Confessions of a Bible Translation Geek

I love Bible translations. It has only been in the past few years that I've stopped my quest to own every single English translation that arrives on the scene—much to the delight of my wife! I've studied various translations for years and I find it a fascinating subject. 

    I myself have utilized several translations in my ministry. (Primarily the NASB, ESV, CSB, NKJV). I have migrated most of my ministry over to the NKJV, because I prefer the Byzantine textual tradition. I really like the way the CSB reads and I like the NASB's transparency to the underlying Hebrew and Greek. We are abundantly blessed to have so many excellent translations, including several that I did not mention here. 

    But enough is enough. We do not need more translations into English, at least not at this point. (I might make an exception for a translation based on the Majority Text that has the backing of a major Bible publisher, but I digress). While language does change, it does change every year to the point that we need a new translation every few months! We also don't need more and more editions of the Bibles we have. Why not spend our efforts and resources doing three things?

    First, why not content ourselves with updating the current translations every decade or so as they need it? These changes can be minor and shouldn't necessarily make the translation feel completely different to its readers. 

    Second, why not spend our money and effort at getting Scripture into the hands of those who do not have a translation in their language? We can support organizations like Wycliffe and perhaps even see if we can get directly involved somehow. 

    Finally, why not insist our pastors and teachers dive deeper into Hebrew and Greek? I'm certainly not perfect in this regard, but I think it's an admirable goal. We as pastors don't have to be experts in the languages, but we should be making an effort to improve our skills so that we are "correctly teaching the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15 CSB). I'm auditing a class on Advanced Greek Grammar with David Alan Black at the moment and it's really driving this home to me, including showing me how very much I still have to learn! There are many resources out there that can help us persevere in language study. 

    Brothers and sisters, let us long to see God's Word in the hands of all people in their own language. Let's divert resources from making more English translations to making more for those who need it. 

soli Deo gloria  

How Do We Read the Song of Solomon?

First off, let me say that this post is not going to give you a brief commentary nor an introduction to the book of Song of Solomon (Song of Songs). There are plenty of resources that will do that, but that's not my purpose here. I just want to suggest a way in which we need balance as we approach the Song. There are two extremes that people make when reading/teaching the Song that I think need to be avoided. 

    The first extreme is to read the book allegorically, as picturing the love of God and his people. This approach was common throughout the Middle Ages, but it also found its representatives among the Puritans and similar theologians. While this approach is not as common today, it can still be found in some circles, including some rigidly reformed groups. 

    The problem with the allegorical approach is that it requires some remarkable exegetical gymnastics. There is no way to take a normal, straightforward reading of the book and make it fit an allegorical understanding. It is my suspicion that the allegorical approach arose and finds adherents for at least 4 reasons. First, throughout church history some Christians have had an unfortunate view of sex, namely, that it was something sort of unholy and that engaging in it, while perhaps necessary, was an unfortunate evil. Second, certain strands of Christian thought have applied allegory to all of Scripture, so it was not a leap to apply it to the Song. Third, some wonder why a book devoted to sexual love would find a place in Scripture. I suspect this reason loops into the first at some point. 

    The final reason for the allegorical method is that Scripture pictures the relationship between God and his picture with husband/wife imagery. This reason actually has some validity to it. Scripture often uses such imagery (e.g. Jeremiah 31, Ephesians 5, the book of Hosea). I do not deny that the Song might reinforce this imagery. It should be natural for us as believers, when we reflect on marriage and marital love, to remember how marriage is meant to picture Christ and the church. But I do not think this meaning is primary to the Song. Rather, it could be an application of it.* 

    The other extreme is to literalize the Song. Some in recent years have taken the Song's highly poetic imagery and have attempted to find explicit references to sexual acts therein. Brothers and sisters, the Song is sensual, but it is not pornographic. The Song is not the Kama Sutra of the Bible! It is not designed to give you sexual techniques or positions. Otherwise, the language would hardly be as poetic and often obscure as it is. I've heard it said, "The Song of Solomon is rated R." No, it is not. (If any book is rated R, it's Judges!)

    Sex within marriage between a man and a woman is a beautiful gift of God and we should never be ashamed of it. But when it comes to Scripture, let's not indulge in speculation for the sake of titillation. 

    If we avoid either of these extremes, I believe we will be more faithful to the Word of God. After all, isn't that our goal?

soli Deo gloria 

*I realize that some of our application of this book will depend on how we understand exactly how many characters there are and the background for the book. For more details, see the commentaries or a solid Old Testament introduction. 

Is There an Echo in Here?

One of the biggest problems in theological discussion is the straw-man fallacy. This fallacy is when someone takes a caricature of their opponent's position and attacks that caricature rather than their opponent's actual position. It's hard to find theological discussion today that doesn't engage in this wrong-headed and unchristian logical error. 

    Calvinists are often fond of accusing their opponents of straw-manning their position. And many times, said Calvinists are right. Many people misrepresent what Calvinists believe and such misrepresentation needs to stop. Calvinists do not believe in a monstrous god who plays people like puppets. They do not (for the most part) believe that God actively keeps people from believing. So don't say that they do! 

    But Calvinists are often just as guilty of misrepresenting Arminians. I'm not speaking just of keyboard warrior Calvinists, but of well-known, reputable Calvinist teachers. For example, they often teach that Arminians believe they can work up faith on their own without help from God. No true Arminian believes any such thing. We believe that faith is a gift of God as surely as the Calvinists do. The question is not if faith is a gift but if said gift is resistible or not. That's the difference in the Calvinist and Arminian views. 

    Furthermore, despite what Calvinists often argue, Paul does not see faith as a work. So, by saying that we must "exercise" faith in Christ to be saved is not saying that we must be saved by works! Many Scriptures could be cited here, but see Romans 4:5, for example: "But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (NKJV). Ephesians 2:8–9 shows clearly that faith is both a gift of God and not a work. 

    Now at this point, many Calvinists will claim that I do not understand the point they're making because, under Arminianism, faith is still something you "do." I can grant that, but Calvinism does not escape this problem. Because, under Calvinism, God does not do the believing for you. It is still "your faith." It might be irresistible, but it is still something you "do." So, if faith is a work under Arminianism, it is also a work under Calvinism.

    Furthermore, please don't just quote Calvinist (or Arminian) talking points. Go to the Scripture and exegete it! The Word of God is the common ground upon which this discussion must take place if any edification is to be had from it. 

    I close with a plea to those on both sides: please do not insulate yourself in an echo chamber. Read scholars from the other side. When I was a Calvinist I pretty much only read and listened to other Calvinists. I know many Calvinists are the same. I also know many non-Calvinists avoid listening to and reading Calvinists like the plague. But these unchristian representations will continue until we get out of our echo chambers and read those who disagree! You might not agree with the other side, and that's fine, but you should at least know what they actually believe. Trust me, you will be a better Calvinist or Arminian if you leave the echo chamber. Study to show yourself approved and let iron sharpen iron. 

soli Deo gloria 

Do You Need the Original Languages to Preach? A Few Thoughts in Progress

It is very common in my circles and in the works I read to stress the importance of preachers knowing Greek and Hebrew. (Most seem to forget that a few chapters in the OT are written in Aramaic, as well!). Let me say upfront that I agree that learning the biblical languages is worthwhile and very helpful in many instances. I would encourage all preachers to learn them, something that is much easier now with seminaries offering online education. However, I do not want to go as far as to say that they are absolutely essential to pastoral and preaching ministry. Here are some thoughts I have: 

1. First, there are a plethora of excellent English translations available today. One can use the NASB, ESV, NKJV, NLT, NIV, CSB, HCSB, NET, KJV, etc. with great profit. (There are some translations to avoid, but that's another post for another time). Read and compare different translations. Then, go to the commentaries. Get yourself some more technical commentaries, ones that are still accessible to the English reader, and dive in. Compare different commentaries. In this way you will see what the options are and what the reasons are for the options. You might not be able to confidently evaluate all the issues, but you will be able to dig deeper if you use these resources.

2. Along with the first point, I'm going to issue an (unpopular) caveat. Do not use the languages if you have not been trained in the languages.* A lot of people know the Greek alphabet so they can look up words or use an interlinear, but this level of knowledge is not sufficient for doing exegetical work in the languages. Your understanding of the languages will be virtually nonexistent if you haven't spent time actually working in the languages (i.e. translating texts). I have friends who try to use the languages without knowing them and it often leads them into error. 

    I'll share an embarrassing story on this point. When I was in college, I never took Hebrew. But, I thought I understood enough to wax eloquent on the subject, at least to a degree. I remember posting on a discussion board for a class about what the Hebrew word for "day" (יום) meant. While my understanding wasn't completely wrong, it was mostly ignorant and I even had the pronunciation/spelling of the word wrong. I still cringe when I think about it! 

3. Another thing to remember is that preachers should make it a habit of preaching from both OT and NT. To use the languages in preaching, then, you need to be trained in both. But very few seminary graduates are truly skilled in both. Most of time preachers know some Greek but barely survived Hebrew! I ended up focusing in OT, so my Hebrew is stronger than my Greek, although I have a competent level of training in both. But I'm still careful when using the languages because I do not presume to be more of an expert than the scholars I am reading, especially in Greek. This leads to me my final point. 

4. I hate to say it, but one year of each (Greek and Hebrew) is not enough for you to use them well. Even if you did well in the classes, your understanding of the languages will probably be very mechanical and not sensitive to the various ways different biblical authors utilize the languages. A rigid, mechanical understanding will often lead to error. (For example, see all the various ways well-meaning preachers have misused the aorist tense in Greek). It is not until the third semester that you are actually working with syntax in a way that's helpful for interpretation. And to really develop your skills, you need to progress beyond the third semester. 

5. You can know and preach God's Word without knowing the language! Finally, a comforting word. You do not need to be skilled in either of the languages to be used by God to preach his Word and shepherd his flock! While I recommend learning and using the languages, I do not view it as a requirement. It often adds depth to your reading and preaching, but you will often get the gist from utilizing the appropriate translations and commentaries. There are too many examples of preachers without the requisite training who nonetheless preached God's Word accurately and mightily. It's about your humility and submission to the Word. It's about God's gift of wisdom and the Spirit's illumination. This is not to downplay the significance or importance of the languages. If at all possible, you should learn them and you should utilize the resources I mentioned above. But you should not feel like you can never be used of God without proficiency in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic. 

These are just a few of my thoughts on this issue. Many will disagree with parts of what I say and that's ok. Just remember that true, biblical wisdom is a gift from God and is not about formal learning, but holy living (James 3:13–18). 

soli Deo gloria 

From Geneva to Leiden (with a vacation house in Spain)

Since the Lord miraculously saved me at 16—a story for another time!—I have been fascinated with the topic of soteriology, or the doctrine of salvation. The church that I grew up in and got saved in did not really discuss the issues of election and predestination. They preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they did not dive into those specifics. But, as is the case for any Bible student, it was not long before I began to face those texts that spoke of God's choosing and predestining. But what was I to make of them?

    In my own reading of the texts, as well as my conversations with a trusted mentor, I came to a very basic Arminian understanding. That is, I believed that God knew who would believe and he chose those persons. I didn't really dive any deeper than that and such a position satisfied me—until college. 

    I was blessed to attend an excellent school that challenged me in many ways. One of the ways I was challenged was in my understanding of election/predestination. (No, election and predestination are not the same things, but I am using them to signify a complex of related doctrines). Many of my fellow students and some profs were or became enamored with John Piper. (A great, godly man, whom I still admire greatly!). I was already a big fan of John MacArthur by this point, as well. RC Sproul was also a big influence. Because of these factors, I was coming under the sway of Calvinism. 

    This "sway" under which I was coming was not something I particularly wanted to accept. I remember tossing and turning in my bed at night, wrestling with questions of God's providence and election. I think many Calvinists would honestly admit that the doctrines are hard to accept and usually cause a bit of recoil upon first hearing them. This recoil was my experience. I did not want to be a Calvinist. 

    Although I purchased some books on the subject that I was hoping would provide solid, exegetical answers to Calvinist interpretations, I was left disappointed. Back in my college days the resources on the internet and in book form were either not present or less accessible than they are today. And so, seeing no other option and wanting to be biblical, I embraced Calvinism. 

    I eventually came to love the so-called "doctrines of grace." (Non-calvinists believe in grace, too!). I found that there were tons of Calvinist resources and pastors out there for me to sink my teeth into. Calvinism gave a nice, systematic grid with which to approach the text of Scripture. Most of my theology professors were Calvinists and my friends, as well. It was great to be in the club! I even switched to the ESV and grew a beard :).

    I remained with Calvinistic convictions for years. I read primarily Calvinist authors. I thought in Calvinistic categories. Every once in a while a doubt would flare up, but I would quickly put it to rest, primarily based on John 6 and Acts 13:48. (Believe it or not, I never found Romans 9 to be all that strong a proof for Calvinism). 

    However, several streams came together partway through my PhD work that made me doubt and eventually leave Calvinism. Most significantly, I began to see that the exegetical foundations of Calvinism were not as strong as I once thought—in my opinion, of course. A very long story short, I came to believe that Calvinism rested on a few selected texts, read in a certain manner. I also came to believe that the thrust of Scripture did not support Calvinism. I also found more resources to help me in this journey, resources that I was either not aware of, did not exist, or I did not have access to before. (Look for a follow-up post on recommended resources). I also began to have trouble with some of the implications of Calvinism, although I would not have left it if I believed it to be the only biblical option. 

    I could talk for longer about my journey, including a couple of times in the past few years where I have tried to make myself a Calvinist again, but I might save that for another post. This post is designed more to let people know where I was and where I am. I have spent years wrestling with these issues. On a confident day, I say I am an Arminian (hence Leiden) who also likes Molinism (hence Spain). However, on less confident days I might claim the label "tensionist," someone who believes that the streams of God's meticulous providence and election are in tension—but not contradiction!—with human responsibility. I'm still wrestling because I want to be biblical more than I want to claim a label. 

    I believe that God unconditionally chooses certain people to play certain roles in history and in his service. I also believe that all who are in Christ are chosen and predestined for all the blessings of salvation. I also believe that God knows his own from eternity past, not just in the sense of knowing facts about them, but knowing them personally and intimately. 

    I also believe that God truly implores people to come. I believe that people can resist the Holy Spirit's offer. I believe the Spirit convicts the world. I believe mankind is dead in sin but I do not believe that regeneration precedes faith. I believe Jesus Christ, at least in some sense, died for the sins of everyone. I believe everyone, until they reach a point of no return, has the actual possibility to be saved if they hear the Gospel and are convicted by the Spirit. 

    Some of you might read this and write me off, even if you know me personally. Calvinism has a dominance in much of the publishing world and Calvinist voices are often the loudest. But I would urge you to really study the issues and the texts, prayerfully and humbly. Read the Word in concert with theologians throughout the ages. And, most importantly, seek to glorify our Lord Jesus Christ. And remember, "everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved," and that name is neither John Calvin nor Jacobus Arminius, but Jesus Christ. 

    If you would like to talk more about these things, I would be happy to if I get the time. However, if you just want to attack me, I'm afraid I will try hard to not take the bait. Don't be a keyboard warrior. Instead, be a servant of Christ for his glory. 

A Discussion about My Theological Journey

This week I had the wonderful opportunity to connect with Dr. Leighton Flowers, of Soteriology 101, to discuss a little bit of my theological pilgrimage. Check it out and to God be the glory! 

https://youtu.be/WD53BZnzELs

By the way, listen to the reason why they put my degree in the title. It wasn't to make me look good (it would take a lot more than letters after my name to do that!). 

A Caution from Matthew Henry

Matthew Henry lived long before the days of social media. However, in his commentary on James, he shares the following words of wisdom that apply to our day as much as to his, including our interactions with others on social media. The text in view is James 1:26: "If anyone among you thinks* he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless" (NKJV). Henry wrote, 

“The man who has a detracting tongue cannot have a truly humble gracious heart. He who delights to injure his neighbor in vain pretends to love God; therefore a reviling tongue will prove a man a hypocrite … This has ever been a leading sin with hypocrites, that the more ambitious they have been to seem well themselves the more free they have been in censuring and running down others; and there is such a quick intercourse between the tongue and the heart that the one may be known by the other.” 

Our words reveal what is in our hearts. May God have mercy on us all. 

*The word translated "thinks" in the NKJV is δοκέω, which can also mean "seem." Hence the KJV: "If any man among you seem to be religious."

Book Recommendation: The Supremacy of God in Preaching by John Piper

 I thought one way to keep this blog going would be to add brief book recommendations. So, here's the first one!

Piper, John. The Supremacy of God in Preaching. 2d Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.

Back in college, I spent a couple of years as a Piper fanatic. I bought all his books I could find, I read posts on DesiringGOD all the time, and I began to think in terms of Piper's thought. If I had found a bumper sticker that said, "John Piper said it. I believe it. That settles it." I would have purchased it instantly. (OK, maybe not, but you get my point). Later in my theological studies I began adding other authors and didn't follow Piper quite so closely, although I've always had—and still have—enormous respect and love for the man. 

    Perhaps it was my weening off of all-Piper-all-the-time as well as the crazy amounts of reading required both in the MDiv and PhD that caused me to never get around to The Supremacy of God in Preaching. However, having recently took a pastoral position at Brassfield Baptist in Creedmoor, NC, I began to feel a strong conviction to make sure my sermons exalted our glorious triune God like they should. I had this book on my shelf and it was a brief read, so I started it one Saturday night. 

    Reading this book was like a refreshing draught of cool water after mowing the lawn in NC. Piper always writes with fervency, and this comes through clearly in this book. (Note that at least part of the book is based on lectures/sermons of his). Piper divides the book into two main sections: "Why God Should Be Supreme in Preaching" and "How to Make God Supreme in Preaching: Guidance from the Ministry of Jonathan Edwards." Both sections are immensely helpful, although I slightly preferred the first half. 

Piper's passion to see God glorified comes through on every page, but the book is also filled with helpful practical guidance. Don't get me wrong, this is not a technical manual on how to preach.* Rather, Piper establishes solid foundations and points readers in helpful directions. 

I certainly would recommend preachers study other preachers outside of Piper and Edwards. As such, Piper's book is not the only one preachers should read. If you, like me, are not quite as big a fan of Edwards and certain aspects of his theology as Piper is,^ don't let that put you off. Piper draws helpful lessons from Edwards' life and ministry that can benefit every preacher. 

I heartily recommend The Supremacy of God in Preaching. It's a short read but it is packed with good stuff. May the Lord use it to further a greater passion for his glory in us preachers! 

*For volumes of such nature, I recommend McDill, Wayne V. The Moment of Truth: A Guide to Effective Sermon Delivery. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1999; and Akin, Daniel, Bill Curtis, and Stephen Rummage, Engaging Exposition. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2011, especially sections two and three.

^Specifically occasionalism and divine determinism.

Beware of Pious Blasphemy

 I hope this title grabs you. "Beware of Pious Blasphemy." What does this mean? Well, on the surface of things, it could mean a variety of things, all related to the way we can misuse God's name (Exod 20:7) in how we live and speak. However, by this title I intend something quite specific, something I see far too much in theological polemics today. 

My thesis is this: regardless of whether you are a Calvinist or an Arminian (or something else) do not picture the "God of the other side" in such a way that you will be blaspheming him if you're wrong. 

Let me illustrate from real-life examples. I have heard Arminians say that the "God of Calvinism" is a "moral monster," "like Satan," "a rapist," or things of this nature. Here's the problem. If you end up being wrong in your theology and something like Calvinism ends up being true, you have just blasphemed the holy God. Now you might be confident in your Arminianism, but you have to admit that the issues are complex enough that there is a chance—however small—that you could be wrong. If you have been guilty of saying things like this about the Calvinist view of God, the answer is simple: repent.

But lest you think I'm letting Calvinists off the hook, fear not. I have heard Calvinists—including some well-known ones—picture the "God of Arminianism" as "weak," "ineffective," or "someone who just waits and can't save anyone."* Once again, if you happen to be wrong in your theology—something few Calvinists admit could be possible :)—then you have just blasphemed God. Repent.

Brothers and sisters, let us admit that our God is bigger than we can comprehend. Let us also praise him that he has given us his Word and his Spirit so that we may apprehend him to some degree! Let us acknowledge the weaknesses, mysteries, and tensions in our systems. Let us strive to be biblical. Let us show love to one another. Let us worship our glorious God. 

*The picture of God as "waiting" is not inherently negative. See Rom 10:21, Matt 23:37, Luke 15:20. However, many Calvinists use the idea of a "waiting" God in a pejorative sense.