Tag: article

Michael Kruger Responds to Newsweek’s “Desperate Swipe at the Integrity of the Bible”

~ Bob Hayton

Predictably, a major US magazine published a popular criticism of the Bible just in time for a biblical holiday. But the recent Newsweek cover article by Kurt Eichenwald, entitled “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,” is making waves for how ferocious and misguided its criticism actually is.

Evangelical scholar, Michael J. Kruger took issue with the article stating it “goes so far beyond the standard polemics, and is so egregiously mistaken about the Bible at so many places, that the magazine should seriously consider a public apology to Christians everywhere.”

Kruger’s two-part response to Eichenwald’s piece is worth reading. He is measured, calm and clear. The result is a defense of the faith against several of the popular attacks circulating in today’s world.

If you have time, look through the comments as well, the author of the Newsweek piece even shows up and Kruger is patient and careful in trying to address many of the issues raised in the comments section as well.

Here are links to Kruger’s posts.

Singing Theologically: Modern Hymns and the Atonement

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Several years ago I highlighted the advent of the “Modern Hymn.” Keith Getty and Stuart Townend, along with others, have revived and reinvented the hymn for our generation. The most well known modern hymn, is perhaps one of the best: “In Christ Alone.” This song ranks up there with other greats and is as widely sung and loved today as “Amazing Grace.”

Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University, recently highlighted the refusal of the authors of “In Christ Alone,” to allow it to be slightly edited and thus included in a new Presbyterian (PCUSA) hymnal. George lauds that decision, since the proposed edit would take out the idea of Christ bearing God’s wrath for sin. Here is the proposed edit:

From: “Till on that cross as Jesus died / the wrath of God was satisfied.”

To: “Till on that cross as Jesus died / the love of God was magnified.”

George’s article, “No Squishy Love” was shared and discussed online and in print so much, that he has followed it up with a part 2, today. One of the places where his first article was discussed was Sharper Iron; and this most conservative of online evangelical blogs, was not even immune from those who argued against the idea that Jesus bore God’s wrath for sin. Truthfully the orthodox idea of Jesus bearing the punishment of our sin on the cross is facing hard times today.

The follow up piece by Dr. George, doesn’t back down from defending the satisfaction theory of the atonement, and it includes more historical insight on the question. In the piece, George also highlights another hymn with theological substance, “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us,” by Stuart Townend.

For my part, we should be glad that modern hymns are not as substance-less as some of the praise songs of the last few decades. Unadulterated joy and songs of intense emotion are needed, yes. But the didactic value of theologically rich hymns, which both move and instruct, is untold. May a new generation of hymn-writers pick up the mantle of Isaac Watts and continue to give the church faithful hymns for the next generation.

An Accurate Assessment of Christian Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 15 Comments

I came across an excellent article written by Steve Whigham, a graduate of BJU (apparently) and former administrater/faculty member of Northland International University, now working for World Magazine. [HT: Sharper Iron] His thoughts come with the recent controversy at Northland where the university board fired and then subsequently re-hired Matt Olson as president. Steve points out what others have mentioned, that the controversy was precipitated primarily by Northland’s change in its music. Whether or not that charge (that music is what the controversy at Northland is most about) is correct, Whigham’s rehashing of the history of fundamentalism is worth reading. I have excerpted some of the good parts here, but encourage you to read the whole thing.

This brouhaha about Northland has served to remind me of my reasons for not being a part of the fundamentalist movement. As Whigham points out, the original fundamentalists, historic fundamentalism if you will, prized certain fundamental points of doctrine as worth unifying around and defending. The fundamentalist movement today is prizing doctrines that are not truly fundamental — such as one musical style over another, and unifying around and defending these sub-fundamental doctrines. This is something I don’t see as healthy or helpful. Some of the sub-fundamentals that are being prized may well be good and grand in themselves. But the essence of what fundamentalism entails — prioritizing and defending cardinal truths of the gospel — this essence is lost when something less than the gospel becomes the main thing. I tried to say something to this effect years ago in my post, “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.”

Here is the except from Whigham’s article, which you should bookmark as a helpful summary of the history and problem of today’s Christian fundamentalism.

In the late 1960’s and following, Fundamentalism mobilized its arsenal to a new battle front: sheltering the Christian faith from the worldly influences of an American culture run amok. Drugs, sex, and rock-and-roll were the targets… As it relates to practical Christian living, for many fundamentalists the mantra became, “It’s better to be safe than sorry.” So, many preachers began to wage campaigns against certain “worldly” behaviors and drew bold lines between the world and the fundamentalist norm. Women’s dress (skirts only, and must cover the knee) must be modest, “mixed” bathing (allowing girls and boys to swim together at the beach or pool) should not be allowed in order to protect each other from youthful lusts, men’s hair length (shouldn’t be over the ear), listening to rock music, smoking, holding hands for unmarried couples, and a host more, became not only expected behaviors within Fundamentalism, but was also touted as clear biblical mandates….

By the end of the 1980’s, the fight against modernism and German higher
criticism appeared to be over, but the fighting spirit of the movement continued… The battle lines were no longer being fought over the core doctrines of the faith (as was true in the early years) but rather over acceptable behaviors for a fundamentalist. The battles were no longer waged over theology, but over practical Christian living.

Today, there’s a new generation rising up within Fundamentalism which has little to no connection to the historical roots of the movement. These young millennials see a community led by perpetually angry leaders obsessed and divided over issues that have little to do with the more important expressions of Christian doctrine. What they perceive instead is a movement that is more about arbitrary command and control tactics to subdue behavior than about Christ’s core intentions for mankind. It’s a battle that appears to them as having shifted away from morals to mores. Many younger members of fundamentalist communities are no longer seeing “the Fundamentalist Cause” as worth fighting for and are choosing to leave the community for less rancorous pastures. What Fundamentalism is currently experiencing is, with a few exceptions, a decline in church attendance, a drop in fundamentalist school enrollment, and even a sharp reduction in the number of fundamentalist pastors and missionaries being sent out.

Fundamentalism is shrinking quickly and losing its next generation. As Fundamentalism shrinks, the remaining voices in the movement are becoming more shrill. In their sermons and blogposts you can sense the desperation….

In the beginning, the issues Fundamentalism chose to rally around united a community. They united because: (1) the issues were authentic fundamentals and (2) unity was still valued as a vital doctrine of the faith. By today’s use of slash-and-burn rhetoric against anyone with a different take on a point of Christian liberty, unity has been devalued. In order to protect the enclave, Christ’s call for unity has been stripped of all its moral weight. Currently, the issues most “surviving fundamentalists” are now opting to rally around divide rather than unite. And as long as their current fields of battle remain the same, I cannot see the end of the shrinking anytime soon….

The Typology of “On the Third Day”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

I was recently stumbled across a jewel of a journal article, from Dr. Jim Hamilton on the ways David is a type of Christ. It is chuck full of useful information on typology and David in particular, but tucked away in there is a fascinating discussion of the typology of the expression “on the third day.”

I’ve recently wondered about Paul’s contention that Jesus rose from the dead “on the third day in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:4). What Hamilton writes below provides more insight into a possible background for Paul’s understanding of the OT Scriptures with regard to the third day.

ON THE THIRD DAY

The narrator of Samuel is clear about the sequence of events surrounding Saul’s death. While David was living in Ziklag under the authority of Achish the Philistine king of Gath (1 Sam 27:6), the Philistines mustered their forces for battle against Israel (28:1). Saul panicked (28:5) and sought out a medium (28:7). When he went to the witch of Endor, he had an encounter with Samuel, whom the witch brought up for him (28:11-14). Among other things, Samuel told Saul, “Tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me” (28:19), that is, dead.

The next day, on which Saul would join Samuel, appears to be the day that David was sent home by the Philistine lords who feared that he would turn on them in battle (29:1-11). Curiously, the narrator of Samuel then relates that David and his men found their home city of Ziklag raided when they arrived “on the third day” (1 Sam 30:1). This seems to be the third day after the Philistines mustered for battle against Israel (cf. 30:13). In this way, the narrator shows that David was not with the Philistines in battle when Saul met his end. The narrator then relates what happened on the day the Philistines dismissed David: they defeated Saul’s army and Saul took his own life (31:1-7). This means that a death brought the reign of the king who opposed the Lord’s anointed to an end. Three days later, David overcame the thought his men had of stoning him, “strengthened himself in the Lord his God” (30:6), and, rising from the near stoning, pursued his enemies, and recaptured his people—all of them. But this is not the only significant third day in this account. 2 Samuel 1 opens by relating that after David had struck the Amelakites who had raided Ziklag, he remained in Ziklag for two days, and then “on the third day” the messenger came with the news that Saul was dead (2 Sam 1:1-2). This means that “on the third day” David conquered his enemies, took captivity captive, and gave gifts to men when he sent spoil to the elders of Judah (1 Sam 30:26-31). And then “on the third day” he received news that the death of Saul meant that as the Lord’s anointed he, David, was now to be king.

Nor are these the only two significant “third days” in the Old Testament: Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac “on the third day” (Gen 22:4). Yahweh came down on Mount Sinai to meet Israel “on the third day” (Exod 19:11, 16). The Lord raised up Hezekiah “on the third day” (2 Kgs 20:5). The second temple was completed “on the third day” (Ezra 6:15). Esther interceded on behalf of the Jewish people “on the third day” (Esth 5:1). And perhaps most significantly, Jonah was in the belly of the whale “three days and three nights” (Jon 2:1 [ET 1:17]), while Hosea prophesied that the people, having been torn by Yahweh as by a lion (Hos 5:14-6:1), would be raised up “on the third day” (6:2).

These significant events in the Old Testament took place “on the third day,” and this pattern found its fulfillment when Jesus “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:4). Perhaps the references in the Old Testament to the remarkable things that took place “on the third day” were themselves read typologically by Hosea, leading him to the conclusion that the restoration of the people after Yahweh’s judgment of the nation would take place “on the third day” (Hos 6:2, cf. 5:14-6:1). Perhaps the same typological reading of these instances led Jesus to the conclusion that he would be the suffering servant who would be torn by Yahweh’s judgment and then raised up “on the third day” (cf. Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22).

Just as David defeated the Amelakites on the third day (1 Sam 30:1), Jesus defeated death on the third day. As David took captivity captive and gave gifts to men, Jesus did the same (cf. Eph 4:8-11). Just as David received word that Saul was no more on the third day (2 Sam 2:1), Acts 13:33 links the announcement of enthronement from Psalm 2:7, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” to the resurrection: “this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’” (Acts 13:33). The death of the reigning king brought the end of hostility, and the news of that death announced the beginning of the reign of the Lord’s anointed.

…D. A. Carson’s conclusion regarding Jesus being raised from the dead on the third day “according to the Scriptures” is similar: “It is difficult to make sense of such claims unless some form of typology is recognized…. The cross and the resurrection of the Messiah were, in Paul’s view, anticipated by the patterns of Old Testament revelation.”

— excerpted from pg. 16-17, Southern Baptist Theological Journal, (volume 16, number 2 -Summer 2012), “The Typology of David’s Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel” – (accessible online here).

What If There Had Never Been a King James Bible?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment


The latest issue of Christianity Today features a cover story on the influence of the King James Bible. Mark Noll, the noted evangelical historian, authored the article entitled: “A World Without the King James Version: Where we would be without the most popular English Bible ever”.

The article explores an interesting question. Along the way you will learn things you didn’t know about the KJV. Here’s an excerpt which reveals that the problem of multiple and competing Bible translations is no new problem. Be sure to read the entire article, and check out this interesting quiz.

From about 1650 to 1960, when Protestants memorized the Twenty-third Psalm, they would always recite the last verse this way: “Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.” But if the KJV had not become the favored translation, the memorized words would have depended on translation preference.

For at least 50 years after the KJV’s completion in 1611, various editions of the Geneva Bible, published in 1560, were just as popular. Geneva’s adherents liked the down-home flavor of the translation and its helpful marginal notes. They would have memorized, “Doubtless kindness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall remain a long season in the house of the Lord.” Protestants who wanted to connect with their Catholic neighbors would have memorized this, from the Douay-Rheims translation: “And thy mercy will follow me all the days of my life. And that I may dwell in the house of the Lord unto length of days.”

But Bible readers who wanted to use an officially authorized text””which the KJV never was””would have memorized the Bishops’ Bible of 1568: “Truly felicity and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of God for a long time.”

Of course, Protestants would have continued memorizing Scripture even with several popular translations in existence. But they would have done so privately, sincepublic recitation with several translations could be haphazard””much like it is today. And we would have lost some small sense of connectedness in the church and the broader culture.