Unsearchable Riches

William Whitaker on Textual Criticism and Translations

2018-04-03T17:08:00.000-04:00

One of the most significant historical works on bibliology is William Whitaker’s A Disputation on Holy Scripture (1588). Whitaker was a Cambridge theologian who tirelessly defended the Christian faith and especially the doctrine of Scripture. His Disputation was primarily directed against Roman Catholic false doctrine regarding the scriptures. His work is a tour de force concerning the canon, the use and authority of the Latin Vulgate, and the authority, perspicuity, and interpretation of the Bible. His arguments continue to hold great force even today in the support of true Christian doctrine.

My interest in Whitaker stems from the foundation he laid for the Westminster Confession of Faith, and especially the Confession’s first chapter, Of the Holy Scripture. {1} The section on bibliology is absolutely outstanding, a true gift to the church in elucidating the critical elements of the doctrine of scripture. Despite its thoroughness, people who hold to the truths spelled out by this document don’t always agree on certain controversial issues, such as preservation and translations. Since Whitaker’s Disputation touches on these issues, I thought it would be helpful to set forth his views as a respected and impartial voice that pre-dates our modern controversies. With that in mind, let’s look at what Whitaker says regarding the topic of textual criticism (an integral part of the preservation debate) and then move on to translations.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Most of what we will see here comes from Whitaker’s chapter on the “Authentic Edition of Scripture.” To set the context, this chapter deals with the question of the church’s official Bible. Should the church consider the Latin Vulgate the final authority regarding the text and teaching of Scripture, or, as Whitaker argues, should it be the underlying Hebrew and Greek text, what he often calls the “originals.” It should be obvious that the Vulgate and the original language texts differ. Which one, then, is true/authentic, and which one is corrupt? How would you decide? In his discussion, Whitaker often refers to the existing Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and the related subject of textual criticism. His point is that the original language documents are superior to any Latin translation and therefore should be considered the true standard Biblical text for the church.

Let’s start where Whitaker does with the integrity of the Hebrew manuscripts. He asks, if the Hebrew text is corrupted, “How were they corrupted? By the copyists? This cannot be said, since all the MSS agree.” [132] {2} While this view may be overly optimistic (possibly reflecting the limited number of Hebrew texts available to him at the time), notice what he goes on to say after considering supposed errors in the Hebrew text:

“These then are the passages which Bellarmine was able to find fault with in the originals [i.e., the Hebrew MSS]; and yet in these there is really nothing to require either blame or correction. But, even though we should allow (which we are so far from doing, that we have proved the contrary), that these were faulty in the original [i.e., in the extant Hebrew MSS], what could our adversaries conclude from such an admission? Would it follow that the Hebrew fountain was more corrupt than the Latin streamlets, or that the Latin edition was authentic? Not, surely, unless it were previously assumed, either that canonical books of scripture cannot be erroneously copied sometimes by transcribers, or that it is very easy for us to discover many more errors in the Latin edition which ought not, and cannot be defended, as we shall hear presently.” [160]

In other words, if you could prove an error in the Hebrew manuscripts (which he is not conceding), then his appeal is to the facts that (1) copyists can make mistakes and (2) we observe much more corruption of this sort in the Vulgate than we do in the Hebrew. I think it is fair to conclude that Whitaker believes the Hebrew manuscript evidence to be pristine – it hasn’t been proven to him otherwise – but he is not ruling out the possibility of corruption due to copyist mistakes, and that it would be reasonable to appeal to such a mistake if a real error were discovered in an extant Hebrew text.

Moving on to the NT text, he knows we need to do textual criticism with the existing Greek manuscripts because of the presence of copyist mistakes.

“Now then, if the originals of sacred scripture have not been so disgracefully corrupted by any malice of Jews or adversaries, as some person have ignorantly suspected; and if no mistakes have crept into the originals, but such as may casually be introduced into any book, (which our opponents expressly allow); why, I pray, did not the Tridentine fathers [i.e., Catholic officials who participated in the Council of Trent] rather command that the originals should be purified with the greatest care and diligence than that the muddy stream of the Latin edition should be preferred to the fountain, and become authentic?” [161]

“But if they say that the originals [i.e., the original language MSS] are only corrupted by some accident, we to may affirm the same, and with much more justice, of their own Latin version: for such accidental causes extend no less to the Latin than to the Hebrew and Greek books.” [162]

Whitaker says copying mistakes should be expected, just like you would have with copying “any book.” Such mistakes have occurred in both the original language manuscripts as well as copies of the Latin Vulgate. Instead of preferring the Latin Vulgate, though, the Catholic church should have been more concerned with purifying the small errors in the Greek MSS tradition than preferring the muddy errors of the Latin.

How should one go about making these corrections? This is the subject of textual criticism and while Whitaker does not spend much time on this subject, he does mention some things that should sound familiar to us today. The context for what he says concerns differences between the Vulgate and the “originals” and how he argues that the Greek or Hebrew reading is best. I find what he says here fascinating.

The first example comes from the last phrase in Romans 1:32, “but have pleasure in them that do them” (KJV). The Jesuit Robert Bellarmine prefers the Latin reading,“but they also that consent to them that do them” (Douay-Rheims) since, “according to the Greek the sense is, that it is worse to consent to an evildoer than to do ill oneself; whereas, taken absolutely, it is worse to do ill than to consent to another doing ill.” [195] To be honest, I don’t find much difference in the meaning of the Latin (as translated by the Douay-Rheims version) compared to the Greek (as translated by the KJV). I think this may be more of an interpretation issue, but the overall point that I want to show is not the meaning of Rom 1:32 but how Whitaker tries to defend the reading of the Greek text. He says:

“The sense of the Greek therefore is very true; and is what is given by the Greek interpreters, Chrysoatom, Theodoret, Cecumenius and Theophylact. And in all the Greek copies which Stephens followed, that is, all which he could by any means procure, there was no variety of reading in this place. That the Latin fathers read it otherwise, need not surprise us; since they did not consult the originals, but drew from the streams of this Vulgate translator.” [196]

In other words, all the Greek copies agree here, as do the Greek church fathers. This supports his contention that the Greek text is correct. He is careful, though, to qualify his statement regarding the Greek manuscripts with “all which he could by any means procure.” Thus, he allows for the possibility that other extant manuscripts may or may not agree with this reading. The main thing is that he is putting a premium on the Greek copies (over a translation) and collaborating the manuscript evidence with readings from the Greek church fathers.

Another very interesting example is Romans 11:6 and the omission in the Vulgate of “But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” Regarding this phrase, “Bellarmine confesses that this sentence is in the Greek, but says that it is recognized by none of the commentators upon this place except Theophylact.” [196] Whitaker disputes this assertion but goes on to say:

“But what if the clause were not to be found in the commentaries of these writers? Must we, therefore, deem it spurious? By no means. For the Greek copies, and very numerous MSS of the greatest fidelity, and the most ancient Syrian translator, will suffice to prove that this sentence came from the apostle’s pen; whose evidence is still more confirmed by the very antithesis of the context and the sequence of the reasoning. For as the apostle says, ‘If it be of grace, then it is not of works; for then grace would not be grace;’ so to balance the antithesis he must say, ‘If it be of works, it is not of grace; for then work would not be work.’” [197]

Notice the modern sounding criteria Whitaker mentions: number of manuscripts (“very numerous”), quality of the manuscripts (“greatest fidelity”), other ancient translations (“Syrian translator”), age, (“most ancient”), church fathers (“commentaries of these writers”), and internal evidence (“context and sequence of the reasoning”). These are all things that modern textual critics consider when evaluating textual differences among extant manuscripts. Notice that he didn’t say anything like, “it has to agree with Tyndale” or “it’s the wording received by the church.”

Whitaker, in fact, denies the authority of the church in evaluating authentic scripture:

“As to Bellarmine’s last excuse, -- that the church hath interposed its authority, and judged the first version to be the truer – I ask, when, or how the church declared that judgment? Or what church it is that he means? Or what right any church had to determine a false or improper version to be truer than a true and proper one?” [134-135]

There are more examples of Whitaker’s method of textual criticism. Regarding 1 John 5:13, he quotes the Latin and then says,

“And so indeed the text is exhibited in some Greek copies, as Robert Stephens informs us in his Greek Testament. But the majority, even the Complutensian {3}, otherwise, thus: . . . . “ I’m leaving out his citation of the majority Greek text reading. He then immediately follows with, “But we do not choose to raise any great contention with our opponent upon the reading of this passage, since there is no difference in the sense.” [199]

Here he acknowledges differences within the extant Greek evidence and suggests two things: (1) that the number of Greek language variants helps determine the authentic original reading of the text, and (2) that since the meaning is not impacted, there is no need for “great contention.”

One last example should suffice, this time regarding Matthew 19:7. Whitaker quotes the Latin and then says, “But in most, and the most correct, Greek copies, we read…” [201] and then he references the Greek reading he prefers. Again, he cites the number of manuscripts and the quality of the manuscripts as evidence for preferring the Greek reading over the Latin.

While I believe there are good reasons for following a Reasoned Eclectic method of textual criticism over a majority text-like methodology, I appreciate what Whitaker is trying to do. He acknowledges the existence of differences in the Greek manuscripts and other translations that need to be sorted out. He concedes that copying errors can and do creep into biblical manuscripts just like they are “introduced into any book.” When these differences occur, he uses the same sorts of textual criticism techniques used today to determine the true reading of the autographs – age, number of MSS, other translations, church fathers, quality of the evidence, and internal contextual considerations. What he views as finally authentic, though, is “what came from the apostle’s pen,” not what the church views as authentic, or what aligns with tradition, or what corresponds to the primary English version of the day (e.g., Tyndale 1534 at this time).

TRANSLATIONS

Speaking of versions, Whitaker also had quite a bit to say regarding the need for vernacular translations. Here are some important takeaways:

1. Translations must be verified, tested against, and corrected by the original language texts, and ultimately by what was written by the inspired penmen.

“For translations of scripture are always to be brought back to the originals of scripture, received if they agree with those originals, and corrected if they do not. That scripture only, which the prophets, apostles, and evangelists wrote by inspiration of God, is in every way credible on its own account and authentic.” [138]

2. Translations are not inspired. That term should be reserved for the text delivered through inspiration by the prophets. Inspired documents are inerrant; translations are not.

“It is one thing to be a prophet, and another to be an interpreter of prophetic writings. . . . Since the Vulgate edition is nothing more than a version, it is not of itself authentic or inspired scripture. For it is the function of an interpreter to translate the authentic scripture, not to make his own translation authentic scripture. Now Jerome both might, and did err in translating.” [147] {4}

“For authentic scripture must proceed immediately from the Holy Ghost himself; and therefore Paul says that all scripture is divinely inspire, 2 Tim 3:16. Now Jerome’s translation is not divinely inspired; therefore it is not authentic scripture.” [148]

3. He advocates something along the lines of formal equivalence as a translation philosophy.

“For it behooves a translator of scripture not merely to take care that he do not corrupt the meaning, but also, as far as it is at all possible, not to depart a hand’s breath from the words; since many things may lie under cover in the words of the Holy Spirit, which are not immediately perceived, and yet contain important instruction.” [165]

4. Translations should be updated on a regular basis.

Here is the Jesuit argument:

“In the seventh place, the Jesuit reason thus: if the scripture should be read by the people in the vulgar tongue, then new versions should be made in every age, because languages are changed every age; which he proves from Horace’s Act of Poetry and from experience. But this would be impossible, because there would be a lack of persons fit to make the versions; and if it were possible, it would be absurd that the versions should be so often changed. Therefore the scriptures ought not to be read in the vernacular tongue.”

Here is Whitaker’s response:

“I answer, every part of this argument is ridiculous. For, in the first place, it is false that languages change every age; since the primary tongues, the Hebrew, Greek and Latin, have not undergone such frequent alterations. Secondly, there is never in Christian churches a lack of some sufficient interpreters, able to translate the scriptures and render their genuine meaning in the vulgar tongue. Thirdly, no inconvenience will follow if interpretations or versions of scripture, when they have become obsolete and ceased to be easily intelligible, be afterwards changed and corrected. I would assuredly have passed over this argument entirely, if I had not determined not to conceal or dissemble any arguments of our opponents.” [232]

5. He rejects that idea that a long-used translation should not be replaced.:

Here is the Jesuit argument:

“He proposes his FIRST argument in this form: For nearly a thousand years, that is, from the time of Gregory the Great, the whole Latin church hath made use of this Latin edition alone. Now it is absurd to say, that for eight or nine hundred years together the church was without the true interpretation of scripture, or respected as the word of God, in matters pertaining to faith and religion, the errors of an uncertain translator, since the apostle, 1 Tim iii., declares the church to be the pillar and ground of truth.” [135]

Here is a portion of Whitakers multi-part answer:

• Since not all believers use the same language translation, errors in one translation do not impact those who don’t use that translation.

“I answer, in the first place, that the Latin was not at that time the whole church; for there were many and very populous churches of the Greeks and others. Although, therefore, the Latin church had erred, yet it would not follow that the whole church of Christ had remained for such a length of time subject to that error.” [136]

• It is a false argument that says you must have a perfect translation or even a perfectly preserved original language manuscript. The Bible teaches the fundamentals of the faith over and over again throughout the Scripture so that errors or misunderstandings that may creep in here or there do NOT impact the main points of the faith. Even the Vulgate is good enough to keep one orthodox.

“Secondly, that the church may be deceived in the translation of some passages without, in the meanwhile, ceasing to be the church. For the church is not subverted by the circumstance, that some place of scripture happens to be improperly rendered . . . the fundamental points of the faith are preserved intact in this Latin edition, if not everywhere, yet in very many places.” [136]

• If God intended that there be one authentic version for each language on par with the autographs, then that version should have been in existence throughout time, not just starting at a point in time for that language group. For English speakers, this means an authentic English version should have been available before 1611.

“Thirdly, if it were so necessary that the Latin church should have an authentic Latin version, which might claim equal credence with the originals, it would have prevailed always in the Latin church, not only after Gregory, but also before Gregory’s time. But we have shewn that there were many Latin versions in the Latin church before Gregory, and no one in particular authentic; . . . ” [136]

CONCLUSION

As I read through Whitaker’s writing, I am encouraged by the solid biblical foundation he laid, not just for the Westminster Confession of Faith, but for dealing with Bible text controversies both old and new. While Whitaker is not always right, and while others in his era may have expressed some of these ideas differently, he is a trusted voice from years gone past. His views have not been corrupted by German rationalism or modern liberalism. Some people may be surprised to see that many of the ideas referenced here are not recent innovations but reflect the thoughts and arguments of solid conservative theologians from church history.

NOTES:

[1] Wayne Spear, “The Westminster Confession of Faith and Holy Scripture,” in To Glorify and Enjoy God. A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, John L. Carson and David W. Hall, eds. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994). See also, Wayne Spear, Faith of our Fathers: A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith. Crown and Covenant Publications, 2013.

[2] William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 132. Throughout the rest of the document bracketed numbers will indicate the page from which I quote Whitaker.

[3] The Complutensian is an early 16th century Bible containing parallel texts – columns of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin for the OT and columns of Greek and Latin for the NT. Erasmus published his Greek NT first (1516) because the publishing of the Complutensian got delayed until 1517 so that it could include the OT as well.

[4] Regarding inerrancy he writes: “we cannot but wholly disapprove the opinion of those, who think that the sacred writers have, in some places, fallen into mistake.” [36-37] “Whereas, therefore no one may say that any infirmity could befall the Holy Spirit, it follows that the sacred writers could not be deceived, or err, in any respect.” [37] “it is the special prerogative of scripture that it never errs.” [40] Note that he anchors inerrancy to what the sacred writers originally wrote.

What Uncommon Love – the Marriage of Lafayette and Adrienne

2017-09-30T09:09:00.003-04:00

Most Americans are at least marginally familiar with the Marquis de Lafayette, the young French aristocrat who embraced the glorious cause of the American Revolution as his own, and teamed up with George Washington to fight against the British. The story of him self-funding his trip to the colonies at the tender age of 19, and how he selflessly endured the hardships of his adoptive comrades-in-arms, and how he demonstrated bravery and keen military leadership and strategy, is fascinating in and of itself.

What is even more amazing, though, is the relationship he had with his young bride. As was common back then, his marriage was arranged by his parents when he was 16 and she was only 14. At the beginning, her mother kept them apart in different chambers but after a couple years the marriage was consummated and Adrienne had her firstborn around age 16, a girl, Henriette. Shortly thereafter, within a year, Lafayette up and left his daughter and very young bride to go fight against the British in America. While he was gone, his first daughter died and Adrienne gave birth to a second daughter, Anastasie. This is hardly the way to start off a successful marriage, and yet, how they grow in their love for each other, and where that love led them, is truly astonishing.

While he was gone, Lafayette wrote her often and lavished her with praise and expressions of love. When he returned after two years, she expressed great joy and admiration for him. The fact of the matter was that he left as a young boy “with awkward country manners and clumsiness” but returned polished, confident, mature, and according to Adrienne, “as modest and as charming as when he went away.”* And so their love and relationship grew during this time, forging what would be a uncommon bond. Before long, Lafayette left again for America, leaving Adrienne in charge of his estate, and would return two years later as a genuine victorious war hero of the American Revolution.

Upon his second return to France, Lafayette found himself in middle of the French Revolution. He wanted the same freedom and liberty for his countrymen as what he helped establish in America. The problem, though, was that the established royal leadership of France was not ready for republican ideals, nor were the commoners, the so-called Third Estate, able to resist the extremism of their leadership. The French Revolution turned barbaric and left Lafayette no choice but to flee for his life since he would not submit to the extreme fanaticism of Robespierre.

The problem for Lafayette at this time was that his support for democracy had turned him into “the most hated man in Europe.”* His ideals had caused problem for other royals throughout Europe, and so, when he crossed over into Belgium, he was arrested and sent to a Prussian prison. He had a board for a bed, nothing with which to read or write, and languished there for some time in the filth of that dungeon. After two years he was transferred to another prison in Austria at Olmutz. “In comparison to Prussian prison cells, the cells at Olmutz were chambers of horrors. The prison was in part of the city wall over the Morawa River, which carried the city sewerage and filled the prison above it with suffocating stench and swarms of disease-carrying mosquitoes and flies.”* Lafayette was chained in his cell and suffered there in solitary confinement.

In the meantime, back in France, Adrienne was scrambling herself, trying to keep her family and assets safe. She was moderately successful but eventually even she was arrested. The American ambassador was able to keep her from the guillotine but earlier, her grandmother, mother, and sister, all met that horrible fate. Adrienne stayed in prison until the extremism of Robespierre proved too much for even his own supporters. He suffered a gunshot wound during a coup and was put out of his misery the next day, appropriately, via the guillotine.

In ensuing months, Adrienne worked to secure passports to flee to America but instead, and this is where her uncommon love for her husband comes to the forefront, she left for Vienna to plead her husband’s case to the emperor. Frederick II would not grant him his freedom but he would let Adrienne and her two girls visit (a son, named after George Washington, had already found sanctuary in America) – on one condition – she and the girls had to share her husband’s fate and submit to being jailed! I don’t know how the girls felt about this but Adrienne willing consented. Consequently, for nearly two years she and the girls had to eat nasty prison food, endure the stench from the sewer, live in dark dirt-floored cells, sleep on pieces of wood, and hear the awful screams of other prisoners who were being flogged. Not exactly a second honeymoon!

On the positive side, prison officials allowed them to bring in books, along with paper with which to write letters. The three provided comfort and companionship that Lafayette would never have had without them. Prison life, though, was not good for Adrienne and she developed fevers and swollen legs and arms. She was offered the chance to leave Olmutz to get medical help but only on the condition that she not return. Adrienne defiantly rejected that offer, choosing to suffer with her husband rather than leave him alone.

After much international pressure for their release (including pleas from George Washington), and the rise to power of Napoleon Bonaparte, the time finally came when neither Austria nor France wanted Lafayette’s presence. His release and that of his family was secured but they were not able to travel to America, where they wanted to go, because of Adrienne’s health. They ended up settling in Denmark, instead.

Eventually Adrienne recovered enough to return to France and fight for the restoration of their family assets. Her ability to do this showed amazing political and personal acumen. She had developed into quite the legendary figure herself, a force to be reckoned with in her own right. But if that was not enough, she was also able to secure the ability for her husband to legally return to France. Lafayette’s presence in France turned him into a political force once again, but in the end, he was never able to see the freedom and liberty that America enjoyed embraced or implemented in France.

It’s hard to imagine the life that was in front of these two young children when they were first married. It is harder still to image the love that developed between them. I asked my wife, Daphne, what she would do if I was jailed in a similar situation – she was not too keen on the idea of joining me! Sorry, Andy, you’re on your own! I don’t know if Lafayette and Adrienne’s marriage vows included the phrases, “for better or for worse” or “for richer or for poorer,” but their vows meant something, even made at such a young age and to someone they hardly knew at the time. Really, it’s an amazing story of true, steadfast love.

*All quotations from Harlow Unger’s Lafayette, the biography on which this post is based.

The Owl the Hawk and the Cuckow – Spiritualizing Run a Fowl

2015-01-24T08:25:00.001-05:00

The title of this post comes from an allegorical sermon Spurgeon once heard on the text of Lev 11:16, which reads in the KJV, “and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind.” The venerable sermonizer related this text to three types of people: (1) night hawks were cheaters/stealers, (2) owls were drunkards, and (3) cuckoos were preachers who always said the same thing whenever they entered the pulpit! These birds were all unclean and thus represented these three groups of unclean sinners. Even Spurgeon, who relates this story in his Lectures to My Students (“On Spiritualizing”) in a somewhat positive manner, had to admit, “Was not this rather too much of a good thing?”

Indeed!

Spurgeon is well known for sometimes spiritualizing the text but he does offer several warnings about the practice:

Do not violently strain a text by illegitimate spiritualizing
Never spiritualize upon indelicate subjects
Never spiritualize for the sake of showing what an uncommonly clever fellow you are
Never pervert Scripture to give it a novel and so-called spiritual meaning
In no case allow your audience to forget that the narratives which you spiritualize are facts

Ironically, spiritualizing actually undermines each of these very legitimate concerns. Whenever a man does this, the sacred text becomes secondary and what we get is the mind of the preacher rather than the mind of God.

Now to be fair, and I think Spurgeon hints at this in his defense, the truths that are preached are often biblical truths and presented in a way that is compelling and memorable. The very fact that Spurgeon could remember a sermon preached from the Levetical minutia of clean and unclean animals shows how effective such preaching can be! Those truths would be better preached from texts that actually teach those truths, however.

If you want to teach your listeners the mind of God and how he reasons and thinks, then you need to explain the flow the passage and how each part contributes to the overall idea that God wants us to get from a particular text. You can’t do that if you are preaching on things that the text doesn’t say anything about. If you want to make the text big and important in the mind of your listeners, then you need the text to be big and important in the preparation and delivery of your sermon. When they have finished listening to what you have said, their response should NOT be – “Wow, I never would have seen that myself!” Instead, it should be, “Wow, how did I ever miss seeing that – it’s so clear!”*

*Modified and expanded from a section in Iain Duguid’s introduction to his commentary on Ezekiel (which is a book often given over to allegorical interpretation).

Is Perfect Preservation the Historical Position?

2014-11-29T08:45:00.001-05:00

Over on Kent Brandenburg's blog, I commented on his post, Honesty About the Historical Position on Preservation, that I agreed with B. B. Warfield regarding the Westminster Confession of Faith and the significance of the phrase, "kept pure in all ages." My point was that so-called "perfect preservation" was not the historical position of the church but one that was debated back in those days, just like it is in ours. Kent asked me to consider several posts, including a fairly lengthy paper by Paul Ferguson, that purports to show that his position is correct and that I am unaware of the true historical position. I tried to leave the following in the comment field of his blog but I was limited in the number of characters in my response, so I am posting my response to Kent here on my blog:

Kent

There is certainly a lot to respond to, especially Paul’s very lengthy paper on the subject. Let me start by saying that I appreciated the time and effort that Paul put in on that, and while I don’t agree, I better understand where you guys are coming from. I don’t have time to respond to everything so I think I will limit myself primarily to the issue of the WCF and then Muller’s comments that you quote.

Paul writes on page 40 of his paper that “the Westminster Divines never argued for the preservation of a copy, but the preservation of the Words, because that is what the Bible teaches.” I tend to agree with that statement but I’m not sure that you guys are consistent with what that says, because later on Paul argues for a “reformation text” (p 42) which was “immediately inspired by God because it was identical with the first text that God has kept pure in all the ages” (p 43) with “no mistakes in the Hebrew Masoretic texts or in the Textus Receptus of the New Testament” (p 43). These later quotes argue for the perfect preservation of a copy, not the preservation of words within the available manuscript evidence. But let’s move on to what the WCF actually claims.

The Westminster divines “were men of prodigious learning and were aware of many minor textual disagreements going back to the days of the Early Fathers” (p 42). This quote corresponds with what B.B. Warfield says, and what I highlighted in my first comment to you, that the WCF recognizes a difference between the original autographs (“immediately inspired by God”) and subsequent copies (by God’s providence, “kept pure in all ages”). When the WCF states that the scriptures have “by his singular care and providence [been] kept pure in all ages” it can’t mean that every copy has been kept free from all error or alteration, or that a single copy always exists that has been kept free from all error or alteration. It must mean that the scriptures have been kept pure within the multitude of extant copies. In other words God has kept his word pure providentially so that no one group, person, church, or government could corrupt the reading of the text without those changes (intentional or unintentional) being noticed and correctable through the process of textual criticism.

Warfield is not the only one who suggests this about the WCF wording. Writing before Warfield, in 1857, Robert Shaw, in his An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, writes, “Copies we now possess generally coincide with the originals . . . Every succeeding age increase the difficulty; and though the comparison of a multitude of ancient manuscripts and copies has discovered a vast number of various readings, occasions by the inadvertency and inaccuracy of transcribers, yet not one of these differences affect any one article of the faith and comfort of Christians.”

In my previous note I mentioned that Brian Walton contended against Owens’ position after his publication of the Polyglott. Here is what Walton said in his Considerator Considered, “that the special providence of God hath watched over these books, to preserve them pure and uncorrpt against all attempts of Sectaries, Hereticks, and others, and will still preserve them to the end of the world, for the end for which they were first written, That the errors or mistakes which may befall by negligence or inadvertency of Transcribers or Printers, are in matters of no concernment (from whence various readings have risen), and my by collation of other copies and other means there mention be rectified and amended” – so he agrees with Warfield and me.

I think it is fair to say that both your position and mine requires the use of textual criticism. You just use different criteria (giving priority to TR texts and KJV readings), while I would make use of more manuscripts and use a different method of textual criticism. Warfield says the same when he says, “Men like Lightfoot are found defending the readings of the common text against men like Beza; as there were some of them, like Lightfoot, who were engaged in the most advance work which up to that time had been done on the Biblical text, Walton’s Polyglott, so others of them may have stood with John Owen, a few years later, in his strictures on that great work; and had their lot been cast in our day it is possible that many of them might have been of the school of Scrivener and Burgon, rather than that of Westcott and Hort.” (PRR, 644).

Contra to this, Paul Ferguson tries to argue that the Westminster divines were referring to a “perfectly preserved TR (as cited in the confession)” (p 44) by supplying several quotes from men of that era to that effect. Of course, any text they might be talking about was surely an edition of the TR because that was the Greek text currently printed and in use at the time. However, to say that they uniformly viewed the TR family or any particular version of the TR as the perfectly preserved text identical with the autographs is not quite right. I don’t doubt that some thought that way. It appears that some like Turretin and Owen believed than any corruption in the text throws the entire text, words, message, and all into doubt. This argument, though, is not sound and does, as Wallace says, paints them into a corner. The quote from Lightfoot (p 46) does not identify where God preserved “every part so that not so much as a tittle should perish.” His participation in Brian Walton’s Polyglott makes me think Lightfoot did not have a particular text in mind when he wrote that quote. I’ll have more to say about Lightfoot’s views below.

Same goes with Paul’s quote from Capel (p 45-46). Warfield quotes Capel as saying, earlier in the same document that Paul quotes from, “we have copies in both languages which copies vary not from the primitive writings in any matter that may stumble any. This concerns only the learned, and they know what by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides amongst Christians do shake hand in this, that God by his providence hath preserve them uncorrupt [AE – he goes on to explain what he mean by this -- ] What if there be variety of readings in some copies? And some mistakes in writing or printing? This makes nothing against our doctrine, sith for all this the fountain runs clear.” Capel admits that “Translators and Transcribers might erre, being not prophets nor indued with that infallible Spirit in translating or transcribing, as Moses and the prophets were in their Original Writings” but says that doesn’t matter because “the fountain runs clear”, meaning that the original were perfectly inerrant, and any such errors do not effect doctrine (“this makes nothing against our doctrine”). So you cannot appeal to Capel, who basically takes the same position as I do.

In fact, Warfield quotes several WCF era theologians to show that they were aware of errors in the texts and the need for textual criticism to restore the text.

“That Divine Truth in English, is as truly the Word of God, as the same Scriptures delivered in the Originall, Hebrew or Greek; yet with this difference, that the same is perfectly, immediately and most absolutely in the Orginall Hebrew and Greek, in other translations as the vessels wherein it is presented to us, and as far forth as they do agree with the Originalls. . . We do not say that his or that Translation is the Rule and Judge, but the Divine Truth translated; the knowledge whereof is brought to us in the Translation.” (William Lyford, The Plain Man’s Senses Exercised, 1657).

This quote highlights confidence in the original manuscripts and the fact that no one translation should be considered the sole final authority – others are valid and authoritative as they correspond to the original Hebrew and Greek.

Samuel Rutherford says in 1651 that “for through scribes, translators, grammarians, printers, may all erre, it followeth not that an unerring providence of him that has seven eyes, hath not delivered to the Church, the scriptures containing the infallible word of God.” In other words, just because we have “only copies written by men, who might make mistake” that does not mean God was unable in his providence to nevertheless preserve his infallible word for us, in spite of the presence of those mistakes.

“How shall we hold and keep fast the Letter of Scripture, when there are so many Greek Copies of the New Testament? And these diverse from one another? . . . For though there are many received copies of the New Testament, yet there is not material differences between them.” (William Bridge, Scripture Light the Most Sure Light, 1656).

“Consider how many copies were abroad in the world. The Old Testament was in every synagogue and how many copes would men take of the New Testament. So that it is impossible but still Scripture must be conveyed. . . .It was their [the Masorites] care and solicitude to preserve the text in all purity . . . yet could they not, for all their care, but have some false copies go up and down among them, through heedlessness and error of transcribers. . . To which may be added that the same power and care of God, that preserves the Church, would preserve the Scriptures pure to it, and he that did, and could, preserve the whole could preserve every part so that not so much as a tittle should perish.” (John Lightfoot, Works) – Here Lightfoot connects the many copies of scripture with God’s providence to preserve each part, even though careful copyists still make mistakes. In other words, he is basically saying the same thing as us – that God preserves his word within the multitude of extant copies.

All this to say that I believe Warfield is right concerning the WCF and “kept pure in all ages” terminology. So much so, that my belief regarding preservation is satisfactorily expressed in this and similarly worded confessions. Now, when I had a hand in writing a church doctrinal statement, we used the terminology “essentially pure”, so there would be no confusion, but I think they both mean the same basic thing.

I’ve been going on for quite some time, so instead of adding all my comments from Muller, maybe I’ll just close with what I consider to be his “money” quote concerning this issue. Here is what he says on page 401:

“…scholars have tended to overlook the fact that the practice of most exegetes of the seventeenth century was somewhere in between the fairly radical conjectural emendation on the basis of ancient versions recommended by Cappel and the virtual denial of the usefulness of text-critical efforts that can be elicited from Owen’s attack on the London Polygot.” (Muller, 401)

In other words, Owen’s position did not represent a consensus but an extreme. Honestly, how could it be otherwise? It’s not surprising that people would use the TR text of the day for their work, as there was no real printed competition. Textual scholars of that day, though, knew the TR was not the “be all and end all.”

As far as your basic premise goes, that your position is the historical position, that just cannot be sustained. In my last post, I jokingly referred to Erasmus and Luther and their exclusion of the Comma, but in all seriousness, how can your text (based on your position) be the historical text when it wasn’t always the historical text and when there was no consensus among 16/17^th cent believers for your position or text? There was controversy, just like we have today.

So with that I think I will end.

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving,

Andy

Martin Luther and the German Bible

2014-11-24T19:34:00.002-05:00

Emory University in Atlanta has recently completed a new building that houses their theological seminary and library. It is a wonderful, state-of-the-art facility and almost makes me want to take a few more classes so that I could take advantage of their vast theological resources in this marvelous new complex. Emory is proudly ecumenical but nevertheless maintains a remarkably diverse library such that I have been able to find nearly anything I've ever had occasion to search out, from Buddhist theology (when I needed to research such for an apologetics class I was taking) to Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Dogmatics volume on Holy Scripture (for examining the historical view of preservation for a blog discussion).

Pitts Theological Library, Emory University, Atlanta

One of the most special parts of the new library is a small museum that displays various items of historical significance on a rotating basis. The current exhibition, Martin Luther's Reform of University and Church, draws from their vast holdings of Reformation era materials. Of particular interest to me, and what I consider to be probably their most noteworthy treasures, are a 1516 first edition and a 1519 second edition of the Greek New Testament produced by Desiderius Erasmus, along with a 1522 copy of Martin Luther's German translation of the New Testament. Luther, of course, used an Erasmus 2nd edition Greek NT to translate the New Testament into German for the first time. See the photos below:

Greek New Testament (Erasmus, 1516)

German New Testament (Luther, 1522)

For being nearly 500 years old, these documents are in remarkable condition. Click on the pictures for a larger view.

Koinonia and the Lord’s Table

2014-08-04T16:26:00.000-04:00

“Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.”

How many times have I heard this phrase repeated by the pastor as we partake of the first element of communion? Certainly hundreds of time by now. It’s so common and familiar that I barely give it a second thought. I am beginning to wonder, though, if I have not completely understood the significance of this element of communion all these years.

Often I have been asked to pray prior to the giving of either the bread or cup, and occasionally wonder what difference I should highlight in my prayer regarding the two elements. Normally what I end up doing is equating the bread with the death of Christ and the physical pain he suffered on my behalf, and then seeing the cup as the blood shed on my behalf. That distinction, though, has never been very satisfying to me because, ultimately, I view both of those things – dying and shedding his blood -- as the same thing, basically the propitiatory act that Christ suffered on my behalf to secure my redemption.

Recently on Wednesday nights our church has been studying the subject of koinonia or True Fellowship, as Jerry Bridges refers to it in his book by that title. Our study of this concept reminded me of a place in 1 Corinthians where this terminology is used in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper. It is this passage that makes me think that maybe there is a more significant distinction in the symbolism of the elements than I had recognized before. Here is the relevant portion of the passage:

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (ESV)

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation [koinonia] in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation [koinonia] in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

The point of the passage is that the Corinthians should not knowingly eat meat offered to idols because it identifies you with or makes you a participant with the false god the idol represents. You should purposely avoid fellowship or koinonia with demons (1 Cor 10:20).

One of the illustrations Paul uses in his explanation is the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper. When we drink of the cup, we are showing our participation or identification with Christ on the cross. There is this koinonia with the blood of Christ in which we share. I would say it goes further than just a remembrance and includes an affirmation of our union with Christ. When I take the cup, it is as if I am saying, “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20). This fact by itself is noteworthy to me because it tells me that what I am doing during communion is very significant because of the koinonia with Christ and his sacrifice that it represents.

Now, though, look at what Paul says is the meaning of the bread. It is participation or koinonia in the body of Christ. While it might be possible to take “the body of Christ” as Christ’s physical body that he sacrificed on the cross on our behalf, Paul’s clarifying statement in verse 17 shows that he is thinking about the church as the body of Christ. It is the church that is the one body that is made up of the many. The one bread symbolizes that one body, and the breaking of the bread (so that each person may partake) shows that each person is a part of that body. When we break the bread and eat we are showing our koinonia or fellowship in that body. Just like taking the cup affirms our union with Christ, so the taking of the bread affirms or identifies us with the body of Christ.

If this is true, then the two elements of communion picture two different but important aspects of the koinonia we enjoy – our union with Christ and our membership in the church. There probably is a universal aspect to this but since the ordinance is administered in the conjunction with a local church, I think the primary membership it affirms is that of the local church. Nevertheless, even a visitor can partake and affirm that he is with his brothers and sisters in Christ and have true fellowship with them.

When I first noticed this, I wondered if any of my commentaries mentioned anything along these same lines. The analysis above seems obvious to me, but if it is correct, why hasn’t anyone bothered to mention it before? Well, lo and behold, someone has. Here are Gordon Fee’s comments on this passage from his commentary on 1 Corinthians:

“What is unique here is that Paul will go on to interpret the bread in terms of the church as his ‘body.’ Nowhere else in the NT is the bread interpreted at all [footnote 30]. Paul does so here probably because in this context the emphasis lies here. Thus he does not mean that by eating the bread believers have some kind of mystical ‘participation in’ the ‘broken body’ of Christ, but, as he clearly interprets in v. 17, they are herewith affirming that through Christ’s death they are ‘partners’ in the redeemed community, the new eschatological people of God.” (Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 468-469).

His footnote 30 says, “Although there is no evidence for it in the NT itself, the close association between the ‘broken bread’ and Jesus’ ‘broken’ body on the cross caused the bread eventually to be interpreted in this way (see the textual gloss in 11:24, ‘my body which is broken for you’).” Now, Fee can sometimes go overboard in claiming that certain (inconvenient) statements are textual additions – his claim in this same commentary regarding women keeping silent in the church (1 Cor 14:34-35) comes to mind. In this case, however, there seems to be good support for his conclusion and the ESV, NASB, HCSB, and NIV all omit the term “broken” in 1 Cor 11:24. The gospels mention that Jesus broke the bread and that the bread refers to his body, but only here in 1 Corinthians 10 does the NT explicitly interpret the symbolism.

Other commentators appear to agree. Leon Morris, for example, says, “Believers are many but they are one body . . . communicates are united to Christ and united to one another” (Morris, 1 Corinthians, 144). Similarly, David Garland writes, “The disparate believers gathered around the table represent the one body of Christ – a theme that Paul will develop further in chapters 11-12” (Garland, 1 Corinthians, 478).

Anthony Thiselton, on the other hand, seems reluctant to abandon the idea that the broken bread refers to Christ’s broken body on the cross. Thus whatever ideas about church fellowship within the body of Christ these verses may teach, we should not limit ourselves to that one sole meaning, in his opinion (see his discussion on pages 763-771 of his commentary). Thiselton bases many of his conclusions on scholarly monographs that he references without fully recapping their arguments, so without access to those resources, it is hard to tell how strong his position is. Nevertheless, even if Fee goes too far as Thiselton suggests, it is still true that verse 17 brings the unity and koinonia of the church into play on at least one level, even if it is not the sole intended meaning.

Interestingly, when he gets to chapter 11, Fee himself will also acknowledge that the bread does refer to Christ’s body, given for us as a vicarious atonement in fulfillment of Isaiah 53:12 (“he bore the sin of many”). So, if that is true, then my original understanding of the elements was not wrong so much as it was incomplete. The bread does refer to Christ’s body, given on the cross for us, but we should not neglect the further significance regarding the church that Paul gives it in 1 Corinthians 10.

Therefore, taking all this into consideration, I would suggest that when we take communion at the Lord’s Table, we remember what Christ did on the cross for us, certainly, but that we don’t lose sight of the koinonia we enjoy with Christ our sacrifice and his body our church family. I see it as an opportunity for regular affirmation and appreciation that we are united, not only with the crucified Christ, but also with the body of Christ to which we are joined.

On Seminary

2013-04-20T16:31:00.001-04:00

Today I turned in my final project for a Masters in Biblical Studies from Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Virginia Beach. I’ve been working on this degree since 2009, so it has taken about 4 years. This is a 36-hour degree – 12 classes – that I was able to complete entirely online. In fact, I have been on campus there just once, over four years ago, when I was still just thinking about going to seminary. We just had CBTSVB grad Michael Carlyle in at our church for a missions conference and he showed me around and introduced me to several of the professors. Ironically, even though we were there over a Sunday, I never met Dan Davey, the president and professor from whom I took the most classes – Acts, Romans, and Pastoral Epistles. There is no question that live, on-campus training is the far better option if you can do it. The online process has many limitations and frustrations but I am VERY thankful that CBTSVB offered an online option that has allowed me to graduate with a solid seminary degree.

Since I’m a numbers guy, I like to keep track of what I’ve done. For these 12 classes, I’ve read (not skimmed) over 15,000 pages and written papers and projects totaling just about 500 content pages. So that is roughly 1250 pages and two 20-page research-type papers per class. This will not come close to matching what those who get their MDiv or ThM have to do but it does give me some satisfaction to look back on what I have accomplished. It really helped to work at Emory University during this time so that I had access to their excellent theological library. I have no idea how I would have been able to complete some of these assignments without that resource.

One of the nice things about graduate work is the opportunity to research and write on many topics that are interesting to me. Because I want to be accurate and thorough, I tend to be a very slow and methodical writer. The hardest part for me is getting started but once I do things tend to start flowing and next thing you know I have a full-length paper on my hands. It always seems miraculous. At any rate, my most rewarding papers included, one I wrote on textual criticism and the majority text, two on Baptist history (the Downgrade Controversy and the Anabaptist influence on the origin of General Baptists), and an apologetics paper analyzing the atheistic writings of Daniel Dennett and the religious worldview of Tibetan Buddhism. Emory, by the way, has tons of resources on Tibetan Buddhism, no doubt partly due to the fact that the Dalai Lama is an official adjunct professor.

I really enjoyed the apologetics class I took last summer. Now that I’m done with classes, I’d really like to develop an adult Sunday School class/curriculum covering apologetics from a presuppositional approach. We’ll see how that goes.

At least one reason why I haven’t blogged much lately is the time I’ve been spending on my seminary course work. Perhaps with that being over I will have more time to do this type of recreational writing.

The Mission of the Church

2012-05-28T17:41:00.002-04:00

I have been reading What is the Mission of the Church? Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commision by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert. They sum up their book with a great quote from J. Gresham Machen:

This, then, is the answer that I give to the question before us. The responsibility of the church in the new age is the same as its responsibility in every age. It is to testify that this world is lost in sin; that the span of human life—no, all the length of human history—is an infinitesimal island in the awful depths of eternity; that there is a mysterious, holy, living God, Creator of all, Upholder of all, infinitely beyond all; that he has revealed himself to us in his Word and offered us communion with himself through Jesus Christ the Lord; that there is no other salvation, for individuals or for nations, save this, but that this salvation is full and free, and that whoever possesses it has for himself and for all others to whom he may be the instrument of bringing it a treasure compared with which all the kingdoms of the earth— no, all the wonders of the starry heavens—are as the dust of the street.

J. Gresham Machen, excerpt from “The Responsibility of the Church in our New Age,” originally published in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (1933) and reprinted in D. G. Hart’s J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, 376; and reprinted again by DeYoung and Gilbert, What is the Mission of the Church?, 248-249.

Modern Technology and another way I'm NOT like Jonathan Edwards

2011-08-15T08:26:00.003-04:00

Our pastor asked me to preach this past Sunday night, as he was going out of town on vacation. As I was preparing for the message Saturday morning, I noticed a unusual pop-up error message on the system tray of my PC. It said something along the lines of “No audio available because no audio hardware has been found.” I thought that was peculiar since I listen to audio on my PC all the time. Since 99% of all computer problems are solved by rebooting, that is exactly what I did. However, this issue turned out to be one of those 1% problems and my computer never booted back up! There was nothing I could do to revive it and I instantly went into panic mode.

You see, I understand that in the old days it was actually common for men to prepare sermons without the aid of a computer. I have it on good authority that Jonathan Edwards never once touched a computer. Sadly, though, I'm not one of those people. I am completely dependent on my computer. In fact, I've gone totally paperless and preach and teach from an iPad (although I still use old-fashioned real books when I consult commentaries). Thankfully, though, I work in IT and not only did I have a work computer I could use as a backup, I even had a SATA-to-USB adapter that I got from a Computer Security Forensics class I took a couple years ago that I was able to use to transfer the contents of my old dead laptop's hard drive to my work computer. In no time, I was back in business – finished the message, converted it from Word to PDF, sent it to Dropbox, and then imported it from Dropbox to my iPad and stored it in my GoodReader iPad app. I was good to go, albeit it took up more of my Saturday than I anticipated.

This whole episode got me thinking about how Jonathan Edwards might use modern technology. I've read several accounts of his preaching style and techniques. One thing he did was write out his sermons on small 3x4 (or so) sized pieces of paper that he could hold in the palm of his hand. I think he wanted his notes to be as unobtrusive as possible. So, my guess is he would be more inclined to preach from an iPhone than an iPad, if he had the choice.

I've been reading Douglas Sweeney's recent book, Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word, and discovered another interesting fact regarding the notes Edwards used in the pulpit. Instead of writing out Bible verses in his notes, “Edwards frequently substituted long, squiggly lines, trusting his memory to provide the missing text while he was preaching.” (Sweeney, 97) Evidently, Edwards was the original “walking Bible.” Me? I write out every line of every verse I plan to use in my message. It's so easy to transfer the text from Bibleworks to Word and it frees me from sounding like a “squiggly line” when I try to quote verses from memory while I'm speaking. For me it's just something about standing in front of a crowd of people and trying to recall a verse from memory that just never goes as well as planned!

Oh, in case you were wondering, here is my text from yesterday's message, written in the style that Jonathan Edwards might have used:

Inerrancy and the Kings of Judah and Israel

2011-07-30T20:11:00.002-04:00

Anyone who has studied the chronological information given in Kings and Chronicles regarding the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel knows that harmonizing all the data is a daunting task, to say the least. Several factors contribute to this difficulty but primarily we could note that (1) these numbers often reflect co-regencies that may not be readily apparent to the reader, (2) Israel and Judah used two different months of the year to determine a regal year (Judah used Tishri-to-Tishri while Israel used Nisan-to-Nisan --- this would be similar to corporations using different months to begin their fiscal years), and (3) the counting of regal years sometimes begins with 0 (ascension year system, normally used by Judah – like we count birthdays) and sometimes with 1 (non-accession-year system, normally used by Israel – like we count presidential years).

When one takes these issues into consideration, many of the so-called problems and contradictions in the Biblical record go away. At least until you get to the reigns of Athaliah and Jehu, whose reigns begin at the same time due to Jehu’s slaughter of the previous kings, but whose chronological information seems to go haywire. Athaliah, it may be remembered, was the daughter of Ahaz and Jezebel. She married, Jehoram, the previous king of Judah, probably as a result of Jehoshaphat’s willingness engage in a closer, more friendly relationship with Israel (1 Kings 22:44; 2 Chron 18:3ff; 20:35-37). It appears that Judah may have adopted Israel’s regal counting system as part of this new relationship. If that is the case, then the numbers start to work again, just as you would expect. Problem solved.

Interestingly enough, the text itself may give a clue to this very transition. Take a look at these two verses:

2 Kings 8:25 (ESV)
In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab, king of Israel, Ahaziah the son of Jehoram, king of Judah, began to reign.

2 Kings 9:29 (ESV)
In the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab, Ahaziah began to reign over Judah.

This apparent contradiction is easily resolved if we conclude that 2 Kings 8:25-29 was written using the new system imported from Israel, while the scribe who recorded the information found in 2 Kings 9:29 was still using the old system. Both statements are right (from their own vantage point) and the discrepancy might alert a careful reader that something strange has just happened with the numbering scheme.

Unfortunately, some ancient versions, such as the Greek version complied by Lucian of Antioch, felt compelled to harmonize these verses by modifying the Masoretic text. While I am not an advocate of the infallibility of that text (it is, after all, just a copy of the God-breathed original), in this case at least, there was no need to assume a scribal error and remove an inspired clue to the solving of the puzzle.

When asked about his work, Edwin Thiele, whose work I have summarized from above, said, “Let me say without hesitation that the areas of greatest strength and certainty are precisely those areas where in the past the greatest difficulties and uncertainties were found.” Based on what I read of Thiele’s work so far, many of the statements in the Biblical record that appear on the surface to be erroneous, when all the facts are known, turn out to be extremely precise statements of historical fact.

Lieutenant Colonel C. A. Olsen, 1919 - 2011

2011-07-19T19:48:00.006-04:00

A couple years ago I posted an article on my blog about my great-grandfather, Henry Olsen, and some of the historical pictures regarding him that I found on the Internet. His oldest son, H. Paul Olsen, was my grandfather. My middle name, Paul, comes from him. My first name, though, comes from another of my great-grandfather’s sons, Clarence Andrew Olsen. As I remember the story, my mother wanted to name me after her beloved Uncle Clarence, but he suggested that she use his middle name rather than saddle me with the name, Clarence. Taking his wise advice, I am Andrew Paul Efting.

My great-grandfather (seated in the middle) and his children. Standing in the back is my grandfather, H. Paul Olsen. Seated on the far left is my great-uncle, Clarence A. Olsen.

Unfortunately, we lived across the country from my Uncle Clarence, and so I never knew him as well as I would have liked. My Mom always spoke so fondly of him, though, and told many intriguing stories regarding his extraordinary life. Sadly, he passed away this week at the age of 91. To me he was always, Uncle Clarence, but to others he was a special friend, mentor, beloved college professor, or Lieutenant Colonel C. A. Olsen, war hero, or simply, “The Colonel.”

In honor of his life on the sad occasion of his death, I thought I would post portions of an article that was written about him by one of his great-nieces, Mary Ellen Olsen Huff, in conjunction with this past year’s Veteran’s Day. I count it a great privilege to have know him and to be named after him. If after reading this you are interested in learning more about him, you can visit the Facebook page created in is honor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The life my Uncle Clarence led in the military is the stuff movies are made of, books are written about. Last month he celebrated his 91st birthday. He is still one amazing and sharp witted man, he lived one fascinating life AND he served Christ throughout his military career.

When he was just 12 years old Clarence discovered his love of the French language and in high school he studied it for three years under an exceptional French teacher, he learned to speak the language fluently as well as to read and comprehend it. He feels that learning the language as he did was what chartered the course of his life and that it was God's plan for his life, learning the language was his gift. During this time he also taught himself to play the piano and took voice lessons at a local conservatory - two more things that served him well in the years to come.

During World War II he joined the Army Air Corps (the forerunner of the Air Force) and his military career began. I've heard him tell the story about D-Day and landing on the beach of Normandy. To sit and hear someone who was there give a firsthand account of the events of that day in great detail is astounding - a history lesson like no other. Because of his knowledge of the French language he received an assignment with the French underground as the liaison between the leaders of the French Resistance and the Allied Forces and eventually he was the interpreter at the post-Potsdam Conferences and a translator for General Lucius Clay. He was the only member of his unit to receive the two World War II decorations the "Croix de Guerre" and the "Decoration Militaire."

He returned to civilian life for a time after the war and earned his master's degree, then while working on his doctoral studies the Korean conflict began and without finishing his thesis he re-enlisted in the Army.

During the 1950's and 60's the list of things he did sounds somewhat like a James Bond movie - if the movie used French subtitles. In a word, he became a spy. His assignment was counter-intelligence. There are stories he can't even talk about, it's still too painful. His life was in danger on many occasions. I know at least once he awoke to find someone standing over him with a knife, trying to kill him. For years there were countries he didn't dare travel to for fear of retaliation if the wrong military person knew he was there - that's how significant his role was. But the stories he does tell - they are amazing.

He became the liaison between the French security forces and the U.S. Embassy in Paris, France. In Frankfurt, Germany he was the chief French interpreter for international maneuvers. In Heidelberg and Oberammergau, Germany he was the director of an anti-Communist propaganda project. He also worked at the Pentagon, as the U.S. Army contact officer for the Foreign Military Attaché at each of the 50-plus embassies in Washington, D.C. He was also often called on to be the French interpreter for the Department of Defense and an Escort Officer for French-speaking royalty and high government officials.

He was tall, handsome, well spoken with impeccable manners and a real gentleman. Even many years after he had retired he was still the consummate gentleman, always. I still remember when he would come to visit in college and we would be sitting in the dining hall and anytime a female would approach the table he would stand up until they sat down. He had such a presence about him that you immediately felt respect, he didn't command it - you just sense there was something there that deserved respect. He spent a lot of time getting to know not only my friends but the high school and college kids who would want to talk to him about his life, he often spoke in chapel or in other classes when he was here visiting and he had a real ability to connect with young people.

In the early 60's he did tours of duty in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and once again became the liaison officer between the U.S. Armed Forces and the chiefs of state in those countries.

Throughout his military career he was well known as a Christian - he was a man of God in uniform. He was well respected and highly trusted by other high ranking officials. He was well respected for not only what he had accomplished in his military career but for who he was and what he stood for. He didn't apologize for it but he didn't shove it down anyone's throat either. He let the life he lived do the talking.

As the wars came to an end, a commanding officers recommendation led to Colonel Olsen's appointment to the staff of West Point Military Academy and eventually he became the head of the French Department. He taught there for five and a half years until he retired from the military in 1970. At his retirement ceremony, the Commandment of Cadets presented him with a Citation from General Westmoreland, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, and an additional Citation from the President of the United States for his outstanding work with and influence on the West Point Cadets.

Uncle Clarence at West Point, 1964, holding me, back when I was adorable.

Uncle Clarence went on to teach French at Asbury College and lead a very busy life until he officially retired from any job when he was 73 years old. Even after his retirement he stayed busy in his church, assisting with the music and playing the organ. For many years he traveled often, visiting people, staying with someone who was going through a difficult time, lending a hand wherever he could - everything from cooking to babysitting he was willing to do and he did it all well.

He has continued to this day to have a great influence on many lives that he has touched over the years, including mine. For many years he would visit us in Florida each year for a few weeks in the winter up until a little over a year ago when a degenerative problem with his spine made flying too difficult. We now keep in touch with letters and phone calls and he continues to amaze me with his sharp mind.

That is the man I honor today - my Great Uncle, my very special friend, Colonel Olsen.

Precious in the Sight of the Lord

2011-03-22T18:32:00.004-04:00

Our family on Daphne's side

These past couple of years have been hard for Daphne and me. While in most ways our world has gone on as normal, two events have interrupted our lives in a profound and sad way. Two years ago my Mom passed away. She had not yet turned 70 and it was too soon to have to say goodbye. This past month, Daphne’s younger sister, Christine, finally succumbed in her fight against cancer. She left a loving husband and three precious, young children. There is no doubt about it, death is hard on those who are left behind. We cling to precious memories and suffer grief, even while trusting in the goodness and greatness of our gracious God. Sometimes, maybe most of the time, it is hard to know what to say to those who have lost their wife, their mother, or their sister. In that regard, it was interesting to me to see how John Calvin responded to the untimely death of a friend’s son. The following comes from a biography of John Calvin by Herman Selderhuis.

Calvin starts by expressing his heart-felt grief over the matter:

When I received the message about the death of master Claude and of your son Louis, I was so shocked and so despondent that for several days I could only cry. And although I tried to find strength in the presence of God and wanted to comfort myself with the refuge he grants us in time of need, I still felt as if I was not at all myself. Really, I was no longer able to do the normal things, as if I myself were half dead.

Perhaps the most helpful part of his response could be summed up by these ideas – don’t dwell on the why’s, instead, concentrate on the kind providence of a loving God:

There is nothing that robs us more of our power, nothing that dejects us more than when we let ourselves fall into such complaints and questions as: Why did things go like this? Why not another way? Why like that just here? There would be reason to utter such words if we on our part had made a mistake and if we had neglected our duty, but if we have done nothing wrong this matter, there is also no place for these types of complaints.

If in your pondering over your son you were to consider how difficult it is in these dark times to bring our life in a pure manner to a good end, you would surely consider happy one who has been delivered from this at an early age.

And so it is God who has reclaimed your son, that son whom He entrusted to us to care for under the condition that he ever remain His possession.

Calvin spoke this same way when his own son died:

The Lord has dealt us a heavy stroke in the death of our little son. But he is our Father. He knows what is good for his children.

No, death is never easy. It is not intended to be. But, as the Scriptures say, “It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for this is the end of all mankind, and the living will lay it to heart.”

Christine's Family

Jerome and Textual Criticism

2011-02-01T11:05:00.005-05:00

I was fascinated a while back when I came across a blog posting where the author claimed that Jerome had testified to the authenticity of the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7b-8). This claim was interesting to me on many levels. First, if true, it would be a surprising piece of evidence that truly ought to be considered as part of an overall “reasoned eclecticism” evaluation of this variant reading. Second, those who are promoting this evidence normally take a dim view of such text critical methodology, preferring instead to take a “faith-based” approach that ignores the massive evidence that exists against the authenticity of the Comma. Thirdly, it reminded me of a paper I wrote for a seminary class on the Majority Text, where in the course of research I came across several other quotes by Jerome that referred to the textual state of affairs during his day. I want to mention something about those but first let's take a closer look at this particular claim concerning Jerome.

Jerome’s testimony for the Comma is said to come from the preface for the canonical epistles as found in Codex Fuldensis, an early Latin version of the New Testament. Helpfully, Google has the full text of this document available online, so you can read the preface for yourself (see page 399), that is if you can read Latin. The key portion reads in English as follows:

“Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested.”

The book that contains this preface was published in MDCCCLXVIII, or 1868, so it is not certain when the preface was actually written but it seems clear to me that it wasn't written by Jerome. The author appears to reference Jerome as one of the “unfaithful translators [who] contrary to the truth of faith have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit.” Sure enough, if you examine the text of this Codex Fuldensis, it does not include the Comma. Check it out yourself -- On page 426, verse 7 reads, “quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant” (for there are three that bear record) and then the text skips directly to verse 8, omitting the Comma. So, the way I read this preface is that someone is complaining about Jerome's work regarding the Comma. Obviously, the author of the preface believes in the authenticity of the Comma, but the author does appear to be Jerome and it is not clear to me how ancient this evidence is.

Now, while this particular data point is suspect, there are a significant number of actual quotations by Jerome that do speak to the state of the textual corpus during his day. The follow data comes from a chapter entitled, St Jerome's explicit references to variant reading in manuscripts of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger in Text and Interpretation. Metzger lists 27 such references. I'd like to highlight just a few of the more interesting ones:

1. Regarding the longer ending of Mark, he says that it “is met with in only a few copies of the Gospel – almost all the codices of Greece being without this passage...” What is significant here is that what is the majority text today was evidently not the majority text in Jerome's day.

2. Another example of this phenomenon is Matt 5:22, where the majority of extant texts today include “without a cause” but in Jerome's day, he could write, “most of the ancient copies do not have the qualification without a cause.”

3. In regard to the Pericope of Adultery (John 7:53-8:11), he states that the pericope “is found in many of both the Greek as well as the Latin copies of the Gospel according to John.” Here he doesn't say “most” but “many.” So, while he certainly knew of this variant reading, if you compare this wording to what he said about the longer ending of Mark, it would seem to indicate that he found more evidence for the pericope than the longer ending. That is consistant with the fact that the periocpe occurs in the Vulgate. However, today, I think most text critics, while ultimately rejecting both, would say that the longer ending of Mark has much more support for authenticity than does the pericope.

It is fascinating to read what Jerome says. I don't know exactly how much stock we can put into his observations, as his access to manuscripts may have been limited or incomplete. Nevertheless, it is still worth something, as a consideration from a text critic who would have been motivated to be as accurate as possible. At the very least I think it demonstrates how slippery ideas like “majority” really are when dealing with this subject.

The Root of Bitterness

2011-01-19T17:06:00.004-05:00

I have heard many excellent messages on the subject of bitterness. It is an issue that many of us struggle with simply because we live in a fallen world and have to face the terrible effects of sin in our own lives and in the lives of others. We are all prone to harbor bitterness against parents, church leaders, friends, and even God. So, sermons on bitterness are often very helpful and certainly needful.

Unfortunately, many good points are made from the wrong text, especially when dealing with this subject. The reason for this is that one of the most popular texts that preachers use regarding bitterness doesn’t really deal with the concept of bitterness at all. You can take the verse, out of its context, and come up with teaching and applications that are probably helpful and appear to be Biblical, but are not taught at all in that text. And that’s a problem. It’s a common problem, and truth be told, I’ve probably used this verse the wrong way, too.

The problem text is

Hebrews 12:15 (ESV)
See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled;

There are two keys to properly understanding this verse. The first is the context in which this verse appears and the second is the OT reference to which the author of Hebrews alludes.

Hebrews, in general, is a call to faithful endurance. We are to look to Jesus, who as the author and finisher of our faith, is our example and the sustainer for this endurance. Hebrews 12, which begins with this reiteration of the book’s theme, contains the last of the five major warning sections in verses 12-29. These warnings serve to warn the reader what will happens if he fails to endure. In my understanding, they operate as one of the means that God uses in the lives of his children to encourage them to persevere in the faith (cf., Acts 27:22, 31 for an example of how promises and warnings can work together and consistently). Regardless, though, of how you view the warning passages in Hebrews, we can at least observe what is going on in verses 14-17. We are told to strive for peace with everyone and holiness without which no one will see the Lord, and then we are told to see to three things:

1. See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God
2. See to it that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble
3. See to it that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau

With that context in mind, specifically the warnings regarding the possibility of not seeing the Lord (12:14) and failing to obtain the grace of God (12:15), let’s now look at this term, “root of bitterness.” The author of Hebrews gets this terminology from Deut 29:18, which says,

“Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or clan or tribe whose heart is turning away today from the LORD our God to go and serve the gods of those nations. Beware lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit;”

The King James translates this last phrase, “a root that beareth gall and wormwood.” Wormwood is associated with bitterness all throughout the Bible (“bitter as wormwood,” Prov 5:4; Lam 3:15; Rev 8:11). Two things should be immediately clear from this passage: (1) Turning away from God is the essence of developing a root of bitterness; and (2) the “root of bitterness” is a person, someone among them who turns away from the Lord, not a feeling or an attitude. The context in Deut 29 is the same as Hebrews 12, a warning about turning away from the Lord (cf., 12:25, “do not refuse him who is speaking”). Notice how the passage in Deut continues:

Deut 29:19-21 (ESV)
“….one who, when he [referring back to the “root of bitterness”] hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, 'I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.' This will lead to the sweeping away of moist and dry alike. 20 The LORD will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven. 21 And the LORD will single him out from all the tribes of Israel for calamity, in accordance with all the curses of the covenant written in this Book of the Law.”

Thus it will be bitter for the person who turns from the Lord and walks in the stubbornness of his heart, as if you can, for example, happily ignore God’s warning to pursue peace and holiness. The bitterness of God’s judgment is perfectly illustrated by the person of Esau, whom the writer of Hebrews references in the next two verses:

Heb 12:16-17 (ESV)
that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

Notice that the consequences for Esau (“no chance to repent”) are the same as for the “root of bitterness” in Deut 29:20 (“The LORD will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.). Esau is an example of a “root of bitterness,” someone who rejects God, his covenant/birthright, and ends up with no way to inherit the blessings of salvation that he could have had. Esau failed to obtain what the grace of God would have given him, and author of Hebrews implores us not to do the same thing. If we do, it will be bitter for us, just as it was for Esau and just as it was for those in Duet 29.

That, in a short blog post, is the message of these verses in Hebrew 12:14-17.

The most powerful preaching and teaching will use God’s word according to its true and right meaning, not inadvertently ripping it from its meaning and context. This analysis may mean a fairly significant paradigm shift for some in how they think about, approach, and apply this passage – it did for me! And, of course, we still need preaching on personal bitterness, just not from this passage.

Biblical Creationism, Part 2

2010-11-07T16:30:00.004-05:00

My last two weeks lessons have been the most important in our series so far on the topic of Biblical Creationism. Last week, I started my lesson on “Let there be Light” with an introduction that linked the Doctrine of Creation with the Reformation Day topic of justification by faith alone. Here is a short synopsis: the analogy that Paul makes in Romans 5:12-21 between Adam and Christ only makes sense if Adam is a real historical character. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness works the same way as the imputation of Adam’s sin to the human race. That’s Paul’s point. If the “because all sinned” in Romans 5:12 only means people died because of their individual sins, then Paul’s analogy, if it is to be consistent, must say that our justification to life is based on our individual righteous deeds – which, of course, is no gospel at all! The only reasonable way for us to be imputed with Adam’s sin is if he was indeed a historical character. How can we be imputed with the sin of a fictional or mythological person?

My lesson today concentrated on the creation of the firmament in Genesis 1:6-8 and how some people in past suggested that the waters above the firmament were the source of the water’s for Noah’s flood. The problem with this idea is that Psalm 148:4 indicates that those waters are still there, and besides, a careful reading of Genesis 1:6-8 does not put the separated waters in the atmosphere or in space but beyond the universe. This led me to discuss the Arguments Creationists should NOT use page on the Answers in Genesis website. The lesson we need to learn from all this is that we should defend the supernatural events of the Bible with the Bible, not scientific or naturalistic arguments. Otherwise, we may find ourselves defending the truth of God’s word with arguments that sound good at the time but that may end up on a similar list in the future. Far better to believe the Bible when it says that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, especially when dealing with a subject that the Bible itself says requires faith to believe (Heb 11:3). Spurgeon puts it best, as he normally does, when he says, “I defend the Bible the way I defend a lion – I let it out of its cage and let it defend himself!”

If you are interested in listening to these lessons. I have most of them posted at http://sermon.net/refugebaptist.

Biblical Creationism

2010-10-04T08:39:00.006-04:00

I am beginning a new adult Sunday School series on Biblical Creationism at Refuge Baptist Church. This is a topic I have been thinking about a lot recently. I am grateful for the opportunity to teach on it and hope it will be a blessing and encouragement to faith for those in our church. Here is a link to the first lesson.

Related to this series is a message I preached at Grace Baptist Church back in February, 2010. Those who are interested in this topic may also want to listen my message on Apologetics to the Glory of God.

Exegetical Fallacies are too much fun!

2010-08-18T09:18:00.006-04:00

Recently, I got called on the carpet for suggesting that a particular interpretational strategy was an exegetical fallacy. I just read Carson’s short book on Exegetical Fallacies and it was fresh in my mind. Perhaps I rushed in foolishly where angels fear to tread but I couldn’t help myself. It was just too obvious. Which leads me to another of Carson’s fallacies:

“17. Abuse of ‘obviously’ and similar expressions.”

Some things are obvious but it’s too much fun when commentators use the expression to advance their view on a controversial passage. Let’s take the interpretation of Peter and the rock in Matthew 16:18. I have read where one author has compiled a bibliography of over 1000 sources that discuss this highly debated text. So, with that in mind, I offer the following quotes for your enjoyment:

“Indeed, why do we contend over the meaning of these words, as if they were obscure or ambiguous, while nothing clearer or more certain can be said? Peter, in his own and his brethren’s name, had confessed that Christ was the Son of God [Matt. 16:16]. Upon this rock Christ builds his church. For there is but one foundation, as Paul says, apart from which no other can be laid (1 Cor 3:11).” (John Calvin – the obvious meaning is Christ is the rock)

“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. No other explanation would probably at the present day be attempted, but for the fact that the obvious meaning has been abused by Papists to the support of their theory.” (John Broadus – the obvious meaning is Peter is the rock)

"’This rock’ is referring to something other than the person who was being addressed in the preceding phrase, something that we find in the immediate context. A natural reading of the passage (one that I truly believe would be nigh unto universal if history had not fallen out as it did, with only one ‘apostolic see’ in the West, the continuance of the Empire in the East, etc.) makes it plain what must function as the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun . . . Hence, the logical antecedent for [this] is Peter’s confession. Such not only commands the most logical grammatical sense, but it also commands the obvious teaching of the rest of the New Testament itself!” (James White – the obvious meaning is Peter’s confession is the rock)

To be fair, these men all back up their remarks with exegesis. Nevertheless, I find these three statements, taken together, quite humorous.

My Summer Reading List

2010-07-26T20:45:00.003-04:00

Summer is almost over but I am just now able to get back to reading some non-assigned texts. The past couple of months have been consumed reading tomes on hermeneutics for a class I am taking through Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Virginia Beach. While I have enjoyed the reading for my class, I am looking forward to digging into the following:

Creation, Fall, Restoration by Andrew S. Kulikovsky. HT: Dr. McCabe’s blog

I have been looking for books that take a intentionally biblical approach to the creation debate. I question if we should expect science to speak accurately about supernatural, non-repeatable events. It is far better, I believe, to rely on Scripture to prove what the Bible teaches and for which it alone is authoritative. I do not know for sure the position that Kulikovsky takes but fully expect this book to be interesting reading.

Summer for the Gods by Edward J. Larson. This book, recommended by my friend Darryl Buller, covers the history of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. The Scopes trial is very interesting for many reasons (history of fundamentalism, creation debate strategies, etc) and I’m told this is a fair and engaging treatment of the trial.

Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship by David Peterson. I found Peterson’s commentary on Acts to be quite helpful as I taught through the first part of Acts in SS this past year. Also, his theology of sanctification, Possesed by God, has proved to be quite challenging and thought provoking. So, when my friend and former pastor Andrew Henderson suggested that I read Peterson’s book on worship, I had to add it to my list.

I don’t recall how these other two made my list, but the last couple I hope to read in the near future are: The Trials of Theology: Becoming a ‘Proven Worker” in a Dangerous Business, edited by Andrew Cameron and Brian Rosner; and The Unquenchable Flame:Discovering the Heart of the Reformation, by Michael Reeves.

Was Adam an Evolutionary Figure?

2009-12-31T11:13:00.003-05:00

In my previous post, I argued for the historical reality of a literal Adam. I don’t see how one can affirm inerrancy and at the same time allow a non-historical figure in the many genealogies found in Scripture. I also, per Paul’s argument in Romans 5, don’t see how God could justly condemn all mankind for a sin nature inherited from a figurative, symbolic, or mythological person. In support of my position, I quoted from Bruce Waltke’s An Old Testament Theology where he also affirms a literal, historical Adam.

Unfortunately, in that same book, just a few pagers earlier, Waltke states that the best way to harmonize Scripture with science is to believe in theistic evolution. So, while Waltke believes in a literal Adam, he nevertheless also believes that Adam evolved from “the process of natural selection and of cataclysmic interventions – such as the meteor that extinguished the dinosaurs…” Evidently, within the race of humanoid creatures that evolved, God chose one of those creatures and “by direct creation made [him] a spiritual being.” (Waltke, 202-203, throughout the section, Waltke uses the transliteration of the Hebrew, adam, which can mean the man Adam or mankind in general – I perceive an intentional ambiguity on Waltke’s part).

While Waltke’s evolutionary proposal answers the objections to a non-historical Adam, it nevertheless introduces new theological objections. My hunch is that he is simply choosing the better of two evils, given his commitment to reconcile the truth claims of science with the truth claims of Scripture. From where I stand, however, the theological problems with an evolved Adam are just as significant and objectionable as those for a non-historical Adam.

An evolved Adam is not consistent with the Biblical assumption that all mankind descended from Adam. The Bible refers to Adam as the first man (1 Cor 15:45) and so does Waltke but if Adam is simply just selected from the pool of human-like creatures living at the time, then at least two very important problems present themselves very quickly (see the next two points). Evolution works within populations, not individuals, meaning that a selected person within that population will NOT see his descendants mate only among his descendants. There will be intermingling outside his descendants because the whole population is so similar. Evolutionary change takes place slowly within groups of beings. Presumably, Adam would not be the only human to emerge from the population of human-like creatures. Consequently, the people alive in the world after Adam would be descendants from Adam, descendants from those outside Adam, and descendants from a mixture of the two. Where Cain got his wife is actually a very important question.

An evolved Adam does not explain why all humans are sinners and are condemned to death. If mankind is a mixture of descendants and non-descendants of Adam, then from the logic of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, only those strict descendants from Adam would be subject to the condemnation of sin and death. Romans 5:12, however, says that death has passed upon all men, because all men are sinners, and thus (Rom 5:18) all men are condemned. Thus all men must have descended only from Adam.

An evolved Adam does not explain how death entered the world before his sin. Romans 5:12 clearly states that death entered the world due to Adam’s sin. This has to include physical death, not just Spiritual death, because (1) the death Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty of our sin was a physical death; (2) while our souls have been made alive in Christ, we still wait for the redemption of our sinful bodies (Rom 12:23) which Paul refers to a as a “body of this death” (7:24); and (3) the fact of the matter is that all men do die physically. The “and he died” refrain that occurs over and over again in Genesis 5 is a repeated reminder that physical death was indeed part of the judgment on Adam and all his descendants. Physical death is an enemy, not part of God’s creation that he said was very good.

Romans 5:12 says more than that physical death passed to all men because of Adam’s sin. It says that, through that one sin, death itself entered the world. Thus before Adam’s sin, physical death did not exist among men or animals. I am excluding plant and cell life because the Bible highlights men and animals as those who have the breath of life in them. For example, God says in Gen 6:17 that He will “destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die.”(ESV) He then says in Gen 6:19 to bring into the ark two “of every living thing of all flesh.” Those living things are distinguished from the food that they are also to bring aboard the ark (Gen 6:21). Finally, after every living thing on earth with the breath of life had died from the flood (Gen 7:22), Noah sent out a dove that eventually comes back with an olive leaf, indicating that plants were now growing on the earth again. Plants and vegetation were not destroy, even though all living things were. Plant life, then, is not the same as animal or human life and in the very, very rare circumstances when the Bible says that plants die, it is clear that plants don’t die in the same sense that animals or humans die (e.g., Job 14:7-12). The death that entered the world refers to the death of animals and people, and of course, an animal died right away as a result of man’s sin (Gen 3:21).

An evolutionary process of biological evolution is not consistent with (1) the truth that death entered the world only after the one sin of Adam in the garden; or (2) the Biblical truth that all men descended from Adam and thus sin, death, and condemnation passed upon all men due to Adam's one sin. So, as I said at the beginning of this post, while Waltke avoids serious theological error in maintaining the historical reality of Adam, he nevertheless runs into just as serious error by advocating an evolving Adam.

Was Adam an Historical Figure?

2009-12-22T20:10:00.005-05:00

Does it matter if Adam was a literal, historical person, or would it be OK theologically to say that Adam was only a mythological or symbolic figure? What doctrines, if any, would be harmed if Adam was not the actual first human and father of the entire human race? I suggest that both the doctrine of inerrancy and the truth of the gospel are at stake.

Inerrancy

Adam plays an important role within many genealogies. In Genesis 5, Adam is listed as the first human and then genealogically linked with several important historical persons, Enoch, and Noah. Through Noah in Genesis 10 and 11, Adam is then linked to Shem, Ham, and Japheth and the entire table of nation, ending most significantly with Abraham, the father of the Jewish people. 1 Chronicles begins with Adam as the origination point for the history of the Jewish remnant, connected with all the patriarchs, David, the twelve tribes of Israel, and the returning exiles. Luke also includes Adam as the first historical figure in the line of Christ. All these figures are important historical persons, whose literal human existence is not in question. It would be unthinkable to suggest that these chroniclers thought that some individual in their carefully constructed genealogies where not real historical persons. If Adam was not real, then these passages are either intentionally deceptive or written by someone duped into mythological error. As an aside, in case one were to claim that gaps in genealogies are also evidence of error, it should be noted that the language used does not demand that the begetting father is the immediately preceding father, just that he is a preceding father from whom the named son descended.

In addition to the genealogies, OT writers, NT apostles, and Christ refer to Adam as a real historical figure. Hosea 6:7 says that God’s people violated God’s covenant with them, just like Adam did. Paul says (1 Timothy 2:13-14) that Adam was formed first, then Eve. Eve was deceived, not Adam. Paul used this historical event as the basis for explaining the different roles that men and women have in the NT church. It makes no sense to base roles of real people on the actions of those in a mythological story. Paul obviously believed Adam and Eve and the events in the Garden were real, historical events. Jesus does the same thing in explaining his position on divorce and marriage. He bases what marriage should be today (leaving and cleaving) on the historical creation account of Adam and Eve (Matt 19:4-8; Mark 10:6-8). Jesus specifically says this was how things worked in the beginning. The beginning of marriage and the one-flesh relationship began with Adam and Eve, not their theoretical non-human ancestors. Again, this argument does not work if the basis is only a fictional story or if it was not really the historical, actual beginning.

The Gospel

Most importantly, as Bruce Waltke says on page 250 of his Theology of the Old Testament, “the historicity of both figures [Adam and Jesus Christ] is foundational to Paul’s’ doctrine of human redemption through Christ Jesus.” In other words, the truths of the gospel depend on a literal, historic Adam. This may be seen in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Paul entire argument is based on the corresponding and complementary positions that all men have in either Adam or Christ. Paul is clear that sin and death entered the world because of one real man’s historical sin. Paul is just as clear that righteousness and life are available because of one real man’s historical righteousness. Romans 5:18-19 says, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness lead to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” It is not good enough, as some suggest, to observe that all men sin. Paul says much more than that. He is saying that all mankind is condemned from birth, before they do any actual sinning, because they were imputed with the sin of Adam and thus declared condemned sinners. Thus explains the passing of death upon all men, even those who as infants or mentally challenged do not make rebellious sin choices like Adam did (Rom 5:14, “even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam”). Over and over again, in addition to what he says in verse 18-19, Paul refers to the actual sin of the man Adam:

*** Sin came into the world through one man and death spread to all men because of that first sin (Rom 5:12).

*** Death reigned from Adam to Moses (Rom 5:12, is one historical and the other not?).

*** Many died through one man’s trespass (Rom 5:15).

*** Death reigned because of one man’s trespass but abundant grace, righteousness, and life through one man Jesus Christ (Rom 5:17, are we to assume that one of these men is real but the other not?).

These verses teach the federal headship of both Adam and Christ. We are condemned to death because Adam sinned. He represented all mankind in the garden and when he fell, he took the entire human race with him. We cannot help but sin because we are all sinners due to Adam. We are sinners by nature and by choice. Likewise, we are granted life because of Christ’s righteousness. God imputes the righteousness of Christ to our account when who we were in Adam (condemned sinners) were crucified with Christ on the cross (Rom 6:1-6; cf., Rom 7:1-6; Gal 2:20). Paul puts it this way in 1 Cor 15:21-22, “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” In 1 Cor 15:45, Paul quotes Gen 2:7 as historical fact and then gives the gospel implication of Christ’s role as the second Adam: “the first man became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”

How does one inherit a sin nature from a mythological figure? How are we justly condemned and how do we justly die if those things are not based on historical reality. Our salvation depends on the historical reality of Jesus’ perfect life and his literal obedience unto death on the cross. If Adam is figurative, why not Christ? If these men are not real, is God’s plan of redemption even necessary? Are we really condemned? Perhaps death is not the result of a real historical sin? Perhaps we are not really totally depraved and therefore worthy of eternal death in hell. Perhaps we do have some good in us and our good can out-weigh the bad at the judgment, if there is a literal judgment at all. No, none of that will do. God is just and would not condemn men to death and hell on the basis of a myth. If Christ is real then Adam is real. If Adam is not real, then there is no reason to insist that Christ is real. If Adam is not historical, then Paul’s whole argument crumbles and with it the whole mechanics of the gospel.

If you are going to get the answer wrong anyway...

2009-12-10T14:34:00.003-05:00

You might as well have fun while you are at it!

The post, How to Fail a Test with Dignity, at Ivman's Blague is too funny. I highly recommend that you refrain from consuming any beverages while perusing this post. Here is an example of what you will find:

The student in this class is supposed to state a premise, create an equation that represents his premise, and then sovle the equation.

HT: Bethany Lovegrove

Gospel-Driven Separation

2009-10-16T19:43:00.009-04:00

This past week (Oct 15-16) I attended the Mid-America Conference on Preaching, held annually by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. This year’s theme was on the subject of gospel-driven separation. I want in this blog post to summarize what I heard as the main points of the conference. I would welcome clarifications or corrections regarding my summary from anyone else who was there or who may have listened to the messages over the Internet.

1. Not all errors are separation issues

    A. Separation issues are those issues that impact in some way the message or truth of the gospel (thus gospel-driven).

    B. The gospel in this sense should not be narrowly defined as just Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection but also issues that impact the gospel such as the apostolic witness, the person of Christ, future judgment, and certain behaviors.

    C. Issues that do not undercut the gospel are not separation issues but:

        • May still be exposed as error, even significant error
        • May still be contended for, perhaps even vigorously
        • May still impact areas of cooperation, fellowship, or interaction

2. If the error warrants gospel-driven separation, then:

    A. Consistent separatists will not fellowship with those who practice this error (i.e., they will always separate) – 1st degree separation

    B. Consistent separatists will also withhold fellowship from those who do not separate over gospel-driven issues – 2nd degree separation

    C. Inconsistent separatists (are these the Bauder/Machen Indifferentists?) do not always (i.e., maybe never, maybe most of the time – there is a spectrum here) practice 2nd degree separation (as defined above) BUT do always practice 1st degree separation

3. It is a gospel-impacting wrong to not practice 2nd degree separation (i.e., to be an inconsistent separatist), thus warranting (3rd degree?) separation but it is not a gospel-impacting wrong to not practice this level of separation. Therefore, lack of (3rd degree?) separation may be:

    A. Cautioned against as an error in judgment/wisdom
    B. May impact areas of cooperation, fellowship, or interaction
    C. The response depends in some measure on the nature of the inconsistency

4. Examples of non-gospel-driven separation errors (although there may be manifestation of each of these errors that do cross the line to undercut the gospel):

    A. Music
    B. Non-Cessationism
    C. Mode of Baptism/Paedobaptism
    D. Non-Young Earth Creationism
    E. KJVOism
    F. Arminianism

I’m not sure I captured point 3 correctly. At the very least, there are probably some terminology issues. If I heard Dave Doran correctly, he said that he would separate from (or not fellowship with) those who do not practice 2nd degree separation but would not separate from those who don’t practice that same level of (3rd degree?) separation. I take that to mean that lack of 2nd degree separation falls into the “gospel-driven separation” category, thus necessitating separation as from a disobedient brother.

The benefits of this method of categorization are that (1) it prevents the absurd notion of nth degree separation – there is a natural, gospel-driven end point; and (2) it allows evaluation without the increasingly irrelevant labeling (due to the fracturing of both fundamentalism and evangelicalism) that historically guided our separation decisions.

Theological Reflections on My Trip to the Philippines

2009-07-28T02:40:00.005-04:00

As a middle-class American driving through the Palawan countryside, I cannot help but be taken aback by the deep poverty of the average Filipino citizen on this island. I have already posted several pictures of the terrible living conditions that these people endure. Many have no electricity; most have no running water. The “bathrooms” that I have encountered on this trip, even in the tourist-friendly locations, often leave much to be desired (to put it mildly).

It is natural to wonder about the eternal state of these people. Scripturally I know that apart from knowing about Christ and the gospel they have no hope. Thankfully, I have seen many missionary endeavors on the island, and even seen tangible fruit from their labors. God’s light has reached this corner of the world but there is no question but that many of these people have yet to be evangelized.

My human response to this fact is to question the fairness of it all. At least those in America or other westernized nations have had the opportunities granted by wealth and development to enjoy their time on this world before they face eternity. These poor people live in squalor and then face the judgment of God. How is that fair, I found myself asking.

As I reflected on that question, I began to wonder if it was not my own materialism that caused me to think as I do. Compared with eternity, what do material things really matter. Is the rich man who builds bigger barns to hold all his stuff really better off? God calls him a fool. Riches often bring about additional cares for the things of this world that rob us from enjoying what we thought we just had to have. Ecclesiastes speaks of the frustrating endeavor to get just a little bit more, an effort that never satisfies (Ecc 4:8). I obviously do not have the right perspective on things.

A passage that God has laid on my heart during this trip is Acts 14:15-17. This is Paul and Barnabas reacting to the crowds in Lystra who thought them to be gods after healing a man:

Acts 14:15-17 (ESV)
And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: 16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

The people of Palawan, Tokyo, New York City, or Suwanee are all men of like passions. We have the same human, sinful nature and all need the same savior. We all need to repent, to turn from the vanities of this world, whatever our own way is, to the living God – the God who created the world that we all share. The vanities of Lystra may look different from the vanities of Broadway, Atlanta, or Sabang, but they are vain nonetheless because are not satisfying or eternal.

For years God allowed us to go our own way, yet He still gave us revelation about Himself so that we would know what kind of God we were offending when we sinned. The revelation that all men receive, regardless of time or place, is that God is good. He gives us rain, fruitful seasons, and the subsequent ability to be fed and glad. Yes, sometimes God sends famine or sorrow but the typical human experience is rain on the just and the unjust, providing nourishment to the ground for harvest, and the ability to have food, clothes, and shelter. It may be meager; it may be plain; but it is God’s good provision.

The other thing God gives men is gladness. One of the most striking things about my experience here in Palawan has been seeing the good cheer of the residents. They may be poor but they are a happy people. The children run and play. The men and women laugh. They enjoy life. Now, deep down there will be an emptiness in all men who live apart from God. No one experiences the true joy of being right with God unless they know the Savior. Yet, it does appear that God gives happiness and joy in some measure to all men. It gives a glimpse of what all men really desire and that is deep abiding joy. When I see these poor little children living in deplorable conditions I also see a laughter and joy that tells me that God really is good.

One last quick thought comes from a verse in 2 Corinthians:

2 Corinthians 8:9 (ESV)
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.

Honestly, I could not picture myself stooping to live in the conditions in which so many Filipinos find themselves. Yet, Christ must have humbled Himself to a much greater degree when He came to earth and lived as a man so that He could save us from our sins. The depth of His love is unbelievable to me. He became poor – that phrase has a new, more vivid meaning to me now – so that I might gain the unsearchable riches of Christ. I am left speechless at the thought….

Worshiping in the Philippines

2009-07-27T06:40:00.003-04:00

Grace Baptist Church, Puerto Princesa, Palawan

One of the things that struck me as we traveled through Tokyo and Manila on our way to Palawan was that the sun I saw here was the same sun I see when I’m back home in America. Japanese, Filipino, American, or whatever, we all benefit from and enjoy the same sun. This simple fact brought home to me again the truth that one God created that sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, and all that is in them. We all, wherever we may live, owe our existence to the God who is the one and only Creator of the world. This God desires his creatures from every tribe, language, people, and nation to worship him. It was my privilege this past Sunday to worship with a church family on the other side of the world from where I call home. Ironically, the name of the church was the same – Grace Baptist Church.

In some ways, the experience was totally different from what I am used to. There was no air conditioning, just fans, even though it was quite hot and humid outside. The benches were wooden and quite uncomfortable, at least to me. The preaching and Sunday School sessions were spoken in both English and Tagalog (by the same man). These external differences were things I expected. The thing I really wanted to know was, how did this Filipino church – one that was pastored by a Filipino national and that has been in existence for 30+ years – how did they worship in their culture? and how different would it be than mine? The answer is that there really was no difference from what you might see in any average Baptist church in the USA, other than those externals.

They started their worship service with a “meet and greet” time to the song, “There’s a welcome here!” One either likes these times as a way to show friendliness to those around you, or you don’t, thinking it turns a formal time of worship into a circus. I don’t like it any more in the Philippines than I do back home. They sang songs from a PowerPoint display, just like many of our churches do in America. Most of the songs were old-time gospels songs. It was great to sing “Wonderful Grace of Jesus” with church folk on the other side of the world. They also sang a praise chorus called, “I Stand in Awe.” It was a typical, shallow praise chorus that could be about one’s boyfriend. There was no rich doctrinal content or even explicit mention of whose “presence” we wanted to be in or whose “eyes” we wanted to look into. They used a worship team to help with leading the singing. They had a small choir. They had an offertory and a special number (my wife, Daphne, was privileged to minister those). Maybe they learned all this from American missionaries that ministered 40-50 years ago. The faces were different, the seating was different, the heat and humidity were different, but everything else, including typical problem areas, was about the same.

I wonder if I should have been surprised. We both worship the same God. Should we not use the same elements of worship, regardless of culture? I tend to think so.

This is the church that Daphne’s grandmother has attended since it started from another church in the area over 30 years ago. It was started as a church plant from the church that Daphne’s mom went to in another part of Puerto Princesa. Daphne’s mom was led to the Lord through the work of American missionaries, so I think the other church was founded by those same missionaries (the DeVries?). It was wonderful to see the fruit of faithful missionary activity – founding a church, installing a national pastor, and then having that church multiply itself. There were more people at Grace Baptist Church in Puerto Princesa, Palawan this past Sunday than what we normally have at Grace Baptist in Dacula, Georgia – and we have padded seats and air conditioning.

Entering the church

Inside the church

Choir singing Amazing Grace

Daphne singing "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross"

Across the street from the church

Group picture after church

More Pictures from the Philippines

2009-07-26T19:46:00.006-04:00

One of the most interesting days for me so far was our trip to the Underground River on the other side of the island near Sabang. We saw incredible scenery and incredible poverty all along the way. I have all the pictures from this trip on my facebook page, accessible here for those without a facebook account:

The road to Sabang was mostly paved -- they are wanting to make this area more accesible to tourists. But the pavement would disappear for no apparent reason every once in a while.

Typical scene along the road to Sabang

Here is a typical shelter-type dwelling that we saw all over the place. My son, JD, said they looked like forts that he would like to build...but not live it.

Here is another

Here is another

Here is our destination, the famed Underground River. It took a 2-hour ride from our Puerta Princesa, then a 3 kilometer (or so) boat ride, and then a very short hike thorough the jungle to get here. We actually saw real wild monkeys in the jungle area.

Here is a boat, similar to what we took.

Scenery during the boat trip, on the way to the Underground River

Daphne and me on the beach near the Underground River