There is One Mediator and Only One Mediator

In a recent blog post (link), Dave Armstrong (a lay advocate of Catholicism) has made the remarkable argument that "there is one mediator" in 1 Timothy 2:5 does not rule out what Dave calls "mini-mediators." Dave doesn't comment on whether "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD," rules out mini-Jehovahs or whether "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, " rules out mini-Lords, mini-faiths, and mini-baptisms.

Naturally, he also doesn't comment on whether "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble," rules out mini-Gods. I suppose that he might be excused from these oversights with respect to other uses of "one" in Scripture except that the verse in question does not say only "there is one mediator" but also "there is one God" - in fact the quotation, "There is one mediator," requires one to omit "One God, and" in the usual translation of the text:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Dave also doesn't comment on the fact that the term "mediator" is only ever used of Jesus in the New Testament (see post-script below for more discussion on this). That's true whether we speak of the English word for mediator in KJV, the Latin word for mediator in the Vulgate, or the Greek word for mediator in the original. Instead of dealing with these troubling details, Dave waves his hand and claims that Scriptures teach the concept of mini-mediators. Of course, it doesn't take a genius to guess that Dave cannot find the term "mini-mediator" in Scripture either. Instead, he declares that:

1) When Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 9:22 of "by all means sav[ing] some" - that means Paul is a "mini-mediator";

2) When Paul speaks in 1 Timothy 4:16 of "sav[ing] both yourself and your hearers" - that means Timothy is going to be a "mini-mediator";

3) When Paul speaks in Philippians 2:12-13 of "work[ing] out your own salvation" - that means the Philippians are going to be "mini-mediators";

4) When Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians 4:15 of "all things [being] for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God" - that means that Paul is a "mini-mediator";

5) When Paul speaks in Ephesians 3:2 of "the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward" - that means Paul is a "mini-mediator";

6) When Paul speaks in Ephesians 4:29 of the words from the Ephesians mouths "minister[ing] grace unto the hearers" - that means the Ephesians will be "mini-mediators";

7) When Peter speaks in 1 Peter 4:8-10 of "good stewards of the manifold grace of God" - that means that the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia are going to be "mini-mediators";

8) When John speaks in Revelation 1:4-5 of "the seven spirits who are before his throne" - that means that angels are going to be "mini-mediators";

9) Whenever Paul or anyone else uses the phrase "grace to you" or the like - that means that the person using the phrase is acting as a "mini-mediator."

There a number of significant problems with Dave's methodology. For one thing, Dave more or less simply assumes in each case that the activity involved is somehow a "mini" form of what Christ does as mediator. Another problem is that in order for Dave's overall argument to work, Dave essentially has to reduce Jesus' mediatorial role to that of being a grace conduit, with God (the Father) being the source and believers (or all men - one is not really sure whether Dave applies a "prevenient grace" concept here) being the recipients. There are other problems to be sure. For example, the idea that the "seven spirits who are before [God's] throne" are consequently to be implicated in mediation is particularly far-fetched. But the two I've identified above may be viewed as the primary problems.

What is the cause of Dave's problems in this regard? Dave simply doesn't seem to understand the role of the mediator. The mediator is not simply a grace conduit. The mediator is the person who reconciles two. As Scripture says,

Galatians 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

The mediator stands between two parties and reconciles them together. Thus, for example, the LXX uses this same word for mediator in Job 9:33, where the text says:

Job 9:33 Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, [that] might lay his hand upon us both. (KJV)

Job 9:33 "There is no umpire between us, Who may lay his hand upon us both. (NASB)

Jesus is that one person who reconciles God and man. Jesus does that job and does it completely, leaving no room for a "mini-mediator." Part of that role, moreover, is the role of being the sole object of faith. That's how Galatians connects Jesus' role as mediator to the relation between God and man:

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

It is by faith in the mediator that we obtain the blessing. There is no mention in Scripture of salvation by faith in any lesser or "mini" mediator - but only by faith in Christ. There is no salvation by faith in the church, in the saints, or in Mary: there is only one mediator: Jesus Christ. The same point is being made in 1 Timothy 2, in which what is well pleasing to God is that men believe on his son - the one mediator between God and man.

But an even stronger point is made in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In chapter 8, Christ is portrayed as performing the mediatorial role by serving as the high priest of the "better covenant" - by which it is meant that he is the one who offers up the sacrifice to God. After all, it is the sacrifice that reconciles us to God. Hebrews 12 makes the same connection, but more loosely.

It is, however, in Hebrews 9 that we find the clear exposition of what it means for Christ to be the mediator:

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Christ's role as mediator is a priestly role. He is the sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and he is the priest that offers the sacrifice. He is the Lamb and the one who offers the Lamb. He offers it specifically for "they which are called," and do so that they will receive the promise of heaven. Christ mediates the new covenant. He is the one mediator of it.

Paul explicitly disclaims any such role:

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Furthermore, though he Paul would like to take on such a role, he implicitly acknowledges that he cannot:

Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

Similarly, Moses' attempt to be the mediator between God and Israel was rejected by God:

Exodus 32:31-33
31And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. 33And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

Furthermore, the epistle to the Hebrews explains that such a role is an impossibility:

Hebrews 10:9-14
9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Notice the key here: by one offering Christ has once for all sanctified and perfected us. There is no room for mini-mediators, because this mediator has done it all. It is finished. There is nothing left to mediate: God's wrath against us is appeased in Christ, and consequently we have no need of a further mediator, whether "mini-" or "co-" as some advocates of Catholicism have attempted to suggest.

This is the understanding of Christ's mediatorial role that is missing from Dave's post - that leads to his confused claims that somehow these instrumental means whereby men are saved (such as the preaching of the Gospel in items (1), (2), and (4)-(7) above) are the role of the mediator.

Instead, Dave's concept of mediation is asking God for more grace for people (in an interesting, but largely irrelevant tangent, Dave seems to be under the misapprehension that the Protestant Reformed position on the definition of "grace" is the main view out there). Of course, that is not what Jesus does as mediator of the new covenant, as we have discussed above.

The actions of believers in wishing grace of God on others, or in seeking to bring that about by preaching the gospel or by repentance, faith, and new obedience are in an entirely different category. The mediating of Christ is done: He has sat down at the right hand of God:

Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

As it is sung:

Psalm 110

A Psalm of David

1 The Lord did say unto my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand,
Until I make thy foes a stool,
whereon thy feet may stand.

2 The Lord shall out of Zion send
the rod of thy great pow'r:
In midst of all thine enemies
be thou the governor.

3 A willing people in thy day
of pow'r shall come to thee,
In holy beauties from morn's womb;
thy youth like dew shall be.

4 The Lord himself hath made an oath,
and will repent him never,
Of th' order of Melchisedec
thou art a priest for ever.

5 The glorious and mighty Lord,
that sits at thy right hand,
Shall, in his day of wrath, strike through
kings that do him withstand.

6 He shall among the heathen judge,
he shall with bodies dead
The places fill: o'er many lands
he wound shall ev'ry head.

7 The brook that runneth in the way
with drink shall him supply;
And, for this cause, in triumph he
shall lift his head on high.

No, Jesus is not simply the central distribution point of "grace" (the view of grace in Catholicism, of course, being different from that in Biblical theology) as Dave seems to think ("Jesus is ultimately the mediator of grace. It all comes through Him. But He also clearly uses human beings to distribute the grace, as these passages establish beyond any doubt.") but Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

What's being described there is not Jesus' role as example (though he is an example) or his role as preacher (though he is a preacher) but instead Jesus' role the one who obtains a heavenly place for his people.

John 14:1-4
1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

The persevering reader who has made it this far may be interested in reading more about the implications of Jesus' having prepared mansions for us, which I've discussed in a previous article (link).

Perhaps someone will ask - do not we ourselves intercede to God for our fellow believers and for the lost? In doing so, are we not in some sense mediators? I cannot think of a better response than that given by Charles Hodge (link to selection from Hodge). The short answer is - no, we are not. We simply intercede in the sense of praying for the person. We are not mediators - we do not reconcile God to man.

In summary, recall that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:19-20 We are not mini-mediators, but spokesmen: declaring the good news so that men who were spiritually dead may live. 1 Peter 4:6

-TurretinFan


P.S. One kind reader has noted that some people believe that the term for mediator in English, Latin, and Greek is used in Galatians 3:19-20 and refers in that place to Moses. While I would disagree that the term used there refers to Moses, it is mostly a moot point, since (if it refers to Moses) it would relate to Moses' role as law-giver. Furthermore, if it were the case that the mediator in verses 19-20 were Moses, the context ("herefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ" vs. 24) would lead us to recognize that Moses foreshadowed Christ (cf. Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.) the one mediator of the New Covenant. Nevertheless, since verse 19 refers to "angels" (plural), it seems better to refer the term "mediator" in verse 19 either directly to the promised Messaiah or to the Messiah as portrayed by the Old Testament priesthood.

Times of Unpredictability

It's time for people to remember something:

Isaiah 41:20-24
20That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of the LORD hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it. 21Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong [reasons], saith the King of Jacob. 22Let them bring [them] forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they [be], that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. 23Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye [are] gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold [it] together. 24Behold, ye [are] of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination [is he that] chooseth you.

God is in control of the world economy. Not Wall St., not Main St., not Pennsylvania Ave., not Downing St., and not the Kremlin. They are all unable to predict, much less control, the future. There is a God who controls all things to the good of the elect:

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Praise be to our God!

-TurretinFan

Charles Hodge on Intercession of Saints

Charles Hodge
on
Intercession of Saints
(extracted from his Systematic Theology)

There is but one Mediator between God and man, and but one High Priest through whom we draw near to God. And as intercession is a priestly function, it follows that Christ is our only intercessor. But as there is a sense in which all believers are kings and priests unto God, which is consistent with Christ's being our only king and priest; so there is a sense in which one believer may intercede for another, which is not inconsistent with Christ's being our only intercessor. By intercession in the case of believers is only meant that one child of God may pray for another or for all men. To intercede is in this sense merely to pray for. But in the case of Christ it expresses an official act, which none who does not fill his office can perform. As under the old economy one Israelite could pray for his brethren, but only the High Priest could enter within the veil and officially interpose in behalf of the people; so now, although we may pray, one for another, Christ only can appear as a priest before God in our behalf and plead his merits as the ground on which his prayers for his people should be answered.

Protestants object to the intercession of saints as taught and practised in the Church of Rome.

1. Because it supposes a class of beings who do not exist; that is, of canonized departed spirits. It is only those who, with the angels, have been officially declared by the Church, on account of their merits, to be now in heaven, who are regarded as intercessors.

This, however, is an unauthorized assumption on the part of the Church. It has no prerogative to enable it thus to decide, and to enroll whom it will among glorified spirits. Often those thus dignified have been real enemies of God, and persecutors of his people.

2. It leads to practical idolatry. Idolatry is the ascription of divine attributes to a creature. In the popular mind the saints, and especially the Virgin Mary, are regarded as omnipresent; able at all times and in all places, to hear the prayers addressed to them, and to relieve the wants of their worshippers.

3. It is derogatory to Christ. As He is the only and sufficient mediator between God and man, and as He is ever willing to hear and answer the prayers of his people, it supposes some deficiency in Him, if we need other mediators to approach God in our behalf.

4. It moreover is contrary to Scripture, inasmuch as the saints are assumed to prevail with God on account of their personal merits. Such merit no human being has before God. No man has any merit to plead for his own salvation, much less for the salvation of others.

5. The practice is superstitious and degrading. Superstition is belief without evidence. The practice of the invocation of saints is founded on a belief which has no support from Scripture. It is calling upon imaginary helpers. It degrades men by turning them from the Creator to the creature, by leading them to put their trust
in an arm of flesh, instead of in the power of Christ. It, therefore, turns away the hearts and confidence of the people from Him to those who can neither hear nor save.

*** End of Hodge's Comments ***

-TurretinFan

The real Turretin on: The Instrumental Use of Faith

Richard Smith at the Spurgeon Blog has an interesting post on the Instrumental Use of Faith, including a nice, but short, quotation from the real Turretin (link). Sometimes I think that it is a proper understanding of Justification by Faith that separates nominal Sola-Fideans (such as modern Arminians) from true Sola-Fideans (i.e. the Reformed).

-TurretinFan

Calvin on the Psalms

I found an interesting jewel from Calvin on the Psalms at Adiophora(link) I'd love to follow my usual path here, and quote something similar from John Wesley, but of course Wesley was one of the main promoters of "Protestant" abandonment of Psalmody. Still, even Wesley wrote:

WE have now before us one of the choicest parts of the Old Testament, wherein there is so much of Christ and his gospel, as well as of God and his law, that it has been called the summary of both Testaments. The history of Israel; which we were long upon, instructed us in the knowledge of God. The book of Job gave us profitable disputations, concerning God and his providence. But this book brings us into the sanctuary, draws us off from converse with men, with the philosophers or disputers of this world, and directs us into communion with God. It is called, the Psalms, in Hebrew Tehillim, which properly signifies Psalms of praise, because many of them are such; but Psalms is a more general word, meaning all poetical compositions, fitted to be sung. St. Peter styles it, The book of Psalms. It is a collection of Psalms, of all the Psalms that were divinely inspired, composed at several times, on several occasions, and here put together, without any dependence on each other. Thus they were preserved from being scattered and lost, and kept in readiness for the service of the church. One of these is expressly said to be the prayer of Moses. That some of them were penned by Asaph, is intimated, 2 Chron. xxix, 30, where they are said to praise the Lord, in the words of David and Asaph, who is there called a seer or prophet. And some of the Psalms seem to have been penned long after, at the time of the captivity in Babylon. But the far greater part were wrote by David, who was raised up for establishing the ordinance of singing Psalms in the church of God, as Moses and Aaron were for settling the ordinance of sacrifice. Theirs indeed is superseded, but this will remain, 'till it be swallowed up in the songs of eternity. There is little in the book of Psalms of the ceremonial law. But the moral law is all along magnified, and made honourable. And Christ the foundation, corner and top-stone of all religion, is here clearly spoken of; both his sufferings, with the glory that should follow, and the, kingdom he would set up in the world.

- John Wesley, "Introduction to the Psalms," from his Commentary on the Whole Bible.

H.T. to R. Scott Clark at the Heidelblog for bringing the Calvin selection to my attention.

-TurretinFan

Turretin Reviewed

Curate at Kata Rogeron has provided a positive review of Turretin's Institutes (link). It is a very brief review, but as a fan of Turretin, I certainly appreciated it.

Contest For Atheists

Are you an atheist? Would you like to make $100? Ray Comfort is holding a writing contest, in which all you have to do to enter is provide an essay on "Why I don't believe in God." (link to contest) Details at Mr. Comfort's blog - this blog is not affiliated in any formal way with that blog.

-TurretinFan

Visualizing the Bible's Interconnectedness

Jason at Christian Theist has interesting post that illustrates graphically the interconnectedness of the Bible. It is really something remarkable to see. (link)

Respect Old People

It is not just common courtesy, it is part of every human's obligation under the fifth commandment.

Leviticus 19:32 Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD.

The phrase "hoary head" is essentially the concept of a head covered by frost - i.e. a head with white or gray hair. The concept of "rise up before" means to stand when they enter the room, which was a sign of respect in those times - and continues to be a sign of respect in many places even to the present day. Likewise, to honor the face of the old man means to be respectful and to show that respect.

The "Western" societies all too often forget about this command. Increasingly, the old are disrespected and even disdained. This is contrary to the law of God. As Christians, we are called to show respect for the elderly and to honor them. This is a general relation between the young and old, which (like the distinction between the sexes) has a heightened emphasis within the family unit. One's elderly father or mother is especially to be honored, just as a woman is to show a particular respect to her own husband. The same goes for children and adults. Children are to be deferential to adults, but they show a particular degree of deference to their own parents.

Finally, let me provide a reminder to any of my readers who happen to be old:

Proverbs 16:31 The hoary head is a crown of glory, if it be found in the way of righteousness.

May I encourage you so to be found!

-TurretinFan

John Murray - Birthday and Head Coverings

John Murray was born 110 years ago today. In honor of his birthday, I'd like to present the following excerpt from a letter he wrote on the subject of head coverings. The full letter is available at Pastor Sherman Isbell's web site (link), to whom I am indebted for bringing this letter to my attention.

*** Excerpt from Letter ***

If the Presbytery becomes convinced that a head covering for women belongs to the decorum governing the conduct of women in the worship of God, then I think Presbytery should declare accordingly. I would not suppose it necessary expressly to legislate. I think it would be enough to make a resolution for the instruction and guidance of ministers, sessions, and people. A higher judicatory has both right and duty to offer to those under its jurisdiction, guidance respecting divine obligation. This has been recognised in Reformed Churches throughout the world.

Your main question turns, of course, on the interpretation of I Corinthians 11:2-16. Permit me to offer some of my reflections in order.

1. Since Paul appeals to the order of creation (vss. 3b, vss. 7ff.), it is totally indefensible to suppose that what is in view and enjoined had only local or temporary relevance. The ordinance of creation is universally and perpetually applicable, as also are the implications for conduct arising therefrom.

2. I am convinced that a head covering is definitely in view forbidden for the man (vss. 4, & 7) and enjoined for the woman (vss. 5, 6, 15). In the case of the woman the covering is not simply her long hair. This supposition would make nonsense of verse 6. For the thought there is, that if she does not have a covering she might as well be shorn or shaven, a supposition without any force whatever if the hair covering is deemed sufficient. In this connection it is not proper to interpret verse 15b as meaning that the hair was given the woman to take the place of the head covering in view of verses 5, 6. The Greek of verse 15 is surely the Greek of equivalence as used quite often in the New Testament, and so the Greek can be rendered: "the hair is given to her for a covering." This is within the scope of the particular agrument of verses 14, 15 and does not interfere with the demand for the additional covering contemplated in verses 5, 6, 13. Verses 14 and 15 adduce a consideration from the order of nature in support of that which is enjoined earlier in the passage but is not itself tantamount to it. In other words, the long hair is an indication from "nature" of the differentiation between men and women, and so the head covering required (vss. 5, 6, 13) is in line with what "nature" teaches.

3. There is good reason for believing that the apostle is thinking of conduct in the public assemblies of the Church of God and of worship exercises therein in verse 17, this is clearly the case, and verse 18 is confirmatory. But there is a distinct similarity between the terms of verse 17 and of verse 2. Verse 2 begins, "Now I praise you" and verse 17, "Now in this . . . I praise you not". The virtually identical expressions, the one positive and the other negative, would suggest, if not require, that both have in view the behaviour of the saints in their assemblies, that is, that in respect of denotation the same people are in view in the same identity as worshippers. If a radical difference, that between private and public, were contemplated, it would be difficult to maintain the appropriateness of the contrast between "I praise you" and "I praise you not".

4. Beyond question it is in reference to praying and prophesying that the injuctions pertain, the absence of head covering for men and the presence for women. It might seem, therefore, that the passage has nothing to do with a head covering for women in the assemblies of the Church if they are not engaged in praying or prophesying, that is, in leading in prayer or exercising the gift of prophesying. And the implication would be that only when they performed these functions were they required to use head covering. The further implication would be that they would be at liberty to perform these functions provided they wore head gear. This view could easily be adopted if it were not so that Paul forbids such exercises on the part of women and does so in the same epistle, (I Cor. 14:33b-36): "As in all the Churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak" (vss. 33b-34a). It is impossible to think that Paul would, by implication, lend approval in chapter 11, to what he so expressly prohibits in chapter 14. Hence we shall have to conclude that he does not contemplate praying or prophesying on the part of women in the Church in chapter 11. The question arises: how can this be, and how can we interpret 11:5, 6, 13? It is possible to interpret the verses in chapter 11 in a way that is compatible with chapter 14:33b-36. It is as follows: —

a. In chapter 11 the decorum prescribed in 14:33b-36 is distinctly in view and Paul is showing its propriety. Praying and prophesying are functions that imply authority, the authority that belongs to the man as distinguished from the woman according to the ordinance of creation. The man in exercising this authority in praying and prophesying must not wear a head covering. Why not? The head covering is the sign of subjection, the opposite of the authority that belongs to him, exemplified in praying and prophesying, hence 11:4, 7. In a word, head covering in praying and prophesying would be a contradiction.

b. But precisely here enters the relevance of verses 5, 6, 13 as they pertain to women. If women are to pray and prophesy in the assemblies, they perform functions that imply authority and would require therefore, to remove the head covering. To do so with the head covering would involve the contradiction referred to already. But it is the impropriety of removing the head covering that is enforced in 11:5, 6 & 13. In other words, the apostle is pressing home the impropriety of the exercise of these functions — praying and prophesying — on the part of women by showing the impropriety of what it would involve, namely, the removal of the head covering. And so the rhetorical question of verse 13: "Is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled?"

c. This interpretation removes all discrepancy between 11:5, 6, 13 and 14:33b-36 and it seems to me feasible, and consonant with the whole drift of 11:2-16.

5. The foregoing implies that the head covering for women was understood to belong to the decorum of public worship.

6. The above line of thought would derive confirmation from I Cor. 11:10. Admittedly the reference to the angels is not immediately perspicuous. But a reasonable interpretation is that the presence of the angels with the people of God and therefore their presence in the congregations of the saints. What is being pleaded is the offence given to the holy angels when the impropriety concerned mars the sancity of God's worship. But, in any case, the obligation asserted is apparent. It is that the woman ought to have upon her head the sign of the authority to which she is subject, in other words, the sign of her subjection. But this subjection pertains throughout and not simply when in the exercise of praying and prophesying according to the supposition that such is permitted. I submit, therefore, that the verse concerned (vs. 10) enunciates a requirement that is general within the scope of the subject with which Paul is dealing, namely, the decorum of worship in the assembly of the saints.

On these grounds my judgment is that presupposed in the Apostle's words is the accepted practice of head covering for women in the assemblies of the Church, that apparently this part of decorum was recognised, and that the main point of verses 5, 6, 10, 13 was the impropriety of any interruption of the practice if women were to pray or prophesy, for, in that event, it would be necessary to remove the covering in order to signify the authority that praying and prophesying entailed, an authority not possessed by women, a non-possession signified, in turn, by the use of the covering.

*** End of Excerpt ***

-TurretinFan

Atheist on Trial

I don't think many atheists stop by this blog, but if any do ... perhaps they would receive benefit from the video I found today at The Real Issue by Rob Lundberg (link). There are a few minor quibbles I'd have with the explanation of the allegory, but it makes the point that needs to be made.

-TurretinFan

God's Decree = God's Endorsement?

Beowulf2k8 (b2k8) has provided a further comment illustrating his lack of understanding of Calvinism. Since I doubt he is the only person with this misunderstanding, I think it may be helpful to highlight the error he is making and explain why, biblically, he is wrong. b2k8 wrote:

In the sense that Calvinism teaches that God's Sovereinty [sic] means micromanagement and that God controls all of everything minutely, God is the author of Hinduism (according to Calvinism, of course, not me) and hence Hinduism is as as much "the faith" as Calvinism (according to Calvinism, since God decreed it equally with Calvinism, according to Calvinism), and therefore the Hindu woman is a martyr (to Calvinism, not to Christianity).

(source is an unpublished comment submitted on this earlier blog post)
It's a little difficult to construct a meaningful argument from b2k8's comment, but generally it seems to have the following structure:

1) Calvinism teaches that God micromanages all things minutely;
2) Minute micromanagement makes God the author of those things he minutely micromanages;
3) Therefore, God is the author of all things;
4) If God is the author of a religion, it is the faith;
5) Therefore, Hinduism is "the faith";
6) If someone dies for "the faith," then they are martyr; and
7) So, the Hindu woman in the article who was killed is a martyr under Calvinism.

As a preliminary matter, (7) does not follow from (6) because of a factual error, namely that the Hindu woman in the article was killed mistakenly, her tormentors and murders being under the misconception that she was a different religion than was actually her own.

The remainder of the errors are more interesting, as they are more fundamental leaps in reasoning and definition.

Error 1:

The first error is equivocation. It is the error by which b2k8 provides (4). We might agree that if God is the author of a religion, that is the faith. In agreeing with such a claim, though, we would need a definition of "author" that implies that the religion intended by God to be "the faith" and that it is the way that he has intended to be worshiped by his followers.

But these things cannot be said of Hinduism. Even assuming the remainder of b2k8's misconceptions of Calvinism (that God is the author of all things, since God minutely micromanages), God has not appointed Hinduism as the religion of His followers - instead it is a religion of the enemies of God. It is not intended by God to be "the faith," but is instead a counterfeit faith - a religion of devils.

Thus, at a minimum, we can see that b2k8 has equivocated (implicitly, of course, since he never provides a formal argument). Even if God is the author of Hinduism in some sense, that sense is not the sense required to make Hinduism "the faith."

Sometimes God sends lying spirits as a judgment. Recall, for example:

1 Kings 22:22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

And sometimes as a judgment, God ordains that people will be deluded and believe a lie:

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Nevertheless, those lying spirits are not equivalent to the holy spirit, and the lies that ungodly believe are not equivalent to the truth.

Error 2:

A second error is definitional. B2k8 seemingly believes that minute micromanagement = authorship, but B2k8 provides no basis for this arbitrary definition. This is not the traditional definition of "author" that we use when, for example, we deny that God is the author of sin (yes, b2k8, it is the Calvinist position that God is not the author of sin). In the traditional sense, "author" comes from the Latin term auctor. In modern English the equivalent would be "actor." The person by who power the thing is carried out.

The person who carries out sin is never God. Sometimes it is sinful men, other times it is fallen angels. It is always a moral agent, but it is never God. God cannot break the moral law: that is the exclusive arena of men and demons.

But instead, b2k8 implicitly defines authorship as minute micromanagement. This is bizarre, to say the least. We consider ourselves the author of a document, for example, even when we do not minutely micromanage a computer - but simply type in the words and click the "print" button. Likewise, we do not need even to know what goes on inside a gun in order to be the morally responsible agent for a shooting.

This brings us to ...

Error 3:

Innovated standard of morality. For some reason, b2k8, along with many others, have invented a theory of morality in which, if God minutely micromanages things, he is morally responsible for what happens - and the actual person doing the sinful (or righteous - though that rarely comes up) act is not responsible under this theory.

But where did this theory come from? Who invented it? It seems to have been created out of thin air. There's nothing in the Bible to suggest such a rule of morality, and there's no particularly logical reason for arriving at such a rule.

And finally, we arrive at ...

Error 4:

Minute micromanagement is simply the logical conclusion of God being:

a) Interested in the smallest details of human life;
b) Omniscient; and
b) Omnipotent.

If all of (a), (b), and (c) are true, then minute micromanagement of some kind (whether Calvinistic, Molinistic, or otherwise) must follow. This, of course, offends the autonomous heart of rebellious man, but that really cannot be helped. God is the ruler over all the Earth, and because of (a), (b), and (c), everything that happens a particular way happens that way, because that is the way God wants it to happen in His providence.

There is a final error that b2k8 makes, that is only implicit in his criticism above ...

Error 5

Confusing the moral law of God and the Providence of God. God in his Providence ordains that certain bad acts will happen. God ordained that Jesus would be crucified, which was a sinful act on the part of those that did it to him. It was not sinless for Christ's murderers, just because God had ordained that it would happen, and just because God wanted it to happen. In fact, one can hardly imagine a more horrible crime than to slay the incarnate Son of God.

God wanted this great sin to happen, He ordained that it would happen, and He was glad that it happened, although he still counted it as sin against those who did it. The same is true of the many lesser sins that occur in God's providence. They happen for a reason that glorifies God ultimately, and yet they still sins for the people that do them. The fact that God has a good purpose in them does not excuse the people who commit the sins.

One hopes that this explanation will help b2k8, and others like him, to see that they have misunderstood and misrepresented Calvinism - perhaps simply because they have not fully understood its single source of authority: Scripture.

-TurretinFan

Deposit of the Funds Safe

Protestants may question whether the Vatican has safely maintained the Deposit of the Faith, but the Vatican Bank claims that those who have deposited funds are safe (link). I'm probably the last person to realize that the Vatican really was a player in the banking and finance industry in Europe, which is odd since I have watched the God-Father trilogy.

-TurretinFan

Norma Normans vs. Norma Normata

Scripture is, as they say, the Noma Normans non Normata (the "un-normed norm normer" or more loosely, "The norm of norms that is not normed"). When Scripture is described in this way, the concept is essentially equivalent to Sola Scriptura, as it declares that Scripture the standard according to which all other standards are measured, and which has no higher standard against which it is measured.

A number of Federal Visionists have been complaining that they are being judged, not according to the Scriptures, but according to the Confession of Faith. They seem to have the feeling that this stifles important doctrinal innovation. For example, one author (who I assume is a Federal Visionist, though I would be happy to be mistaken in this regard) responds to this comment:

It’s an inherently non-confessional stance that implicitly denies that our Standards contain the system of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture, and leads to an anything-goes biblicist approach. They plea for the freedom to do “cutting-edge” theology, which is really a euphemism for non-Reformed theology, while remaining in a confessional denomination.

with the following:

So, according to this Einstein, to be Confessional means to deny what the Confession says about Scripture being the ultimate authority, over and above confessions, creeds, councils, etc.?

No one is arguing for “anything goes” in any Reformed or Presbyterian circle I’m aware of — only, whatever God says, goes.

The rest of his characteristic analysis of the situation is seemingly mindless, and the fact that so-called “cutting edge” theology — in other words, always looking to reform ourselves and our theological praxis according to God’s Word, no matter what — is considered “non-Reformed” is laughable at best.

The PCA is filled with idolaters. Aaron yells to the crowd of sheep, while he points to the Westminster Confession of Faith, “This is your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.”

There’s a special place in Hell for this kind of lunacy.

(source)
The problem (or at least one problem) is that the author doesn't understand the role of the Confession. It is also a norm, but it is a Norma Normata - a norm that is normed. It is a helpful touchstone of what it means to be "Reformed," and it is a subordinate doctrinal standard of the PCA (and other Reformed churches in the Scottish tradition).

Schaff described things this way:

All creeds are more or less imperfect and fallible. The Bible alone is the rule of faith (regula credendi), the norma normans, and claims divine and therefore absolute authority; the creed is a rule of public teaching (regula docendi), the norma normata, and has only ecclesiastical and therefore relative authority, which depends on the measure of its agreement with the Bible. Confessions may be improved (as the Apostles' Creed is a gradual growth from the baptismal formula), or may be superseded by better ones with the increasing knowledge of the truth.

The Westminster Confession is an example as well of such change, as the version held by the PCA differs in certain regards from the version originally proposed by the Westminster divines.

Certainly we must be willing to norm our subordinate standards by the Word of God, but at the same time, when doing so, we need to be cognizant of the significance of such action. The Westminster Confession is not the ultimate standard for any Reformed Christian, but for many Reformed Christians it is a standard - a norma normata.

-TurretinFan

Who is to Blame for Svendsen's Book?

In response to this post (link) promoting a freely-downloadable mp3 related to Eric Svendsen's book, "Upon this Slippery Rock: Countering Roman Catholic Claims to Authority," Mr. Bellisario provided the following commentary, which I intersperse with my comments:

MB: "Wow. If Sola Scriptura is so simple and easy to get, then why do all of these simple-simons need Svendsen's book to explain it all?"

I answer: As you can see from the title of the book, the reason is the false claims of the advocates of Catholicism. Furthermore, of course, while Sola Scriptura is simple and easy to get ("the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith that we have") sometimes the devious and even Jesuitical objections to it are not simple and easy to get, and can be confusing for some people.

MB: "It's not Sola Scriptura, its Sola Svendsen."

I answer: This is just silly. Mr. Bellisario should know better than to make this kind of claim. Reformation Christianity does not deny the value of teachers, it just doesn't elevate them to the level of God's own Word: Scripture. Svendsen never makes himself out to be an infallible rule of faith - a fact that should be as simple and easy to get as Sola Scriptura itself.

MB: "Scripture isn't plain enough for all of you to understand. You need Svendsen to rescue your faith! Wow this is too good to be true."

I answer: This criticism seems to be founded on the same false premise as the one above, in which Sola Scriptura leaves no place for teachers. It's also based on a further straw man, which is the idea that the position of Sola Scriptura means that ALL doctrines of Scripture are alike plain. Of course, the truth is different from the straw men. There is a role for teachers in the church, and one of their roles is to help explain doctrines - including the less clear doctrines. Furthermore, of course, even though Sola Scriptura is a very simple concept, the issues become complicated by heretical objections from a variety of sources, principally those who bow the knee to the Roman Pontiff (one knee only, of course, as explained in Steve's post here)

MB: "I just love the advertisement for his book. All we need now is Billy Maze to sell it on lat night TV. Call now and you'll receive Svendsen's set of chopping knives for cutting out Rome's heresy!"

I answer: This scoffing does tend to serve as a thing that speaks for itself as to the attitude of the critic. No further comment, therefore, is needed.

-TurretinFan

Death of a Non-Martyr

There is some very deplorable and evil violence taking place in India. Non-Christians are attacking and killing people and institutions that they believe are Christian. Some time ago I had mentioned that simply being a nun didn't make one a Christian, and that consequently I would not automatically consider a nun who was apparently killed simply because she was wearing a habit to be a martyr without further investigation. I think some people who read what I wrote had trouble wrapping their heads around the concept.

Perhaps this further sad story of the wicked actions of evil men will help those who had trouble with the nun non-martyrdom issue to see the bigger picture (link) (warning - somewhat graphic description of the persecution). In this case, the woman degraded and killed was actually a Hindu woman who simply happened to work at a Roman Catholic institution.

There is a sense in which she was killed for the faith (since she was killed by Hindus trying to oppose Christianity), but she certainly wasn't killed for her faith.

For reference, my earlier post in which the nun issue was raised in the comment box can be found here (link) and an earlier post I wrote providing evidence of the lack of faith of one of the most famous Roman Catholics in India is here (link).

-TurretinFan

Response to Beowulf2k8 on Calvinism

I noticed that Beowulk2k8 had commented over at Triablogue on the topic of Calvinism (link to comment).

B2k8 writes:

You guys are so ridiculous. When Calvinism is ridiculed, it is funny because the Calvinist system is truly stupidity and Satan worship. When Arminianism is ridiculed it is just asinine lame Calvinists trying to look cool after being burned by the truth.

What the Calvinist dictionary says about what you believe is true.

Augustine: The first church father.

Free Will: Something that can't exist because it would make God helpless if true.

Infant damnation: Something that brings God glory.

Glory: Praise we give to God for anything wicked that has ever happened (except for the birth of Charles Finney).

God's secret will: To save a few and reprobate the rest (secret to Arminians but not to us)

Jesus Loves Me, This I Know: Misleading children's song.

Jesus Loves the Little Children: Another terrible song, obviously written by someone who didn't take the time to do a proper exegesis of scripture.

You love talking about exclusive Psalmody because you want to sing about killing your enemies rather than Christ's love. You love ignoring every ecclesiastical writer prior to Augustine because they all taught free will and election based on foreknowledge of faith (including Augustine before he became an Imperial bishop). You relish in the doctrine of infant damnation as if damning innocent infants for another man's sin was some great honor and glory to your manmade god.

Let's hit a few points: "When Calvinism is ridiculed, it is funny because the Calvinist system is truly stupidity and Satan worship." This is the sort of comment that cannot be backed up. One has to chuckle a bit, because one of the more frequent criticisms of Calvinism is that it is excessively intellectual. The "Satan worship" comment just demonstrates that B2k8 doesn't know what the Gospels is and who God is. A person who says that Calvinism is "Satan worship" is either (a) not a Christian, or (b) someone who doesn't know what Calvinism is.

B2k8 claims that "Augustine: The first church father" is actually a Calvinistic belief and B2k8 thinks that "You love ignoring every ecclesiastical writer prior to Augustine because they all taught free will and election based on foreknowledge of faith (including Augustine before he became an Imperial bishop)." This is absurd of course. While Augustine's writings are certainly notable, and undoubtedly contrary to B2k8's views, we find the same Calvinistic themes not only in the Old and New Testaments, but also in the Apostolic fathers - those ECFs that are the earliest to leave any writings behind. For one example, see this earlier post of mine (link). Incidentally I'd be highly interested in the supposed ECF that taught "election based on foreknowledge of faith" ... if anyone knows, please inform me.

B2k8 claims that "Free Will: Something that can't exist because it would make God helpless if true" is actually a Calvinistic belief. This is wrong as well. Calvinism teaches that men have a compatible free will, as opposed to the Arminian conception of an autonomous free will. The former kind of free will is compatible with predestination, that latter is not. The former kind can exist, and the latter - if true - would make God helpless to save those he wants to save. For more discussion, see my earlier post on deflating assumptions regarding man's free will (link).

B2k8 claims that "Infant damnation: Something that brings God glory" is actually a Calvinistic belief. This is a confused objection. First of all, if God chooses to damn any infants, it certainly will bring God glory. "All have sinned" applies not only to adults but to infants as well. Adam's sin is placed on the account of each of his natural descendants. Consequently, God would be just to condemn infants as well as adults. Nevertheless, God is also able to save infants, if he chooses. The standard Reformed position is that "elect infants, dying in infancy, will be saved." Some Calvinists believe that the category of "elect infants" includes all those infants who die in infancy, and others believe that the number is a subset of the group of those who die in infancy (there may even be some who believe that no infants who die in infancy are among the elect, but I've never much such a person). For more discussion, consider my earlier article on the "innocence" of children (link).

Bk28 claims that "Glory: Praise we give to God for anything wicked that has ever happened (except for the birth of Charles Finney)" is the Calvinist position. Leaving out the parenthetical, the statement is true but incomplete. We give glory to God in all things, or at least we try. It can be difficult to be like Job and say, "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." Job 1:21. Charles Finney's theology is error-riddled, but God had a purpose in his life as well. The comment is incomplete, because we give God praise as well for the good things that he does. In all things, God is to be praised. (1 Peter 4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.) Previously, I discussed the dangers associated with discerning God's providence, which is connected with this fact that everything that happens is for the best (link).

B2k8 thinks that "God's secret will: To save a few and reprobate the rest (secret to Arminians but not to us)" is an accurate picture of Calvinism. It seems clear that B2k8 doesn't understand Calvinism, at least on this point. God's secret will is his decree of Providence: his decision about what will happen. This is a "secret" will because God has given us very few details about what will happen. We know that there is a judgment day coming and that Christ will return, but we are not told whether the stock market will recover from last week's down-turn, or whether Georgia will remain an independent European nation. We know that in general all of the elect will be saved, and that all of the reprobate will not, but Calvinists do not claim to know who the elect are. I have discussed this issue of God's will many times, but one example would be in debating the issue with Seth McBee, as can be seen from this open question to him (link).

B2k8 thinks that "Jesus Loves Me, This I Know: Misleading children's song" and "Jesus Loves the Little Children: Another terrible song, obviously written by someone who didn't take the time to do a proper exegesis of scripture" are the Calvinist position. He's mostly right. The first song tends to suggest that all children are in God's present favor, the latter song explicitly says so. In point of fact, many (if not most) children are sinners in God's disfavor and in need of salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. It is interesting to note that at least some Calvinists seem to like the first song (Pastor Bill Shishko, for example, seems to fall in this category). Nevertheless, generally both songs are theologically weak. I've previously addressed "Jesus loves Me" (link).

B2k8 thinks that "You love talking about exclusive Psalmody because you want to sing about killing your enemies rather than Christ's love." This sort of dualism is practically Gnostic in its radical dispensational bent. And it is just wrong. We don't sing the Psalms because we want to sing about killing our enemies. I cannot think of any Psalms that are written with that focus (though there certainly some in which we ask for God's judgment on his and our enemies). Moreover, the Psalms are full of Christ's love. Psalm 1, for example, mentions that "the LORD knoweth (loves) the way of the righteous," and Psalm 2 speaks particularly of Christ saying, "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." We could go on and on. My readers my recall my previous post contrasting certain modern worshipper-centered worship vs. God-centered worship (link).

Finally, B2k8 thinks that "You relish in the doctrine of infant damnation as if damning innocent infants for another man's sin was some great honor and glory to your manmade god." Mostly this is already addressed above. It is addressed at further link in this previous post (link).

-TurretinFan

I might be a ...

BookNerd, according to JT at Between Two World (link).

Practical Calvinism

MAV at the HoldFast blog, has provided an interesting post on practical Calvnism (link). I especially enjoyed the part where he quoted a definition of Calvinism as "that sight of the majesty of God that pervades all of life and all of experience." Amen!

-TurretinFan

Marveling at God's Creation

There has been discovery made of a bacteria that apparently obtains its energy without the use of oxygen (link). Of course, this will be used by scoffers to assert the evolutionary hypothesis, but it is an interesting specimen for legitimate scientific purposes as well.

If the bacteria can produce energy without oxygen, this could pave the way for new energy technologies that do not compete with us for oxygen, and that do not produce as a byproduct carbon-dioxide and -monoxide. It will be interesting to see if anything useful comes from the discovery of these marvels of God's design.

-TurretinFan

Wes White on the Regulative Principle of Worship

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Pastor Wes White's blog post on the Regulative Principle of Worship (link). Obviously, Pastor White and I would disagree over some minor aspects presented in his article, but on the major points of the article, he hits the nail right on the head.

Pastor Wes White wrote:

Second, even if we only sang psalms, there would still be problems. You could still do a light, happy-clappy type worship just singing psalms. Indeed, many of the modern praise choruses are simply portions of psalms. Thus, I think that trying to use the RPW to solve everything is a dead end.

Indeed, that is so! RPW is the second commandment, but "happy-clappy type worship" that disrespects God is a violation not of the second commandment but of the third commandment. Just as it would be God-dishonoring to practice Exclusive Psalmody (EP) in a church that denied the Trinity (violation of the first commandment) or in a church that refused to meet weekly on the Lord's Day (violation of the fourth commandment), so also it would be God-dishonoring to practice EP in a way that loses sight of the fact that worship is to be directed Godward, and to be suitably respectful to our great God and King.

Following the Second Commandment doesn't get you off the hook with respect to the other three commandments of the first table!

-TurretinFan

Reformed Mafia Raided!

Well, perhaps the story is not nearly as exciting as that, but I was still sorry to see that the Reformed Mafia blog indicated that it was "Closed for Season" (link). I notice that my friend Theojunkie shares my disappointment (link).

Proverbs 2

Proverbs 2
1My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; 2So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; 3Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; 4If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; 5Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. 6For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. 7He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly. 8He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints. 9Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path. 10When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul; 11Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee: 12To deliver thee from the way of the evil man, from the man that speaketh froward things; 13Who leave the paths of uprightness, to walk in the ways of darkness; 14Who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness of the wicked; 15Whose ways are crooked, and they froward in their paths: 16To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words; 17Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God. 18For her house inclineth unto death, and her paths unto the dead. 19None that go unto her return again, neither take they hold of the paths of life. 20That thou mayest walk in the way of good men, and keep the paths of the righteous. 21For the upright shall dwell in the land, and the perfect shall remain in it. 22But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and the transgressors shall be rooted out of it.

The entire chapter of Proverbs is a parental lecture explaining the value of listening to the parental advice.

Condition Precedent

The parent exhorts listening using an "if ... then ..." formulation. For the "If" portion, the parent provides four related parallel couplets:

1) If thou wilt receive my words || [if thou wilt] hide my commandments with thee
2) So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom || [so that thou] apply thine heart to understanding
3) If thou criest after knowledge || [if thou] liftest up thy voice for understanding
4) If thou seekest her as silver || [if thou] searchest for her as for hid treasure

The first couplet emphasizes possession of the information. "Receive my words" is placed in parallel to "hide my commandments." Notice the much deeper and yet clear sense that "hide my commandments" has. If it stood alone, one might wonder whether it referred to ignoring the commandments, but in parallel with "receive my words," we see that it refers to planting the seed of Scripture in one's heart.

Psalm 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

The second couplet emphasizes the acquisition of the information. "Incline thine ear" and "apply thine heart" are actions taken by the listener. It is not simply a passive reception of the Word of God, but an active pursuit. One is not only the flowerbed for the seed of God's word, but one tries to help plant it there in the first place.

The third couplet emphasizes the intensity of pursuit for the information. "Criest after" and "liftest up thy voice." The picture is of someone shouting to get attention. It's like the man calling "TAXI!" because he's running late for the airport. It's like a broker shouting out "BUY BUY" from the floor of the exchange. It's the voice of someone who wants to be heard, and who is seeking to make his request clear.

The fourth couplet emphasizes the valued placed on the information. "Seekest her as silver" and "searchest for her as for hid treasure." This is not a casual search that one might make, but a search into which one will put all of one's effort. Jesus provided the same kind of analogy to make a different point:

Luke 15:8-9
8Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it? 9And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.

The reward for this search energetic search for the acquisition and possession of precious information is spelled out as the "then" part of the "if ... then ..." format of this lecture.

The short version of this bounty is expressed in a parallel couplet:

thou shalt understand the fear of the LORD || [thou shalt] find the knowledge of God

The reward for the search is that one gets one is looking for, an understanding of the fear of the LORD and a knowledge of God. This is theology: to understand the fear of the LORD and to know God. The fear of the LORD here stands for a proper reverence of God, and the associated worship of our Creator and Provider. Likewise, the "knowledge of God," is not simply intellectual knowledge, but it is an intimate knowledge, a true love of God.

As the Apostle John explains:

1 John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

And the Apostle Paul states:

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

And Jesus said:

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

Obviously, our knowledge and love of God is a reflection of God's love for and knowledge of us, and consequently is never as strong as his, especially since we are merely creatures created in his image.

1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

And again:

1 John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

And further:

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

But contrast:

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

The lecture itself provides a great deal of explanation of what is involved, using essentially the "because ... therefore ..." form presented as "for ... then ...".

In the "for" section, it is explained how/that the Lord brings us this this knowledge using three couplets:

1) the LORD giveth wisdom || out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding
2) He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous || he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly.
3) He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints.

The knowledge of God comes from God, he gives it. This is the first point to be seen. The second point is related. Not only does he give it, he puts it in firmly. He "layeth up" the wisdom and is a "buckler" or shield for the person who is following God's law. The shield or buckler is a defensive weapon - it guards from attacks. The third point is that God goes beyond protecting from external attacks, and also even essentially guides the feet of his people: keeping them on the path.

This last couplet is, of course, one of the classic proofs for the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. God is the author of our faith, he is the one who puts wisdom into us, like someone hiding something important.

The word translated "layeth up" here is the word צפן (tsaphan) which is the same word used, for example, to speak of how Moses' mother "hid" him three months after he was born. God takes his word and puts it in us in a secure place.

Proceeding to the result of this activity of God, we see the "then" clause:

Then shalt thou understand:
righteousness || judgment || equity || every good path

These four concepts are generally of overlapping scope. Judgment and equity are specific examples of righteousness, and "every good path" is a catch-all for righteous behavior. What is interesting that each of the examples is behavior: it is doing what is right. What will be understood by the person whom God blesses with Wisdom is the way in which he should live.

The lecture continues by providing more detail regarding this blessing:

When wisdom entereth into thine heart || [when] knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul

[then] Discretion shall preserve thee || [then] understanding shall keep thee

Notice emphasis on the preservative effect of wisdom. When you obtain wisdom - when it enters your heart, when it becomes pleasant to your soul, then you are preserved. It's a bit like salt that entering into meat preserves it. But the corruption preserved against is not only rotting - but also the corruption of falling, tripping, or stumbling.

This preservation is explained further negatively and positively. Negatively, a set of parallels is used:

To deliver thee from the way of the evil man || To deliver thee from the strange woman

The evil man is described with the following parallels:

from the way of the evil man || from the man that speaketh froward things || who leave the paths of uprightness, to walk in the ways of darkness || who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness of the wicked || whose ways are crooked, and they froward in their paths:

Notice how there are even further parallels within the parallels. This is a most beautiful and complex structure. We've noted above that the whole description of deliverance from the evil man is parallel to deliverance from the strange woman. Within that parallel are the descriptions of the evil man. Within those, in three instances there are further internal parallels:

a) leave the paths of uprightness || walk in the ways of darkness
b) rejoice to do evil || delight in the frowardness of the wicked
c) ways are crooked || froward in their paths

Notice that the first and last of these three are focused on staying on the figurative straight path of righteousness. Furthermore, for these wicked men, the second parallel emphasizes that they love to do evil - their departure from the straight path is something they love. Having God's word in one's heart preserves one from those sorts of desires.

The second negative image is that of deliverance from the strange woman. Again, multiple parallel images are used:

from the strange woman || from the stranger which flattereth with her words || which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God || For her house inclineth unto death, and her paths unto the dead || none that go unto her return again, neither take they hold of the paths of life.

Notice that the picture of the strange woman here, is essentially that of a prostitute or even simply an adulterous woman who lures in men through flattering words. If the evil man is simply someone who loves wickedness, the adulterous woman is a step further: she loves wickedness in a way that destroys not only herself but others. As with the pictures of the evil man, three of the depictions of the strange woman have internal parallels:

a) which forsaketh the guide of her youth || [which] forgetteth the covenant of her God
b) her house inclineth unto death || her paths unto the dead
c) none that go unto her return again || neither take they hold of the paths of life

Here, the latter two parallels focus on the ultimate demise of her and those who accompany her. The former parallel emphasizes the fact that her wickedness is a departure. Those raised in Christian homes should take this warning particularly to heart.

Having presented these negative warnings, a positive presentation is finally provided with a single parallel:

That thou mayest walk in the way of good men || [that thou mayest] keep the paths of the righteous

This is no surprise. One is being protected against going off the path and from following the prostitute to destruction. So, naturally, the positive characteristic of the word of God in one's heart is to keep on on the path of righteousness.

Finally, the lecture is concluded with a pair of contrasting parallels, positive, then negative using a "for ... but ..." layout:

Positive (For): the upright shall dwell in the land || the perfect shall remain in it
Negative (But): the wicked shall be cut off from the earth || the transgressors shall be rooted out of it

Notice the contrast, the righteous man lives, but the wicked dies - the perfect remains, but the transgressors are plucked out by the roots, completely removed. It is a very stern warning to be righteous.

Furthermore, it is essentially the same warning/promise we see in the fifth commandment:

Exodus 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Deuteronomy 5:16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Ephesians 6:2-3
2Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) 3That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

Thus, the parental lecture of this chapter can be seen as an elaborate, beautiful argument for and explanation of the 5th commandment.

Original (Hebrew)
Proverbs 2
1 בני אם־תקח אמרי ומצותי תצפן אתך׃
2 להקשׁיב לחכמה אזנך תטה לבך לתבונה׃
3 כי אם לבינה תקרא לתבונה תתן קולך׃
4 אם־תבקשׁנה ככסף וכמטמונים תחפשׂנה׃
5 אז תבין יראת יהוה ודעת אלהים תמצא׃
6 כי־יהוה יתן חכמה מפיו דעת ותבונה׃
7 וצפן לישׁרים תושׁיה מגן להלכי תם׃
8 לנצר ארחות משׁפט ודרך חסידו ישׁמר׃
9 אז תבין צדק ומשׁפט ומישׁרים כל־מעגל־טוב׃
10 כי־תבוא חכמה בלבך ודעת לנפשׁך ינעם׃
11 מזמה תשׁמר עליך תבונה תנצרכה׃
12 להצילך מדרך רע מאישׁ מדבר תהפכות׃
13 העזבים ארחות ישׁר ללכת בדרכי־חשׁך׃
14 השׂמחים לעשׂות רע יגילו בתהפכות רע׃
15 אשׁר ארחתיהם עקשׁים ונלוזים במעגלותם׃
16 להצילך מאשׁה זרה מנכריה אמריה החליקה׃
17 העזבת אלוף נעוריה ואת־ברית אלהיה שׁכחה׃
18 כי שׁחה אל־מות ביתה ואל־רפאים מעגלתיה׃
19 כל־באיה לא ישׁובון ולא־ישׂיגו ארחות חיים׃
20 למען תלך בדרך טובים וארחות צדיקים תשׁמר׃
21 כי־ישׁרים ישׁכנו־ארץ ותמימים יותרו בה׃
22 ורשׁעים מארץ יכרתו ובוגדים יסחו ממנה׃

LXX (Greek)
Proverbs 2
1Υἱέ, ἐὰν δεξάμενος ῥῆσιν ἐμῆς ἐντολῆς κρύψῃς παρὰ σεαυτῷ, 2ὑπακούσεται σοφίας τὸ οὖς σου, καὶ παραβαλεῖς καρδίαν σου εἰς σύνεσιν, παραβαλεῖς δὲ αὐτὴν ἐπὶ νουθέτησιν τῷ υἱῷ σου. 3ἐὰν γὰρ τὴν σοφίαν ἐπικαλέσῃ καὶ τῇ συνέσει δῷς φωνήν σου, τὴν δὲ αἴσθησιν ζητήσῃς μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ, 4καὶ ἐὰν ζητήσῃς αὐτὴν ὡς ἀργύριον καὶ ὡς θησαυροὺς ἐξερευνήσῃς αὐτήν, 5τότε συνήσεις φόβον κυρίου καὶ ἐπίγνωσιν θεοῦ εὑρήσεις. 6ὅτι κύριος δίδωσιν σοφίαν, καὶ ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ γνῶσις καὶ σύνεσις· 7καὶ θησαυρίζει τοῖς κατορθοῦσι σωτηρίαν, ὑπερασπιεῖ τὴν πορείαν αὐτῶν 8τοῦ φυλάξαι ὁδοὺς δικαιωμάτων καὶ ὁδὸν εὐλαβουμένων αὐτὸν διαφυλάξει. 9τότε συνήσεις δικαιοσύνην καὶ κρίμα καὶ κατορθώσεις πάντας ἄξονας ἀγαθούς. 10ἐὰν γὰρ ἔλθῃ ἡ σοφία εἰς σὴν διάνοιαν, ἡ δὲ αἴσθησις τῇ σῇ ψυχῇ καλὴ εἶναι δόξῃ, 11βουλὴ καλὴ φυλάξει σε, ἔννοια δὲ ὁσία τηρήσει σε, 12ἵνα ῥύσηταί σε ἀπὸ ὁδοῦ κακῆς καὶ ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς λαλοῦντος μηδὲν πιστόν. 13ὦ οἱ ἐγκαταλείποντες ὁδοὺς εὐθείας τοῦ πορεύεσθαι ἐν ὁδοῖς σκότους, 14οἱ εὐφραινόμενοι ἐπὶ κακοῖς καὶ χαίροντες ἐπὶ διαστροφῇ κακῇ, 15ὧν αἱ τρίβοι σκολιαὶ καὶ καμπύλαι αἱ τροχιαὶ αὐτῶν 16τοῦ μακράν σε ποιῆσαι ἀπὸ ὁδοῦ εὐθείας καὶ ἀλλότριον τῆς δικαίας γνώμης. 17υἱέ, μή σε καταλάβῃ κακὴ βουλὴ ἡ ἀπολείπουσα διδασκαλίαν νεότητος καὶ διαθήκην θείαν ἐπιλελησμένη· 18ἔθετο γὰρ παρὰ τῷ θανάτῳ τὸν οἶκον αὐτῆς καὶ παρὰ τῷ ᾅδῃ μετὰ τῶν γηγενῶν τοὺς ἄξονας αὐτῆς· 19πάντες οἱ πορευόμενοι ἐν αὐτῇ οὐκ ἀναστρέψουσιν οὐδὲ μὴ καταλάβωσιν τρίβους εὐθείας· οὐ γὰρ καταλαμβάνονται ὑπὸ ἐνιαυτῶν ζωῆς. 20εἰ γὰρ ἐπορεύοντο τρίβους ἀγαθάς, εὕροσαν ἂν τρίβους δικαιοσύνης λείους. 21χρηστοὶ ἔσονται οἰκήτορες γῆς, ἄκακοι δὲ ὑπολειφθήσονται ἐν αὐτῇ, ὅτι εὐθεῖς κατασκηνώσουσι γῆν, καὶ ὅσιοι ὑπολειφθήσονται ἐν αὐτῇ· 22ὁδοὶ ἀσεβῶν ἐκ γῆς ὀλοῦνται, οἱ δὲ παράνομοι ἐξωσθήσονται ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς.

Vulgate (Latin)
Proverbs 2
1fili mi si susceperis sermones meos et mandata mea absconderis penes te 2ut audiat sapientiam auris tua inclina cor tuum ad noscendam prudentiam 3si enim sapientiam invocaveris et inclinaveris cor tuum prudentiae 4si quaesieris eam quasi pecuniam et sicut thesauros effoderis illam 5tunc intelleges timorem Domini et scientiam Dei invenies 6quia Dominus dat sapientiam et ex ore eius scientia et prudentia 7custodiet rectorum salutem et proteget gradientes simpliciter 8servans semitas iustitiae et vias sanctorum custodiens 9tunc intelleges iustitiam et iudicium et aequitatem et omnem semitam bonam 10si intraverit sapientia cor tuum et scientia animae tuae placuerit 11consilium custodiet te prudentia servabit te 12ut eruaris de via mala ab homine qui perversa loquitur 13qui relinquunt iter rectum et ambulant per vias tenebrosas 14qui laetantur cum malefecerint et exultant in rebus pessimis 15quorum viae perversae et infames gressus eorum 16ut eruaris a muliere aliena et ab extranea quae mollit sermones suos 17et relinquit ducem pubertatis suae 18et pacti Dei sui oblita est inclinata est enim ad mortem domus eius et ad impios semitae ipsius 19omnes qui ingrediuntur ad eam non revertentur nec adprehendent semitas vitae 20ut ambules in via bona et calles iustorum custodias 21qui enim recti sunt habitabunt in terra et simplices permanebunt in ea 22impii vero de terra perdentur et qui inique agunt auferentur ex ea

Challenge to Pro-Choice Folks

Consider watching Rhology's video at Rhoblogy and leaving him a comment (link to video post). Warning, not for the weak of stomach. Abortion is murder, and from Rhology's description, photos of the victims of the murder are shown in the video. I myself am not willing to watch the video - but then again I am pro-life.

If you honestly believe that a fetus is simply part of a woman's body ...

Shame on you.

-TurretinFan

Nepalese Darkness

Here's an interesting, if somewhat depressing, story about the spiritual darkness that exists in Nepal. (link) The little girl in the story has been selected to be a living goddess until she becomes a woman, living practically in isolation during that time, and superstitiously feared as causing premature death in husbands once she is no longer a "goddess." It is a sad tale of superstition.

There is one God, and only one. That God does not live in temples made with hands, and is not worshiped with the works of men's hands, as though he needed anything. Let us continue to pray that the Gospel light will shine in these places of darkness, so that they may be set free from the bondage of this folly.

-TurretinFan

Proverbs 1:20-33

Proverbs 1:20-33

20Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: 21She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying, 22How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? 23Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. 24Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; 25But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: 26I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; 27When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. 28Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: 29For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: 30They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. 31Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. 32For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them. 33But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

This is the first appearance of Wisdom - in anthropomorphic representation. Wisdom is pictured as a woman, calling out something like a preacher. This makes sense, because Wisdom's message is in essence the gospel. The Greek name is especially beautiful here Σοφία (Sophia) but perhaps some will say that the Hebrew name (חכמות - Chakmoth) is also beautiful. This Hebrew name for Wisdom is used only one place in the Bible, outside of the book of Proverbs, in a Psalm for the sons of Korah:

Psalm 49:3-4
3My mouth shall speak of wisdom (חכמות - Chakmoth); and the meditation of my heart shall be of understanding. 4I will incline mine ear to a parable: I will open my dark saying upon the harp.

Now, in our present book of proverbs, Solomon is speaking of Wisdom, and providing her sermon.

The first point to be seen is in respect to this sermon is that Wisdom's message is delivered publicly. The following parallels are presented:

Wisdom crieth || she uttereth her voice || She crieth || she uttereth her words

without (outside) || in the streets || in the chief place of concourse || in the openings of the gates in the city

Wisdom's message is vocal and public. She doesn't just send forth her message in some back alley or hidden away in a closet, but in the "chief place of concourse" and "in the openings of gates in the city" the busiest places in the city. Today men spend less of their time outdoors, but still Wisdom calls out publicly - where everyone can hear, whether that be in the marketplace, in the factory, or on the Internet. Wherever there are people, Wisdom proclaims her message.

The message is a simple, though not particularly complimentary one:

How long,

ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? ||the scorners delight in their scorning? || fools hate knowledge?

How long will this go on? In other words, stop. Stop loving simplicity, stop delighting in scorning, stop hating knowledge. These things are all the same. The fool of Proverbs loves ignorance, "Ignorance is bliss," is perhaps his unofficial motto. He hates knowledge and wallows in his ignorance like a pig wallows in the mud. He is the same one who heaps scorn on what he doesn't understand. He loves mocking and he mocks what he should believe.

Wisdom offers knowledge. She declares that if the fool repents, he will receive the spirit of knowledge: that she will make known her words unto him. (Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:) We are sometimes mocked by the enemies of the Gospel, as suggesting that we have only Wisdom's words. We have also that spirit of Wisdom by which the words of Wisdom are made known unto us.

Wisdom continues by explaining what the response to her preaching has been:

I have called, and ye refused || I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; || ye have set at nought all my counsel || [ye] would none of my reproof

The fool ignores the preached word of wisdom. She says, "come here and learn," and he declines. She beckons to him, but he rebuffs it. He ignores her advice as though it were worthless and blows off her criticism.

Wisdom then points out what she will do in view of this failure to heed the warnings given:

I also will laugh at your calamity || I will mock when your fear cometh

There is coming a time when the mockers will be mocked and when the scorners will be scorned. I listened today to a Muslim comedian mocking Christianity. He clearly thought himself enormously funny. If he continues to ignore wisdom, however, there is coming a day when he will face calamity and fear: in that day, when it truly matters, he will find himself the subject of ridicule.

Wisdom continues:

When your fear cometh as desolation || [when] your destruction cometh as a whirlwind || when distress and anguish cometh upon you

The time of fear, distress, anguish, and destruction will come. There is not a question about whether it will come - it certainly is coming.

At that time, Wisdom indicates:

Then shall they call upon me, || they shall seek me early,

but I will not answer || but they shall not find me:

The fool will not remain foolish forever. Eventually he will try to call upon God, but God will not answer him - he will try to seek God, but will be unable to find him. It will be too late to repent at that time, though if the fool now turned from his folly, God would answer and those that seek God now, will find him.

Wisdom continues by essentially reiterating the previous point:

For that (because)

they hated knowledge || [they] did not choose the fear of the LORD || They would none of my counsel || they despised all my reproof

Therefore

they shall eat of the fruit of their own way || [they shall] be filled with their own devices.

Knowledge, the fear of the LORD, his counsel, and his reproof are all roughly synonymous. They are all alike despised by the fool. The result: they get what they deserve - what is coming to them for doing what they did. Destruction is the fruit of the tree of folly. The concept "be filled with" is basically the idea of them be stuffed with this fruit that they cultivated (Latin is lovely here: "saturabuntur" - cognate for "saturated"). They'll be richly rewarded with what they have earned by their folly.

Finally, Wisdom summarizes here message:

Negatively the message is:

For the turning away of the simple shall slay them || the prosperity of fools shall destroy them

It is the rejection of wisdom that, in essence, is the reason the fools reject wisdom. Likewise, their current prosperity (whether gained by avarice - as in the previous parable - or otherwise) destroys them, by blocking them from turning from their foolishness.

But there is a positive side to Wisdom's message, as well:

But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely || [he] shall be quiet from fear of evil

The person who hears Wisdom's cry and repents, will be saved from the coming destruction. It is really that simple. It is the gospel message: Repent and believe, for the kingdom of God is at hand.

Original (Hebrew)
Proverbs 1:20-33
20 חכמות בחוץ תרנה ברחבות תתן קולה׃
21 בראשׁ המיות תקרא בפתחי שׁערים בעיר אמריה תאמר׃
22 עד־מתי פתים תאהבו פתי ולצים לצון חמדו להם וכסילים ישׂנאו־דעת׃
23 תשׁובו לתוכחתי הנה אביעה לכם רוחי אודיעה דברי אתכם׃
24 יען קראתי ותמאנו נטיתי ידי ואין מקשׁיב׃
25 ותפרעו כל־עצתי ותוכחתי לא אביתם׃
26 גם־אני באידכם אשׂחק אלעג בבא פחדכם׃
27 בבא כשׁאוה פחדכם ואידכם כסופה יאתה בבא עליכם צרה וצוקה׃
28 אז יקראנני ולא אענה ישׁחרנני ולא ימצאנני׃
29 תחת כי־שׂנאו דעת ויראת יהוה לא בחרו׃
30 לא־אבו לעצתי נאצו כל־תוכחתי׃
31 ויאכלו מפרי דרכם וממעצתיהם ישׂבעו׃
32 כי משׁובת פתים תהרגם ושׁלות כסילים תאבדם׃
33 ושׁמע לי ישׁכן־בטח ושׁאנן מפחד רעה׃

LXX (Greek)
Proverbs 1:20-33
20Σοφία ἐν ἐξόδοις ὑμνεῖται, ἐν δὲ πλατείαις παρρησίαν ἄγει, 21ἐπ᾿ ἄκρων δὲ τειχέων κηρύσσεται, ἐπὶ δὲ πύλαις δυναστῶν παρεδρεύει, ἐπὶ δὲ πύλαις πόλεως θαρροῦσα λέγει 22Ὅσον ἂν χρόνον ἄκακοι ἔχωνται τῆς δικαιοσύνης, οὐκ αἰ σχυνθήσονται· οἱ δὲ ἄφρονες, τῆς ὕβρεως ὄντες ἐπιθυμηταί, ἀσεβεῖς γενόμενοι ἐμίσησαν αἴσθησιν 23καὶ ὑπεύθυνοι ἐγένοντο ἐλέγχοις. ἰδοὺ προήσομαι ὑμῖν ἐμῆς πνοῆς ῥῆσιν, διδάξω δὲ ὑμᾶς τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον. 24ἐπειδὴ ἐκάλουν καὶ οὐχ ὑπηκούσατε καὶ ἐξέτεινον λόγους καὶ οὐ προσείχετε, 25ἀλλὰ ἀκύρους ἐποιεῖτε ἐμὰς βουλάς, τοῖς δὲ ἐμοῖς ἐλέγχοις ἠπειθήσατε, 26τοιγαροῦν κἀγὼ τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ ἀπωλείᾳ ἐπιγελάσομαι, καταχαροῦμαι δέ, ἡνίκα ἂν ἔρχηται ὑμῖν ὄλεθρος, 27καὶ ὡς ἂν ἀφίκηται ὑμῖν ἄφνω θόρυβος, ἡ δὲ καταστροφὴ ὁμοίως καταιγίδι παρῇ, καὶ ὅταν ἔρχηται ὑμῖν θλῖψις καὶ πολιορκία, ἢ ὅταν ἔρχηται ὑμῖν ὄλεθρος. 28ἔσται γὰρ ὅταν ἐπικαλέσησθέ με, ἐγὼ δὲ οὐκ εἰσακούσομαι ὑμῶν· ζητήσουσίν με κακοὶ καὶ οὐχ εὑρήσουσιν. 29ἐμίσησαν γὰρ σοφίαν, τὸν δὲ φόβον τοῦ κυρίου οὐ προ είλαντο 30οὐδὲ ἤθελον ἐμαῖς προσέχειν βουλαῖς, ἐμυκτήριζον δὲ ἐμοὺς ἐλέγχους. 31τοιγαροῦν ἔδονται τῆς ἑαυτῶν ὁδοῦ τοὺς καρποὺς καὶ τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἀσεβείας πλησθήσονται· 32ἀνθ᾿ ὧν γὰρ ἠδίκουν νηπίους, φονευθήσονται, καὶ ἐξετασμὸς ἀσεβεῖς ὀλεῖ. 33ὁ δὲ ἐμοῦ ἀκούων κατασκηνώσει ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι καὶ ἡσυχάσει ἀφόβως ἀπὸ παντὸς κακοῦ.

Vulgate (Latin)
Proverbs 1:20-33
20sapientia foris praedicat in plateis dat vocem suam 21in capite turbarum clamitat in foribus portarum urbis profert verba sua dicens 22usquequo parvuli diligitis infantiam et stulti ea quae sibi sunt noxia cupiunt et inprudentes odibunt scientiam 23convertimini ad correptionem meam en proferam vobis spiritum meum et ostendam verba mea 24quia vocavi et rennuistis extendi manum meam et non fuit qui aspiceret 25despexistis omne consilium meum et increpationes meas neglexistis 26ego quoque in interitu vestro ridebo et subsannabo cum vobis quod timebatis advenerit 27cum inruerit repentina calamitas et interitus quasi tempestas ingruerit quando venerit super vos tribulatio et angustia 28tunc invocabunt me et non exaudiam mane consurgent et non invenient me 29eo quod exosam habuerint disciplinam et timorem Domini non susceperint 30nec adquieverint consilio meo et detraxerint universae correptioni meae 31comedent igitur fructus viae suae suisque consiliis saturabuntur 32aversio parvulorum interficiet eos et prosperitas stultorum perdet illos 33qui autem me audierit absque terrore requiescet et abundantia perfruetur malorum timore sublato

-TurretinFan

Psalm 25 - Dramatic Reading

Here's yet another dramatic reading of a Psalm. This time, the Psalm is Psalm 25. Again, the reader is Ryan Ferguson.



H.T. to Kenny Anderson at KennyBlog (link) for pointing this out to me.

-TurretinFan

Psalm 22 - Dramatic Reading

Here's another dramatic reading of a Psalm. This time, the Psalm is Psalm 22. The reader is Ryan Ferguson.


H.T. to Kenny Anderson at KennyBlog (link) for pointing this out to me.

-TurretinFan

BBC on Siniaticus - Three Reactions

As someone once pointed out to me, it seems journalists are able to get a handle on most topics. The topics that they really botch are the ones you personally happen to know something about.

Three blogs that know something about the textual transmission of the New Testament react to the BBC's discussion of Siniaticus:

Dr. James White at the Team Apologian blog (link).

MAV at the HoldFast blog (link).

Dirk Jongkind at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog (link).

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

Proverbs 1:17-19

Proverbs 1:17-19
Pro 1:17 Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.
Pro 1:18 And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives.
Pro 1:19 So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.

This parable may be seen as a continuation of the previous one, or perhaps as a separate parable. The "they" in verse 17 is still the wicked. The format of this parable, however, is to show the foolishness of the wicked.

The "net" mentioned is a snare net used to catch birds in the era before shotguns. The point of verse 17 is to simply point out that if you set a trap for a bird while the bird is watching, it is not going to do any good. It's pointless or vain to waste your time on such an activity.

This foolishness is then compared to the even greater foolishness of the wicked. They are described as ambushing themselves. Not only do they know of the net that they are about to be snared in, they themselves set in place! This is the sort of activity that makes the Dodo look brilliant.

Notice how poetic paralleling is again used to reinforce the point of what it is that the wicked are doing:

they lay wait for || they lurk privily for

their own blood || their own lives.

Both laying wait for, and lurking privily for are descriptions of an ambush, and both "their own blood" and "their own lives" indicates murderous intent. They are their own assassins.

The parable concludes by identifying the wicked people mentioned. These are people who are "greedy of gain." In general, these are people who have avarice: they desire material wealth that is not already theirs, and this is their driving force. It's a suicidal urge.

We know that it is a suicidal urge, because of the way that the parable concludes: "which taketh away the life of the owners thereof." Material wealth can be like a poison. One doesn't normally see headlines like, "Man killed by wealth," and yet that is the effect that wealth can have on man.

In reading this verse in English, it seems like the verse may be speaking of people who are so greedy for gain, they kill people in order to get wealthy. This would go well with the idea that the previous parable and this parable are all one parable. Nevertheless, it seems that this is not what is intended, but instead the connection is to gain itself (את - eth) taking away the life of its owner.

In any event, the warning is clear: it is foolishness to listen to the call of avarice and greedily seek after wealth. A bird has the sense to avoid a trap that it sees being set for it, so also a man should have the sense to see that his quest for wealth is a trap for his own soul.

Original (Hebrew)
Proverbs 1:17-19
17 כי־חנם מזרה הרשׁת בעיני כל־בעל כנף׃
18 והם לדמם יארבו יצפנו לנפשׁתם׃
19 כן ארחות כל־בצע בצע את־נפשׁ בעליו יקח׃

LXX (Greek)
Proverbs 1:17-19
17οὐ γὰρ ἀδίκως ἐκτείνεται δίκτυα πτερωτοῖς. 18αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἱ φόνου μετέχοντες θησαυρίζουσιν ἑαυτοῖς κακά, ἡ δὲ καταστροφὴ ἀνδρῶν παρανόμων κακή. 19αὗται αἱ ὁδοί εἰσιν πάντων τῶν συντελούντων τὰ ἄνομα· τῇ γὰρ ἀσεβείᾳ τὴν ἑαυτῶν ψυχὴν ἀφαιροῦνται.

Vulgate (Latin)
Proverbs 1:17-19
17frustra autem iacitur rete ante oculos pinnatorum 18ipsique contra sanguinem suum insidiantur et moliuntur fraudes contra animas suas 19sic semitae omnis avari animas possidentium rapiunt

-TurretinFan

Free Books in Florida

If you are in Florida and are a suitable candidate for receiving freebies (a seminary student or a poor elder, for example) you may want to check out this option, which really seems too good to be true (link).

-TurretinFan

Jonathan Edwards - Birthday and Works

Jonathan Edwards was born 305 years ago today. Arguably, he is the greatest genius in American philosophy and theology to date. He was also a very instrumental preacher. Perhaps today he is most well known for his work on Freedom of the Will (in theology and philosophy) and his sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." His works, in 73 volumes, are now available on-line here (link).



Image by Matthew Lankford, (C) 2008, used by permission and with appreciation.

-TurretinFan

Psalm 145 - Dramatic Reading

Today, I came across an interesting dramatic reading of Psalm 145. There are few things I'd nitpick over (such as the cheering, the fact that Psalm is really designed to be sung, and some of the weird facial expressions and gestures of the presenter), but if you simply listen to the clip you'll get to hear a reading of the one hundred forty-fifth psalm in the ESV.



H.T. to Sarah at Sarah's Journal for pointing this out (link).

UPDATE: Evidently the man reading this psalm is Ryan Ferguson.

Proverbs 1:10-16

Proverbs 1:10-16
10My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. 11If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause: 12Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit: 13We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil: 14Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse: 15My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path: 16For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.

The main point of this proverb is to be careful who you befriend. As James wrote:

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

We need to be careful who we become friends with, particularly when we are young. Innumerable old men can testify of foolishness and crime in which they were involved as young men, because they were hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Notice the way in which the warning is presented: when sinners entice you, don't consent. The English word "entice" may be a bit softer than the sense of the Hebrew word here, but it conveys the general sense that what is happening is soft coercion, not hard coercion. It's not when sinners "force" you or "compel" you, but when they "entice" (KJV) you or "lure" (MKJV) you. This same Hebrew word (פּתה - pathah) is used in Exodus 22:16 to describe a young unmarried woman who is seduced and in 2 Chronicles 18:19-21 to describe the lying spirit sent to deceive Ahab.

The parable includes a specific example. In the specific example, the allurement of the sinners is, in essence, "let's become bandits." What is involved? Kill some people, steal what they have, and become rich.

It's presented this way, one presumes, for shock value. This is not the way in which the young man is likely to get ensnared, for one's conscience informs one that killing innocent people is bad. Instead, the actual presentation tends to focus on the money: "you'll be rich," is the temptation posed.

And furthermore, there is some camaraderie thrown into the mix. Notice how they "cast in your lot with us." The sense is "try your luck with us" or simply "let's seek our fortune together." It's an alluring call, because the idea is not only one focusing on the temptations of "chance" and "luck," but also on the fact that like friends, they are going to be in it together.

This is reinforced by the partnership proposed: "let us all have one purse." The purse here is simply a bag of money. It's as though they are saying, "let's all share the same bank account." It's a way - in economic terms - for parties to bond their willingness to be partners together, to share money without division among the group.

It should be noted that this same practice (one bag for the group) was practiced not only among some of the early Christians (Acts 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.) but even within the band of disciples that followed Jesus continually (John 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.).

This sort of friendship can be good, and is alluring to those who want friends, but is dangerous and destructive when one becomes partners with thieves and murderers.

To remind us of that, the parable concludes with a restatement of the same point, using the poetic parallelisms form we saw earlier:

"walk not thou in the way with them;" || "refrain thy foot from their path:"

The point should not be thought of as literally not walking on roads owned by sinners, or on sidewalks where sinners are currently walking. Instead, the point is not to become part of their group of friends. Don't hang out with them. Right now the walk may simply seem like an innocent jaunt about town, but that is not where it will end up.

"For their feet run to evil," || "and [their feet] make haste to shed blood."

This simply the way that the wicked go. They tend to do that which is sinful in God's sight. Whether it is the general category of "evil" or the specific example of "shed[ding] blood" their path is taking them to that activity, and fast.

As the Apostle Paul writes:

1 Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

Even so, let us not be deceived, but let us seek out friendship among the brethren. That does not mean cutting ourselves off from the world, and never interacting with those around us who are lost. It does, however, indicate that those people who are living in wickedness should not be the same people we consider our friends - those with whom we will cast in our lot, and with whom we will seek our fortune.

Original (Hebrew)
Proverbs 1:10-16
10 בני אם־יפתוך חטאים אל־תבא׃
11 אם־יאמרו לכה אתנו נארבה לדם נצפנה לנקי חנם׃
12 נבלעם כשׁאול חיים ותמימים כיורדי בור׃
13 כל־הון יקר נמצא נמלא בתינו שׁלל׃
14 גורלך תפיל בתוכנו כיס אחד יהיה לכלנו׃
15 בני אל־תלך בדרך אתם מנע רגלך מנתיבתם׃
16 כי רגליהם לרע ירוצו וימהרו לשׁפך־דם׃

LXX (Greek)
Proverbs 1:10-16
10υἱέ, μή σε πλανήσωσιν ἄνδρες ἀσεβεῖς, μηδὲ βουληθῇς, ἐὰν παρακαλέσωσί σε λέγοντες 11Ἐλθὲ μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν, κοινώνησον αἵματος, κρύψωμεν δὲ εἰς γῆν ἄνδρα δίκαιον ἀδίκως, 12καταπίωμεν δὲ αὐτὸν ὥσπερ ᾅδης ζῶντα καὶ ἄρωμεν αὐτοῦ τὴν μνήμην ἐκ γῆς· 13τὴν κτῆσιν αὐτοῦ τὴν πολυτελῆ καταλαβώμεθα, πλήσωμεν δὲ οἴκους ἡμετέρους σκύλων· 14τὸν δὲ σὸν κλῆρον βάλε ἐν ἡμῖν, κοινὸν δὲ βαλλάντιον κτησώμεθα πάντες, καὶ μαρσίππιον ἓν γενηθήτω ἡμῖν. 15μὴ πορευθῇς ἐν ὁδῷ μετ᾿ αὐτῶν, ἔκκλινον δὲ τὸν πόδα σου ἐκ τῶν τρίβων αὐτῶν· 16οἱ γὰρ πόδες αὐτῶν εἰς κακίαν τρέχουσιν καὶ ταχινοὶ τοῦ ἐκχέαι αἷμα·

Vulgate (Latin)
Proverbs 1:10-16
10fili mi si te lactaverint peccatores ne adquiescas 11si dixerint veni nobiscum insidiemur sanguini abscondamus tendiculas contra insontem frustra 12degluttiamus eum sicut infernus viventem et integrum quasi descendentem in lacum 13omnem pretiosam substantiam repperiemus implebimus domos nostras spoliis 14 sortem mitte nobiscum marsuppium unum sit omnium nostrum 15fili mi ne ambules cum eis prohibe pedem tuum a semitis eorum 16pedes enim illorum ad malum currunt et festinant ut effundant sanguinem

-TurretinFan