Handing out Bibles without the complete canon?

[Sherwin L.]

I'm curious to know everyone's thoughts on Bibles that are specifically printed without portions of the canon, most often the Old Testament. One good example is Gideons International, which used to (and still do, as far as I know) spend a lot of time on school campuses handing out copies of the Bible that omit the entirety of the Old Testament with the exception of Psalms.

I'm always been moderately uncomfortable with the notion of intentionally omitting chunks of Scripture for evangelism, as if we're only reserving the parts most palatable to the non-believing ear. In fact, I would argue that it almost amounts to cherry picking. I intellectually understand the reasoning behind why it's done, but I would much prefer presenting the entire counsel and revelation of Scripture in efforts to evangelize.

Any thoughts?

 

[Free Christian]

Hi Sherwin. Yes that has sometimes made me wonder too. Id be interested to hear others thoughts on that as well! In fact I have one of those in the centre console of my car which is from the Gideon's.

 

[Pergamum]

It's a waste of resources to spend thousands of dollars for full bibles handing them out. If someone wants a full bible, most can afford one.

In like manner, posting a single sermon online is still a good thing even if you don't have the time or resources to post a full reading of the Bible. Plus, rarely would someone pause to hear the WHOLE bible - it would overwhelm them at first. Where do I start?

Also, giving out many thousands of cheaply produced Gospel tracts which lead someone to a place/person/book for further research, might be a better stewardship of limited funds than whole bibles. 10,000 tracts could be printed for the price of a handful of bibles.

 

[johnny]

I like Gideon's and the work that they do.
We even had them come out to our church last weekend.
We should pray for them as they are facing increasing opposition in keeping their Bibles in hotels,
(they now use the ESV translation instead of NKJV)

As for your question, my thoughts are with Pergamum,
I am more concerned with the translation's accuracy than with the amount of content.
(good question anyhow)

 

[Jack K]

The only concern I have is that those little "Bibles" usually consisting of the New Testament and perhaps the Psalms and Proverbs might get thought of whole Bibles or as "the part of the Bible that's important." I think people do that sometimes. And some strains of theology these days feed that way of thinking. So the practice of handing out partial Bibles might lead to a poor way of thinking about the Scriptures.

That's a relatively small concern, though. And other than that concern, there's nothing at all wrong with receiving and reading only selected books of the Bible. We select a book every time we read the Bible. It makes sense for an evangelist to suggest some to start on... to hand out a manageable-looking collection of Bible books that doesn't strain the budget or the recipient's patience.

 

[clark thompson]

The Gideon are not trying to omit the bible we at my church have both New Testaments and Psalms at church and complete bibles both done by Gideon. Gideon do publish a full bible and will give one upon request but it is cheaper to give away the new testament an it is where the core of bible teaching is found. To go back to the original topic I have seen bibles that leave out certain books of the Old Testament and calling it the bible, I do not have a problem with making a New Testament as long it is referred to a New Testament and not the entire bible because it is the New Testament. Gideon New Testaments say they are New Testaments and do not claim to be the entire bible.

 

[Fly Caster]

I'm curious to know everyone's thoughts on Bibles that are specifically printed without portions of the canon, most often the Old Testament. ...

...Any thoughts?

They are pen-knives, not swords.

 

[Leslie]

Handing out incomplete Bibles is one thing, but the problem goes deeper. Oral evangelism starting in the NT is likewise suspect. God saw fit to write the OT before the NT and that is the canonical order. Who are we to second-guess Him? This is why I'm a fan of the chronological Bible stories for evangelism. People can't appreciate the atonement until they have a sin problem. And they don't have a sin problem until they have the law.

 

[Jack K]

Handing out incomplete Bibles is one thing, but the problem goes deeper. Oral evangelism starting in the NT is likewise suspect. God saw fit to write the OT before the NT and that is the canonical order. Who are we to second-guess Him? This is why I'm a fan of the chronological Bible stories for evangelism. People can't appreciate the atonement until they have a sin problem. And they don't have a sin problem until they have the law.

But can't one start by reading, say, Matthew and get the law too? Or start with John and get creation/fall/redemption. Or start with Colossians and get both?

I think there's a mindset among some Bible teachers that teaching from the Old Testament will emphasize law and sin while teaching from the New Testament is the way to emphasize love and grace. That shouldn't be the case. It's all there in all parts of the Bible.

That's not to say a chronological approach can't be an excellent choice. I often use it. But I can also teach about law and sin from just about anywhere in the Bible.

 

[Josh Williamson]

I have no issues with people handing out portions of God's Word. As the canon was coming together, the churches only had fragments of Scripture; a letter here or there, and not the full sixty-six books we know today. Based on that I have no issues giving out an NT, or even a Gospel.

 

[Leslie]

Handing out incomplete Bibles is one thing, but the problem goes deeper. Oral evangelism starting in the NT is likewise suspect. God saw fit to write the OT before the NT and that is the canonical order. Who are we to second-guess Him? This is why I'm a fan of the chronological Bible stories for evangelism. People can't appreciate the atonement until they have a sin problem. And they don't have a sin problem until they have the law.

But can't one start by reading, say, Matthew and get the law too? Or start with John and get creation/fall/redemption. Or start with Colossians and get both?

I think there's a mindset among some Bible teachers that teaching from the Old Testament will emphasize law and sin while teaching from the New Testament is the way to emphasize love and grace. That shouldn't be the case. It's all there in all parts of the Bible.

That's not to say a chronological approach can't be an excellent choice. I often use it. But I can also teach about law and sin from just about anywhere in the Bible.

You have a point. I concede.

 

[Frosty]

One of my favorite movies (Beyond the Next Mountain) details the true story of the Hmar people of northeastern India who were converted to Christ through a copy of the Gospel of John left them by a Scottish missionary. They soon received the entire of God's Word, and with quite an appetite.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think that if one assumes that giving out Bibles is a "whole solution" then that is a problem. The Scriptures are intended to be read and taught. A person, even with a whole Bible, outside the Church is not a fulfillment of the Great Commission. I don't have a problem, per se, with partial portions of the Scripture with the caveat that the person might find themselves in a Church where they can get the whole counsel of God's Word as well as the fellowship of believers and all the other things that go with the visible communion of the Saints.

If partial Bibles are, by definition, wrong, then a translator would not be able to share their work until the entire Scriptures are translated. We send people along with the Word and not the Word by itself.

 

[ZackF]

I have no issues with people handing out portions of God's Word. As the canon was coming together, the churches only had fragments of Scripture; a letter here or there, and not the full sixty-six books we know today. Based on that I have no issues giving out an NT, or even a Gospel.

Exactly. I use to be almost superstitious about that...as if the Bible is some kind of whole talisman when carried around complete and ineffective when in parts. I use to find myself feeling weird when reading a xeroxed copy of a page or just a portion that I had jotted down.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Tempest in a teapot. I don't call New Testaments (or NTs with Psalms and Proverbs) "Bibles", as only the full Scripture is the Bible. I simply call them New Testaments. When I witnessed to a doctor of mine, I gave him a NT w/Psalms and Proverbs; easy to carry in pocket and pull out and read anywhere. I was given a Gospel of John at the time of my conversion, and that confirmed the witness; a short while later I was told to get a Bible.

Rich is right -- the Scripture needs to be taught, and that in the context of a church. This should be conveyed to those we give NTs and Bible portions to.

 

[Logan]

I've really appreciated this thread. Like Zack I've often felt almost superstitious about something needing to be a full Bible. We are certainly blessed to have the entire canon so readily available but something as small as a gospel (which was sort of meant to be a stand-alone witness) is appropriate and more likely to be read than the full Bible.

 

[ProtestantBankie]

The access to completed copies is of course a new thing, we benefit from the printing press more than we know.

You'll remember our Lord in the synagogue in Nazareth was brought a copy of the Book of Isaiah (Luke 4:17) and from that he taught in such a powerful way, that the people would have thrown him off the cliff - but he past through the midst unharmed.

If I were to hand out copies of the book of Isaiah, or books containing the New Testament then that is fine.

I also carry a copy of the Book of Psalms in a metrical version, which is also the Word of God and is very dear. It is no better than the rest of the Word of God - but it is used for all of my sung praise, it is convenient to have it in it's own binding. (I also own several Bibles where the Metrical Psalms are printed at the back, but due to having quite poor eyesight, I've never found it very good for church use

There are several issues of stewardship that factor in - however, it would be wrong to give out a copy of the New Testament with the words "this is the fullness of God's revelation - no authority exists outside it".

 

[jambo]

I have no problem in handing out New Testaments or indeed portions of scripture. I keep a New Testament in my van so if I am in a customers house and am talking with them and feel they would benefit from having one then I would offer it to them. Likewise I used to keep a supply of Scripture Gift Mission tracts which were scriptural verses arranged under different subjects which were very good for those anxious, fearful, bereaved etc.

When we lived in the Irish Republic, on an average day I would have given away between 3-5 NTs daily. I used to think this was exciting that after a week 20 people or so now had a NT who didn't have one before. Depending on how the conversation went I would have called back a week later and offered them a complete bible.

If you live in a culture that is used to bible reading then I understand the preference for complete bibles. However outside the church, there is in the western world a total ignorance of the bible and even if people had one they wouldn't know where to begin. NTs or single gospels are ideal.

I believe any portion of scripture reveals something of Christ and it's far better for someone to have say Mark's gospel than nothing at all.

In some parts of the persecuted church where there is a great scarcity of bibles, bibles have been torn apart in order to be shared round. Thus, one believer might have the Romans, another Isaiah etcetera then after a few days they swap one portion for another as one bible needs to be shared by a lot of people.

I think of William Carey's work in India which involved translating the scriptures into the local languages of India. If you look at a map of India showing the language areas which ended up with either complete bibles, New Testaments or just portions, you would notice that those language groups covered a huge percentage of Indian territory. It is absolutely mind blowing to think of what Carey achieved in a day long before computers and also he achieved this despite his warehouse burning down destroying a lot of his work. For a large number of India's poor and despised lower caste people they still least had a portion of scripture to shine into their darkened Hindu hearts.

 

[Pergamum]

Handing out incomplete Bibles is one thing, but the problem goes deeper. Oral evangelism starting in the NT is likewise suspect. God saw fit to write the OT before the NT and that is the canonical order. Who are we to second-guess Him? This is why I'm a fan of the chronological Bible stories for evangelism. People can't appreciate the atonement until they have a sin problem. And they don't have a sin problem until they have the law.

The church here was looking for a systematic way to evangelize, and they almost chose Evangelism Explosion or schemes akin to the 4 Spiritual Laws. However, it seems that these approaches have been ineffective where I am because it jumps directly to who Jesus is without the long back-story of sin (why they need Jesus). We are trying to implement an approach heavy on "salvation history" (overview of the whole bible) and chronological storying.

I think Rich's quote sums up the issue: We should send people along with the Word and not the Word by itself.

 

[Kevin]

I will confess to something like this. Today I met with 5 people and only read a part of the bible to them!!!! Not the entire scriptures as inspired by God, but only verses and portions of chapters.

Do you think that I wated my time?

 

[Rich Koster]

I think the key to proper evaluation here is what it's intent is. It is a POCKET sized NT with PS & PR. It is not meant to be the whole counsel of God with footnotes or commentary. The goal is portability so that someone will possibly hold on to it and read it on the bus, subway, plane or somewhere they would idly pass the time with nonsense. It may also be quite useful for military personnel who have to travel light. I see a use for it, and I don't think the Gideon's advertise it as all you need. They leave full canon in hotel rooms.

 

[Frosty]

I think the key to proper evaluation here is what it's intent is. It is a POCKET sized NT with PS & PR. It is not meant to be the whole counsel of God with footnotes or commentary. The goal is portability so that someone will possibly hold on to it and read it on the bus, subway, plane or somewhere they would idly pass the time with nonsense. It may also be quite useful for military personnel who have to travel light. I see a use for it, and I don't think the Gideon's advertise it as all you need. They leave full canon in hotel rooms.

That's a good point. The Gideon's call the NT + Psalms & Proverbs that they pass out a "Testament" and not a "Bible". And because of that I have no problem with it (in fact, have been involved with them).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

My

1) I don't have a principled objection to Scripture "portions," printed and handed out. It's fine with me if they are tract-like (or incorporated in tracts). I'm fine with whole books (like Gospel of John, etc.). I'm OK with Matthew-Revelation (plus Pss & Prv, if you will).

2) I don't like any idea related to God's revelation that concedes that a portion of it--be it one Gospel or a whole NT--is fully satisfactory for the believer's possession. I don't like leaving that impression, even if circumstances require that occasionally that will be the impression left.

I actually dislike NT printings, sans the OT. [ducks the tomatoes] Here's why: What is it "newer" than? Is the answer obvious to the person receiving that Bible? How one replies says a great deal about his whole approach to the Scriptures, and all of its present day relevance. I am convinced that it is a tightly circular attitude about the NT being for "us" Christians-now, and the OT being for Jews-then (and now)--but mainly not for us, that is perpetuated and reinforced by the prevalence of NT-only Scriptures.

I would rather see a single Gospel given out, than (just) a NT, unless it is absolutely necessary. How do we avoid sending the message that the NT is "the important stuff," if we haven't made it clear that there's about 60% of required background missing, if one is to make the most of the "vital" 40%? How often is it plain that the NT is only part of God's revelation for Christians? How often is it clear that when Paul wrote that "all Scripture is... useful for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," he was thinking primarily of that (too often missing) 60%?

It's not hard to acquire a whole Bible that fits in a pocket, so apart from convenience and the issue of being able to read small-print (either can be a significant consideration), I don't see the benefit of a standard, NT-only carry policy--and yes, I have one that I carry around sometimes. But honestly, I will not give someone a NT-only, unless I have nothing else to hand them. I'll buy a box of whole-Scriptures to distribute, rather than half-Scriptures.

And Amen to Rich's point about folks needing more than the Book itself.

If I were translating the Bible, I would start with a Gospel. And then I would go on to Romans. And then I would start on Genesis. And I would translate back and forth NT portions and OT portions; which would send a message to the people receiving the parts in their own tongue that all of the Bible had relevance to them. It won't be all in their hands until it is ALL in their hands.

How can one preach the NT faithfully without knowledge of the OT? The Apostolic message was reliant on and rooted in the OT. NT language is saturated with the faith-language of OT saints. God's promises had been fully realized in Christ. The Christian message is: Promise & Fulfillment; Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace.

The NT didn't "drop out of heaven" like the Q'ran (allegedly), nor did Jesus or his apostles pretend to "correct" the OT story, the way Muhammed and his followers treat the Bible. Christianity isn't a 2000yr old religion. It is the only true religion, going back to the beginning of the world. It's Scriptures do not supplant the OT, any more than Isaiah supplanted Deuteronomy.

Give people the Bible--all of it--as soon as possible. Give a portion out with a promise--to get them the rest.

 

[Sherwin L.]

I appreciate the plurality of responses. I think we can all agree that any portion of the Bible that lacks the entirety of the canon should not be passed off as the whole Bible. I appreciate what Gideons has done and their efforts to clearly avoid misbranding holy Scripture. The trouble, as Rich and Bruce point out, is the notion that we pass out the NT because it has more power to save than its OT counterpart. I know that's not the intent of any evangelist, but I can't help but feel it has perpetuated the common misunderstanding that the "good, loving God" in the NT is who you want to read about, as opposed to the "angry, vengeful God" in the OT.

 

[Free Christian]

If I were translating the Bible, I would start with a Gospel. And then I would go on to Romans. And then I would start on Genesis. And I would translate back and forth NT portions and OT portions; which would send a message to the people receiving the parts in their own tongue that all of the Bible had relevance to them. It won't be all in their hands until it is ALL in their hands.

Hello Bruce. Your not saying, and im not saying you are just asking in case Im getting it wrong here, that you would restructure the chapters if you were to translate? What do you mean by that?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

No, I'm not talking about a "restructured" Bible.

I'm saying I wouldn't just translate the NT, and then get along to the OT if and when I got the NT-project out of the way.

I would translate one of the Gospels, because people should be introduced to the Christ who's come as soon as possible. I would translate Romans, because of the gospel-shape of Paul's treatise. But I would turn then to translate the OT book that speaks of the beginning of everything. And then I would seek to give the target audience additions to both the NT and the OT, until all had been completed.

I don't believe that people are better served by having a NT that sits upon nothing at all, like a house without a foundation. If I must put some shelter up on top, I will not proceed to build a whole house, neglecting the foundation until after I have set the final shingle in place upon the roof.

I hope that's more clear to you.

 

[Free Christian]

Thanks Bruce. Now I get what you mean.

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

I'm [sic] always been moderately uncomfortable with the notion of intentionally omitting chunks of Scripture for evangelism, as if we're only reserving the parts most palatable to the non-believing ear.

Humanly speaking, I would not call the Psalms the most palatable to non-believers (Pss 2, 137?). More to the point, however, I think it is important to bear in mind two things: Romans 10:14 and 1 Corinthians 2:14. Saving faith is ordinarily wrought by the Spirit through the preached word, but it pleases Him to persuade and enable some to embrace Jesus Christ at other times in differing manners.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

It seems like today's evangelism is highly influenced by the lazy and practical nature of our culture. We want everything effortlessly and we think quantity over quality. We would rather give the NT to 10 people than invest our time to 1 person so that he could have the Gospel explained to him properly, he could have the whole Bible, a Bible-reading plan with a proper commentary (Matthew Henry), and he could be a member of the visible Church. And if he won't join the visible Church for whatever reason, you will be his friend, persuade him to come, pray for him and care for him in every way necessary.

I don't know if it's just because I'm a detail/quality-oriented person, but I think evangelism should have a quality-over-quantity view because as Rich said above, "A person, even with a whole Bible, outside the Church is not a fulfillment of the Great Commission."

 

[Edward]

It seems like today's evangelism is highly influenced by the lazy and practical nature of our culture. We want everything effortlessly and we think quantity over quality. We would rather give the NT to 10 people than invest our time to 1 person so that he could have the Gospel explained to him properly, he could have the whole Bible, a Bible-reading plan with a proper commentary (Matthew Henry), and he could be a member of the visible Church. And if he won't join the visible Church for whatever reason, you will be his friend, persuade him to come, pray for him and care for him in every way necessary.

I don't know if it's just because I'm a detail/quality-oriented person, but I think evangelism should have a quality-over-quantity view because as Rich said above, "A person, even with a whole Bible, outside the Church is not a fulfillment of the Great Commission."

How is that working out?