Bible interpretation

Several years ago David and I took part in a battle opposing a number of members of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) in their efforts to remove the sex-markings of thousands of texts of Scripture in the New International Version. At the time, the NIV was the Bible translation standard of the Bible-believing, English-speaking world, so it was the efforts to modernize this particular translation that were our focus.

Our opponents' plan was to put out an updated NIV called the NIVI in which Hebrew and Greek words such as adam, adelphoi, and aner would be denuded of their male grammatical component and thereby rendered innocuous to Westerners raised in a feminized society in which it had become gauche to make references to mixed-sex groups using any word with a male marking. 'Man' became 'humankind', 'brothers' became 'Christian friends' (NLT) or 'siblings' (NIVI), 'man' became 'person', and so on--thousands of times across the pages of Scripture.

As you'll see from the above reference to the NLT, the NIV was not the only Bible in wide use across the evangelical world being similarly updated. In an effort to update the Living Bible which was growing long-in-the-teeth, Tyndale House Publishers had hired a long list of ETS academics to produce the New Living Translation which, benefiting from millions of dollars in advertising and purchased product placement in national bookstore chains, was steadily gaining market share.

Partly because of the naturally lower expectations of accuracy the NLT inherited from its predecessor, the Living Bible; partly because the academics who had done the NLT's translation work likely expected it to be more a devotional than a study Bible; and partly because the NLT's publisher responded to expressions of concern over some of the more egregious mistranslations evident in the NLT's text with thoughtful consideration and, eventually, a number of changes to the text of the NLT's subsequent printings; the public battle was focused almost exclusively on the updated NIVI, its publisher Zondervan, and Zondervan's subsidiary (in a manner of speaking), the International Bible Society and her subordinate Bible Translation Committee.

The battle was joined with the publication March 29, 1997 of Susan Olasky's cover article, "The Stealth Bible: the Feminist Seduction of the Evangelical Church," in World magazine. For almost everyone this was the first hint of Zondervan's plans and the response was a good measure of the profound theological divisions present within the vast entrepreneurial business park named "evangelicalism."

Predictably, one side decried Olasky's divisive spirit and focused their attack on World magazine...

It's a sad indication of the status of modern Evangelical and Reformed Biblical scholarship that Charles Spurgeon's little classic, Commenting and Commentaries, remains a generally up-to-date guide to the best Biblical scholarship extant. Not in every case, but in far too many....

I've been using a modern critical Evangelical commentary while preaching through Luke and it systematically disappoints. Its usefulness, at best, is as a guide to critical thought. Once in a while it illuminates factually in a way Calvin doesn't. But in general, I've come to ignore it.

Perhaps the clearest symptom of the disease afflicting conservative Biblical scholarship is terminology. This commentary, like almost all modern exegetical commentaries on the Gospels, continually refers to the "Lucan", "Marcan" and "Matthean" accounts of parallel passages.

Why not simply refer to "Luke's" gospel, "Matthew's" account, and so on? Because conservative scholars are bounders, perpetual arrivistes at the scholarly table; to prove they belong they must genuflect to modern critical scholarship.

That's why they can't simply call it "Luke's gospel." Modern critical scholarship questions the authorship of the Gospels. So, instead of the flatly declarative "Luke's gospel," we get adjectival descriptions like "Matthean" and "Lucan." Conservative scholars may argue for "Lucan" authorship of Luke, but every time conservative scholars use their opponents' weasel-words, they submit to the lie even as they argue against it.

Until conservative Biblical scholars are willing to be simple lovers of God's Word--and thus disdained by the scholarly community for their refusal to kowtow to its God-denying precepts--modern conservative scholarship will remain fruitless in the lives of common Christians and commentators such as Calvin, Luther, Henry and Alexander will remain the gold standard for exegetical spiritual meat.

Update: It's for precisely this reason that so many love the work of Vern Poythress. Dr. Poythress writes for Christians. And I would add that despite my recent criticisms of CBMW, Wayne Grudem has consistently disdained striving after secular approval in his work on Biblical sexuality, the primary reason CBMW served a useful purpose for many years.

Four thoughts on Genesis 1 and 2....

1. It looks (from Genesis 2:18-22) at least potentially the case that God's first step in the provision of a helpmeet for the lonely Adam was the creation of the land animals.

Genesis 2:18-22

18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Not only are we told that God created the animals in consideration of Adam's loneliness, but the animals are then brought before Adam for naming with the resulting verdict in verse 21, "But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him."

This is interesting, first, in its apparent ordering of events on the sixth day of creation. In the sequence of Genesis 1 the creation of man precedes the creation of animals. But there is no actual statement of order in Genesis 1 beyond the sequence of the passage whereas Genesis 2 presents a logical order to events: Adam created first; Adam found lonely; God decides to provide a companion and helpmeet for Adam; animals created; animals brought before Adam for his examination; Adam names animals; Adam finds none suitable for him; Eve created out of Adam.

The one problem with reading order from Genesis 2 is that in Genesis 2 the birds are lumped with the land animals in creation and naming, yet Genesis 1 places creation of birds with fish on day five.

Interesting, second, in that even if Genesis 2 does not give insight into order of creation, it does seem to imply that the animals were brought before Adam as potential helpmeets.

2. It's striking to note that though fish and birds are told to multiply and fill the earth in Genesis 1:22, Adam is created incapable of multiplying initially. There must have been sexual differentiation between animals from the outset if they were told to multiply and fill the earth, yet man was created singly.

3. In Genesis 1:20 God commands the fish to teem, or swarm, or multiply abundantly in the water. God fears overpopulation in neither animals nor man. Man is to be fruitful, to multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it. Animals are to teem in the earth. Imagine a ripe banana teeming with fruitflies: so God has created the earth in ripeness that man may teem upon it.

4. Every animal is given every green plant for food in Genesis 1:30. Evidently there was digestion and elimination prior to the fall and thus the demise of plant life. We may not call it death, precisely, but the Bible speaks of plants "perishing" (see Jonah 4:10), leading us to conclude that there was at least a form of vegetation death and decay prior to Adam's sin.

Several verses gave me pause in recent Bible reading:

Nehemiah 1:11 "O Lord, I beseech you, may Your ear be attentive to the prayer of Your servant and the prayer of your servants who delight to fear your name...."

True fear of the Lord is joyful rather than craven. His servants delight to fear Him. Imagine the fear of soldiers in pitched battle who hear the approach of bombers. This is the terror of those who do not know God. The fear of God's servants is the fear of those who look up to see markings of their own air force on the approaching bombers. God's children delight to fear Him.

Nehemiah 4:14 "When I saw their fear, I rose and spoke to the nobles, the officials and the rest of the people: 'Do not be afraid of them; remember the Lord who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives and your houses.'"

Several thoughts spring from this rallying cry by Nehemiah. First, the command to fight: imagine a Christian leader saying, "In the name of God, fight," today. Second, the implicit assumption that (grown) men fight for their wives, daughters and sons. Third, the command to fight for "your houses." For our wives? Maybe. For our children? Probably But for our houses? At the command of God? Pacifism runs up against a powerful foe in this verse.

(Tim, w/thanks to Carol) The international Synod of (Roman) Catholic Bishops will meet this coming October around the theme, "The Word of God." In preparation, an international survey on biblical literacy was taken in the United States, the United Kingdom, Holland, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Poland and Russia. (Soon, other countries in the Southern Hemisphere will be added, including Argentina, South Africa, the Philippines, and Australia.)

Italian sociologist Luca Diotallevi says the study is “the most systematic scientific undertaking yet attempted to compare, on an international scale, levels and forms of familiarity with the Scriptures.”

The survey's findings indicate even secularized nations and people are quite interested in the Bible, but find it very hard to understand. This is a wonderful opening for the people of God--evangelistic Bible studies continue to be one of the most effective tools we have for bringing men and women to the preaching of the Word and faith.

Other survey results show the decline of Bible knowledge among American Protestants as it grows among Roman Catholics...

(Tim, w/thanks to James) Friends, here's one to keep your eyes on. David and I believe the training of pastors is best done in the context of the local church, but if we were asked which seminaries we believe hold true to biblical faith, Westminster Theological Seminary would make the short list.

Now, though, they have a professor who has written things that call his commitment to the authority and plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture into question. After suspending him from teaching, they're investigating the matter formally.

Lots of sheep think the seminary's action is scandalous. You know, criticisms of the "Don't you idiots know that the church has repented of heresy trials?" sort. Well, there you have it: "No heresy any more," say the sheep, "so don't bother guarding us--we don't need your care." How David and I thank God for allowing us to serve congregations who love us precisely because we seek to guard them as the Apostle Paul exhorted the elders of Ephesus to guard their own congregation, warning them: "From among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20:30). Further, our congregations have chosen elders who share in that work with us, rather than seeking to silence this aspect of our (and their) calling. What joy!

This past week, I finished Calvin's letter to Cardinal Sadoleto. Let me end the post with this excerpt:

...the miserable condition into which the Church had fallen was owing to nothing more than to its enervation by luxury and indulgence. For the body of the Church, to cohere well, must be bound together by discipline as with sinews.

(Tim) On Facebook, a friend and former CGSer has been discussing sodomy, marriage, divorce and the civil law with several friends who have said things like: "semantics is a cheap reason to deny a minority their civil rights. None of the many gay folk I know agree with the "semantics justification" for denial of marriage. Also, such a social mandate (YOU live by OUR rules) has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ--and everything to do with the teachings of the Pharisees."

Wanting to say a couple things, I pointed the conversationalists to this page and here's my own contribution to their dialog. Sorry I haven't linked things, but I wanted to get this up before all our guests arrive for Thanksgiving Dinner. If any of you want to add links, just post them in the comments.

* * *

Sam, Scripture isn't just dogma; it's narrative. Descriptive isn't necessarily prescriptive. It can be, but with divorce, incest, polygamy, concubinage, etc. Scripture reveals both where it was that every culture got marriage and also the laws to which God bound all sexual intimacy.

So, for instance, when Jesus was asked a question similar to yours (but this one concerning divorce), He responded saying it wasn't that way from the beginning (Creation) and that God made male and female for each other for life with the two becoming one--not three, four, or a thousand (Matthew 19:3 ff.). So there's no inconsistency between the Old and New Testaments on this matter. The two, male and female, shall become one until, by God's decree, death parts us. (My dear wife and I are on our thirty-third year, now, and still chugging away in harmony and love, praise God!)

All Christians through all time have always spoken this truth...

(Tim) Before we get too far removed from the attack upon God's Word carried out by Micah serving as an advocate for self-affirming sodomites while claiming Scripture was the foundation of his advocacy, I'd like to direct our readers' attention to the work of Robert Gagnon as a resource against such men.

Prof. Gagnon's a mainliner and would not share the doctrinal commitments of most of us concerning Scripture, but no one has come close to doing the careful historical and exegetical work he's done exposing these men's lies. You might start with his web site, but if you're a pastor or church officer who believes in standing in the gap and sounding a clear note, sooner or later you'll want to buy and keep close at hand for reading and loan his definitive, The Bible and Homosexual Practice.

Professor Gagnon is a friend of David's and my cousin, John DeWalt. They both attend Pittsburgh's Bellefield Presbyterian Church.

Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (1 Corinthians 11:10)

(Tim) We were reading R. C. Sproul's Now, That's a Good Question! during family devotions (excellent, by the way) and came across the fact that his wife, Vesta, wears a head-covering in corporate worship. Despite Calvin recognizing the cultural aspects of this command, I'd always felt the absence of head-coverings in our worship services was something like an Achille's heel as we contended for Biblical sexuality. As my mother once said, "If not wearing head-coverings gives people an excuse to disobey God's ordering of the sexes, we should start wearing them."

So now we have a smattering of women wearing head-coverings in worship, including my dear wife. But the practice doesn't solve the question how best to interpret and obey 1Corinthians 11:1-16 and 14:34,35. Anyone inclined to be dismissive of the matter may want to go back and read and meditate on that earthshaking phrase, "because of the angels."

One of the more Twilight Zoney, na na na na, na na na na experiences of my life was a decade ago when I was debating the late David Scholer in front of around 750 Mennonites, about half of them women wearing head-coverings...

For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. (Titus 1:10-14)

(Tim) For an indication of what passes for guarding the good deposit in the PCA's Metro New York Presbytery, scan this stuff from PCA Teaching Elder Ron Choong who denies the Biblical doctrine of Adam. In response to the question, "Was Adam the first human?", Mr. Choong writes:

...there is no scientific consensus for the definition of being human. We have no certain idea how such a creature as ourselves came about from preexisting ones. All we can say at this point is that some 6 mya [million years ago], a common ancestor to all primates evolved. Our best guess is that full-time bipedal hominids began to walk around 1.8 mya and compositional language evolved around 170 tya. The earliest trace of symbolic linguistic use and self-consciousness came with the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens (sic) about 100 tya. The modern mind, with cognitive fluidity arose some 80-60 tya.

Conclusion: Adam was probably not the first human being but he was most certainly the first one being human.

In the past, Mr. Choong's had some association with Redeemer Presbyterian Church, but currently he's a teaching elder in good standing on the roll of the PCA's Metro New York Presbytery. As with all pastors in the PCA, Mr. Choong's church membership and accountability is with his presbytery and they are the ones responsible for Mr. Choong's doctrine. Here we see the deep thoughts undergirding Pastor Choong's doctrine of Adam's federal headship...

(Tim) Under the post about Wheaton's quarter-billion capital campaign, a reader asked, "(If a man) wants to prepare to be an Old or New Testament Professor... (w)here would you recommend him to study for a Ph.D. and why is this a better place to go than Wheaton?" Taking this as a jumping-off point for some related thoughts, I commented:

The academy has taken over the Reformed church and needs to be pushed back to being a servant, rather than a master. And its service needs to be circumscribed to the end that, once its overreaching has been disciplined, it doesn't have an easy time taking back lost ground.

The first necessary act of discipline is to reclaim for the church the training of shepherds. The academic model has utterly failed. It turns out men whose basic orientation is to avoid conflict. Not to be too hard on seminaries, though; this is only what academic institutions are ordered to produce. We shouldn't be harsh on them for doing what they're made to do.

The academy in its current manifestation is set up to manufacture men committed to being good disciples (of their profs) who will be hired by good colleges and universities...

(Tim) Our American-African correspondent, David Wegener, just sent in this review of John D’Elia's A Place at the Table: George Eldon Ladd and the Rehabilitation of Evangelical Scholarship in America (Oxford University Press, 2008).

This biography is a parable of the dangers of seeking the approval of the world. Didn’t our Lord say, “For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?” (Mk 8:36). Yet this is what Ladd sought, and along the way he lost his soul. He was one of the most respected evangelical Bible teachers of the mid-twentieth century. Nobody from my generation can teach on the kingdom of God and not quote George Ladd. Yet he craved the acceptance of the world and, when he did not attain it, his life fell apart. Didn’t the Apostle write, “The mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so” (Rom 8:7). The world will never accept us. It can’t.

Ladd became a Christian as a young man, sensed a call to the Christian ministry, trained at Gordon College and then entered the pastorate. Somewhere along the way, he changed direction and began to pursue further education so that he could do scholarly work on the Bible...

(Tim) From a January 3, 2011 New Yorker article titled, "God's Librarians: the Vatican Library enters the twenty-first century," here's an explanation of Rome's many-century opposition to laymen reading the Bible that strikes me as pertinent to the scientific exegetes who write books and teach in reformed and evangelical seminaries and colleges, today:

(The Vatican Library) may possess some of the most ancient manuscripts of Scripture in existence, but for centuries the (Roman) Catholic church held that ordinary people shouldn't be able to read the Bible--that the Old and New Testaments themselves should be a kind of "secret history" for everyone but the scholar-priests trained to decipher the arcane tongues in which they were written.

The modern scientific exegete has done the medieval equivalent of denying Scripture to the layman by...

Here is a helpful and wise autobiographical account of one man's life of sexual perversion prior to repentance, along with a warning against the tactics of the sodomy lobby that are taking Emergents like Tony Campolo and Rob Bell by storm today. The article isn't for the faint of heart, but this piece does such a good job of smashing all the pro-sodomy propaganda to smithereens that every pastor and elder and deacon or deaconess should read it carefully.

Note particularly how gays and egalitarians share identical hermeneutical strategies. Following the sodomites' hermeneutical technique outlined below, for decades now egalitarians have checkmated the Pollyannas of the Evangelical Theological Society. Mr. Lee records how all the debates over the meaning of this or that Biblical verse or word have born the fruit of "the gay rights apologists (earning) a place at the table from which they will never be dislodged." This is precisely the way the egalitarians have won their battle, also. When kaphale and authentein have been parsed into oblivion, the egalitarians walk home chortling over their victory--and rightly so...

For it is written, “He is the One Who catches the wise in their craftiness"; and again, “the Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.” (1 Corinthians 3:19b-20)

Could it be that "myth" is the right category for the kind of stories we find in the ancient world, whether from the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, or even the Hebrews?

- Jack Collins, Professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary

One liberal reviews another liberal's book and tells us the second liberal is going to get in trouble with his constituency when they figure out what he's selling. Several members of the second liberal's constituency read Baylyblog and write in to dismiss the first liberal's comments as sour grapes, and they tell the Baylys that they only need read Jack to see what a gift he is to the Church.

So why does the first liberal say the second liberal is too liberal for his constituents?

Well, you see, the first liberal's constituency group already wised up to him and fired him so he's blowing the whistle on the second liberal because misery loves company.

Then comes the cloying argument...

Concerning the preaching of the Church Fathers, in one of his lectures Princeton biographer and Covenant Seminary church history prof David Calhoun says this:

The Church Fathers are difficult to read, not only because they are long-winded, but also because they tend to go into all kinds of digressions. They really do not stick to the point. Gregory the Great, toward the end of the period of the Church Fathers, said:

“This is how a preacher should preach. A preacher of the sacred Word should imitate the manner of a river. For if a river as it flows through its channels comes upon valleys upon its banks it immediately flows with full force into them, and when it has filled them up it at once returns to its course. This is exactly the way the preacher of the divine Word should be so that when he is discussing something, if perhaps he finds an occasion near at hand to be edifying, he should, as it were, force the streams of his tongue to the neighboring valley, and when he has filled up the plain with his instruction he may return to the course of his main topic.”

Now, you will not be taught that manner of preaching at Covenant Seminary--or any place else, as far as I know. Homileticians tell us to have a point and stick to it. But the Church Fathers did not like to do that. One topic will raise another topic and they will follow all those ideas. 

If a man's preaching is bad in the sense of being timid and suggestive, only rarely moving out to the bold frontier of the indicative (and never to the imperative), then two or three points and you're done is a kindness and should be cultivated. And if that's the sort of preaching you want, Professor Calhoun says that Covenant Theological Seminary is the sort of academic institution that will work for you.

But brothers...

How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night. He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, Which yields its fruit in its season And its leaf does not wither; And in whatever he does, he prospers.

The wicked are not so, But they are like chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the wicked will perish. (Psalm 1)

Everyone who knows anything will tell you global warming is true; or at least likely enough to be true to justify a plate-tectonic shift in all the world's economies. Everyone agrees. Science doesn't lie.

Everyone who knows anything will tell you literalists are embarrassing to the young, restless, and Reformed entrepreneurial enterprise. It's time to climb on Jack Collins' and Tim Keller's bandwagon. It's time to join all the brilliant genomists and brilliant exegetes and embrace evolution. Everyone agrees. The high priests of the Human Genome Project and scientific exegetes don't lie.

Everyone who knows anything will tell you Scripture is stupid--an ancient collection of myths. Take, for instance, that very old myth that man was created first, then woman; and that the meaning of this fact is that woman is not to teach or exercise authority over man. Also, that same-sex intimacy is an abomination before God and that God abandons men and women to receive in their own bodies the fair or just penalty of their perversion. Everyone agrees this is not true. God's Word is a lie.

Everyone who knows anything will tell you gay parenthood is good for the children; or at least good enough to justify a plate-tectonic shift in artificial insemination, adoption, and family law. Everyone agrees. Science doesn't lie.

Then a social scientist does a study of the emotional and mental health of adult children of same-sex parents...

(NOTE FROM TB: When I first published this post, I was remiss in not thanking Kamilla for pointing me to Kathy Keller's piece. Quite a few of our sources come from Kamilla and I am delighted to publicly acknowledge her for her faithful work that's been so helpful to us for years, now. Thank you, Kamilla! Here is some of Kamilla's good work opposing Rachel Held Evan's very public hissy fits, but everything Kamilla writes is worth reading.)

* * *

Mrs. Tim (Kathy) Keller just did a post on the heretic Ms. Rachel Held Evans that her husband's friends put up on their web site. It's never good to provide a wider forum to a heretic, but if someone was going to give Held Evans more media coverage than she's already arranged for herself by her public fainting spells, I suppose Mrs. Keller is as good a person to look to as anyone else. 

And her review is good. Read it. Now that you've read it, though, here are a couple things worth pointing out about Mrs. Keller's own words and arguments.

Mrs. Tim Keller writes:

...recording the relentlessly sinful behavior of his people (in the Old Testament) was God’s way of demonstrating how desperately in need of a savior they really were.

One commenter points out that in this review Mrs. Keller is employing faddish redemptive-historical techniques. So then, look at the above quote and ask yourself where this leaves us with redemptive-historical preaching? If the good things done in Old Testament narratives are not to be taken as lessons of spiritual virtues of men like David when he slays Goliath, what gives us permission to take the bad things done by David when he commits adultery and murders the adulteress's husband as a lesson of moral turpitude?

In other words, moralism is moralism whether pointing to the bad or the good. If the bad is to be read as pointing the reader toward how hopelessly lustful and bloodthirsty David is because of his faithlessness, and how he needs a Savior; why are we not allowed to read the good as pointing the reader toward how wonderfully courageous David is because of His faithfulness, because he has a Savior?