I received a very encouraging comment from Greg this morning on this post. I wanted to share it with you because I think many people may find themselves in Greg’s position.

I grew up in an independent, fundamental Baptist church. Guess which translation we used. When I was a senior in high school, I gave my mother a heart attack (not literally, but almost) when I joined a Southern Baptist church. My translation of choice then and throughout college and seminary was the NIV. When the ESV was published, I couldn’t adopt it quickly enough. I never liked the NIV because I thought (and still think) the translation was a little too loose. Perhaps that will be corrected in the 2011 update.

Two things kept me from adopting the HCSB when it was published, although I liked it very much from the start:

1. it had only been about 2 or 3 years since I changed translations and I didn’t want to do it again, and
2. I didn’t want to think of myself as a SBC “fanboy.”

I owned a few copies of the HCSB; I just rarely picked them up.

I hold to Reformed doctrine, so the fact that all of the modern “heroes” vociferously approved of the ESV gave me great comfort. But I always thought that Holman had done the best job of any Bible publisher at laying out the page. They simply hit a home run there with typography and textual aids. The ESV, on the other hand, was simply text (albeit good text) printed on the page with little visual appeal.

Still, the HCSB’s stigma as the Southern Baptist Bible held me back. Now, after about 48 hours straight of researching (much of which was aided by your site), I have made the decision that the ESV will move to the back burner as a comparative translation and the HCSB will be the translation I carry around with me and teach from.

I was unaware that there was an update coming. I’m glad to see it. I kind of liked the brackets (I understand your argument against them, but at least liked to have the information they provide) and I wish they had footnoted 1 Cor 13:8 (#4 above mentions that this would be the case, but unfortunately they decided against it; I would probably categorize that as one of the only “Baptist biases” in this translation). But the other updates seem to be a nice improvement.

Thanks for the help in making this decision. It’s not one I took lightly and it was a much harder decision than I thought it would be.

And in a follow-up email, Greg wrote this:

Just wanted to say thanks for your posts on the HCSB and for making a Reformed guy not feel so awkward for using something other than the ESV.

Speaking of the visible church as our “mother,” Calvin writes this in his Institutes:

There is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance…. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation…. God’s fatherly favor and the especial witness of spiritual life are limited to his flock, so that it is always disastrous to leave the church.

One thing that is highly evident from Calvin’s remarks here is that he was not an American. With our rugged individualism and tendency to treat the church like an optional part of Christian life, we would do well to move back towards a Calvin’s high ecclesiology. If he is right, then our eternal salvation is at stake!

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin devotes a very significant amount of space to the Church. In Book 4, Chapter 3, Section 9, Calvin discusses deacons and divides them into two functional groups:

• those who “serve the church in administering the affairs of the poor”
• those who serve the church “in caring for the poor themselves”

It is to this second group that Calvin insists Paul places the widows he mentions in 1 Timothy 5:9-10:

No widow should be placed on the official support list unless she is at least 60 years old, has been the wife of one husband, and is well known for good works —that is, if she has brought up children, shown hospitality, washed the saints’ feet, helped the afflicted, and devoted herself to every good work.

Calvin insists that women could fill the public office of deacon in the second group. That is, women could be deacons–in Calvin’s mind–only if they served in caring for the poor. Calvin was by no means a women’s rights activist. In fact he makes it clear that this is the only public office a woman can hold.

However, he does make this allowance for female deacons. So even in the Reformed tradition women were allowed to be deacons.

So when the Central Carolina Presbytery of the PCA overtured General Assembly this year to prohibit women deacons, I have to wonder if they’ve ever read this section in Calvin’s Institutes.

According to Mrs. Elizabeth Smith, it would seem so.

I’ve gotten spam emails from Nigeria before claiming I’ve won some lottery that I never entered, or that some government agency wants to give me millions of dollars. But this is the first time I’ve ever been told that it was the sovereign leading of God granting me instant wealth! Here’s the email:

Dear Beloved.

I am Mrs. Elizabeth Smith an aging widow suffering from long time illness. I have some funds I inherited from my late husband, the sum of US$14,400,000.00 and I needed a very honest and God fearing Christian that will use the fund for God’s work, I found your email address from the internet and decided to contact you. Please if you would be able to use the funds for the Lord’s work, kindly reply for further details.

Yours in the Lord,

Mrs. Elizabeth Smith

Wow! Out of all the people on the Internet it must have been God’s sovereignty that directed her to me, a truly honest and God-fearing Christian. With results like this, why would anyone NOT believe in God’s sovereignty?

Found this at the Stuff Fundies Like Facebook page. It was too funny not to share:

1. Q: What is the chief end of each individual Christian?
A: Each individual Christian’s chief end is to get saved. This is the first and great commandment.

2. Q: And what is the second great commandment?
A: The second, which is like unto it, is to get as many others saved as he can.

3. Q: What one work is required of thee for thy salvation?
A: It is required of me for my salvation that I make a Decision for Christ, which meaneth to accept Him into my heart to be my personal lord and saviour

4. Q: At what time must thou perform this work?
A: I must perform this work at such time as I have reached the Age of Accountability.

5. Q: At what time wilt thou have reached this Age?
A: That is a trick question. In order to determine this time, my mind must needs be sharper than any two-edged sword, able to pierce even to the division of bone and marrow; for, alas, the Age of Accountability is different for each individual, and is thus unknowable.

6. Q: By what means is a Decision for Christ made?
A: A Decision for Christ is made, not according to His own purpose and grace which was given to me in Christ Jesus before the world began, but according to the exercise of my own Free Will in saying the Sinner’s Prayer in my own words.

7. Q: If it be true then that man is responsible for this Decision, how then can God be sovereign?
A: He cannot be. God sovereignly chose not to be sovereign, and is therefore dependent upon me to come to Him for salvation. He standeth outside the door of my heart, forlornly knocking, until such time as I Decide to let Him in.

8. Q: How then can we make such a Decision, seeing that the Scripture saith, we are dead in our trespasses and sins?
A: By this the Scripture meaneth, not that we are dead, but only that we are sick or injured in them.

9. Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?
A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner’s Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.

10. Q: What is thy story? What is thy song?
A: Praising my Savior all the day long.

11. Q: You ask me how I know he lives?
A: He lives within my heart.

12. Q: And what else hast thou got in thine heart?
A: I’ve got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart.

13. Q: Where??
A: Down in my heart!

14. Q: Where???
A: Down in my heart!!

15. Q: What witness aid hath been given us as a technique by which we may win souls?
A: The tract known commonly as the Four Spiritual Laws, is the chief aid whereby we may win souls.

16. Q: What doth this tract principally teach?
A: The Four Spiritual Laws principally teach, that God’s entire plan for history and the universe centereth on me, and that I am powerful enough to thwart His divine purpose if I refuse to let Him pursue His Wonderful Plan for my life.

17. Q: What supplementary technique is given by which we may win souls?
A: The technique of giving our own Personal Testimony, in the which we must always be ready to give an answer concerning the years we spent in vanity and pride, and the wretched vices in which we wallowed all our lives until the day we got saved.

18. Q: I’m so happy, what’s the reason why?
A: Jesus took my burden all away!

19. Q: What are the means given whereby we may large crowds of souls in a spectacular manner?
A: Such a spectacle is accomplished by means of well-publicized Crusades and Revivals which (in order that none may be loath to attend) are best conducted anywhere else but in a Church.

20. Q: Am I a soldier of the Cross?
A: I am a soldier of the Cross if I join Campus Crusade, Boys’ Brigade, the Salvation Army, or the Wheaton Crusaders; of if I put on the helmet of Dispensationalism, the breastplate of Pietism, the shield of Tribulationism, and the sword of Zionism, having my feet shod with the gospel of Arminianism.

21. Q: Who is your boss?
A: My boss is a Jewish carpenter.

22. Q: Hath God predestined vessels of wrath to Hell?
A: God hath never performed such an omnipotent act, for any such thing would not reflect His primary attribute, which is Niceness.

23. Q: What is sanctification?
A: Sanctification is the work of my free Will, whereby I am renewed by having my Daily Quiet Time.

24. Q: What rule hath God for our direction in prayer?
A: The rule that we must bow our hands, close our heads, and fold our eyes.

25. Q: What doth the Lord’s Prayer teach us?
A: The Lord’s Prayer teacheth us that we must never memorize a prayer, or use one that hath been written down.

26. Q: What’s the book for thee?
A: The B-I-B-L-E.

27. Q: Which are among the first books which a Christian should read to his soul’s health?
A: Among the first books which a Christian should read are the books of Daniel and Revelation, and The Late Great Planet Earth.

28. Q: Who is on the Lord’s side?
A: He who doth support whatsoever is done by the nation of Israel, and who doth renounce the world, the flesh, and the Catholic Church.

29. Q: What are the seven deadly sins?
A: The seven deadly sins are smoking, drinking, dancing, card-playing, movie-going, baptizing babies, and having any creed but Christ.

30. Q: What is a sacrament?
A: A sacrament is an insidious invention devised by the Catholic Church whereby men are drawn into idolatry.

31. Q: What is the Lord’s Supper?
A: The Lord’s Supper is a dispensing of saltines and grape juice, in the which we remember Christ’s command to pretend that they are His body and
blood.

32. Q: What is baptism?
A: Baptism is the act whereby, by the performance of something that seems quite silly in front of everyone, I prove that I really, really mean it.

33. Q: What is the Church?
A: The Church is the tiny minority of individuals living at this time who have Jesus in their hearts, and who come together once a week for a sermon, fellowship and donuts.

34. Q: What is the office of the keys?
A: The office of the keys is that office held by the custodian.

35. Q: What meaneth “The Priesthood Of All Believers”?
A: The Priesthood Of All Believers meaneth that there exists no authority in the Church, as that falsely thought to be held by elders, presbyters, deacons, and bishops, but that each individual Christian acts as his own authority in all matters pertaining to the faith.

36. Q: Who is the Holy Spirit?
A: The Holy Spirit is a gentleman Who would never barge in.

37. Q: How long hath the Holy Spirit been at work?
A: The Holy Spirit hath been at work for more than a century: expressly, since the nineteenth-century Revitalization brought about by traveling Evangelists carrying tents across America.

38. Q: When will be the “Last Days” of which the Bible speaketh?
A: The “Last Days” are these days in which we are now living, in which the Antichrist, the Beast, and the Thief in the Night shall most certainly appear.

39. Q: What is the name of the event by which Christians will escape these dreadful entities?
A: The event commonly known as the Rapture, in the which it is our Blessed Hope that all cars driven by Christians will suddenly have no drivers.

40. Q: When is Jesus coming again?
A: Maybe morning, maybe noon, maybe evening, and maybe soon.

41. Q: When the roll, roll, roll, is called up yonder, where will you be?
A: There.

42. Q: Hallelu, hallelu, hallelu, hallelujah!
A: Praise ye the Lord!

43. Q: Praise ye the Lord!
A: Hallelujah!

44. Q: Where will we meet again?
A: Here, there, or in the air.

45. Q: What can a pastor say while all heads are bowed?
A. Yes, I see that hand.

46. Q. How is a person saved?
A. If you walk this aisle…”

47. Q. And what requirement is there if you should fall into sin?
A. You just need to rededicate your life to God.

48. Q: Can I hear an Ay-men?
A: Ay-men.

Rutherford writes to John Gordon in 1637 that heaven is hard to be won, and many come short of attaining it:

Many make a start toward heaven who fall on their back and win not up to the top of the mount. It plucketh heart and legs from them, and they sit down and give it over, because the devil setteth a sweet-smelled flower to their nose (this fair [adorned] world) wherewith they are bewitched, and so forget or refuse to go forward.

May we not “forget or refuse to go forward.” May we instead persevere by grace!

HT: Chuck Huckaby

10. A woman already crossed. We don’t follow women.

9. We don’t believe the road is safe. It wasn’t built between 1500-1700 A.D.

8. We believe that “road crossing” ceased with the death of the last Apostle or the completion of the New Testament.

7. The crossing guard was only helping people cross from one side to the other, so we are suspicious. Is this a denial of double pre-destination?

6. Neither Romans 9 or John 6 say anything about crossing roads. Therefore, it is unbiblical.

5. The “Walk” sign was gender neutral. It made us mad.

4. John Wesley said that God’s prevenient grace would pave the way, but we have to take the steps ourselves. What a load!

3. We were not elected to cross before the foundation of the road.

2. Piper said that God is most glorified when we are most satisfied on our side of the road.

1. The pub is on this side of the road.

This is the last in a series of seven posts in seven days. For the last time, here’s the list:

1. My first post
2. The post I enjoyed writing the most
3. A post which had a great discussion
4. A post on someone else’s blog that I wish I’d written
5. My most helpful post
6. A post with a title that I am proud of
7. A post that I wish more people had read

“The Rhetoric of Christian Cultural Engagement” one is not so much a post I wish more people had read as much as watched. I did an interview with two brilliant rhetorical scholars at the end of 2009. We discussed how the Church’s rhetoric is helping and hindering its efforts at engaging culture.

Dr. Camille Lewis and Dr. Mark Steiner are both PCA folk and both incredibly great thinkers and communicators. If you didn’t watch the interview or listen to it, please do so now! I put it up in four parts, and you can download the audio as well if you like.

Also I’ve linked to many of the books and other resources they reference during the interview.

Here’s a recent post from Craig Blomberg at the Denver Seminary Blog. I’ve inserted some comments along the way.

“Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ…” (KJV)

“Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ…” (NIV)

“Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ…” (RSV, ESV)

“Whatever happens, as citizens of heaven live in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” (TNIV)

Notice he does not yet include the HCSB in his list. Don’t worry…it’s coming.

What’s in a word? In Elizabethan English, the word “conversation” could mean “conduct.” The Greek verb, politeuomai, in Philippians 1:27, has nothing whatsoever to do with speaking, per se, so the translators of the King James Version in 1611 were clearly talking about behavior when they penned, “only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ.” Anybody who insists on reading an unrevised KJV today is highly unlikely to catch this nuance, unless someone has specifically taught them this, or they are avid readers of Shakespeare!

The majority of modern translations thus use words having to do with behavior, conduct, or manner of living. The old RSV spoke of one’s “manner of life,” and the ESV, which is an updating of the RSV, saw no need to change it here. The NIV speaks explicitly about conduct. The HCSB and NRSV likewise read “live your life in a manner…” while the NET and NASB mirror the NIV and use “conduct yourselves.”

ALERT! ALERT! Did you catch that? Don’t forget this: The ESV is an updating of the RSV, not a new translation! Just thought I’d point that out.

But NLT, like the TNIV printed above, speaks of living “as citizens of heaven.” Where does this come from? The noun that is cognate to (i.e., from the same root as) politeuomai is politeuma and means citizenship. In Philippians 3:20, Paul uses this noun to declare explicitly that “our citizenship is in heaven, from which we eagerly await a Savior, Jesus Christ.” All of the versions I’ve mentioned so far use “citizenship” here except the RSV, which used “commonwealth” and the KJV which again used “conversation” in the old Elizabethan sense.

Is Paul already anticipating his discussion of 3:20 in 1:27? Is he investing a little extra meaning into the verb politeuomai in this earlier passage in Philippians than is usually implied by the term? The only other place the verb occurs in the New Testament is in Acts 23:1, in which Luke cites Paul affirming his good conduct throughout his life as a Christian. All the other occurrences in the Greek Bible (i.e., the Septuagint) come in the Apocrypha, once in the Additions to Esther and seven times in 2nd through 4th Maccabees, and never is the idea of citizenship present. Completely extra-biblical sources offer some support for the concept of citizenship, but it’s seldom the main point of the word.

What about “of heaven” in 1:27 in the NLT and TNIV? This expression corresponds to nothing in the Greek, even on the assumption that politeuomaidoes carry the sense of “live as citizens” here. But of course, Paul isn’t talking about following the laws of the Roman colony of Philippi, but of obeying God’s standards as revealed in the gospel, in God’s kingdom. And the affirmation that “our citizenship is in heaven” will explicitly appear in 3:20. So to clarify the distinction, translators who introduce citizenship into 1:27 have to go on and add something like “of heaven” to distinguish the two kinds of citizenship.

But then the danger is to view Paul’s command as ascetic, separatist or otherworldly: “live as though you were already in heaven and not on earth” or something like that, which is not Paul’s point at all! Quite the opposite, Paul was very much talking about how to live on this earth, just not saying to follow merely human or secular standards of ethics. So the translations that speak only of good conduct in Philippians 1:27 are both the safest and the least confusing. Better to save citizenship in heaven for chapter 3.

It’s also another good reminder that, if you can’t read the Greek or Hebrew, always consult two or three translations, not just one. There is no translation anywhere that has always made the best choices in every passage!

I think this is an excellent article and provides some really good advice. I also like the fact that his conclusion indicates that the HCSB has once again gotten it right. However, I would not be honest if I didn’t also acknowledge that the ESV gets it right here. Nor would I be honest if I said I wasn’t slightly happy (and in a sinister kind of way) that he pointed out that the ESV is not a fresh translation but merely an updating of the RSV. Once again, way to go Crossway for an excellent marketing job! And way to go B&H for an excellent translation.

This is the sixth in a series of seven posts in seven days. Once again, here they are:

1. My first post
2. The post I enjoyed writing the most
3. A post which had a great discussion
4. A post on someone else’s blog that I wish I’d written
5. My most helpful post
6. A post with a title that I am proud of
7. A post that I wish more people had read

There are lots of ideas about writing titles for blog posts. You can write catchy titles that are almost guaranteed to get people to click on them, but then they’re often left feeling like they’ve been swindled when the content isn’t what they expected.

You can write boring titles that accurately communicate the content, but then nobody really wants to read those.

Or you can try to write engaging titles that also communicate well what the post is about. As much as I try to do this third option, I could give you far too many examples of the first two from my own blog!

Anyway, the challenge today was to find a post with a title that I’m proud of. In my mind that means the title:

• Entices people to click on it and actually read the content
• Accurately communicates the content
• Doesn’t feel like a bait and switch once people read the content

I think this one meets those criteria: “Why Bruce Waltke’s Resignation Signals the End of Creationism.”

I think this title is effective because:

• It invokes a famous name, Bruce Waltke. That name was all the more famous at the time because of the controversy surrounding his comments at the BioLogos website.
• It appeals to something highly controversial, the creation/evolution debate
• It sounds an appropriate note of alarmism
• It accurately reflects what I talk about in the post.

Robert Jimenez is starting a series to discuss whether “inerrancy” has outlived its usefulness. This will be a fabulous discussion and one that is long overdue.

As you can see inerrancy has many meanings. This is one of the major problems with this position, too many definitions. The term inerrancy has been hijacked to mean whatever a particular group wants it to mean. I believe these various meanings have resulted as an effort to preserve the term in order to remain “evangelical”. One can say “I affirm inerrancy”, but if you do not ask them to clarify what they mean, you may not be affirming the same thing.

Read the whole thing here.

This is the fifth in a series of seven posts in seven days. Here they are:

1. My first post
2. The post I enjoyed writing the most
3. A post which had a great discussion
4. A post on someone else’s blog that I wish I’d written
5. My most helpful post
6. A post with a title that I am proud of
7. A post that I wish more people had read

It’s tough to find a post to classify as “my most helpful post.” For one, I don’t know what’s helped other people and what hasn’t. Plus, it’s hard to evaluate what’s been “helpful” since that term itself needs to be defined.

So I’ve taken this approach: Which post has helped me the most? I’ve decided on one with a crazy title, “The Baptist Presbyterian Hermeneutical Baptism Spiral,” because it was the post where I was able to articulate and clarify in my own mind some thoughts about baptism in a way that was immensely helpful…to me. I’m coming to some conclusions about baptism that I had not reached when I wrote the post, but this post definitely helped me clarify where I was heading.

The “hermeneutical spiral” is the idea that we approach Scripture with a set of presuppositions that colors the way we understand the text. Then as we understand the text better our presuppositions are shaped and molded. And so we approach the text again with slightly tweaked (or perhaps completely revolutionized) presuppositions. We find that our understanding of the text has changed in some ways and so have, therefore, our presuppositions.

It’s a never-ending spiral, and it is discussed at length in Grant Osborne’s book, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation.

In this post I apply that concept to baptism in some ways that helped me understand some things better.

This is the fourth in a series of seven posts in seven days. I’ll give you the list again:

1. My first post
2. The post I enjoyed writing the most
3. A post which had a great discussion
4. A post on someone else’s blog that I wish I’d written
5. My most helpful post
6. A post with a title that I am proud of
7. A post that I wish more people had read

One of the things that really bugs me, especially given my fundamentalist background, is the ridiculous way that we Christians divide over stuff. It’s not enough for us to declare even the “fundamentals” of Christianity. We have to argue over what those fundamentals are. And even in some cases where we agree on many (most? all?) of the fundamentals, we still draw our boundary lines even tighter in order to exclude other Christians.

Quite frankly, it angers me. So with that being said, I wish I had written this post.

This is the third in a series of seven posts in seven days. Here’s the list:

1. My first post
2. The post I enjoyed writing the most
3. A post which had a great discussion
4. A post on someone else’s blog that I wish I’d written
5. My most helpful post
6. A post with a title that I am proud of
7. A post that I wish more people had read

I’m modifying this one a bit to be the most-discussed post. It’s also one of the most visited posts on this site. It’s my initial interview with Dr. Ed Blum, General Editor for the HCSB. This was a turning point for my blog. This was the post that made Anwoth a place largely about the HCSB. The interview is pretty thorough, and the discussions are very interesting as well.

This is the second in a series of seven posts in seven days. I’ll give you the list again:

1. My first post
2. The post I enjoyed writing the most
3. A post which had a great discussion
4. A post on someone else’s blog that I wish I’d written
5. My most helpful post
6. A post with a title that I am proud of
7. A post that I wish more people had read

Today’s post is one that I enjoyed writing the most. It’s a satire of sorts that I wrote during the whole brouhaha over Bruce Waltke’s resignation from RTS. I had a lot of fun, and I thought it was pretty clever. Here it is: Copernicus’ Heliocentricity a Dangerous Threat to Inerrancy.

This was a hard decision, so here’s the runner up in this category: John Piper and Justin Taylor Are Stealing My Content. You need to see this one just for the picture of Piper and Taylor!

I’m taking up a challenge to post seven links in seven days. But not just any links. Specific ones:

1. My first post
2. The post I enjoyed writing the most
3. A post which had a great discussion
4. A post on someone else’s blog that I wish I’d written
5. My most helpful post
6. A post with a title that I am proud of
7. A post that I wish more people had read

So today is post number 1, my first post. I think I’ve come a long way since then in some technical skills, and even the purpose of my blog has morphed a bit. Changes aside, Anwoth is still home to my thoughts, my quirks and my hero, Samuel Rutherford. Check it out: Welcome to Anwoth.

Over at Worldview Church, a Chuck Colson website, there’s a concise, helpful review of the HCSB by Chuck Huckaby. He evaluates some of the misunderstandings and challenges that have plagued the HCSB since its release, including:

• the underlying text used
• the “Southern Baptist” connection
• and the overcrowded marketplace.

He also gives some great info about what makes the HCSB unique. Check it out!

There are two excellent posts seeking to deal with this question. The first is at Daniel Kirk’s blog here. The second is at Andrew Perriman’s blog here.

Kirk wrestles with the question of why the Church seems to be behind the rest of the world in actually making a difference in people’s lives. He examines some areas we have lagged behind and then shows three areas where we are leading the way. Kirk concludes:

Theologically, Protestants have been hindered from changing the world for the better because we have been so focused on an inward piety that we don’t see any connection between that world out there and the new life God is given us. We need to cultivate our theological imaginations with the realization that salvation is not merely about new creatures, but about new creation.

It’s only when we realize that God’s saving hand extends to the whole earth, and is not simply a set of metaphors for our “spiritual” state, that we will begin to realize the gospel-imperative to extend the saving, redeeming hand of God to every sphere of human life.

Perriman tweaks the question a bit, claiming that “there is a deeper theological anxiety that needs to be brought to the surface: How is the God we worship, whose ancient story we tell, to be justified?”

Given the intellectual and social collapse of Christianity in the West, given the modern church’s often small-minded and reactionary response to scientific and cultural change, give its self-serving institutionalism, its complacent dogmatism, its preoccupation? with private spirituality and ultimate destinies, given the catalogue of prominent moral failures, given the rampant factionalism and divisiveness, given the failure of the church to dissociate itself from the worship of the golden calves of consumerism, we surely have to ask what it will take for the Creator God, who called a people for himself in Abraham and redeemed them in Jesus, to be justified, to be shown to be true and righteous, a cogent and relevant object of belief.

Of course the church globally is doing some good in the world. But before we get too carried away with the self-justifying potential of our good works, perhaps we should first sit alongside the Jews whom Paul harangued inRomans 2:17-24.

We call ourselves Christians, we rely on the Word of God, we claim to know his will because we have listened to countless repetitive sermons over the years; we imagine ourselves to be a guide to the blind, a light to those in darkness, instructors of the foolish scientists and moralists and politicians, teachers of children, and so on…. But shouldn’t we who presume to teach others first teach ourselves? We preach against stealing, but we happily collude with the economic injustices of modern life. We preach against adultery and homosexuality and pornography while we desperately struggle to keep the darkness and distortions of our own hearts from public scrutiny. We claim to worship one God, but we are as much in the thrall of aspirational consumerism as anyone else. We boast in the salvation of God, but we dishonour God by the moral mediocrity of our lives. Wouldn’t it be fair to say, then, that ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the nations because of us’?

Read both articles and join the conversation!

WARNING: This post should probably be rated R. It includes sexually explicit material…straight from the Bible.

There. You’ve been warned.

The Passage

I know that this is the only reason you’re here. You want to read the filthy, dirty passage in the Bible that you would ground your kids for a month if you caught them reading. So here it is, straight from Ezekiel 23, in the New International Readers Version:

But Oholibah offered her body to her lovers again and again. She remembered the days when she was a young prostitute in Egypt. There she had longed for her lovers. Their private parts seemed as big as those of donkeys. And their flow of semen appeared to be as much as that of horses. So you wanted to return to the days when you were young. You longed for the time when you first became impure in Egypt. That was when you allowed your breasts to be kissed. And you permitted your young breasts to be touched.

The Background

If you can handle it, read the entire chapter of Ezekiel 23. The prophets had an amazing way of hitting people in the face in very unexpected ways. This was one of them.

The prostitute theme was a prominent one in the prophetic writings. They–and God himself through the prophets–frequently portrayed Israel as an unfaithful wife, a cheating lover and a prostitute without a conscience.

So this is not a mere gratuitous sexual narrative. It serves to humiliate Israel by comparing her to this sexually used and abused woman who is now going to be ravaged by her former lovers.

The Translation

This is the difficult part. How do you balance accuracy in translation with cultural sensitivity? Is that even a legitimate question? Here’s a better one: In what ways does a passage like this put conservative, “literal” translations to the test?

Take the ESV for example. Here’s how they translate the passage:

Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.

The ESV’s translation philosophy is “essentially literal.” That means that it “seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.” Yet the ESV struggles to translate passages like this consistently with its own philosophy. I mean, is “paramours” really the best, literal translation they could come up with?

What’s the problem here? Why the struggle? Because the ESV caters to a conservative audience. And passages like this don’t go over too well with conservative Christians. Think about it: When was the last time you heard a sermon from Ezekiel 23?

The Other Options

But it’s not just an ESV problem. The Message is a “translation” that I would expect to be very blunt, to pull no punches. Yet this is how this passage is rendered in The Message:

She went at her whoring harder than ever. She remembered when she was young, just starting out as a whore in Egypt. That whetted her appetite for more virile, vulgar, and violent lovers—stallions obsessive in their lust. She longed for the sexual prowess of her youth back in Egypt, where her firm young breasts were caressed and fondled.

And here is the NIV’s take on this text:

Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

And of course, no translation discussion would be complete without representation from my personal favorite, the HCSB:

Yet she multiplied her acts of promiscuity, remembering the days of her youth when she acted like a prostitute in the land of Egypt and lusted after their lovers, whose sexual members were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of stallions. So you revisited the indecency of your youth, when the Egyptians caressed your nipples to enjoy your youthful breasts.

So what do you do? How do you translate a shocking passage like this? I don’t have an answer. I do know that this may be the time to throw your translation philosophy out the window, whatever that philosophy is. Passages like this require some special tweaks to anyone’s translation method.

So what happens when you put the ESV’s own translation philosophy into practice? You remember their translation philosophy, right? “Essentially Literal.” This is one of the key reasons some people have switched to the ESV.

Here’s their philosophy in their own words:

The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.

Now let’s take a test case, shall we? How about Matthew 6:27? Here’s how the ESV translates this text:

And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?

Now a literal translation of that last phrase would be something like this:

…add one cubit to his height/life.

Granted, the last word there could be stature/height or it could be life/age. But the other major word in that phrase has no such options. The word is, literally, “cubit” (or perhaps, more literally, “forearm,” but as a unit of measure, therefore, “cubit”). Since this is a word of physical measurement, it seems that a literal translation would go with the option, “…add a single cubit to his height.” Yet what we get from the “essentially literal” translation is a very non-literal interpretation.

It may be that Matthew meant for his readers to understand this as adding time to one’s life, but that’s not what he wrote. If you want to convey Matthew’s intent in your translation, fine, but don’t insist that your translation is then somehow literal.

Here’s the rub: I don’t actually have a problem with the ESV’s translation/interpretation in this case. The problem is that the Crossway bills the ESV as an “essentially literal” translation. This is why I say that the ESV will go down in history as a tribute to the marketing genius of Crossway. They have been able to convince throngs of devoted ESV followers that their translation is something that it clearly is not: essentially literal.

Again, I have nothing against the ESV really, other than my disdain for really awkward English syntax and using really outdated English words. The translation is a relatively fine translation. My beef is with the blind loyalty that many people give to the ESV, assuming that:

1. It really is “essentially literal,” when in reality, that phrase is much more a marketing ploy than anything else; and
2. That “essentially literal” is a good translation philosophy.

I think both assumptions deserve to be challenged.

And just for reference, here’s how the HCSB translates this text:

Can any of you add a single cubit to his height by worrying?