The Superstar Preacher Bible

I had to buy a new Bible this week. The one I've relied on for over 40 years had been re-bound once, and had again reached the state where it needed re-binding. Pages and sections were falling out when I turned the page as I read. But binderies seem to be few, and distant: and those I contacted quoted charges in the hundreds of dollars.

As much as I hate to lose the availability of the notes, underlined passages, and highlighted sections that represent my entire walk with Christ, I had to buy a new Bible.

I prefer a translation as close to the original languages as possible, and nicely readable in English. The New American Standard (as 40 years ago) best suits my criteria for serious study, and that's what I bought.

I'm not a Bible snob. Anything on which I have a question, I go first to the Greek or Hebrew, and research the original word(s) in Strong's and other sources. Sometimes I look at other English translations to see how they've translated a word or passage: and occasionally I find another version may be closer to the sense of the original language, or read more felicitously. On the latter consideration, the King James version (perhaps simply because we were all raised with its diction as the standard of "Biblical") often appeals.

One of the old ladies in Sunday School uses a paraphrased version. When she reads from it, sometimes it's helpful in capturing the sense of a passage. But often it's SO paraphrased that I can't recognize the passage in my NASB to follow her reading ! Either way, a "paraphrase" is obviously not suited to serious study.

I glanced at some of the other versions when I was shopping; but quickly decided the NASB was the best version for my next 40 years of study. But there was a great variety of editions of NASB to choose from. Many contained maps, an introductory paragraph with the historical context of each book, or a short section of concordance. One even contained an abbreviated version of Strong's in the back. I could see the use of all those additions.

What appalled me was the "Superstar Preacher" versions. The NASB translation, for example, could be purchased in the Charles Stanley and the John MacArthur versions, with those preachers' running interpretation of what scripture said, printed on the same page as the scripture !

I was amazed at the gross HUBRIS of anyone (superstar preacher or not) who would consider his interpretation of scripture merited the appearance of equality with scripture ! They surely realize that Christians who study scripture superficially (who are the vast majority) will tend to take their word as somehow equivalent to God's.

Especially should preachers who proudly boast their biblicism, as Stanley and MacArthur do, be utterly horrified at such a thing. Why are they not ?

Looking at "their" editions of the Bible, one answer was clear. Their interpretations of scripture...handily printed on the same page as the scripture...reflected exactly their own theologies. Surprise, surprise. Most notably, MacArthur's notes on I Corinthians 12-14 flatly stated that the gifts that passage teaches about are no longer valid.

Clearly MacArthur's self-vaunted biblicism is less love for scripture's truth, than love for his own interpretation of scripture. Were he to "consider it possible, in the bowels of Christ, that [he] might be wrong" (Oliver Cromwell's wonderful phrase), I doubt he would dare think so. But MacArthur clearly considers his interpretation the only true one.

The first parallel that comes to mind is the pope's alleged infallibility on matters of faith. Perhaps (in MacArthur's mind, and among his followers) there's some of that. But there's also a sort of Muslim sensibility to his acts: that "there is no Bible but the Bible, and MacArthur is its interpreter."

Is the Church led by such people...or misled ?

May the Church, and especially its leaders, REPENT !