Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • The Clear Word Bible: Reversing the Meaning

    Update (12/28/06): There’s a good review of the Clear Word Bible on Thinking Christian titled Book Review: “The Clear Word”. This review goes into much greater breadth and depth on this book that is not even truly a paraphrase of the Bible.

    Since I regularly come to the defense of various Bible translations some folks may be wondering what would annoy me about a Bible translation. Amongst the generally available translations, I really do think that the vast majority are generally accurate. Readability varies widely. A number of passages in The Living Bible concern me, and generally I don’t recommend the acknowledge paraphrases for serious study, though I do recommend dynamic equivalance translations for such study, though some people still call them paraphrases.

    But the Clear Word Bible, paraphrased by Jack Blanco, and published by the Review and Herald Publishing Association seems to cross the line in some instances. My problems with this translation are not due to Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, but rather to Blanco’s apparent softening of the text.

    Many of the notes are explanatory. For example, Matthew 20:16, which reads literally, “Thus the last shall be first, and the first, last” becomes:

    That’s the way it’ll be when God’s harvest ends. The last will be first, and the first will be last. Many are called to work for God, but not all of them can be saved. Some of God’s workers gladly do what they can with no thought of pay. Others work very hard for God but think only of what’s in it for them.

    This is clearly beyond even paraphrase or a cultural transposition, such as the Cotton Patch Bible. It’s substantial commentary added to the text. To be fair, Blanco does indicate in the preface that this is a paraphrase and that it should not be used “for in-depth study or for public reading in churches.” It is difficult to limit what people do with paraphrases, however, as many tend to view them just as another Bible unless they have some knowledge of translation. Few people think about the specific use of a Bible–they just like them or they don’t.

    (more…)

  • 1 Timothy 2:12 – Assume Authority

    The following quote is taken from the fifth part of Adrian Warnock’s interview with Dr. Wayne Grudem. I want to note some principles related to the translation and interpretation of this verse.

    In the following I identify sections by numbers in parentheses, as in (1), following an emphasized phrase. This is to prevent breaking the quote into tiny portions.

    To take one example: in 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV adopts a highly suspect and novel translation (1) that gives the egalitarian side everything they have wanted for years in a Bible translation (2). It reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man” (italics added). If churches adopt this translation, the debate over women’s roles in the church will be over, because women pastors and elders can just say, “I’m not assuming authority on my own initiative; it was given to me by the other pastors and elders.” (3) Therefore any woman could be a pastor or elder so long as she does not take it upon herself to “assume authority.” Then in the footnotes to 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV also introduces so many alternative translations that the verse will just seem confusing and impossible to understand (4). So it is no surprise that egalitarian churches are eager to adopt the TNIV.

    Now to respond briefly.

    1. My electronic edition reads “have authority,” but the version on Bible Gateway has the reading as Dr. Grudem quotes it. I’m afraid I don’t see what is so highly suspect about this reading. There seems to be an agenda here to read more into the phrase “assume authority” than would normally be read into that phrase. That translation is provided also by BDAG. Based simply on the English I don’t see the huge difference between “assume authority” and “have authority,” nor how that could make a substantial difference in the interpretation of this verse in context. Having said all of that, I would personally probably translate “have authority” or “exercise authority.”
    2. Following on my first point, I fail to see how this particular translation excites the egalitarian side. Personally I’m comfortable with “exercise authority” but I’m not disturbed, nor am I overwhelmingly pleased by “assume authority.” Let’s look at the translation from two other translations Dr. Grudem cited as gender neutral:
      • I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. (NLT)
      • permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man;she is to keep silent. (NRSV)

      Wow! Us liberals sure aren’t very careful when we try to obscure the masculine truth of the Bible, are we? Since I use the NRSV in teaching, I guess I just miss this one!

    3. Please see point #1. There is a severe problem even with careful exegesis that does not fully take context into account, including scriptural trajectories
    4. My electronic edition has two alternate translations. The one on Bible Gateway has three, though only two of those refer to the Greek word translated “assume authority.” I don’t know what sort of congregations Dr. Grudem works with if having two alternative translations in the footnotes results in confusion.

    In all, this appears to me to be a rhetorically excessive complaint about the TNIV. This passage (not so much this specific verse) has plenty of interpretational issues in it, but the TNIV translation does not appear to add to them.

    [Update 12/12/06 14:53 CST] Peter Kirk has posted a number of deleted comments on his blog. Since those comments relate directly to the material in this post, and in some cases are clearer than what I’ve said, I want to call the attention of my readers to them.

  • I’m the Guy Wayne Grudem Warned You About

    Well, not really. He warned you about some other, much more important guy. But I agree with the guy Wayne Grudem warned you about! Hey! Come on down to the bottom of the slippery slope! The water’s fine!

    Adrian Warnock’s interview with Wayne Grudem continues with its fifth part, Must a Woman Always Remain Silent in Church?. It is at times like these that I begin to wonder why I’m involved. Of course, the answer to that is that I advocate continued communication, however distant, between liberals and evangelicals, and in my view even more importantly between liberals and charismatics. For that reason alone, I read Adrian’s blog, regularly consult conservative commentaries, and generally read more conservative literature than liberal. But when the title of a post asks whether women should always remain silent in church, I am reminded that there is a great gulf present in the way we think and approach subjects. One may hope that the great gulf is not fixed, but one fears otherwise.

    (more…)

  • Inclusivism and the Heathen

    I was getting geared up to write about salvation, because of various comments on my views that I’ve received here and in real life, but as I was doing so, John at Locusts and Honey weighed in on the issue, giving preliminary assent to exclusivism. He does outline the three major positions quite well, even though I disagree with the exclusivist conclusion and practically all of the logic that lies behind it.

    Though I’d already started my other post (<a href="it’s here) I thought I’d respond to his more specific case first, and then make some further comments on salvation generally. He says the following near the conclusion. (You can go to John’s blog to see the nifty picture he put with this!)

    Let us say that that the state catches two brutal serial killers who terrorized a community for years. Dozens of people have died slowly and savagely, and hundreds of people have seen their loved ones face their last moments in agony. Both murderers are tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. They are brought to the gallows on the day of their scheduled execution. As the nooses are placed around their necks, suddenly and unexpectedly, a telegram arrives from the governor pardoning one of them. One walks free; the other is executed immediately.

    Is this outcome unjust?

    We have done absolutely nothing to merit God’s forgiveness, and absolutely everything to merit his wrath. Ignorant pagans are not damned because they have never heard the Gospel; they are damned because of their sins. Christians are not saved because of their goodness; they are saved only by the inexplicable pardon of God.

    (more…)

  • Deciding who is Saved

    A few short comments on salvation resulted in some comments that indicate to me that I haven’t been entirely clear on this issue. I have heard such comments in real life from readers of my book Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic. In general people wonder whether I believe that people who reject Christ or who are too apathetic to listen to the gospel even though it is available to them.

    After starting this post, I responded to one on exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism, and so I will assume some of the minimum arguments made there.

    Here is a summary of my view, without any of the scriptural backing:

    1. Faith and works are always combined. True faith produces fruit. True fruit indicates that there is some divine working going on.
    2. Salvation by correct theology, by which I mean the idea that salvation is predicated on believing a certain set of doctrines, is as much a form of works salvation and a denial of grace as is old fashioned salvation by works. In either case, we are accomplishing something, either attaining an intellectual understanding, or accomplishing a particular set of activities, for the purpose of earning God’s favor.
    3. While God is one, and Jesus is the bridge between God and man, God has multiple ways of working in and with people.
    4. God is much more likely to communicate with people who are listening that we give him credit for. After we’ve given him more credit, he’s still more likely . . . 🙂
    5. It is not essential for me to know who God is saving and who he is not, but I can gather from his actions in history that he is doing so to many.
    6. If you’re still looking, you’re not lost.

    Now that’s way more than I can cover in a single post. In fact, I expect it is likely that I will post occasionally on this over a period of months.

    So where is my problem with the standard doctrine? Most particularly I object to the claim that those Christians who allow for the salvation of people who are not Christians in one way or another are simply rejecting the Bible outright. It is not merely that I am uncomfortable with a God who makes salvation difficult (see below), though I admit I am uncomfortable with that. My problem is with the combination of scriptural claims, that God is merciful, compassionate, and just, and yet will fry a rather large assortment of people eternally.

    (more…)

  • The Concept of Trajectories

    I like to talk about trajectories in scripture. This may sound odd to some. A trajectory, according to Merriam-Webster, is “a path, progression, or line of development resembling a physical trajectory.” When I talk about scriptural trajectories, I’m referring in particular to the last part of that definition–a line of development. (Compare also the use of this term in the Wikipedia article on Biblical Theology.)

    Many Biblical passages need to be read not simply to find out what the say, and who they are saying it to, but also to discover where God is going with a particular set of commands. In Christian theology we might identify a trajectory in a tabernacle and a sacrificial system that leads eventually to direct, personal access to God’s throne as described in the book of Hebrews. The command to offer a lamb might seem to merely indicate that God likes animal sacrifices. If we view it in the light of the trajectory, we may find that God does not like sin, and likes us to be reminded of it each time. In addition, it can remind us of the cost of sin on a regular basis, and also tell us that even if we are very far from God, he is nonetheless willing to make a way for us to approach him.

    (more…)

  • No Place Like Home for the Troops

    I’m a fairly regular reader of the evangelical outpost, and often disagree, even though I respond here infrequently.; Today Joe Carter has a post, The Ruby Slipper Option: Why We Can’t Win in Iraq, that is really exceptionally good, though I detect that Carter is less happy with his conclusion than I am.

    I have commented a few times that Americans are, quite fortunately, not ruthless enough to be an occupying power. Carter notes that we tend to be a bit of a homesick power, although the homesickness is heavily the work of the voters who are already home. This is an excellent point with regard to American attitudes.

    I would add, however, that there never was a hopeful option in Iraq. There was never any doubt that we could win on the battlefield, and of course we did. But winning as an occupying power with troops required to function as a fairly advanced police force is much less likely. I sense regret in many conservatives, such as Joe Carter, that we don’t have the staying power to make Iraq stable before we leave.

    But what solution is there in Iraq that creates a stable country? The fact is that a stable Iraq that is also completely democratic is a fantasy. It’s not going to happen. Iraq is an artificial country combining people with different goals. These facts should have been given more consideration before we went in. One important consideration in formulating foreign policy should be: Is it sustainable? Determining that means considering whether the voters are likely to hang in there for the long haul. If you persuade people to enter the war with optimistic forecasts, you can’t be surprised when they abandon that support when things don’t look so rosy.

    I would note, however, that I see no good reason for the voters to have been deceived. I believe the administration painted an excessively optimistic picture, but why would anyone with reading skills have believed it? If anyone supported the war, it should have been with the knowledge that it could have been worse than it is, and that it would certainly involved American lives and resources for a substantial period of time. I credit those who continue to support the war with consistency. I wonder about those who supported it and changed their minds.

    In any case, American leaders should consider the Wizard of Oz factor when formulating foreign policy.

  • Role of Women

    I thought I was just about done with this topic after commenting on <a href="textual issues, but there have been some additional comments that called attention to some additional information. Molly commented and through her comment I found her very thoughtful entry Jesus/Women: Equal Worth, Unequal Role (?), and her link to another thoughtful article, On being “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role”. The second article looks particularly at doctrinal issues related to the trinity. There seems to be at lest some case that complementarians are abandoning an orthodox view of the trinity in order to support their theology on male and female roles. That’s way out of my stomping ground, so I just suggest you read the articles if you’re interested.

    What came to my mind as I looked at this was a practical question. We have numerous posts dealing with theological and doctrinal issues and many more discussing exegetical issues in numerous passages, but what about simply observing the church and women’s ministry today? By asking this I’m not suggesting that we abandon the scriptures and all doctrinal statements and just take a practical look. Rather, I accept the particular interpretation of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that calls for examination of doctrine in the light of scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. (There are similar views in a number of traditions.) I do this under the conviction that there is certainly an opening for women in ministry in scripture, and that the tradition of the church has often placed women in positions of authority, though less often than men.

    Let me start from a very secular point. Placing people in roles for which they are not suited, or for which they are not gifted can produce dangerous results in any organization. Managers who are not capable of delegating, disorganized administrators, teachers who know their subject but cannot communicate, and so forth. Being put in a position which one cannot properly fill results in fear, feelings of incapacity, and in responses such as over-control, or complete lack of control. Basically putting people in roles for which they are not gifted produces bad results.

    (more…)

  • Updating the Grudem Interview and Discussion

    Since I previously posted on the interview that Adrian Warnock is conducting with Wayne Grudem, I thought it would be a good idea to update. There are two more entries of interest:

    • Part Four – Ethical Trajectories, Feminism, and Homosexuality
      I’m afraid the argument here that stands out is that feminism, and the arguments used by evangelical feminists to support it will lead to an acceptance of homosexuality. I guess that settles it!
    • Wayne Grudem replies to Suzanne McCarthy
      This deals with some trivia in the issue of Junia in Romans 16:7. The reason I refer to these issues as trivia is that the broad evidence on Romans 16:7 is so strongly in favor of taking the name as feminine that a search of this type can only, in my view, be the result of an absolute determination to read the name as masculine. [Update: Hmm. That was not well said, but I’ll leave it as is and correct it since it was posted here for a couple of hours. Two points — 1) my comment implies that the arguments in question had to do with reading the name Junia as masculine, which is incorrect. These specific points have to do with whether Junia should be known as one of the apostles or whether the apostles (not including her) knew her. 2) Dan Wallace, as always summarizes his evidence well. I believe in this case he is grasping at straws, and is not following his own usual preference for more probable readings. His justification for taking an improbable reading is, in my view, inadequte.] Of course, you can tell that I accept Suzanne’s view on the passage in general.
    • [Update 12/10/06-I don’t want to add another post on this topic right now.] On the Better Bibles Blog Suzanne has summarized her response, and I think her response and summary of her position is excellent. It also ties in well with my response to Grudem’s criticism of Gordon Fee. There seems to be an odd tendency here to make snide remarks about others, and then to be horrified at snide or snarky comments about one’s own work. Personally I prefer a fairly forceful style. In the view of the presence of certain comments on qualifications in this discussion, I’d note that my earlier comments on Fee’s expertise in textual issues are extremely relevant. I don’t expect one to accept Fee’s argument based on his expertise. In fact, I decry such behavior. But if one is going to have a battle of expertise, Fee has the edge here on textual matters.

    I may link to further entries in this interview, but I must confess I find it hard to give much credit to the “slippery slope” form of argument.

  • Medical Personnel Used as Scapegoats in Lybia

    I really have nothing to add to this, but I do want to make sure it gets maximum publicity:

    Libya vs. Evolutionary Science: Will the Tripoli Six be sentenced to death by firing squad?

    There are five nurses and a doctor on trial in Lybia for spreading AIDS, and it’s clear that they have done nothing, that the problem existed before they were there. Hopefully we can get a good response to this. Links for action and for more sources of information are contained in the Panda’s Thumb post.