I try to answer that question in a guest post over at the Sharefaith blog.
That the glory of the Lord might cover the dry land as the waters cover the sea
I try to answer that question in a guest post over at the Sharefaith blog.
In this picture you see me and my friend Jason Mirikitani running the White Rock Marathon in Dallas, TX back in 1997. He looks happy and strong, and I’m suffering to finish! That brother carried be through that day. He stayed by me when he could have gone on ahead, finished the race, and gotten off his feet sooner. He laid down his life and suffered with me to help me finish. Praise God for such a friend!
Just under ten years ago, this dear brother was in a tragic accident. The delight of his eyes, his young wife of just over 3 years, was killed. He was in critical condition. Thankfully, their one year old baby was unhurt.
Miraculously, he lived. Miraculously, he walked again. Miraculously, he continued to trust God and give him glory. Jason is a miracle of God. He recently finished a degree at Covenant Seminary in St. Louis.
My dear friend Jason has now given us his story of faith being refined and purified through much affliction. Here is a modern day Job. I commend this book to you: Mile Marker 825: A Widower’s Survival and Resurrected Hope.
Christmas is just around the corner. This would be a great encouragement for a believer facing trials, and it’s a great testimony of God’s mercy and power for those considering the claims of Christianity.
Here’s the blurb I wrote for the book:
Peter likened tested faith to gold refined by fire. Jason Mirikitani’s faith has been refined by suffering, and now through smoke and flame he testifies. Praise be to the mighty God who sustained him in all his woe, and praise God we get to read the story.”
I received my copy on Friday, and my parents were in town this weekend. My mom picked up the book and didn’t put it down until she had finished the whole thing.
You can check out Jason’s website, or go to the book’s where you can download chapter one (put your cursor over the image of the book’s cover).
Or you can go straight to Amazon to get your copy, which I highly recommend you do.
I appreciate and resonate with the Naselli father and son’s review of these books by Grudem, Trueman, and Gerson and Wehner.
Update: More info on Andy’s blog.
1–3 John. BECNT. By Robert W. Yarbrough. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. xx +434pp. $39.99. Published in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 14.3 (2010), 98–99.
Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein are the editors of the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, and they have now each contributed stellar volumes to the series. This series has established itself as a top tier set of commentaries on the New Testament, and Yarbrough’s volume on 1–3 John is a credit to the others. This brief review will focus on the treatment of 1 John, but Yarbrough’s treatment of the two shorter epistles is as strong as his treatment of the longer.
In his preface, Yarbrough identifies six emphases that distinguish his work on these letters of John. I condense them as follows: (1) reliance on the gospels as true and influencing the Johannine letters, especially the gospel of John; (2) use of computer aids to explore linguistic ties with the LXX; (3) attention given to each textual variant noted in NA27; (4) use of recent scholarship; (5) use of historic Christian scholarship from the fathers to the reformers; and (6) an attempt to bear in mind international contexts, whether Muslim, post-Marxist, Asian, or persecuted.
The introduction to the commentary offers a thoroughgoing defense of the idea that John the son of Zebedee was the author of both the Fourth Gospel and 1–3 John, convincingly demonstrating the implausibility of Bauckham’s reliance on Eusebius’ dubious introduction of a second John in addition to the son of Zebedee. Yarbrough maintains that 1 John is a letter on the basis of ancient testimony and certain epistolary features it bears, and he surveys the evidence for the setting of Ephesus and Asia Minor in the last few decades of the first century. Yarbrough then traces intriguing connections between the letters of John and the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2–3. In view of the lack of consensus regarding 1 John’s organization, he relies on divisions that became standard among scribal copyists, which are reflected in the inner marginal numbers of NA27. These are the basis for his detailed exegetical outline of 1 John. Yarbrough’s discussion of the theology of John concludes that the center of John’s thought is the same as the center of Paul’s, as argued by Schreiner: “the grandeur and centrality of God” (27).
Here I can only survey some conclusions espoused in the commentary, but the evidence adduced for them is of the highest quality. Readers will want to avail themselves of these arguments. As the commentary unfolds, Yarbrough helpfully identifies John’s focus on believing, doing, and loving. On 1 John 2:2, he explains that “Jesus did not suffer for every individual indiscriminately but particularly for those whom God knew he would save,” agreeing with Calvin on the point that “‘the whole world’ refers to believers scattered everywhere and in all times” (80). This does not keep him from adding in the next sentence: “And yet none of this rules out certain positive benefits—God’s common grace to humans generally . . .—that are spin-offs of the central redeeming benefit proper of the cross” (81). He also affirms that the gospel can be offered to all in good faith. On 2:12–13, Yarbrough takes “little children” to refer to the whole audience, which is then divided into older and younger with the address to fathers and young men. The lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life in 2:16 are aptly explained as “what the body hankers for and the eyes itch to see and what people toil to acquire” (134). The coming antichrist in 2:18 seems to be an individual, while the antichrists are ringleaders of doctrinal aberration or ethical laxity. The sense in which Christians do not sin (e.g., 3:6) is that they do not strike “an advanced or confirmed posture of noncompliance with John’s message” (185). The water and blood by which Jesus came in 5:6 refer to his baptism and death (282). The sin unto death in 5:16 “is simply violation of the fundamental terms of relationship with God that Jesus Christ mediates” (310), and this is “to have a heart unchanged by God’s love in Christ and so persist in convictions and acts and commitments” that betray unbelief (311).
Robert Yarbrough has given us what is, in my opinion, the best commentary on the Johannine epistles available. Slightly more detailed that Akin’s excellent volume, this will be the first one I turn to and the first I recommend.
The other night the Faculty-Staff Basketball team squared off against a team of SBTS students for all the marbles in the Intramural Basketball championship. We (the Faculty-Staff team) jumped out to an early lead, but soon lost that and by half-time we were down by 20 points.
We clawed our way back into the game as Matt Emadi and David “Gunner” Gunderson relentlessly put points on the board. With two minutes to go, we had a 2 point lead. The students tied the game, and then they got the ball with just under a minute to play. They drove to the basket, got fouled, and went to the line for 2 free throws, making one.
So we were down 1 point, 68 – 67, with 4.1 seconds on the clock. We called time out. What followed was the stuff of legend. In-bounding the ball, I was looking for Emadi or Gunderson all the way. Gunner came open. We had mentioned the possibility of getting the ball in-bounds and calling time out from half court. I knew, though, when I threw the ball to Gunner, that he was going hard to the hoop. Here’s what happened:
Gunner took the ball, went down the court, and hit the clutch buzzer-beating three with a guy in his face!
70 – 68 Faculty-Staff Championship!
Rod Decker writes:
Here’s a site I ran across today that looks very useful. It lists all the Loeb Classical volumes in Greek that are available online for free. It’s a surprisingly long list.
Enjoy!
Tommy Wasserman points to an important resource:
Emanuel Tov has graciously made available a large number of his publications on his website here, including his two volumes on Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Judean Desert.
Congratulations!
Those interested in OT Text Criticism will want to access this material.
(If you’re looking at this post on a reader, you may have to click through to see the video)
Hearty thanks to William Wallace for his work on this.
Shipping soon from Amazon.
A FedEx Truck just left this copy of God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology on our front doorstep.
Praise the Lord! May his favor be upon us, and may he confirm the work of our hands (Ps 90:17).
Some time back I thought through the timeline on this project. It’s a joy to reflect on God’s faithfulness to me and my family through these years:
Spring 2002, Prof. Mark Seifrid’s Seminar on New Testament Theology introduced me to the discussion of the question of the center of biblical theology, and in reading these discussions I was struck that no one had proposed that God’s glory was central to biblical theology.
October 2002, Finished my first trip through Isaiah in Hebrew, very impressed with the theme of God’s glory in salvation through judgment.
Summer 2004, Presented a paper at the Triennial Conference of the Tyndale Fellowship, responded to by I. Howard Marshall, attended by, among others, G. K. Beale and T. Desmond Alexander.
Spring 2005 (April), Met Bruce Winter at the Wheaton Theology Conference, and he told me that the paper would be published in Tyndale Bulletin.
November 2005, Presented a paper at ETS on “The Center of Biblical Theology in Acts.”
Spring 2006, “The Centre of Biblical Theology: The Glory of God in Salvation through Judgment?” appears in Tyndale Bulletin.
June 24, 2006, Justin Taylor emailed me asking if I had ever considered proposing a book on the center of biblical theology.
September 20, 2006, Justin emails again, and I send him initial proposals.
January 2007, Proposal shaping up, positive emails with JT, Schreiner, and Beale.
January 17, 2007, Discussion of August 2007 or January 2008 as completion dates!
February 7, 2007, Passes first hurdle at Crossway.
February 21, 2007, Offer to publish (contract!) comes from Crossway.
Fall 2008, “The Center of Biblical Theology in Acts” published in Themelios.
January 1, 2010, Completed manuscript submitted to Crossway.
Spring/Summer 2010, Read through the book three different times in various editorial stages.
November 4, 2010, The book arrives at Crossway, and they overnight me a copy.
November 5, 2010, Today the book arrives on my doorstep while we were eating lunch as a family. Our 6 year old son went to the door and came back with a package. Rejoicing and celebration ensues.
Glory to God in the highest.
Lord willing, I’ll be at Bethel Church Houston (formerly Bethel Independent Presbyterian Church) this Sunday, November 7, 2010. I’ll be preaching from Revelation 5 in their two morning services, and then at 5pm leading a Sunday Night Seminar on “God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology.”
If you’re in the Houston area, it would be a delight to see you again.
Amazon says that God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology has not yet been released. But, praise God, attendees of the Sovereign Grace Pastors Conference received copies earlier this week, and Bethel Church has boxes of the book available.
I still don’t have a print copy myself! So if you want a copy of the book, it appears that right now Bethel Church in Houston is the only place in the world where you can get it.
Conference Info:
The W Conference: Simplifying Womanhood in a Complicated World
November 19-20 at Southern Seminary
Worship Leaders: Mary Kassian and Heather Payne
Breakouts on multicultural relationships, girl-girl relationships, girl-boy relationships, balancing, time management, wise spending, spiritual fitness, God’s call, and the P31 wife.
Learn to minister to young women! Bring young women! Learn to be wise in a world gone crazy.
DISCOUNT CODE: SBTS for 15% off!
Register online now: http://events.sbts.edu/wconference
For 15% off, use PROMO CODE: SBTS
I love Zotero. If you write essays, articles, papers, or books, you’ll want to know about this program. Andy Naselli taught me how to use it, and now he has written a piece that will help you, too.
This is a must read.
On his site he’s posted an overview of an article that is now at Reformation21.
If you’re looking for ways to streamline your use of the tools and opportunities you have, be a good steward and read this essay.
Under the leadership of the prolific Timothy Paul Jones, the Gheens Center for Christian Family Ministry has re-launched The Journal of Family Ministry. The editorial introducing the new journal recounts in miniature the remarkable changes that have happened at SBTS since the late 1980s.
If you’re thinking about ministering to youth and families, you’ll want to avail yourself of this new resource. I’m honored to have an essay in the first issue. Here’s the table of contents:
2, The Editors, “Acknowledgment: The Gheens Family”
4, Timothy Paul Jones, “Editorial: The Long Journey Back Home”
Featured Articles
10, James M. Hamilton Jr., “That the Coming Generation Might Praise the Lord”
18, Robert L. Plummer, “Bring Them Up in the Discipline and Instruction of the Lord”
28, Andy Stirrup, “From Whom Every Family in Heaven and on Earth is Named”
36, Bryan Nelson with Timothy Paul Jones, “The Problem and the Promise of Family Ministry”
Regular Features
46, Andrew Parker and Brandon Shields, “Research Briefs” (summaries of their dissertations)
48, William Cutrer, “Medical Issues in Family Ministry: When Does Life End?”
52, Lauren Foster, “JFM Forum: Connecting Church and Home Conference 2010″
58, Book Reviews
66, Jay Strother, “Equipping the Generations: Learning to Listen”
This journal represents an important effort to address family issues with rigorous and careful study, submission to the truth of the Scriptures, and love for God and his people. I just got my copy yesterday, and I’m eager to read the whole thing. Here are a couple reasons why:
Thanks to the editors for graciously allowing me to post my essay here: James M. Hamilton Jr., “That the Coming Generation Might Praise the Lord,” Journal of Family Ministry 1.1 (2010): 10-17.
In this study I’m looking at the role of family discipleship in the OT. Here’s the outline:
God’s Purpose to Cover the Dry Lands with His Glory
Instructions for Fathers and Kings in Deuteronomy 6 and 17
Instructions for Fathers in Deuteronomy 6
Instructions for Kings in Deuteronomy 17Solomon’s Example in Proverbs 3
Table: The Influence of Deuteronomy 6 and 17 on Proverbs 3
Conclusion
May we teach the Bible diligently to our children (Deut 6:4-9), that the coming generation might praise the Lord (Ps 102:18).
Praise God for marriage! What gift can be compared to this one? Who but God could have come up with something so good?
Crossway has kindly granted permission for me to post my essay from the Piper Festschrift:
James M. Hamilton Jr., “The Mystery of Marriage,” pages 253-71 in For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper, ed. Sam Storms and Justin Taylor. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.
Taken from For the Fame of God’s Name edited by Sam Storms and Justin Taylor, ©2010. Used by permission of Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.
Here is the opening paragraph of “The Mystery of Marriage”:
Marriage holds a unique place in all the Bible: what else joins two image-bearers together as one, serves as a key concept for understanding the relationship between Yahweh and Israel then Christ and the church, and consequently affords to every married couple the opportunity to live out the gospel? God sets himself on display in marriage, which means that God shows his glory in marriage. Thus, the thesis of this essay is that marriage exists as a unique display of God’s glory.[1] In order to establish and exposit this thesis we will look first at the way that marriage joins two persons in the likeness of God as one. From there the second section explores the way that Yahweh’s relationship to Israel is treated as a marriage, and the third section of this essay will examine the way that marriage exists to portray the relationship between Christ and the church. The final section will look at marriages as mini-dramas of the gospel.[2]
[1] I am humbled to have this opportunity to honor John Piper. The Lord has used him mightily in my life, mainly as I have listened to recorded sermons and addresses across the years. In this preaching, the Lord has used John Piper to herald again and again the infinite glory of God in Christ. I cannot adequately thank him for showing me such glory, but I can join him in praising this glorious God, this worthy Savior, and this powerful Spirit, three persons, ever one God, worthy of all praise. And praise be to God for John Piper! I am also grateful to write on the topic of marriage in honor of Piper, since his chapter on marriage in Desiring God provided a key insight I have pursued in my own marriage and announced at every wedding at which it has been my privilege to speak: love seeks its joy in the joy of the beloved. “The reason there is so much misery in marriage is not that husbands and wives seek their own pleasure, but that they do not seek it in the pleasure of their spouses” (John Piper, Desiring God [Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1996], 175–76). See also John Piper, This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009).
[2] For a wider discussion of marriage in the Old Testament, see Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 466–69. For a broader discussion of marriage that takes up the issues of divorce, qualifications for elders, and children, see Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 776–86.
From there the outline of the essay is as follows:
Adam and Eve: Two Become One
Yahweh and Israel: Covenant Broken and Kept
Hosea 1: Hosea and Gomer
Hosea 2: Israel’s History and Future
Hosea 3: Hosea and Israel’s FutureJesus and the Church: Marriage and the Gospel
The Fulfillment of Old Testament Expectation
The Deep Waters of the Meaning of MarriageThe Gospel and Marriage
Conclusion
The essay’s end is punctuated by an attempt at poetry:
Marriage
Like land and sea and stars above
And all else he has made,
This too is for the glory of
The one who has displayedA love not based on beauty’s shades
Nor driven by some debt,
A love before there were yet days
Like none else ever met.The archetype for man and wife
Is Christ’s love for his bride.
To Christ her Lord the church submits,
And for her life he died.And for this reason, man should leave
His parents and his kin,
And to his wife then he shall cleave
Never to leave again.
Please do read the whole thing. This essay was written for a volume honoring John Piper, and my prayer is also that it will serve to strengthen the marriages of those who read it.
May your understanding of the gospel be deepened, and may it be displayed in the way you love your spouse and hold marriage in honor (Heb 13:5, even if you aren’t married).
I join the chorus of gratitude to God for the ministry of John Piper.
I could tell many anecdotes about how Denny Burk and I used to quote snippets of his sermons to each other, about how powerfully the Lord used a Piper sermon when I didn’t know how to argue against open theism, about how the first paragraph of Let the Nations Be Glad! made me feel like I’d been to a theological chiropractor and been put into joint for the first time in my life, about how grateful I am for the marital insight that love seeks its joy in the beloved, and so much more.
I’m thrilled to see this book appear:
Justin Taylor has the video of the presentation of the book to Piper that took place this past Saturday.
Thanks and praise be to God, and again I express my gratitude and honor also to whom honor is due, Piper himself.
May the Lord continue to use John Piper for the good of his people and the glory of his name.
Carl F. H. Henry was instrumental in the start of Christianity Today, and now the magazine has published a cover story on a major proponent of that theological heritage. Molly Worthen’s “The Reformer” deals with R. Albert Mohler Jr., who perhaps more than anyone else today carries the Henry torch. It’s clear from the piece that Worthen does not share Mohler’s conservative perspective, and I would suggest that in the way she deals with her subject, she is not liberal enough.
Her piece is not liberal enough because she does not engage arguments and evidence but resorts to rhetorical fallacies and framing comments that mock what she does not appreciate. The liberal thing to do would be to treat all positions and arguments with the respect one wants to be shown to oneself, then state clearly why one is persuaded by one argument rather than another, or how the evidence supports this conclusion not that one. I grant that on the surface this essay is not on the issues but on Mohler, but Worthen is making an argument on the issues in her essay on Mohler. Her argument, however, is little more than an ad hominen disparagement of Mohler combined with subtle appeals to authority. She prefers the positions that are respected in the “right” circles, the opinions held by the people who aren’t fundamentalists. Those people may indeed have the right views, but let’s have the evidence and the arguments rather than the fallacious presentation of the opposition as a caricatured straw man.
Worthen is clearly sympathetic with the moderates and egalitarians who used to hold sway in the SBC and at SBTS. Ironically, she quotes Mohler on the point that those egalitarians and moderates did not present complementarian arguments. Not presenting the arguments made by the other side is a common move made by some who would never be called “fundamentalists” but who are nevertheless fundamentalistic about their “liberal” positions. Did it occur to Worthen that Mohler’s teachers tried to indoctrinate him–they tried to teach him the right views to the point of not presenting the wrong ones? Mohler heard their best arguments, then heard what he found to be better arguments, and he was persuaded by the stronger argument, even though it wasn’t the popular position to take.
Just because someone is more conservative than you are does not mean they are a fundamentalist—even if other people are willing to call them that. Perhaps that word, “fundamentalist,” should be avoided. When used by Christians of other Christians (who don’t believe in second order separation), it’s little more than a theological slur. Worthen doesn’t hesitate to use it. Perhaps what makes someone the kind of fundamentalist Worthen doesn’t appreciate is the refusal to engage the evidence marshaled for the arguments made by those with whom one disagrees. In this situation Molly Worthen is calling Al Mohler a fundamentalist. But Mohler heard the arguments from both sides and came to a conclusion that has made his life more difficult. For that, Molly Worthen engages in subtle ad hominem insults (mocking the decor of his library, for instance) and employs arguments from the “authority” of the people who have the right view (pointing out that respectable people would never take the stands Mohler has). Who plays the role of the fundamentalist in this scene?
Rather than see Mohler’s intellectual pilgrimage as a valiant struggle for the truth, or if she disagrees, a sincere devotion to intellectual consistency and evidential conclusions, Worthen subtly conveys the impression that Mohler’s convictions on gender are intellectually untenable. In some circles they certainly are, but in circles where belief in the Bible is properly basic, Mohler’s conclusions are not intellectually untenable but intellectually responsible.
Even when we disagree with people, we can treat them with dignity. If we attack, the thing to attack is the evidence and the argumentation, not the person holding the view we are attacking.
Worthen resorts to reductio ad absurdum when she says things like this: “Presuppositionalism is a system of thought that boils down to the slogans advocated by that other prominent presuppositionalist, Francis Schaeffer” (source). So the answers one holds to life’s big questions—arrived at after reading, reflection, agonizing meditation, and countless conversations with people of other perspectives—boil down to slogans? Only an idiot would base their world-view on slogans, right? It would be absurd to do that. Doesn’t it follow that only idiots are presuppositionalists? But what if these ideas are more than slogans? Did the people who trusted Christ at L’Abri after philosophical conversations with Schaeffer do so because he was slinging slogans? Even if Worthen disagrees with presuppositionalism, she could represent it the way she would like her own position described, and I doubt she would appreciate someone saying that the foundational conclusions that comprise her worldview boil down to slogans.
Another example of ad hominem appears when she seems to say that arguing vigorously for one’s position is “pugnacious.” Worthen describes Mohler’s recent defense of seven-day young-earth creationism as “beguiling” and “well-mannered,” but nevertheless takes a swipe at him rather than his arguments: “In a recent speech, he was pugnacious . . .” If “pugnacious” has positive connotations, they don’t surface in this context. From this it seems that she disagrees with Mohler’s view on the topic, and she insinuates that advocating the wrong position makes you pugnacious–even if you conduct yourself in a well-mannered way when you defend your conviction, as she grants Mohler did. I wonder: are we allowed to disagree and have a debate, or is everyone who disagrees, no matter how respectfully and charitably they articulate their disagreement, pugnacious? Again, I don’t think Worthen exercised enough liberalism as she wrote this essay.
Or maybe we who disagree do not deserve to be respected. We have taken the wrong positions, and our positions can be dismissed without consideration. Our positions don’t need to be engaged. Not only can our positions be summarily dismissed without being engaged, those of us who hold these views do not qualify to wear the label “theologian” to say nothing of that grand title “intellectual.” And if someone happens to call us that, it will be pointed out that those who would never take our views don’t agree with the assessment. So Worthen says of Dr. Mohler, “Mohler is not so much an intellectual or theologian as he is an articulate controversialist, a popularizer and spokesman who has branded himself as one who speaks to and for evangelicals.”
Would Molly Worthen want someone who disagrees with her to engage the arguments she made for her position, or would she want them to call her names? (she’s not an intellectual or a theologian but a popularizer). Would she want them to respect her attempt to be as conversant as possible with her dialogue partners, or would she want them to make snide remarks suggesting that she only has books to give the impression of learning? (as she does about Mohler’s library).
The liberal position is the one that treats everyone with respect, even where there are fierce disagreements. Christians believe that all people are made in the image of God, therefore all are capable of intellectual and theological engagement. We may fail to treat others as we would like to be treated, but point it out to us and we’ll apologize, repent, and try to be more Christ-like next time. This should not mean, however, that in order to avoid the label “pugnacious” we must abandon careful analysis of the evidence, examination of the logical quality of arguments based on the evidence, and the desire to engage in a well-mannered debate. We don’t think it’s intellectually respectable to dismiss those with whom we disagree with ad hominem sarcasm, caricatured straw man argumentation, reductio ad absurdum, and subtle appeals to authority.
May the Lord bless Molly Worthen, and all of us, with genuine charity toward fellow humans.
If I ever write a piece like this one, I hope someone will care enough about me to tell me that I owe an apology to those I’ve treated as I wouldn’t want to be treated. I would also want new editors. Give me editors who care enough about the quality of my presentation to point out my blind spots and who refuse to allow me to flaunt my logical and rhetorical fallacies. That way of arguing may persuade the casual, uninformed reader, but it will lower me in the esteem of virtuous readers, people who care about valid argumentation, truth, and the golden rule.
Homer’s noble high-born lords
Think mainly of themselves,
Lasting words and shining swords,
Through flesh and soul they delve.
Yet the highest truths we have
He does not seem to know:
For sinful guilt he gives no salve;
No peace with God does show.
Reading him, one must ask why
There’s good in his wide world,
In lust and shame his gods still lie,
Their vain desires unfurled.
Not even Zeus, in all his pride,
From destiny is free,
Decreed fate he can’t outstride
To govern what will be.
No hope in Priam’s city now
Across the wine-dark sea,
Nor can the black ships show somehow
A way of life to thee.
Tragic ruin, futile rage,
The melody he sings,
A song now sung from age to age,
Still the high beauty rings.
For though he lacked the highest truth
This world his blind eyes saw,
And what he saw his tongue unloosed,
Thrilling the heart with awe.
I’m really excited to see this new book from Fred Zaspel, The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary. It gives me another nudge to read Warfield himself, which I’m eager to do. So many books . . .
Justin Taylor interviewed Zaspell on the book here.
And the Crossway blog has a link to an audio interview with him here.
The English language is blessed to have a variety of good translations of the Bible, and I think it’s good that in these translations we have something of a spectrum that moves from readability on one end to literalness on the other. As I think about it, the most literal translation is still the New American Standard. In former days I would have said that the most readable translation was the NIV, but now I think that the HCSB has every right to supercede the NIV. The HCSB is more current and more literal, while maintaining fluid readability.
Do you want a readable translation that you can trust? The HCSB is now the translation for you. And congratulations to B&H on the release of the HCSB Study Bible. I commend this handsome volume to you. It will help you understand the Bible. They’ve also produced a nice website where you can access the translation and study notes.
The translation has established itself in the top tier of English Bible translations, and the translation is now presented with a wealth of useful information in the HCSB Study Bible.
I commend the translation to you without reservation, and the Study Bible will be another resource to consult as you study. May the Word of God run in our generation.
I noted recently that my sons and I enjoyed the first two books of Andrew Peterson’s Wingfeather Saga. We’re praying that God will bless him as he writes book 3, and that he’ll hurry up and finish so we can read it!
Anyway, the other day my 6 year old brought me this sketch of Podo Helmer, the Pirate turned noble grandfather in the stories.
I’d say his imagination has been captured.
Andrew Peterson has a spot on his website for pictures like this one, so we’re hoping Jake’s drawing of old Podo might make its way onto the big screen.
Recommendation: if you have kids, read these books together!