edition attempts to better express the Greek characteristics of the New Testament. There is a detailed introduction to this. We are on the threshold of the 19th century.

One consequence of this focus on the basic text leads, for example, to the omission of the words for “eternity” and “everlasting” altogether. The idea of an endlessness does not know the Bible, but was introduced only by Tertullian and found so entrance into the teachings of the churches. If you want to correct this, you have to start with the translation. In Nathaniel Scarlett’s translation, 1 Tim 1:17 reads like this: “Now, to the king of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory to the ages of ages! Amen.” One comes back here to the term “age”, as was the case, for example, almost everywhere in older Elberfelder editions and is still consistently translated today in the Concordant New Testament as “aeon” and “aeonian”.

The development is tantamount to an upheaval. Having named tools (Bible, concordances, lexicons) available at once logically led to corrections and new insights. Intensive Bible study was the result. Many a dogmatic understanding of the state churches has been examined and found wanting or wrong. New answers had to be sought. Logically, therefore, new directions are emerging. The aforementioned dispensationalism is the only comprehensive systematic theology that can be considered a counter to the covenant theology of the mainline churches. It would be wrong to reduce dispensationalism only to some eschatological aberrations, as critics like to do. Important impulses for a better understanding of the Bible were provided. Outside the state churches, the dispensationalist view is (consciously or unconsciously) the strongest theological current today. The revival movement from the late 19th century still leaves traces in the understanding of the Bible today.

The transition to the 20th century

After this moving 19th century came the turn of the century. Many biblical scholars come from this period. Let’s look at some names, representative of many others. Specifically, I mention here names of people who, on the basis of intensive studies, sought a renewal of many ideas. Characteristic of this is that they wanted to make the original languages of the Bible understandable to everyone.

A well-known name is E.W. Bullinger, probably a direct descendant of the famous Swiss reformer Heinrich Bullinger, the successor of Ulrich Zwingli in Switzerland at that time. Bullinger was a theologian and worked in the Church of England throughout his life. He was an outstanding Bible teacher who became famous especially because of his so-called Companion Bible. This study Bible is bursting with references to the basic text, textual references, insights into contexts, and other things. It remains a rich source of information on the text to this day. Bullinger was a dispensationalist and is often classified as ultra-dispensationalism, after which the simplistic dispensationalist view of the Darbyists is further broken down. Bullinger wrote many books, of which his monumental work Figures of Speech in the Bible may be singled out. A number of his books are available as PDF downloads on the website of Fellowship Bible Church in Orlando.

Before Bullinger began his Companion Bible, he was approached by A.E.Knoch to collaborate on a new translation from the basic text. Bullinger declined, saying that this task was too big for him. Instead, Bullinger was instrumental in other Bible editions. Adolph Ernst Knoch then founded the Concordant Publishing Concern and began preliminary work on the Concordant New Testament.

Knoch came from the corner of the Plymouth Brethren and thus from the revival movement of the 19th century. His ongoing study in the basic text and his consistent interpretation of the Bible has led to tensions in his community, just as the Plymouth Brethren once felt tensions with the Anglican Church. When he could no longer contribute anything to this community, Knoch focused on working for the publishing house. From that moment on, he worked independently of any denomination and strove to make the basic text understandable to everyone.

So we see more and more people who have special achievements in theology, but who – actually or with their ideas – stand outside the official churches. In the same way, Bible circles, house churches and other communities are emerging outside the state churches.

How did this development become possible? Here we are on the threshold of the 20th century, or the first decade of the new century. Developments in the previous 100 years have caused an awakening among believers and a “hunger for more Bible.” They lived and worked in a spiritual vacuum, not only of the state churches, but sometimes also of the new groupings. The driving force is the search for a better understanding of the Bible, because from it one wishes to derive the fullness of faith.

Then happen shortly after each other: World War 1, Spanish flu, the Great Depression and the World War II. In parallel, fascism, the end of the 19th century Europe and then a departure to the post-war period.

The time of apologetics

In the first half of the 20th century, many studies and books were written. It originates from the time in which the doctrine gained importance and many new tools for understanding the Bible were available. There are sometimes heated arguments. You think about it and there are good and well-founded approaches to a new view of some things. Books are written and debates take place. The argument is largely a doctrinal one. For example, the doctrine of heaven and hell is rejected on the basis of careful Bible study, whereas others then go into religious warfare. The time is still strongly influenced by the state churches, while at the same time very intensive research in the Bible is done by people outside the church. It is an exciting time.

I have read excellent books from this era. They come from the USA (A.E.Knoch, Andrew Jukes, Joseph E. Kirk, Adlai Loudy, Vladimir Gelesnov), England (E.W. Bullinger, Sir Robert Anderson, C.H. Welch), Holland (G.J. Pauptit, S. Van Mierlo), Germany and Switzerland. Everywhere is about careful Bible study. Many have made efforts to understand the Bible better and also to make it more understandable for others. There would be a wide selection of books in Germany and Switzerland, but the German author landscape often has other roots.

However, this is striking: Especially many books of this period have an apologetic undertone. This is not surprising, because it reflects the times. In the first half of the 20th century, most people were embedded in churches. There the Bible was still read and taught. Many were much more familiar with the Bible than today. This is not only about Bible knowledge, but also about what one has absorbed in places in the community or in traditional churches from childhood. It was a time when sermons from the pulpit could be widely examined for the first time. Is what he’s saying true? Whether this took place within the state churches or as a result of a revival movement is not so important here. The result everywhere was that people had both an inkling of the Bible and could test what it said. In this environment and time, it was possible to refer to the Bible and certain ideas that have no meaning today.

In Holland, denominations were strictly separated – even within the Reformation churches. There were sharp boundaries between right and wrong. Everyone has at least one opinion on every topic. This was discussed, not infrequently in a public discourse that also made waves in the media landscape. Today, this is almost unthinkable. Such things happen today only with topics such as abuse, but at that time they also happened with the evaluation of social issues, theological differences and the like.

Times have changed.

Why do we believe as we believe?

How can we summarize this development? How did it influence us? Maybe we can take this with us first: We are all in a process. We are also a child of our time. This may be difficult for a conservative worldview to digest, because truth-loving Christians in particular often testify that the Bible is “eternal” and project that onto their own understanding of the faith. This resonates with the assumptions that “it has always been this way.” One also likes to oppose the (supposedly evil) spirit of the times. However, I have the impression that more differentiation is needed here.

We face challenges today that did not exist in previous generations. We are in a different time and need to both understand and learn to apply how to live and believe today. Concepts of past times are not always suitable for everyday use today. This is not about the core, not about Jesus Christ, not about the value of Scripture, but it is about the thoughts we define as “truth” around these things. It’s about our assumptions and what we do with the gospel. If we have an outdated view, it becomes useless. Many communities have long since lost touch with society. We should not be surprised.

A statement like “it is biblical” justifies almost nothing today, because first of all nobody understands it anymore what is meant by it and on the other hand there can be good biblical reasons to see it differently than you just hear. Such a statement as “it is biblical” can be traced back to a development in the second half of the 19th century. It is a certain understanding of faith and understanding of the Bible. This is not a judgment, but perhaps we should be sensitive to development so that we can be more conscious of the Bible and our internalized beliefs. We would do well to examine the context of our assumptions.

A lot has changed in the last 100 years in particular. The Bible remains the same, but we can no longer assume, for example, that an apologetic study is understood today. Because that requires having knowledge of the Bible and knowing what the prevailing doctrines are. Very few people today still actively read the Bible, fewer still study it, and even fewer engage with different points of view. You can’t pick up today where you were 100 years ago. That is why books need to be rewritten, communities renewed, and people taken seriously in this current world.

What once worked well now needs different ways of communicating. Today, one cannot argue apologetically, but rather must rebuild the foundations. That’s why the Bible course with the topic “How do I read the Bible?” has recently been launched. It is not the message that has changed, but those who want the message to get through must ask themselves how this can be done. It needs appropriate, up-to-date language. Read also the article: “Help! Christian secret language”.

Every generation needs its own language for the same things.