gptsrabbi

On Reading the Bible in 2012: Continued

2012-01-03T12:38:00.000-08:00

Two things to deal with in this follow-up post. First, whileI don’t recommend this for most people, I do make one recommendation forpastors in regard to their Bible reading. That is, that a pastor ought to readthrough the Bible in the versions used by the folks in his church. He needs atleast to be familiar with the different versions, so that he can anticipatequestions that might arise. For some (increasingly rare) churches, that mightmean that the pastor needs to be familiar only with the KJV. In some churches,two or three versions might suffice (KJV, NKJV, NASB).But my guess is that in most evangelical/Reformed churches today, their will befive or six versions being used by the various members of the congregation.Some few, mostly older members, will still use the KJV. Others, conservativebut younger, will use the NKJV or the NASB.Increasingly some will be using the ESV.Others will be using the NIV, and some will be using the New Living Translation(NLT). This last will more likely be the case among the younger members of thecongregation. The pastor also needs to keep up with the appearance of newtranslations. He should also be aware of such things as new or updated editionsof older versions. For example, the NIV that is now in the bookstores is theNIV 2011. It is something of a hybrid between the “old” NIV (also known as theNIV 1984) and the TNIV (Today’s New International Version, 2001, with an updatein 2005). The TNIV is a gender-neutral version, and that has had a significantimpact on the NIV 2011.

In the last post, I mentioned a couple of commentary seriesthat I thought readers would find helpful as they read through the Bible.Obviously, both of these series are multiple volumes, and would require asignificant outlay of funds. One reader asked if there were some one-volumecommentaries that I could recommend. These recommendations come with a warning.First, one-volume commentaries often suffer from the same disease as studyBibles: they don’t answer the question the reader is asking. In addition, evena one-volume commentary is pretty sizeable. Those that I am listing here runfrom about 1,500 to 2,500 pages. In other words, if you are reading the Biblethrough in a year, it is unlikely that you will be reading the full text of a one-volumecommentary along with your Bible reading, unless you have a significant amountof time to commit to the project. Remember, one-volume commentaries are bookswith a larger-than-average page size, and smaller-than-average print. Readingthrough that in a year would require 5-7 pages per day. That is something mostpeople really don’t have the time to commit to. All of that being said, I wouldrecommend the following one-volume commentaries for general use. That doesn’tmean that I agree with everything said by the various commentators.

Matthew Henry’s One-Volume Commentary. This is the oneedited by Leslie Church. Do not make the mistake of buying the whole unabridgedMatthew Henry in one volume. Dr. Church did a very commendable job of reducingHenry to a size manageable for most people. Henry focuses on devotion andapplication, so don’t expect extensive discussions of technical matters.

New Bible Commentary: 21^st Century Edition. Thiswill provide more up-to-date technical commentary than Henry. Not particularlydevotional, but not entirely lacking practical insight.

Believer’s Bible Commentary. This one I have not personallyused, but it strikes me as more reliable than some of its competition.Somewhere between Henry and NBC in devotional level.

On Reading the Bible in 2012

2011-12-28T08:36:00.000-08:00

This is the time of year when people make resolutions toread through the Bible in the coming year. If this is your intent, I hope thispost will be of some help to you. Even if this is not your intent, I hope thispost will be of some help to you.

First, there is nothing magical, or even necessarilyparticularly sanctifying, about reading the Bible through in a year. If yourecognize from the beginning that the important thing is to read regularly inthe Bible, with prayer and meditation, then reading through it in a yearbecomes simply a helpful tool to accomplish that goal. There are any number of “readthrough the Bible in a year” programs. Justin Taylor discusses some here: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/12/27/bible-reading-plans-for-2012/.For those who have had trouble in the past reading through the Bible in a year,the Plan for Shirkers and Slackers might be the place to begin. If you have asmart phone, the youversion Bible app has more than 200 different reading plansavailable. You can even set it up so that it reminds you each day to do yourreading. There are also a number of reading plans available at the Zondervanwebsite: http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Product/Bible/Plans.htm?QueryStringSite=Zondervan#Inthe Beginning...

If you look at the Zondervan list, you will notice that manyof the plans are not plans that will take you all the way through the Bible ina year. Rather, they are limited plans that deal with more focused goals. Ifyou are new to Bible reading, I suggest you might start with one of these plans,such as the 180-day guided tour. This plan gives you an overview of the Biblein six months. Or you might want to begin with the two-week guided tour andthen move on to some of the 30-day plans. The main point is to get yourselfinto the Word daily in a useful fashion.

Recently, a friend on Facebook was asking about smart phoneBible reading plans. Another friend cautioned against one of the plans thattakes you straight through from Genesis to Revelation, since you get stuck fordays on end in the Minor Prophets. I understand the point that this person wastrying to make: that finding helpful material for meditation in the MinorProphets (or even in the Major Prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel) can be difficult.However, I think it reflects some level of ignorance about the Minor Prophets. Italso highlights, however, the fact the many sections of the Bible are difficultto read and to effectively meditate on, because we are not sufficientlyfamiliar with what we are reading. Thus, we feel like the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40),who said, “How can I [understand], unless someone guides me.” There is nothingwrong with admitting that we don’t understand what we read, and that we needsome help.

So where do we go for help? First, I recommend against studyBibles. I find that they offer minimal help, usually the least help when youwant it the most. Instead, you should invest in several practical commentariesthat you can read along with your Bible reading. That may slow down your Biblereading, but that’s all right. The Bible Speaks Today series from IVP has anumber of useful volumes, as does the Welwyn commentary series from EvangelicalPress. These are non-technical commentaries that are designed to help thereader understand and apply what he reads.

May you have happy Bible reading in 2012.

Punctuating the Bible: Ephesians 4:11-12

2011-12-05T16:15:00.001-08:00

In speaking, we indicate emphasis and pauses simply by theway we pronounce the words. Punctuation and other ways of marking a text areused to attempt to accomplish with the written word what it cannot do, that is,imitate the spoken word. Thus someone might say the three simple words “I lovehim” in three different ways. He might say, “I love him,” putting theemphasis on “I,” which is indicated here by putting “I” in italics. The meaningcommunicated is that “I” as opposed to others, love him. Or he might say, “I lovehim” putting the emphasis on the verb (again, indicated here with italics).Thus the meaning is I love him as opposed to “hate” or “like” or “put up with.”Or he might say, “I love him;” communicating the idea of loving thatparticular person as opposed to others. The pauses and emphasis indicated bypunctuation therefore help clarify the meaning of what is written, in place ofthe emphasis provided by voice and facial expression in conversation.

The importance of proper punctuation is well-illustrated inLynne Truss’s recent bestseller, Eats, Shoots & Leaves. This isparticularly pointed out in the publisher’s note (p. xv) to the effect that thebook is written in English English as opposed to American English, and sofollows the rules of English rather than American punctuation. All of this isto say that the punctuation of the text of the Bible in English serves animportant interpretive function that might be easily overlooked by the causalreader.

Ephesians4:12 provides a useful example. Forcontext, I have also included verse 11. In the KJV, the verses read, “¹¹And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets;and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; ¹²For theperfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of thebody of Christ:” Notice that the commas in verse 12 indicate three purposes forthe work of the officers listed: perfecting the saints, the work of theministry, and the edifying of the body of Christ.

In the NKJV, the passage reads, “¹¹AndHe Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists,and some pastors and teachers, ¹²for the equipping of the saints forthe work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” In this version,there is only one comma in verse 12, indicating a two-fold purpose for the workof the officers: equipping the saints for the work of ministry and edifying thebody of Christ. The whole range of modern translations, from the NASB to the NLT, does exactly the same thing that theNKJV does, indicating two purposes for the work of the officers.

The modern reader probably reads only one Englishversion, and for the most part probably pays little attention to thepunctuation. Therefore, he might not notice the different possibleunderstandings that the verse provides. Next time we will look into the matterof determining which punctuation of the verse is probably right, why, and whatit means for the reader.

Biblical Languages and Gender: Final Thoughts

2011-11-29T16:08:00.001-08:00

First, ordinary English still uses “he” for the genericthird person. The only people who don’t think so are those who are committed to“gender neutrality” or those who are forced by their work and connections touse gender-neutral language. If you think that is not the case, try listeningto the conversation at a local diner sometime (and I don’t mean Starbucks). Theconversation will be liberally sprinkled with the generic use of “he.” Or asksome college or seminary professor who is trying to get his students to writein gender-neutral English. It doesn’t come naturally, and students willgenerally not do it unless forced to. Or ask some editor for a publication thatrequires gender-neutral language how many times he has to direct an author toclean up his language.

Second, the use of gender-neutral languages in Bibletranslation gives the reader the impression (however unconscious that may be)that the ancient Israelites and the early Christians had the same phobias aboutlanguage that we do. It isn’t true. The Bible is filled with generic uses ofmasculine forms for generic reference.

Third, the use of gender-neutral language often hides theuse of singular pronouns by turning them into plurals. These changes oftenintroduce meanings into the text that were not there originally, or removeunderstandings that are originally in the text.

Fourth, the use of gender-neutral languages in Bible translationseems to me to be an attempt to make a Bible that we are more comfortable with.Here’s a secret. The Bible was not intended to be a book that we arecomfortable with. It is intended to confront us with our sin and to call us torepentance. It is also intended to call into question our assumptions aboutwhat the world is and how it works; about who God is and how he works. It isintended to challenge our world-views and to correct them. When Paul says inRomans 12:2, “And do not be conformed tothis world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may provewhat the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect (NAS),”hemeans that our minds are to be changed by learning from God’s word how to thinkproperly about all things. It is intended to overcome the corruptions of ourthinking that sin has brought. How can it do that if we are constantly changingit to make it more comfortable for us?

I do recognize that thereis a need for Bible translations that are “simple language” translations, bothfor those who are new readers, and for those for whom English is a secondlanguage. But it should be made clear that such versions are not reliable asguides for serious study of the Bible, and that the reader should seek toprogress in his understanding beyond the basics that such a translation is ableto provide.

A final aside: Why, in atranslation, should translators change measures into modern equivalents? Forexample, some modern versions use feet and inches in place of cubits. But theancient Israelites did not think in terms of feet and inches. They thought interms of cubits. In some sense, the modern reader is required to get into thehead of the ancient text in order to understand it. That is not helped byputting modern equivalents into the body of the text. If you must, put them ina footnote, or in an appendix at the back.

Biblical Languages and Gender (3)

2011-11-21T17:06:00.001-08:00

We left off last time with the gender-neutral treatment ofPsalm 1. In addition to what I mentioned last time, there is one more elementin the first verse that the gender-neutral versions cover up. That is that thebeginning of the verse says “blessed is the man.” The word translatedman is ish in Hebrew, and it means specifically a human male. It cansometimes be translated husband, particularly when used in connection with itsfeminine counterpart isshshah, which means woman or wife. Does this meanthat women are specifically excluded from consideration in Ps 1? No, because ishis sometimes used inclusively (for example, 1 Chron 16:3 “and he distributed toevery man [ish] of Israel,both men [ish] and women [ishshah]. In addition, the context ofthe psalm makes it clear that any person is in view here. The noun also has thedefinite article (the) attached to it. Hence, “blessed is the man.” Itmay well be the case that by the use of the definite article the psalmist has inview at least an allusion to the Messiah. As Andrew Bonar says in his Christand His Church in the Book of Psalms, “Can we help thinking on Him as alonerealizing the description in this Psalm? The members of his mystical body, intheir measure, aim at this holy walk; but it is only in him that they see itperfectly exemplified.” The possibility of seeing this is left open to thosewho are reading a “gender-specific” version, but it is completely removed fromthe readers of the TNIV, the NLT.

Thegender-neutral versions regularly replace masculine singular pronouns withplural nouns and pronouns. In this fashion, subtle details of the text areregularly lost. For example, there is a very interesting set of usages in John2:25-3:1. In the KJV, the passage reads, “Andneeded not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. Therewas a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:” In the NRSVit reads, “and needed no one to testify about anyone; for he himself knew whatwas in everyone. Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of theJews.” Every occurrence of “man” in the KJV reflects an occurrence of the Greekword anthropos (man, mankind) in a singular (as opposed to plural) form.Every use of anthropos has been removed in the NRSV. But John hascreated a subtle connection between the end of chapter 2 and the beginning ofchapter 3, as follows, “And he did not have need that any should testifyconcerning man, for he knew what was in man. But there was a man from the Pharisees,named Nicodemus.” Jesus knows what is man, and so a man comes, and Jesus isable to speak to his heart, and get to the heart of the situation. He does thisthroughout John’s gospel, as we also see, for example, with the woman at thewell. But if someone is reading the NRSV, he will never pick this up.

Biblical Languages and Gender (2)

2011-11-18T11:43:00.001-08:00

Like Greek, Hebrew nouns and adjectives have gender. UnlikeGreek, they occur only as masculine or feminine. There is no neuter gender inHebrew. In addition, there is a small number of nouns that sometimes occur asmasculine, and sometimes as feminine. As an example, when the English Biblereads “people” on the basis of the Hebrew word ‘am it is reflecting amasculine noun. So those poor Israelite women had to suffer the pains ofknowing that there was no way in their language to “include” them, as the veryword that referred to the people as a whole was masculine in gender. Perhaps toemphasize the point that noun gender has nothing to do with sex, most bodyparts that occur in pairs are feminine in gender. The exception to this rule isthe word for “breast,” which is a masculine noun.

Also unlike Greek, Hebrew verbs have gender. So in the Bookof Ruth, if one passage says, “Ruth said” and another passage says, “Boazsaid,” the form of “said” will differ between the two occurrences, since Boazis masculine and Ruth is feminine. The only point at which this is not the caseis with first-person (I/we) forms of the verb. Further, Hebrew generally usesmasculine verbs forms for a mixed-gender subject, whereas a feminine verb formalways implies a feminine subject. Or, as one of the standard Hebrew grammarsputs it, “A feminine verb form can indicate that the subject noun is feminine,but nothing certain can be inferred from a masculine form (Joüon-Muraoka,¶89b). Another way to put it is that the masculine verbs forms are notnecessarily gender-specific, while feminine verb forms are. In short, Hebrew usesmasculine forms for generic references.

Pronouns are the only parts of speech in English that are“gender specific” in terms of how that term is usually defined. “She” is usedfor specifically female, “he” refers to male or generic, while “it” generallyrefers to things. Idiomatically, some things are referred to by masculine orfeminine pronouns. So, for example, boats are usually called “she/her.” I don’tknow enough about the history of the language to account for these exceptions.Until the latter part of the twentieth century, “he” and “him” were regularlyused, and were understood to be used, in generic cases. That is, in a situationwhere the sex of the subject is unknown, “he” was used. For example, “When thereporter calls, tell him I’ll get back to him.” Though the pronoun “him” isused, there no expectation that the reporter was actually a male. In the 1970s,certain feminists began to insist that using the masculine pronoun in thisfashion did in fact deliberately exclude women. Despite the fact that no onehad ever thought so, this philosophical silliness quickly took over academiccircles in the USAand, more slowly, in Europe. For some reason, it alsoquickly infected the area of Bible translation. Hence, as early as 1976 (thepublication date of Today’s English Version (also known as the GoodNews Bible), some attempt was made to eliminate the generic use of masculinepronouns.

I will conclude today with one example, and then move on inthe next posts to consideration of further examples. Psalm 1:1 (KJV) says, “Blessed is the man that walketh not in thecounsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in theseat of the scornful.” Notice that the only specifically masculine term in theverse is “man.” In order to eliminate that reference to “man,” the TEV says,“Happy are those who reject the advice of evil men…” In order to eliminate“man” as in the KJV, the translators introduced a plural (the original issingular). They then proceed to introduce “men” where none stood before. It iscurious that “evil men” is acceptable (are only men evil?), but “the man” isnot.

Biblical Languages and Gender

2011-11-10T12:30:00.001-08:00

From James Taranto’s column at the Wall Street Journal on October 27, 2011:

“One of the things we mostloathe about feminism is its effect on the language. Self-appointed feministlanguage cops make a pretense of aiming for "gender neutrality," butin fact their aim is to make language ugly and unnatural so that you constantlyhave to think about their ideology. When the traditional terms aregender-neutral, such as "chairman," they insist on changing them ("chairwoman"or "chair"). Only when the traditional terms are gendered do theywant to neutralize them, such as calling actresses "actors."”

This move toward forcinggeneral English usage into “gender neutrality” has been going on for nearlyhalf a century. It is rampant in colleges and universities and other centers ofhigher education. Academic publishing is replete with it. In many cases,academic journals or book publishers indicate that submitted manuscripts mustbe written in gender-neutral language. “Man” is not acceptable unless you arereferring specifically to a human male. “Mankind” is not acceptable under anycondition. You must use “humankind” instead. And this is simply the tip of theiceberg.

Unfortunately, this movementhas profoundly affected the Bible translation business. Even the translators(or perhaps editors) of the ESV, which is not a gender-neutral translation, felt compelledto add a footnote saying “Or brothers and sisters” everywhere the GreekNew Testament reads adelphoi (traditionally translated “brothers” or“brethren”), just to make sure no one felt left out.

From my perspective, there aretwo fundamental problems with this enforced move to “gender neutrality” of“gender inclusiveness.” First, it is a politically motivated corruption oflanguage. I will not go into that here, but I suggest you find a copy of GeorgeOrwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” and read it carefully. Thenreread 1984. Then ask yourself if this is the kind of world you reallywant to live in. The second problem is that it also corrupts the biblicallanguages, and makes it more difficult for the reader to actually hear what theBible is saying.

For those who don’t knowanything about New Testament Greek or Old Testament Hebrew, I want to give youa little background, starting with English. First, gender is a grammaticalcategory, not a sex category, though that distinction has been corrupted overthe last half-century. English nouns, adjectives, and verbs do not have gender.In practical terms that means that you do not use a different form of “say”with “Susie said” than you do with “John said.” It also means that you don’tuse a different form of “green” when you say “Susie was green with envy” thanyou do when you say “John was green with envy.”

In New Testament Greek, anynoun belongs to one of three genders (again, remember this is a matter ofgrammar, not of sex): masculine, feminine, or neuter. Adjectives may appear inany of the three genders, but they have to correspond to (grammarians usuallyspeak of “being in agreement with”) the gender of the noun they modify. So ifyou want to say “green tree” you have to use a neuter form of the adjective“green” because the noun dendrov (tree) is neuter. On the other hand, ifyou wanted to say “a little green man” you would have to use masculine forms of“little” and “green” because the two nouns in Greek usually translated “man”are both masculine in gender. Greek verbs, like English verbs, do not havegender.

Next time we will talk aboutHebrew and then move on to how these things affect the way we read our EnglishBibles and how we are to understand them.

Matthew 18 and the Other Matthew 18

2011-11-07T13:07:00.001-08:00

This past Thursday in chapel we had a very fine message fromone of our seniors on the parable of the man who owed 10,000 talents. Hereferred to it as “the other Matthew 18” because Matthew 18 is so readilyidentified with the “church discipline” section in vss 15-20. As I reflected onthe message, I began to wonder what the relationship is between the “churchdiscipline” verses and the following material.

This material, at least as it is laid out in Matthew 18, isunique to Matthew. This is part of the fourth of Matthew’s five extendeddiscourses of Jesus. This fourth discourse begins with the question posed bythe disciples as to who is the greatest in the kingdom. Jesus begins byspeaking of the little ones of the kingdom, and the warning against beingstumbling blocks. He then moves to the church discipline passage, then toPeter’s question, and finally the parable. Hagner, in ISBE,characterizes the theme of this discourse as discipleship and discipline. Whilethere is certainly that aspect to the passage, it seems to me that the greateremphasis is on the issue of sin and dealing with sin in the context of thekingdom. Jesus uses the question of greatness to draw attention to the littlechildren. He then warns against being a stumbling block to them, i.e., sinningagainst them, or causing them to sin. This draws forth the summary of how sinis to be dealt with.

Peter then poses a question for Jesus which seems at firstglance not really to follow from the “church discipline” material. He asksJesus how often he is supposed to forgive his brother. How did Peter get therefrom church discipline? I think the transition is from the issue of dealingwith someone who won’t admit his sin (the church discipline verses) to theissue of someone who does admit his sin, but then sins again and again, eachtime asking for forgiveness. Note that in both cases, the issue starts withsomeone who sins against a brother. Jesus’ answer astounded Peter. But wheredoes Jesus’ response come from? I think it is a deliberate allusion to Lamech’sviolent statement in Gen 4:23-24. In other words, Jesus is saying that hisdisciples need to be the opposites of Lamech. By the way, the differencebetween “seventy-seven times” (TNIV and some others) and “seventy time seven”(most English versions) is not a difference in the reading of the Greek text,but rather a difference in how what is there is understood. The Greek in Matt 18:22 is identical to the Septuagint of Gen4:24. The Hebrew of Gen 4:24 isclearly “seventy and seven” rather than “seventy time seven.”

From this statement regarding our need to be forgiving whenbrothers sin against us, Jesus move to the illustration of the parable. Thepoint of the parable, of course, is to emphasize that we are to forgive othersas Christ has forgiven us (Eph 4:32).

Punctuating the Bible

2011-10-31T15:57:00.000-07:00

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew andAramaic (the Aramaic portions are as follows: Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:11-26; Daniel2:4-7:28; Jeremiah 10:11, and two words in Genesis 31:47). The New Testamentwas written in Greek. The original Hebrew (and Aramaic) manuscripts werewritten without vowels and without punctuation. The fact that vowels were notwritten is not as problematic as it might seem, due to the character of theHebrew language. In fact, most Modern Hebrew is also written without vowels.Vowels are inserted only when necessary to prevent possible misunderstandings.At least in the Hebrew manuscripts, the scribes did have spaces between words. Foran example of such Hebrew manuscripts, see http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/images/deadseascrolls_lg.jpg.

The earliest Greek manuscripts were written in all capitalletters (called uncials), and were written without spaces between the words butwith some punctuation, though the punctuation seems not to have been used consistently.For an example of such a manuscript, see http://www.bible-researcher.com/papy66big.jpg.In the Middle Ages, Greek manuscripts began to be written in a cursive scriptcalled miniscules. These manuscripts at least had spaces between the words, anda more sustained use of punctuation. For an example, see http://www.greekingout.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ntmanuscript.jpg.

Over the course of the Middle Ages, the Hebrew scribes thatpreserved and copied the biblical text developed a system for indicating the vowelsin each word. These scribes are known as Masoretes, and the text they producedis the Masoretic text. In addition to this vocalization system, they developeda system of accents for the text. In this system, each word has its own accent.The accents serve three purposes. First, the accent indicates which syllable inthe word is accented. Second, the accents serve as a sort of musical notation,indicating how the text is to be chanted. Third, the accents serve somewhatlike punctuation. This system is still found in modern printed editions of theHebrew Bible.

The punctuation in modern editions of the Greek NewTestament comes in part from the punctuation found in manuscripts. In addition,punctuation is added by the editors of the Greek text.

The punctuation of English versions of the Bible isdependent in part on the punctuation indicated by the Hebrew accent system andon the punctuation of the Greek text. However punctuation in English isdifferent and more extensive than punctuation in either Hebrew or Greek. Thus,the punctuation of English versions is determined by the translators andeditors of the particular version. Thus, for example, Ephesians 1:3-14 (oneextended sentence in Greek) is divided into three sentences by the KJV, and upto fourteen or so sentences by some of the modern simple language translations.But this punctuation is a matter of editorial choice. So for example, in Eph1:4, the KJV reads, “that we should be holy and without blame before him inlove:” The ESV reads, “that we should beholy and blameless before him. In love” (with the sentence then continuing intoverse 5). The difference between the two renderings is that in the KJV, thephrase “in love” is understood to go with what precedes, as is indicated by thepunctuation. In the ESV, the phrase “inlove” is understood to go with what follows, again as indicated by thepunctuation. In this case, the KJV is supported by the punctuation as it isfound in the 27^th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.Most modern English versions, however, do the same as the ESV.In this case, the interpretational difference may be minimal. But where you putthe comma, or whether you even use a comma, is not always so simple.

Translational Annoyances

2011-10-27T16:59:00.001-07:00

Since I teach one of the Biblical languages, I am frequentlyasked which English Bible translation I recommend. I sort of cheat, answeringthat as far as I am concerned, the NKJV, the NASB,the ESV, and (if you pay careful attentionto the words that have changed in meaning in the last 400 years) the KJV allhave their strengths and weaknesses, but they are all about equally good. Themain point here is that there is no perfect translation of the Bible. Thosethat I have listed do most things well, but no biblical languages scholar wouldbe entirely happy with any one of them. I doubt that even members of thetranslation team for one of those versions would be entirely happy witheverything the version does. Part of that is due to the fact that mosttranslations are committee work, and a translation has to please everyoneinvolved: the editorial staff as well as the members of the translation team.So if one member of the team likes a particular rendering of a given passage,but the other team members do not, he loses out. Likewise, the editorial teammay tell a translation committee that a particular passage just doesn’t workand they need to go back and change it. So the editors are happy, but thetranslators are not. I’ve been told, for example, that the translation team forone particular version was trying to figure out what to do with 1 Sam 25:22(and the other passages where the KJV uses the now offensive term “piss”). Theywanted to do something that would indicate that the word here was not just oneof the normal Hebrew words for male. However, they were told in no uncertainterms, “There will be no pissing in my Bible.”

All that being said, probably most biblical scholars haveparticular passages in particular versions that simply drive them nuts. I callthese translational annoyances. One of these popped up for me in recent monthsas I was reading through the CEB. For a variety of reasons I think the versionis a particularly odious translation. As a character in Connie Willis’s novel DoomsdayBook said, “The King James may be archaic, but at least it’s not criminal.”So you would expect that I would find a lot of translational annoyances in it.But one in particular stuck out to me. Col4:15 says, “Say hello to thebrothers and sisters in Laodicea.”I realized, of course, that this was the CEB way of saying “greet,” and Ifigured that the translators thought “greet” was too sophisticated a word forthis particular translation. So I looked back to Phil 4:21, expecting to see “sayhello to.” Instead, I found, “Greet all God’s people in Christ Jesus.” So Ithought, “Well, maybe Paul used a different word in Philippians than inColossians.” So I looked. No. Same word in Greek in both passages. So I lookedat all the passages where that same form is used. I found no consistency intranslation. About half of the passages have, “Say hello to.” The other halfhave, “Greet,” except for Matt 10:12, which says, “Say, Peace.” To my mind thisis simply fundamentally bad translation. At the very least, all of theoccurrences in the Pauline epistles should have read the same. But the carefulreader of the CEB is going to think that the Greek uses different words,apparently because the translators and the editorial team of the CEB couldn’tget together on a reasonable consistency in the translation of a simple Greekword.

Of course, the CEB is not the only offender in this. The NLTsometimes uses “greet” and sometimes “give my greetings to.” It is particularlygrating in Romans 16, where apparently the NLT translators couldn’t stand thefact that Paul used the same term sixteen times in the same passage, so theydecided to change it up for the reader.

Bible Translation and Editorial Consistency

2011-10-24T15:50:00.001-07:00

One of the fundamental difficulties in any translation workis for the translator to enable the reader to hear the “voice” of the originalwriter. A recent translator of The Three Musketeers commented to the effectthat he found earlier translations of the work, particularly nineteenth-centurytranslations, made the work much less accessible than it was in the original.He therefore strove in his translation to convey in English the style of theoriginal French. In a book of such length as The Three Musketeers it isfairly easy over the course of the novel to convey something of Dumas’s style.In the Bible, it is a much more difficult task. For one thing, the translatorsare faced not with one book, but with sixty-six, and from as many as perhapsforty writers. Further, even the longest books of the Bible (Jeremiah, Genesis,and Psalms are longest by Hebrew word-count) are far shorter than even anaverage novel, let alone a novel such as The Three Musketeers. Even thethree together would make only a very short novel (about 60,000 words total,about 120,000 in the KJV, which would make a decent-length novel). However, thethree books have very different styles (in Hebrew). A proficient Hebrew readerwould be able to tell within a few verses which of the three he was readingfrom if he was given an unidentified portion to read. But it can be difficultto make those stylistic differences apparent in English.

Formal equivalence translations have an advantage over functionalequivalence translations at this point, because of the attempt to follow theHebrew (or Greek) fairly closely, and to maintain consonance as much aspossible, (Consonance is the practice of translating a given Hebrew/Greek wordby the same English word when reasonably possible to do so.) Functionalequivalence translations, on the other hand, tend to be simple-languagetranslations, which limits, for example, the use of technical terminology, andtends to paraphrase or replace idioms in the original with “equivalent” Englishidioms.

A further problem for functional equivalence translations isthat they tend to prefer short, choppy English sentences. In some places, thatworks. Hebrew narrative, for example, tends to consist of short clauses,sometimes no more than a word or two. The reader should understand, however,that it is possible to put a whole English sentence, albeit a simple one, inone word. The English sentence, “He offered it up as a burnt offering” is twowords in Hebrew. However, when it comes to Paul’s letters, the functionalequivalence translations lose the ability to represent Paul’s style. As isoften observed Eph 1:3-14 is one sentence in Greek. The KJV turns that intothree sentences. The NLT turns it into fourteen sentences in three paragraphs.The CEB also turned it into fourteen sentences, though they have retained theone paragraph. Certainly not a real representation of the sentence Paul wrote.

Lord of Hosts

2011-10-20T17:22:00.001-07:00

Last time, I was arguing that “hosts” in this title probablydoes not refer to angels, but rather to the hosts of Israel.It is pertinent to this contention that the word “hosts” when used apart fromthis phrase and in the plural always refers to human armies, most commonly tothe armies of Israel.So, for example, Ex 12:41 says, “all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.” Deut 20:9, when speakingof the armies of Israelpreparing for battle says, “then commanders shall be appointed at the head ofthe people” (literally: they shall appoint princes of the hosts at the head ofthe people). 1 Kgs 2:5 speaks of the “two commanders [princes] of the hosts of Israel.”Psa 68:12 says, “kings of armies [hosts] did flee apace.”

The title “Lord of hosts” occurs one hundred forty-fivetimes in the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah. It occurs over fifty times in themuch shorter Book of Zechariah. It occurs fourteen times in the two chapters ofHaggai and twenty-four times in the four chapters of Malachi. The usage in theprophets accounts for the vast majority of the uses of the term in the OldTestament, and it is used consistently with the nation of Israelin view. This would seem to lend weight to the idea that the focus is not onangelic armies, but rather on human armies, in particular the armies of Israel.

Interestingly, when the word “host” is used in such a way asto indicate the possibility of the “host” being angels, it occurs in thesingular. Thus with the cryptic text in Josh 5:14ff, it is the prince of thehost (singular) of the Lord who appears to Joshua. Likewise, in 1 Kgs 22:19 “all the host of Heaven,” host issingular. It is the same case in Psa 103:21 and Psa 148:2.

What can we conclude from this? I think first, that thereason hosts is singular in regard to angels is due to the fact that they areconsidered a single army. Israel,on the other hand, was made up of twelve tribes, each providing its own army[host]. Hence the God of Israel is the Lord of the hosts of Israel,a perfect image of the Old Testament church militant.

Lord of Hosts: Lord of Heavens Armies?

2011-10-17T13:45:00.001-07:00

The KJV rendered the Hebrew phrase yhwh ts^eba’otby the English phrase “Lord of Hosts.” Since then, most English versions havesimply followed the KJV. More recently, however, especially with the rise of “simple-language”versions, the phrase has begun to disappear from English Bibles. Admittedly,there is nothing especially sacred about the translation Lord of Hosts. Many peopletoday may not even know that “host” in the seventeenth century meant “army,” or“great multitude.”

Thus, several of the newer versions have sought atranslation that communicates more effectively and more accurately the meaningof the Hebrew phrase. Thus the New Living Translation (NLT) renders it as “theLord of Heaven’s Armies.” The new Common English Bible (CEB) renders it “Lordof Heavenly Forces.” God’s Word translation uses “Lord of Armies.” The GoodNews Bible, the NIV, and the TNIV all render it as “Lord Almighty.” The NewCentury Version and the Contemporary English Version render it “LordAll-Powerful.” But how helpful, and how accurate, are these translations?

The NLT and CEB translations are clearly equivalent.Further, they add to the idea of army or force the idea that these are heavenlyforces. The first word in the Hebrew phrase is Yahweh, the divine name. Thesecond word in the phrase is a plural form of a noun that means “army” or “warfare.”Hence God’s Word translation Lord of Armies, omitting the idea of heavenlyforces. The NLT and CEB are probably influenced by the fact that angels aresometimes referred to as a “host.” This appears, for example, in 1 Kings 22:19, where the prophet Micaiahsays that he saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the “host of heaven” standingby him. The reader should notice, however, that in this and similar verses, theword “host” is in the singular, and it is specifically identified as “the hostof heaven.” Further, the Lord is not referred to as Lord of Hosts, but simplyas Lord. When “hosts” is used in the plural (apart from the phrase Lord ofhosts), it refers to the armies or military arrangement of Israelor other human armies. By usage, then the NLT and the CEB seem to be wrong in implyingthat the term is in reference to heavenly armies. In fact, one of the standardHebrew lexicons says, “the thought of angels and stars as army of God is later.”Based on the views of the scholars who produced that lexicon (Frances Brown, S.R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs), it would appear they thought it unlikely thatsuch a use (heavenly armies) appeared before the period of the exile. Even amore recent work (New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology andExegesis) seems to find the evidence for such a view lacking.

The evidence for Lord Almighty or Lord All-powerful is evenscantier. The NIDOTTE says, “Another approach would take ‘hosts’ as aplural of intensification or majesty, particularly in view of the LXXtranslation of hosts as ‘Almighty.” But such an abstraction lacks convincingevidence.”

When the reader further considers that Lord of Hosts doesnot appear in the Bible until 1 Samuel, it would seem to indicate that the epithetis particularly connected with the rise of the Israelite monarchy, particularlyunder David. Hence it refers to the armies of Israelas the covenantal hosts, or armies, of the Lord.

Is the CEB the New NRSV? (2)

2011-10-13T10:21:00.001-07:00

Technically, the answer to that question is, “No.” The CEBis not being done by the Division of Christian Education of the NCC,which holds the copyright on the NRSV. Instead, according to the CEB website, “TheCommon English Bible is a distinct new imprint and brand for Bibles andreference products about the Bible. Publishing and marketing offices arelocated in Nashville, Tennessee.The CEB translation was funded by the Church Resources Development Corp, whichallows for cooperation among denominational publishers in the development anddistribution of Bibles, curriculum, and worship materials. The Common English Bible Committee meetsperiodically and consists of denominational publishers from the followingdenominations: Disciples of Christ (Chalice Press); Presbyterian Church U.S.A.(Westminster John Knox Press); Episcopal Church (Church Publishing Inc); UnitedChurch of Christ (Pilgrim Press); and United Methodist Church(Abingdon Press).”

In other words, it is being funded by five denominations,all of which are currently member denominations of the NCC.It simply seems odd to me that they would not be using the NRSV. Perhaps themotivation is simply to have a simple-language translation that meets all thecurrent sensitivity requirements, such as gender-neutrality. There are alreadyseveral simple-language translations available that are gender-neutral. TheToday’s English Version is probably the oldest (1976). There is also the NewLiving Translation (1996, the latest edition is 2007), The Contemporary English Version (1995), andthe NIV2011. All three, however, still use “Son of Man” in reference to Christ.The CEB uses “the Human One.” I suppose these three versions are insufficientlysensitive to gender issues.

Are we moving into a new era of English Bible translation?Are we headed toward a “niche” mentality, where each denomination or cluster ofdenominations has its distinctive translation? The HCSB and the CEB seem topoint in that direction. Roman Catholicism has always had its own versions, currentlythe New American Bible, which appeared in a new edition earlier this year. Thatwould be expected, however, because the Catholic Bibles will include theapocryphal books, and not in a separate section the way the KJV had it. Butoutside the mainline churches and the SBC,churches are small enough that supporting a translation distinctive to thedenomination (or even to a group of related denominations) would be difficult.For now, the NLT, the NIV (and perhaps its 2011 version), and the ESVwill probably continue to dominate the evangelical market. The NASBand NKJV will continue to have their niches for a time, but who knows for howling.

Whether the CEB can take over the NRSV market may depend onmarketing as much as on the fact that the five supporting denominations give itsomething of a captive audience. The NRSV is aging (already basically ageneration old). Though it is gender-neutral, it is more in line with the TEV,CEV, and NLT than the CEB. If the CEB can produce a study edition aimed at thecollege-level Bible class, the simple-language approach may make it appealingto university professors who find their students less and less able to read atthe college level.

We live in interesting times in English Bible translation.The old days of the KJV hegemony are gone, and I’m not sure that’s a goodthing.

Mea Culpa

2011-10-11T07:04:00.001-07:00

Apparently I was asleep yesterday morning when I wrote mypost. First, the revision of the RSV came out in 1971, not 1970. And the NT ofthe RSV appeared in 1946, with the whole Bible in 1952 (yes, Richard, I wasright about that).

Now to more substantive matters. To anyone who thought I wasmaking a connection between the CEB and the National Council of Churches, myapologies. The relevant line is, “And there appears to be no direct connectionbetween the publishers of the Common English Bible and the Division ofChristian Education of the NCC.” To state itmore clearly, so that even the possible implication is removed: There is noconnection between the CEB and the NCC.

As to the “implicit support of the SBLfor the CEB:” as far as I know all the modern versions available in Englishhave been done by translation teams made up entirely, or mostly, of scholarswho are members of SBL. In that sense, allof the versions have the implicit support of the SBL,though I doubt the SBL would be interestedin trying to stop any of its members from participating in a Bible translationteam. What seems interesting to me is the fact that the SBLhas devoted a panel discussion to the CEB. I don’t think that has previouslybeen done for a Bible translation, except maybe the NRSV. If any of my readersknows to the contrary, I’ll be happy to stand corrected on that.

As far as the panel goes, this is the situation. I was wrongabout the make-up of the panel. The presenting panel (Why We Need a New BibleTranslation) includes one member of the CEB editorial team, and four people notassociated with the CEB. The respondents, however, are all members of the CEBeditorial team. This still seems to me to be an odd arrangement. I assumed thatthe presenting panel would be making the case for a new translation, while therespondents would be arguing contrary. Too bad I’m not going to SBLthis year.

What the CEB does not have at this point is the explicitidentification with the SBL (compare theHarperCollins Study Bible). Will it come? Who knows?

The CEB: Is it the New NRSV? (1)

2011-10-10T07:50:00.000-07:00

About a year ago I received a complimentary copy of the CEB(Common English Bible) New Testament with a letter asking me to read it andcomment. Even the letter itself made it clear that I was not going to like thisBible, and the Preface made it even more obvious. I never wrote to themexpressing my displeasure. But what has this to do with the NRSV?

The whole Bible of the RSV appeared in 1952 (the NewTestament had been published in 1946). Almost immediately it became thepreferred translation of the academic community, as well as the increasinglyliberal mainline churches. I remember that the church I grew up in (liberalPresbyterian) had RSV pew Bible in the late 1950s. In 1970, the RSV wasrepublished with a revised New Testament. In 1989, the New RSV (NRSV) waspublished, this time with gender-neutral language and with a definite movetoward a more functional (read dynamic) equivalence approach to translation.The old RSV had been pretty stodgy, even retaining “thee” and such in thePsalms. Each of these editions of the RSV was published in annotated editionsfor the academic market. The Oxford Annotated RSV seemed to have cornered themarket as the go-to Bible for university Bible and religion courses. After theappearance of the NRSV, the Oxford Annotated was updated, and no doubt is stillthe preferred translation and edition on many college campuses. But in 1994,the Harper-Collins Study Bible appeared as a challenger to the OxfordAnnotated. The H-CSB had the advantage overthe OA in that the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL)had explicitly identified itself with the H-CSB,and all the annotations were done by members of the Society. The HarperCollins(whether it is Harper-Collins, Harper Collins, or HarperCollins is not exactlyclear to me, because I have seen all three in print) Study Bible: StudentEdition made this quite evident, with the statement at the bottom of the cover:A New Annotated Edition by the Society of Biblical Literature.

Now the copyright to the RSV and the NRSV is held by theDivision of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches. And thereappears to be no direct connection between the publishers of the CommonEnglish Bible and the Division of Christian Education of the NCC.However, the NRSV is now more than twenty years old. In the world of modernBible translations, that is ancient. Even with regard to the RSV, it is thelongest that it has gone without a significant update (1952, 1970, and 1989).Furthermore, the CEB seems to have the implicit support of the SBL.The list of editors and translators (see www.commonenglishbible.com) readslike a veritable Who’s Who of the Society of Biblical Literature. In addition,the CEB has its own panel discussion at the annual meeting of the SBLin San Francisco (slated forSunday, November 20 from 1:00-3:00 p.m.).The panel is a stacked deck. The presenters of “Why We Need a New BibleTranslation” are all members of the CEB editorial committee. All thosepresenting “Responses to the Need for a New Bible Translation” are also membersof the CEB editorial committee. Apparently, they don’t want any naysayers inthe bunch.

Continued in the next post.

Concluding Thoughts on the KJV

2011-10-07T08:11:00.001-07:00

Any English-speaking pastor or teacher of the Bible ought tobe familiar with the KJV. By that, I don’t mean that he has read through it ina cursory fashion. Rather, that he has read it carefully and more than once.Why? First, because the KJV more than any other English version, is theheritage of the English-speaking church. For more than three centuries the KJV wasthe Bible of the English-speaking world. For any English-speaking pastoror Bible teacher to be ignorant of the KJV is for him to be ignorant of hishistory and of the history of his people.

Second, the KJV was translated at a time when English wasfinally coming out from under the shadow of Latin as a “respectable” language,a language suitable for scholarship, and especially theological scholarship.Thus the KJV translators regularly preferred the Anglo-Saxon word to the wordof Latin origin. Perhaps the best way to see this is to read the KJV and theDouay-Rheims translation side-by-side. The latter was a Roman Catholictranslation that deeply reflects its origins in the Latin Vulgate. WilliamTyndale led the charge in the use of Anglo-Saxon English, and for the most partthe KJV translator followed suit.

Third, the KJV translators sought to make a translation “thatopeneth the window” (from the preface to the KJV). That is, they sought to makea translation that would enable the reader of the English Bible to see throughto the original. In that, they largely succeeded. Most of the “oddities” thatpeople remark of in the KJV are not “English.” At least, they did not reflecthow English was written, or English style, in the early part of the 17^thcentury. Instead, these oddities generally allow us to see the original. Forexample, the clause “and he answered and said” that appears often in Old Testamentdialogue is not English style, but it is Hebrew style. It appears in the KJV,and the modern formal equivalence versions, but functional equivalencetranslations drop it. Compare these three translations of Gen 18:27:

KJV: And Abraham answeredand said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which ambut dust and ashes.

ESV: Abraham answered and said, "Behold, I haveundertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.

NLT: Then Abraham spokeagain. "Since I have begun, let me speak further to my Lord, even though Iam but dust and ashes.

The “and” which beginsthe verse shows us the Hebrew conjunction. The ESV has eliminated it entirely, and the NLT hasturned it into “then.” “Answered and said” is retained by the ESV, but turned into “Spoke again” by the NLT. Thereare two different verbs in Hebrew that are commonly used in speech. The first,usually translated as “say,” refers to the content of speech, so that thereader expects a quotation to follow. The other, usually translated as “speak,”refers to the act of speaking, rather than the content. The NLT has confusedthe two words. The phrase “Behold now” reflects two words in Hebrew. The ESV drops one. The NLT effectively drops both,replacing them with “since” which implies a connection with what precedes thatthe Hebrew does not. Then, “I have taken upon me” reflects the most likelysense of the Hebrew verb. This is also found in the ESV. The NLT opts for the less likely alternative “begin.”Finally, all three struggle with the concluding phrase. The Hebrew is literally“and I am dust and ashes.” It is three words in Hebrew, with the verb “am”implied. The KJV comes closest, using six words, while the ESV and NLT use seven and eight respectively.

Thus, a careful readingof the KJV (always remembering that there are more than three hundred words usedin the KJV that have significantly changed in meaning since 1611) will almostalways show the English reader the structure and character of the underlyingHebrew and Greek—not a small gift to the modern audience.

Books and Articles About the KJV (2)

2011-10-03T12:48:00.001-07:00

The Influence of the KJV

In the last post, I mentioned the address by C. S. Lewis.That work stood alone for a long time as the only consideration of the subject.However, with 2011 being the four hundredth anniversary of the KJV, many otherbooks have been written about its influence. One that appeared this year, andwhich is also worth reading, is Robert Alter’s Pen of Iron: American Proseand the King James Bible. Much like Lewis’s essay, this book originated aslectures, specifically the Spencer Trask Lectures, delivered at Princeton University in 2008. Originating asit did in lecture format, the focus of the work is limited. Alter essentiallydeals with the issue of style by displaying what he sees as the influence ofthe KJV on three works of American fiction: Moby-Dick; Absalom,Absalom; and Seize the Day. Alter’s treatment is full of insightbecause he is not only well familiar with the American literary canon; he isalso intimately familiar with the prose style of the KJV.

A second work is David Crystal’s Begat: The King JamesBible and the English Language. This work differs considerably from that ofAlter. This is simply a collation and explanation of KJV idioms that havebecome part of modern English vernacular. The book is divided into 42 shortchapters (5-8 pages each) devoted to the various KJV idioms that Crystaldiscovered.

On the Translation Itself

There does not seem to be much devoted to a discussion ofthe character and quality of the translation of the KJV, at least in book form.One of the few is Translation that Openeth the Window: Reflections on theHistory and Legacy of the King James Bible. This book appeared in 2009. Itis a collection of essays from various members of the Society of BiblicalLiterature. The Society is the premier professional society in the United States for those who specialize in theacademic study of the Bible. Like Gaul, the book isdivided into three parts. The first part deals with Bible translation beforethe KJV, the second part deals with the making of the KJV itself, and the thirdpart deals with Bible translation after the KJV. The book was published by the Societyof Biblical Literature. I have not yet had the opportunity to read this book,but given that it was published by the SBL,my guess is that it is tougher reading than the other works I have mentioned.The language will be technical, because the authors of the essays are writingfor a technical audience.

Another work on the character of the KJV translation isfound in The Literary Guide to the Bible, edited by Robert Alter andFrank Kermode (pages 647-666). It is the essay, “English Translations of theBible” by Gerald Hammond. The essay gives many examples, comparing the KJV toother versions. Hammond’sconclusion is: “Through its transparency the reader of the Authorized Versionnot only sees the original but also learns how to read it. Patterns ofrepetition, the way one clause is linked to another, the effect of unexpectedinversions of word order, the readiness of biblical writers to vary tone andregister from the highly formal to the scatological, and the different kindsand uses of imagery are all, like so much else, open to any readers of theRenaissance versions, and best open to them in the Authorized Version."

Books and Articles About the KJV (1)

2011-09-29T17:36:00.000-07:00

If you’ve not read the KJV before (all the way through), andthese posts have piqued your interest, this post is intended to give you somefurther direction.

The KJV Itself

If you don’t have a copy of the KJV, I would highlyrecommend that you purchase the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible (sorry,Dr. Carrick, the Oxford editionsjust don’t measure up). It is available in paperback as part of the PenguinClassics series, or in really nice (and really expensive) leather versions. Whythis edition? The editor, David Norton, has completely and carefully gone overthe entire text (see his comments under “Text” in the Introduction), producinga text as close as possible to what the original translators intended. Allspelling has been modernized. The font is quite readable, and it is set out ina nice single-column format. Those of you who are real history geeks might alsowant to consult Norton’s companion volume to this Bible, A Textual Historyof the King James Bible. The two volumes were originally published togetherin 2005.

Books and Articles About the KJV

Since this year is the four hundredth anniversary of thepublication of the KJV, many books on its history and influence have beenpublished this year. Of these histories, I recommend the following three(although almost any of the others would certainly be worth reading). First, Iwould mention Leland Ryken’s TheLegacy of the King James Bible: Celebrating 400 Years of the Most InfluentialEnglish Translation. The first part is devoted to a brief historyof the origins of the KJV. The last three parts deal with the various kinds ofinfluence that the KJV has had over the last four centuries. Ryken is aprofessor of English at Wheaton College, andhas written extensively on the Bible and translations. Second, I wouldrecommend David Norton’s The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndaleto Today. Most of the book is devoted to the story of the actual productionof the KJV, with the last section being a summary of the history of theinfluence of the KJV. The third history would be Gordon Campbell’s Bible:The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011. This is a more eventreatment of the history from 1611 to the present than Norton’s and is part ofOxford University Press’s contribution (Norton’s, of course, is from theCambridge University Press.)

In addition to these worksfocusing on the KJV, I would recommend Tyndale’s New Testament, editedby David Daniell. Tyndale’s work was a key precursor to the work of the KJVtranslators. The introduction by Daniell is full of interesting information,including pointing out that many memorable lines from the New Testament that weassociate with the KJV originated with Tyndale. In addition, while many of youmay have read the KJV, probably very few have read Tyndale. Since Daniell hashad it set in modern type and with modernized spelling, it is quite amazing howreadable it still is after almost five hundred years.

One more tidbit to throw out for this post. In 1950, C. S.Lewis gave the Ethel M. Wood Lecture at the University of London. The title of thatlecture was “The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version.” For thoseinterested, whether Lewis fans, or KJV fans, or literary types, the text of thelecture is available online at http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/kjv_lewis.pdf

Practical Reflections on Using the KJV

2011-09-26T15:23:00.000-07:00

Some people, having read my preceding responses to JoelBeeke’s piece, might conclude that I think the KJV ought to be dumped on therubbish heap of ancient Bible translations. That could not be further from thetruth. However, I do think that the general usefulness of the KJV is not whatit once was. Fifty year ago my home church (an admittedly liberal UPCUSAcongregation) was using the RSV as the pew Bible, and the Bible they gave tostudents in Sunday school. Conservative congregations were still using the KJV.So how should the KJV be used today?

First, I do not recommend the KJV as a pulpit/pew Bible.Unless you have a unique congregation (such as Dr. Beeke’s), regular readingfrom the KJV will serve primarily to confuse and alienate the congregation. Anexception to this might be at Christmas and Easter services (if your church hassuch) and where even the man off the street should be able to follow the Biblenarratives associated with those events.

In general, however, the KJV requires a sophisticatedreader, and apparently American Christians (perhaps like Americans in general)are becoming less able to handle sophisticated reading. The prominence of theNIV and, increasingly the NLT, in evangelical circles bears witness to thatfact.

It is still possible for the individual reader to use theKJV profitably. In order to do this, though, you need to be willing to read itwith a good historical dictionary beside you (or online, available at a fewkeystrokes). Many words have changed meaning, or have different nuances thanthey did four hundred years ago. For this reason you also need to read slowlyand thoughtfully. The KJV is not the version to read if you are doing the Biblein 90 days program.

One of its characteristics is that it reflects the originalGreek and Hebrew syntax more clearly than many modern translations. Thus, theKJV provides a way of reading the original for those who have no command of theoriginal languages. For example, the style of Jeremiah is very different fromthe style of Isaiah. This is very clear in the KJV, but it is not so clear inthe functional equivalence translations that are popular today. Those versionshave reduced it all to a simple-minded sameness.

An example may help here. In Isaiah 3:19-23 (a passage I criticizedin an earlier post because of the archaic words used), every “and” in the KJVrepresents the presence of the standard Hebrew conjunction. Most modernversions do not do that. They simply turn the series into a list, which thenceases to have any rhetorical power. The KJV, in following the lead of theHebrew text, has a rhythm to the “list” that actually produces a goodrhetorical effect, in spite of the fact that the various words are mostlyunknown. Incidentally, the NASB Update,which is in general a very literal translation, misses the boat here,completely ignoring the Hebrew connective and using only commas.

One other suggestion for making good use of the KJV: buy acopy of the recorded version read by Alexander Scourby. It is the best of therecorded versions. Listen to Scourby read as you follow along. That will helpyou to keep pace, and it will also help you with the pronunciation of names andarchaic words.

Reflections Regarding the KJV (8)

2011-09-23T07:14:00.000-07:00

Beeke’s twelfth point is that the translators of the KJVwere “men of sound religious faith.”He then calls into question the soundness of the religious faith of thetranslators of modern versions. It is true that the translators of the RSV andNRSV have been people by and large coimmitted to liberal theology. But neitherversion is used much by evangelicals. It is also doubtless the case that thereligious faith of some translators of other modern versions is less thancompletely sound. But how does Beeke know? Has he met these people? Has heexamined the depth and reality of their faith? No. He simply throws out thecharge. That’s hardly just, and really is an ad hominem attack on thetranslators, which is then used to call into question the reliability of thetranslation. On what basis, for example, would Beeke call into question thesoundness of the religious faith of the translators of the NKJV, the NASB, and the ESV? It seems to me that his assertion isspecial pleading motivated more by a devotion to the KJV than by a devotion toa fair and just evaluation of modern translations.

Another way ofputting my complaint with Beeke’s point is this: suppose a number of godlyyoung men were gathered together to produce a translation of the Bible. All ofthem had had one year of instruction in Greek and one year of instruction inHebrew. They could no doubt produce a usable translation. But there would belegitimate questions about the quality of the translation, due not to thequestion of their godliness, but due to their inexperience with the biblicallanguages.

Beeke’s last pointis simply more in the way of ad hominem attacks on modern versions. Hesays, for example, “This change to new translations was often part of an effortto strip worship services of dignity, reverence, and beauty, in favour of thecasual, the contemporary, and the convenient.” How does he know that? How doeshe know that modern versions were not motivated by a desire for people to beable to read the Bible with understanding? How does he know that newtranslations were not motivated by a desire to enable people to read the Bibleand to hear it read without stumbling over archaic words (take a look at Isaiah3:18-24 and ask youself if you have any idea what most of those words refer to),and becoming confused by words that have changed in meaning over the last fourhundred years (for example, it helps in reading the KJV to know that “prevent”does not mean to stop, or to inhibit, but rather to go before, to anticipate).It is the case that all human projects, even Christian projects, are filledwith mixed motives. That is particularly the case when large numbers of peopleare involved in the project. But Beeke dismisses them all with one sentence.They are really all, to Beeke’s way of thinking, driven by base motives,designing to lead people away from godliness. I ask Beeke to prove the charge.I don’t think he can do it. In all fairness to those who have devoted years oflabor to the production of Bible translations that seek to honor God and makehis word available in the language ofthe people, he needs to stop this sort of attack on the motives of people hedoesn’t know.

Practical Reflections Regarding the KJV (7)

2011-09-19T16:18:00.001-07:00

Beeke’s 11^th reason for retaining the KJV is thatit sounds like the Bible. In Beeke’s view this was deliberately aimed at by thetranslators of the KJV. They aimed for it to sound, in its day, a littleold-fashioned, formal, as a way to command a reverent hearing. There is a sensein which this is true. The KJV was not intended to be an entirely newtranslation, completely separate from those already available. Instead it wasto retain the best of them in a revision that would be acceptable to the entireEnglish church. For example, many memorable phrases and verses that we connectwith the KJV actually came from Tyndale’s translation, but were retained by theKJV translators.

As with some of Beeke’s other reasons, this reason doesn’tapply only to the KJV. The ESV, the NASB,and the NKJV are all intentionally a little “stuffy.” They are deliberatelyformal (in addition to following a formal equivalence translation philosophy).They are intended to carry the weight of being a presentation of the Word ofGod in English.

Beeke further argues that the unbeliever expects the Bible to sound thisway. “He expects the church to speakin a way that is timeless and other-worldly.” Again, this can be accomplishedwithout recourse to the KJV. It is true that many of the recent translationssound casual. This springs from two sources. First, it comes from thecommitment to a functional equivalence translation philosophy. Second, it comesfrom a sense on the part of the translators that the reader ought to be able tounderstand the Bible by himself, as it were, without helps. Thus many of thenew translations sound little different from today’s newspapers (except for thefact that newspapers arre not afraid to use technical language). But in thismove, the translations lose any real sense of reverence, formality, andtimelessness. There was a paraphrase of Paul’s letters that appeared in 1971titled Letters to Street Christians. It was deliberately written in theidiom of the late 1960’s. Today it is almost incomprehensible, because popularEnglish idiom has changed so much in the intervening forty years.
However, there is a legitimatequestion as to when “a little old-fashioned” moves beyond the realm ofcomprehensibility. In Dr. Beeke’s church context, most of the parishioners havebeen raised on the KJV. Many perhaps use it for their daily Bible reading.Thus, to hear it read from the pulpit causes no difficulty. However, manyyounger evangelicals coming into Reformed churches have an entirely differentexperience. They were not raised in church or on the Bible. If they were raisedin church, it is often the case that the church they were raised in, or thechurch they have been attending, has little in the way of Bible reading. Manymodern evangelical churches may go through a whole service with no more than ahandful of verses being read from the Bible. To sit, then, in a Reformedservice where maybe an entire chapter is read from the KJV is to listen to adifferent language. Yes, to many such people the KJV might sound like what theyexpect the Word of God to sound like—incomprehensible. For many today, the KJVis not much more comprehensible than the Vulgate was to the contemporaries ofthe translators of the KJV. Is that what we as pastors want to put on ourcongregations? It is probably the case that there are still congregations wherethe KJV as the pulpit Bible works. But my own sense is that those congregationsare few and far between.

Practical Reflections Regarding the KJV (6)

2011-09-15T05:46:00.000-07:00

Beeke’s seventh reason for retaining the KJV is that it islaid out in a verse-by-verse format, which is the easiest for preaching. Inother words, as any minister who preaches from the text can tell you, it is easierto find a verse if the verses are laid out verse-by-verse rather than inparagraph format. It is also easier to find the verse if it is printed insingle-column, rather than double-column format. Currently, the KJV, the NKJV,the NASB, and the ESVare available in verse-by-verse, single-column format. That is, the KJV is notdistinctive on this point.

Beeke next states that the KJV is the most beautifultranslation. While I tend to agree with Beeke, the beauty of a translation is,to some extent, a matter of opinion. Certainly in well-known passages, such asthe birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, Psalms 23 and 100, and other like passages, the KJV has a resonance thatmost modern versions lack. The question is whether this is a matter of it beinginherently more beautiful, or simply being more familiar. It may well be thatthe early 17^th century was simply a period when English was at itshighest aesthetic level. The KJV resonates, at least with the sophisticatedreader. The modern formal-equivalence translations (that is, those most likelyto be used by people who would otherwise use the KJV) simply don’t seem to havethe same beauty. An example might help here. In 1Kgs 19:12,Elijah is at Mt. Horeb,and after the wind, earthquake and, fire, there is “a still small voice” (KJV).According to the NASB, there is “a sound ofa gentle blowing.” The first certainly sounds better, and is probably no lessaccurate than the second.

Beeke’s ninth point is that the KJV serves as an ecumenicaltext for Reformed Christians. He says, “this version is used by preference in many conservative Reformedcongregations.” I suppose it depends on what you mean by conservative Reformedcongregations. I’ve preached in a number of conservative Reformed congregationsover the last twenty years, and not one of them has used the KJV as the pew orthe pulpit Bible. The days when one translation served all conservativecongregations are long gone. One might wish it were otherwise, but if wisheswere horses, beggars would ride.

Tenth, Beekeconsiders the KJV a practical choice in that it “is available in many editions;with a full range of helps and reference materials, not to mention computersoftware; in large-type, clear-print editions; and often priced well belowmodern translations.” That’s true to an extent, in that finding an exhaustiveconcordance for the NKJV or the NASB or the ESV is not easy. Apart from that, most of the rest ofBeeke’s statements applies at least as well to modern versions, especially theformal-equivalence translations. All one has to do is go to the Bible page at www.christianbook.com to find out thatall of those translations are available in about as wide a range of editions asis the KJV. It is true that the KJV is sometimes less expensive than one of themodern versions for a similar edition, but that is not universally the case.Particularly with modern Bible study software, the modern versions aregenerally as well-served as the KJV.

Beeke’s last threereasons will require greater discussion, so I will stop here for this post.

Practical Reflections on the KJV (5)

2011-09-12T07:03:00.000-07:00

Beeke’s third point has to do with translation philosophy.The KJV has a “word-for-word” approach (more commonly called formal equivalencetoday), whereas versions such as the NIV take more of a “meaning-for-meaning”approach. This latter approach was generally called “dynamic equivalence” whenthe NIV first appeared. But over time it has gotten a bad name. Currently thepreference is to call it functional equivalence.

While it is true that the KJV takes a formal equivalenceapproach to translating the text, that is also true of some moderntranslations. The NKJV, the NASB, and the ESVall take a formal equivalence approach to translating the text. Thus there isnothing distinctive about the KJV at this point.

Beeke’s fourth point is that the KJV is “a more honesttranslation.” By this, he means that words not in the original but supplied bythe translator have been put in italics. This is not done with the NIV “lest the loose method of its translatorsbe unmercifully exposed to view.” I don’t know if it would be possible toexpress this point in a more loaded or biased fashion. It is true thatinterpolated words are not indicated by words in italics in the NIV. Thepossibility is precluded by the translation philosophy adopted by the translators.I carry no brief for the NIV, but it is less than honest of Beeke to make thisa point of contention. The translation philosophy of the KJV (and the NKJV, NASB, and ESV) is amenable to the indication ofinterpolated words by the use of italics. The translation philosophy of the NIV(and the NLT, NEB,etc., etc.) is not. Beeke’s problem here is not really with italics vs. noitalics. His problem is with the translation philosophy. In short, this is notessentially a different reason than number three.

Beeke’s fifthpoint is that the idiom of the KJV is more precise. By this he apparently meansno more than that the KJV indicates the distinction between the second personsingular pronouns and the second person plural pronouns (between “thou” [2^ndperson singular] and “you” [2^nd person plural]). On this point,Beeke is absolutely right. Both Hebrew and Greek make distinctions between theform of the second person singular pronoun and the second person plural. TheKJV does also, while modern translations do not. I wonder, however, how manyreaders of the KJV are aware of this, and whether it makes any difference tothem as they read. I do wish that there were a way in modern English ofindicating the difference between the two. As Beeke says, it is oftenimportant. Perhaps modern English versions could adopt “y’all” for the secondperson plural.

Beeke’s sixthreason for retaing the KJV is that it is “the best liturgical text.” In otherwords, it is, in Beeke’s opinion, the best for reading in public worship.Maybe. It often depends on who is reading it. I would much rather hear the NIVread well than the KJV read badly. It also depends to a certain extent on thecongregation. What version do they have? Do they follow along in the reading intheir own Bibles, or do they listen to the version being read. My ownpreference is that people lay their Bibles aside when the Scripture is beingpublicly read, and listen to the text that is being read. That way, if thereare differences between the version being read, and the version someone in thepew has, the congregant is not distracted by the differences.

I have more tosay on the public reading of Scripture, but I’ll visit that at another point inthe discussion.

Practical Reflections Regarding the KJV (4)

2011-09-08T16:33:00.000-07:00

I hope you understood the discussion about the Textus Receptus,and the debate about what Greek text of the New Testament should serve as thebasis for our English translations. If not, comment, and let me know. The pointof that entire discussion was to show what the different texts are (TR,eclectic, and majority). To many people, it makes a huge difference what textis used. As noted last time, the KJV and the NKJV use the TR. As far as I know,almost all other English translations since 1880 have used some form of theeclectic text. To my knowledge, there is no English version based on themajority text. Beeke says, “the KJVgives the most authentic and fullest available text of the Scriptures, withnone of the many omissions and textual rewrites of the modern translations.” Inother words, as far as Beeke is concerned the eclectic and majority texts areinauthentic (or at least less authentic than the TR) and lacking. Also, theeclectic and majority texts have many omissions and textual rewrites.

I don’t have thespace to go into a full discussion of that now, but am working on a projectthat will address at least some of those concerns. My own view is that thedebate over the Greek text of the New Testament is, if not a tempest in ateapot, it is at least not nearly as significant as many people (includingBeeke) seem to think it is.

One way of givingyou a sense of what the variations are is to direct you to a copy of the NKJV.For the body of the NT, the NKJV has used the TR. In the marginal notes, theeditors have indicated where the eclectic text and the majority text differfrom the TR. The eclectic text is indicate by the letters NU. The NU stands forthe Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies Greek New Testament. M stands forMajority Text. For a fuller discussion, you can refer to the Preface to theNKJV. One example of differences among the texts is in the issue of spelling,especially of names. If you look at Matt 1:7, the NKJV reads, “Solomon begotRehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa.” The footnote to thisverse indicates that instead of Asa, the NU has Asaph. Asa is what appears in theHebrew text of 1 Chron 3:10 (apparently the source for Matthew’s genealogy) andalso in the Septuagint (old Greek translation of the Old Testament). However,many Greek manuscripts of Matthew 1:7 have Asaph. Is this just a spellingvariation, as the footnote in the ESV suggests, or is this an error in the NU text?It’s difficult to say, because unless it is simply a spelling variation theredoes not seem to be a good explanation for the origin of “Asaph” as opposed to“Asa.”

Another exampleis the question of “omissions.” If you look at Matt 5:27, the NKJV reads, “Youhave heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not commit adultery.”The footnote indicates that both the NU text and the Majority text “omit” thephrase “to those of old.” Now, it is certainly possible that the manuscriptsreflected in the NU and M omitted that phrase. It is not difficult toaccidentally omit something in copying. However, it is also possible that themanuscripts behind the TR added the phrase in order to make vs 27 consistentwith vss 21 and 33. But it should also be noted that vss 38 and 43 lack thephrase. So is vs 27 a case of NU and M omission or a case TR addition?

In short, as Isaid above, I think this is much less of an issue than others appear to thinkit.

Next time I willmove on to Beeke’s third point.

Practical Reflections Regarding the KJV (Part 3)

2011-09-05T13:36:00.000-07:00

Erasmus continued to work on his Greek New Testament (GNT)even after its publication, and subsequent editions were published, with the fourthand last appearing in 1527. In all, about half a dozen manuscripts formed the basisfor Erasmus’s GNT. By the middle of the 16^thcentury, a French printer by the name of Robert Estienne (also known asStephanus) had also become involved in the publication of the GNT.His last edition appeared in 1551. This text was not significantly differentfrom that of Erasmus. Following Stephanus, Theodore Beza, the disciple ofCalvin, also became involved in the editing and publishing of the GNT,publishing ten editions between 1565 and a posthumous edition in 1611. Six ofthose were simply reprints of four distinct editions. Beza’s work served topreserve the GNT text as it had beenpublished by Erasmus and Stephanus. Thus by the end of the 16^thcentury, the GNT as edited by Erasmus,Stephanus, and Beza, had become the received text (the Textus Receptus) of the GNT.The last two distinct editions of Beza (1588 and 1598) were the texts that theKJV translators relied upon.

This text of the GNTbecame the standard text for the next three hundred years or so, until thediscovery of many more manuscripts of the GNTin the 19^th century. At that point it rightly held the title ofTextus Receptus. However, since 1881, the Textus Receptus has effectively lostits position as the received text. The translators of the NKJV deliberatelychose the TR as the basis of their New Testament. However, no other majorEnglish translation (or even minor English translations, to my knowledge) hasused the TR as the basis for its New Testament. Instead, beginning with theEnglish Revised Version (1881-1885), English versions have used the so-called“critical” or “eclectic” text as the basis of their translations. The listincludes the ASV, RSV, the Modern LanguageBible, Today’s English Version, the NASB(and its 1995 update), the NIV, the Contemporary English Version, the NewCentury Version, and the ESV, among others.Beeke is technically correct when he says that the TR has been used by thechurch historically. However, it is now the case that that history essentiallystopped at the middle of the 19^th century, and a new received texthas replaced the TR.

This brings us to Beeke’s other two claims. First Beekestates: “Oldest Does Not Mean Best – The Westcott andHort arguments that ‘the oldest manuscripts are the most reliable’ and that‘age carries more weight than volume’ are not necessarily true. It could wellbe that the two oldest, complete manuscripts were found to be in such unusuallyexcellent condition because they were already recognized as faulty manuscriptsin their time and therefore were placed aside and not recopied until worn outas were the reliable manuscripts. This is further supported by numerousexisting differences between the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts.” I know thatBeeke was trying for brevity here. Nonetheless, it is a misleading summary ofthe views of those who support an eclectic text. It may be that the two oldestand and best-preserved manuscripts are well-preserved because they wererecognized as faulty and not handled’ much. It may also be that they werewell-preserved because those who preserved them recognized their importance andvalue and protected them. The fact that there are many differences between themis also misleading. There are many differences among the manuscripts that liebehind the TR.

Beeke also says:“Volume – The King James Version is based upon the Traditional Text. The vastmajority of the more than 5,000 known partial and complete Greek manuscriptsfollow this textual reading.” This is gross overstatement. There are manydifferences between the TR and what is today called the Majority Text.

Beeke would havebeen better off to have skipped this reason entirely. It is full of loadedlanguage that, while perhaps rhetorically effective, is less than honest. So,for example, the statement “the most authentic and fullest available text”implies that others are not authentic, and that they deliberately omit thingsthat should be there. That has to be proven, not merely asserted. I would haveexpected better from Dr. Beeke.

Practical Reflections Regarding the KJV (cont)

2011-09-01T13:41:00.000-07:00

Dr. Beeke’s second reason is given in the first paragraph of his essay as follows: “Based on the Textus Receptus (the Greek NT), and the Masoretic Text (Hebrew OT), the KJV gives the most authentic and fullest available text of the Scriptures, with none of the many omissions and textual rewrites of the modern translations such as the Revised Standard Versions (RSV) and the NIV.”

This reason alone is going to take more than one post to deal with. First, for those who don’t know what is meant by Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text, a brief definition of each. Textus Receptus is usually used to refer to the Greek text underlying the New Testament of the KJV. Before the invention of the printing press in the 15^th century, books were copied by hand. This made books rare and expensive. It also had the tendency to produce errors in the copies made. [Just as an exercise, you might try copying out an entire book of the Bible by hand. Hint: try a short book first. You will notice that you have to pay very careful attention to avoid mistakes in copying. It gives you some appreciation for the labors of the copyists who preserved ancient texts for us down through the centuries.]

Most scholars working with the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible had access to only a very small number of manuscripts. The only exceptions would have been scholars who had access to major libraries, such as the Vatican library or libraries at the largest and most prestigious European universities. With the printing press, it was possible to make a large number of identical copies of the same text. Thus, as scholars began to prepare biblical texts for printing, they would gather a number of handwritten manuscripts together so that they could figure out what the correct readings were throughout the text. This is known as collation. Wherever there were variants among the texts, the scholar doing the work would have to decide which reading was to be preferred. This is, in brief, the art and science of textual criticism.

With regard to the Greek text of the New Testament, the first printed text was part of a major production by Catholic scholars under the aegis of Cardinal Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros of Spain. It included the Old Testament in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek and the New Testament in Greek and Latin. Such a “parallel Bible” in different languages is known as a polyglot. It was printed in the town of Alcala, Spain; the New Testament volume having been printed in 1514. [Which, and how many, Greek manuscripts lay behind this work no one knows.] The name of the town in Latin is Complutum, so the work became known as the Complutensian Polyglot. However, for whatever reason, though the work had been printed, it was not put on the market.

The first published Greek text (that is, both printed and put on the market) was edited by Erasmus, based on a fairly limited number of Greek manuscripts, none of which contained the entire New Testament. The work was published in 1516. Thus it had been printed after the Complutensian Polyglot, but hit the market about six years before it.

This is not the full story of the Textus Receptus, but I also have to say something about the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic (sometimes spelled Massoretic) Text is the Hebrew text of the Old Testament as it had been copied and handed down through the centuries. Up until about AD 500, Hebrew texts had included only consonants (not as bad a thing as it might sound; more explanation later). Over the next few centuries a system of indicating the vowels was developed and became a part of the text. These “voweled” texts became know as the Masoretic Text (MT), and it was those texts that became the basis for printed copies of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Next post, more on the Textus Receptus, and a little more on the MT.

Practical Reflections Regarding the KJV

2011-08-29T13:41:00.000-07:00

This post begins a series responding to a short piece written by Joel Beeke a few years ago. If he wrote it a few years ago, why respond now? First, I only recently became aware of Beeke’s piece. Second, this year is the 400^th anniversary of the publication of the KJV. Third, there have been a number of pieces published in the popular press regarding the KJV and its qualities.

Beeke’s piece itself may be read here:

http://zion.redemptivehistory.org/oldtestament/Retaining%20the%20KJV.doc

Who is Joel Beeke, and why take him on? For those who do not know, Joel Beeke is the president of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary and pastor of Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregation in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is well-known in conservative Reformed circles and is a regular speaker at Bible and theology conferences. He is also not a “KJV-only” radical, as that phrase is typically used. The reasons for taking him on are two-fold. First, he is well-known and well-respected in our circles. Second, while I agree with some of what he says in this piece, there seem to me to be some cultural and sociological issues, in addition to theological issues, that Beeke (and others who hold a position like his) either does not recognize or does not care to address, that affect the selection of a Bible translation not only for personal study but for public worship.

My series of posts will simply respond sequentially to Beeke’s points.

His first point is that the KJV is “The Standard Text of the English Bible.” Under this heading he makes three points. First, the quality of a translation can only be known by using it over time. This is true. In this regard, the KJV certainly is well-tested over time. Other currently popular translations cannot make the same claim. The NIV New Testament first appeared in the 1970s, with the whole Bible copyrighted in 1984. The New American Standard Bible dates to 1977, with a major revision dating to 1995. The New King James Version appeared in 1982. The English Standard Version appeared in 2001. The Holman Christian Standard Bible New Testament appeared in 1999, with the whole Bible making its appearance in 2003. The New Revised Standard Version was published in 1989. The New Living Translation was first published in 1996, with a significant re-edited version appearing in 2004. In other words, the oldest of these Bible is still less than half a century old, with the newest being less than a decade old. The qualities of these Bible are still, in some sense, under review.

Second, the KJV has outlasted many versions that were intended to replace it. This is also true. The American Standard Version (1901) is in print, but is regularly used by a very small number of people. The Revised Standard Version (1952/1971) is still available in a handful of editions, but it has been replaced by the New RSV. Other versions produced in the twentieth century, such as Moffatt’s translation and the Smith-Goodspeed translation, were never widely used. Even more popular versions such as Phillips’ New Testament and the Good News Bible have faded with time. Other versions, such as the Contemporary English Version and the New Century Version seem never to have really caught on. You can regularly find them on the remainder tables at secular bookstores.

Third, Beeke makes the point that the KJV is the standard to which all other versions are compared. While this was at one time the case, I don’t think it is any more. But that is only because Bible publishers have recognized that they really don’t get any traction by directly attacking the KJV. Instead, they will attack it indirectly by touting such things as the readability of their version, or how easy it is to understand.

The next post will deal with Beeke’s second point.

Calvin and 2K

2011-03-31T12:39:00.000-07:00

First, a quick definition of Calvin's view of the two kingdoms: "The spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very widely separated" (Institutes 4.20.1) The institutional expression of the former is the organized church.

I've been reading David Van Drunen's book Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, in part out of personal interest and in part because there will be a seminary-wide discussion of the work. In his chapter on Calvin, Van Drunen argues that Calvin's doctrine of the two kingdoms is somewhat at odds with his practice as it pertained to the city of Geneva. Assuming for the sake of argument that Van Drunen is right, I think the explanation for the difference is clear. In the mid-sixteenth century, Geneva was a relatively small town of about 25,000 (see E. William Monter, "Women in Calvinist Geneva [1550-1800], Signs 6 [1980], 189). Even today the area of Geneva is only about 100 square miles, and would have been smaller in 1550. Thus it was a town that was religiously and ethnically homogeneous. In other words, in most demographic ways, Geneva was a unified town.

Furthermore, the history of Europe up to the time of the Reformation is a long history of church involvement in politics, and political involvement in church issues. It was one things for Calvin to posit a "two kingdoms" view in theory. It would have been almost impossible given the historical, theological, political, and demographic situation to have put that view into practice.

Colossians 2:16 Continued Again

2010-12-28T11:51:00.000-08:00

In studying the use of the Greek word sabbatos in the entire Bible (and the Hebrew shabbat in the Old Testament), it is clear that sometimes sabbatos means Sabbath, and sometimes it means Sabbaths. Why might this be the case? The reason is that there are two types of Sabbaths in the Old Testament economy. The first is the weekly Sabbath. The principle of this weekly Sabbath is set out in Gen 2:1-3. It is mentioned in passing in Ex 16. It is given in full in the Ten Commandments (Ex 20 and Deut 5). The second type of Sabbath is related to the annual appointed feasts (Lev 23:2). Each of the annual festivals occurred at appointed times during the year. These feasts are set out in schematic form in Lev 23. What becomes clear from that chapter is that there were a number of days during the year that, whether they fell on the weekly Sabbath or not, they were accounted as Sabbaths, because they were appointed holy days attached to each of the appointed feasts. For example, the first and last days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread were Sabbaths, as ordinary work was prohibited on those days (Lev 23:7-8). Pentecost is likewise identified, even though it, by definition, never occurred on the Sabbath (Lev 23:21). The Day of Atonement is explicitly identified as a Sabbath, even though it rarely occurred on the weekly Sabbath (Lev 23:32).

The two types of Sabbath are thus lumped together in the use of the plural form of sabbatos. Is it possible to distinguish between the two types of Sabbaths? There does appear to be an idiom in the Old Testament in which the use of Sabbaths is explicitly connected with the annual cycle of festivals, thus setting those "special" Sabbaths apart from the ordinary weekly Sabbath. This is the phrase "the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the feasts." Those three terms occur together often enough (though not always in the same order) that it appears to be a shorthand way of referring to the annual festival cycle, without including the weekly Sabbaths. As indicated in this chart,

Verse	Reading
1Ch 23:31	ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις καὶ ἐν ταῖς νεομηνίαις καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς
2Ch 2:4	καὶ ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις καὶ ἐν ταῖς νουμηνίαις καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς
2Ch 8:13	ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις καὶ ἐν τοῖς μησὶν καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς
2Ch 31:3	εἰς σάββατα καὶ εἰς τὰς νουμηνίας καὶ εἰς τὰς ἑορτὰς
Neh 10:34	τῶν σαββάτων τῶν νουμηνιῶν εἰς τὰς ἑορτὰς
Hos 2:11	ἑορτὰς αὐτῆς καὶ τὰς νουμηνίας αὐτῆς καὶ τὰ σάββατα αὐτῆς
Isa 1:13	τὰς νουμηνίας ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ σάββατα καὶ ἡμέραν μεγάλην
Ezk 44:24	ταῖς ἑορταῖς μου φυλάξονται καὶ τὰ σάββατά
Ezk 45:17	ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς καὶ ἐν ταῖς νουμηνίαις καὶ ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις
Ezk 46:3	ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις καὶ ἐν ταῖς νουμηνίαις
Col 2:16	ἑορτῆς ἢ νεομηνίας ἢ σαββάτων·

From a comparison of these passages with Col 2:16, it appears to be the case that Paul is not including the weekly Sabbath, but is rather pointing to the annual cycle of festivals, with its feasts, new moons, and "special" Sabbaths as no longer obligatory on Christians. It is this annual cycle that was the "shadow of the things to come," and which pointed to Christ. The regular weekly Sabbath is in another category altogether.

Colossians 2:16 Continued

2010-12-17T11:51:00.001-08:00

In my first post on this text (August 31) I mentioned that the use of the Greek sabbatos is inconsistent in the New Testament, sometime being singular and sometimes plural, though referring to the Sabbath. An examination of sabbatos in the Greek of the Old and New Testaments reveals the following. In the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy), the Septuagint regularly uses the plural of sabbatos to translate the singular Hebrew word shabbat. In the historical books (2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, and Nehemiah), the Septuagint uses the singular of sabbatos to translate the singular shabbat, and the plural of sabbatos to translate the plural of shabbat. The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea and Amos follow the practice found in the Pentateuch. Ezekiel follows the pattern of the historical books. In the New Testament, Matthew and Mark are the least consistent. Matthew uses the plural 6 times* and the singular 4 times. Mark uses the plural 6 times and the singular 6 times. Luke primarily uses the singular (only 5 plurals out of 20 occurrences). John uses the singular 11 times, and the plural twice. But the plural occurrences both mean "week" rather than "Sabbath." Acts is somewhat mixed, using the plural four times (once it means "week," and once it is modified by the number three, so would reasonably be plural) and the singular 6 times. The word sabbatos is used only twice in the epistles. In 1 Cor 16:1 it is singular, and means "week." In Col 2:16 it is plural. So the question is, does it mean "Sabbath" or "Sabbaths"? That will be the topic of the next post.

*The English versions regularly translate sabbatos as "Sabbath" whether it is singular or plural, except when it means "week."

Notes on Ezekiel, 4: Chapter 1 continued

2010-11-17T17:58:00.000-08:00

The vision moves from the living creatures to the wheels. The key verse here is vs 18, "And their rims were tall and awesome, and the rims of all four were full of eyes all around." The wheels, which are clearly means of locomotion, demonstrate two things: first, the omnipresence of God. He is not limited as to location. It is hard for us to imagine, but in the Old Testament, though the omnipresence of God is a given (see Ps 139), there was a sense in which he had "attached" himself to the temple in Jerusalem. Thus, the mobile throne is a radical departure. Second, the plethora of eyes indicate his omniscience. In a pictorial way, this says the same thing as Ex 2:25, "God saw the people of Israel, and God knew."

The final element of the vision is the throne above the creatures. It rests on an "expanse" (same word as in Gen 1:6). The allusion to the creation narrative is deliberate. The God whom Ezekiel sees is the creator of heaven and earth. Ezekiel sees a human-like figure, but all he can describe is brightness, and a rainbow. Again, the allusion to Genesis 9 is deliberate. The figure represents God coming in judgment, but not without mercy.

"Such was the likeness of the appearance of the glory of the Lord." Ezekiel saw the glory of the Lord, but at best he is able to describe it only indirectly. The vision overwhelmed him, and he ended up on his face. This reminds us that we are never to take God for granted (which the Israelites had done, assuming that because they had the temple, God would not let Jerusalem fall). Nor are we to think of God as our good buddy. He is the maker of heaven and earth, judge and savior, and were we to have Ezekiel's vision, we would respond in like fashion. In some sense, Christ bridges the gap between us and God (there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 1 Tim 2:5), but one day to him every knee shall bow (Phil 2:10-11)

What does the 2nd Commandment Forbid?

2010-11-15T06:35:00.000-08:00

Provoked by someone's blog post this morning, I want to take a few minutes to try to explain the traditional Reformed view of the 2nd Commandment, and the prohibition of pictures of Jesus. This first thing to note is that there are two facets to the prohibition. The first facet prohibits making (Ex 20: 4). The second facet prohibits worshiping (Ex 20:5). Regarding the prohibition of making, it is usually argued (and the particular blog post in view did argue) that if the command is taken literally, it prohibits all representational art. In other words, statues, paintings, photographs, etc. of anything are prohibited by this command. This is the view that Islam takes, and explains why all Muslim art is abstract. This seems to be a plain reading of the command: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Ex 20:4, ESV).

However, this is where it is necessary to consult the Hebrew text. Two terms are used here, represented in the ESV by "carved image" and "likeness." Neither term refers to what we might call representational art. So, for example, the term "likeness" in Ex 20:4 is not the same word as "likeness" in Gen 1:26. Both words in Ex 20:4 refer specifically to images that are intended to represent deity. In other words, the command says, "Do not make a representation of God using anything in the created order as the foundation for that representation."

So how does this affect the "images of Christ"? First, granted that Christ is one person in two natures--human and divine. Any attempt to represent him visually can represent only his human nature. So it does not represent the "full Christ." Further, there are no descriptions given in the New Testament of what Jesus looked like. Since the death of the apostles, no one knows what Jesus looked like. Hence, any representation of his human appearance is a false representation. Thus, visual representations of Jesus fail the test of two commandments. First, they fail the 2nd Commandment test, in that they attempt to represent deity using part of the created order to do so. Second, they fail the 9th Commandment in two ways. They represent Jesus as if he were human only, which he is not. Second, they lie about his appearance.

Given this, it does not appear to me that "pictures" of Jesus can be justified, unless the 2nd and 9th Commandments are eliminated as laws for Christian behavior.

Notes on Ezekiel, 3: Chapter 1

2010-11-12T11:27:00.000-08:00

The chief difficulty with interpreting Ezekiel is the temptation to over-interpret. So, for example, in the first chapter all the details of the visions that Ezekiel describes seem to cry out for interpretation. But the reader should remember that this is a vision. Hence, much of it is not only not to be taken literally, the point of it is to communicate to the reader an impression. Second, the reader should pay attention to the frequent use of terms such as “the likeness of,” “the appearance of,” “like,” and other terms indicating comparison. In some sense this chapter is on extended set of metaphors. Third, the reader should try to grasp the big picture, and not to become lost in the details of the imagery. In other words, the details of the vision are something like the dots of color that make up a pointillist painting. (If the reader doesn't know what pointillism is, the Wikipedia article is sufficient.) The details, to some extent, do not matter in themselves. It is what they bring to the whole that creates the effect intended by Ezekiel’s description.

The chapter divides into four parts: the introduction (1-3), the four living creatures (4-14), the wheels (15-21), and the throne (22-28). The introduction sets us in time and place. The time is the fifth year of the exile of Jeoiachin, fifth day of the fourth month. According to modern chronology, that puts Ezekiel by the River Chebar (pronounced key-bar) on Jul 31, 593 BC. The Chebar River (or canal) is located between modern Baghdad and Basra. This appears to have been the location of one of the villages of the Judean exiles.

The opening of the heavens is the idea that Ezekiel is allowed to see into the heavenly realm ordinarily not accessible to us. What he saw, he attempted to describe. But the language that he used indicates that he was operating at the limits of human language to communicate what he saw. Much of the language is clearly metaphorical. So what are we to take from the vision? First, we are to apprehend the completely overwhelming nature of the vision. At the conclusion, Ezekiel fell on his face (vs 28). Second, the reader should note the main themes of the vision. The cherubim (not identified here as such, but specified in 10:1) are human in form, having faces representing the highest of the various created orders: human, domestic animals, wild animals, and birds. Thus the created order magnifies God. The frequent mention of fire carries with it the idea of the judgment of God. Note that the storm came out of the north (1:4), which is the standard direction from which judgment arrives for Israel (see also Jer 1:14). The cherubim are also connected with the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:24), the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:17ff), the curtains of the tabernacle (Ex 36:8), and the walls of the temple (1 Kgs 6:29). They serve to protect the holiness of God, and hold off the unholy man who would draw too near.

Notes on Ezekiel, 2: Outline, Organization, Main Themes

2010-11-10T18:38:00.000-08:00

Outline:

I. Proclaiming judgment against Judah, chs 1-24

II. Proclaiming judgment against the nations, chs 25-32

III. Proclaiming restoration for Israel, chs 33-48

Organization:

The book is organized chronologically, beginning in the fifth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin (593 BC). The last dated prophecy (571 BC), and the only one out of chronological order, is found in ch 29:17ff. This seems to have been connected thematically to the context, accounting for the date out of order. The vision of the new temple, chs 40-48, concludes the book, being dated to 573 BC. The material from the first 24 chapters all date from the period 593-588 BC. The oracles of judgment on the nations date from 587-571 BC. The prophecies of restoration date from 585-573 BC.

Thematically, the book is organized around Ezekiel’s three visions of the glory of the Lord. The first of these visions is the account of his call to the prophetic office in chs 1-3, in which the glory of the Lord appears to him among the exiles in Mesopotamia. The second vision, chs 8-11, recounts the gross idolatry of Israel, and the moving of the glory of the Lord out of the temple and out of the city of Jerusalem, leaving it unprotected and open to the coming attack by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. The final vision, concluding the promises of restoration, shows the glory of the Lord settling in the new temple, in a restored land, in a renewed city

Main Themes:

Chapter 36:16-32 is a key passage for the book as a whole. In this passage the primary themes of the book appear all together. The first theme is the holiness and transcendence of God, demonstrated by the overwhelming appearance of the glory of the Lord, and the repeated emphasis on God’s concern for his holiness.

The second theme is the sinfulness of the people, and the consequent inevitability of judgment. Obviously, this is presented in terse, summary form in chapter 36, but it takes up the whole of the first half of the book.

The third primary theme is that of God’s gracious restoration. While summarized in 36:22ff, it takes up almost the entirety of the last third of the book.

Additional Bibliographical Note:

When posting the other day, I forgot to mention the exposition of Ezekiel by Patrick Fairbairn, which is still useful. In addition, the section on Ezekiel in O. P. Robertson’s The Christ of the Prophets is probably the best short theological summary in print.

Notes on Ezekiel, 1

2010-11-08T17:59:00.000-08:00

Historical Context: 2 Kings 21-25, 2 Chronicles 33-36

In 609 BC, Josiah, king of Judah dies in battle against Pharaoh Neco. He is replaced by his son Jehoahaz, who reigns for three months before he is deposed by Neco. Neco replaces him with Eliakim, whom he renames Jehoiakim. Jehoiakim comes under pressure from Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, and in 605 BC Nebuchadnezzar takes a number of Judean hostages, among whom is Daniel. Jehoiakim died in 597, and was replaced by Jehoiachin, who reigned for three months. Nebuchadnezzar took him and a number of other Judeans captive, replacing Jehoiachin with Zedekiah. Ezekiel appears to have been among this group of captives, since most of the events in the book are dated from the captivity of Jehoiachin. Thus the context for Ezekiel is that he is a captive in Babylon among the exiles. He is a priest separated from the temple in Jerusalem.

Religious/Theological Context:

About a century before we meet Ezekiel, Manasseh became king of Judah. He made idolatry official policy, and reigned for more than half a century. Though he repented near the end of his life, it was too little, too late. He was replaced by his son Amon, who reigned for two years and restored his father's official policy of state idolatry. Amon was succeeded by Josiah, who became king on 640 BC. Josiah was a godly man, and instituted religious reforms, but they seem to have had little effect on the people as a whole. After Josiah's death in battle, it appears that the people returned to the idolatry of those who had preceded Josiah.

The prophet Jeremiah began to prophecy in 627 BC, the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah. In 622 BC, the scroll of the law was found in the temple, and its legitimacy verified by Huldah the prophetess. After the death of Josiah, the religious apostasy quickened, and the final twenty years of the kingdom of Judah was a time of disaster: political, social, and religious.

Personal Context:

Assuming that the "thirty years" of Ezekiel 1:1 refers to the thirtieth year of Ezekiel, Ezekiel was born in the year that the Book of the Law was found in the temple. He grew up in a priestly household, and no doubt expected that when he reached the age of twenty-five, he would begin the five-year apprenticeship that would precede his entering into full priestly status when he turned thirty. Thus his entire life would have been one of training for the priesthood. However, the year he would have begun his apprenticeship is the year that he was taken into captivity. he spent the next five years perhaps hoping that he would return to Jerusalem and to his "real" calling as a priest. Instead, in his thirtieth year, God called him as a prophet.

Bibliography:

The standard English-language technical commentary for some years to come will probably be that by Daniel Block in the New International Commentary series. Also worth consulting is the short commentary by John Taylor in the Tyndale OT Commentaries, and the exposition by Christopher J. H. Wright, The Message of Ezekiel. Keil's commentary in the Keil & Delitzsch should not be omitted. The one by Lamar Cooper, Sr. in the New American Commentary series is worth consulting, though marred by a dispensational theology. William Greenhill, the Puritan commentator costs more work than I have found him to be worth. Iaian Duguid's volume in the NIV Application Commentary series well repays study. Two incomplete commentaries worth consulting are those by Calvin, who made it into chapter 20, and the Anchor Bible volumes by Moshe Greenberg. Greenberg died before completing the commentary, and Jacob Milgrom, who was appointed to complete it died not too long thereafter. It is uncertain when that set will be completed.

The NLT and the 10 Virgins

2010-10-05T11:36:00.001-07:00

In chapel the other day, Dr. Carrick preached on the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1-13). I happened to have grabbed a copy of the New Living Translation to take with me to chapel. What struck me as I heard Dr. Carrick read the passage (from the KJV) was how different the NLT sounded. Some of these differences are due to the fact that the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, while the NLT is based on the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek text. So, for example, 25:2 in the KJV reads, "And five of them were wise, and five were foolish." The NLT reads, "Five of them were foolish, and five were wise." The differing order of wise and foolish represents the different texts.

However, some of the differences are not as easy to explain. So verses 3-4 in the KJV read, "They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them; But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps." In the NLT, those verses read, "The five who were foolish didn't take enough olive oil for their lamps, but the other five were wise enough to take along extra oil." The differences in text cannot account for the differences in the translation. The 27th N-A reads, "For the foolish, taking their lamps, did not take with them oil, but the wise took oil in the vessels with their lamps." Why does the NLT import "five" into verse 4 (not in the text) and eliminate the clear foolish-wise distinction (in the text). I fail to see how the NLT is any clearer than the KJV, and it introduces unnecessary changes.

See also vss 8-9, where the KJV reads, "and the foolish said to the wise ... but the wise answered." The NLT reads, "Then the five foolish ones asked the others ... But the others replied." The NLT uses "others" twice in place of the Greek phronimoi (wise). Why? What clarity is gained by failing to keep pressing on the reader the wise-foolish contrast that Jesus was pressing on his hearers? How is it any easier to understand than the KJV?

Ecclesiastes 1:9 and Stephen Hawking

2010-09-23T04:22:00.000-07:00

The quote I posted on FB yesterday ("an infinite number of imperishable atoms coalesced through blind chance or immanent mechanical laws to form countless worlds in a vacuum of immeasurable proportion")I read in Reiner Smolinski's introduction to Cotton Mather's Biblia Americana, a vast, multi-volume commentary on the Bible that was never published in his lifetime. Only now is it being brought to press for the first time, with its publication projected over the next decade.

But the quote is a summary of the origin views of seventeenth-century Cartesian philosophers and naturalists. What struck me about the quote was the similarity to some things said by Stephen Hawking in an excerpt from his book The Grand Design. The most striking paragraphs are the following: "The laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universe to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason their is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology." (Originally published in the WSJ 9/3/2010, accessed online at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html?KEYWORDS=Stephen+Hawking.

The mechanical laws, the countless worlds, and the immeasurable proportion of the known universe, so similar to Hawking's propositions, make it appear that he has advanced all the way to the seventeenth century and even to the Greeks Democritus and Epicurus. So much for the latest new thing.

Colossians 2:16 The End of the Sabbath?

2010-08-31T06:02:00.000-07:00

Colossians 2:16 is often pointed to by anti-Sabbatarians as proof that the Sabbath is over and done. The text seems clear: "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." (ESV) The Contemporary English Version simply puts into print what many people believe the verse says: "Don't let anyone tell you what you must eat or drink. Don't let them say that you must celebrate the New Moon festival, the Sabbath, or any other festival." It's clear. The Sabbath has passed, and is no more to be observed. But has it? This is where first, it becomes necessary not only to read the passage in Greek, but to interpret properly what it says.

First, it should be noted that some versions, such as the two quoted here, have "Sabbath" in the singular, while others, such as the KJV and the NKJV, have it in the plural. This should, to the attentive reader, first raise the question of the text. Are there some Greek texts that read "sabbaths" while others read "sabbath"? A quick check of the standard critical Greek texts shows that there are no variations on that word, that in fact it is in the plural. So the follow-up question is why some translations have translated it as a singular. This becomes a more difficult issue, and demonstrates for us that while it is necessary that interpreters of the Bible be able to read it in the original languages, that in itself does not necessarily solve difficult questions. In fact, sometimes it seems to increase the difficulty of the question.

In this case, the increased difficulty comes from the following set of facts. First, the Greek word 'sabbaton" occurs sixty some-odd times in the New Testament. In over forty of these, the word is in the singular, while in the remaining cases it is in the plural. But both singular and plural forms are used with singular meaning. For example, in Mt 12:1-12, the word occurs eight times, three times in the singular (vss. 2, 5, 8) and the other five times in the plural (vss. 1, 5, 10, 11, 12). Yet most versions translate all eight of these occurrences in the singular.

Further, on a number of occasions, 'sabbaton' means "week," as it does in 1 Cor 16.2. Yet even here, the usage is inconsistent. In 1 Cor 16:2 the word is singular, whereas in Lk 24:1 it is plural.

So rather than immediately solving the problem by reference to the original language, I seem to have complicated the issue. Therefore, more posts will be necessary.

Strategic Plan Wrap-Up #2

2010-07-06T10:10:00.000-07:00

Theme 2: Increased Involvement

Goal: Increase involvement by providing more opportunities to utilize greater variety of people and life experiences (especially younger leaders, women, ethnic leaders, and global church representatives) in the discussions concerning PCA ministry direction and development.

What initially strikes me as I reread this after a few days is that virtually all of this could be accomplished in a single stroke. Stop making GA a convention and make it again a deliberative body, a court of the church. As I noted in the last post, only 752 churches (43%) were represented at GA. The unrepresented churches are largely pastored by young men and men from ethnic minorities. Further, fewer than 300 churches actually had ruling elder representatives. The concerns of women in the local churches are generally more ably represented by their ruling elders than by their teaching elders. Further, the broader inclusion of REs will increase the representation of various minority viewpoints, as the REs have not attended the same half-dozen seminaries that virtually all the TEs in the PCA have attended. Thus, the REs are not thinking as part of the herd.

How do you change GA from a convention to a deliberative body? First, stop advertising it as family vacation. Second, locate it at something like Covenant College. Have the men stay in the dorms and eat in the cafeteria. If CC is not large enough, have it someplace larger but with the idea remaining the same: no luxury hotels, no spending large wads of cash at local eateries or at overpriced convention center food courts. Third, without the distractions of vacation and resort, and with no place else to go, men will actually go the the GA meetings. There were at least two votes during this past GA that required a "yes" vote by more than half of those registered in order to pass. The measures did not pass. Why? There were fewer than half of the registered attendants present. Ask your TE, and your RE, if he actually attended the business sessions of the GA. Ask him to explain to you what happened. These men who attend GA but do not attend GA need to be called to account, and they need to repent.

Action 2 in the preceding paragraph will immediately cut the cost of GA by a significant margin. Right now, depending on where GA is, and where you travel from, attending GA costs in the range of $1,500 to $2,000. That is a prohibitive for many small churches. It is also prohibitive for REs who have to take off a week of work in order to attend.

If the Administration Committee (which currently spends about one-quarter of its budget on GA) took these actions, it would say to the REs that it really is worth your time and expense to make your voice heard at GA. With this kind of encouragement, smaller churches will also be encouraged to send their due representatives, even if thay have to take up a special offering to do so.

Strategic Plan Wrap-Up #1

2010-07-03T06:46:00.001-07:00

As you know by now, the recently completed PCA General Assembly approved the Strategic Plan in the following fashion. We approved three themes, each with a single goal. Under each of these themes we approved both specific and general means. I have three general complaints (specific complaints to follow as examples). First, some of the things we approved are already being done. So what is intended by the fact that we approved them? Are we to continue to do them? Are we to do them more? Are we to do them differently? No one knows. My second general complaint is that we approved things that don't need to be done, because there is already a mechanism in place for dealing with them. My third general complaint is that we approved some things as "specific means" that are either entirely undefined, or they are almost incomprehensible. Thus they cannot serve as means to accomplish the stated goal.

I here list exactly what was passed, with my comments serving as specific complaints.

Theme 1: Civil Conversation [Who can be against that? But what constitutes civil conversation? We tend to think of our country's founding fathers as being masters of civil conversation. But check out last week's Wall Street Journal article "Our Feuding Fathers." 'Nuff said.]

Goal: Establish places to enter into civil conversation about the best ways to advance the PCA's faithfulness to biblical belief, ministry, and mission. [Who can object? But who has the time? Does this mean face-to-face, in person meetings? If so, where and how? If not, doesn't the blogoshpere already accomplish much of this (though admittedly not always civilly)?]

Means 1: Provide public forums at GA to discuss difficult subjects or new ideas without vote, offering charitable judgments among elders in the fellowship of the ministry. [Again, who can object? But it is already being done. In addition, GA is becoming in some sense less and less relevant to the issue. This year we had 333 Ruling Elders and 919 Teaching Elders in attendance. That was up a little from last year, but the general trend is still downward. Only 752 churches were represented (about 43% of the whole). In some sense, even fewer than 752 churches were represented, because there were only 333 REs present. So, as far as RE representation goes, fewer than 333 churches were represented (some large churches bring more than one RE. Even 2nd Pres Greenville, SC, not a terribly large church, brought three REs.)

Means 2: Encourage similar forums in the presbyteries (possibly continuing discussion from each year's GA). [Again, who can object? But reality is against us here. Calvary is a geographically small presbytery with approximately forty churches. So attendance should be around one hundred (including all TEs and some churches having more than one RE). But it is rarely close to that. Some men chronically do not come, though the shepherding committee is trying to work on that. If something like this is going to work, there has to be the commitment to make the time, and with all due respect to my brothers in the ministry who voted for this thing, I don't see the commitment to make it work.]

Means 3: Encourage gatherings of non-agreeing enclaves to discuss major denomination-changing or culture-changing ideas, and how to live together with differences. [Who can object? But there needs to be a commitment to make it work, and I do not see that commitment. These things take time, planing, organization, and I don't have the time or other resources to do that. There may be people who do, but they don't appear to be doing it. To some extent, the blogs do this, but there is so much invective, and so many blogs, that no one has the time to keep up with them, and fulfill their ministry responsibilities as well.]

Reply to Mr. Acton

2010-05-29T14:19:00.000-07:00

Mr Acton said: With all due respect Dr. Shaw, the PCA is not a union of congregationalists. The higher courts gain their jus dinivus from the principle of appeal. Our connection above the presbytery level is such as is needful to maintain peace and purity. There is no principle or example of coordinated ministry above the presbytery level. Antioch appealed to the Jerusalem council to handle a doctrinal controversy, it did not coordinate with J'salem in her missionary endeavors. It does not affect the point whether the churches in question were simply congregations or classical presbyteries. Coordinated ministry is nice but not necessary to make one truly Presbyterian.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, except to point out that many churches in the PCA do indeed function as congregational churches. They involve themselves marginally in presbytery and marginally in GA, but for the most part function as if they had no connection to their sister congregations.

PCA Strategic Plan Post 13a

2010-05-29T12:23:00.000-07:00

Follow-up given a question from Andrew. Do I think the funding plan is ideal? No. But it does seem that some alternative to the current system must be put into place, or something must be done to make the current system workable. Charging TEs $400 registration fee in order to attend GA is outrageous, but it is done in order to cover the budget shortfall of the Admin Committee. I am a member of both the Society of Biblical Literature and the Evangelical Theological Society. Neither of their annual national conventions charges a registration fee that is anywhere close to what the PCA GA charges. Both of those annual meetings are larger than the PCA GA, and much more difficult from an administrative perspective, since both have hundreds of sessions meeting concurrently.

So how do we fund the Admin Committee of the PCA? Andrew proposes that the AC be funded by the other committees and agencies of the PCA. That's a possibility. But those other committees also have trouble getting their necessary funding.

I think the fundamental problem is the ethos of the PCA. It is a congregational assemblage posing as a presbyterian church. Thus, the individual churches feel no responsibility to fund the higher courts of the church (either presbytery or GA). In my presbytery, for example, there are a significant number of churches that give nothing at all to the work of the presbytery (and I'm sure they give nothing at all to the work of the GA), yet their TEs and REs have a right to vote along with everyone else, often for things that work to their own advantage.

Two changes have to occur in the PCA (maybe more, but I can think of two key things right now). The first is, that TEs, REs, sessions and congregations need to begin thinking of themselves as part of a connectional body, not as Lone Rangers. Unfortunately, many TEs are not well-trained in the biblical case for presbyterianism; they come out of congregational or parachurch backgrounds; and so they do not teach their sessions and congregations to think of the church in a presbyterian manner.

The second change that has to take place is the development of a culture of accountability and humility in the PCA bureaucracy. I am not saying that on an individual level the people who work for the PCA administration are not humble. I am saying that many in the PCA perceive the administration as having a "we know what to do, you don't, so listen to us" attitude, as well as acting in a way that seems to be accountable only to the really large churches in the denomination, with little or no consideration for the smaller churches. Such a perceptions leads to mistrust of the administration, and an administration that is not trusted will not be funded by a voluntary funding base.

These changes cannot take place overnight, but we can begin working on them immediately. But we must commit to working on them. That is the reason I support Overture 24. If adopted, and put into practice, it will accomplish not only adequate funding for the PCA AC, but for a lot more.

PCA Strategic Plan: Post 13

2010-05-29T09:26:00.000-07:00

The Funding Plan

Read the Funding Plan Model at: http://www.pcaac.org/2010StrategicPlanDocuments/Funding%20Plan%20Model.pdf

Read the Executive Summary at: http://www.pcaac.org/2010StrategicPlanDocuments/Executive%20Summary%20of%20AC%20Funding%20Plan.pdf

I don’t really have any objections to the funding plan. As the plan notes, only 45% of the churches give anything to the Administrative Committee, and only 16% give the full Partnership Share. The plan as stated would require an annual registration fee for churches and for teaching elders. The fee for TEs would be $100 per annum, while that for churches would be 1/3 of 1% of the church budget (though it must be admitted that this is not explicitly stated in the Plan). What the Plan says is:

The groupings of ranges above were done by setting a mean (average) for each Tithes and Offerings Range and multiplying by 0.334% (or 1/3 of 1%). Ranges were also set in consideration of some existing realities within the PCA such as number of churches in a particular range and consideration of what the ranges could reasonably and fairly bear. Per capita was abandoned for this chart, as it created some considerable unfairness relative to size of church budget vs. number of members.

Once the plan is implemented, the following would take place:

Those not paying in a timely manner would receive second notices and encouragement to pay.

− Any churches not paying before General Assembly would be ineligible for sending ruling elder commissioners.

− Any teaching elders not paying before General Assembly would be ineligible for voting at General Assembly.

− Any churches, teaching elders, or presbyteries not paying by the end of the year would be listed and reported to the Administrative Committee and subsequently to the General Assembly.

− After two years of delinquency in payment, a report would be given to the AC and then to the General Assembly for consideration of appropriate action.

According to the chart provided, this would mean that 448 churches in the PCA would pay an annual registration fee of between $1,200 and $25,000 per year (Categories A-M in the chart on page 2. The other 1,283 churches in the PCA (categories N-R) would pay between $100 and $800 per year.

That would be fine if it works. But given the history of non-giving, is there any reasonable expectation that it will work? Further, this provides for the funding only of the Administrative Committee. It does not provide for the funding of the other committees and agencies, and those committees and agencies have also suffered chronic budgetary shortfalls under the current system. Is there a plan to provide for those as well? Notice also that while churches and TEs that do not pay may not vote at GA, it is already the case that many churches are not represented at GA because of the costs. So will this plan change things? In addition, notice that there is no mention of eliminating churches for non-payment, only “consideration of appropriate action.” The PCA leadership does not want to lose churches and members. But that would be the reasonable action for chronic non-payment of the fees. So we are back to a voluntary system not too dissimilar from that which has been ineffectively in place for the last 38 years.

I’m not hopeful about the results even if this plan is adopted. In any case, Dr. Taylor’s final statement in the Executive Summary is certainly true, “The ethos of the PCA will need to change.”

PCA Strategic Plan: Post 12

2010-05-29T07:33:00.000-07:00

The body of the Strategic Plan is followed by three charts: Safe Places; More Seats; In God’s global mission. I will not address these in detail. Instead, I will make some comments on themes and specific items.

Notice, first of all, how central the CMC is in everything. You may rightfully ask what the CMC is. It is “comprised of the coordinators and presidents of PCA agencies and committees, and the past six moderators of the General Assembly” (quoted from http://byfaithonline.com/page/pca-news/administrative-committee-approves-strategic-plan). This already sounds more episcopal than presbyterian, a problem that others also have commented on.

Under Theme 1: Safe Places consider the following: establish “prime time” forums at GA. So what happens to GA, if the pre-Assembly and early morning times are already taken up by seminars on various topics. I realize that the PCA has been moving toward making the actual actions of GA less and less significant over the years (to the extent that two years ago [I did not attend in 2009] the entire business of the GA was done in about 8 hours. This, of course, did not include the endless self-congratulatory “informational” presentations of the committees and agencies, but was limited to the items that were actually discussed and voted on. That is GA’s dirty little secret: most of the week is devoted to non-essentials and vacation time..

Under Theme 2: More Seats consider the following: “establish standards for voluntary certification of men and women for specific non-ordained vocational ministries.” What is “non-ordained vocational ministry”? The PCA, in her constitutional documents, recognizes vocational ministry to be limited to the offices of elder and deacon. There has been, and continues to be, debate over whether the office of elder is a single office or two offices (hence the two-office vs. three-office debate). But we recognize, and I don’t see any biblical defense for such a thing as certified non-ordained vocational ministry. As a result, whether the authors of this intended it or not, it begins to look like the camel’s nose under the edge of the tent for ordination of women to church offices (deacon and elder). Or it might look like the camel’s nose under the edge of the tent for the discarding of the doctrine of ordination altogether, as some evangelical churches have already done.

Also under Theme 2: consider “alternative ordination credentialing of men for constituencies.” I’m not necessarily opposed to considering such, but the strong negative here is that historically this approach has produced a two-tiered ministry, and those who have pursued the “alternative credentialing” have always found themselves on the bottom of the pile. What this produces is not an end to disadvantaged constituencies, but an institutional perpetuation of them.

Also under Theme 2: consider “Formalize CEP Women’s Ministries organization for women in vocational ministries.” What are “women in vocational ministries”? Are they women who work in the church office? Are they women who work with the deacons? Are they women who work with adoption agencies and centers that provide alternatives to abortion? We have a major problem with definitions here, and one suspects that the CMC is hoping we won’t notice it.

I won’t even go into Theme 3. It is all so drearily like a corporate organization chart, and about as spiritual as a doorknob. I know the men who produced this thing mean well. I know they put a lot of hard work into it. But it is as dry as dust.

For others comments on the Strategic Plan, see the following:

http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2038:thoughts-on-the-pca-strategic-plan-is-it-presbyterian&catid=79:commentary&Itemid=137

And this: http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/thoughts-on-the-pcas-proposed-strategic-plan/

And this: http://www.rongleason.blogspot.com/

PCA Strategic Plan: Post 11

2010-05-27T07:37:00.000-07:00

Again, I have put my comments in brackets.

VI. Questions to Address in Making Strategic Plans for the PCA

The questions below identify issues that should be addressed by a Strategic Plan for the PCA in light of the preceding analysis. Most questions were suggested by the 2008 Cooperative Ministries Committee after reviewing the analysis. Additional questions were added by 2008 General Assembly commissioners who attended its Strategic Planning Seminar and also reviewed the preceding analysis. The questions are not arranged in any priority order.

1. How to Provide Safe Places to Talk about New Ideas to Advance the PCA’s Faithfulness to Biblical Belief, Ministry and Mission [Such places are already available. There is the official place-presbytery; and there are unofficial gatherings and meetings. There are also the seminars at GA (mentioned by someone else in a critique). Some might say that presbytery is not safe, but that is simply untrue. It is more the case that many do not seem to want to use presbytery in this fashion. As far as I know, but that might just be limited knowledge, no one has ever been brought up on charges for something they have said in presbytery, unless it simply added to charges that were already being investigated.]

2. How to Provide “More Seats at the Table” (especially younger leaders, women, and ethnic leaders) for PCA Ministry Direction and Development [What does this mean? Frankly, it sounds to me like the kind of thing the UPCUSA (the old “Northern” Presbyterian church before the 1983 merger of the UPCUSA and the PCUS (the old “Southern” Presbyterian Church) produced the PC(USA). It resulted in such things as “youth elders” being elected to sessions. The church is a kingdom, not a democracy, and the role of elders is a spiritual, pastoring, role, not an “elected representative” role. It would certainly help most churches if the both the TEs and the REs were more consistent about pastoring their flocks, but the situation will not be improved by trying to create a kind of democracy in the church with representatives selected from various constituent groups.]

3. How to Identify and Support Agencies/Institutions Most Critical to Our Calling

4. How to Do Mission Corporately and Globally (this includes learning from the Global Church, as well unifying ourselves to minister to and with the Global church)

5. How to Understand, Appreciate and Utilize Our Differences/Gifts

6. How to Work and Worship with Gospel Co-laborers outside the PCA (i.e., working out what Reformed Catholicity means; esp. defining “field” and “fences” of cooperation) in Order to Fulfill the Highest Kingdom Purposes

7. How to Ensure a Common Commitment among PCA Leaders Regarding Theological Approaches to Ministry and Mission [Without trying to be “snarky,” it might help if the denomination’s seminary were more diligent in teaching its students how presbyterianism works. Graduates of that institution consistently do poorly in their examinations on such topics.]

8. How to Inspire Involvement in Corporate Church Structures and Efforts (i.e., Acting in Consistency with Our Connectional Theology) [I agree. This is an important issue. Again, many of the founding PCA churches came from a context in which there was distrust of the denomination bred into the local churches. In my estimation, this problem was never adequately dealt with in the early years of the denomination, so churches coming in came in to a denomination in which distrust of structures was more the case than not. The PCA at its founding was prfoundly congregational in its functioning, and that has never really changed. A further problem is that many pastors who have come into the PCA in the last forty years have come from either congregational or parachurch backgrounds, and never learned presbyterianism.]

9. How to Encourage Mutual Love and Respect among Committees and Agencies [Openness, honesty, and transparency never hurt. It is also the case that many see the attitudes of those laboring in the committees and agencies as having a “we know what we’re doing, we’re the professionals, you’re not” attitude. Probably some self-examination and repentance on both sides would go a long way toward fixing this issue.]

10. How to Inspire and Engage Churches and Presbyteries in a Global Strategy

11. How to Prepare Ordained Leadership for Immigrant and Ethnic Communities not Traditionally PCA

12. How to Provide Unity within Variety regarding Worship Principles [Maybe putting to work the theology we claim to hold to?]

Uncle Ben's Book Blog: Michael Horton, Christless Christianity

2010-05-14T06:39:00.001-07:00

This book provoked a horrendously long and embarrassingly silly response from John Frame (read at http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2009Horton.htm). One does not need to agree with all of Horton's views in order to agree with his thesis that American evangelicalism is in dire straits. Though he begins by dealing with such people as Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer, they are only the starting point for Horton's jeremiad. In Horton's view, and I agree, much of American evangelicalism is thinly veiled "feel good" works righteousness posing as the gospel.

I recommend the book, not so much for its critique of the state of our churches, but for its critique of the state of our own hearts. One did not need to agree with all of Luther's The Babylonian Captivity of the Church to see that one's own heart was often captive to Babylon. Likewise, you don't need to agree with all of Horton in order for his work to ask probing questions of your own heart, and set you to asking yourself how much the American "feel-good gospel" has tainted your own faith.

PCA Strategic Plan: Post 10

2010-05-13T12:34:00.000-07:00

As with Post 9, I have placed my comments in brackets at the appropriate point.

IV. IDENTIFYING OUR OPPORTUNITIES IN THE CULTURE

The external challenges listed earlier in this plan should not blind us to the opportunities for Gospel progress that are also present. Because all people are made in the image of God the aspects of their culture that oppose the Gospel inevitably disclose aspects of human need. Thus, the fractures of a culture are openings for the Gospel, revealing where hearts are hurting, longing, empty and open. Below are some indications of Gospel opportunities in our culture: [In short, people have spiritual longings.]

1. Pervasive Spiritual Longing Evident in Explosion of Alternative Spiritualities

2. Relational Longing (due to loss of community, family and fathering)

3. Longing for Something “Certain” Evident in Rise in North American Catholicism,

Islam and Ancient/Future Worship

4. Longing for Racial Reconciliation

5. Cultural Regard for Piety that is Humble and Non-judgmental (e.g. Mother Teresa)

6. Appreciation for Biblical Preaching among “Churched” and “Once-churched”

7. Lack of “Grace Understanding” in Christian Media and Most Pulpits

8. Rapid Spread of Global Christianity (often through Pentecostal prosperity gospel,

with which there is growing disenchantment)

9. Disappointments in Post-modernism

10. Loss of Confidence in Economy, Experts and Government

11. Lack of Institutional or Denominational Loyalty (especially among young)

12. Fear of Terrorism and War

[All of these are true, but then, they have almost always been true. Even the first century was a “postmodern” age. There are also two sides to all these coins. In some sense, these things might draw people to the gospel, but the gospel remains an offense. In short, I’m not sure what this list tells us that we didn’t already know.]

V. IDENTIFYING OUR RESOURCES/STRENGTHS

The internal challenges listed earlier in this plan should not blind us to the resources and strengths we possess for Gospel progress. God does not leave us helpless in the face of challenges or without resources to pursue Gospel opportunities. The PCA has been richly blessed with means to confront challenges and to pursue Gospel opportunities that God reveals to us. Below are some of the PCA’s significant resources and strengths:

1. “They Preach the Bible Here….” (The vast majority of people who attend our churches are drawn to the PCA because of the belief that we are committed to proclaiming the truth of Scripture.)

2. Theological Cohesion, Soundness and Depth (Despite our internal debates, the breadth of theological difference among us is quite small on the theological spectrum. In addition, we generally share an appreciation for the necessity of Word and deed in faithful witness of the Gospel) [So really, how bad are the divisions listed above under “Internal Challenges”? Have they overstated the divisions there and understated them here?]

3. Historical Emphasis upon the Gospel of Grace

4. History and Expectation of Growth

5. History of Valuing Mission

6. History of Valuing Cultural Influence [First, what does this mean? Second, can it be documented?]

7. History of Planting Churches (esp. suburban)

8. Large and Well Supported Mission Agency [Is it well-supported or not? “Internal Challenges” seems to indicate some question here.]

9. Sound and Solid Educational Institutions (providing value continuity) [So how helpful is this if we are still left with #11? Are our institutions teaching our identity. In speaking with graduates of our institutions, I'm not sure that the institutions are teaching our identity. But maybe that's just my perception.]

10. Theological Respect for PCA in Broader Evangelicalism (except for actual position on women and perceived position on race) [The position on women is a problem. Shall we abandon our stance to fix it?

11. Connectional Theology (despite non-connectional practice)

12. Cultural Niche for “Traditional” and “Family Focused” Churches (the downside

obviously is our limited connection with non-churched or unwed persons)

13. Significant Denominational Support from Most Mid-size and Large Churches

14. Good Will of Most Congregants and Pastors (delighting to be in the PCA)

15. Large and Well Organized Women’s Organization

16. RUF

17. Openness to Ethnic Diversity (despite lack of accomplishments)

18. Key Innovator Churches and Leaders (Perimeter, Redeemer, New City, New Life,

Seven Rivers, Harbor, Southwest Church Planting Network, etc.) [Ooh! Love those innovator churches! Does that mean we all ought to be innovator churches? What about those churches that are growing and at least seemingly healthy that aren’t innovator churches? Are innovator churches necessarily a good thing? In the end, however, what does this mean?]

19. Support and Growth of National Seminary and Associated Seminaries

20. Pockets of Strong Children and Youth Ministry

21. Willing workers Among Growing Retiree Population

22. Significant PCA Representation in Leadership of Major Evangelical Organizations

[Again, I’m not sure that this tells us anything that we didn’t already know, nor do I find it particularly helpful, as many key items are either not defined or not explained.]

PCA Strategic Plan: Post 9

2010-05-11T10:46:00.000-07:00

I am changing my approach in this post. The statement itself is straightforward, so I will eliminate the Summary. In addition I will make my comments in the body of the work, putting the comments in brackets, since there are many specifics of this section that need to be addressed.

Internal Challenges

The magnitude of the external challenges listed above should make it apparent that the temporal powers of our church are not the ultimate answers to our world’s problems. While the church cannot simultaneously ignore the world’s current problems and minister in Christ’s name, her energies will be consumed in futility if she perceives her primary mandate to be re-creating Eden with earthly resources. Jesus said that his Kingdom was not of this world, that we would always have the poor with us, and that his people would face suffering until his return. The ultimate mandate of the church is not to fix a fallen world, but to give God’s people rest and rescue from its corruptions. This is done by honoring, proclaiming and demonstrating the truths of God’s eternal love. God’s people give these truths credibility by the way we worship Him according to his Word and serve as salt and light in the world.

With God’s blessing our efforts can truly be culturally transformative, and the cultural mandate of Scripture obligates God’s people to bring the light of the Gospel and the demands of Christ’s Lordship into every inch of the world over which they have influence. Yet, the priority of the Gospel remains spiritual transformation through which cultural transformation may come but by which eternal security assuredly comes. This spiritual priority by no means lessens the concern or obligation of the church to seek peace and justice in the world. Rather this spiritual priority reflects the Biblical understanding that, through its transformed people, the church of Jesus Christ is the most powerful change agent in any society – whether religious, secular or pluralistic. When a community of believers lives faithful to the Gospel – loving one another, forgiving one another, helping the helpless, loving enemies, sacrificing for the undeserving, honoring Christ, sharing his claims for this world, and living with confidence in the blessings of the next – then, Christ’s Spirit becomes evident and moves across society as he intends.

Our obligation is not to demand that the Spirit move according to our design or timing, but to be vessels for his wisdom and work. As jars of clay, we should expect that our efforts will sometimes be flawed. Still, we are a branch of the visible church through which the Spirit brings his transformation and should expect that God will use us as we seek to serve him in humility and repentance. True humility will require understanding that we are not the only branch of his church through which God will work, and also acknowledgement of the many challenges for which our wisdom alone is insufficient. True repentance will require confession of weakness and sin that are evident in many of our internal challenges. These internal challenges are now listed not to discourage or blame, but to enable us to address what we must in order to be a worthy vessel for God’s transforming work of souls and society:

1. Slowed Growth with Lack of “Rallying” Strategic Plan (key influencers also “burned” by previous 2000-2006 Strategic Plan Process) [Is the slowed growth due to the lack of a strategic plan? The writers have not demonstrated that the slowed growth is any more than normal after the adding of a whole denomination and the Korean churches. Also, who are the “key influencers”? In what way were they burned by the 2000-2006 Strategic Plan Process? Does the former process indicate anything significant for the current process? In other words, have we learned anything from previous experience? There’s no indication here that we have.]

2. Predominantly Small Churches Struggling to Survive (49% of churches have less than 120 members; 20% have less than 50 members; only 8% have more than 500 members) [What do these statistics mean? Is the goal to have all churches >500 members? Are those the only churches that are healthy? What about the churches with membership between 50 and 120? Are these by nature unhealthy? What about the churches under 50 members? Are they necessarily unhealthy? Is it possible for a church >500 members to be unhealthy? Has the denomination (or presbyteries) looked into possible solutions for the small churches (such as multi-point charges, wehere one minister serves more than one church)? In other words, these are bare facts that need some constext in order to be understood. If they are not properly understood, we cannot possibly respond to them correctly.

3. Anti-denominational Historical Context and Post-denominational Present Context [This is probably an accurate summary of where American Evangelicalism is, but it would be nice to have a couple of studies cited, rather than bare assertion.]

4. Loss of Denominational Heritage, Knowledge and Identity with Passing of Denominational “Fathers” [If this is true, whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the seminaries? Is it the fault of the “denominaitonal father”? Is it the fault of the denomination at large?]

5. Culture of Suspicion and Caricature Perpetuated by Past Narratives (e.g., encroaching liberalism, insensitive bureaucracies, racist agendas, big steeple power) and Present Divisions (see below):

a. Have and Have-not Divisions (size, salaries, recognition, influence)

b. Generational Divides: Builders/Boomers=Institutional priorities; Gen-X=Relational priorities (See earlier discussion of Evangelical generational divide)

c. Regional Divides (Southern identity; Northeastern; and Western autonomy)

d. Perspectival Divides (Creating false and destructive dichotomies)

-Aggressive TRs (eradicating unReformed) vs. Cynical Progressives (abandoning Reformed)

-Doctrinalists (theological-erosion policemen) vs. Missionalists (reaching-the-lost pragmatists)

-Southern Presbyterian Theology vs. Continental Reformed Theology vs. Broadly Evangelical

-Traditionalists (prioritize traditional churches) vs. Emergents (prioritize relational churches)

-Fundamentalists (piety removed from culture) vs. Tranformationists (piety traded for culture)

-Planters (entrepreneurs and innovators) vs. Providers (structure maintainers and shepherds)

-Younger pastors (desiring mentors and shared leadership with peers, not RE’s) vs. Older Pastors (desiring authority and shared leadership with RE’s)

[All of these are probably common perceptions in the PCA. But common perceptions, and conventional wisdom are often wrong. Furthermore, they have the appearance of false dichotomies. Can these divides be documented? Or is this another case of bare assertion and simplistic analysis?]

6. Pervasive Disregard for Eph. 4:15 and Matthew 18 in Discussions of Differences

Our organizational cohesion has not primarily been achieved by shared mission goals, ministry practice, organizational support, worship style, ethnicity, political perspectives or economic status – but by doctrinal agreement. The downside of so valuing doctrine is that we have little tolerance within or without the church for theological variance. Our tendency is not simply to consider those who differ with us wrong – but to consider them bad (because they are obviously “compromisers” or “unbiblical”). It is easy for us to give moral status to our theological perspective – even on secondary issues, and thus rationalize uncharitable characterizations of those who differ (esp. on blogs) [Doesn’t this paragraph display a certain diregard for Eph 4:18 and Mt 18? The way the paragraph is worded strikes directly and intolerantly at those who hold doctrine important, painting them with a broad brush as an intolerant bunch of theological purists with evil motives.]

7. Decline of Confidence in Presbyteries for Pastoral Support or Cooperative Ministry [Is there a documented decline, or has the support always been low. We need data here, which is surely available, not more assertion.]

8. Rise of Networks for Fellowship/Perspective Affiliation

9. Disinterest in (and suspicion of) General Assembly Structures, Positions and Participants (dissatisfaction among young Progressives resulting in a few departures and many discussions, as with TR’s in previous decade) [Once again, may we please have some documentation?]

10. Committee/Agency Non-Support

-Competition re: resources/recognition

-Doubts re: effectiveness and leadership

-Concerns re: relational harmony/cooperation

11. Maintaining Biblical Worship with Cultural Diversity

12. Ethnic Homogeneity both in General Membership and Denominational Leadership (with vestiges of racism despite strong Korean presence)

13. Most Members and Leaders with Little Exposure to Other Cultures or the Global church

14. Significant Consternation Regarding How to Do Theological Reflection in Confessional Church [What does this mean? I think at the very least, consternation is not the word they really wanted here.}

15. Maintaining Biblical Standards While Encouraging Women to Minister in the Church (and how to discuss this without being caricatured chauvinist or liberal; and how to relate to Evangelicals who differ with PCA standards)

16. Generational Divide among Women re: Responsibilities in Church, Workplace and Home (these are not typically issues related to ordination but to contribution and significance)

17. Loss of Youth (secular culture and denominational disinterest causing many of our children to leave the PCA – and the visible church)

18. Lack of Desire among Young Leaders to Assume Positions with PCA’s Most Significant Pulpits and Organizations (perception that they are moribund and dangerous for families) [Again, may we please have some documentation?]

In sum, this section is particularly troubling, since it is filled with the kind of unsupported assertions that the document itself has already called unhelpful. Further, even in cases where documentation is certainly available, the writers of this analysis have not made use of it. The end result is entirely unhelpful.

PCA Strategic Plan: Post 8

2010-05-08T06:33:00.000-07:00

B. Global Challenges

1. Most rapid growth of Christianity in world history

2. Re-centering of global Christianity and missionary origins (viz. Southern hemispheres Christianity)

3. Conservatism of Developing World church vs. Liberalism of Western church (e.g. African Anglican communions leading efforts to combat North American homosexual agendas and Islamic expansionism).

4. Majority World church deserving and demanding influence on global Christianity development and doctrine with significant challenges ahead, e.g., Male and female leadership of Chinese Church vs. Male leadership of Developing World church vs. Male and female leadership of Western mainline & new Evangelicals vs. Male leadership of PCA).

5. Expanse of Global Pentecostalism

6. Rise of Radical Islam (Hinduism) fueled by economic/political inequities

7. Rise of Alternative Spiritualities (as major world religions all dominated by materialistic nominalism)

8. Pandemic Threats: AIDS, Avian Flu, Bio-terrorism

9. Class stratification deepening (poverty and ethnic divides)

10. Resource concentrations increasing (oil, wealth, population, food, medicine)

11. Third World debt increasing and leading to greater disparities (and antipathies)

12. Waning impact of U.S. on global economy (and interdependence of all economies)

13. Fracturing of European Union

14. Increase of national economies dependent on drug, weapon and sex trades

15. Worldwide recession affecting church giving, staffing and mission support

16. The “Chinese-century” ahead

17. Chinese aggression concerns for Soviet and Central Asia (one-child, birth-control policy favoring males will lead to an excess of 70 million unmarried males of military age within 20 years)

18. Russian Federation re-militarization

19. Middle-east destabilization continuing with possible nuclear threats (especially as oil depletes and/or Western economies become less oil dependent)

20. African ethnic struggles destabilizing continent (allowing Islamic, Russian and Chinese encroachments)

21. World urbanization and Giga-cities (but in U.S. growth continues to be Suburban as inner cities and rural areas empty with few exceptions)

22. Technological/Informational acceleration and world compression

23. Influence of Western entertainment/pop culture dominant in Developing World

24. Aging (and decline) of Industrialized-world population vs. Youth-ifying of Majorityworld population

25. Sex trafficking the modern slavery dilemma

Summary: The church faces many challenges at the global level.

Comment: As with the previous post, it's not clear to me that we needed the committee to tell us this. Anyone with internet, a television, or (gasp!) a newspaper, knows these things. The real question is not whether these things are real challenges (they are, and not for the church only), but in what way they are challenges for the church as church. For example, with regard to #25 (sex trafficking), I'm not sure that the church as church, whether considered as the PCA in particular, or the global church, has anything other to do than to proclaim the whole counsel of God, to wit that manstealing is not only a crime, it is a sin; that rape and sexual abuse of other persons is not only a crime, but a sin; and that all who practice such things will stand at the bar of a holy God to answer for them. It may well be that particular Christians, and even coalitions of Christians, are burdened to speak and act in the political realm regarding this issue. They are not only free to do so, they should be encouraged to do so. But it is not the calling of the church as church to enter into the political arena on this or on any similar issue. The same analysis applies to most of the rest of these items.

With regard to other items, such as #4 (church in the Developing world, and the significant proportion of female leadership in that part of the church), the role of the PCA is to continue to stand for the biblical standard of male leadership, and to labor to provide increasing numbers of well-trained men to help meet the need in the global church. It would be wrong of the PCA to approve or encourage what we believe the Scriptures teach against. Instead, as Aquila and Priscilla did with Apollos we need to come alongside our brothers and sisters and explain the way of God to them more accurately (Acts 18:26).

The PCA is a tiny church. It constitutes approximately one-tenth of one percent of the US population. At present, the world population is approaching 30 times the size of the US. Thus the PCA is at best about one three-hundredth of one percent of the world population. The best thing we can do for the world is to stand firm in what we proclaim, serving as a lighthouse and direction guide to other Christians at sea in the world culture.

PCA Strategic Plan: Post 7

2010-05-03T13:05:00.000-07:00

External Challenges

A. North American and European Challenges

1. Loss of Christian consensus in West replaced by Naturalistic worldview

2. Dominance of Pluralism and intolerance of religious “preference”

3. “Hidden revival” in immigrant church; church decline in general U.S. culture

4. Mainline church decline

5. Evangelicals now mainline (minority 􀃆 majority)

(Salvation theology 􀃆 Kingdom theology)

(Orthodoxy [Word] 􀃆Orthopraxy [deed])

(Doctrinal consensus􀃆Relational consensus)

No Protestant faith group rivals Evangelicals in both membership and political influence. Evangelicals have moved from a mid-Twentieth Century minority to an early 21st-Century majority. With majority status has come a shift in emphasis from hope not-of-this-world (Salvation theology) to this-world hope (Kingdom theology). Reacting to self-oriented pietism and consumerism of previous generations, movements as diverse as Focus on the Family and the New Perspective on Paul have argued the Gospel requires Christians to engage in some form of cultural transformation. Orthodoxy (the right proclamation of the Word) has been deemed impossible without orthopraxy (the the right practice of the Word). With the diminished emphasis on the Word, Evangelicalism has become a much broader tent theologically, embracing those who both in doctrine and lifestyle choices differ widely from previous generations. Evangelical leaders and laypersons are paying less and less attention to denominational lines and distinctives, but while trying to survive in an increasingly secular culture that views the church as either irrelevant or polarizing.

6. Evangelicals strongly divided over Formal (let’s be church) vs. Informal (let’s be real) worship practices (differences are not strictly generational)

7. Evangelical generational divides (Builders vs. Boomers vs. Gen-X; e.g. zeal for programmatic evangelism vs. relational evangelism; antipathy to vs. acceptance of pop culture; differing socio-political agendas – see below) Builders/Boomers = Constraint Theology (STOP abortion, homosexuality, pornography, immigration, minimum wage, etc.) Busters/X-ers/ Millennials = Compassion Theology (HELP poor, discriminated, AIDS victims, refugees, environment, etc.)

8. Dominant influence of parachurch for diaconal and mission work

9. Rise of Emergent Church in West (Proclamation emphasis 􀃆 Incarnation emphasis)

10. Youth exodus of Western Church and modern Evangelicalism

11. Rising generation financial stress, and sense of having been denied earlier generations’ privileges

12. Postmodern philosophies and mindset (subjective truth; narrative vs. didactic learning)

13. Orality and visual literacy of Western youth culture and Developing World

14. Pervasive Biblical/doctrinal Illiteracy (all generations)

15. Birth control/abortion normalized

16. Traditional family decline (divorce, delayed adolescence, delayed marriages, starter marriages, pervasive pornography, working parents, absent fathers, abuse)

17. Gender Roles re-definition and confusion (more than Feminism per se)

18. Transition from Anglo-majority culture in U.S.

19. Transition to No-growth Economies in Western Europe as Birth Rates Fall among All But Immigrant (Muslim, African and Asian) Populations (sic)

Summary: There are may challenges facing the church. Some are external, some are internal. These are some of the external challenges particularly facing the church in North America.

Comment: So? We needed the PCA Strategic Plan to tell us this? I suspect most ministers in the PCA (or in evnagelical churches in general) could have come up with most of this off the tops of their heads. That’s not to say it’s not true. It is to say that this falls in line with the simplistic “analysis” which this Plan presents to us, and is ultimately not very helpful.

PCA Strategic Plan: Post 6

2010-04-30T17:42:00.000-07:00

III. IDENTIFYING OUR CHALLENGES

Because the animating values of those in the PCA are so much more diverse than its formal values, the PCA has struggled to maximize its organizational strengths. For example, despite our formal values of connectional polity and cooperative ministry, less than half of the churches of the PCA support any denominational agency or committee (less than 20 percent give at the Partnership Share level). Presbyteries are increasingly perceived as mere credentialing bureaus or discipline courts with little ability to unite members in ministry. The cooperative efforts that do exist are often directed toward affinity gatherings or the ministries of large churches that have become missional expressions of the animating values of specific groups.

This is not to suggest that overall there has been a great deal of cooperative effort. We remain an anti-denominational denomination – excusing individualistic ministry by re-telling the narratives of past abuses in former denominations, demonizing denominational leadership or movements to justify non-support of the larger church, or simply making self-survival or selffulfillment the consuming goal of local church ministry. In these respects we simply reflect the surrounding secular and religious culture where institutional and organizational commitments have been eroded by the demise of family systems and loss of community identity. These losses are exacerbated by economic and technological changes that simultaneously shrink our world and allow each of us to live in personal isolation or in shrinking, special-interest enclaves. However unique we may feel is our struggling to maintain historical distinctions, ministry continuity and generational cohesion, we actually echo struggles occurring in every major Evangelical denomination. The response of most has been to focus increasingly on their own security, not recognizing that (for denominations as well as local churches) allowing people to focus on themselves inevitably destroys the selflessness that is the church’s lifeblood.

In order for those of us in the PCA to see beyond self-interests and to be willing to work cooperatively despite differences in our animating values, we must have a renewed sense of collective mission. The catalytic power of our founding was fueled by a shared zeal to wrest a Biblical church from mainline corruptions. Differing understandings of what it meant to hold to Reformed distinctions in ministry and mission were either unrecognized or suppressed to support the primary mission of combating liberalism. That mission was compelling enough unite us in ministry despite our differences. Willingness now to honor our differences while harnessing our shared blessings will again require a sense of being united in a cause that is of similar Biblical consequence.

Such a cause cannot be concocted from marketing schemes or designed to reflect the ministry preferences of a particular branch of our denomination. The cause that is our present calling must be forged from a comprehensive and realistic understanding of the challenges this generation must face in order to live faithfully before God and for his Kingdom. Some of these challenges are external, thrust upon us by dynamics of our history and culture. Other challenges are of our own making and will have to be honestly faced and fairly handled in order for our church to participate meaningfully in God’s purposes. Such external and internal challenges the PCA faces are listed below. These lists are not meant to be exhaustive, but rather are intended to help us face the magnitude of our tasks and, consequently, the necessity of facing them together.

Summary: The PCA is not a united denomination. Part of this is due to a history of various groups forming a coalition against the heirarchy of the PCUS in order to form the PCA. The forming of a separate denomination opened up the disagreements among these groups. The present problem is shown by the fact that individual churches generally do not support the denomination. Blaming the denominational leadership is the main problem. However, our current challenge means we have to rethink what we’re doing.

Comment: The problems of the denomination date back to its beginning, when it was formed by disparate groups within the PCUS who were united in their opposition to the direction the denomination was going, but not by much else. The inherent weaknesses of the coalition appeared after the denomination was formed. Unfortunately, little was done to overcome those divisions. It is true that many blame the PCA denominational heirarchy. While that heirarchy is certainly not responsible for all the problems we face as a denomination, it has done little to alleviate concerns among individual members, member churches, and member presbyteries, often acting in ways that simply exacerbate the problems. Two illustrations will suffice. “We are a grass-roots denomination” is a slogan that has often been heard at GA. Whether the people using this phrase recognize it or not, what people hear is that indivudal churches may do as they please. That has been the de facto practice of the church since its inception. Second, the PCA has become another PCUS—not in theology, but in the way it conducts business. The denominational heirarchy has become increasingly divorced from the denomination at large. At least in appearances, it is following the lead of a handful of the largest churches in the denomination with little consideration or, seemingly, concern for the vast majority of churches.

Our current challenge, however, is not different from the challenge to the church throughout the ages. We are to be a church that faithfully preaches the whole counsel of God both within the church and to the surrounding world. That may be done in different ways by different churches and by different indivduals. It is in part the responsibility of presbyteries and the General Assembly to support churches in this worlk as long as they are not compromising the constitution of the church.

PCA Strategic Plan: Post 5

2010-04-29T14:19:00.000-07:00

A. Animating Values of Local Churches in the PCA

The PCA has historically held that the authority for beliefs or practices not specified in our constitutional standards resides in local leadership. This means that there is considerable diversity in the PCA’s “animating values” – the concerns, goals and practices that get us up and going each morning for the work of our individual presbyteries, ministries and churches. We can often identify a local church’s animating values by having its people identify its primary ministry goals – or, more simply, what do they think are the marks of great ministry. Animating values can appropriately differ given the great variety of contexts in which churches minister. The list below would identify the “animating values” of many local churches in the PCA:

Great ministry in the local church is characterized by . . .

1. Everyone understanding and applying Scripture

2. Perpetuating and refining Reformed Theology

3. Worshipping God rightly and well

4. Involving everyone in personal evangelism

5. Everyone grasping the grace of the Gospel

6. Multiplying “healthy” churches

7. Transferring the Faith to the next generation

8. Right administration of the Sacraments

9. Transforming culture

10. Good Bible preaching

11. Helping people to love Jesus

12. Support of Christian schooling

13. Reclaiming the nation for Christ

14. Supporting Christian artists

15. Supporting Pro-Life movements

16. Creating Christian community

17. Supernaturally renewed relationships

18. Securing family/married life

19. Ministry to the disadvantaged and oppressed

20. Racial reconciliation

21. Supporting mission work

22. Revival thru viral repentance and faith

23. Pervasive prayer

24. Predominant personal piety

25. Separation from unbelief

26. Church growth

27. Biblical care of hurting people

28. Other ...

B. Animating Values of Groups within the PCA

Just as individual churches have animating values, so also do groups of churches or individuals within the denomination. Again, these values are diverse, but because they characterize groups that are often seeking to set direction for others beyond their immediate context or for the denomination as a whole, such values can create tensions with groups who have different animating values. As a consequence, polarities have developed both in what groups identify as their animating values and in how they perceive others.

With apologies for obvious stereotyping, we identify some of these group polarities and perceptions below – not to perpetuate tensions – but to “name the elephants in the room” that must be handled in order for us to pull together for Kingdom purposes. We intend by the labels below to be “equal opportunity offenders,” helping each group to understand its role in the PCA and how that group may be perceived by those with different animating values. Of course, the real goal is not to offend, but to help all see that our differences typically are varying emphases on aspects of the formal values we all affirm.

As with local churches, we can often identify a group’s animating values by having its adherents identify their primary ministry goals (which may or may not be formally stated). The left column of the chart below identifies goals common among groups in the PCA; the left [sic] column identifies how others may perceive groups with these ministry goals.

Our primary mission/calling is . . . Perception of others

1. Properly expressing Reformed Theology (insensitive to relational)

-restore Southern Presbyterianism [all mind]

-ensure doctrinal faithfulness at all levels

2. Reaching the lost (ignores doctrine & doxological)

-multiply churches [all heart]

-multiply people in churches

-multiply mission support

3. Restoring the culture (idolizes the past & politics)

-reclaim nation-founding commitments [fears future]

-support conservative politics

4. Protecting the Faithful (idolizes family/community)

-separate from secular [fears culture]

-support schooling alternatives

5. Transforming the Culture (idolizes external o/ internal)

-oppose oppression (e.g., poverty, racism) [forgets spiritual]

-reach “gatekeepers” (e.g., media, arts, profs)

Summary: Churches and groups (formal and informal) within the PCA differ in what they see as the purpose and work (the “animating values”) of their particular church or group. Because churches differ in their goals, and because various “special interest groups” in the church vary in their focus, there is tension within the denomination. It is important that we all recognize that our relationships with others in the denomination who differ from us are affected not only by what we stand for, but by how we are perceived by others. Only then can we begin working on drawing together as a denomination.

Commentary: I doubt that anyone would disagree with the general content of this section. The analysts also admit that some of these are stereotypes, at least admitting that the analysis is flawed at this point. On the other hand, given the characteristics of the various groups as this analysis has laid them out, it is probably not a bad analysis. However, two things concern me. The first is that our animating values should be determined by our formal values. In other words, what we do as churches and as individuals and groups within the denomination should be restricted by our constitution. Behavior, goals, and projects that violate our constitution ought rightly to be opposed.

It is at this point that I think most of the tensions within the PCA arise. From visiting many churches in the denomination over the years in various sections of the country, I find that Church A doing something different from Church B, or Church A having different emphases from Church B is not really a source of tension. The tension comes in two cases: 1) when Church A perceives Church B as not really being a proper church if it isn’t just like Church A; and 2) when Church A is doing something contrary to the constitution of the denomination, and Church B points that out. For example, I don’t care if a church in a major metropolitan area is reaching out to the artistic community. In fact, I think it’s a wonderful thing. But if that church were to decide to soft-pedal what the Bible says about sexual behavior in order not to offend artists who might be continuing to engage in illicit relationships, that would be a problem, and ought rightly draw the ire of others in the denomination.

Noah's Ark Silliness

2010-04-29T13:25:00.000-07:00

Have pieces of Noah's Ark been found? See the story here: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/noahs-ark-found-turkey-ararat/, as well as other news outlets on the web. To star, I believe that a real Noah built a real ark, and lived on it with real animals for a year, surviving a real, world-wide flood. I believe that the ark came to rest on the "mountains of Ararat" (Gen 8:4).

But I doubt that these folks, or any other bunch that has gone searching over the centuries, has found remains of that ark. It is possible, of course. But there would be no way to prove that any wood found there was left from Noah's ark. Even if it were possible to prove that it was from Noah's ark, what would it tell us that we didn't already know? Is our faith based on pieces of wood or on the Word of God?

In addition, if there really were pieces of Noah's ark left on the mountain, we all know what would happen. They would become the object of superstitious faith; as did the bones of saints, pieces of wood from the True Cross, nails that pierced the hands and feet of Jesus, and the other flotsam and jetsam that filled the reliquaries of medieval Europe. Do you really want to start that all over again?

PCA Strategic Plan: Post 4

2010-04-27T14:05:00.000-07:00

II. IDENTIFYING OUR MISSION (understanding “Formal” and Animating” Values)

“Formal” Values (Values stated in the approved standards of the church)

The values that frame our mission are both formal and animating. The formal values are found in the standards approved by the church in its legislative processes. These documents interpret the church’s understanding of its Scriptural obligations and have varying levels of authority. Together these documents serve to identify the values that the church has officially agreed will guide its beliefs and practices.

A. The Westminster Confession of Faith (with Larger and Shorter Catechisms)

B. The Book of Church Order

C. Historic Motto:

Faithful to Scripture

True to Reformed Faith

Obedient to Great Commission

D. 2006 Strategic Plan Statement: “A healthy denomination is characterized

by…”

1. Preeminence of Christ

2. Increasing numbers of healthy churches

3. Presbyteries involved in cooperative ministry

4. General Assembly contributing to health of denomination (coordinating resources for effective fulfillment of Great Commission, serving judicatories through committee/agency work, fulfilling appropriate review and oversight functions)

5. Committees and Agencies effectively carrying out work of GA

“Animating” Values

(The concerns and goals that “get us up and going” each morning) Though the formal documents that identify our formal values are developed with meticulous care, they are in many ways the broadest expression of our church’s mission priorities. Beyond the formal values that establish the general nature and commitments of the denomination are the “animating values” that stimulate the daily activities of individuals, local churches or groups within the denomination.

Summary: Defining “formal” (the church’s purpose and work as expressed in its standards) and “animating” (the understanding of the church’s purpose and work that serve to motivate people in the church) values.

Commentary: This section is straightforward. The primary difficulty is that the “motto” of the church and the 2006 Strategic Plan have somehow been elevated to “formal” values, in essence raising them almost to constitutional status. I don’t remember that such a move has ever been formally taken. If anyone knows, please let me know. In some sense, I don’t have any objection to the “motto” and the 2006 Strategic Plan, but they ought to fall under “animating” rather than “formal” values.

PCA Strategic Plan: Post 3

2010-04-26T14:03:00.000-07:00

B. How Has the PCA’s Mission Developed So Far?

The development of missional purpose begins with identifying the values we hold most dear. When our values guide the plans we make for addressing challenges to Kingdom progress, then we believe we are acting consistently with our mission and have zeal for these purposes. Our values are well identified in the “motto” of the PCA: Faithful to Scripture, True to the Reformed Faith, and Obedient to the Great Commission.

The phrases of this motto also provide insight into the missional development of the PCA. It is fair to say that commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture was the driving force of our founding and that the churches who initially came into the PCA immediately united in this value. Determining what it meant to be true to the Reformed faith was not as unifying, and created significant debates among us for the next 30 years. These debates both clouded understanding of our mission and inhibited cooperative participation in it. While progress has been made in defining how we will hold each other accountable for being true to the Reformed faith, relational tensions wax and wane around this issue. Thus, the next stage of PCA development likely relates to the last phrase of our motto. How we do mission together, and whether we can do mission together, is the key to our future. If we are able to unite in missional purpose, we have much to contribute to the future of the Kingdom; if we cannot, then our future is likely incessant, inward-focused pettiness.

PCA Missional Development

Faithful to Scripture First 30 seconds

True to Reformed Faith Last 30 years

Obedient to Great Commission Next era How will we do mission?

What is our present mission/calling?

Determining how we do mission together will likely surface past relational and perspectival tensions, but failing to define our mission guarantees our demise. Thus, developing plans for doing mission together simultaneously puts us in a position of great peril and opportunity. The peril of renewed dissension is obvious, but pursuit of the opportunity is essential. Only if we can unite around missional plans that employ our differing gifts in sacrifice and service to Kingdom priorities – only then does our church point toward a future that will inspire her people’s zeal and justify her God’s blessing.

Summary: The PCA is agreed on the inerrancy of Scripture, but is has seen considerable dissension over what it means to be Reformed, or “true to the Reformed faith.” In defining our mission for the years ahead, we need to do so in such a way that avoids the dissension of the past, and unites us in service to the kingdom.

Comment: All right. I confess. I’m a pedant. The use of “suface” as a transitive verb (“together will likely surface past relational and perspectival tensions”) made me crazy. However, the primary problem with this section is the same as the previous section. It is simplistic. For one thing, while it is likely that the PCA was agreed on inerrancy when it was founded (it is, after all, written into our officers vows), that seems to be less clearly the case now. Or, at the very least, the definition of inerrancy is undergoing change. Just witness the response to the removal of Peter Enns from the faculty at Westminster Seminary. Many of the blog posts and comments were written by men in the PCA. As a result, it is fair to say that among some men in the PCA, inerrancy may not mean what it did in 1973, and there may be a diminishing commitment to the doctrine.

Second, it is true that there has been dissension over what it means to be Reformed. That is a good thing, not a bad one, as the paragraph implies. The better we know who we are, the better we will be able to define our mission. It was the defining of Luther and his followers in opposition to the Catholicism of his day that enabled them to forge ahead with their own mission. It was the distinguishing of Reformed from Lutheran that allowed both groups to focus better on their own missions. In each case, there was significantly hotter debate than the PCA has seen in its almost forty years. Third, at this point it is fair to ask the question, what does it mean to be confessional? The PC(USA) claims to be confessional. But for that denomination, it means that they have a Book of Confessions that thells them where they were in the past, but has little or no influence on current thinking or practice in the denomination. According to the PCA officer vows, being confessional means that we “receive and adopt” the Westminster Standards “as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scripture.” That means that the Standards are a starting place for debate. If we conclude that in some place or other the Standards do not reflect the teaching of Scripture, then the Standards need to be changed, rather than ignored. It is likely the case that much of the dissension in the PCA over the last couple of decades has come as a result of some in the PCA being confessional more in the former, PC(USA) sense, and some being confessional in the latter sense.

Third, the missional disunity of the PCA has been characteristic of the denomination since the birth of the denomination. It is to the shame of the denomination that we have been presbyterian only with regard to organizational structure, and congregational in almost all our attempts at fulfilling the Great Commission, and that this problem has never been adequately addressed by the denomination.

PCA Strategic Plan: Post 2

2010-04-24T10:50:00.000-07:00

A. Charting Change

In order to bring about healthy change a church must develop a “holy discontent” with some aspects of its present situation. If people assume that everything is right (ER in the chart below), then there is no incentive to change. Apathy and immobility characterize the church because any change is presumed to be the enemy of present comfort. But the antidote to apathy is not panic. Those who seek to bring about change by claiming that everything is wrong (EW in the chart below) create cynicism and paralysis. Change is meaningless when hope dies. When everything is wrong the perceived enemy is not change but rather the leadership (past or present) that allowed this hopeless situation to develop. Thus, motivations for healthy change cannot be found in either self-serving apathy or otherdirected cynicism, but rather in something between.

Healthy change occurs when problems are acknowledged – providing motivation for change – along with a realistic vision of what life can be when problems are addressed – providing hope for the future. People who have hope for a changed future are neither apathetic nor despairing; they believe, “We Have a Mission” (WHAM in the chart below) and want to make progress in God’s purposes. A compelling sense of mission creates zeal for change, and makes any barrier to progress toward the envisioned future the real enemy. The “sweet spot” for healthy change occurs when God’s people understand and unite in missional purpose. Mission creates zeal for change, hope for tomorrow, and a desire to see plans that tell us how our lives can further God’s purposes.

Thus, the goal of this Strategic Plan is not to convince others that everything is right or that everything is wrong. In order to annul apathy, we intend to be realistic about the challenges we must face (both internally and externally). In order to dispel despair, we intend to identify the resources and blessings God has granted the PCA. Finally, we intend to propose plans for using these resources and blessings in ways that we pray will unite and ignite God’s people for his purposes. All of this we do because we believe we have a mission, and we believe the vast majority of those in the PCA believe the same.

Charting Change

Situation Attitudes Responses Perceived Enemy

EW CynicismParalysis Past/Present leadership enemy

WHAM Zeal/Change Barriers to Progress

ER Apathy/ Immobility Change is Enemy

Summary: In understanding the situation of the PCA, there are three possible attitudes: 1) everything is wrong with the denomination; 2) nothing is wrong with the denomination; 3) some things are wrong with the denomination, but they can be fixed with the right attitude, and the right use of resources.

Comment: Wow! What a simplistic, even simple-minded, analysis. First, I don’t think anyone in the PCA is in either the ER or the EW groups. That means we’re all somewhere in the middle. We agree that there are problems. The things about which we disagree involve the best approach to solving those problems. Another way of putting it (referring to the chart above) is that from one perspective, one of the barriers to real progress is past and/or present leadership. Another barrier to progress is the wrong kind of change. In the USA, for example, a lot of people are convinced that President Obama’s change is a barrier to real progress. So the real situation is much more complex that this analysis allows for.

But note also the acronyms. Ew, that really stinks! Er, I don’t see what the problem is. Wham! We have a mission! Now let’s get everybody excited about our mission! This sounds like something that came out of a retreat weekend by the folks in “The Office.”

PCA Strategic Plan: Post 1

2010-04-23T14:20:00.000-07:00

There are four documents that make up the PCA Strategic Plan: a Plan Narrative Analysis, a Funding Plan Model, an Executive Summary of the Funding Plan Model, and a discussion of Rules Changes to the PCA Book of Church Order and Rules of Assembly Operations necessitated by the Plan. I will proceed through the documents in that order. The Narrative Analysis is by far the longest of the documents (28 pp in pdf), so it will take a number of posts. I will try to deal with 1-2 pp per post. This is the first page of the Plan. I give the text of the Plan itself, followed by a brief summary, concluding with comments. That will be the format for all of these posts.

PCA Strategic Plan Prepared for 2009 and 2010 Cooperative Ministries Committee

I. CREATING A PERSPECTIVE FOR PLANNING

The Presbyterian Church in America progresses into its fourth decade with increasing

awareness of the challenges presented by our changing world as we seek to be faithful to our Sovereign Lord. One obvious way of measuring the net effect of these challenges is the decreasing rate of the PCA’s numerical growth. Through the early decades of our existence we grew at between five and eight percent per year (enabling us roughly to double in total size each decade). In recent years our growth has been two to three percent. These dynamics are typical of young organizations and institutions whose periods of advance and regression are often represented by a modified S-curve:

While numerical growth is not necessarily a gauge of faithfulness or influence, slowed growth at least requires consideration of how we should best represent our Savior and most responsibly participate in the progress of his Kingdom. Organizations that best fulfill their mission determine how to maintain their values while honestly facing challenges that could lead to longterm decline (anticipating needed change before a decline in the S-curve becomes precipitous). This Strategic Plan seeks to address these realities by helping the PCA identify its challenges, address them with strategies that are consistent with our biblical values, and build denominational support for implementing these strategies. The overall goal is to enable the church to work together to steward its blessings and resources to advance the cause of Christ according to the principles and priorities of his Word.

Summary: The PCA is not growing as quickly as it has been, down from approximately 8% increase per year to 2-3% increase per year. This fact needs to be considered now, in light of the challenges the PCA is facing, in order to avoid the possibility of moving from continued growth to slow (and increasing) decline.

Comment: While true, this does not consider the reasons for the faster growth in earlier years, such as the addition of the RPCES in 1982 by joining and receiving, the addition of Korean-language presbyteries starting in 1982, churches moving into the PCA from other denominations or from independency, and other factors. Those considerations alone could account for the more rapid early growth, and the current slower rate of growth.

Note to a Friend: Why Using Dr. Chappell to Explain the PCA Strategic Plan is Unwise

2010-04-10T12:33:00.001-07:00

The new PCA Strategic Plan is out, and available at the PCA website (see here: http://www.pcaac.org/2010StrategicPlanDocuments/2010StrategicPlan.htm). The reader will notice that Dr. Bryan Chappell was selected to present the plan on video. In my estimation, this was an unwise move on the part of the Cooperative Ministries Committee, for the following reasons.

First, to the naturally cynical among us, it looks like a political move. I confess to being among the naturally cynical. It may well be that Dr. Chappell was chosen for the videos simply because he is an able and compelling speaker. However, Dr. Chappell is also the president of the only PCA seminary. Since he travels widely, and speaks frequently, his is perhaps the most widely recognized face in the PCA. That gives his presentation of the Plan a cachet that it would not have had if it were presented and explained by Joe Blow. If we want the Plan to be considered on its merits, it would be better to keep personality out of it.

Second, to the naturally uncynical among us, the fact that Dr. Chappell is presenting the Plan must mean that the Plan is a good one. After all, isn't he the president of the PCA's seminary, one of the fastest-growing seminaries in the country (779 students, 451 full-time equivalent as of Fall 2009)? In other words, whether the intent was there or not, there is in fact a political effect to having Dr. Chappell do the presentation.

It would have been better had Roy Taylor, the PCA Stated Clerk, done the presentation. After all, it certainly fits in with the scope of his duties. Or if not him, someone not known, whose presentation would therefore lack the built-in bias of Dr. Chappell's presentation.

Uncle Ben's Book Blog: Discourses of Redemption, by Stuart Robinson

2010-04-08T15:40:00.000-07:00

This is a review of a very old book (published in 1869). It has not, as far as I know, ever been reprinted. It is available now on Google Books, as well as in several of the better libraries around the country. I have heard rumors that it is soon to be reprinted, and if it is, I would encourage my readers to buy it. However, since I don't know for certain, I'll just let my readers know that if it is to be reprinted, and I get the details, I will let my readers know immediately.

Robinson was a Southern Presbyterian, and his view of the church can be summed up in Jesus' statement to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world." Robinson's book was brought to my attention by Nick Willborn, and I have finally gotten around to reading.

The work can be called an early attempt at Biblical theology, or redemptive-historical theology. But the reader must not expect to meet here something equivalent to Bruce Waltke's Old Testament Theology, nor even something like Geerhardus Vos's Biblical Theology. What it shares with Vos is the fact that the chapters are discourses, or lectures, though these lectures were personally put into writing by Robinson, not later collected from lecture notes. It also shares with Vos the fact that it covers both Old and New Testaments. What it does not share with either Vos or Waltke is their interaction with critical scholarship. It is not that Robinson was ignorant of that scholarship. It is rather that he found it unhelpful. Beside that he was doing something completely different from what anyone else was doing in those days.

Robinson moves through the Bible, selecting particular passages that highlight the development of the gospel and the growth and organization of the church. Thus, Discourse III deals with the revelation of redemption to the patriarchs, while Lecture IV presents the organization of the church visible in the patriarchal period. He proceeds through the various periods of the Old Testament showing the growth and development of the gospel. Shifting to the New Testament, he deals with a number of passages from the Gospels, showing what was revealed by the earthly ministry of Jesus. He finishes with several passages from the New Testament epistles and a concluding Discourse from the end of Revelation.

I found a number of the Discourses particularly helpful. Discourse IV on the organization of the visible church with its seal is very useful for those struggling with understanding the role of baptism in a truly biblical-theological fashion. The discourses on the role of David and his kingship as pointing to the Messianic kingdom clarify a number of issues that are being disputed today in Reformed circles. Discourse XI, on the three parables of Luke 15 clearly demonstrate the Trinitarian nature of redemption. The treatment of the the rich man and Lazarus in Discourse XIII is a clear defense of the justice and necessity of hell. The final Discourse (XX) sounds the clarion call of the gospel as it comes from the enthroned Christ.

There are in addition some useful appendices. I would draw the reader's attention especially to Appendix B on the role of the church in the scheme of redemption, and Appendix D on the biblical view of the relationship between church and state.

If this book is brought back into print, I encourage you to buy it. Those who bring such useful works back into the public eye should be rewarded for their labors.

Finally, I would draw your attention to Dr. C. N. Willborn's article "Biblical Theology in Southern Presbyterianism," in The Hope Fulfilled: Essays in Honor of O. Palmer Robertson, ed. Robert L. Penny (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008), 3-25.

Uncle Ben's Book Blog: The Lord of the Sabbath, by Keith Weber

2010-04-03T11:09:00.000-07:00

This is a short work (158 pages of text, plus a little over six pages of end notes and bibliography). However, it is a thoroughly packed work, so the reader should not expect a quick read. As might be guessed from the title, it deals with the issue of the Christian Sabbath. Unlike many other works on the topic, it is not filled with direct references to or quotations of earlier works on the topic. Instead, it is an exegetical work that focuses on a number of important Bible passages relevant to the Sabbath. Of the ten chapters, the first five deal with specific Old Testament passages that define the Sabbath and its place not only in the context of the people of Israel, but in the wider context of the development of theology in the Old Testament. The remaining five chapters deal with specific New Testament texts that focus on the relation of the Sabbath to the Christian believer. In the book, Weber omits two things that might be expected in such a work. First, he gives no list of what must not (or what must) be done on the Sabbath. Second, he has adopted a deliberately irenic tone toward those with whom he disagree. These are both significant strengths of the work. He adds to these the strict focus on answering the question, “What does the Bible say on the matter?” The result is a book that presents a compelling case without antagonizing those who would be inclined to be skeptical of Weber’s conclusions.

Chapters that I found especially helpful are those on the significance of the law in the Old Testament (ch 3); a discussion of the Sabbath psalm, Psalm 93 (ch 4); Jesus’ statement about being Lord of the Sabbath (ch 6), and his discussion of Hebrews 4 (ch 8). Weber avoids extensive discussion of Hebrew and Greek, though it is clear that he has done his preparation in the original languages. He consistently remembers that he is not writing for the biblical specialist, nor for the systematic theologian, but for the common English-speaking reader of the Bible. He carefully leads the reader around possible pitfalls and into a carefully nuanced understanding of what the Bible teaches about the Sabbath.

Hebrew Verb System

2010-03-29T14:31:00.000-07:00

Check out this link for a brief and useful summary of the Hebrew verbal system: http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2010/03/buths-sketch-of-the-hebrew-verbal-system/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+NtDiscourse+(NT+Discourse)

Uncle Ben's Book Blog: The Bible Among the Myths, John Oswalt

2010-03-27T06:28:00.000-07:00

In a brief book, Oswalt has done a good service for college and seminary students (and ministers) faced with the common assertion that the Bible is simply one other among the dozens of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) mythologies, whose only real difference is that it originated in Israel, and not in Babylon, Assyria, or Egypt.

In the first half of the book, “The Bible and Myth,” Oswalt first addresses the issue of definition. If we’re going to call something a myth, we have to know what a myth is. So Oswalt investigates the numerous competing definitions that have been offered, concluding that, when properly defined, the Bible is not myth. This is so because myth presupposes a particular view of the world and how it operates that the Bible does not share. He follows the chapter on definition with two chapters, one describing the worldview of myth, characterized by Oswalt as “continuity. The next chapter then describes the worldview of the Bible, which Oswalt characterizes as “transcendence.” These two chapters alone are worth the price of the book. The first half of the book concludes with a comparison of the Bible and ANE myths, focusing on the similarities between the two literatures, and the significance of those similarities for the overall discussion.

In the second half of the book, “The Bible and History,” Oswalt again deals with the initial problem as one of definition. As in the first part, Oswalt carefully examines various proposed definitions of history. At the risk of oversimplification, he concludes that the Bible is history, simply not modern secular history. He then considers the significance of the historicity of the Bible for the Christian faith, defending it against the existential treatment of the Bible put forth by Bultmann, and against the more modern treatment by process theology. The concluding chapters then deal with explaining the origin of the Bible as unique in world literature. He concludes that any explanation other than the one offered by the Bible itself (God revealed it) is inadequate to the task.

I heartily recommend the book, but I wish he had done two additional things. First, I wish he had made the simple point that, with all the attention being paid to ANE mythologies these days, it seems to have escaped the notice of most that these texts were buried in the dust of the Near East for better than two millennia and had no effect on the lives of people beyond, perhaps, their initial immediate audience. The Bible, in the same time span, has produced the most populous religious community in the world. If the Bible is really just another myth, that large fact needs to be explained.

The other thing I wish Oswalt had done is to have presented in an appendix the text of the Enuma Elish in parallel with the text of Genesis 1-11. The reason the Enuma Elish is so often referred to is that it is the only ANE “creation” myth that has reached us virtually intact. A simple presentation of the two texts in parallel would do almost as much as Oswalt’s discussion to make it clear that what similarities the Bible may share with ANE myth, they are incomparably different forms of literature.

Various Questions Related to Ancient Israel

2010-03-22T17:08:00.000-07:00

Question 1: Was the tabernacle (then later the Temple) the ONLY place under all circumstances that sacrifices could be made? According to the sacrificial laws in Leviticus, the limitation of sacrifices seems to be to the tabernacle/temple. For example, Lev 1:3 says in part, “He shall bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting.” A similar statement is made with regard to most of the other sacrifices specified in Leviticus. Likewise, Deuteronomy 12:4-14 limits the place of the sacrifices in a similar fashion. It does appear, however, that at certain times and on special occasions, sacrifice would be carried out elsewhere. So Elijah offers a sacrifice in 1 Kings 18, rebuilding an altar of the Lord that had been torn down. Likewise, David built an altar and had sacrifices offered on it at a place away from the tabernacle (2 Sam 24). But the regular sacrifices seem to have been limited to the tabernacle/temple.

Subsidiary question A. What about when a person is cured of a skin disease, or a woman is cleansed from an unusual flow of blood? Yes, that person would have to undertake the onerous task of visiting the sanctuary and offering sacrifice. The requirement for the woman to offer two turtledoves or two pigeons (Lev 15:29) does not refer to her regular menstrual uncleanness, but to an unusual flow, like the woman in Matt 9:18-26, and parallels.

Subsidiary Question B. How were the Levites supported, if they did not receive portions of the sacrifices? They had fields and livestock in their cities. See Num 35:1-5. In addition, Deuteronomy consistently refers to the need to support the Levite, as well as the fatherless and the widow. The Levites were responsible to teach the law among the people of God, and the people (implicitly) were to pay them for that work.

Question 2: How was it possible for the Israelites to attend the three annual festivals? Deut 16:16 specifies that it was the males who were to present themselves three times a year. We know from Luke 2 that by the first century, many entire families went. First, God promised to keep the land safe during the annual festivals (Ex 34:24). It is true that there would be massive amounts of sacrifice offered at those times. But remember that even by the time of the building of the temple, the priesthood was a sizable caste in Israel. It also seems likely that additional altars would be set up to deal with the crowds. It is also unlikely that everyone brought sacrifice three times a year. An interesting consideration of the offerings spelled out in Leviticus 1-5 is that there is no requirement given as to how often these sacrifices were to be made. They were at the discretion of the offerer.

Subsidiary Question A. Did Israel actually keep the feasts? Some did. My reading of 1 Sam 1:3 is that Elkanah and his family went up three times a year. I realize most translations say something like “from year to year,” but it is literally “from days to days.” This I understand to refer to the appointed pilgrimage festivals. There are six separate accounts of keeping of Passover in the Old Testament, and the language used implies that the festival was celebrated more often than that, but that these were very special for one reason or another.

Subsidiary Question B. How did Jerusalem (or Shiloh, at an earlier period) handle such a massive influx of people? I would say the same way that they handled it in the first century (Luke 2 and Acts 2 both refer to masses of people being in the city for the festival). For a week or so, people lived in crowded, busy conditions. For those who have had the experience, it might be likened to the attendance at a NASCAR race. Surrounding the racetrack are hundreds upon hundreds of RVs and campers, parked nose to tail. Depending on which race track is in view, the attendance at a NASCAR race can range from sixty to two hundred thousand people, and those are all housed within a fairly limited radius. Granted, it is a larger radius than the crowds in ancient Israel would have occupied, but we Americans like our space, even when we attend huge events. On the other hand, there were perhaps half a million at Woodstock (yes, I’m dating myself) all within a very small radius. In short, I don’t think it was that difficult for Jerusalem to handle the crowds that showed for the festivals

Mark 7:4 and Baptized Dining Couches

2010-03-11T12:22:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Dr. Pipa and his lecture at the GPTS Spring Theology Conference for this little discussion on text criticism.

The end of Mark 7:4

in the ESV reads: "such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches." The NASB reads: "such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots."

So what happened to the dining couches? The two words kai klinon (and dining couches) are found in the Greek text of the New Testament. A consultation of The Nestle-Aland GNT has the words in the text as does the UBS GNT. The latter gives a C rating. The words are probably retained in the text largely because of the strong support for it, including but not limited to the majority text. The C rating is due to the fact that there are also strong witnesses against retaining the words. Yet most modern versions do not include these words in the translation. A partial listing of modern versions dropping the words from the text are as follows. Both the NASB and the NASB-Update, the NIV, the New Jerusalem Bible, NLT, and the NRSV. Most of these do indicate the additional words in the margin, so the reading is not totally lost.

It seems easy to explain why a translation would omit the words. First, the word for washing is baptismous (baptisms). While "baptizing" cups, pitchers, and copper pots is easy to understand, the idea of "baptizing" a dining couch is less comprehensible. It may be that some translators have been influenced by a baptistic theology, which understands "baptize" always and everywhere to mean "immerse," into removing a possible difficulty. Maybe not. Maybe the translators consider a C rating simply to be insufficient support for retaining the reading.

However, looking at the text on the basis of standard text-critical principles, it appears that not only should the words be retained in the text, but the reading should have a higher rating. It seems easy to explain how the words might have dropped out in some text, even some very good texts. They occur in a long list of "and X" phrases, and it would be easy to skip one of those phrases. It is much more difficult to explain how the words might have accidentally been added to a text where they did not originally appear. The "dining couch" not only has no similarity to the other items in the list, the Greek word is not easily confused with any word in the context. Further, as a point of theology, the inclusion of "dining couches" should serve to draw attention to the fact that a Jewish "baptism" of such items was a purification rite observed by sprinkling (not by immersing) the item to be purified.

Vos and Republication

2010-03-11T11:58:00.000-08:00

This post thanks to a post from my friend Nick Batzig at: http://www.feedingonchrist.com/vos-on-the-covenant-of-works-and-sinai/

No, republication does not mean the act of creating a republic. Rather, it has to do with the idea that in the Mosaic Covenant, the covenant of works was republished. As an example of this idea, consider the quote from Geerhardus Vos: (We can also explain why the older theologians did not always clearly distinguish between the covenant of works and the Sinaitic covenant. At Sinai it was not the ‘bare’ law that was given, but a reflection of the covenant of works revived, as it were, in the interests of the covenant of grace continued at Sinai.)

In my comments on that statement, it may be simply that I'm really dense (always a possibility). It may be that I'm dealing with the quote out of context (and it's true that I don't have the full essay before me).

But consider carefully what Vos says. "It was not the 'bare' law that was given." What kind of law was it then, dressed? Some explanation here would have been very helpful. Second, notice that Vos does not say that the covenant of works was restated, or republished, at Sinai. Instead, he says something much more subtle. What was given at Sinai was a reflection revived. The covenant of works itself was not revived at Sinai, it was a reflection of the covenant of works (whatever that means). Furthermore, this revival of a reflection was not done in the interest of the covenant works, but in the interest of the covenant of grace. And not only in the interest of the covenant of grace in general, but in the interest of the covenant of grace as it (the covenant of grace) was continued at Sinai. So there is no affirmation here of Sinai being a republication of the covenant of works. At most, Vos appears to be affirming some sort of "covenant of works" overtone to the Sinai covenant.

Or maybe he's just being obtuse.

Elijah's Fear

2010-03-04T13:47:00.000-08:00

Travis asks: (Is it safe to say that Elijah may well have been afraid, even if the Hebrew text does not explicitely (sic) state that? v. 3 notes that Elijah "ran for his life"; most often, those running for their life are also experiencing fear.)

This is a good question. Verse 3 says (painfully literally), "And he saw, and he arose, and he went to his life." Now most modern English versions read something like this, "And he was afraid and arose and ran for his life" (NASB-Update). The rendering of the first verb clearly follows the Septuagint and early versions, as indicated in my previous post. However, I think the rendering of the first verb unduly influences the rendering of the last clause. Our understanding of that last clause is also affected by our own English idiom of running for one's life. The problem is that the last clause is susceptible of more than one interpretation. In Hebrew it reads vayyelek el naphsho. And he went to/for his life/soul/self. Generally speaking, Hebrew does not use the verb halak (seen here in vayyelek) in the sense of "flee." There's a different word that does that duty. Further, while nephesh (naphsho--his life) may mean life, it may also mean soul (the most common rendering in traditional translations) or self. The preposition el may also mean to, toward, or for.

My own reading of the entire passage is that vayyelek el naphsho probably ought to be rendered "and he went for himself." The whole episode lays out Elijah's preoccupation with himself. In what follows verse 3, there is no sense of fear. Rather, we see frustration, anger, pride, disappointment, etc., but no fear.

I think also this allows for a more consistent rendering of naphsho in verse 4, where the Hebrew says, "and he asked his soul/life/self to die." "He asked himself to die" makes better sense than "he asked his life to die."

Interestingly, the comment of the Geneva Bible on "and he went for his life" is, "Or, whither his mind led him."

As for the influence of the modern English idiom "to run for one's life," we ought to remember that an apparent similarity between what appears to be a Hebrew idiom and a known modern idiom may be a false rather than a true similarity.

Was Elijah Afraid?

2010-02-25T12:22:00.000-08:00

This post was prompted by a remark that a friend posted on Facebook the other day. After events at Mt. Carmel, Jezebel sends a threat to Elijah (1 Kings 19:1-2). Verse 3 then begins, "Then he was afraid" (ESV). Or does it begin, "And when he saw that" (KJV and NKJV)? The difference here is as follows:

1) The Hebrew text was originally written with consonants only, as the vowels were understood. Later, as the knowledge of the language began to wane, a system was developed to mark the vowels so that the correct pronunciation of the text would not be lost.

2) The consonantal text at the beginning of 1 Kgs 19:3 reads vyr'. The standard Hebrew text with vowels has this as vayyar', which means "and he saw."

3) However, a few manuscripts of the vocalized text (i.e., the text with vowels) have it as vayyira', which means "and he feared."

4) This second reading is backed up by the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, which has ephobethe "and he was afraid." "And he was afraid" is also found in the Syriac version and the Latin Vulgate.

5) However, if the reading should be "and he was afraid," the expected consonantal text would be vyyr', which would be vocalized as vayyiyra'. This is not what the vast majority of manuscripts have.

6) It is possible, perhaps even likely, that the problem originated with the Septuagint, where a less than fully careful translator simply misread the text (not entirely uncommon in the Septuagint version of 1 & 2 Kings). This mistake probably also lies behind the Syriac and Vulgate readings, because both of those versions were affected by the Septuagint.

In my estimation, the KJV/NKJV rendering is more likely correct.

What significance does this have interpreting the text? First, it removes fear as the primary motive for Elijah's flight. That is, he appears (from what we learn later in the story) to have been motivated more by pride (I alone am left), frustration (the showdown had convinced Ahab, but not Jezebel), and disappointment, than by fear. It is the resulting sense of failure that then drives him to Horeb.

All that being said, most modern English versions reach the opposite conclusion from the one I have reached. Both formal equivalence translations (ESV, NASB, NAS(Update), Holman CSB, and NRSV) and dynamic equivalence translations (NIV, TNIV, NLT, etc.) have some variation on "Elijah was afraid."

Follow-Up on Infant Baptism

2010-02-20T12:32:00.000-08:00

In response to my previous post, Arthur wrote:

So based on your line of reasoning, someone who is elect but not baptized by their believing parents is not part of the covenant community but someone who is not elect and will spend eternity in hell is part of the covenant community because their parents sprinkled them with water as an infant?

In short, yes. But in order to avoid possible confusion, let me add a word of explanation. By “covenant community” in the prior post, I mean the visible church. There are, as it were, two churches of God: the invisible church, “which consists of the whole number of the elect,” and the visible church, which “consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, and their children.” (For a fuller, but brief statement, see the Westminster Confession of Faith, ch 25, available with appended Scriptures at http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/.) Baptism, as a sign of the covenant properly belongs to all those who are legitimate candidates for membership in the visible church; that is, those who profess the true religion and their children. The children have the right to the sign, which God considers very important. But if the parents withhold the sign from them, God considers them no part of his visible church. On the other hand, a child of parents who profess the true religion may be baptized. In that case he is legitimately a part of the visible church, with all the rights and responsibilities of its members, and subject to its discipline, even though he may not be elect. Nonetheless, because he has rightly received the sign of the covenant, God considers him to be rightly a member of the visible church.

Just to make it clear, the visible church is not identical to the invisible church. That there is overlap between them is certainly the case, as in those intersecting Venn diagrams that plagued us all as children in early math classes. But one may legitimately be a member of the visible church, even if non-elect. Likewise, an elect person, for various reasons, may not have received the covenant sign of baptism.

Now to give a couple of illustrations. Jacob and Esau both received the sign of the covenant, and were legitimately members of the visible church. Esau, however, was not of the elect (see Mal 1:2-3 and Rom 9:13), hence not a member of the invisible church. Judas Iscariot had received the sign of the covenant, and was legitimately a member of the visible church. He was even legitimately one of the twelve apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ (see Matt 10:1-4). But he also was not elect, and his betrayal of Jesus and subsequent suicide proved that he was no member of the invisible church.

Thoughts on Infant Baptism

2010-02-16T19:04:00.000-08:00

Infant Baptism: The Advantage to the Child

A question often asked of those who argue for infant baptism is, “What good does it do the infant?” Those who ask this question generally think they have nailed the defender, as there is no obvious benefit to the infant. The infant hardly seems to be aware of what is transpiring, let alone being aware of any benefit. Many who were baptized as infants, coming to faith as adults, desire to be baptized as adults, rationalizing that their baptism didn’t mean anything to them.

Such an approach to baptism, however, fails to recognize the true character of baptism, and fails also to recognize the real benefit of the rite to the infant. As to its true character, baptism (infant or adult) is not a public profession of a faith in Christ already acted upon. This view of baptism is readily drawn from a mistaken examination of Acts 2, which is then imposed on other texts having to do with baptism. The main problems with this understanding of Acts 2 are that first, it makes the mistake of drawing doctrinal conclusions from narrative texts; and second, it fails to recognize the transitional character of the situation in Acts 2.

Baptism rather is a sign of the covenant. That baptism is a covenant sign follows from the identification of circumcision and baptism (Col 2:11-12), the continuity of the covenant in the church with the covenant with Abraham (Gal 3:9-14), and the identification of circumcision as a covenantal sign in Gen 17. Baptism is thus a sign upon the recipient that he or she is recognized as a member of the covenant people of God. (There is obviously more to it than this, but for the purposes of this short exposition, this is adequate.)

If baptism is the New Testament equivalent of circumcision, and thus a covenant sign, we must look to the Old Testament and its discussion of covenant signs in order to determine what the advantage there is for the infant who is baptized.

The first covenant sign mentioned in the Old Testament is the rainbow (Gen 9:8-17). In this passage, we learn that the covenant sign is not for man only. Certainly it is understood that man benefits from seeing the rainbow, and remembering that God has established this as a sign that he will not again destroy the earth by a flood. But the emphasis of the text itself is on the importance to God of the sign. “When I bring the clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh” (Gen 9:14-15). That is, the sign functions for God. The same thing occurs in regard to the second covenant sign discussed in the Old Testament (circumcision—Genesis 17). “My covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant” (Gen 17:13-14). That is, if God does not see the sign of the covenant in the child, he considers that child no member of the covenant people. This understanding is what lies behind the otherwise cryptic passage in Exodus 4, regarding Moses on his return to Egypt (vss 24-26). Moses was being sent to lead the covenant people out of Egypt, but he had not obeyed God in having his own sons circumcised. Thus his own sons were cut off from the covenant people. So Zipporah performed the circumcision, laying the foreskin at Moses’ feet, and calling him a bridegroom of blood. The involvement of Zipporah was probably due to her having opposed the circumcision in the first place. Thus also her exclamation to Moses, “You are a bridegroom of blood.”

God takes the covenant sign seriously. Thus a child, who would otherwise be a member of the covenant people, God considers him to be no part of the covenant people if he does not have the sign of the covenant. So a child of believing parents who is not baptized is considered by God to be none of his. It matters not how much care the parents may lavish on the child, or how much they may teach him the Bible. They have disobeyed God on one point, and their children are cut off.

The advantage to the child is thus two-fold. First, God considers that child a member of the visible church. Thus, according to his promise, he blesses all the parents’ efforts on behalf of the child. This is not to say that God may not bless the efforts of parents who are disobedient in the matter of the covenant sign. But such parents have no promise from God that he will bless in their labors.

[Just as an aside, it is curious to me that Presbyterians actually make more out of baptism than Baptists do. Baptists apparently, for example, see no problem with repeated baptisms, as long as the subject of the repeated baptism considers that he wasn’t really converted when he was first baptized. Second, Presbyterians talk about improving our baptism (LC Q 167), making everyone’s baptism important to us, whereas the Baptist sees baptism as of real importance only for the professing believer being baptized.]

Current Projects

2010-02-08T06:47:00.000-08:00

Some of you might be interested in my current projects. First, I am working on two papers regarding Calvin's commentaries on the minor prophets, one on Micah, and one covering Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. These will be chapter in a book being edited by my friend Byron Curtis, who teaches at Geneva College.

Second, I am reading my paper "Englishing the Bible: English Bible Translation and Its Purposes." at the Spring Theology Conference. See the seminary website (www.gpts.edu) for details.

Third, I will be reading a paper at the Southeast Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (March 19-20 at North Greenville University), "'Uncovering the Nakedness of''; Is This a Euphemism for Sexual Intercourse, or is it Something Else?"

I have also submitted a paper proposal for the 2010 national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (in Atlanta) dealing with the imagery on the Song of Songs. I hope that will be accepted, because the approach I am considering would radically re-orient the approach to the Song.

Uncle Ben's Book Blog: Calvin on Habakkuk and Zephaniah

2010-01-15T10:14:00.000-08:00

This is just to note that I have also read these two commentaries this week. As before, I highly recommend Calvin's commentaries for sequential reading. According to Richard Muller, Calvin;s commentary work was more influential in the 17th century than were the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Today, of course, it is the other way around, even in conservative Reformed circles. Certainly most Biblical scholars know of Calvin's commentaries through citations or particularly notorious quotes by other commentators. There's little evidence that today's biblical scholars, even evangelicals, actually spend any time reading Calvin's commentaries, which is to their shame.

You can see why the 17th century scholars would have been attracted to Calvin. He's clear and concise, covering Habakkuk in about 180 pp, and Zephaniah in about 130 pp. Compare that to 416 pp in the Anchor Bible Commentary on Habakkuk. He's attentive not only to issues of language and history, but to theology as well. He has, as might be expected, a fine discussion of Hab 2:4 and whether it is faith or faithfulness that is required of the just. He's also sensitive to the NT use of the prophetic material. As with the Micah and Nahum commentaries his primary concerns are ecclesiological and Christological.

For all these reasons, he ought to be read by today's interpreters, and it is to our shame that he often is known in our circles more by reputation than familiarity.

Uncle Ben's Book Blog: The Church of God, Stuart Robinson

2010-01-12T07:07:00.000-08:00

This is an update on yesterday's post. Two things to note. First, the book is in print thanks to the CE Committee of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, in a nicely done hardback. It was completely re-typeset, so it is not a simple reprint. It is available for $10.00 (postage included) from the OPC website: www.opc.org. The GPTS bookstore also has a number of copies on hand.

Second, it should be noted that Robinson is not a great English stylist. That's a nice way of saying that his English is sometimes clumsy. But he does have the benefits of both clarity and consistency, which are much to be preferred to great English style that lacks either.

Again, the book is highly recommended, both for those with low views of the church, and for those with high, but loosely founded, views of the church.

Uncle Ben's Book Blog: The Church of God, Stuart Robinson

2010-01-11T07:41:00.000-08:00

The full title of Robinson's book is The Church of God as an Essential Element of the Gospel, and the Idea, Structure, and Functions Thereof. It's a big title for a short book. The book has been reprinted from the 1858 original, with the addition of a brief life of Robinson by T. E. Peck. My copy was reprinted by the GPTS Press in 1995, but I think it is currently being reprinted by Solid Ground Christian Books. I can't verify that right now, because for whatever reason, I can't access the SGCB web site.

The book itself is divided into two major parts. The first part is Robinson's own discussion, which takes up about 130 pages. The second major part is an Appendix, containing a number of historical documents pertaining to Presbyterian ecclesiology and polity. These documents, otherwise difficult to find, are worth the price of the book in themselves. However, it is Robinson's discussion that makes this a lost classic. It is, as the title indicates, a defense of the idea that the church is an essential element of the gospel, and in particular the church, as it is found in the Bible, is intended by God for accomplishing the purpose of redemption. Further, it is a church that is Presbyterian in its government and in its worship.

Today's evangelical church has no ecclesiology. That is, in part, why so much of what is properly the work of the church is being done by para-church organizations. It is also why so much a what many churches get involved with is not really the responsibility of the church per se. This work of Robinson's is a valuable corrective to many of the problems facing today's church. It is unfortunate that most evangelicals have a low view of the church (which this book would correct). It is even more unfortunate that many who call themselves Presbyterian are ignorant not only of this book, but more importantly, what it teaches.