PCA Strategic Plan: Post 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Uncle Ben's Book Blog: Sacred, by Dennis Lehane

Some of you may have seen the movie Mystic River. Dennis Lehane wrote the novel on which the movie was based. That was a stand-alone novel. Sacred is part of a private eye series featuring the detectives Patrick Kenzie and Angela Gennaro. In a certain sense, this book is standard issue detective fiction. What sets the book apart from many others in the genre is the quality of Lehane's writing. He sets tone. He sets character. He sets place. And the world comes alive. You read Lehane in part to find out out who did what. But perhaps in larger part, you read Lehane for the pleasure of the journey.

Now this is gritty stuff, and not something I would recommend to the faint of heart. But if you like a tale well-told, and occasionally indulge in genre fiction, you could do a lot worse than Lehane, and rarely do better.

By the way, another movie based on a Dennis Lehane novel is due out this year. Shutter Room is directed by Martin Scorsese and stars Leonardo DiCaprio. The book is exceedingly creepy, and I suspect Scorsese will do it justice.

Uncle Ben's Book Blog: Calvin on Micah and Nahum

Calvin's expositions were not composed as commentaries per se, but were daily sequential lectures to students, moving straight through the book. Some things are not found in Calvin's commentaries (or in other commentaries at the time), but are now an expected part of commentary literature. The most notable of these is an introduction. Modern commentaries have sizable introductions, with more or less extended discussions of such things as author, date and occasion of writing, and themes and theology of the book. This introduction can easily take up 15% to 25% of the entire book. Calvin devotes a couple of paragraphs to date and author issues, then simply dives into the exposition. Another difference is the lack of outline, or subdivision of the book. Calvin simply takes a verse, or a few verses at a time, then proceeds to expound them.

Obviously part of this difference is the age. In the 21st century, much more has been written on these books than was available in Calvin's day, and the introduction is a way of summarizing this material for the reader. But in a certain sense, the introduction is often a history of doubt and skepticism, rather than a faithful reading of the biblical text. Thus, Calvin assumes that the opening verse of Micah (The word of the Lord that came to Micah of Moresheth, etc.) means that Micah wrote the book. Meanwhile, many modern commentaries will spend page upon page explaining why anyone but Micah may have written it. These extended discussions I do not miss.

But the lack of an overall view of the book given by an outline, or subdivisions of the book means that one can simply get lost in the movement of the book, and the text of the Bible gets reduced to the verse or two currently under discussion.

There are three refreshing characteristics to Calvin's exposition that are commonly missing in modern commentaries. First, he assumes that these are the words of God to men. Second, his exposition is insistently ecclesiological, that is, he explains the text for the church. Third, he also reads the text Christologically. For someone who, in his day, was often accused of being a judaizer (i.e., seeing Christ too infrequently in the Old Testament) Calvin certainly finds the Old Testament to be a mine of teaching about Christ.

A warning. If you go to Calvin;s commentaries expecting him to answer the questions you have about the text, you'll probably be disappointed. Read him for what he has to say, and listen to the questions he's asking of the text. I guarantee that you will be enriched in the reading.

Uncle Ben's Book Blog: Boneshaker

A couple of weeks ago, I got an advertising e-mail (you know what those are) from Amazon, touting the 10 Best Science Fiction works of 2009. Since I like Sci-fi, I had a look, though not with the intent of buying. Three of the books sounded interesting, and the Greenville County library had two of them. One was Boneshaker, which I read yesterday as part of my New Year's vacation. It's an example of what is called steampunk; that is, science fiction set in an alternate-history 19th century, where the technology is big, bulky, and run by steam. Time magazine had a recent short article on the subgenre in reviewing Scott Westerfeld's Leviathan. A decent discussion can be found at Wikipedia. Interestingly, neither the Time article nor the Wikipedia article mention the classic steampunk movie, which is Terry Gilliam's Brazil (1985). It isn't set in the 19th century, but everything else about it has the steampunk feel.

Back to Boneshaker, which is set in late 19th-century Seattle. An inventor, Leviticus Blue, is seeking to invent a drilling machine to sell to the Russians to enable them to drill through glaciers in Alaska in their search for gold. In testing out his machine, it runs amok through the underground of Seattle opening up a vein of poison gas. People who breathe the gas turn into zombies (think Night of the Living Dead). Mr. Blue disappears, and his pregnant wife and most of the population manage to escape the gas. Apparently the leak can't be plugged. The gas is significantly heavier than air, so the center of Seattle is simply walled up (a 200-ft high wall), and whoever remained inside was left to fend for themselves.

Move forward sixteen years. Mr. Blue's son, unbeknown to his mother, decides to enter the walled portion of the city to find evidence to repair his father's reputation. His mother discovers his intent and goes in after him. Life inside the city brings to mind the Kurt Russell classic Escape from New York. The action moves along at a decent clip, and there's a certain amount of humor (for example, it is 1880 and the War Between the States is still going on, since Britain had entered the war on the side of the South). Mother succeeds in rescuing son. I won't tell you about Mr. Blue's reputation.

Moderately entertaining, and all the right atmosphere for the subgenre, but my ultimate question in regard to a novel is this: Does it make me want to go out and immediately read another book by the same author. In this case the answer is, "No."

Questions in Hebrew

This question was raised by a student on behalf of someone else, and I have been slow to answer it. Specifically, how does one determine that the Hebrew sentence is a question? The easy answer is that there are several particles that indicate a question. The best example is what is called the he interrogative. This is prefixed to the first word in the sentence. There are other particles, such as the words for who, what, where, and why.

However, there are places where none of those markers is present, yet at least some translations render the sentence as a question. The particular text brought out for consideration is Hosea 13:14. That verse reads as follows in the KJV:

I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. (Hos 13:14 KJV).

In the ESV it reads:

Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your sting? Compassion is hidden from my eyes. (Hos 13:14 ESV).

The easy difference to explain is the answer to the question, Why does the ESV have "where" at the same plac the KJV has "I will be"? The KJV translators read an infrequently used interrogative particle as the 1st person singular verb. This is one place where the Septuagint got it right, and the KJV translators should have paid attention to it.

But why does the ESV render the first part of the verse as questions, where the KJV renders it as statements? The problem is that there are no obvious markers of a question. The only real answer that can be given is this from Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar: "A question need not necessarily be introduced by a special interrogative pronoun or adverb. Frequently the natural emphasis upon the words is of itself sufficient to indicate an interrogative sentence as such." In other words, the translators of the ESV (and several other versions as well) seemed to think that the interrogative idea was obvious. Theological leanings on the part of the translators does not seem to play a role. Thus, the ESV, NLT, and NAS all render as questions. The NIV, TNIV, and CSB all render as statements.

Probably not a useful answer, but about as good a one as I can give.

Follow-up On Jesus and the Antichrist

I realize that it's possible the video is a hoax (but search on youtube.com for "did Jesus name the antichrist?" and there is also a new updated version, "confirmed by a Jewish rabbi"), but many sincere Christians take this stuff way too seriously to start with. Look at how many people took The da Vinci Code seriously, and that even admits to being a work of fiction. Thus it is incumbent on Christians who know better to provide some corrective on this kind of silliness.

Did Jesus Name the Antichrist?

There is currently a video clip making the rounds on the internet in which the narrator asks, and “answers” this question. His argumentation is as follows:

First, Luke 10:18 says, “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” (KJV). The narrator says that while this was written in Greek, Jesus would have originally spoken the words in Aramaic which he claims was the most ancient form of Hebrew. At this point the listener should ignore everything that follows. Aramaic is a language related to Hebrew (that is, they both belong to the Semitic family of languages), but Aramaic is in no way a form of Hebrew. While there is some academic dispute whether Jesus taught in Aramaic of Greek, for the sake of the argument, let us assume that he spoke in Aramaic, since this man’s argument depends on it. From this verse, using the Hebrew lexicon of Strong’s Concordance, he finds the word baraq, which is the Hebrew word for “lightning.” He needs the Hebrew form, because the Imperial Aramaic form (that used in the Old Testament period) is birqun. The Syriac form (Syriac being a late form of Aramaic), found in the Syriac Peshitta translation of the Bible, is birqa’. Thus he has established that lightning is baraq. And unless you’re really dense, you already see where this is going.

Second, he moves to Isaiah 14:12-19, which he interprets as referring to Satan (a standard view among dispensational interpreters, but not usually found among interpreters from other theological backgrounds). In this passage, he focuses on vs 14, which says, I will ascend above the heights.” “Heights” in this passage is the Hebrew word bamah. This, he implicitly imports into Luke 10:18 as I beheld Satan fall as lightning from heaven.”

Third, he observes that the Hebrew vav, which is attached at the beginning of words, and functions as a conjunction, is pronounced “u” or “o.” Thus, “lightning from heaven” would be pronounced barak obama. Unfortunately, everything is against him. “lightning from heaven” requires the preposition min, not the conjunction vav. Further, the word “heavens” which Jesus would have used is, in Aramaic, shamaya’, not bama. Thus, the Aramaic which Jesus would have used would have been pronounced birqa’ min shamaya’ which is, of course, nowhere close to baraq obama. Now one may or may not like President Obama and his politics, but this kind of silliness ought to be soundly rebuked and denied by serious Christians.

Longman-Adam Follow-up

The really sad thing about this video clip and the others in the series, is that it is produced and promoted by the Wilberforce Fellowship (http://www.wilberforcefellowship.org/), named after William Wilberforce. What these folks apparently fail to realize is that Wilberforce's campaign against slavery was founded on the fact of a single human being, Adam, created in the image of God, from whom the first woman was formed, and from whom all subsequent human beings have descended. This formed the theological basis for Wilberforce's campaign, and the denial of it destroys the force of of Wilberforce's outrage. And if they aren't bothered by Longman's theological waffling about evolution, maybe they need to watch Ben Stein's Expelled for a look at what evolutionary thought leads to.

Longman on Adam, or Why I'm Not Surprised

The following video clip has been making the rounds of Facebook and evangelical and Reformed blogs for the past couple of weeks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8Pk1vXL1WE

In this clip, Longman denies an historical Adam, seeing rather and evolutionary process at work, and is not even willing to affirm, at the end of an evolutionary process, God setting apart a unique person or persons as the first distinct human beings. Now anyone who has read much of Longman knows that he has little confidence in the historical reliability of the Bible, so these conclusions should not be surprising.

But let us examine his views a little more closely. Aside from the fact that he clearly has bought into the whole evolution thing, he is obviously greatly influenced by Ancient Near Eastern materials, arguing that the Bible is simply using ANE categories to talk about the creation of man. Many of the ANE creation myths are readily available in such anthologies as James B. Pritchard's The Ancient Near East, Vol. 1: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures or Documents from Old Testament Times by D. Winton Thomas (out in a new edition in 2005). SO you can read for yourself. Then ask yourself the question: Does Genesis 1-2 sound like these ANE materials? If you can honestly say yes, then you can agree with Longman. However, the differences are far more striking than the similarities, not only in content but in style. Only if someone is already convinced that the Israelite material is essentially unoriginal, and was more or less borrowed from its ANE neighbors can Longman's thesis stand.

Further, his dismissal of virtually the whole history of not only Christian, but Jewish, interpretation of Genesis as simply "literalistic" is arrogant beyond belief. Such arrogance can only be sustained by isolation in a cultural setting in which you can dismiss all those who disagree with you as intellectual troglodytes and get away with it.

On Avoiding Over-Interpretation

This post was provoked by a student's request for some guidelines after some remarks I made in class about the danger of over-interpreting the Bible. I thought the comments might be more generally useful. If you follow this advice, you should save yourself from any major embarrassment in the pulpit.

First, use some common sense. If it sounds like it might be overly interpretive, it probably is, especially if you are a beginning student in the languages.

Second, make sure you know the grammar. By this, I don't mean that you've memorized Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics or Waltke-O'Connor's Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Instead, I mean that you have made use of the indices to look up the particular passage you're working on, or you've studied the particular construction you're interested in beyond what you might have picked up in your beginning language course. Grammar won't answer every question, or solve every dispute, but it will keep the beginner from making stupid mistakes out of ignorance.

Third, make sure you know the lexicography. If you're dealing with a particular word, or even a context, make sure you have consulted one of the major reference lexica. By this I don't mean Thayer's for Greek, or Gesenius for Hebrew. Unfortunately, I mean Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker for Greek, and the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament for Hebrew. Yes, I realize the former is $120.00 in hard cover, and the latter is $216.00 from CBD. But these are resources that you will use for a long time. In addition, they may be available for your Bible software at a somewhat reduced price. Also, by "consulted," I don't mean that you looked up the word and scanned through the discussion for the meaning you want. What I mean is you read through the entry; you have considered the possible connotations of the word, and you have considered the limitations on those possibilities made by context. It is true that BAGD and HALOT are not inerrant, and academic specialists certainly have quibbles with particular entries, but again, they can keep beginners from stupid mistakes. All that being said, there is still a place for Thayer's and for the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon, especially as a place for beginners to start. The big reference lexica can be daunting for beginners who are overawed by the crowded page and the cryptic abbreviations that they present. In addition, with regard to BDB, the articles on the prepositions are mines of information in themselves. The beginner will learn a great deal about the functioning of the prepositions in Hebrew syntax from those essays.

Fourth, make sure you're familiar with the commentary literature. Again, I don't mean here that you have read all the commentaries on the passage, but rather that you have read a representative sample, enough to know the parameters on the meaning of the passage. Two caveats here. First, don't begin with the commentaries. Work through the passage yourself first, and be pretty comfortable with your understanding, then consult the commentaries. Second, most students read too many commentaries. My rule of thumb is 3-4, with maybe as many as 6 on a particularly difficult passage. Make sure that the commentaries you choose represent a variety of types. You should have at least one pre-critical commentary on your list. You should also have one that deals with technical matters of language and text. Then you should have one that is more sensitive to the theology of the text. Types two and three rarely co-exist within the same covers. Further, the pre-critical commentaries are generally much more aware of the theology and overall biblical context of the passage than are more recent ones.