The milkmaid and baker as God's "masks"

In a section on the cultural challenges to our understanding of the doctrine of providence in The Christian Faith, Michael Horton observes:

Luther spoke of the milkmaid and the baker as “masks” God hides behind in order to answer our prayer for daily sustenance. In every gift, God is ultimately the giver; yet tenderly he hides his blinding majesty and otherwise terrifying sovereignty behind the creaturely means that are familiar to us. However, those of us in technologically developed cultures rarely encounter the milkmaids and bakers whose goods we purchase at the supermarket…. Our piety—praying for our daily bread—often seems remote from our actual experience, at least in highly developed societies (p. 353).

Should Ivanhoe (or Owen) be abridged?

I heard a story on the radio this morning about how a Scottish academic named David Purdie is publishing an abridged version of Sir Walter Scott’s classic Ivanhoe (you can read a print version of the story here). Purdie, who is Chairman of the Walter Scott Society, spent the past 18 months cutting the original 179,000 words down to a mere 80,000. The story noted that he has faced backlash from some Scott purists who did not want to see the original text tampered with.

The story reminded me of a chapter I recently glanced through by Jim Renihan in Biblical Shepherding of God’s Sheep (Day One, 2010) in which he quotes an extended section from John Owen’s Exposition of Hebrews which he slightly edited. In the footnotes, Renihan writes: “It has been difficult to know how to present this material from Owen in a modern format. I considered trying to modernize the language, but after careful thought, this did not seem to be a good idea. In my own study, I am convinced that an author’s words are really the best in order to gain a sense of his expression. This may sometimes require a bit of work on the reader’s part” (p. 227). That last line seems a bit of an understatement when it comes to reading someone like Owen whose prose is notoriously dense and labyrinthine.

Though I have a great deal of sympathy for the purists in this discussion, I also know how I have been helped by the Banner modernization and abridgements by R. J. K. Law and Richard Rushing of some of John Owen's works. Owen is sometimes so complex in the original that it takes what is in effect a “translation” to make it comprehensible. Maybe the thing is that each format is appropriate for different tasks. If you want to read and study at an in-depth level you have to deal with the unabridged work. If you want to read at a quicker pace or you want a guide in getting to the meat of what the original author wrote, then the abridgement can be helpful. Reading it might even in the end take you back to the original.

JTR

Malcolm Watts on the effect of Reformed Worship

I’ve been reading Malcolm Watt’s What is a Reformed Church? (Reformation Heritage, 2011). Here’s an excerpt comparing the effect of Reformed worship compared to worship in broad evangelicalism:

In Reformed churches, the divine majesty is an article of faith, and it awakens godly fear in every aspect of public worship. There is orderliness in the services, and worshippers are aware that they are in the presence of Jehovah, the God of ineffable majesty. A biblical concept of God—what He is in Himself and what He is to His people—is fitted to inspire loftiest adoration and noblest praise. It certainly banishes light thoughts, flippant expressions, and worldly performances.

A very different atmosphere pervades the majority of modern churches. Even before the service begins, there is worldly and idle chatter. This breaks out again as soon as the service is over, effectively removing every good impression. Hearts do not appear to be devoted to the work of praise; there is careless inattentativeness to Scripture, and there is little intensity of devotion when it comes to prayer. Indeed, in not a few churches, music and group singing so dominates that the service becomes more like a concert. Tragically, there is the same ethos in some Reformed churches. Entering the building on a Sabbath day, one is confronted with styles and content of worship normally associated with modern, Arminian and charismatic churches. Reformed worship should be distinctive. We confess a sovereign God. Our veneration for Him should be demonstrated in the way we make our approach to Him. It should always be in a serious manner and with reverential fear (pp. 13-14).

Are there any Reformed Baptists in Lynchburg?

One of the things we have been prayerfully considering at CRBC is the possibility of establishing a Reformed Baptist preaching point in Lynchburg on Sunday evenings sometime in 2012.  We have had folk, from time to time, visit us from Lynchburg, and we do not know of any 1689 affirming churches there.  We have put a blog site Grace for Lynchburg and are looking to make contact with anyone who might be interested in starting a Sunday evening Bible Study meeting or worship service in the Lynchburg area.  If you are intested or want more info send us an email at info.crbc@gmail.com.  If you know of someone who might be interested, point them to our blog.

JTR 

The Vision (1/26/12): Small children at worship services--Why are they present?

Note: Pastor Steve Clevenger recently posted this article by retired RB Pastor Walter Chantry at his Reformed Baptist Fellowship blog. It is a timely article for any church, especially one which has families with young children, like ours. What can we learn from the ideas Chantry shares about how his church encouraged young children to participate in corporate worship? Here’s the beginning of the article:

There certainly is no Bible verse which tells us when children should begin attending worship services. The customary age at which parents begin to take their children into meetings varies from church to church. It may properly vary among members of the same church, though it tends to follow a pattern because of church decisions touching the nursery, etc. The practice of local churches in this matter comes under the statement made in our Confession of Faith: Chapter I, section 6, paragraph 2:

“We acknowledge that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of churches, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed..”

In our church, parents usually begin to bring their children into our services at the age of two. Our nursery offers to keep children only under two years of age. That policy is not without reasons; though again, it must be emphasized that it is a matter of judgment on the basis of general prudence and general rules of God’s Word.

It is our judgment that children who are two-years-old are usually mature enough to understand when their parents tell them to be quiet and to sit reasonably still for one hour. Furthermore, by the time a child is two, his parents should have progressed far enough in their training of children to be able to enforce such basic orders, which their child can understand. Though teaching this behavior to children may not be easy, it is not unreasonable. It has been done by parents of children with many different character make-ups. Your child is not that unique!

We do wish to provide a nursery for parents when it is really necessary. But, the operation of a nursery takes a number of adults and young people out of our worship service. To extend the age of the children would demand that our women, who serve faithfully and cheerfully, would be absent from worship still more frequently. It is important for all Christians to benefit from the fellowship of the body of God’s people gathered for worship. We feel that regular attendance at worship is so important that we should not be urging others to be absent any more than is absolutely necessary. When it is not demanding too much of parents, thus reasonably to control their children, we do not feel that a nursery should be provided. Of course, exception should be made for all visitors who are not part of the congregation and used to our ways of doing things.

Furthermore, parents of young children are taking an important step by training their sons and daughters to be still and quiet. They are taking the steps necessary for a child to participate in the worship of God. Two and three year olds recognize some of the hymns they have heard in Sunday School and at home. They know a little about prayer. It is interesting to observe that when rare times of special solemnity come in worship, even the youngest children understand and sense something of the presence of God; for even they are unusually still and hushed. Admittedly, these times are few and the youngest children perceive little of the spoken word. Yet it is vital to forge the pattern of whole families coming before God regularly for worship. It is an important part of Christian family life, and it is important for young children to be part of the family.

Some parents seem to feel that when they have won the battles of stillness and silence, their task is done. So long as Junior doesn’t squirm too much or speak out, all is well. But it will not be long before the child can participate in some things. He is taught the doxology in two and three-year-old Sunday School. The pastor may read Scriptures not unfamiliar. He may mention Daniel, David, or Peter – favorite characters already to young hearts. Surely a four-year-old can be taught to pay some attention.

And fathers should be sensitive to how Bible truths of the worship service apply to their young children. The pastor cannot often bring the application down to pre-school children. But, a father can recall the points and apply them at home later….

Read the entire article here.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Translation Note: "fellowdisciples" in John 11:16

In some devotional reading the other day I was struck by the word “fellowdisciples” in the AV of John 11:16:

KJV: John 11:16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

This compound term only appears here in the KJV. It is the translation of the Greek tois symmathetais (dative masculine plural of symmathetes, which is a hapax in the NT taken from the common base word for “disciple,” mathetes). The NKJV simply adds a space and translates by “fellow disciples.” When I checked my facsimile of the original 1611 KJV it also includes the space and reads, “fellow disciples.” One wonders if the collapsed “fellowdisciples” came through a later printing error omitting the space or whether it was intentionally chosen by a later editor. However it entered, I like the compound “fellowdisciple” for its accurate representation of the unusual Greek word that appears here.

JTR

Textual Note: Matthew 5:44

THE ISSUE:

When preaching last Sunday on Romans 12:14-21, I made comparison throughout to Jesus’ teaching on the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5—7). When it came to Romans 12:14 (“Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.”) I drew comparison to Matthew 5:44. The traditional text, however, is quite different from the modern critical text. A comparison of English translations makes clear the differences:

Translations based on traditional text (emphasis added to phrases omitted in modern text):

Geneva: Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies: bless them that curse you: do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which hurt you, and persecute you.

KJV: Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Translations based on modern critical text:

NIV (1984): Matthew 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

NASB: Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you

ANALYSIS:

External Evidence:

A look at the critical apparati for Matthew 5:44 reveals some minor variations in the disputed phrases but, in general, the traditional text is supported by D, L, W, Theta, family 13, 33, and the Majority text tradition.

The modern critical text is, predictably, supported by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Burgon, with typical bite, chides Wescott and Hort for the “deplorable error” of omitting these phrases: “You relied almost exclusively on those two false witnesses, of which you are so superstitiously fond, B and Aleph: regardless of the testimony of almost all the other copies besides:--of almost all the VERSIONS: --and of a host of primitive FATHERS" (Revision Revised, p. 410).  Among the fathers who support the traditional text he cites the following: Justin Martyr (140 AD); Theophilus Ant. (168 AD); Athenagoras (177 AD); Clemens Alexand. (192 AD); Origen (210 AD); Apostolic Constitution (3rd century AD); etc.

Internal Evidence:

One of the canons of modern text criticism is that the shorter reading is to be preferred to the longer reading. It is assumed that longer readings usually represent expansions and harmonization. In this case, it is assumed that the traditional text of Matthew 5:44 reflects a harmonization with Luke 6:27-28, where both the traditional and modern text agree. Compare:

KJV: Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

NIV: Luke 6:27 But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

Metzger concludes, “Later witnesses enrich the text by incorporating clauses from the parallel account in Luke 6:27-28” (Textual Commentary, p. 14). He adds that if the traditional reading is original, its omission in early witnesses would be “entirely unaccountable.”

In answer, however, one might ask whether some pious scribes might have been offended by the non-retaliation ethic of Jesus in the traditional text of Matthew 5:44. A similar motivation might have led to the effort to remove John 7:53—8:11. It seems that the “harmonization theory” also assumes a situation where a scribe was intentionally making comparison with Luke 6:27-28 and intentionally tinkering with the text. Is this a plausible scenario? We might also ask about the early witnesses to the traditional text as cited by Burgon. Of course, my guess is that a modern text critic would dismiss these by arguing that the texts of the Fathers were also harmonized to reflect the traditional reading.

CONCLUSION:

In the end, it is the same old story. Do you base your reading on the traditional text that came to be most widely accepted and copied or on the minority reading as reflected in the reading that was ultimately set aside and not copied? The traditional text was, of course, also adopted by the Reformers and became the basis for the Reformation era “vulgar” translations. This traditional reading brings into harmony the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:27-28 and is also reflected in the words of the apostle Paul in Romans 12:14 (demonstrating Paul’s familiarity with the earthly ministry and teaching of Jesus, another contested point in modern scholarship, true even if one only had Luke 6:27-28 to compare). Of course, modern critics see this kind of harmony as suspect. From a preacher’s perspective, however, it is most useful. Surprise: I prefer the traditional text.

God works in mysterious ways

After years of service in Africa, the missionary Robert Moffat returned to Scotland to recruit helpers. When he arrived at church one cold wintry night, he was dismayed that only a small group had come out to hear him. What bothered him even more was that the only people in attendance were ladies. Although he was grateful for their interest, he had hoped to challenge men. He had chosen as his text Proverbs 8:4, “Unto you, O men, I call.” In his discouragement, he almost failed to notice one small boy in the loft pumping the bellows of the organ. Moffat felt frustrated as he gave the message, for he realized that very few women could be expected to undergo the rigorous life in undeveloped jungles. But God works in mysterious ways. Although no one volunteered that evening, the young fellow assisting the organist was deeply moved by the challenge. As a result, he promised God he would follow in the footsteps of this pioneer missionary. And he remained true to his vow. When he grew up, he went and ministered to the unreached tribes of Africa. His name was David Livingstone!

As shared by John Thackway in The Bible League Quarterly, January-March, 2012, p. 167.

"Tebow Law" in Virginia gaining ground?

The AP had an article yesterday reporting that with Republican control of the senate in the Virginia General Assembly that there will be another effort to pass a so-called "Tebow Law" in Virginia that would allow homeschoolers to participate in public school sports, as they do in 15 other states.  The VHSL is fighting tooth and nail against it.  Here's part of the article from the Virginia Pilot (note the debate in the comments; it was in today's print version of the Daily Progress):

For years, a bill that would open public school sports teams to home-schooled athletes living in their attendance districts has come before the General Assembly and just as often, it floundered, usually before the Senate Education and Health Committee.

But with the Senate under new conservative management with this month's disputed Republican takeover, three bills by Republican House members revive the issue. Sponsors call it the "Tebow Law," named for Tim Tebow, an evangelical former homeschooler who won a Heisman Trophy and led the Gators to a 2008 national title at the University of Florida, then quarterbacked the Denver Broncos into this season's NFL playoffs.

"These people pay taxes that support their public schools. You can't just shut them out from the facilities and activities they're paying for just like everybody else," said Del. Rob Bell, a 44-year-old Albemarle Republican who sponsors one of the bills and is burnishing his conservative credentials for a 2013 race for attorney general.

Florida is among at least 15 states across the country that put no restrictions on home-schooled students who want to play interscholastic sports at public schools in their communities, according a state-by-state summary from the Home School Legal Defense Association. At least 13 states allow home-schooled children conditional or partial opportunities for extracurricular involvement at public schools.

JTR

Watson on Providence

I continued the Spurgeon Baptist Catechism series Sunday afternoon with a message on What are God’s works of providence? I was helped by reading the section on this question from Thomas Watson’s A Body of Divinity (orig. 1692; Banner of Truth, reprint). Here are a few quotes from Watson on the doctrine of providence:

“God is not like an artificer that builds a house, and then leaves it, but like a pilot he steers the ship of the whole creation” (p. 120).

“God takes care of every saint in particular, as if he had none else to care for” (p. 120).

“God’s children sometimes scarce know how they are fed, except that providence feeds them” (p. 120).

“Providence reaches to the very hairs of our head. ‘The hairs of your head are all numbered.’ Matt x 30. Surely if providence reaches to our hairs, much more to our souls” (p. 121).

“Suppose you were in a smith’s shop, and should see several sorts of tools, some crooked, some bowed, others hooked, would you condemn all these things, because they look not handsome? The smith makes use of them all for doing his work.” He concludes, “Thus you see God’s providences are wise and regular, though to us they seem very strange and crooked” (p. 121).

“The falling of a tile upon one’s head, the breaking out of a fire, is casual [accidental] to us, but it is ordered by the providence of God…. Things which seem to fall out casual [by accident], and by chance, are the issues of God’s decrees, and the interpretation of his will” (p. 123).

“God’s providence is greatly to be observed, but we are not to make it the rule of our actions…. Providence is a Christian’s diary, but not his Bible” (p. 123).

“The providences of God are chequer-work, they are intermingled. In the life to come there shall be no more mixture; in hell there will be nothing but bitter and in heaven nothing but sweet; but in this life the providences of God are mixed, there is something of the sweet in them, and something of the bitter” (p. 124).

“If God’s providence should be withdrawn but for a while, creatures would be dissolved, and run into their first nothing” (p. 124).

“Our clothes would not warm us, our food would not nourish us, without the special providence of God” (p. 124).

“Does any affliction befall you? Remember God sees it is that which is fit for you, or it would not come. Your clothes cannot be so fit for you as your crosses” (p. 125).

“The church is the apple of God’s eye, and the eyelid of his providence daily covers and defends it” (p. 127).

“There is no providence but we shall see a wonder or mercy in it” (p. 127).

The gospel: sanctification or evangelization?

The other day I ran across D. H. Hart’s recent post If Wrapping Yourself in the U.S. Flag is in Bad Taste, What About Wrapping Yourself in the Gospel? It has a link to a review by Matthew Lee Anderson of Jared C. Wilson’s book Gospel Wakefulness (Crossway, 2011).

I have been struck for some time by the use of the word/concept “gospel” in New Calvinistic circles. The word “gospel” is prominent in the names of para-church ministries and conference (e. g., “Together for the Gospel” and “The Gospel Coalition”). A number of recent books that have come from New Calvinistic authors have made use of the word “gospel” in their titles and as their subjects. Language about the “gospel” tends to permeate New Calvinistic preaching and teaching, where phrases such as the following are frequently heard:

“We need to remind ourselves of the gospel every day.”

“We need to preach the gospel to ourselves.”

“We need to meditate on the gospel.”

The problem with this language is that it seems primarily to make the “gospel” a focus of personal contemplation and a means of spiritual growth for believers rather than the good news (euangelion) of God’s work in Christ that is to be preached to non-believers. The idea of Christians preaching the gospel to themselves has undertones of the “Sonship” theology. The normative use of the “gospel” in the Scriptures, however, relates to its proclamation to unbelievers. Typical would be Mark 13:10: “And the gospel must first be published among all nations.” Or, the Great Commission in Mark 16:15: “Go ye and preach the gospel to every creature.” In fact, a little concordance work will show that when the word “gospel” is mentioned in the Gospels and Acts it is almost always done in the context of evangelistic preaching (with “preach” or “preaching” from kerusso). When Paul says he is “separated unto the gospel” (Rom 1:1), he most certainly means that he has been called to an apostolic ministry of preaching the gospel (cf. Rom 15:20: “so have I strived to preach the gospel [euangelizomai], where Christ has not been named”). He can also refer to the gospel as the core content of the evangelistic message that he preaches to unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor 15:1). It is orthodox and not “another gospel” (Gal 1:6).

I once heard a “Sonship” influenced speaker claim Romans 1:15 as justification for the New Calvinistic way of speaking about the gospel. Indeed, Paul does say to the believers, “I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also” (Rom 1:15). See, the speaker said, Paul was preaching the gospel to those who were already Christians in Rome. He went on to stress all the ways a Christian might apply the “gospel” to his life. The dative pronoun humin (“to you”), however, more likely has the sense of “among you” or, even, “with you” in Romans 1:15, as Paul anticipated engaging with the Roman Christians in evangelistic preaching. In context, Paul makes clear in the very next verse the evangelistic focus of the gospel of which he is not ashamed, as it is “the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth” (Rom 1:16).

Hart drew on the book review cited above to make the point that rallying around “the gospel” is pointless without also rallying around other defining doctrines. He’d rather be part of the “Presbyterian Coalition” than the “Gospel Coalition.” For me, the review of Gospel Wakefulness points more to confusion in New Calvinistic circles of the “gospel” with “sanctification” rather than “evangelization.”

JTR

Muller on Post-Reformation Reformed Views on the Text of Scripture

I recently started reading Richard A. Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2: Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology (Baker, 1993). Of special interest is chapter six “The Canon of Scripture and Its Integrity” (pp. 389-463). Muller stresses the difference between how the post-Reformation men approached the text of Scripture, emphasizing its providential preservation in the extant copies (apographa), in contrast with the modern Princetonian emphasis on the elusive inerrant original copies (autographa). This is the kind of book where I find I want to underline just about every sentence. Here, at least, is part of one outstanding paragraph:

By “original and authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the sources of all versions…. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to the autographa in those languages; the “original and authentic” text of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments of a received text free from major (i.e., non-scribal) errors rests on an examination of the apographa and does not seek infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility (p. 433).

JTR

Owen contrasts the inspiration of the Bible with the Koran

In John Owen’s The Divine Original of the Scripture (Collected Works, Vol. 16), he draws a contrast between the innate authority of the Christian Scriptures in comparison to uninspired writings. Of these, Owen refers to the Koran in particular:

“…‘the Scriptures,’ have that glory of light and power accompanying them, as wholly distinguish them by infallible signs and evidences from all words and writings not divine; conveying their truth and power into the souls and consciences of men with an infallible certainty. On this account are they received as from God by all that receive them, who have any real, distinguishing foundation for their faith, which would not be—separated from these grounds—as effectual an expedient for the reception of the Koran” (p. 325).

JTR

The Vision (1/19/12): Be kindly affectioned

Note: The following is drawn from the sermon notes from last Sunday’s message on instructions for the loving life (Romans 12:9-13).

The first clause in Romans 12:10 reads: “Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love.”

The first word in the Greek of v. 10 is philadelphia. So, literally, it would begin, “With respect to brotherly love (philadelphia) to one another (be) kindly affectioned.” The word for “kindly affectioned” in Greek is philostorgos. It is a special word that only appears here in the NT but in classical Greek it usually refers to the love and devotion that is expressed in a family. Agape means Christian love; philos means friendly love, eros means romantic love; and philostorgos means family love. So, Paul is saying, with regard to the relationships that you have with your fellow believers in the church, it should be like those you have with your family.

Let me ask you this. If you are a Christian man and you had an argument, even a significant one, with your wife, are you allowed just to dump her and move on to another wife? As a parent, if your child disappoints you, are you allowed just to dump him and pick up a new child? Children, if your parents frustrate you with all their rules (that they say are actually good for you even if you don’t always understand them) are you allowed to take them back to the parent store and get a refund or trade them in for new parents? Of course NOT! But how many people treat their relationship to their brethren within the church in this way?

Paul says, with respect to your relationship to your brethren within the local church, have a family-like love and devotion to them. The KJV rendering of “be kindly affectioned” does not mean “kind” in a sort of syrupy sweet way, but it is “kind” from the old root of “kin.” Be as devoted to your Christian brothers as you are to your “kind” or to your “kin-folk”!

May the Lord grant us a family love (philostorgos) within our fellowship at CRBC.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Text Note on Romans 12:11

In study for last week’s message on Romans 12:9-13, I ran across the textual variant in Romans 12:11 in the clause “serving the Lord [to kurio douleuontes].”

In a handful of manuscripts, the text reads “time” (kairos) rather than “Lord” (kurios). These include: the original hand of D, F, G, and the Latin (both Old Latin and Vulgate). If adopted, the reading would be “serving the time” rather than “serving the Lord.”

Both the traditional text and the modern critical text prefer “Lord” here and this is reflected in translations based on either of these. John Murray offers a footnote on the variant in his Romans commentary (vol. 2, p. 131, n. 20), concluding “we may not adopt kairo as the proper text.”

Of note is the fact that Calvin in his commentary gives credence to “time” and adopts it as the reading, noting, for as the course of our life is short, the opportunity of doing good soon passes away; it hence becomes us to show more alacrity in the performance of our duty.” He is, however, aware of the textual variant, adding, “But as kurio, the Lord, is read in many old copies, though it may seem at first sight foreign to this passage, I yet dare not wholly reject this reading.”

Matthew Poole comments first on the traditional reading, “serving the Lord,” but then adds this note: “Some copies read it, serving the times, in such sense as it does in Eph 5:16 and Col 4:5.”

Conclusion:

I don’t think there is any question based on both external and internal evidence that “serving the Lord” is the preferred reading. The discussion in the Protestant exegetes, however, is interesting for the following reasons:

1. It shows that the old men were both interested in and aware of textual issues. This is a point often neglected by moderns who assume that they were ignorant of such issues.

2. It shows the high regard given to the Latin tradition even if it was not strongly supported by extant Greek manuscripts. Though they looked to the original language sources of Hebrew and Greek, there was also weight given to the Latin tradition. In the end, however, the best attested Greek reading here is the one that prevailed in the traditional received text.

JTR

CRBC hosts Dr. Andy McIntosh on Creation and Faith on February 11-12

Christ Reformed Baptist Church will be hosting Dr. Andy Mcintosh for two upcoming presentations on Creation and Faith:

Saturday, February 11th at 2:00 pm.  Topic:  "Design Intelligence and the Word of God."

Sunday, February 12th at 2:00 pm.  Topic:  "Creation, God's Timeline, and the Gospel."

Both sessions will be held at the Covenant Lower School, 1000 Birdwood Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903.

Here is Dr. McIntosh's bio:

Professor Andy McIntosh (Leeds) holds an emeritus chair in Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory, and has lectured and researched in these fields for over 20 years. He has a PhD in combustion theory from the aerodynamics department of what was then Cranfield Institute of Technology (now Cranfield University), a DSc in Applied Mathematics from the University of Wales and worked for a number of years at the Royal Aircraft Establishment. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, the Institute of Energy, the Institute of Physics and the Royal Aeronautical Society. A chartered mathematician and engineer. author of over 180 papers and articles, his research has been in combustion in fluids and solids. His work has also included investigations into the fundamental link between thermodynamics and information, and in the last few years he has been involved in research in the area of biomimetics where the minute combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle has inspired a patented novel spray technology with applications to fuel injectors, pharmaceutical sprays, fire extinguishers and aerosols. This research was awarded the 2010 Times Higher Educational award for the Outstanding Contribution to Innovation and Technology.

Andy became a Christian in 1969 and is committed to a belief in the Biblical Creation account maintaining that Genesis is crucial to our understanding of the Gospel. He has authored the book “Genesis for Today” (Day One, 4th Edition, 2010), contributed to the books “In six days” (Master Books, 2009) and “Should Christians embrace Evolution?” (IVP, 2009), and has appeared on a number of TV and radio programs. He delights to present the scientific evidence for Creation and passionately believes that there is no excuse for scientific minds not to accept the truth of Creation. Favorite talks (most available on DVD) are ‘Creation- so what’s the issue?’, ‘Intricacies of Flight’, ‘Design, Intelligence and the Word of God’, ‘Fossils, Dinosaurs and the Bible’, ‘The Flood and the return of Christ’, ‘Genesis, Babel and the Nations’, ‘Design, Thermodynamics and Information’ and ‘Faraday – man of science, man of God’. He is married with 3 children and 5 grandchildren.

Reluctant response to the latest evangelical video fad

OK, so I usually try to avoid doing blog posts about anything that is "relevant," but I did have two students from CRBC ask me last week what I thought about the video from Seattle based Jefferson Bethke titled Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus that has gone viral, especially via Facebook, among young evangelical types. Both our students picked up on the fact that something wasn't quite right about the video's message.  Hooray for them!  It also got some discussion on the RB pastors yahoo list.  Here are two critiques:

First, one charitably written by Kevin DeYoung.

Second, a spot on video response from Lutheran Dude (though I'm not crazy about the baptismal regeneration undertones):

Sermon of the Week: The AV: Its Relevance Among the Young in a Multicultural Society

Iranian born Reformed Baptist Pastor Pooyan Mehrshahi preached a message at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Trinitarian Bible Society on The Authorised Version:  Its Relevance Among the Young in a Multicultural Society.  Pastor Mehrshahi ably critiques and responds to the objections of those who claim that the venerable AV is no longer "relevant."  Worth hearing.

JTR

Note on translation of Romans 12:4

I noted in comments related to last week’s sermon on Romans 12:3-8 the divide between older and modern commentaries on the spiritual gift list in vv. 6-8. Older commentators apply this list to the officers of the church (elders and deacons) while modern commentators tend to interpret this list as generally applicable to all believers.

I also found several interesting translation and interpretation related issues in this passage. One involves the translation of the noun praxis in v. 4.

The KJV renders it as follows: “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office (praxis).”

The Geneva Bible gives a similar rendering of praxis: “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not one office.”

It seems that this translation choice for praxis as “office” in v. 4 is related to the interpretation of the gift list in vv. 6-8 as applying to office bearers. Modern translations of praxis in v. 4, on the other hand, reflect the modern interpretation of the gift list as egalitarian in application by choosing to render the word as ‘function” rather than “office.” Examples:

NIV Romans 12:4 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function,

NAS Romans 12:4 For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function,

NKJ Romans 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function,

ESV Romans 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function,

Here is a place where the older translations (Geneva, AV), emerging from the Reformation context, diverge from modern translations in a way that reflects a distinctive interpretation of the passage.

JTR

The Vision (1/12/12): Borrow not a few

In my “state of the church” report at our annual CRBC membership meeting last evening, I shared some reflections from the miracle of the widow’s oil in 2 Kings 4:1-7.

First, the narrative tells of a great need (v. 1). There was a certain woman, the wife of a prophet, whose husband had died. She came to the prophet Elisha in her distress. The creditors were coming ready to sell her two sons into slavery to pay her debts.

Second, there were only meager means (v. 2). Elisha asks, “What shall I do for thee?” He then asked what of any value she had in her house. She replied that she had nothing, “save a pot of oil.”

Third, there was a miracle of provision and blessing (vv. 3-7). Elisha told the desperate women to go to her neighbors and to borrow vessels, adding “borrow not a few” (v. 3). The woman did as commanded, pouring out her oil into the borrowed vessels. Miraculously the oil did not cease to flow till all the vessels were filled. Only when the last one was full, do we read, “And the oil stayed” (v. 6). By selling the miraculously supplied oil she had all she needed to pay her debts (v. 7).

I suggested that the church often finds herself in the situation of the widow. We are poor, in a state of need, and completely dependent on the Lord for help. Consider also the gaping needs of the world all around us. From a worldly perspective, we have only meager means. Still, the Lord commands us to gather our vessels, and he is then so often pleased to provide beyond all that we could ever ask or think (Ephesians 3:20).

As we enter the year ahead we look forward to experiencing all the ways God will bless, grow, provide, fill, stretch, and encourage us, as we depend on him for everything.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle