For His Renown

Denny Burk is Dead Right about SBTS

I echo the sentiments of the good Dr. Burk:

If the Lord has called you into ministry and you are wondering what seminary to attend for training, you need to know that there is no better place than The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I’m not just saying that because I work here. I work here because I really believe it.
The best way to get familiar with what we are all about is to visit. Southern Seminary will be hosting a Preview conference in a couple of weeks on October 14, and it will be the perfect time for you to come and see the campus, sit in a class, and visit with professors. The Seminary will put you up in a hotel room for the night and provide meals. All you need to do is get here. For more information and to register, click here.
I hope we see you soon!

Dan Phillips’ Book Free on Kindle

Right now you can get the Kindle version of The World-Tilting Gospel by Dan Phillips of TeamPyro for free at Amazon.

Like the grace of God, it’s free: this book explains how the gospel rightwises your understanding of the world.

Alexander Pushkin’s “The Prophet”

Alexander Pushkin – The Prophet

With fainting soul athirst for Grace,
I wandered in a desert place,
And at the crossing of the ways
I saw a sixfold Seraph blaze;

He touched mine eyes with fingers light
As sleep that cometh in the night:
And like a frightened eagle’s eyes,
They opened wide with prophecies.

He touched mine ears, and they were drowned
With tumult and a roaring sound:
I heard convulsion in the sky,
And flight of angel hosts on high,

And beasts that move beneath the sea,
And the sap creeping in the tree.
And bending to my mouth he wrung
From out of it my sinful tongue,

And all its lies and idle rust,
And ‘twixt my lips a-perishing
A subtle serpent’s forkèd sting
With right hand wet with blood he thrust.

And with his sword my breast he cleft,
My quaking heart thereout he reft,
And in the yawning of my breast
A coal of living fire he pressed.

Then in the desert I lay dead,
And God called unto me and said:

“Arise, and let My voice be heard,
Charged with My will go forth and span
The land and sea, and let My word
Lay waste with fire the heart of man.”

____

HT: Peter Leithart, Fyodor Dostoevsky

Lit! Let Tony Reinke Help You Read

I love books. I love literature. I’m really grateful for the way the Lord has used books in my own life, and I’m really confident that those who deal in words, people who preach and teach, have much to gain from the best put thoughts of the clearest thinkers the world has known. Add to these realities my deep appreciation for Tony Reinke, and it’s not hard to guess that I’m pre-disposed to be really excited about his new book, Lit! A Christian Guide to Reading Books.

Predisposed to like it, and having read it, I’m thrilled to commend it. Walt Harrington says this about the reading habits of George W. Bush:

“I was struck by his many references to history. In the back of my mind was an article that Karl Rove had written for The Wall Street Journal in 2008, which revealed (much to the consternation of the president’s derisive critics) that Bush had read 186 books for pleasure in the preceding three years, consisting mostly of serious historical nonfiction.”

“He also invited me to his house, where I found books by John Fowles, F. Scott Fitzgerald, James Joyce, and Gore Vidal lying about, as well as biographies of Willa Cather and Queen Victoria. A few years later, I might even have thought they had been purposely left there for the eyes of a reporter, but not on that unstaged evening. Laura would eventually write that even then, George read every night in bed.”

“I also found an open Bible in the house. “I’ve read it cover to cover, and it wouldn’t hurt you, Walt, to do the same,” Bush said, laughing. Within the last year, W. had begun a new lifetime regimen of daily Bible readings, as I and all of America would later learn.”””He certainly enjoys reading and talking about books. And his friends know it. On his desk is a stack of books that have come as gifts: All Things Are Possible Through Prayer;Basho: The Complete Haiku;Children of Jihad; and Theodore Roosevelt’s Letters to His Children. To the pile, I add my own gift, Cleopatra by Pulitzer Prize–winning author Stacy Schiff. Right now, Bush is reading Ron Chernow’s Washington: A Life, a biography of the first president. “Chernow’s a great historian,” Bush says excitedly. “I think one of the great history books I read was on Alexander Hamilton by Chernow. But I also read House of Morgan,Titan, and now I’m reading Washington.””
“He mentions David Halberstam’s The Coldest Winter, a book about the Korean War that he read before a visit last year to Korea, to give a speech to evangelicals. “I stand up in front of 65,000 Christians to give a speech in South Korea … ,” he says, “and I’m thinking about the bloody [battles] fought in the Korean War.” Halberstam’s book—coupled with earlier readings of David McCullough’s Truman and Robert Beisner’s Dean Acheson, a biography of Truman’s secretary of state presented to him by Bush’s own secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice—gave the event deeper resonance. The decisions of the unpopular President Harry S Truman, he realized, made it possible for a former U. S. president to speak before freely worshipping Koreans 60 years later. “So history, in this case, gave me a better understanding of the moment, and … put it all into context—the wonder of the moment.””
“I tick off a partial list of people Bush has read books about in recent years in addition to Washington, Truman, and Acheson: Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, Huey Long, Lyndon Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Andrew Mellon, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ulysses S. Grant, John Quincy Adams, Genghis Khan.”
““Genghis Khan?” I ask incredulously.”
““I didn’t know much about him. I was fascinated by him. I guess I’ve always been fascinated by larger-than-life figures. That’s why I’m looking forward to reading Cleopatra. I know nothing about her. … But you can sit there and be absorbed by TV, let the news of the moment consume you. You can just do nothing. I choose to read as a form of relaxation. … Laura used to say, ‘Reading is taking a journey,’ and she’s right.””
“He remembers Richard Carwardine’s Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power (one of 14 Lincoln biographies Bush read while he was president), . . .”

And this is just a sampling. There’s more about the reading Bush has done. Fascinating. Inspiring.

Do you want to read more?

Tony can tell you how to get it done. You won’t regret learning from him, and you won’t regret getting this book.

George W. Bush Sounds Like Lincoln on Prayer

The conclusion of this must read article:

I visited President Bush in the Oval Office one more time. I was thinking about doing a book about how Americans pray, and I had remembered that way back in Midland, he had advised me to read the Bible cover-to-cover, something I had done since then. He agreed to talk with me about his prayer life, and, for a final time, I journeyed to the Oval Office.
“I’ve thought about this conversation a lot since you asked … ,” President Bush said. “I’m learning and have been learning ever since 1986, really.”
That afternoon, only a few months before he would leave office, we sat beneath the famous Rembrandt Peale portrait of George Washington, and President Bush told me that he prayed daily in the White House. He prayed for spiritual insight—to “be more discerning of the Word of God.” He prayed that God keep his wife and daughters protected. He prayed that our soldiers and their families be given comfort and strength. He did not pray for good weather on his daughter’s wedding day, or that his father’s hip surgery go well, or that the stock market rise.
“Do you pray, ‘Dear God, let Congress get it right?’ ” I asked.
“No.”
“ ‘Dear God, let Pelosi get it right?’ ”
“No, no, no, no, no, God is not the minority leader”—and then he laughed and corrected himself. “Majority leader. … Nor do I pray for a Republican victory. … I really don’t.”
He prayed before his presidential debates, kept a little cross in his pocket that he would squeeze: “ ‘Dear God, I pray that I speak clearly and bring calm.’ ” He prayed before his State of the Union addresses, alone in the little holding room: “ ‘Dear God, I pray that you shine through me today.’ ”
“And the prayers of the people,” he said, referring to those who pray for him, “this is where I get into a little shaky ground because I can’t prove it.” But Bush said he had actually felt the prayers of people asking God to comfort him. “And so the pop psychologists say, ‘Well, he’s grasping for affection.’ … I tell people all the time this—that the prayers of the people matter. And I do have a sense of calm.” Perhaps, he said, his prayers and the prayers of others are the reason. “I’ve been asked this some: ‘Do you think God wanted you to go to war?’ I didn’t ask in prayer. … I don’t think that’s fair to God to do that.”
“Have you prayed, ‘Dear God, if I was wrong about this, forgive me’?”
“No, no, no. First of all, I don’t believe I’m wrong about it. I don’t believe it’s wrong to confront evil. And I don’t believe it’s wrong to give people the opportunity to live in a free society. … I don’t want to bring God down into a presidential debate over ‘yes’ or ‘no’ into Iraq.”
“Do you have compassion for your enemy?”
“I have yet to forgive Osama bin Laden, and, frankly, haven’t prayed [for him] because I think he needs to be brought to justice in order to prevent him from killing other people.”
“Isn’t it possible to pray for Osama bin Laden and also want to bring him to justice?”
“I’m not sophisticated enough in prayer, evidently, to be able to pray for Osama bin Laden and at the same time go hunt him.”
Early the next morning, my hotel phone rang me out of bed.
“The president would like to talk with you,” a pleasant voice said.
In a moment, President Bush was on the line. He said he didn’t want to leave me with a wrong impression: he did pray regularly for forgiveness. He just wanted to be sure I knew that.
I thanked him for the call.
“Well,” he said with a laugh, “now you can tell your friends that the president of the United States gave you a wake-up call.”

Fascinating Article on President George W. Bush

I haven’t even finished this article yet, but I find it riveting, informative, and inspiring.

Enjoy.

Jeremiah 3:6–4:4, Repent and Be Restored

In 1988, Jimmy Swaggart was caught with a prostitute. He was famous. On television. Known worldwide as an evangelist and preacher. He was initially suspended for three months, then the Assemblies of God suspended him for two years. When he resumed preaching after three months, the Assemblies of God defrocked him.

In 1991 he was stopped by a police officer in California with a prostitute in the car. He told the church he continued to serve that the Lord told him it was none of their business and temporarily stepped down from ministry.

Jimmy Swaggart is famous, so a lot of people know about him. There are many ministers who fall into sexual sin. It is all too common for ministers who aren’t famous to fall out of ministry because of sexual sin. It is all too common for Christians who aren’t ministers to fall into sexual sin.

In Jeremiah 3 Jeremiah is warning the Southern Kingdom of Judah by pointing to what happened in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Jeremiah wants Judah to learn from what happened to Israel before it’s too late, before like Israel, Judah is destroyed. We want to learn from the sins of others before we commit them ourselves.

We need to see the consequence of sin and the rewards of repentance and faithfulness. We need to learn from the fall of other ministers before it’s too late in our case. People who fall into sexual sin accumulate a series of small transgressions that they don’t turn from, and the small sins build to big ones.

Jeremiah’s message in Jeremiah 3:6–4:4 is that Judah should look at what happened to the northern kingdom, Israel. Jeremiah is calling the southern kingdom, Judah, to repent of the little sins that will add up to the big exile.

This is a beautiful passage in which Yahweh promises to bless Israel if they repent. Specifically, in Jeremiah 3:22, the Lord declares that if they will return to him he will heal them.

Do you want the healing?
Healing full and free –
Won’t you come to Jesus?
Come the Savior see –

Do you want the freedom?
Loosed from all your chains –
Won’t you call upon him?
Speak the Savior’s name –

He will wash you fully.
Take away your stain –
Won’t you have the joy he
Showers where he reigns?

At several points in this passage Jeremiah alludes to the way that God saved Israel in the past to point to the way that he will save them in the future. Interesting to see the use of the OT in the OT (an OT author, Jeremiah, using earlier OT Scripture). You can hear all about it here: Jeremiah 3:6–4:4, Repent and Be Restored.

Perseus Classics Free for Logos

The Perseus Collections will be released from Logos on September 30, 2011. If you pre-order them, you get them free.

You read that right – free if you pre-order.

Tony Reinke writes:

The collection is a library in itself of over 1,100 ancient Greek and Latin titles and includes many corresponding English translations and helpful commentaries. Authors include Aristotle, Cicero, Homer, Plato, Plutarch, Sophocles, Demosthenes, and many others.
The release of this massive collection is significant step for New Testament studies since many of the Greek titles are referenced in technical Greek reference works and lexicons like TDNT, BDAG, and EDNT. The folks at Logos have announced on their website that over time they plan to add lemma tags to all the Greek books and add hyperlinks to the lexical reference to correspond to the original books in the Perseus Classics Collection. So when you see a reference in TDNT to, say, Aristotle’s Metaphysics, the reference will be hyperlinked and a click will land you in Aristotle’s work to read the context for yourself.
Skilled Greek exegetes will benefit from the collection because of the tags and hyperlinks, but what about those who want to engage the classic Greek works on a less technical level? Most of the books are available as English translations. With these English translations the collection is quite accessible to all readers and offers many key books that can help sharpen your communication skills.

I downloaded Perseus classics and the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri. I’m still amazed this stuff was free!

Thanks to Logos for serving us in these ways. You can pick the ones you want to pre-order here.

Clarification: I’ve just heard from Logos that they’ve decided this material will always be free, so even if you don’t pre-order it, the price won’t change.

Lots of info here.

“Jabberwocky” Proves the ESV Isn’t Too Difficult

What does Lewis Carroll’s poem “Jabberwocky” have to do with the ESV not being too difficult a translation for people to understand?

Much in every way!

Before I explain, let me invite you to enjoy Carroll’s foray into sniglets (words that don’t appear in the dictionary but should) and logatomes (made-up words that obey phonotactic rules but have no meaning):

Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

So how does this poem prove people can understand the translation of the Bible known as the ESV?

Proponents of Dynamic Equivalence are constantly telling us that translations that are Literal or Formally Equivalent or Essentially Literal or whatever are too complicated for people to understand. Just to be clear, we’re not talking about Young’s Literal Translation or the KJV or even the NAS. I’ve now heard from Americans, Englishmen, and Australians that the ESV is too difficult for people to understand.

HOGWASH! That’s what we call nonsense in Arkansas. I think my friends in England call it rubbish. You get the idea.

Jabberwocky, with all its nonsense words that no one knows, disproves this meme about an Essentially Literal translation being too difficult.

The poem disproves the claim because while no one can know the meaning of these words that Lewis Carroll invented, anyone who knows English can understand what is happening in the poem. Here’s my favorite recorded recitation of the poem:

That’s my seven year old, and he understands the poem. No doubt he’ll understand more if he returns to it when he’s 37 or 67, but he gets it now.

Human beings are made in the image of God. They can figure out how to work iPhones and those complicated new remote controls.

If you tell me that just because they didn’t finish high school they can’t understand a literal translation of the Bible, I’m going to point you to the previous generations of people who, in many cases, had little or no education but faithfully read the King James, and it gave them everything necessary for life and godliness.

If a man can read, all he needs to do is read, pray, and meditate, and he might understand the Bible better than someone with a PhD in biblical studies.

If he can’t read, if he’ll pay close attention to someone else reading it, he can get it.

Human beings are made in the image of God. I don’t buy the argument that the ESV is too complicated for them. In fact, I think the argument comes very close to insulting those who bear God’s image.

Congrats to Stinson and Jones on “Trained in the Fear of God”

Do you have questions about Family Ministry?

You’ll want to thank Randy Stinson and Timothy Paul Jones for editing Trained in the Fear of God: Family Ministry in Theological, Historical, and Practical Perspective.

Don’t miss this book. Here’s the Table of Contents:

Foreword by Richard Ross

Introduction: The Problem with Family Ministry, Bryan Nelson with Timothy Paul Jones

That the Coming Generation Might Praise the Lord: Family Discipleship in the Old Testament, James M. Hamilton Jr.
Bring Them Up in the Discipline and Instruction of the Lord: Family Discipleship among the First Christians, Robert L. Plummer
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: The Trinity as Theological Foundation for Family Ministry, Bruce A. Ware
Male and Female, He Created Them: Gender Roles and Relationships in Biblical Perspective, Randy Stinson
The Compassion of Truth: Homosexuality in Biblical Perspective, R. Albert Mohler Jr.
Among Your Company at Home: Family Discipleship in Late Ancient and Medieval Churches, C. Michael Wren Jr.
The Home Is an Earthly Kingdom: Family Discipleship among Reformers and Puritans, C. Jeffrey Robinson Sr.
The Challenge of Matriarchy: Family Discipleship and the African American Experience, Kevin L. Smith
Growing Gaps from Generation to Generation: Family Discipleship in Modern and Postmodern Contexts, W. Ryan Steenburg with Timothy Paul Jones
The Pastor’s Home as Paradigm for the Church’s Family Ministry, David Prince
Habits of a Gospel-Centered Household, Peter R. Schemm Jr.
Building a Milestone Ministry in Your Church, Brian Haynes
Why Your Child’s Brain Needs Family Ministry, George Willard Cochran Jr. and Brian C. Richardson
Family Ministry, the Priority or a Priority? Lilly Park
The Freedom of Christ and the Unforseen Consequences of Feminism, Carolyn McCulley
Building and Equipping Missional Families, Michael S. Wilder
Making the Transition to Family-Equipping Ministry, Jay Strother

Afterword by Daniel L. Akin

Get your copy here: Trained in the Fear of God: Family Ministry in Theological, Historical, and Practical Perspective.

My contribution to the volume is available free in previously published format: “That the Coming Generation Might Praise the Lord,” Journal of Family Ministry 1.1 (2010): 10-17.

Laying out the role family discipleship plays in the wider context of biblical theology, I also chart some connections between Deuteronomy 6 and 17 and what Solomon is teaching in Proverbs. By teaching Deuteronomy in Proverbs, Solomon is following the pattern established by his father David: the pattern of the king of Israel, father of his people teaching Deuteronomy 6, obeying the instructions for the king in Deuteronomy 17, and meditating on the Torah day and night a la Psalm 1.

Incidentally, I think noting the way that Solomon presents himself as an installment in this pattern is one of the most legitimate ways to argue that a book like Proverbs is messianic.

Jeremiah 2:1–3:5, Will You Drink Sludge or Living Water?

Imagine a wedding, with the bride standing at the doors in the back about to enter the worship hall for the ceremony. She’s dressed in her gown, and her friend Jerry is standing by one of the doors, ready to fling it open when the moment comes.

Just at that moment a well dressed older man pulls up in a limousine. He goes straight to the bride and begins to speak to her in smooth, lyrical, poetic words. She is mesmerized. Jerry is horrified. He can see her subtly moving closer to the man, as if she will leave with him. He realizes the man is trying to lure her away.

The man offers her a gold ring. Jerry protests that she’s about to receive a wedding ring from the groom she’s about to marry.

When she looks at Jerry, her beautiful face is twisted into a snarl as she declares: this man promises me provision and protection; he promises me intimacy and affection.

When Jerry looks at the man he realizes what the man is. A pimp.

Jerry takes the bride by the shoulders and looks her full in the face: in place of a husband this man will give you customers; in place of a home this man will give you a prison; in place of freedom this man will make you a slave; in place of honor, shame; in place of hope, despair; in place of purity, defilement.

She slaps him in the face. Puts her hand in the pimp’s. And leaves in the limousine that will take her to the brothel instead of the one that would take her to the honeymoon.

In Jeremiah 2:1–3:5, Jeremiah proclaims that the devoted bride has become a harlot and faces the consequences.

Israel has forsaken Yahweh, the fountain of living waters, and gone to broken cisterns that hold no water (Jer 2:13). They have chosen to drink sludge instead of living water.

Just as Yahweh’s covenant with Israel is treated as a marriage, so the new covenant relationship between Christ and the church is what marriages illustrate.

This is meant to make us feel the cosmic theological woe of sin.

When we sin against Christ the bridegroom, we are committing spiritual adultery. When we look to other lovers to do for us what only Christ can do for us, we are like a wife who sells herself into prostitution.

Trusting money instead of trusting God in Christ is like trusting the money earned from turning tricks instead of believing that the bridegroom will meet the needs of his bride.

Seeking pleasure by breaking God’s commandments is like leaving the sacred marriage bed, or refusing to wait until the bridegroom takes you there, for a cheap thrill on a stained mattress in a dirty motel.

Not believing the Bible is like believing the pimp’s lies instead of the solemn oaths of the bridegroom.

Will you choose shame or honor?
Will you live in pain or comfort?
Will you sell what should not be sold or be the exclusive bride of your husband?
Will you be filthy or pure?
Will you be defiled or clean?
Will you be slave or free?
Will you be sold or redeemed?
Will you be used or loved?
Will Satan be your hard master or Christ your loving Lord?
Will you have remorse or joy?
Will you be a whore or a bride?

The world’s true story is a thrilling romance. The bride was lured away. She became defiled. She believed the pimp. She lived in filth and stench and stain. But the bridegroom came for her. He left safety and security, risked everything in a daring attempt to rescue his beloved, and he was killed in the effort.

Death, however, could not hold our hero. Jesus rose from the dead. His death cleanses his bride of all her sin and stain. He has now gone to prepare a place for us, and he will come for us.

When he comes, the bride will have made herself ready, clothing herself with fine linen, bright and pure, which is the righteous deeds of the saints (Rev 19:7–8).

–From the sermon it was my privilege to preach at Kenwood on Sunday, September 18, 2011:

Jeremiah 2:1–3:5, “Will You Drink Sludge or Living Water?”

Andy Naselli on the Trip We Enjoyed through Grand Canyon

I had a blast with Andy Naselli in Grand Canyon this summer, and today he posted his reflections, with some pics and video. Here’s a taste:

God’s power is immense. The sheer grandeur of the Grand Canyon is breathtaking.
God’s creation is creative. He combines raging rapids with calm waters, towering rugged canyons with short sloping hills, hot desert landscape with refreshing waterfalls and greenery, painfully scorching heat with cool, crisp breezes.

Get a glimpse of Grand Canyon here.

Is Biblical Theology a Bridge?

Brevard Childs writes (481),

“the major function of Biblical Theology is to provide a bridge for two-way traffic between biblical exegesis and systematic theology’s reflections on the subject matter.”

Here’s my view (“Biblical Theology and Preaching,” 199) of what we’re after when we do biblical theology:

“When we do biblical theology we are trying to lay hold of the perspective from which the biblical authors have interpreted earlier biblical texts and from which they write. We are looking for the matrix of assumptions and conclusions that necessitate the statements made by the biblical authors. We are trying to get at the world view that gives rise to the assertions the biblical authors make.”

As for the relationship between exegesis, systematic theology, biblical theology, and dogmatic theology, I would say:

“we can also view biblical theology, systematic theology, and historical theology as equal tools, each of which can be used to sharpen our exegesis and theology. And the reality is that all these methods are used in teaching Christians, which makes them all dogmatic theology” (GGSTJ, 47).

So I’m not sure it’s helpful to speak of biblical theology as a bridge discipline, because I see the goal of biblical theology as seeking to understand what the biblical authors assumed about the world’s true story (i.e., redemptive history), the symbols they employ to summarize and interpret that story (images, patterns, types, etc.), and the place of Christ and the church in that story and those symbols.

As I see it, if we become confident about how the biblical authors interpreted these realities, we should adopt their perspective. Once we do that, which is to say, if we understand biblical theology (always subjecting our conclusions to the Scriptures), I’m not sure a bridge is necessary.

If I were to refer to biblical theology as a “bridge,” what I would mean is that it’s a bridge from the thought-world that characterizes fallen, rebellious humanity into the thought-world of the biblical authors. Or again, a bridge from the symbolic-universe of the wicked world that is ranged against God and his Messiah into the symbolic-universe reflected in the Scriptures.

But that bridge is to be crossed but once, and once across the chasm, there’s no reason to return.

Am I missing something?

Grudem’s Essay, “Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out By God?”

Crossway has generously granted me permission to post a free copy of an important essay by Wayne Grudem:

“Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out by God? Why Plenary Inspiration Favors ‘Essentially Literal’ Bible Translation”

This essay was published in Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005) 19–56.

Grudem’s thesis is in the sub-title of the essay: Why Plenary Inspiration Favors ‘Essentially Literal’ Bible Translation.

Grudem writes:

‘I will argue in this chapter (1) that the Bible repeatedly claims that every one of its words (in the original languages) is a word spoken to us by God, and is therefore of utmost importance; and (2) that this fact provides a strong argument in favor of “essentially literal” (or “word-for-word”) translation as opposed to “dynamic equivalent” (or “thought-for-thought”) translation.’

One of the frustrating things about this debate is the way it seems people on different sides seem to be talking past (or perhaps not listening to) each other. (In the end, however, it may come down to a simple disagreement. If that’s the case, register me on the ‘essentially literal’ side of the spectrum.)

Grudem avoids the talking past/not listening to problem by giving patient, fair, careful definitions of what he means by both “essentially literal” (this is more nuanced, as the Leithart quote also shows, than the caricature often painted by opponents) and “dynamic equivalence.” Grudem’s final section before the essay’s conclusion is an insightful discussion of how Eugene Nida arrived at his positions. Here Grudem expresses appreciation for Nida, but weighs the method and finds it wanting.

If you’ve only read the other side of this discussion, you might be surprised to know that Grudem discusses the spectrum along which Bible translations fall. The surprise would be natural, since sometimes advocates of dynamic equivalence use things like definitions of “essentially literal” or “dynamic equivalence” or the reality that there’s a spectrum of possibilities like “gotcha” cards. Reading that side of the discussion might give you the impression that only an idiot would favor the “essentially literal” translation philosophy. That kind of argumentation scores rhetorical points, until someone compares those arguments (which are little more than subtle ad homimen attacks) with something like this essay by Grudem.

Preliminaries in place, Grudem dives into the biblical evidence. Here’s the full outline of the essay:

I. Introduction

A. Essentially Literal
B. Dynamic Equivalence
C. Translations Fall Along a Spectrum

II. The Argument from the Bible’s Teaching About Its Own Words

III. If All the Words Are From God, Then Translations Should Translate No Less Than the Original

IV. Dynamic Equivalence Translations Often Leave Out the Meanings of Some Words That Are in the Original Text

1. The Missing Sword
2. Removing the Wrath of God
3. The Missing Hands
4. The Lost Soul
5. The Lost Spirit
6. The Disappearing Rod of Discipline
7. The Lost Faces
8. The Lost Kiss
9. The Missing Heart and the Absent Holy Spirit

V. Dynamic Equivalence Translations Often Add Meaning That Is Not in the Original Text

1. Restrictions to What God Provides
2. Added Elders
3. Teachers Who Can Never Get Anything Right
4. Boasting About Being Wise as the Worst Kind of Lie

VI. The Result: Can We Trust Dynamic Equivalence Translations?

VII. The Theory of Dynamic Equivalence Is the Culprit Behind These Missing and Added Words

VIII. Conclusion

Thanks again to Crossway for the fact that you can download this important essay and read the whole thing:

“Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out by God? Why Plenary Inspiration Favors ‘Essentially Literal’ Bible Translation.”

I think Dynamic Equivalence is a translation philosophy that should be rejected by those who hold to verbal plenary inspiration. Or perhaps it would be better to distinguish more clearly between translating and explaining. When translating, dynamic equivalence is inappropriate. When explaining, dynamic equivalant to your heart’s content.

Dynamic Equivalence: The Method Is the Problem

The Heresy of Explanation

Can Dostoevsky’s Translator Weigh in on Bible Translation?

Was Gender Usage in the English Language Shaped by the Old Testament in Hebrew?

The Word of God Is Living and Active (unless your translation philosophy emasculates it)

Brevard Childs on the One Basic Fault of OT Theologies (according to James Barr)

James Barr (Concept of Biblical Theology, 49) recounts that in B. S. Childs’ essay “Old Testament in Germany 1920–1940”:

“Childs argues that the acceptance of the historical-critical method as a base is the one basic fault running through the entire series of modern Old Testament theologies before his own.”

The Word of God Is Living and Active (unless your translation philosophy emasculates it)

In Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture, Peter Leithart writes (3–6),

“It is easy for Christians to blame secularists for ‘letting the Bible go,’ but the church is at least as culpable. As [Clive] James points out, translation is a key symptom of our willingness to emasculate our own Scriptures.
[here Leithart presents two renderings of Psalm 23, first the KJV then the Message, then discusses a few differences between the translations]
The most crucial difference, though, is a difference in authority: which language, which idiom, determines the rendering of the Hebrew into English? For the KJV, the Hebrew text forces itself on the English. ‘Valley of the shadow of death,’ now an English cliche, was introduced by Bible translators, as was ‘my cup runneth over.’ Older translations refreshed the target language (English) by bringing in the Hebrew as much as possible. The KJV enlarged not only the language but also the conceptual apparatus of English speakers, as more or less common words and concepts like table and cup and staff took on the religious aura of the psalm. For The Message, by contrast, contemporary English dictates what the Bible may and may not say.

Leithart continues:

“This example from The Message is far from the most egregious example that could be found. But it does go some way toward justifying Dwight Macdonald’s complaint that modern Bible translators turn down Scripture’s ‘voltage, so it won’t blow any fuses.’
My point is not merely aesthetic, and it is not at all nostalgic. I am not pining to hear the echoing, arching rhythms of the KJV ring from pulpits everywhere. My point is theological, and one of the main themes of this book. For The Message, the crucial thing about the Bible is the substance of what it teaches us, and many readers and interpreters come to the Bible with the same interests. For translators, commentators, preachers, and theologians, the idioms and cadences, the rhetoric and the tropes, the syntax and the vocabulary of the original have been reduced to mere vehicles for communicating that message. If the vehicle fails to reach its destination, we change vehicles. We substitute, add, or subtract words to make the Bible sound normal. We change idioms to be more familiar. We turn God’s names into generic terms of divinity. We fiddle with the Bible’s rhetoric so that it fits our rhetoric, rather than letting the Bible’s rhetoric shape ours. Once we think we have found the spirit of the text, we feel free to mold the letter as we will.
As the comparison of the two translations indicates, students of the Bible have not always treated the Bible this way. Older translators recognized that no translation can completely capture all the features of the original text. But the goal of Reformation and post-Reformation Bible translators was always to carry over as much of the original text as possible into the target text. When Tyndale found no word for a Hebrew concept, he invented one–atonement–which is having a remarkably fruitful career in the English language, not to mention English theology, psychology, anthropology, and political theory. When the KJV translators found the Hebrew redundant, they made the English redundant: ‘dying, you shall die.’ When they found a vulgarity, they (sometimes) kept it in English: a vulgar man is one who ‘pisseth against the wall.’ For most earlier translators, and for commentators, preachers, and Bible scholars, the original Bible set the agenda, while the target language and the target culture were expected to make room for it. They did not believe that the Bible needed to adjust to our prior concepts and institutions.
Scripture once transformed the world precisely because Bible students clung to the letter. Once the letter is reduced to a malleable vehicle, Scripture loses its potency. It no longer shapes our imaginations, our poetry, or our politics, because it is not allowed to say anything we do not already know.

A Prophet Like Moses: Jeremiah 1

Derek Kidner could really write. Here are the opening paragraphs of his book on Jeremiah:

“In the last decade of the longest, darkest reign in Judah’s history, two boys were born who were to be God’s gifts to a demoralized and damaged people. The reign was that of Manasseh, a half-century of deliberate reversion to the deities of Canaan and Assyria, to the black arts of magic and necromancy, to human sacrifice (even in the king’s own family), and to such travesties of justice that, in the langague of 2 Kings 21:16, ‘he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another’ with ‘innocent blood’.
The two new lives in question were those of Josiah, born in 648 BC, and Jeremiah, perhaps his slightly younger contemporary. . . . As reforming king and outspoken prophet, these two were to give their country its finest opportunity of renewal and its last hope of surviving as the kingdom of David.

On Sunday, September 11, 2011, it was my privilege to preach Jeremiah 1, “A Prophet Like Moses,” at Kenwood.

In Jeremiah 1 we see:

Jeremiah 1:1–3, Jeremiah’s Setting
Jeremiah 1:4–10, Jeremiah’s Call
Jeremiah 1:11–16, Jeremiah’s Message
Jeremiah 1:17–19, Jeremiah’s Help

Jeremiah began to prophesy in 627 BC and continued to prophesy down to the exile of Jerusalem in 586 BC. The last datable event in the book of Jeremiah is the release of Jehoiachin around 560 BC, indicating that Jeremiah was active from 627 BC until 560: 67 years. If he was 20 when he was a young man called to prophesy, he would be in his 80’s by the time of Jehoiachin’s release in Babylon.

This means, among other things, that by the time Daniel was taken captive in Babylon in 605 BC, Jeremiah would have been prophesying for 22 years. If Daniel was 15 when exiled, Jeremiah would perhaps be in his early 40’s.

Then when Ezekiel was taken captive in 597 BC, again, Jeremiah would have been prophesying for 30 years, and he would probably be about 50.

At the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC, Jeremiah would probably be about 60.

This book of Jeremiah is his whole adult life. It began, really, before the Lord formed him in the womb, but he’s a young man when the Lord calls him in Jeremiah 1:6–7. As we’ll see, his whole ministry he will prophesy that judgment is coming. He begins prophesying in 627 BC, and judgment begins after 22 years in 605, falls again 8 years later in 597, and is completed after another 10 years in 586. So 40 years after Jeremiah began to prophesy, what he announced came to pass.

Jeremiah’s ministry is a testimony of persistent faithfulness across long years declaring the bad news that judgment is coming.

God keeps his word. He had promised to raise up a prophet like Moses, and in Jeremiah God did just that.

Jeremiah’s objection when God calls him in Jeremiah 1:6 is reminiscent of both Moses (Exod 4:10) and Isaiah (Isa 6:5). Isaiah and Jeremiah each noticed this, and having noted it, they recorded it because they intended to present themselves as prophets like Moses. They saw themselves as the realization of what God promised to do in Deuteronomy 18:15–19.

Like Moses they would be opposed.
Like Moses, they would be vindicated by God.
Like Moses their lives were installments in a typological pattern to be fulfilled in Jesus.

Are you with Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Jesus, or are you with those who stone the prophets and seek to slaughter the heir to have the inheritance for themselves?

Why would God choose a young prophet, a prophet with unclean lips, or a prophet who wasn’t eloquent?
Because God’s power is the point, not the prophet’s standing in the community, perfection, or persuasive ability.

What enabled Jeremiah?

God’s word announced to Jeremiah realities he does not know in 1:4–5.
God’s word of command overcame Jeremiah’s youth in 1:6–7.
God’s word promised God’s presence in the face of Jeremiah’s fear in 1:8.

God’s touch put God’s word in Jeremiah’s mouth in 1:9.
God’s word announced salvation through judgment in 1:10.
God is watching over his word in 1:11–12.
God summons the agents of his judgment in 1:13–16.

And God’s word readied Jeremiah for his task in 1:17.

The city of Jerusalem will fall, but God will make Jeremiah stand.
The pillars will be torn down, Jeremiah’s word upheld.
The walls breached, Jeremiah’s prophecies validated.

Kings, officials, priests, and people will not prevail against the prophet who has God’s word in his mouth.

God knew him in the unsearchable past.
God was with him in his disputed present.
God promised to deliver him in the fiery future.

Key Dates for Jeremiah

*640–609*	*Josiah’s Reign*
648	Josiah born
640	8 year old Josiah becomes king (2 Kgs 22:1)
632	16 year old Josiah seeks God (2 Chron 34:3)
627	young man Jeremiah begins to prophesy (Jer 1:2)
622	Law of God found in the temple by Hilkiah (2 Kgs 22:3–20)
612	Nineveh falls to Babylon
609	Babylon advancing, Josiah killed by Pharaoh at Megiddo
*609–598*	*Jehoiakim’s reign*
605	Babylon defeats Assyria and Egypt at the Battle of Carchemish
605	first siege of Jerusalem, Daniel and others exiled to Babylon
604	Jehoiakim burns Jeremiah’s scroll (Jer 36)
*598–587*	*Zedekiah’s reign*
597	second siege of Jerusalem, Ezekiel and others exiled to Babylon
586	temple destroyed, exile to Babylon

[It looks a lot better on the word doc, so I’ve uploaded it. Couldn’t figure out how to make the formatting show up in this post.]

This sermon was preached on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. On September 11, 2001, we saw that even what seems most strong to human reckoning can be unaccountably destroyed.

Ten years later, we can affirm anew that God’s presence is our source of security, God’s word is our certain hope, God’s kingdom is our city with foundations, and God’s glory is our heart’s joy.

He is no fool . . .

You can probably finish the quote from Jim Elliott begun in the title of this post: “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.”

If you need an illustration for that line, Mike Wittmer has a good one for you titled Golden Handcuffs.

SBTS Dissertation Template

If you’re a PhD student at SBTS you won’t want to miss this from the folks at the James P. Boyce Centennial Library:

The James P. Boyce Centennial Library recently released a Microsoft Word template for dissertations to help ease the dissertation creation process for doctoral students at SBTS. In an effort to improve the template, we have just released a new version that includes built in styles for properly formatting Greek and Hebrew Unicode text. Using these styles will help ensure consistency in SBTS dissertations and will aid students in being able to quickly change fonts for their entire dissertation. We strongly encourage all students to use these styles as they format their dissertations.
The template can be downloaded from the Boyce Digital Library (http://hdl.handle.net/10392/2951). Any further updates to the template will be available at the same link.

I think there are still some folks around who had to type their dissertations on type-writers. Praise God for technology.

Failed Humblebrag? Mosaic Self-Promotion? Or True Humility?

Some people think it ironic that Moses purportedly wrote Numbers 12:3, “Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth” (NAS).

The irony is obvious, right? It’s hardly humble to declare yourself the most humble man in the world.

Unless it’s true.

In which case, it wouldn’t be a humblebrag fail. Nor is Moses touting his own virtue.

If it’s true, wouldn’t it be proud false humility to act or speak as though this weren’t the case?

Others think that this verse has to be one of those verses Moses obviously didn’t write.

I think Moses did write it, and I don’t think this statement is either ironic or an instance of Mosaic self-promotion.

Consider:

Moses has been having face to face conversations with God (Num 12:8; cf. Deut 34:10). No one else on the face of the earth enjoys that kind of access, that kind of direct revelation from God (cf. Num 12:6–7).

If anything will create humility, face to face interaction with Yahweh will do the job. Moses knew the greatness of God like no one else. Moses thereby knew both his inadequacy and his massive task like no one else.

Moses knew from this direct interaction with God what God’s intentions were and what part God intended Moses to play in the program. Only a reprobate fool would be made proud by such knowledge, and Moses is neither.

So Moses, I contend, is humbly speaking the truth. The access Moses had to God made him the humblest man in the world, and part of the proof of his humility is that he doesn’t cave to the proud desire to avoid doing anything that might make people think he isn’t humble.

The irony there is that sometimes the humble thing to say or do strikes some people as proud. This dilemma no doubt contributes to displays of false humility meant to mask the proud desire to have others think we’re humble.

How do we find clarity in the moral confusion of this fallen world?

We have to see by “the light of the knowledge of the glory God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:6). Knowing God will make us humble, and it will enable us to rise above the impulse to cloak our pride in false humility, the impulse that keeps us from doing the humble thing. We overcome this because we know God and are convinced that his judgment is the only one that matters.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: