The Not-So-Modern Yearning for Male Friendship

“Jonathan lies slain on your high places.
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
very pleasant have you been to me;
your love to me was extraordinary,
surpassing the love of women.
How the mighty have fallen,
and the weapons of war perished!” (2 Sam. 1:26-27).

It isn’t unusual in our own day and age to see people lamenting the loss of the masculine friendship. In a lot of ways it isn’t hard to see why: not only does our society seem to be exchanging real-world, face-to-face relationships for the online, impersonal, Facebook-style relationship, but increasingly there is pressure on men especially to become distant and independent from their peers. In more recent trends, biographers of famous figures search the journals of their subjects combing them over for homoerotic overtones or hints of impropriety in their masculine relationships. Modern men increasingly fear having their sexuality challenged in this way or being misunderstood by others. Increasingly, the path that many men (even godly upstanding men) choose is the path of least resistance: isolation, solitude, independence, and loneliness.

Yet whenever I talk with other men about this problem, I sense that they do yearn for close friendships - that they don’t want to live in isolation. I have spoken with numerous men who, upon reading David’s lament for Jonathan in 2 Samuel 1, resonate deeply with David’s loss. David has not only lost King Saul, whom he loved and respected in spite of his horrendous failings, but he has also lost his best friend in all the world. As someone who moved several states to attend Seminary I have discovered that even in a place where so many around me have much in common, true friendships are hard to come by, and don’t just grow on trees. To lose a true friend is no small thing.

As many of us read of David’s loss we may feel an even deeper sorrow. We have experienced a loss of our own, in our day and age: in a sense we have lost the ability to know David’s loss. What David is speaking of may be so foreign to us that we are only able to experience David’s friendship and sorrow vicariously. We perhaps think, “I may never have such a friend, and I may never know such a loss, and yet it brings me comfort to think upon David himself baring his soul for those around him to hear.” We should be encouraged by David’s example that we should not choose the easy path of isolation in our personal relationships, but to do the hard work of spending time with other men and opening ourselves to the kind of godly, masculine relationship we see modeled for us here by David and Jonathan. Those who do know what it is to have a godly and intimate friendship with another man should thank God that he experiences such a gift. Whatever our experience might be, there is a comfort in knowing that such an intimacy and closeness is possible between men who are friends and fellow sojourners in this difficult journey called life.

Thoughts on the New ESV Single-Column Legacy Bible

After spending a great deal of time researching and thinking about it, I decided to order one of the new ESV Single-Column Legacy Bibles from Crossway. I wanted to very briefly share some of my thoughts.

I want to state, right out of the gate, that this is already my favorite Bible I've ever owned. I have a Reformation Study Bible, an ESV Thinline, an NIV Thinline, a pocket NASB (which is quite amazing) and more than my fair share of NKJV Bibles that were given to me as graduation gifts at one time or another. I have a long history with thinline Bibles and Study Bibles, but I have never owned a Bible like this one. The Legacy Bible is a departure from my old tradition as it has a minimalist design. If you like Apple and keeping your desk tidy and see the appeal of minimalist aesthetic, this may be the Bible for you.

It is physically large - almost as large as my 12 year old Reformation Study Bible (but not as big as the ESV Study Bible), and yet it is only Bible text on the page. The pages have been specially printed so that the words on both sides overlap, meaning that there is white space around the words instead of seeing the grey of the text behind it bleeding through the pages. The minimalist design means that there are no cross-references, very few textual notes, and larger letters than are in my ESV Thinline. Section headings have been moved to the margins allowing for a fluid reading experience. At times when I was reading through Galatians I gloried in the thought that the section headings (and chapters) were never really there to begin with. Paul's book is one prolonged argument, and it is easier to enjoy the way that Paul meant it without the headings inserted into the body of the text. This was a winning decision by Crossway.

The margins are very nice and draw your eye towards the text in a very appealing way. You want to keep reading simply for the joy of it. [If you are interested in seeing some photos and a bit more in-depth discussion of the Legacy, look here.]

After spending two days reading this new Bible, I declare it to be my new favorite. It is a blast to read, an aesthetic experience, and an excellent Bible. My only regret is that I did not wait a couple of months to purchase one of the Calfskin versions. The black genuine leather Legacy Bible which I purchased (in my haste) is pretty stiff and "plasticky" in my opinion. I guess I'll just have to break it in. Regardless of the binding, however, this is going to be the Bible that I use for my own personal study, and it is hard to imagine a Bible any time soon eclipsing this one.

[In case there is suspicion about my glowing review, let me be transparent with you all. I bought this book and was not given one for review purposes.]

One Less Quiver in the Preacher's Arrow

In his commentary on the Gospel of Mark from the NIGTC series, R.T. France (on pg 430), speaking about the composition of the crowd at the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem in Mark 11, points out that the crowd which praised Jesus, singing "Hosanna" is not the same crowd who would later crucify him. He bases this on the fact that the processional following Jesus to Jerusalem began in Jericho. The Greek phrase, putting their identities beyond doubt, according to France, is proagontes kai oi akolouthountes - the ones going before and the ones following. This is the same pilgrim group that has been traveling with Jesus throughout Act Two of Mark's Gospel.

There is no warrant here for the preacher's favorite comment on the fickleness of a crowd which could shout 'Hosanna' one day and 'Crucify him' a few days later. They are not the same crowd. The Galilean pilgrims shouted 'Hosanna' as they approached the city; the Jerusalem crowd shouted, 'Crucify him'.

The Destruction of Jerusalem Was More Apocalyptic Than You Think

It seems like most commentators are comfortable seeing the Olivette Discourse (Matt. 24:3-25:46; Mk. 13) as referring in its first half to the destruction of Jerusalem and then in the later half to the end of days parousia of Jesus. In Matthew, one stretch that seems somewhat divisive is 24:29-31.

[29] “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. [30] Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. [31] And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

In particular, the most controversial aspect of these three verses is the epic apocalyptic scale of what is being described. "Tribulation," "sun will be darkened," "moon will not give its light," "stars will fall from heaven"... Most people outside of the Jewish first century culture would see a pretty huge stretch between a city being demolished and these sorts of images being fulfilled. As a consequence, a large number of commentators include verses 29-31 in the second half of the Olivette Discourse and say that this is imagery of Jesus' eventual parousia, visitation, or coming (pick your favorite translation).

What I want to quickly do is just show how the gap is not nearly as great as one might think. There is actually quite a precedent for speaking of the destruction of cities in the Old Testament with at least this level of enthusiasm. Lets look at a few in passing:

Amos 8:9
"And on that day," declares the Lord GOD, "I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight."

Joel 2:10
The earth quakes before them; the heavens tremble. The sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining.

Ezekiel 32:7-8
When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud and the moon shall not give its light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over you, and put darkness on your land, declares the Lord GOD.

Isaiah 13:10
For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light.

Isaiah 34:4
All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their hosts shall fall, as leaves fall from the vine, like leaves falling from the fig tree.

These are only a few examples, and I am sure there are even more occurrences like this in the Old Testament, but I think these should suffice to prove my point. My point is that none of these texts are referring to the eschaton at the end of the age when Christ returns. All of these verses are using this epic imagery to refer to God's judgment on specific cities. The passage in Joel refers to a judgment upon Israel; the passage from Ezekiel refers to a coming judgment upon the Pharaoh of Egypt; Isaiah 13:10 refers to coming destruction on Babylon; and finally, Isaiah 34:4 referred to a coming judgment upon Edom.

R.T. France, in his commentary on Matthew, points out that these last passages from Isaiah are obviously the source of the imagery which Jesus uses in Matt. 24:29-31. In particular, the fact that Jesus would use the language of a judgment upon Babylon to refer to a coming judgment upon Israel was terribly offensive. To say that Jerusalem deserved to be treated like Babylon was the epitome of judgment.

Avoiding other arguments which could be set forth for the inclusion of Matt. 24:29-31 into part one of the Olivette Discourse rather than the second half which does refer to Jesus' parousia at the end of the age, lets simply consider once again that epic imagery need not always refer to the second coming of Christ. Instead, we ought to see Jesus as using "language of cosmic collapse...to symbolize God's acts of judgment within history, with the emphasis on catastrophic political upheavals... If such language was appropriate to describe the end of Babylon or Edom under the judgment of God, why should it not equally describe God's judgment on Jerusalem's temple and the power structure it symbolized?" (R.T. France, Matthew, 2007, p. 922)

Christianity and Liberalism Revisited: Live Stream

Westminster Seminary California will be holding their annual conference this weekend on "Christianity and Liberalism Revisited." They are live webcasting the conference. Go here for more details.

Hermeneutical Face-Offs During the Civil War

In his book The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, Mark Noll sets himself to the very complex task of providing an overview of the theological debates which occurred prior to - as well as following - the United States Civil War. Having just finished the book yesterday, I can say that it was quite an eye-opening read. I was especially surprised with just how unclear the issues really were at the time. It is the simplest thing in the world for us, as open-minded, liberal, 21st Century Americans to look at the southerners as simple-minded, Bible-perverting monsters for whom the Scriptures were a tool to control people and to justify wicked behavior.

On the flip-side, it is clear to me that there were, in fact, people who opposed American Black Slavery as experienced in the south who, through reasoned arguments and Biblical examination demonstrated (certainly to my satisfaction!) that slavery ought to be ended. These voices, however, were drowned out by the more popular - albeit less Biblically focused - advocates of abolition. In the end, the narrative which most people tended to believe was that, by the letter of the Scriptures, the slaveholders won the field, but that everything in the ethics of Christ and his followers screamed for abolition. In the end, those are the sorts of generalities that tend to appeal to historians - as well as the populace as a whole, which years for a simplistic narrative explanation for the events surrounding the civil war.

• The theological agenda of the abolitionists was often perceived as a reason-first approach (as opposed to a Bible-first approach) that was seen as involving compromised views of Scripture. This was partially because a few of the defenders of abolition did, in fact, hold compromised views of Scripture.
  
• The southerners, such as Thornwell, seized on these opportunities to overgenerally point out that their abolitionist views stemmed from a flawed view of the Bible.
• Any views which were more middle of the road and which involved a nuanced critique of Hebrew slavery versus black-only American slavery were simply lumped together with the other Enlightenment-inspired arguments, which tended to appeal more to the genuine democratic spirit than to Biblical texts.
  

Noll writes:

On the eve of the Civil War, interpretations of the Bible that made the most sense to the broadest public were those that incorporated the defining experiences of America into the hermeneutics used for interpreting what the infallible text actually meant. In this effort, those who like James Henley Thornwell defended the legitimacy of slavery in the Bible had the easiest task. The procedure, which by 1860 had been repeated countless times, was uncomplicated. First, open the Scriptures and read, at say Leviticus 25:45, or, even better, at 1 Corinthians 7:20-21. Second, decide for yourself what these passages mean. Don’t wait for a bishop or a king or a president or a meddling Yankee to tell you what the passage means, but decide for yourself. Third, if anyone tries to convince you that you are not interpreting such passages in the natural, commonsensical, ordinary meaning of the words, look hard at what such a one believes with respect to other biblical doctrines. If you find in what he or she says about such doctrines the least hint of unorthodoxy, as inevitably you will, then you may rest assured that you are being asked to give up not only the plain meaning of Scripture, but also the entire trust in the Bible that made the country into such a great Christian civilization.

By Noll's estimate, the abolitionist agenda was often (and for the most part) badly argued. Many of its advocates utilized a compromised methodology and in the end, the overall image of the abolitionist movement was one which serious Bible-believers were told they could not abide.

In the end, the 'Reason First, Bible Second' hermeneutic that carried the day when the Civil War ended. This hermeneutical transition was already well under way into the American mindset before the war, to be sure. However, the violence of the civil war cemented this approach to Biblical interpretation once and for all into the American psyche. Sadly, as Noll points out, the issues were not in the end decided by the theologians or philosophers - the were argued and settled by the generals and their men.

One of the more fascinating chapters in the book was near the end when Noll reviewed the opinions of Roman Catholics from outside the United States. It is interesting, and yet not at all surprising that the RCs very much concluded that the civil war was the fault of Protestant hermeneutics and a lack of authoritative church structures (as though there had never been civil wars in Roman Catholic lands!).

This book filled a large blank-spot in my understanding of American - and especially Presbyterian history. For, example, I did not know that Thornwell held that blacks were literally inferior to whites. I could not have imagined that such a respected Presbyterian theologian would actually say the kinds of things that Thornwell evidently said. On the flip-side, I was surprised at how fair-minded Hodge seemed to be with regards to his opinion of men like Thornwell. Princeton's Charles Hodge, on the other hand, defended abolition and at the same time seemed to intone that if he had found himself in the south he might just be defending slavery, himself.

King and Servant Show 26

Jonathan discusses the authority and perspicuity of scripture, and the importance of holding to biblical propositional truth in a postmodern age.

Was the Strong Man 'Bound' or Was He 'Overcome'?

In a friendly debate with a co-worker, I was prepared to slam-dunk him in a discussion of the Millennium in Revelation 20 - particularly the statement in 20:2 that Satan, in the millennium, was bound for a thousand years. I was arguing that in the Gospels, Jesus literally says that Satan has already been bound. Knowing that Jesus says this in Matthew, Mark, and in Luke, I invited him to turn to any of the passages where Jesus says that the strong man has been bound. In the New King James, Matthew 12:29 reads:

Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

The parallel passage in Mark 3:27 reads:

No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.

Unfortunately for me, he chose the version in Luke 11:22, which, from v. 21, reads:

When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils.

One might initially be disturbed that each version varies slightly, but especially by the fact that Luke's version of the passage uses the word "overcome" instead of the word "bind."

We should be fully aware that given the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration, we allow for the personalities of the writers to influence their recordings of Jesus' teachings. As the Chicago Statement says:

WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

What then, are we to think of the Matthew/Mark (hereafter 'MM') rendering in comparison to the Lukan rendering of the teaching? MM appears to teach that Satan has been bound, in some sort of long-term sense (which certainly, prima facie appears to serve my own Amill leanings). But Luke appears to teach that the strong man has been 'overcome,' which my debating partner believed to indicate a less 'permanent' sort of fate for the strong man (a momentary victory, as it were). Initially, I conceded that it appeared to be so, but after looking at the range of meanings, I have changed my tune.

As you may have noticed, MM have Jesus saying that the strong man has been 'bound' (Gk. 'daesae'), which is from 'deo' and is generally translated 'bind, tie,' but it is sometimes used to refer to someone's arrest or imprisonment.

Luke, however, records Jesus as saying that the strong man has been 'overcome.' The Greek word here is 'nikaesae'. The lexical form of this Greek word is 'nikao,' which is translated, in different places, as 'be victor, prevail, conquer, overcome, or vanquish.'

The solution to this seeming discrepancy is to first remain consistent in employing the perspicuity of Scripture and acknowledging that both words ('daesae' and 'nikaesae') are complimentary. The strong man has not been bound to the exclusion of his having been overcome, nor is he overcome to the exclusion of his binding; this is not an either/or situation. As such, one might understand the Gospels collectively to be conveying Christ's idea in this way:

Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds in victory the strong man?

A similarly likely way of understanding it would be:

Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first overcomes and binds the strong man?

I am, of course, only helping to solve a perceived discrepancy, not to suggest an alternate translation. This should be obvious, I hope.

In either case, if the Amill claims that Satan has been bound and then appeals to this passage in MM, it would be a mistake to attempt to turn Luke's rendering of the passage against MM. It is not either 'overcome' or 'bind,' but it is rather, both.

Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts

Below is the abstract for this interesting book (booklet?) by Vern Poythress:

The Book of Revelation is inspired. Modern visions, auditions, and “prophecies” are not inspired, because the canon of the Bible is complete. However, these modern visions and auditions may be analogous to the Book of Revelation, just as modern preaching is analogous to apostolic preaching. Like modern preaching, modern intuitive speech has authority only insofar as it bases itself on the final infallible divine authority of Scripture.

A key distinction here is the distinction between rationally explicit processes, such as those involved when Luke wrote his Gospel, and intuitive processes, such as those involved with the Book of Revelation. One type of process is not inherently more “spiritual” than the other. Both the Gospel of Luke and Revelation were inspired.

Modern preaching is analogous to Luke: in composing a sermon rationally explicit processes dominate. Modern “prophecy” or intuitive speech is analogous to Revelation. Intuitive processes dominate. The general analogy between apostolic gifts and lesser gifts of the present day suggests that rationally explicit processes and intuitive processes can both be used by the Spirit today.

Cessationists argue that New Testament prophecy was inspired and has therefore ceased with the completion of the canon. But there are still noninspired intuitive gifts analogous to prophecy. Therefore, in order not to despise the gifts of the Spirit, cessationists must allow for a place for intuitive gifts in their ecclesiology.

The fact that we have analogy rather than identity means that we must respect certain restraints. Modern intuitive phenomena must be subject to the same restraints that are placed on preaching. Everything must be checked for conformity to Scripture.

King and Servant Show 9

Jonathan and Bryan discuss how to best study the Bible in personal devotional time. Particularly how to not negate any passages, while at the same time recognizing the covenantal structure of the Bible, which allows for a contextual understanding of both the Old and New Testaments of Scripture.

Other shows can found at www.kingandservant.com

Dan Wallace on SBL

Dan Wallace has a new post about his time and experience at this year's annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. After an introduction, he mainly focuses in on the attitude of some (if not most) at SBL toward Evangelicals, you know those crazy people who actually think the Bible is recording real history. His conclusion is right on point and hits the target square in the middle.

If we’re to judge liberal vs. conservative by one’s method, then the new liberal is the evangelical and neo-evangelical who is willing to engage the evidence, examine all sides, and wrestle with the primary data through the various prisms of secondary literature. He’s open. I tell my students every year, “I will respect you far more if you pursue truth and change your views than if you protect your presuppositions and don’t.” And they know my mantra, “Go where the evidence leads.” Sadly, some of the most brilliant scholars in biblical studies have become radically intolerant of conservatives. When conservative professors have that same attitude, they’re usually afraid of having their ideas challenged because they’re insecure in their beliefs. And they’re labeled as fundamentalists. When many “liberal” scholars are just as intolerant, what should we call them?

Ligon Duncan Responds to the NIV Annoucement

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood have posted a wonderful response from Ligon Duncan on the announcment made by Zondarvan earlier today about the future of the TNIV and NIV Bible translations. In the response Dr. Duncan discusses some of his thoughts on the issue. The following comments were most notable to me.

When the TNIV first surfaced, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood emphatically criticized the CBT's translation choices in numerous places, especially relating to gender-neutral language. We believe that a flawed translation philosophy resulted in the TNIV presenting English readers with an unjustified rendering of the gender language of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible. It is our sincere hope that this new revision of the NIV will do better. We await the new product of the CBT with expectancy. And when we have the opportunity, we will review it for the larger Christian public with rigor and charity.

I especially appreciate that Zondervan and Biblica have both privately and publically acknowledged that they made serious mistakes of process, and that the CBT has committed itself to re-examine the gender-related changes that appeared in the TNIV. This is a welcome and humble approach.

Only One Book

Dr. Derek Thomas has a great article posted here. In this article he maintains the importance and centrality of the Bible, while showing that the Bible itself teaches that we need teachers. He begins his article with these words:

"Only one book is absolutely essential to save us, to equip us to obey God’s will, and to glorify Him in whatever we do. Only one book gives us undiluted truth — the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Only one book serves as our ultimate and final authority in all that it affirms. That book, of course, is the Bible, God’s Holy Word. No wonder John Wesley once exclaimed, “Let me be homo unius libri” — a man of one book!"

He then goes on to state:

"And yet the irony is that if we use only this book [the Bible], we may in fact be in disobedience to it. We should count good teaching about the Bible — whether through commentaries, books, sermons, study Bibles, and so on — to be a gift from God for the good of His church (see Eph. 4:11; James 1:17). So what may look pious on the outside (“Just me and my Bible!”) can actually mask pride on the inside."

The Deals Abound!

This week the great folks at Ligonier Ministries are ofering daily specials in honor of Calvin's 500th birthday. Today only the special offer is a black leather Reformation Study Bible for a donation of any amount. That is right, a leather Study Bible for a gift of any amount. That is almost insane, almost! To find out all the details on this amazing offer head to their website.