Youth leaders, in an attempt to be “relevant,” have begun to abandon a true reliance on God’s Word and a deep belief in the inherent power of the Bible. They have lost faith in God’s ability to get his work done through his inspired, written Word. So they try in all sorts of ways to “spice up” the message. They analyze the newest Lady Gaga song. They show lots of YouTube clips to demonstrate their main points…. Talks become more funny, more cute, and seemingly more ‘relevant” … and the Bible plays a less and less prominent role.

Here is what many of us youth leaders have forgotten: the Word of God alone holds inherent, divine power to accomplish the saving work of God in people’s hearts and lives. God’s Word is God’s chosen way to get his work done in student’s lives. So when we make our talks cute, relevant, and funny—and shove the Bible from its rightful prominent place in our teaching—we have stopped grounding our teaching in the only truly powerful foundation: God’s inspired Word.

Jon Nielson, Bible Study: A Student’s Guide (P&R, 2013), 36–37.

kenosis.pdf

For searchability:
Phil 2
Phil 2:5-11

Phil. 2
Phil. 2:5-11

Philippians 2:5-11
Christology
incarnation

First, corporate worship is more than individual people worshipping at the same place and time. It is possible to have an entire room filled with worshipping Christians who take no cognizance of each other. They may all be worshipping, but if they are acting severally and not jointly, then they are not engaged in corporate worship. Their assembly no more constitutes a temple than a crowd of people listening to their iPods constitutes a concert. …

Second, corporate worship cannot be done vicariously. One person cannot worship in behalf of another. Worship cannot be delegated to a minister or other worship leader. Watching someone worship does not constitute worship. In other words, worship is never a spectator event. …

Third, worship does not have an audience. It has an object, and its object is God Himself. …

Fourth, true worship is neither a spectacle nor a form of entertainment. Worshippers are not performers. They are adorers, admirers of God who praise Him for His character and His mighty deeds. …

As always, Kevin’s essays are thoughtful—and thought-provoking.

The second is much shorter, but the quote included is interesting. Mark McGinniss quotes (and comments on) Ellen F. Davis on preaching the OT (an Expository Times article):

What distinguishes Jeremiah from the masses of burnt-out ministers, lay and ordained, in the church, is that he never tries to fuel his ministry with his own vision, enthusiasm and creativity, with the clever answers he has devised to the conundrums of life.

There is more, but I’ll let you read it on Mark’s Outside My Door blog.

There are two contrasting uses here: τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων in 16:2 and πρώτῃ σαββάτου in 16:9—odd for being used divergently only a few verses apart if Mark were the author of both when usage almost everywhere else is so consistent. These differences in themselves are not adequate to demonstrate a difference of authorship between the Long Ending and Mark (i.e., between 16:9–20 and 1:1–16:8), but it does suggest that this is very unusual usage since πρώτῃ σαββάτου can be paralleled exactly, so far as I can determine, in only one pseudepigraphal text (plus one other similar expression).

I am wondering if this could reflect later usage (i.e., post 1st C AD or at least post-NT), though I do not have TLG access from off campus to check that hypothesis.

Mark Snoeberger, “Review of The Juvenilization of American Christianity (Eerdmans, 2012) by Thomas E. Bergler.” Theologically Driven blog by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary faculty.

I’ll conclude this post with Mark’s concluding words from his review: Tolle Lege.

Dave Brunn, One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal? IVP, 2013. 205 pgs. $16.00, pbk. ISBN: 9780830827152.

This book contains a perspective that I have long thought needed to be heard in the debate over English translations: that of a Bible translator working in a language other than English. Brunn repeats several time a statement to the effect that “well-meaning Christians unwittingly [make] English the ultimate standard for Bible translation” (this instance from p. 180). This is not a statement directed toward the “KJV-Onlyism” cult perspective (though it is certainly relevant in that context). Rather it refers to the more “main stream” discussions over contemporary English translations. Too often that discussion has been framed in terms that reflect only English translation. Guidelines are established, boundaries are set up, and translations are judged on the basis of principles that work only in English. Brunn makes the very valid point that if we establish specific criteria that must be followed in Bible translation, then those criteria should be valid in any language. (Yes, there are some English-specific considerations that come into play in our language, but those are not of the principle/criteria level, but of the application of the underlying principles.)

The book does not work from a theoretical model to specific application (as do most other discussions). Rather he begins with many, many examples of what has been done in a wide range of translations and then asked the pertinent questions regarding the theory involved. The results are both interesting and insightful, particularly in demonstrating how extensively “modified literal” translations use “idiomatic” renderings (his terms). “No version consistently follows its own ideals” (191). He does not argue that one particular translation or translation model is best. Rather, he argues like this:

It is not humanly possible to create a single translation that is perfectly balanced in all respects. For that reason, I recommend that every serious student of the Word have and regularly use a variety of translations—some modified literal ones and some idiomatic ones. That is the surest way to find balance in our understanding of Scripture.

Based on their ideals, the translators of each English version approached the translation task from a slightly different angle. The learner who is willing to walk all the way around a passage of Scripture, pausing to view it from each of these angles…, will come away with a more complete understanding than someone who reads and studies only one Bible version (166).

A key section of his concluding chapter summarizes what he has demonstrated in the book. (I’ve slightly revised the format of this list and omitted chapter references.)
Every version:

• Translates thought for thought rather than word for word in many contexts.
• Gives priority to meaning over form.
• Gives priority to the meaning of idioms and figures of speech over the actual words.
• Gives priority to the dynamics of meaning in many contexts.
• Uses many renderings that are outside of its ideal range.
• Allows the context to dictate many of its renderings.
• Steps away from the original form in order to be grammatically correct in English.
• Steps away from the form to avoid wrong meaning or zero meaning.
• Steps away from the form to add further clarity to the meaning.
• Steps away from the form to enhance naturalness in English.
• Translates some Hebrew or Greek words many different ways.
• Changes some of the original words to nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs or multiple-word phrases.
• Sometimes translates an assortment of different Hebrew or Greek words all the same way in English.
• Leaves some Hebrew and Greek words untranslated.
• Adds English words that do not represent any particular word in the Hebrew or Greek text.
• Changes single words into phrases, even when it is not required.
• Translates concepts in place of words in many contexts.
• Sometimes gives priority to naturalness and appropriateness over the ideal of seeking to be transparent to the original text.
• Sometimes chooses not to use a literal, transparent rendering even though one is available.
• Substitutes present-day terms in place of some biblical terms.
• Paraphrases in some contexts.
• Uses interpretation when translating ambiguities.
• Makes thousands of changes that amount to much more than dropping a “jot” or a “tittle.”
• Adds interpretation, even when it is not absolutely necessary.
• Replaces some masculine forms with gender-neutral forms.
• Often sets aside the goal of reflecting each inspired word in order to better reflect the inspired naturalness and readability of the original.

The book is not written at a highly technical level, though most of it reflects the writer’s technical competence of the issues. It can be understood by those who have not studied the biblical languages and could be used in a local church setting. Some items I might have wanted to see stated more precisely or more suitably qualified (e.g., the comments on the LXX and on the OT quotes in the NT could use some revision and clarification), but overall, this is a book that I recommend. Pair it with the Fee/Strauss volume How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth and add Carson’s essay “The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation—And Other Limits, Too,” ch. 3 of The Challenge of Bible Translation, ed. Scorgie (there are some other good essays in that vol. also), and you’d have a good introduction to the issues involved in Bible translation.

- – -

I just discovered that Dave Brunn blogs here.

For those of you who have expressed your concern for me and prayed for me, thank you. I’ve been under treatment for almost 6 weeks and it’s really quite amazing how much of a positive impact the treatment has already made. I feel better than I have in several months. It’s not a cure (my cancer is medically incurable), but it has already shrunk the size of some of the tumors and it appears that it will keep the symptoms and further spread at bay for a while, we just don’t know how long.

The further I entered upon my theme, the more I perceived that such a summary as I had originally designed could only get a sure foundation and make claim to scientific worth in case the entire department had previously been explored as far as possible in all directions, and received a sustained exposition; and that, at any rate, it is a more correct and safe procedure to let a practical outline follow a larger work, executed on scientific principles, than the reverse.”

So that means that I have not followed “a more correct and safe procedure”! You will have to decide next year when it appears in print how “correct” or “safe” it is for use!

I have similar thoughts about teaching first year Greek. Although the usual pattern is that first year gets pawned off on the junior member of the department, a doctoral student, or even a TA with only a year or two of Greek themselves, I think it better that first year be taught be a more experienced teacher; let the students and TAs teach exegesis where their students are better prepared for “self-defense”! Well-intentioned but “Greek greenhorns” too easily set students on the wrong path out of ignorance and lack of experience. Although I am now into my 60s, I still teach first year Greek by choice.

My two cents: 1. A creative way to address a budget problem! (Note especially the possible solutions!) 2. Creative use of technology for 1962—that means a mimeograph machine and a typewriter! My father was not an artist, but he was a very capable creator of stencils. How he did some of this stuff is beyond me.

I’ve begun sketching out an article dealing with the impossibility of loving the Gospel without loving the church which the Gospel creates. It seems that Paul was intentional when in one place in Colossians he says he is a servant (diakonos) of the Gospel and then two verses later says he is a servant (diakonos) of the church. What an interesting world we live in — when men and women can claim to be preachers of the truth and pass out tracks and out-bumper-sticker their neighbor’s cars but then have nothing whatsoever to do with fellowshipping with other believers. I see this mentality all the time. But Paul was equally devoted to the word of the cross and to the people of the cross — even half-baked, jejune, and immature Christians. What I have tried to do with my evangelistic friends is to remind them that they mustn’t forget that Christ died for the church and that, like Noah’s ark, the stench may be intolerable on the inside but the horrors on the outside are far worse.

Well said. I agree.