(I don’t normally duplicate posts with the BiblePlaces Blog, but I’m guessing that some who might be interested in this post don’t read that blog.)
The teaser is now out. The movie, entitled “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” comes out on May 22. Wikipedia has details about the filming and there’s always the official website with a running countdown. It’s been 19 years since Indiana last helped us understand how archaeology really works. HT: Paleojudaica
Here’s some things you might enjoy:
Cool time-lapse video of San Francisco (1 min)
Cubicle warfare (2 min)
Today’s BiblePlaces Newsletter: Waterfalls of Israel (and why not subscribe?)
Someday I should read these books, the “top 12” for “knowing God” as recommended by the Biola honors program. I have read one of them.
A Valentine’s Day contest for ANE geeks
And a great quote, from Arthur Pink, The Attributes of God, via www.gracegems.org (but don’t race through this one):
In general, God directs His people by affording them, in answer to prayer, the light of His Holy Spirit, which enables them to understand and love the Scriptures. The Word of God furnishes us with just principles, right apprehensions, to govern our judgments and affections, thereby influencing and regulating our conduct. Those who study the Scriptures in humble dependence upon divine teaching, are convinced of their own weakness. They are taught to make a true estimate of everything around them and are gradually formed into a spirit of submission to the will of God. They discover the nature and duties of their situations and relations in life, and the snares and temptations to which they are exposed.
The Word of God dwelling in them is . . .
a preservative from error,
a light to their feet, and
a spring of strength and consolation.By treasuring up in his mind the doctrines, precepts, promises, exhortations, and warnings of Scripture; and by diligently comparing himself with the rule by which he is to walk–the Christian grows into a habitual frame of spiritual wisdom. He acquires a gracious taste which enables him to judge of right and wrong with a degree of readiness and certainty–as a musical ear judges sounds; so that he is rarely mistaken, because he is influenced by the love of Christ which rules in his heart, and a regard for the glory of God. Moreover, God has promised to show Himself strong on behalf of the one whose heart is perfect toward Him. He does this by regulating His providences, and causing all things to work together for his good.
Our daily walk is to be ordered by God’s Word. In proportion as it is so, we will be kept in His will and preserved from folly and sin.
One of the things I was asked in my oral entrance examination was about the relevance of Genesis 38 to the book. That is a good question. Why is this strange story of Judah and Tamar included in the midst of the Joseph story? Last week this came up in class and I share with you what the professor said:
Genesis 38 appears to be an interruption in the story of Joseph. Professor believes it is a study of contrasts. Chapter 37 ends with Joseph being sold into the house of Potiphar; chapter 39 begins with the very same thing. Chapter 38 gives us the “meanwhile back at the ranch.” So the chronology is tight but it fits. (The person who figured the chronology all out was Cassuto; critics say that the events cannot fit – you cannot have Judah becoming a grandfather in the interval between the sale of Joseph and the arrival of the brothers in Egypt. But Cassuto shows how. You need to know this.)
Our interest is in Joseph because he is the good guy. Professor talked about Gen 38 with Waltke. Waltke said to tell the students that Joseph’s character is flat; Judah is the interesting person, because his character develops downward and upward. Instead of seeing Judah as a foil for Joseph, which is what Professor has said for 30-some years, instead see Joseph as a foil for Judah. Of course the perfidy of Judah’s behavior would have led to the assimilation of his descendants as Canaanites, but it’s only when a Canaanite woman acted as more righteous than he that he was more ready to come back to the family and become part of the promised community. That is part of the explanation for taking the family into Egypt, where they would not assimilate.
I’m not so sure I like the foil idea (if this suggests that Joseph is somehow less important, or there are fewer lessons to learn, then I can’t agree). I do however like the last idea – that this story shows what would have happened to the nation of Israel if the sons had not gone to Egypt – they would have assimilated with the Canaanites and there wouldn’t have been a nation.
I decided against including his comments here on why he thinks that Moses divorced of Zipporah. If you want to know more, you can email me and I’ll send you the reference to a journal article where you can read about it.
I have a new system for collecting material for my blogs which may result in more collections of not-necessarily-related items in a single post, such as this one.
I’ve noticed more recently than I am bugged by worship leaders whose physical expressions seem to be directly related to the music style (and not the lyric content). I struggle to suppress the thought that maybe too much of their interest is in the melody about God and not to the God of the melody. I think that this guy struggles with the same thing, except with worshippers in general. I think his point is very worthy of consideration. You can also read a response by Bob Kauflin of Sovereign Grace.
Sometimes the people that affect you the most do so from a distance and you wonder what they’re really like. Usually their kids know best. John Piper’s son recently introduced his father before a message about Piper’s own father. I found it interesting and humorous. You can read or watch it here.
That intro was part of the recent Desiring God Pastor’s Conference, which you can listen to in its entirety here. I have heard that it was good, but haven’t had a chance yet to listen.
And to wrap up this post, here’s a quote that I came across recently in a commentary on Matthew by R. T. France, concerning Matthew 10:29: Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
The pregnant phrase ‘without your Father’ has been variously translated as ‘without your Father’s knowledge’ or ‘consent’ or ‘will’ or ‘care,’ depending on the view of divine sovereignty and providence which the translator holds: does God simply know about the death of the birds (and therefore also of his people), or does he allow it, or does it happen because he has decided on it, or is the point that even in their death they are not outside his loving concern? The issue can hardly be determined by exegesis of this text, with its cryptic ending–the theology needs to be imported from elsewhere (France 2007: 404).
This week Al Mohler spoke in a lecture series in DTS chapel on the “New Atheism.” In it, he addressed such influential writers as Dawkins and Hitchens. After the first lecture, I was told that a professor said that it was the best lecture he had ever heard. I was only able to attend his fourth and final lecture today and I was impressed, even though the subject isn’t one of foremost interest to me. Mohler knows how to communicate well and to put the cookies on (almost) the bottom shelf. For much of the message I was trying to figure out where the teleprompters were – he simply was speaking too eloquently and without looking at notes (and moving his head back and forth sort of rhythmically like a president giving the State of the Union address). Afterwards though, I checked the area personally and found no teleprompters. Maybe he has given this talk too many times before, or maybe his intellect and memory are truly amazing. From a conversation I had with a professor today who was part of a faculty meeting yesterday where they had time to question him, the reality is apparently the latter. In any case, you can watch those lectures at the DTS chapel website. They’re each about 35 minutes long.
A quick Google search came up with this article by Mohler on “The New Atheism?” which probably has some of the same ideas in briefer form and without reference to Hitchens’ more recent work.
I’m posting some more notes from last week’s lecture. As before, some critical points: 1) Don’t argue with me. These are notes I took from someone else’s lecture. In no place will you see any indication of my views. 2) Don’t ask me questions about this. I’d love to study it more and answer your questions, but I have other assignments that are required. Posting this is as much extra as I can handle on it. 3) Don’t assume that this discussion characterizes a school or a department. It does not. 4) Remember that I post this only to provoke your thinking (as well as to entertain, if you’re entertained by such things). 5) It’s possible that I wrote something down incorrectly. I’m typing as fast as I can but it’s easy enough to make mistakes. In addition to that, some context may be lost, given 6) These notes are greatly abridged because I don’t like to read long blog posts and I doubt that you do either. As it is, it’s longer than I would prefer. 7) These notes are not organized in parallel structure; just as lectures often get offtrack, so do my notes of lectures. 8) This discussion was only half of a 2.5 hour lecture; the second half was about Abraham. Here goes…
Gap Theory: This was a view that was popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible and found in a number of commentaries written through 1950s. Idea is that Gen 1:1 and 2 are sequential. Full stop after Gen 1:1. Then the earth became formless and void. Gen 1:1 – everything was created in perfection. In verse 2, that is a subsequent event to verse 1. The gap theorist said, how do we explain the transformation from the perfection of verse 1 to the clear chaos of verse 2. The Bible doesn’t say, but it would be reasonable to assume that Satan’s fall and judgment and the ruin of the earth occurred at this tie. Here is the problem: our present understanding of Hebrew grammar (I insist present because who knows what they ‘ll say tomorrow). Gen 1:1 is a circumstantial clause – it begins with a vav disjunctive, a noun, and no finite verb… [lengthy discussion omitted here]
The Jewish Publication Society, with an anti-trinitarian bias (the Jews have been beaten over the head over the centuries), so they render ruah as wind and elohim as an adjective, mighty. A mighty wind was blowing. This is possible. However, a mighty wind blowing does not fit the participle merahefet, because this is not roaring but hovering. Mighty wind doesn’t hover. This is what Professor would call a tendentious, sectarian translation. This is a translation based on a preconceived point of view that is going to roughshod over issues of grammar and language to make their point known. Professor said this in a public meeting in a synagogue library and a couple of the rabbis smile and said you nailed it on the head.
Day 1 vs. Day 4: One of the hang-ups that we al have is that light is created on day 1, but the sun and moon are not created until day 4. That is just a fact of the presentation. Some people say that the light that was created in Day 1 was an unfocusd and spread light, but it becomes focused in the sun on Day 4. That presents huge problems for Professor. Logically the earth existed before the sun; that is an enormous implausibility. Earth has its meaning in relation to the sun and other planets in the solar system. But if the sun isn’t made until day 4, how can the earth predate the sun?
Limited Time on Day 6: Limited time for events on that day to take place. It’s not that God can do everything in no time at all. If God wished to create everything in the universe in its present complex status in a nanosecond, we believe that God could do that. But it’s rather that the passage suggests the passage of time. Rather we should correlate Gen 1 and 2; and not to correlate them is a methodological error. Creationists seem to fail to correlate Gen 2. Here is God creating the man and when he makes the man then he makes the animals (very different from ch. 1), and the man is given the responsibility to name all of the animals, which isn’t just coming up with labels. He is studying, getting used to, and the names that he comes up with, and he discovers that there is none like himself. He discovers the sense of overwhelming loneliness and God puts him into a trance and makes a woman. The only way Genesis 2 works is if there is a lot of time there. But if you go back to Genesis 1, you go back to the 6th day, everything but the sea and air creatures he is making the creeping and crawling things and the beasts of the field and the animals that are capable of domestication and then the apex, man and woman. So we read that the creation of man in Gen 1 is at the end of a long series of created things, and then Gen 2, the creation of the man precedes the creation of the female and it has to be more than just a couple of hours in the afternoon. This is a major issue that has not been dealt with well by youth earth creationists.
24-Hour Day View: This is the oldest interpretation. The view that comes from reading the Bible, not from worrying about science. The age of the earth works far better with the chronologies of Gen 5 and 11 than any other system, because while there is some elasticity because you can’t stretch then for hundreds of thousands of years; that’s a pretty good argument, Professor thinks. Goal is to glorify God and honor the Bible. Those are some strong arguments for their point of view. Here is Professor’s problem: not with the view but with the proponents. They tend to say that if you don’t believe this, you don’t believe the Bible. This, to Professor, is outrageous. This is where Henry Morris was – if you don’t follow me on this, then you don’t believe the Bible.
What the Morris ‘ did was to attack the view of uniformitarianism. And that all hinges on the genesis flood. When the book by Morris and Whitcomb was popular, that seemed to answer a lot of questions. But this book hasn’t been revised. And there’s a great deal of talk today, even among the most conservative scholars that since we don’t have a flood record in the archaeological centers of the ancient world that is is possible that the flood was local after all. 40 years ago that wouldn’t have been brought up, but today lots are talking about it. What does “the whole earth” mean? Lots of talk of a local flood instead of global today. Everything we see in archaeology is post-flood if the flood was universal. So Morris says that all of the geological structures are from the flood.
Revelatory Day Theory: Popularized by Bernard Ramm in 1960s. He wrote a book entitled, The Christian View of Bible and Science. Professor told him that he really enjoyed his book but… and Ramm interrupted and said, you hate the title. Ramm did too. He was infuriated that the publisher put the title, with the definite article. Creation account is from perspective of the author (Moses). The days are the literal, 24-hour days in which God revealed His works to the author. These are days in Moses ‘ life when God revealed it to him. Topical arrangement of events – there is a general chronology, light comes before man, but not absolute chronology. This is a very creative approach (pun intended) to the creation story which gets us out of the trap of too little time or too much time. This is a novel view; novel views should always be held with some suspicion. Not far-fatched, but not immediately transparent. One would only come to this view when you realize that the standard alternatives are so problematic that we ‘re looking for something else that might work. None of the church fathers thought of this; Jewish readers never would have thought of this. This is an attempt to fit geology (a hard science), astronomy, biology into this.
Framework Model: The 7-day creation scheme is a figurative framework with the concepts of day and sequence not to be ta
ken as 24-hour days. Days are considered to be “heavenly days” or a literary device. This is Waltke’s view. This is a literary framework; not chronological. Chronological in that you ‘re moving from light to man. Marvelous pairing of these days. This makes this an exceedingly satisfying literary approach. Framework is now becoming the more popular current view among scholars.
Somewhere in there is where Professor is these days. But you have perfect freedom in this or any class to believe in young earth. Just be sure that when you are asked questions about it, you have thought through all of these options.
Everyone believes in evolution to some extent or another: do you believe in macroevolution, microevolution, and how do you understand it to take place? You can go to Carlsbad Caverns and there are species of fish that are born without any eye element whatever, because they live all of their eyes in darkness but they are clearly related to other fish species.
DNA: with the completion of the human genome, that is an epochal moment in the history of the world in science. Then, when we ‘re told, that 95 or more percent of our DNA is shared with chimpanzees, that is something that you have to deal with. Does that mean that we are common ancestors or that God used some of same materials. It is an affirmation of Christianity to believe that God is Creator; that is not just a footnote but an essential part of Christianity. But it is not necessary to understand how he did it, how long he took, etc. And Gen 1 has pride of place because it is the first chapter in the Bible, but it is but one of the creation texts, but if we really believe in inerrancy we ‘ll take the other texts as seriously as Gen 1 and in none of the other passages has anyone ever tried to see how these fit with science; all seem to be literary passages that affirm that god is the creator. Professor’s question: why do we do that with Gen 1 when we don’t do it anywhere else? So he wants to be agnostic on the process but committed to God as Creator.
Intelligent Design: an attempt by well-meaning people to have creation in the classroom when they ‘re told they can’t have creation in the classroom. Theory is good but incomplete; Bible doesn’t talk about intelligent design but intelligent designer. Strategy is a good strategy, but critics are pretty sharp. How can you talk about creation without talking about God? Eventually the G-word is going to come out and then your goose is cooked. We leave in an increasingly hostile society. Professor doesn’t know what we gain by this; if a person believes that the earth is the result of intelligent design but don’t believe about God, what’s the point? I guess it is pre-evangelism.
Film shown at seminary last night – arguing for Intelligent Design. A professor is excited about it. But made by a Jewish guy who doesn’t believe in God.
Some of you know that my favorite music, just after John Denver and Megadeth, is Sovereign Grace Music. I’ve bought many most all of their CDs over the years, usually at $14 a pop. But this month, all of their CDs are $6 each with free U.S. shipping. The reason why I like their music is the combination of solid, God-exalting lyrics with a good music line. There are lots of frippy songs out there, but they’re not on these CDs.
The Sovereign Grace Ministries Storefront will show you 
some of the latest material, but you can see a more complete selection of CDs than what is on the main page here. If you prefer traditional songs like hymns, I really like Upward. If you’re more contemporary, try Worship God Live. If you like Puritan prayers set to music, then Valley of Vision is for you. If you think ahead, you can get the Christmas CD, Savior, now for $6 and save it until December. A great kids’ CD (that I secretly enjoy) is Awesome God. If you think you have everything they’ve put out, you probably don’t have You and You Alone. (I have it on my desk, but haven’t had time to open it yet; I know, I should have waited for the sale.) If you would rather play than listen, the Songbook Set is now $40 instead of $75. If you’re into immediate gratification, you can purchase any of the CDs as mp3 files instead. If you’re wondering why they’re selling everything so cheaply, a full explanation is here.
The sale ends on February 29 or when supplies run out. I predict the latter will happen first.
Today in the Gospels/Acts seminar, we’re looking at Matthew 5-9. We had 30 questions to answer, which I spent about 7 hours on. Here are four of the questions with my answers. [We don’t turn in our answers; we just have to be ready when we are called on.] And now I am off to have lunch with someone far less famous in the world’s eyes than the Archibishop, but someone with whom many of my students would be jealous for the opportunity. [I note that he did not ask me to write a blurb for the back of his 2nd edition. He must not know how famous I am.]
3. What is the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount? Is there more than one?
Yes, more than one purpose.
1. To make clear the standard for entrance into the kingdom of heaven (cf. 5:20)
2. To explain the intention of the OT law, thus making clear how Israel falls short (cf. 5:21-48)
3. To instruct the disciples in practices of faith (giving, prayer, fasting, trust) (6:1-7:12)
4. To make clear that there are two paths and a decision must be made; it is either Jesus or the Pharisees, but not both (7:13-27)
8. How does Matthew 5:29-30 relate to 5:28?
In verse 28, the sin is committed in the heart, but the eye gives it opportunity. Thus while getting rid of the eye doesn’t necessarily solve the heart problem, Jesus’s point is that the most radical action should be taken in order to avoid sin.
Eye and hand are probably singled out because they are “removable” parts of the body, and it is better to lose them than to lose your whole body (France 2007: 206).
“The looking ‘in order to desire her, ‘ specifically of wanting (and planning?) sexual relations (hence my translation ‘wants to have sex with her ‘ above). The focus is thus not (as some tender adolescent consciences have read it) on sexual attraction as such, but on the desire for (and perhaps the planning of) an illicit sexual liaison” (France 2007: 204).
15. Paraphrase the Lord’s model prayer (6:9-13).
Short: As we long for your kingdom on earth, may your will be done in our lives today.
20. Who are the dogs and pigs of 7:6?
The expression using two unclean animals clearly speaks of undeserving people. Jesus referred to Gentiles as dogs in Matt 15:26-27, and pigs are of course food for Gentiles. But this certainly doesn’t mean that the Gentiles can’t share in the good news, but rather that one should, in Keener’s words (244), not try to “force it on those who show no inclination to accept it” (France 2007: 276-77). France prefers to not identify specifically who these people are and compares this with Paul’s teaching that only the “spiritual” can receive spiritual teaching in 1 Cor 2:13-16. Carson notes that this is the equivalent of the proverb “Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you” (Prov 9:8). This verse is related to the previous verses by warning against being “undiscerning simpletons” (Carson EBC 8:185).
Anybody ever heard of Desmond Tutu? Well, apparently he has heard of me. I don’t usually talk about my fame here (ok, that would be a short talk. Real short.) But my two fans might like to know that the Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town has this to say:
“The Cambridge Companion to the Bible was a remarkable contribution when it was first released in 1997, which only makes the achievements of this thoroughly updated second edition all the more impressive. The abundance of stunning new photos from Todd Bolen, the additional sidebars of useful, contextualized information, the new maps in each section, and the revised bibliographies and main text all make the second edition an essential book for serious students, clergy, and general readers alike.”
The fact that he mentions me by name suggests that he thinks I’m important. If only he knew…
I’m posting some excerpts of my class notes from Torah/Former Prophets. I do this only for those of you who enjoy sort of “peeking into” a doctoral course. I emphatically am not doing this 1) because I whole-heartedly agree with everything I heard; 2) because I completely reject everything and want everyone to laugh with me; 3) because everyone (or most, some, or even one other person) at this school agrees with this teacher; 4) because I want to have a big debate here. I do it for none of those reasons. In fact, I plan to not make one single comment. If you’re not sure what I believe, you might start by looking at the TMC doctrinal statement. Otherwise, see points #1, #2, #3, and #4 above. These notes are not complete, and I leave out parts of the discussion because of the nature of the blog. Again, my goal here isn’t to give you enough to convince you of a position (one way or the other), but to give you a taste of some things that I heard and to provoke your thinking. We now begin…
The Professor highly recommends James Houston, I Believe in God the Creator. Wonderful book; well written. His emphasis is that Gen 1 is not focused on creatio ex nihilo. That is shocking to many. It is almost a staple in evangelical circles that Gen 1 is about creation ex nihilo. Professor is going to argue that exegetically this is not the case at all. Houston says that even if this were true, that’s not the point. There is nothing in Gen 1 that requires ex nihilo – this is a statement of the church. What it does say is creation per verbum – creation by word. This is more far satisfying exegetically. Not how much creation was done in time as that it was done by the word of God.
Houston acknowledges the possibility of theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is not an anti-Christian view. Because after all it is theistic. That means that God is behind the evolutionary process. Professor would have thought when he graduated from DTS in 1968 and began teaching at Western in 1970 that you couldn’t be a theistic evolution and be a Christian. He was pretty sure that was the case. Houston argues against theistic evolution as a good idea because while the theism is commendable it is a distant theism and not a present theism and doesn’t matter in people’s daily lives.
Rad, Gerhard von. – when you alphabetize a bibliography, do it this way. von is an archaic sign of a family that is noble, from feudal times; honorific, and not really a name. von Rad – Lord of Rad. Alphabetize under Rad. But the same thing should be true in Dutch names, but the tendency is to alphabetize under “V”. Dutch name with de – that’s done under D. von rad is someone you really should read, not because of his understanding of origin of Bible text but because of his often unbelievably wonderful insights into meaning.
In 1983 there was a meeting of inerrantists, convened by Int ‘l Council of Biblical Inerrancy, in Chicago, and overall theme was hermeneutics. More than 2,000 participants, and all believed in inerrancy. At end of day, moderator (possibly Walter Kaiser) asked for a raise of hands because there was a lot of heat in the interchange of how many are in basic agreement on presentation on main paper, and also young earth view. Professor watched hands and he would guess 2/3 were for progressive creation view and only 1/3 for young earth view. He saw Henry Morris sink in his chair and start tearing. So Professor went over and invited him to lunch. When Professor asked him at lunch, he teared up again. Morris said that he believed these people didn’t believe the Bible. He said that they don’t believe the Bible is inerrant because if they don’t believe the Bible the way I do, then they don’t believe the Bible. This in Professor’s view is the biggest problem with young earth creationism – take it or leave it. This is Bush vs. terrorism. They believe that it is not a point of view, but the point of view.
The most important word in Genesis 1 is elohim (God). The most important word other than God is bara (created). There has been a lot of misstatement about this word. It is stated so loudly and strongly by so many people that to say that it isn’t true is to make someone think that you don’t know what you ‘re talking about. The word bara is stated by many to be created out of nothing (and they say it in Latin to say it strong). Word bara is used in topic sentence for the story of creation. Word bara is also used most significantly with reference to creation of man as male and female. V. 26 – alternation between asa and bara…Gen 1 describes Creation of man by using asa, but in v27 bara is used three times. If bara means to make out of nothing, then it means that man was made out of nothing.
Where did we ever come up with creation ex nihilo? It was not an exegetical decision. It was a Bible reader making a theological decision. Logically, creation must mean out of nothing, therefore since bara was used, that is what bara must mean. Not a lexical or exegetical decision, but purely theology. Eisegesis. Exegesis is not an evil act, but an innocent act of reading the Bible the best you can and in advertently bringing something outside in.
Years ago, Professor went to a evangelical gay and lesbian seminar at Denver Seminary. A guest prof at summer school had someone come and speak positively about homosexuality. By the time it took place it was on a Saturday 9-5 in the chapel with no administrator having any idea about it going on. But someone called a reporter and it was covered in the Rocky Mountain News: Denver Seminary invites gay and lesbian leaders to inform their students of the advantages of gay and lesbian lifestyle.
So Professor attended part of it, and a speaker was addressing Romans 1:26. He said that since homosexuality is the way that god has made me and it is my nature, this passage has nothing to do with me or anyone else on the platform. When we engage in homosexuality, that is our God-given nature. What this passage is against, he said (with a straight face) is heterosexuals experimenting with homosexual encounters because they are going against their natures and that is against God. So if you are a straight person, you cannot commit homosexuality. He said, if we were to engage in heterosexual relations, in marriage or out, that would be against our nature and condemned by God. Professor: that is metagesis – you don’t like it so you change it.