Calvin on Eph 4:28

"No one may live to himself alone, and neglect others. All must devote themselves to supplying other's necessities." John Calvin, commenting on Ephesians 4:28: "The thief must no longer steal. Instead, he must do honest work with his own hands, so that he has something to share with anyone in need." (HCSB)

Biblical Womanhood and Rachel Held Evans

From Denny Burk's blog, I saw the Rachel Held Evans interview on the Today Show. There were many overarching problems I had with what she said, but I want to focus on just three.


First, her application of Proverbs 21:9 is wrong-headed: "Better to live on the corner of a roof than to share a house with a nagging wife" (HCSB). In the video she says: "I made a swearing jar of sorts. Each time I caught myself in a habit of contention, I put a penny in a jar. And each penny represented one minute I had to spend on my rooftop doing penance." The side of the "swearing jar" said "No: gossip, nagging, complaining, exaggerating, snark." But Proverbs 21 is addressed to men, that they would be better off living on their roof than to live with a wife who nags or is contentious. There is NOTHING whatsoever in that text that hints at the wife going on to the roof or punishing herself (or being punished) for nagging by going on the roof. Her going on her roof is totally irrelevant to "biblical womanhood" in any sense of the phrase.

Second, she quotes Proverbs 31:23, saying: "Proverb 31:23 says that "a virtuous woman's husband is praised at the city gate." Then she says: "I made a sign, took it out to the entrance of my town, and praised my husband the right way." The sign read: "Dan is awesome". Is holding a sign at the entrance to her city a modern day application of Proverbs 31:23. A couple of comments here. First, the way she quotes Proverbs 31 makes her application close, but off the mark. The verse (as she quoted it) does not say that the virtuous woman does the praising, just that the husband is praised. Also, the city gate probably would correlate better to a place where people congregate in modern towns, which would not be where she was standing with her sign. The NET Bible has a footnote at this point: "The 'gate' was the area inside the entrance to the city, usually made with rooms at each side of the main street where there would be seats for the elders. This was the place of assembly for the elders who had judicial responsibilities." Second, she quoted the text incorrectly. The NIV (2011) states that verse this way: “Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.” So the  NIV (2011) doesn’t say “praised” but that he’s respected. How about other translations?

“known” (KJV, ASV, RSV, NKJV, NRSV, NASBupdate, ESV, HCSB)

“man of note” (BBE)

“respected” (NIV84, NJB, TNIV)

“well known” (NLT, NET)

So her standing at the entrance to her city has no relationship to "biblical womanhood," just like her spending time on the roof of her house. Totally irrelevant!

Third, of course there are bigger issues here. She conveys no sensitivities to the concept of progressive revelation or the change in the covenants. She simply seems to be trying to mock Scripture. Well, that and to undermine those advocating things like submission to husbands. While I've only mentioned two examples, several more could be given from that short video clip. 

I highly recommend that you read Denny Burk's comments, as they are very well stated.

Baptizing Young Children

There are many views on baptism, from baptismal regeneration, to baptizing infants, to believer's baptism. My view fits into the last category. But even within that last category, there are at least two views to consider: baptism based upon a valid profession versus baptism based upon fruits of repentance.

I heard someone say that there was no text in Scripture where baptism was ever denied. Immediately Luke 3:7-8 came to mind:
"He then said to the crowds who came out to be baptized by him, 'Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Therefore produce fruit consistent with repentance. And don't start saying to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father," for I tell you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones!'"

This passage is about people coming out to be baptized by John the Baptist. Therefore, we need to take into consideration that this is John's baptism, which may or may not be distinguished from baptism in the New Covenant. Regardless, the text seems to say (note the parallel to Matthew 3:7-8) that John refused to baptize people unless their lives demonstrated that they had repented.

There is another passage I think should be brought to bear on this: Acts 8:9-24. This is the story about Simon. Simon is explicitly said to have believed (Acts 8:13). However, the question of the end of the passage surrounds whether or not Simon was actually regenerated. I'm not going to enter into the arguments of that debate, but I do believe that the text makes it clear that Simon was never saved. So, how does this relate to baptism?

Many people love to bring up the "immediate baptisms" that take place in Acts. But reading the narrative as a whole might temper the conclusion. A biblical interpretation maxim I live by is: description does not equal prescription. That is, just because something is "described," that does not necessitate that it is "prescribed" or commanded for us today. So, how do you know if something being described is prescribed? One basic method is to look in the entire narrative to see if the thing being described is repeated over and over again in a positive way. Acts 8 describes an "immediate baptism" in a negative way. Now when looking at the baptisms in Acts (Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 9:18; 10:47-48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5), it is interesting to note that the second one in the chain contained a "negative" example and that all (except possibly the last) were immediate. Both of those ideas need to be balanced. I have many other thoughts about the specifics of those passages that will have to wait for another day.

I have a lot of thoughts on this that I'm hoping to have time to post on in the days to come.

Keswick Theology

I have never really studied Keswick Theology, though I was familiar with the general tenets. Then two situations arose that drove me to dig into the topic. First, a former student approached me expressing his frustration with his spiritual growth. He indicated that he was praying and praying for a breakthrough type of experience, where following Christ would become much easier and more joyful. Second, my wife went to a conference by Martha Peace where she was warned about modern proponents of Keswick Theology. She came back and asked me about it. So, what steps did I take to study it?

Andy Naselli did his first dissertation on the subject (completed at Bob Jones University in 2006). You can buy the published version, Let Go and Let God? here. He also did a lecture series at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. You can listen to the audio and follow along with his PowerPoint slides. It is available here. It is also available in written form.

These lectures are immensely helpful at describing how this theology formed historically, who proponents were, and the dangers of it. I believe that remnants of Keswickian thinking continues on and it props its head in many sermons, unbeknownst to the preacher/teacher. I urge you to listen to his lectures so you too can learn more about progressive sanctification and avoid falling for the Keswickian trap.

If you want to hear how the concept of "Let go and let God" almost destroyed J. I. Packer's spiritual life, read this excerpt.

Interview on Which Bible Translation Should I Use?

Dr. Andreas Köstenberger and I were interviewed last week by Christopher Brooks on Christ and the City, a radio show based in Michigan. The topic was our new book: Which Bible Translation Should I Use? The podcast is available here. We come in at the 23rd minute and go until the 54th minute.

Mr. Brooks asked great questions and I appreciated his interviewing skills greatly.

Tithing and Charities: My Response

Before I begin my response, let me begin with this: the responses averaged 491 words, so I will limit my response to the question in the same way that the authors were limited. And yes, the text below is exactly 491 words.

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

The problem I have with answering this question is that it assumes a certain view of the tithe that I explicitly reject. I do not believe that 10 percent of income is a requirement for Christians. Therefore, the short answer would be: Christians can take the amount they have decided to give and split it between their local church and other charities without fear that they are robbing God … with one major caveat.

First, the definition of the tithe must be clear. The tithe in the Old Covenant refers to Israelites giving 10 percent from the increase of their crops or cattle. It was always connected to the land of Israel (crops from the land or cattle that fed off the land) and never referred to income in general. It definitely was not 10 percent of income. Let me illustrate.

Leviticus 27:32 says “Every tenth animal from the herd or flack, which passes under the shepherd’s rod, will be holy to the LORD” (HCSB). So, if someone has 10 cows, the 10^th cow that passed under the rod would be given as a tithe. 1 out of 10 is 10 percent. However, if they had nin9e cows, they would give 0, meaning 0 percent. If they had 19 cows, they would give 1, meaning about 5 percent. So, what percentage did they give? No one really knows because it was different for everyone. Also note that “money” is discussed numerous times in the first few books of the Bible before the tithing Law occurs in Leviticus 27. While Israel may have been primarily an agricultural society, that doesn’t mean that they didn’t have money or deal in money.

Second, I need to discuss the one caveat I referred to above. I do believe that Christian giving should place the highest priority on their local church. It’s not that other charities aren’t worthy, but verses like Galatians 6:6 lead me to believe that when one joins a local church, they should commit to supporting the ministries of that church. If your local church is struggling financially, trim down your giving in other areas and increase your giving their. We give over 75% of our giving to our local church. The remaining 25% goes to missionaries or other charities. However, if our church had a shortfall and needed more, we would probably sacrifice more and give to our local church, rather than take away from the missionaries we support. 

Conclusion: It is not “robbing God” to support charities, but your local church should not be suffering financially because of your support for those charities. My favorite quote about robbing God comes from John Piper: “My own conviction is that most middle and upper class Americans who merely tithe are robbing God.” The wealth of many (but not all) Americans means that the consistent application of the principles for giving explained in Scripture would result in giving that exceeded 10 percent of income.

Tithing and Charities

Three Christians were asked to answer the following question: “Is it stealing from God to split your tithe between the church and other charities?” This is a great question to ask and I’m glad Christianity Today has asked three people to respond to it. Here are the responses and my thoughts about their responses.

Gary Moore, Amie Streater, Douglas LeBlanc (from http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/october/split-tithe-between-church-charities.html?start=1)

Gary Moore’s answered puzzled me at many points. I’m not sure exactly what he was trying to say sometimes. For example, when he says “Neither did Malachi say to bring the full tithes for the operation of the temple. The storehouse was for the needy,” I’m puzzled at how he views the relationship between the Old Covenant institution of “temple” and the New Covenant “church.” While the three main tithes commanded in the Mosaic Law (Festival, Levitical, and Charity) were all related, on some level, to the needy or poor, the Levitical Tithe really shouldn’t be viewed as for the poor. The “storehouse” was simply the place where the tithes were stored.

I fully agree with his analysis of the Empty Tomb data, but I’m not sure how that relates to the actual question. I think he was trying to insert a motivation to give more (which I generally agree with).

His conclusion: “Should the church reassume more biblical responsibilities, it would be entitled to more of the biblical tithe.” Oh how I wish he had attempted to define the tithe! If he means “10% of income,” then I would need to disagree with that definition. I can only assume he means that since he gives no other definition, but that definition cannot be sustained from Scripture.

Amie Streater is very clear: if you give part of your tithe to some other charity besides your local church, you are disobedient. She claims that tithing “is not spoken of differently in the Old and New Testaments.” While I actually kind of agree with that statement, it really hurts the argument being made. Since there were multiple tithes in the Old Testament Law, and since it is claimed that the tithe is not “spoken of differently,” that means Christians better be giving at least 20% of their income (or should I say, at least 20% of the produce from their crops and cattle [at least, those that are from the land of Israel]).

She gives a clear definition: “Tithe means a tenth.” The dictionary might say that, but that does not define the tithe in Scripture. She utilizes Deuteronomy 26:1-4 to demonstrate that the tithe must go to “the local church.” She then cites Malachi 3:10  and the “storehouse,” calling it “the church.” On what basis is the temple of Deuteronomy 26 and the “storehouse” of Malachi 3 equal to the church?

After explaining the typical view on tithing prevalent in churches today, she says: “As believers we can choose to bicker and nitpick about these Scriptures and search for evidence to give less. We have the freedom to do that.” Ouch. So, I guess that is a pre-emptive strike on those who disagree with her about tithing. Apparently they (including “me”) are trying to find ways to give less … I will respectfully disagree with that evaluation of the motivation of my heart.

Douglas LeBlanc explains that his Dad interpreted Malachi 3:10 to mean that Christians must tithe (“10% of income”?) to their place of worship. Then he states: “Whether my father’s exegesis would pass the muster of scholastic theologians does not matter to me.” Ouch (again!). What exactly does this mean? Is he saying: “whether or not the text actually meant/means what my father says, I will teach it to others”? … or maybe just that he disagrees with those “scholastic theologians”.

His answer to the question of the article is that splitting the tithe between a charity and our local church is not robbing God, but we “patronize God’ and we “distort tithing to mean something foreign to Scripture.” Interesting … so the meaning of Scripture does matter at this point. He never really defined “tithing” in Scripture, so I’m left to assume he believes it means “10% of income.” Again, we will disagree on this point.

So, I find zero satisfaction in all three of these answers, with the first being the closest to my view. What is my view? Well, you’ll have to come back tomorrow to find out!

Does Biblical Prophecy Fail? Video available

The video of Dr. Michael Grisanti's presentation at Liberty University in September is now available. At the end is the Q&A with Dr. Grisanti and Dr. Gary Yates (of Liberty's seminary).

The Name of God: Yahweh or LORD?

There is an interesting blog post by Jason Hood (at the Gospel Coalition) on translating the name of God. I like the way Hood proceeds to process through the issue. Translation is not just about accuracy, but about communication. Even that statement is problematic, for it assumes a certain definition of "accuracy" that is probably incorrect! Regardless, take a look at Hood's article. I think there are some interesting implications for Bible translations. Also, the HCSB would be the closest translation that follows what he says.

Mefferd recap and book give-away

Well, I did appear on the Janet Mefferd Show yesterday. Here is the link to the hour long interview. She is a very good interviewer, with rapids questions. I do believe the questions are carefully crafted, which didn't leave much wiggle room. She did stump me on one question. She asked why the ESV was called "essentially literal," emphasizing the "essentially." I said that there are times when it doesn't stay very "literal." She asked for an example ... I knew it was Ephesians 1 and I thought it was verse 13 ... but I just couldn't find it. So, here is the verse I was looking for (verse 14b):

Greek:    εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποιήσεως
Literal:    unto a redemption of the possession
NASB:   with a view to the redemption of God's own possession
ESV:       until we acquire possession of it

Even the NIV (2011) is more literal (remember: literal doesn't mean "better"):
NIV:   until the redemption of those who are God's possession

Also, Andy Naselli is giving away three copies of Which Bible Translation Should I Use? at his blog. If you don't already subscribe to his blog ... you should. I think all five of his "reflections" are very fair. So go there and enter the drawing!

Which Bible Translation Should I Use? and the Janet Mefferd Show

Next Monday a book I co-edited with Andreas Köstenberger will be released: Which Bible Translation Should I Use? A Comparison of 4 Major Recent Versions. Doug Moo (NIV), Wayne Grudem (ESV), Ray Clendenen (HCSB), and Philip Comfort (NLT) contributed chapters. Each chapter has an introduction explaining and defending the Bible translation philosophy used, followed by the discussion of sixteen of the same biblical texts. This provides readers with an opportunity to compare the translation principles and practices of each translation. Amazon.com has the book for sale for under $10 right now.

Today at 4pm EST, I will be interviewed on the Janet Mefferd Show about the book. I hope you find the time to tune in and listen as we discuss the Bible translations.

Update: Here is a link to the description of today's show.

Assembling the Responses to The Gospel of Jesus's Wife

Many have now responded to the Coptic fragment. Several of these responses are very well thought-out. Top of the line, I think, goes to Francis Watson, who compares this tiny fragment to certain sayings in the Gospel of Thomas and concludes that this text is probably a modern forgery of someone copying from the Gospel of Thomas. Peter Williams, a brilliant scholar, has also chimed in. Here are some links to others:
-Al Mohler
-Daniel Wallace
-Dirk Jongkind

Each of these make helpful contributions to this discussion.

Michael Kruger weighs in on the "Jesus' Wife" fragment

Michael Kruger, Professor of New Testament and Academic Dean with Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC, has weighed in on the Jesus' wife fragment. Dr. Kruger is an excellent scholar on issues related to canonicity and apocryphal writings.

Darrell Bock responds to the "Jesus's Wife" fragment

New Testament scholar Darrell Bock has responded to the fragment that (supposedly) says that Jesus had a wife. Dr. Bock is a wonderful scholar and has some great initial thoughts on this small fragment.

Did Jesus have a wife?

The Gospel of Jesus's Wife fragment

A newly discovered papyrus quotes Jesus as referring to his own wife. The line is translated from Sahidic Coptic as: "Jesus said to them, 'My wife ...'" Dr. Karen King, professor of divinity at Harvard Divinity School, calls the papyrus "The Gospel of Jesus's Wife." This is the earliest statement (4th century) referring to Jesus having a wife that is known to exist. Dr. King says that it proves that there was an "active discussion among early Christians about whether Jesus was celibate or married." The papyrologists and Coptic linguists to whom she has shown the manuscript are all convinced that it is genuine and not a forgery. The papyrus is only 4 by 8 centimeters, smaller than a business card. According to the article in the New York Times, King cautioned that this was not proof that Jesus was married.


I have already been asked by students for my thoughts on this. First, I don't know Sahidic Coptic and probably never will. Second, I'm not a papyrologist. However, if the translation is accurate (and I have no reason to doubt it) and the dating is accurate (and dating these papyri can be controversial, but again, I have no reason to doubt it), then I still have some questions.

1) Why call a 4 by 8 centimeter fragment "The Gospel of Jesus's Wife"? The fragment is probably part of a larger manuscript that might have virtually nothing to do with this one line. The title of the fragment suggests that there is a whole narrative built around Jesus' wife.
2) Can this one tiny fragment bear the weight of the claim that there was an "active discussion" about Jesus' marital status? One fragment in the 4th century does not equal an "active discussion."
3) All we have so far is Jesus saying "My wife" but no verb and no object. Some might say that the most likely assumption was that Jesus (in the fragment) was referring to a literal wife. I ask this: could the Jesus figure in the fragment have been referring to a "spiritual" wife? Is it even possible that the Jesus figure in that fragment said, "My wife is the church and I am her groom"? Maybe something like that could be possible. When two words of a sentence are present, is that enough to make such wide sweeping claims. For example, what if we found a fragment that said: "Jesus said, 'I am a liar ...' People would then bring up the issue of whether Jesus sinned or not and say this was a widespread debate. However, maybe the sentence would finish with "I am a liar if I tell you I was not sent by the Father." These two words are not enough.
4) Finally, there were lots of heresies by the fourth century: Sabellianism (aka, modalism; ca. 3rd century), Docetism (rejected in 4th century), Apollinarianism (4th century), and Arianism (late 3rd century). Just because someone believed something in the fourth century, doesn't make it historically true about Jesus. Dr. King states this herself.

This fragment should not concern anyone in the Christian faith. It might make big headlines, but a 4th century fragment is no reason to allow your faith in God and His Holy Word to be shaken. The picture we have of Jesus in the four Gospels is reliable and accurate.

LU Biblical Studies Symposium

For those of you who will be watching the Symposium online tonight (www.liberty.edu/religion) at 7:30pm, if you'd like to tweet in a question, use: #LibertyProphecy.

Does Biblical Prophecy Fail? Jonah prophesied that  "In 40 days Ninevah will be demolished." But it wasn't demolished in 40 days ... so did his prophecy fail? Was Jonah a false prophet? Get some answers tonight!

Liberty University Biblical Studies Symposium

I would like to invite you to take part in our semi-annual Biblical Studies Symposium, this Monday evening from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m. in the Towns Alumni Lecture Hall. Dr. Michael Grisanti - Professor of Old Testament at The Master's Seminary and co-author of "The World and the Word" - will be speaking on the topic "Does  Biblical Prophecy Fail?"

If you are local to Lynchburg, Virginia, I encourage you to attend physically, but those of you not located in Central Virginia are invited to join us through a webcast that will stream through the School of Religion's home page. The live stream will be made available shortly before the event's start at 7:30. On the day of the event, a banner will be displayed on the SOR homepage to allow you to join us during this exciting event. We will also provide an opportunity for you to tweet your questions for Dr. Grisanti during the event. We hope to see you all there, in some fashion or another!

http://www.liberty.edu/religion

Moo's review of Kingdom through Covenant

The Gospel Coalition has posted the first of (at least) three reviews on Kingdom through Covenant by Gentry and Wellum. In this volume, they attempt a middle ground between covenant theology and dispensationalism. This review is by Doug Moo. I highly recommend it. I look forward to reading the reviews by Darrell Bock and Michael Horton as well!

Children and Baptism

There has been a moderate amount of blog dialogue on the issue of baptizing children, which needs to be distinguished from baptizing infants. The question is not whether God can save young children or whether God does save young children, but whether or not a response of immediate baptism is necessitated by Scripture and whether or not it is wise to do so (once the previous question has been answered). Tim Challies has chimed in (again) on this topic. I've appreciated what he has said previously, and he continues on his same course from previous posts. I think Challies is pretty clear (despite the comments from some readers) that God absolutely can save young children. However, Challies gives an example of a two-year old answering his father's questions with a "yes". I think that is a pretty good example to process through: if you say that you wouldn't baptize that 2 year-old, then what makes you more comfortable baptizing a 5 or 6 or 9 year-old? What are the principles you would use to distinguish between saying "no" to baptizing a 2 year-old but yes to someone who is 6?

Christianity Today on the "Sinner's Prayer"

There is an editorial on Christianity Today's website about the "sinner's prayer." There has been some debate recently on the use (or, misuse) of this recent Evangelical evangelistic device. The subtitle of the article refers to this device as a "work of genius." The author apparently considers the sinner's prayer as part of "the faith once delivered to the saints" (unless that was sarcasm ... I couldn't tell). There was an interesting line near the end referring to those who have recently critiqued the sinner's prayer: "But we have to do better than theological snobbery or spiritual self-righteousness." 

So, what do you think of this article?