“Missing the Mark” May Be Missing the Point

“Missing the Mark” May Be Missing the Point

Picture

Have you ever heard the explanation that the meaning of the word “sin” in the Bible is to miss the mark”? 

​To some extent the words translated “sin” in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament can convey this meaning.  In the Book of Judges we read of skilled Hebrew fighters  and that “Among all these soldiers there were seven hundred select troops who were left-handed, each of whom could sling a stone at a hair and not miss” (Judges 20:16).  The word “miss” in this scripture is the same Hebrew word chata often translated “sin.”

But this Hebrew word is by no means limited to the idea of missing the mark. The same word is often translated in many other ways.  For example, we find the various forms of this word are translated as: “bear the blame,” “bear the loss,” “bewildered,” “cleanse,” “forfeit,” “indicted,” “miss,” “offended,” “purged,”  “purified,” “reach,” and in other ways.
  
So it is certainly an over-simplification to say that the word sin means to “miss the mark” like an arrow that does not quite hit the bull’s eye of the target.   There is another problem with this view.  To understand sin as simply “missing the mark” makes it seem almost like not getting a perfect score on a test – to  miss the “perfect” mark and only get 85% or perhaps to “only just miss” and to score a 98 or 99% out of 100.   Such a view makes sin seem to be a matter of degree – only a problem to the extent we “miss the mark.” It encourages us to think that our failures are perhaps not as bad as those of others.  You may well have heard people say “Well, I may do this [smoke, swear, tell “white lies” or whatever], but it is not like I do that [steal, cheat, murder or whatever].”  Thinking that sin means essentially to “miss the mark” is to make sin relative and perhaps even reasonable if it is only “slightly less than perfect.” 

So is there a better way to understand the concept of sin?  If we gather all the instances in which sin is mentioned in the Old Testament (and in which the Hebrew word is clearly talking about sin and not something else), the underlying or common thread between them is perhaps closer to alienation.  Sin is that which offends or breaks our relationship with God or with others.
 
The New Testament shows us clearly that anything that breaks the law of God is sin (1 John 3:4) – regardless of “degree”  – and it is interesting  to notice that the first time sin (chata) is specifically mentioned in the Bible we find a parallel definition:  “If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it” (Genesis 4:7).  Here we see sin is simply not doing what is right.
 
The earliest example of sin – even if the word is not used there – is of course the Garden of Eden story where Adam and Eve are shown to have cut themselves off from God through their sinful behavior (Genesis 3:6-8).  This aspect of separation is nowhere made clearer than in the Book of Isaiah:  “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear” (Isaiah 59:2).
 
So it can be a mistake to think of sin as merely missing the mark.  Our unrepented sins cut us off from God no matter how small they may be, and sin always affects our relationships with others in some way.  To see sin as simply to “miss the mark” may be to miss the point – “missing the mark” misses the fact that sin separates and ultimately breaks relationships.  Sin is never relative, abstract or impersonal – it is always absolute, concrete and personal.  That is why we should not think of sin as simply missing something.  It is breaking something that we need to take to God to forgive and fix.  


The Biggest Little Gift

The Biggest Little Gift

Picture

Sometimes very small gifts can have very great effects.  News media occasionally carry stories about rich people  making extensive philanthropic gifts to charity – some of which are in the amounts of millions or even billions of dollars. But what would you think if you heard of a pitifully small amount of cash given to a good cause that ended up outweighing even the greatest donations of the very rich?

I’m thinking, of course, about the story of the widow’s “mite.” It’s a story every Christian who has read the New Testament knows, but it’s a story that contains more than we often realize. Both the Gospels of Mark and Luke (Mark 12:41-44, Luke 21:1-4) tell the story of when Jesus saw a poor widow contributing two small “lepta” – the smallest coins in ancient Judea – to the Temple treasury.  Jesus told his disciples: “… Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others…” (Mark 12:43).

We know the poor woman’s gift was more than everyone else had given because she gave more proportionately, giving all she had.  But her tiny gift was also perhaps literally more than all the others had given that day. How could this be?
 
Think about the rain. A single rain drop cannot accomplish much, but if it is the first drop of a downpour it can be the initiator of a flooding rain.  The widow’s tiny coins may have been insignificant of themselves, but they have inspired generations of individuals to give for over two thousand years. In fact, the total amount given as a result of that “drop” may well be many times more than all the money cast into the Temple treasury through all of the Temple’s history.

Going back to our analogy, rains begin when microscopic water particles condense.  When one or two tiny droplets fall, they join with others and become larger and they also bump and jostle other droplets into falling, too.   Our small efforts may do likewise. Sometimes even a single drop of rain waters a tiny seedling and makes a difference.  Even if our giving does not result in a rainstorm of similar actions, it may still have an effect.

It is often said that we should give, but give wisely.  Usually people think that means if we are giving lots of money, we should be careful how we give it. But even if we do not have much to give, it is important to give with careful thought.  If our contributions are of necessity small, we can often enlarge their effect by how or where we give. 

​We do this by thinking how can we give in ways that will inspire and encourage others to give – or inspire and encourage those doing the work that we are trying to support.  Like the widow’s tiny coins, the total value of even the smallest gift may be far greater than the gift itself.


The Horn of the Unicorn

The Horn of the Unicorn

Picture

​Scripture in Focus: Psalm 92:10  
 
“But my horn shall you exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil” (Psalms 92:10 KJV).
 
This verse from the Psalms (as translated in the King James version of the Bible) is sometimes said to be an example of how the Bible contains inaccurate and unscientific statements – in this case a reference to the mythical unicorn.
 
The Hebrew word found in the text of the Bible itself (re’eym) is thought to have signified the antelope-like oryx or the wild ox, though the rhinocerous (the ultimate “unicorn”!) is also possible. The exact animal intended is unsure, but the problem is largely restricted to the King James version which translates  re’eym as “unicorn” in this verse and  in a number of other passages such as Numbers 23:22. 

Almost all modern versions translate the word re’eym as  “wild ox,”  which fits well with occurrences of its use such as Job 39:9-10: “Will the wild ox consent to serve you? Will it stay by your manger at night? Can you hold it to the furrow with a harness?  Will it till the valleys behind you?”  Although the King James version uses “unicorn” in this scripture, it is clearly the wild ox that is being contrasted with the domesticated ox. So the word “unicorn” is not really found in the Bible itself, only in the antiquated vocabulary of the KJV and some other older translations of the Bible.

As for the first part of the verse, where the Psalmist speaks of his horn being exalted, this is clearly a   figure of speech, but what does it mean?  For the ancient biblical writers  the “horn” was symbolic of an animal’s power and strength, just as the words “bow” or “sword” were often used of the strength of individuals and nations.  In fact,  the word “horn” was also  used frequently in the Bible as a simile or metaphor for an individual’s – especially a ruler’s –  strength (Daniel 8:20-22, 1 Samuel 2:10, etc.). The word is used in the same way in an allusion to the Messiah in Psalm 132:17 I will make a horn grow for David and set up a lamp for my anointed one. 

So Psalms 92:10 is a good example of the need to understand both poetic usage in the Old Testament writings and the need for comparison among translations. It is certainly not a strange, mythical, or zoologically inaccurate scripture!


Two Brothers to Avoid

Two Brothers to Avoid

Picture


​T
here is an old saying that “The proud and the liar are brothers.”  There is a lot of truth in that statement as the two problems often are found side by side.  Without thinking about it we might not guess that pride and lying are related, but it’s a truth found in the Bible itself – where the two vices are frequently mentioned together.   Look at a couple of examples in the Book of Psalms:

“Let their lying lips be silenced, for with pride and contempt they speak arrogantly against the righteous” (Psalm 31:18).

“For the sins of their mouths, for the words of their lips, let them be caught in their pride. For the curses and lies they utter” (Psalm 59:12).

Do you see how the two problems are connected and how their relationship is clear in these verses? Notice another example in the Book of Proverbs:

“haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17).

Haughtiness is of course, pride: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18). “Haughty eyes” are simply eyes that pridefully look down on others.

Consider one final example: “…Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate” (Proverbs 8:13 ESV).

The connection between pride and lying runs throughout the Scriptures. Two of the major traits that the Bible seems to mention of Satan the devil are that he was filled with pride (Isaiah 14:12-14 suggests this figuratively along with Ezekiel 28:14, 16-17) and that he was the “father of lies” (John 8:44). Other scriptures speak of what that being does, but these are two traits that particularly personify what he is.

So “Pride” (who also goes by “haughtiness,” “arrogance” and several other aliases) is almost always  to be found in the company of  “the Liar.”  Biblical verses that warn us of one frequently warn us of the other and  if we see one, the other is likely not far behind. This is understandable because lying is almost always a result of wanting to somehow look better in the eyes of others.  Sometimes lies are told to cut others down or to elevate the self, but these failings are also manifestations of underlying pride.

This is important because – as many Christians have found – pride is probably the hardest sin to see in our own lives. It may be obvious to others when we suffer from it, but our own pride may be nearly invisible to us.  Knowing the relationship between pride and lying can help us.  In that sense, being alert to  lying, exaggeration or shading of the truth in our lives can be an “early warning system” that makes us aware of the proximity of pride.
 
“Pride” and “the Liar” are certainly brothers, and they are two brothers we must beware of.  But knowing their close relationship helps us in our personal growth.  If we begin to see indications of one of these problems in our lives, we can know that the other is not far away – and we can be especially vigilant to avoid them both. 


The Bible and Archaeology

The Bible and Archaeology

Picture

Archaeology is a fascinating field of study  that can help us better understand the Bible in a number of ways.

​Nevertheless, it is an area in which we should exercise caution because a great deal of what appears on the internet and in print regarding the so-called “archaeology” of the Bible is unsubstantiated and not based on the actual findings of archaeology at all.

​Each year stories surface on the internet, in newspapers, and eventually in books of the remains of Pharaoh’s army found in the Red Sea (see an example of this refuted on our sister site, here),  parts of Noah’s ark found on Mount Ararat, and other similar claims to substantiate some part of the Scriptures.  Most of these spectacular claims are not based on fact, however, and are often unsuspectingly spread by those who would like to believe them, but do not know how to confirm or disprove the stories themselves.

On the other hand, much has been found in the course of archaeological research that has not only confirmed aspects of the Bible, but also greatly enriched our understanding of its details.  As someone trained in archaeology who has personally been involved  in excavations in Israel  and elsewhere in the Middle East, the author can certainly attest to the continuous flow of material being found in ancient sites that is completely genuine and that does illuminate the biblical narrative.  Consider the following examples of some of the discoveries made in recent years. 

An important  Scripture-related “find” widely reported in the news is of a seal imprint of the famous biblical king Hezekiah.  Several  years ago, a team of archaeologists digging  near the southern part of the wall surrounding Jerusalem’s “Old City” found an ancient  refuse dump dating to some eight hundred years  before Christ.  Among the many discarded items found in the ancient trash heap were thirty-three clay objects bearing seal impressions. Only recently when these seal impressions were studied was it found that one of them was inscribed “Belonging to Hezekiah [the son of] Ahaz king of Judah.”  This find has been widely publicized as proving the existence of the biblical Hezekiah, which it certainly does, but the find also has even broader significance. 

A number of objects have been found in excavations in Israel bearing the names of ancient biblical characters or groups.  Sceptics are often quick to dismiss these objects when the names are not directly associated with the individuals to whom they might refer, but in the case of this seal, Hezekiah is clearly said to be the son of Ahaz (2 Kings 18:1), removing any doubt that this Hezekiah is the Hezekiah of the Bible.  This irrefutable connection helps show that other biblical names found in archaeological contexts very possibly also attest actual biblical characters. Other biblical kings who are very probably or certainly attested in archaeological finds include King David (on a 9th century B.C. stele from northern Israel which mentions a “king of Israel” and the “House of David”) and King Jehu (on an inscribed obelisk of the Assyrian king  Shalmanesar III which mentions tribute paid by “Jehu, the son of Omri”).

Archaeology has, in fact, silenced skeptism about the Bible in a number of areas.   If we go back a little over a hundred years, doubters regarded the Hittite people  mentioned in the Old Testament as a fiction because apart from  references to them in the Bible, there was no evidence they actually existed.  Today, Hittitology is an important part of Ancient Near Eastern studies, the palaces and cities of these people have been excavated, and many thousands of Hittite texts have been found and translated.  Far from not existing, the Hittites were, in fact, a dominant power in Asia Minor until around 1200 B.C.

There are many such instances where archaeology has shown the Bible record is not suspect, as it is often claimed to be.  Skeptics once said that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible because it was presumed that  Semitic peoples did not have writing until long after his time.  Because of  archaeology, we know now that phonetically spelled writing in Semitic languages existed from at least  the early 2nd millennium B.C.

Consider one more example of something the Bible clearly records which is still rejected by many today. Leviticus 18 tells us that God planned to cast the Canaanites and related peoples out of the Promised Land due to their extreme depravity. That chapter accuses the Canaanites of many evil practices including child sacrifice.  Some modern sceptics have challenged the likelihood that this practice actually existed in ancient Canaan and claim that there is no actual historical evidence for it (you can read an article on this on our sister site, here). 

Archaeological evidence of child sacrifice by the Canaanites has been found, however. Several ancient reliefs carved around the time of the Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses II, in the temples of Karnak and Luxor, actually depict this abominable Canaanite practice.  The reliefs were made to celebrate Egypt’s victories over her northern neighbors and depict Egyptian soldiers attacking Canaanite fortified cities of the type described in the Book of Joshua.  In these scenes, the kings of the cities are shown with braziers making fiery offerings to their gods over the dead bodies of children on the city walls (exactly as is described of the king of Moab in 2 Kings 3:27). That these representations unquestionably depict Canaanite child sacrifice is the conclusion of the scholarly publication of the Egyptian scenes (A.  Spalinger, “A Canaanite Ritual Found in Egyptian Reliefs,” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 8 [1978]:47-60).

But the importance of archaeology for biblical study goes far beyond  the fact that it confirms many aspects of the biblical record. Equally important for believers is the understanding of the Scriptures archaeology can provide in giving us an image of what life was like in Old and New Testament times and helping us to gain a much deeper understanding of many of the things the Bible says.  Look for news on this site of continuing discoveries as we go along.