The Message Bible, a paraphrase of the Bible penned by Eugene Peterson, has garnered both praise for its readability and intense criticism for its theological departures from more traditional translations. This article explores the concerns raised by prominent critics like Bill Subritzky and Justin Peters, examining specific examples to understand why many consider The Message dangerous, particularly for those new to faith or lacking a strong theological foundation.
Theological Concerns and Departures from Traditional Interpretations
Bill Subritzky's critique centers on The Message's significant deviations from established translations like the NKJV. He argues these alterations undermine the Bible's authority and potentially mislead readers. His primary concern is the lack of scholarly rigor inherent in a single author's work, contrasting it with the collaborative efforts of teams producing more traditional translations.
Subritzky isn't simply nitpicking minor word choices. He points to systematic downplaying or omission of key concepts related to sin and holiness, resulting in what he views as a diluted understanding of Christian doctrine. This isn't a subjective opinion; he provides concrete examples, showing how The Message softens the gravity of sin and its consequences. The potential for misinterpretation, especially for those without a firm grasp of biblical theology, is a central point of his critique. The concern isn't about personal preference; it's about the potential for a skewed understanding of God's character and the nature of salvation.
Specific Examples of Problematic Translations
Subritzky's analysis highlights several passages where The Message's rendering differs significantly from traditional translations, often in ways he sees as minimizing the seriousness of sin. For instance, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which lists actions that exclude individuals from God's kingdom, is drastically simplified in The Message, potentially obscuring the gravity of specific sins. Similarly, crucial phrases in 1 Corinthians 6:18–19, concerning the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, are altered, weakening the impact of the original text.
The handling of passages concerning marital roles and submission also draws Subritzky's criticism. He argues that The Message's renderings of 1 Timothy 2:12-14, Titus 2:5, and 1 Peter 3:1 significantly soften the traditional interpretations of wifely submission, replacing commands with suggestions. He also points to additions in Matthew 18:35, arguing that these additions alter the meaning of the original text. The cumulative effect of these alterations, according to Subritzky, is a lessened emphasis on the seriousness of sin and the need for obedience. This, he argues, is not just a matter of stylistic preference but a potential distortion of core Christian teachings.
Justin Peters’ Critique: Theological Inaccuracy and Potential Heresy
Justin Peters' critique builds upon these concerns, focusing on the alleged compromise of fundamental Christian doctrines. He argues that The Message, despite its contemporary style, introduces significant theological inaccuracies and potentially heretical interpretations.
Peters' analysis meticulously compares Peterson's renderings with those of established translations, highlighting specific discrepancies. For example, he criticizes the addition of an imperative in Matthew 6:9 (the Lord's Prayer), arguing that it implies a lack of God's self-revelation. Similarly, the alteration of John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") to "I and the Father are one heart and mind" is seen as diminishing the unique deity of Jesus. Peters doesn't shy away from labeling certain interpretations as potentially heretical, highlighting the gravity of the concerns he raises. He contends that these alterations are not minor stylistic choices but fundamental shifts in theological understanding, which could be profoundly misleading, especially for new believers.
Specific Examples from Peters' Critique
Peters' detailed critique includes several other examples:
Downplaying demonic forces: He argues that The Message humanizes demonic forces, rendering them as "illusions" spread by "professional liars," which he considers an inadequate representation of their power.
Misinterpretation of "Blessed are the meek": Peters views Peterson's rendering of Matthew 5:5 as profoundly unbiblical, potentially condoning complacency with sin.
Omission of homosexuality from lists of sins: This omission in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is a major point of contention, seen as downplaying a clear biblical teaching.
Reinterpretation of Romans 1:26-27: The suggestion that the sin lies in the lack of love rather than the act itself is deemed to create a loophole for justifying homosexual relationships.
Addition in Romans 8:35: The addition of "not even the worst sins listed in Scripture" is considered heretical, as sin, according to Peters, is precisely what separates individuals from God.
These examples, according to Peters, highlight a pattern of theological inconsistency and potential danger in The Message. He emphasizes that the accuracy of biblical translation is paramount and that even well-intentioned paraphrases must maintain theological fidelity. The concern is not Peterson's sincerity, but the potential for theological error that could lead to flawed understanding and potentially harmful beliefs, especially amongst young and impressionable believers. The danger lies not just in the individual passages themselves, but the cumulative effect of these deviations on a reader's overall theological framework.
Naturally, the concerns raised about The Message don't invalidate its potential usefulness for certain readers. Some appreciate its readability and accessibility. However, understanding the criticisms raised by Subritzky and Peters is crucial for informed engagement with The Message. It's important to read it with a critical eye, comparing its renderings with more traditional translations, and grounding one's understanding in a robust theological framework established through study of multiple sources. For new believers or those with limited theological training, using The Message as a sole source of scripture is potentially problematic. Its stylistic choices, while appealing to some, might obscure crucial theological concepts and ultimately lead to a distorted understanding of Christian faith. The potential for misleading interpretations makes it a text that requires careful consideration and critical engagement, rather than uncritical acceptance.
Frequently Asked Questions: Concerns Regarding “The Message” Bible
Here are some frequently asked questions regarding concerns about the accuracy and theological implications of "The Message" Bible, based on critiques from Bill Subritzky and Justin Peters. Note that these are critiques and not universally accepted views.
Why is "The Message" Bible considered dangerous by some?
Some critics argue that "The Message" Bible, due to its significant departures from traditional translations, diminishes the Bible's authority and potentially misleads readers. The primary concern is that its paraphrastic nature, being the work of a single individual rather than a team of scholars, lacks the necessary rigor to faithfully represent the original texts. Critics argue this leads to a diluted understanding of core Christian doctrines.
What specific theological issues are raised concerning "The Message"?
Critics highlight several key areas of concern:
Downplaying or omission of key biblical concepts: Critics contend that "The Message" minimizes the gravity of sin and its consequences, potentially weakening the call to repentance and faith. Specific examples include altered renderings of passages dealing with various sins (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19), minimizing the specific condemnation of immoral acts and softening the language around the consequences of sin.
Altered interpretations of key passages: Critics point to changes in passages related to marital roles (1 Timothy 2:12-14; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1), arguing that "The Message" softens traditional interpretations of wifely submission. Additions to Matthew 18:35 concerning forgiveness are also criticized for altering the original meaning.
Compromise of fundamental Christian doctrines: Specific examples include alterations to the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9), the declaration of Jesus' deity (John 10:30), and passages addressing demonic influence (1 Timothy 4:1-5), which are argued to introduce theological inaccuracies and potentially heretical interpretations. The handling of passages on homosexuality (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Timothy 1:10) is a major point of contention, with critics arguing that "The Message" downplays or reinterprets biblical teachings on this subject.
Imprecise or misleading word choices: Critics argue that "The Message" employs imprecise or misleading word choices that fail to capture the full meaning of the original Greek, potentially leading to misinterpretations of the text.
Who are the main critics of "The Message" and what are their backgrounds?
Prominent critics include Bill Subritzky and Justin Peters. While their specific backgrounds aren't detailed here, their critiques are based on a comparison of "The Message" with traditional translations and a concern for maintaining theological accuracy in biblical interpretation.
Is "The Message" completely without merit?
While "The Message" is criticized for its theological inaccuracies and potential for misinterpretations, many find its contemporary language accessible and engaging for personal reading. However, its suitability for theological study or church use remains a point of contention among critics. The debate centers on whether its accessibility outweighs the potential risks of misinterpreting key doctrines.
Should I use "The Message" Bible?
The decision of whether or not to use "The Message" is ultimately a personal one. However, given the significant critiques raised regarding theological accuracy and potential for misinterpretation, it's crucial to approach it with caution and to supplement it with study of more traditionally-translated versions to gain a comprehensive understanding of biblical teachings. It is generally not recommended for serious theological study or as a primary source for church teaching due to the concerns raised by various scholars.
