This is probably not something that very many (any?) of my readers would care about, but I felt like complaining about it, because it’s just irritating. One expects to find continuity among the classifications of Hebrew vocabulary among the dictionaries and lexicons, especially in terms of classifying homonyms. This, however, is not consistent at all. The word I found this morning that was inconsistently classified was חָלַק. This is a homonym, meaning that there are two completely different meanings of the word for the exact same spelling, much like the word “lie,” which can mean “recline” or “falsehood.” According to the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, חָלַק I means “smooth” while חָלַק II means “divide.” The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis agrees with this classification. However, the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew reverses the classification, and makes חָלַק I “divide” and חָלַק II “smooth.” Why the alteration? No reason is given. This kind of confusion does not make it helpful when commentaries simply reference the one or the other Roman-Numeraled definition, as if everyone is supposed to know the classification. It would be nice if at least the classification was the same, even though advances in linguistics will ensure that the definitions will not always be the same. Ok, nerdy rant is over. I can’t believe you actually read to the end.
A Nerdy Complaint
June 28, 2017 at 11:11 am (Humor)
An Argument Against Exclusive Psalmody
June 20, 2017 at 10:19 am (Music, OT-Psalms, Trinity, Worship)
Let it be known at the beginning of this post that I love the Psalms, and that I believe the Psalms should be sung in worship frequently, just not exclusively. I heard this argument recently from a new friend of mine in the OPC, by name, the Rev. Brett Mahlen. He used to be EP himself, and so he knows the position from inside, as it were. The argument goes like this: the way most EP proponents phrase the matter is that we can only sing in worship words that are inspired, and that the Bible commands us only to sing the Psalms (usually they interpret Colossians 3:16 to refer to the Septuagintal division of the Psalter into psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs). The argument from my friend addresses the first half of the statement. If we may only sing inspired words, then we cannot sing in English, since the translation into English is not itself inspired; only the autographs are inspired. If we then say that the English translation (into meter, which involves considerable paraphrasing!) is inspired, then we are undermining our doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration. English metrical Psalms, as beautiful as they can be (and most worthy of being sung, I might add!), are not inspired Scripture.
Furthermore (and this is now my addition to the argument), by saying that only the very words of the Psalter may be sung, proponents of EP commit a word-concept fallacy. To remind ourselves, the word-concept fallacy is an error in logic that happens when people believe that words are the same thing as ideas, whereas the truth of the matter is that we use words to express ideas, even though those ideas could be expressed with different words. To flesh it out a bit more, an idea can be present even though a specific word is not used. Similarly, just because a specific word is present does not mean that the idea is also present. In this case, the word-concept fallacy is committed by saying that what is meant in the Psalter can only be obtained by singing the very words themselves. Then the error is compounded by saying that the English metrical Psalters can fit the bill of singing the ipsissima verba (the very words) of Scripture. Ironically, in other places in their Reformed theology, EP proponents would not commit this fallacy. For instance, Reformed EP proponents all (as far as I know) hold that the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, even though the word “Trinity” nowhere occurs in the Bible. They recognize that the concept of the Trinity is very much present (even obviously so!), and yet the word “Trinity” is not present. The word “Trinity” is our shorthand to express the fact that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there is only one God. So there is not a consistency here with EP proponents: they say that we may only sing the very words of the Psalter, and yet they advocate English metrical Psalters to accomplish this, which English Psalters are not the very words of the inspired Psalms.
To push the point a little further, we may remember that several commentators on the Psalms have said that the Psalter is a mini-Bible. My description of the Psalter would be that it is an emotional commentary on all of Scripture, mostly in the form of prayers. The Psalter thus extends its influence on all the rest of Scripture in one way or another. If this is so, then it is by no means unreasonable to assert that any hymn that is biblical in content reflects the teaching of the Psalter.
Of course, no case whatsoever can be made for a position that says we must all learn Hebrew so that we will sing the Psalter in the original language. That would again commit the word-concept fallacy. The content of Scripture can be translated into other languages, and it is the content of Scripture that we want available to us. Translation of Scripture is implied in the Great Commission of Matthew 28, among other places.
So the EP proponent, if he admits the force of this argument, might respond by saying, “Well, as long as we have the content of the Psalter, then we are good.” However, once one has gotten over the hump of the word-concept fallacy, the whole game is given away, because of what I wrote two paragraphs ago. It seems to me that the claim that we must only sing the inspired Psalms is an essential linch-pin in the EP argument. Without it, the whole thing collapses to the ground. The EP proponents singing metrical Psalms in English are not singing the inspired Psalms, because they are not singing the original Hebrew.
My position is that we must sing only what is biblical. But by the term “biblical” I mean what is biblical in content. We do not need to sing only the very words of Scripture. Otherwise we would have to sing in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. We need to sing the content of Scripture. There is a continuum, therefore, of “biblicalness” when it comes to what we sing. Some can only marginally be called Scriptural. Songs like “In the Garden” have content that can be argued as being anti-biblical (really, an experience that none other has ever known? Are you the recipient of direct divine revelation or something? What kind of walking and talking with me is the song singing about?). We should aim, therefore, to ask the right question: is this hymn biblical in its content?
A Father’s Day Reflection
June 17, 2017 at 10:06 am (Uncategorized)
Tags: fathers day, god the father
by reed depace
Possibly the best defense for fathers is the Fatherhood of God over His children in Christ. God didn’t create fatherhood as an accident, and then think to himself, “Hey, what a great picture of me!” No, the fatherhood of God to all who submit to him in Christ has been from eternity past; God’s status as father is an essential characteristic of his being.
How grateful I am for Jesus then. In him I find forgiveness and cleansing for all the times I refused to act toward my children in a manner that reflects God’s glory. In Jesus I find that his life of perfect obedience to our Father grants me growing obedience, expressed in all areas of life, and especially toward my children.
To them, on the eve of the day when our culture “honors” fathers while ignoring the One to whom all fathers point, let me say to my children (and their mom) how sad and grateful I am. I am sad at all the mean, unkind, selfish, and downright evil things I’ve done to you. I am grateful for both Jesus’ forgiveness and yours. Let not my failures dissuade you of your Heavenly Father’s perfection. Instead, let that sense that your dad is wrong, often, lead you to consider the perfection of God’s fatherly love for you.
I know I haven’t “failed” you, as in utterly. But I know I’ve given you more to forgive than to thank me for. Praise God our Father, He is nevertheless perfect. With you, I rely on him, alone.
by reed depace, te,
the church at chantilly
(historic first pres gumptown)
http://www.firspresschantilly.com
Some Thoughts on the PCA Study Committee Report on Women in Office
June 15, 2017 at 11:18 am (Women)
I really want to comment mostly on the recommendations. Recommendations 2-9 passed, with 4 and 6 being amended. The full report is here. I wanted to get a feel for how things went in the debate before venturing any opinions. One thing which irritated me rather a lot was how much the question was called in the debate. Why is it that the PCA wants to rush everything? On an issue of this level of importance, I would think all opinions should be heard, and a desire to debate the matter fully should have been the rule. Of course, the old wags will always say “Everything has been said, just not everyone has said it.” Perhaps. The trend, however (seen a bit more clearly now that I am in the OPC) is towards less deliberation at the PCA GA.
Secondly, the basic stance of the committee seems to be the status quo of what is currently the practice of the PCA (especially recommendation 2), with certain exceptions. There are some very good points that have been made in the committee report, and I want to make sure that these get full attention. For instance, the offices remain closed to women. That will, no doubt, anger the progressives in the PCA no end. It is quite possible that this study committee report will hinder the “progress” of the progressives for some time to come.
Conservatives will also point out that some of the recommendations condemn the ways in which the progressives have tried to get around the letter of the law. For instance, one way that progressives have tried to do this is to have a fully non-ordained diaconate in which men and women participate equally. The report is pretty clear that this is not correct polity.
Furthermore, the way in which recommendation 6 was amended (thanks, Scott Cook!) removed a potential source of contention by removing language that could be considered inflammatory.
However, there are some troubling aspects of the report, as well. Some have already been noted by others. That there were voting members on the committee who were women seems especially problematic, since the committee report itself was to exercise a teaching function in a court of the church, regardless of how much other authority it exercised. This would make the report have a different function entirely from women exercising their gifts in writing books (which I have no problem with).
The issue of worship in recommendation 5 will be one that many conservatives will feel deeply uneasy about. While the rationale makes careful distinctions between preaching/teaching, on the one hand, and other functions, on the other hand, the rationale is not what was voted on. I fear that the recommendation will be taken by the progressives as a carte blanche for their dictum that a woman can do anything in the worship that a non-ordained man can do (which means they can preach), a dictum which is thoroughly non-biblical. A non-ordained man can preach in the church. This slippage is probably not the intention of the committee, many members for which I have the highest possible respect (particularly Ligon Duncan and Harry Reeder). It can even be argued that they are seeking to guard against such an interpretation. However, I think such a (mis)-interpretation will arise, all the same.
I resonated with Bob Mattes’s arguments on recommendation 7, that the PCA was, in effect, creating another office of “commissioned church worker,” that is not ordained. If the PCA already has the ability to have assistants to the deacons (which language is in the BCO), then why the need to create this new category that has “commissioned” in it? What is the material difference between “commissioned” and “ordained?” Again, the rationale makes careful distinctions, even emphasizing the need to distinguish sharply between commissioning and ordaining, but how many progressives will take that to heart?
I did especially appreciate Daniel Jarstfer’s impassioned speech in favor of recommendation 8, which is surely something on which all can agree.
So, the report will not please anyone fully, I am guessing. Conservatives like the Bayly brothers have already critiqued it rather severely (many of which critiques I have sympathy with). But I cannot imagine the progressives are too happy with certain aspects of it either. However, progressives will be less likely to hate it than the die-hard conservatives, because the liberals are always more patient than the conservatives. Any “progress” towards their agenda will be welcomed. It will be interesting to see how the progressives respond to the report and its recommendations.
Overture 2 – A Quick Word
June 14, 2017 at 9:03 am (Uncategorized)
Tags: BCO 59, Overture 2, PCA, Solemnization of Marriage
by reed depace
This may be too late for the debate, but since I can’t be at the PCA GA this year, I thought I’d post here in hopes that some at GA might pick it up. Consider it if you think it is valuable.
Overture 2 would give constitutional authority to chapter 59, On the Solemnization of Marriage, of our BCO. That is, it would require all office holders (TE’s, RE’s) to live by the practices outlined in this chapter.
The primary reason for opposing this overture appears to be a well-meaning desire to not confuse and clutter our doctrinal standards with unneeded repetition. Since the other constitutional standards, in this case WCF 24.1, fully affirms that marriage is solely for man and woman, there is no need to add BCO 59 to our constitutional requirements.
While I sympathize with the motive here, I think this misses a critical observation. The Westminster Standards cover our required beliefs, our doctrine, our orthodoxy. BCO covers our required doing, our practices, our orthopraxy. While the former clearly affirm hetero-marriage alone, the latter merely recommends it.
This is a hole big enough for even a first year law school graduate to drive a truck through. I can just hear the cross-examination in the trial, “Let me make sure I understand this right Rev. PCA pastor. You require your officers to BELIEVE that same-sex marriage is a no-no. But you only recommend they don’t PRACTICE it?! Other chapters in your BCO are required, but NOT this one on marriage?! How serious is your opposition to same-sex marriage? Certainly it is not an essential in your faith.”
Less legally tenuous inconsistency than this has been used to affirm the most egregious abominations in our civil courts. Time for us to listen to Jesus’ command to be innocent as doves and wise as serpents. Matthew 10:16
Overture 2 should be approved simply because it makes our practice convictions consistent with our doctrine convictions. I pray even that it would be unanimous.
by reed depace, te
The Church at Chantilly, PCA
Historic First Pres MGM, AL
Why Christians Can Never Be Anti-Semitic
June 9, 2017 at 5:02 pm (Covenant, Old Testament)
Anti-Semitism is still alive and well out there. Many people hate Jews. Many people hate Israel, the land. This option is not open to the Christian, although maybe not for the reasons most would suppose.
Although I’ve known this ever since seminary days, it has struck me more and more forcefully (as I preach through Matthew for the second time) that Jesus is true Israel, and that Matthew portrays him as reliving Israel’s story, yet in a faithful way. Coming out of Egypt, fulfilling Hosea 11:1, that bane of interpreters, being baptized in the Jordan, being tempted in the wilderness; all these things prove that Jesus is the faithful remnant of one, the true Israel, the faithful and obedient Israel, who has come to redefine Israel as a faith thing instead of a genealogical thing. Certainly Paul interprets Jesus as doing this in Galatians 3, 6, and Romans 9-11. The true child of Abraham is the one who has the same faith as Abraham, a faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (John 5).
If Israel is thus redefined, then a true Jew is not one outwardly, but inwardly, by the Spirit, not the letter. All Christians are children of Abraham. The old song about Abraham having many children, and we are among them rings true, here.
So the reason why we cannot be Anti-Semitic is that we are Jews by faith. We are Jews in the redefined sense of Jesus and Paul. The story of Israel is our story. If we Gentiles (by birth) have been grafted in, then we cannot possibly look down on the natural branches that have been cut out, nor can we boast over them, as if we were somehow more lovable than them. As Paul would say, couldn’t the natural branches be grafted back in to their own olive tree most naturally, indeed more naturally than foreign branches being grafted in? Yes, there is only one way of belonging to the tree now, and that is to be in the one true olive tree of Jesus Christ. There are not two trees (sorry, Dispensationalists!). Should we not, therefore, have the utmost compassion for the natural branches and pray for their re-grafting? Paul loved his people, and wished (if it could have been done) that he could endure condemnation forever if it would spare his kinsmen according to the flesh. I think Paul’s compassion well worth emulating at this point, don’t you?
This means that reading the Old Testament is reading our story, not someone else’s story. These are our fathers and mothers in the faith. Their struggles are our struggles. Dispensationalism has not helped the Christian church, since it has focused people’s minds on physical Israel so much as an “alternate” people of God. They think they can fulfill prophecy by helping Jews return to Israel. This makes them blind, ultimately, to the fact that Christians are the true children of Abraham, not in a supersessionist way, but in an organic way. The promises of Abraham come to us. This is why the Old Testament will never become irrelevant to the Christian, contrary to how the Dispensationalist treats the Old Testament.
Psalm 2 Prayer
June 4, 2017 at 12:18 pm (OT-Psalms, Prayer)
Our one true and only king, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not only do we desire to worship you, but we also desire to submit to you. We both lament the fact and are righteously angry that the nations to do not desire to submit to you. How dare the nations rise up in anger against you! How dare they conspire against the Lord, thinking that they can throw off the bonds of your sovereignty! How dare they use the intellect you gave them and resources that you gave them to rebel against you! How dare they seek to dethrone Jesus Christ, whose throne is utterly secure, beyond the reach of any who oppose you!
We know, Father, that such attempts, while offensive to us, are simply ridiculous to you. To you it must seem like these pitiful ants are crawling around on the ground seeking a way to bring down an elephant. And yet, you have also said that your mere words will be enough to put them in their place. For you have established your Son as King on Zion, high and exalted. You crowned Him with glory and honor, and have made all the nations his inheritance, the entire earth his possession.
These brittle nations who oppose you, you will break with a rod of iron, like a piece of pottery. Father, give us the words to say to these nations and rulers. Help us to advise them to be wise, such that they would serve you all their days, that they would fear you, instead of being arrogant; that they would rejoice in your name and your righteousness, and your kingdom. Father, may we all kiss your Son Jesus, submitting to him with deepest reverence, for we know that we want to avoid your wrath, and instead find in you the most blessed refuge for us.
Are Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 Two Different Creation Accounts?
June 3, 2017 at 12:48 pm (Apologetics, OT-Genesis)
It is a commonplace in historical-critical scholarship to say that there are two creation accounts that contradict each other, and that therefore, the first two chapters of Genesis could not have been written by the same author. The first bit of evidence given is that, in Genesis 1, plants are created before humans, whereas in chapter 2, plants were created after humans. The second bit of evidence is the order of creation for animals vis-a-vis man: in Genesis 1, animals are created before man on the sixth day, whereas in Genesis 2, they are supposedly created after (depending on one’s translation of the verb “formed” in 2:19). What is more, historical-critical scholars tend to view any attempt to see the relationship of these chapters in a different way as a “harmonizing” attempt (as if harmonizing were some kind of dirty word). I will make the argument here, not even based on harmonizing with regard to the first bit, but based on exegesis, that the historical-critical understanding of the relationship of the chapters is in grave error.
The exegetical flow of Genesis 2:5-9 has to do with the institution of agriculture. How did it get started? Well, before it got started, there were two “problems” or “things lacking” to rectify. The first was that there was no rain, and the second was that there were no farmers. Agriculture does rather depend on these two things even today! Going back all the way to Keil and Delitzsch’s commentary, the “bush of the field” and “the plant of the field” in verse 5a are not descriptive, then, of all kinds of plants. Rather, they are limited to cultivated crops (the designation “of the field” points this way). This is absolutely proven by the second of the two reasons given for why these plants were not present. The first reason, “no rain,” of course, would be a good reason for why any plant had not yet appeared. So, that reason for the lack of plants is inconclusive for our point. However, “no man to work the ground” in verse 5b cannot possibly be a reason for why wild plants were not present. Wild plants do not need humans to work the ground in order to thrive. Therefore, to interpret the “bush of the field” and “plant of the field” in verse 5a to refer to all plants of whatever kind is irresponsible exegesis.
Whatever one may think of Kline’s exegesis of these verses, I think his point about verse 6 is well worth considering. A two-fold “problem” needs a two-fold solution. Kline believes that verse 6 is a. speaking about a rain-cloud, and b. giving us the solution to the first problem (no rain). Verse 7 then describes the fix to the second problem (no farmer). This interpretation is confirmed, then, in verses 8-9, where a garden (cultivated plants!) is planted, and verse 9, where the emphasis is on the food quality of the plants. Verses 5-9 then tell us of the introduction of cultivation in history, which is a large part of the cultural mandate of 1:28-29. This points to continuity between the two chapters, not discontinuity. As many scholars have noticed, chapter 1 treats of the creation of all things with a sort of wide-angle lens, whereas chapter 2 turns on the telephoto lens in order to focus more specifically on the creation of man, and the covenant which God made with him.
One last comment on this first part of the issue: I have yet to see a single liberal treatment of Genesis 1-2 that even acknowledges these exegetical points. They simply assume, without any argument, that, “of course,” Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other. One suspects that, even if a liberal were to read about these arguments for explaining the text, they would push such considerations under the rug, because they favor the idea of a contradiction, since it supports the JEDP source theory. Of course, a single author could not have had such things in mind as a more general account of the creation of all things in chapter 1, and the focus on the creation of humanity in chapter 2. Quite impossible! It seems to me that ancient authors might have been a bit more flexible than the modern historical critics give them credit for!
The second bit of evidence given is the order of creation with regard to animals and man. If 2:19 is translated, “Now out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heaven,” then yes, there is an issue there. But if, with the NIV and ESV, the verb “form” is translated as a pluperfect “had formed,” the entire question is resolved. The issue is whether the verb can be translated this way. The grammar of Gesenius/Kautzsch/Cowley seems to think this is a possibility. It cites Genesis 2:19 as an example of an imperfect being used “In dependent clauses to represent actions, &c., which from some point of time in the past are to be represented as future” (par. 107k). Waltke and O’Connor do not list Genesis 2:19 as an example of the wayyqtl representing a pluperfect sense, though they allow that this is a possible use of the wayyqtl, while admitting that it is controversial (see 33.2.3).
Joüon-Muraoka (in the second edition; the first edition does not discuss the issue) would call this use of the imperfect “very irregular.” J-M argues that the pluperfect can only be expressed by avoiding wayyqtl (166.j). Davidson allows for a third possibility for the imperfect: “to express actions which are contingent or depending on something preceding” 43(b). The upshot of the discussion is this, that we have four options. The first option is to translate “formed” as a simple past, interpret the form as a contradiction, and thus assume an absolutely idiotic redactor, who couldn’t spot the contradiction with chapter 1 if his life depended on it. Or, secondly, we could interpret the form as a pluperfect, which IS grammatically possible, at least according to GKC and W-O’C, and thereby alleviate the difficulty entirely, thus assuming a reasonably intelligent author. The third option is go with Davidson’s approach, and interpret the verb as expressive of an action which was dependent on some previous action, though I am not entirely sure how that would help us. The fourth option is maybe the simplest one: translate as a simple past, but then note that 2:19 does not have to express a time relation between the creation of the animals and the creation of man. I prefer option 2 or option 4.
Does this mean I am harmonizing where the text does not allow me? I would argue no. These are legitimate exegetical options. But if all it takes to “reconcile” these two passages is interpreting a verb form in a perfectly acceptable grammatical way, or suspending a time relation between two actions, recognizing along with many Hebrew scholars that narrative continuity is not the same as temporal continuity, then I would argue that the contradiction is the mind of the liberal critic, who forces it on the text. In literary terms, a contradiction should only exist if there is no other possible alternative, since we must assume that the author knew what he was doing, and was not an idiot. The problem that the liberal critic has is that he or she is so confident that there is a contradiction present that they are willing to build an entire theory of sources on this basis (along with the different names of God used in chapters 1 and 2, which would be subject matter for a different post). I hope I have shown that no contradiction is necessary from natural interpretations of the text. Where contradictions are not the only option, they should not be chosen. This is all the more true if we believe that God is the ultimate author of the Bible and that He cannot lie.
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 