Pete's Blog

C.J. Mahaney asked Dr. Wayne Grudem a few questions and posted them with Grudem's answers (it's four parts: 1, 2, 3 and 4). One of the questions that Mahaney asked was what area of ministry Grudem was typically most tempted to feel discouraged in. At the end of his answer (I think this was the question that Grudem gave the longest answer to), he told this story (it's in the fourth part):

One event that still puzzles me concerns my book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (2004). I had been involved in the controversies over biblical manhood and womanhood for over 20 years at that point, and during that time I had compiled a list of 118 objections that egalitarians (evangelical feminists) had made to the biblical teachings on men's and women's roles in marriage and the church. I then researched and wrote detailed answers to those objections, and added a number of appendices that could not easily be found anywhere else, key documents on the controversy over men's and women's roles. Many evangelical leaders gave strong endorsements to the book.

I had hoped the book would provide a final answer to the manhood/womanhood controversy in the evangelical world, but instead I don't think it had much impact or visibility, due to some mistakes that were made so that it was not sent out for review to influential journals, and I didn't find this out until over a year later, when it was too late for reviews. I believe that God is still sovereign, and in his wise providence he will yet use this for good, but I don't understand it at this point. I leave it in the Lord's hands.

I'm very familiar with the book, so I know how significant it is for the book not to have been peer-reviewed. I remember listening to him talk about the book in 2003 with Mark Dever and sound very excited about it almost being done (though I only listened to the interview for the first time within the past year since I wasn't even a Christian when they had the interview). The book's free online and I refer to it whenever I have a question about the gender controversy going on within evangelicalism. It's super readable, and though scholarly, totally accessible to readers of all brands and types. Imagine working months and months, and years and years on something, and then seeing nothing come of it. I thank God that Dr. Grudem found enough encouragement in Romans 8:28 to go on.

I pray that I learn that when things don't go as I plan, that God is still sovereign, and that He means it for my good.

(HT: Justin Taylor)

Kim Riddlebarger (a guy, not a girl), a pastor who's best known (which is a relative statement since relatively few know him) for his work studying eschatology, in particular, defending amillennialism, wrote a funny blog entry today. He comments that Rick Warren has released some new Purpose Driven materials, and quotes Warren as saying that they arrived just in time for the financial crisis for people to find hope in the tough times. Dr. Riddlebarger then implies that it's a money grab.

Anyway, Riddlebarger satirises Warren's announcement, writing an ad for his own books. There's one line in there which I think is hilarious. Here's an excerpt from the satire, and I've emphasized the parts which contribute to his great line:

In these days of economic uncertainty, a proper view of the end-times is a must. To help you navigate these perilous times the Riddleblog reminds you of the two books written by its proprietor. If these uncertain times have you worrying about your job, retirement savings, and 401K, you need to buy both my books (multiple copies to give to all your friends and family) which will help you know what is going on, and will also ensure that I don't have to worry about these things. [Emphasis and hyperlink added.]

If you read the full post, you'll notice that Dr. Riddlebarger comes down very hard on Rick Warren. Just so you know that I wouldn't drink Jim Jones' kool-aid (i.e., that I don't automatically believe or agree with everything certain people say), I'd like to point out that Dr. Riddlebarger's approach doesn't seem to demonstrate Christian love. Rick Warren might have a low view of repentance (at least in application, probably not in word) and he might have a differing view of God's sovereignty than my own, but I don't have any reason to doubt that he's genuinely interested in the salvation of lost souls through his materials. If Dr. Riddlebarger does, he doesn't present it in this post. I think that he should give Warren the benefit of the doubt. (I made my thoughts aware on his blog post.)

--

I highly recommend a lecture that Dr. Riddlebarger delivered where he gives a couple of the best arguments for amillennialism. He also runs through a few of the objections that come up from this system. The lecture's about an hour long and then there's about ten minute's worth of questions and answers. He starts off with a long introduction, talking about the dangers of dispensationalism, the existence of popular dispensationalist materials and scholarly dispensationalist materials, his own books, and other stuff. It's good, maybe a bit repetitive, but if you only want to hear him talk about amillennialism, start at 23:43.

An anagram is a word or phrase formed by reordering the letters of another word or phrase. Here are some neat ones I found on a website:

1. Dormitory ↔ Dirty Room;
   
2. Listen ↔ Silent;
   
3. Astronomers ↔ Moon starers;
   
4. George Bush ↔ He bugs Gore.
   

There are others, but they're not quite as good.

Hemant Mehta (whom I've referenced once before on my blog) posted yesterday about prayer happening at President-elect Obama's inauguration. He started off saying:

A couple weeks ago, Barack Obama picked Rick Warren to deliver his Inauguration's invocation prayer. The gay community was (rightfully) mad. At the same time, Obama announced that Rev. Joseph Lowery would give the benediction prayer. Lowery is a little better on gay issues, but he still opposes gay marriage.

Atheists were mad that prayer was being used in the inauguration in the first place: Why was he mixing church and state? (We even filed a lawsuit.)

Then, later in the post wrote:

What's the problem?

There shouldn't be prayer at these government gatherings in the first place.

Many are public events funded by taxpayer money. They should be free of religion.

He concluded the post urging his readers to donate money to atheist organizations.

First, as I've said before on this blog, I don't think it's inconsistent to let religion inform your sense of morality in a democracy. It's a democracy so the people should choose people who will accurately represent them. So, obviously I don't have a problem with God-language, prayer or religious overtones occurring in official government proceedings and documents. That said, I still wanted to make a simple case for why religious elements are not logically inappropriate in a government that has a separation of church and state. So I commented,

You said there's no place for religion. Why's there a place for no religion (i.e., atheism), then? Government should function on a type of charitable pluralism, not a secularism where everyone is so scared of controversy that they cannot even ask what religion another person is.

The reality is that there are many religions. Assuming that atheism is true, and running government as though it were (i.e., devoid of God-reference), does not solve the problem. (Just as assuming Christianity is true, which I think is accurate, and christianizing government would not work either.)

Basically my method is that whenever a freethinker (i.e., an atheist) says there should be no God-language in a democratic government, I want to respond back, "How would you take it if I said, 'There should only be God-language'? Or, to phrase it another way, 'There should be no non-God-language—atheist-language' (since atheism means no God). Are you trying to force your worldview on me, now?" I got mixed reactions.

First, "Government should be free of interference from all religions. Atheism is no more a religion than science is a religion." Again, how is this different from a theist saying there should be no interference from atheists? The logic of this rebuttal is inconsistent.

Next, someone quoted this from my comment: "Why's there a place for no religion (i.e., atheism), then?" And asked, "Do you even know what you're saying? I sure don't." Fun, fun.

The last one that was obviously directed at me said,

Pete: we're not trying to add atheism to the ceremonies, we're trying to disentangle them from religion entirely. I'd be just as annoyed if the ceremony were anti-religious as I am that it is pro-religious.

The goal is neutrality.

This person seems to think that the only way to stay neutral is to have no religion. Hmm, if an individual has no religion by decision, what is he? An atheist! He seems to say that the only way a government proceeding would be atheistic would be if it were anti-theistic (opposed to God, or, more specifically, opposed to theism, belief in God). He said, "we're not trying to add atheism to the ceremonies, . . . I'd be just as annoyed if the ceremony were anti-religious. . ."

Those are my quick rebuttals. I published more comments on Hemant Mehta's blog post which essentially give these responses.

All-in-all, I don't know why it's an issue. If a Jew were to pray at the inauguration it simply would not affect me. Rick Warren praying at Mr. Obama's inauguration, in their minds, shouldn't affect them, since they believe it has no true impact.

Lastly, Jefferson said that there should be a wall of separation between church and state. This same man had no problem reading Scripture (from his softened bible) at government proceedings. No one actually knows today exactly what he meant when he said that there should be a wall of separation, but it seems pretty obvious to most, that he wanted to protect the government from becoming the wing of a church.

A final word: Listen to Mohler talk about charitable pluralism and the following Q & A time.

Reading a verse in the Psalms has brought me back to thinking about Bible translation. Psalm 51:4 in the ESV reads,

If you take it at face value, the verse says that David sinned so that God would be cleared (or vindicated or justified) in His judgment. That doesn't sound like a plausible interpretation to me.

Another version, the New English Translation Bible (hereafter referred to as the NET Bible), translates it

This at least is understandable and compatible with my understanding of an unchanging, omnipotent, sovereign God (which I think the Scriptures teach). Of course, the second part in this version is a paraphrase:

The Hebrew term לְמַעַן (lÿma'an) normally indicates purpose ("in order that"), but here it introduces a logical consequence of the preceding statement. (Taking the clause as indicating purpose here would yield a theologically preposterous idea – the psalmist purposely sinned so that God's justice might be vindicated!) For other examples of לְמַעַן indicating result, see 2 Kgs 22:17; Jer 27:15; Amos 2:7 . . . (A translator's note on this verse from the NET Bible)

That's a helpful note. So the ESV accurately translates what the Hebrew actually says and the NET Bible translates what the Hebrew actually means. Being able to get both provides a compelling reason to read multiple translations when doing Bible study.

I don't know anything about Hebrew, so I'm going to assume that the NET Bible's right for paraphrasing the second part of the Hebrew that way, especially since that's how Paul applies the verse in Romans 3:4. But what if we didn't have Paul interpreting it for us? The NET note says that term "normally indicates" [emphasis added] purpose. And they deduce that in this case it doesn't indicate purpose because it would be theologically incompatible. As soon as I read this, I thought back to something Piper'd written:

The following meditation comes from my devotional lingering over Psalm 96:7. All the modern versions translate it, "Ascribe to the Lord...strength" (ESV, NIV, NASB). Only the KJV renders it with the literal, "Give unto the Lord...strength."

There's nothing unusual about this Hebrew word "give" (yahab). It's used over sixty times in the Old Testament in all the ordinary ways the word give is used.

The word ascribe in Psalm 96:7 is an interpretation. It's a paraphrase. It's a good interpretation, I think, but, as with all paraphrases, it short circuits our reflection.

When you read the NET Bible for Psalm 96:7, the use of "ascribe" instead of "give" isn't even mentioned in the notes.

I think this is the main reason why I advocate literal translations. It's easy enough to use explicit language to give the immediate meaning of a passage, but it runs the risk of covering over a deeper meaning the author had invested in his original choice of words.

Here's an illustration: The replacement of the words referring to a dead person sleeping in the Old Testament. Consider, for example, 1 Kings 2:10: "Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David" [ESV, cf. NASB, KJV]. The NIV and HCSB (i.e., the Holman Christian Standard Bible, one of Mohler's three recommended translations) use "rested" instead of "slept," the NLT (i.e., the New Living Translation) uses "died," and the NET Bible uses "passed away." All of these obviously convey the same immediate meaning: He's dead! But Grudem once made an interesting comment: He said that when the Bible talks about dead people who are said to be sleeping, it is foreshadowing resurrection.

You might think that "rest" carries the same connotations as "sleeping." It's true that it can, but in this case, I think the translations are using "rest" like you would for any inanimate object. E.g., "The fork rested in its spot." By not using the word "sleep" the implication of one day waking is veiled. The literal translations keep the Old Testament type intact.

Given that example, I want to go back to my question of how does the translator decide when to keep the author's original wording, and when does he change the wording because it's incompatible with his views. For example, John 11:3-6 reads,

So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."

When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it." Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days. [NIV, emphasis added]

But verse 6 literally reads, "So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was" [ESV, cf. NASB] (though I don't know anything about Greek, Piper pointed this out, and I trust his scholarship, and also, the NET Bible and the HCSB translate it "so").

Jesus found out that Lazarus was dying, so He didn't move, in order to let Lazarus die, that He may be glorified. But you don't get that right away from the reading of the NIV. The NIV doesn't leave it clear, for whatever reason, that Jesus stayed behind because of what Mary and Martha had told him.

This is my case for why a literal translation is best to be the first Bible you go to. But I also think that using multiple translations has a place. The way I balance it is by first lingering on the words of the literal translation and then, when I'm stumped, I'll go to the paraphrase. If I go too quickly to the paraphrase I'll jump too quickly to the immediate meaning it provides and ignore any underlying implications in the wording. At the same time, I still don't usually get it. Maybe fifty years from now I'll start making the connections that men like Piper and Mohler make.