"AS
I SEE IT"
Volume 3, Number 11, November 2000
["As
I See It" is a monthly electronic magazine compiled and edited by Doug
Kutilek. Its purpose is to address
important issues of the day and to draw attention to worthwhile Christian and
other literature in order to aid believers in Jesus Christ, especially pastors,
missionaries and Bible college and seminary students to more effectively study
and teach the Word of God. The editor's
perspective is that of an independent Baptist of fundamentalist theological
persuasion.
AISI is sent free to all who
request it by writing to the editor at:
DKUTILEK@juno.com. You can be removed from the mailing list
at the same address. Back issues
sent on request. They may also be
downloaded at http://www.kjvonly.
All
articles are by the editor (unless otherwise noted) and are copyrighted but may
be reproduced for distribution, provided the following conditions are met: 1.
articles must be reproduced in unedited, unabridged form; 2. the writer must be
properly credited; and, 3. such reproduction must be for free distribution
only. Permission to distribute in any
other form must be secured in writing beforehand. Permission for reproduction in Christian
print periodicals will generally be given.]
----------
“MY
BAD”
In the October 200 issue
of “As I See It,” I stumbled into one of “the thousand natural shocks that
flesh is heir to,” viz., I in print confused the names of Sinclair
Lewis, author of Elmer Gantry, and C. S. Lewis, author of The
Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity, and a host of other volumes of
note. There was and is no confusion in
my mind of the two authors, and so I am at a loss to explain this blunder. Perhaps I ate too much sugar the day I wrote
(and the three or four days I proof-read the article), or perhaps I needed more
ginko to promote cerebral circulation.
At any rate, such is one of the inherent hazards of doing your own proof
reading. Caveat scriptor.
---Doug
Kutilek
----------
COMETS
AND THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE
“Comets are believed to be
‘snowballs’ of frozen gases and dust a few hundred metres to a few tens of
kilometres in diameter. They move in
very elongated orbits, and only when they approach near enough to the Sun for
the ices to begin vaporizing rapidly do they become obvious and clearly
identifiable. Yet the very process that
makes them visible destroys them. After
1,000 passages near the Sun, there should be little left except, possibly, a
small inert core. A typical short-period
comet makes a revolution in 10 years or less, giving it a total lifetime of
less than 10,000 years.” (Encyclopedia
Britannica, 15th ed., 1992 printing, vol. 27, p. 507; emphasis
added)
This quotation, coming as
it does from an authoritative and respected, wholly evolution-oriented
reference work is especially significant.
It also, of course, demands a question: if such comets expire and
disappear in less than 10,000 years (which is here affirmed) and if such comets
still exist (and at least thousands still do), does not this require that those
comets came into existence--along with the rest of the solar system--some time
in the past 10,000 years or less?
Naturally, this obvious
conclusion is “overlooked.” But it
demands to be drawn.
--Doug
Kutilek
----------
[J. Hudson Taylor
(1832-1905), went as a missionary to China in 1854. He later founded the China Inland Mission,
one of the first “Faith” missions. He
literally prayed hundreds of workers to the mission field, as well as their
financial support. The following
incident occurred within a couple of years of his arrival in China]
A young foreigner [i.e., J.
Hudson Taylor] in Chinese dress was preaching from his Sacred Classics, and
this was the passage he read:
“As Moses lifted up the
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have
everlasting life. For God sent not his
Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might
be saved.”
Nyi came into the hall that
evening, one of the vast, the incredibly vast multitude who “through fear of
death are all their lifetime subject to bondage”; and as he sat there
listening, hope dawned in his heart, old things for ever passed away and he was
conscious of the sunrise that makes all things new.
The meeting was drawing to a
close; the ‘foreign teacher’ had ceased speaking. Looking round upon the audience with the
instinct of one accustomed to lead in such matters, Nyi rose in his place and
said with simple directness:
“I have sought the Truth, as
did my father before me, but without finding it. I have traveled far and near, but have never
searched it out. In Confucianism,
Buddhism, Taoism, I found no rest; but I do find rest in what we have heard
tonight. Henceforward I am a believer in
Jesus.”
The effect of this
declaration was profound, for Nyi was well known and respected. But no one present was more moved than the
young missionary to whom he specially addressed himself. Many interviews followed, and Hudson Taylor
experienced the joy no words can express as he saw the Lord working with him
and claiming this soul for His own.
Shortly after his
conversion, a meeting was held of the society over which Nyi had formerly
presided, and though he had resigned from its membership he obtained permission
to be present and to explain the reasons for his change of faith. Taylor, who accompanied him, was deeply
impressed by the clearness and power with which he set forth the Gospel. One of his former co-religionists was led to
Christ through his instrumentality, and with Nyi himself became a valuable
worker of the Kuen-kiao-teo church.
Nyi, a dealer in cotton, frequently had time at his disposal, which he
now devoted to helping his missionary friends.
With Jones he went out almost daily, taking no payment for his services,
and everywhere winning an entrance for the message he was so keen to bring.
He it was who, talking with
Hudson Taylor, unexpectedly raised a question the pain of which was not easily
forgotten.
“How long have you had the
Glad Tidings in England?” he asked all unsuspectingly.
The young missionary was
ashamed to tell him, and vaguely replied that it was several hundreds of years.
“What,” exclaimed Nyi with
astonishment, “several hundreds of years!
Is it possible that you have known about Jesus so long, and only now
have come to tell us? My father sought
the truth for more than twenty years,” he continued sadly, “and died without
finding it. Oh, why did you not come
sooner?
[From J. Hudson Taylor:
God’s Man in China by Dr. and Mrs. Howard Taylor (Chicago: Moody Press,
1965), pp. 139-40]
---
“Deliver those who are being
taken away to death. And those who are staggering to slaughter, O hold them
back. If you say, ‘See, we did not know
this,’ Does He not consider it who weighs the heart? And does He not know it who keeps your
soul? And will He not render to man
according to his work?” Proverbs
24:11, 12.
----------
One verse that has been
repeatedly summoned into service by those who hold to the “King James Only”
position as proof positive that modern English versions are in reality perversions
is Daniel 3:25. In the KJV, the fourth
man in the furnace is identified as “the Son of God” (or, “sonne of God,” as
spelled in the original 1611 edition).
In contrast, the American Standard Version of 1901 identifies him as “a
son of the gods.” The New American
Standard Version and the New International Version agree with the ASV here (the
New King James Bible follows the KJV in the text, but has the ASV rendering in
the margin).
The accusation made
against the rendering in the ASV et al. is that they have removed a
clear reference to the second person of the Trinity and have substituted for it
a flabby, vague reference to a mere son of the (pagan) gods, thereby debasing
this proof text of the pre-incarnate existence of Christ, as well as his Deity. (This all assumes that the fourth man in the
furnace was a theophany, an interpretation rather more generally assumed than
proved).
Rather than ‘dogmatize
peremptorily,’ I prefer to ask, “But what are the facts in the case? Have the ASV et al. mistranslated the
original text, and thereby fallen into error, or did in fact the KJV
mistranslate the passage, and the ASV set it right in English?” We shall seek to answer this question before
we are carried away with judgment-blinding prejudice and unsupported
presupposition.
This particular verse in
Daniel, along with the whole section 2:4b-7:28, is in the Aramaic language,
rather than in Hebrew like most of the rest of the Old Testament. Aramaic (also sometimes called Chaldee and
Syriac) and Hebrew are sister languages (the family also includes Arabic,
Akkadian, Ugaritic, Ethiopic, Phoenecian and a few even more obscure
tongues). As a result, Aramaic and
Hebrew have a number of related words and also have similar, but not identical,
grammar. One of those differences is
crucial at this point.
In the Aramaic original of
Daniel 3:25, the phrase represented in English by “the Son of God/a son of the
gods” is bar-elahin. Bar
is a singular noun, meaning “son” and is commonly found in the New Testament,
for example, in proper names: Barnabas, Barabbas, Bar-Jonah, etc., literally
meaning “the son of X.” Its equivalent
in Hebrew is ben, as in Benjamin, Ben-Hur, and Ben Gurion. Bar is here in the construct state,
meaning it is grammatically joined to the word that follows it, and therefore
means “son of.” So far, no problem.
Elahin is a masculine plural noun, denoting “gods” (the
singular form is elah, or, with the definite article attached, elaha. The Arabic equivalent in allah). Its Hebrew equivalent is elohim. But just here, usage in Hebrew and in Aramaic
diverge. In Hebrew, though plural in
form, the word elohim is the usual word for God (as in Genesis 1:1
and thousands of other places). Less
commonly, it is also used of false gods (plural), and of human civil
authorities. There is in Hebrew a
singular counterpart to elohim, namely eloah, but it is
comparatively rare in the OT, occurring just 57 times, with all but 15 of these
being in Job, which displays numerous dialectic and linguistic
peculiarities. Nearly all the rest are
in poetic parts of the OT, or in passages influenced by Aramaic.
When we examine the
Aramaic portion of the OT (besides Daniel 2:4b-7:28, Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26 and
Jeremiah 10:11 are also in Aramaic), we discover that there is a clear
distinction between the use of the plural form elahin and the singular elaha. When the true God is spoken of, the singular elaha
is invariably used (the singular is also used of false gods when referred
to individually, as in Daniel 3:14; 4:5; etc.).
The plural form elahin is used only of false gods, especially in
the phrase, “the spirit of the holy gods” (4:5; 4:6; 5:11; etc.), words spoken
by pagan polytheists from their perspective. The use of the plural form with reference to
one true God does not occur in the Aramaic portion of the OT. It must also be noted that the phrase bar-elahin
in Daniel 3:25 does not have the definite article in the original Aramaic (that
would be bar-elahayya).
Taken together, these
facts--namely, that elahin is plural, and has no definite article
here--combine to show that to translate bar-elahin as “the Son of God”
is to overtranslate the words, indeed to mistranslate them. The precise, literal English equivalent of bar-elahin
is “a son of the gods,” as the ASV, NASB and NIV have it. It should not surprise us to find a pagan
king who acknowledged and worshipped many gods speaking of the appearance of a
supernatural person as “a son of the gods.”
Nebuchadnezzar was yet a pagan (he had just erected an idol of gold and
compelled his subjects to worship it).
In Daniel 3:28, the king refers once again to the fourth man in the
furnace, this time by the designation “angel,” which suggests that the two
terms, “angel” and “a son of the gods,” were synonymous designations.
Let us consider briefly
how this phrase was handled in pre-KJV translations.
There exist two major
pre-Christian Greek versions of Daniel (several others exist only in
fragmentary quotes), that of the Septuagint (now preserved in only two manuscripts
and a Syriac version; it was early on abandoned by the Christians in favor of
the other Greek version). The other is
ascribed to Theodotion, though it precedes his time by at least 2 centuries (it
is this version which is found in virtually all extant manuscripts of the
“Septuagint”).
The Septuagint, apparently
under the influence of v. 28, translates bar-elahin as aggelou theou,
which in English could be either “an angel/messenger of God,” or “an angel of a
god,” (the Greek here has no definite article, and since the Greek language
lacks an indefinite article, whether to supply it or leave it out in
translation is a matter of interpretation and English style). Theodotion reads huioi theou, which
would correspond to either “a son of God,” or “a son of a god.” In both Greek versions, the Aramaic plural
noun elahin is translated as though it were a singular.
There is no Jewish Aramaic
Targum of Daniel (or of Ezra) since the book was originally in part in Aramaic
already. There is however an ancient
Syriac version of Daniel (translating the Aramaic of Daniel into Syriac would
be roughly equivalent to “translating” Shakespeare’s early 17th
century British English in “Hamlet” into late 20th century American
English. It is rather more “up-dating”
than translating). The Syriac version
simply reproduces the bar-elahin of the original.
The Latin Vulgate of
Jerome (ca. 400 A.D.) was the dominant Bible translation in all of Western
Europe throughout the Middle Ages. All
the vernacular versions made there during the Middle Ages were made from it
(including Wycliffe’s English version), and all the Reformation-era versions
including and especially the KJV show the unmistakable influence of the Vulgate
on every page. Jerome reads in Daniel
3:25 “filio Dei” which, due to Latin’s complete absence of articles definite
and indefinite, might be understood as either “a son of God” or “the son of
God.” [Whether Jerome had a mastery of
Aramaic (as he had of Hebrew and Greek) is an open question, as far as I
know. I’ve never seen any reference to
his knowing Aramaic.] Because of the
pervasive influence of the Vulgate on the KJV, it is not unlikely that the
KJV’s “the Son of God” translation was a mimicking of the Vulgate’s rendering.
Besides the Vulgate,
Jerome also wrote a commentary on Daniel which appeared some years
before his Vulgate translation. His
remarks cast some light on his understanding of the passage before us, and so
we reproduce it here (following Gleason Archer’s English translation)--
“As for the appearance of
the fourth man, which he asserts to be like that of a son of God, either we
must take him to be an angel, as the Septuagint has rendered it, or indeed, as
the majority think, the Lord our Savior.
Yet I do not know how an ungodly king could have merited a vision of the
Son of God. For that reasoning one
should follow Symmachus [a 2nd century A.D. Ebionite who made a
revised translation of the Septuagint], who has thus interpreted it: ‘But the
appearance of the fourth is like unto the sons,’ not unto the sons of God but
unto gods themselves. We are to think of
angels here, who after all are very frequently called gods as well as sons of
God. . . . But as for its typical significance, this angel or son of God
foreshadows our Lord Jesus Christ, who descended into the furnace of hell, . .
. .”
Advancing to the
Reformation era, we find that Martin Luther’s German translation of the words
is “ein Son der Goetter,” that is, “a son of the gods,” corresponding precisely
to the English ASV, etc.
John Calvin commented on
v. 25: “the son of a god. No
doubt God here sent one of his angels, to support by his presence the minds of
his saints, lest they should faint. . . . A single angel was sent to these
three men; Nebuchadnezzar calls him a son of God; not because he thought him to
be Christ, but according to the common opinion among all people, that angels
are sons of God, since a certain divinity is resplendent in them; and hence
they call angels generally sons of God.
According to this usual custom, Nebuchadnezzar says, the fourth man
is like a son of a god. For he could
not recognize the only-begotten Son of God, since, as we have already seen, he
was blinded by so many depraved errors.”
[It merits noting that Scripture itself refers to angels as sons of God
in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; and also, so I think, Genesis 6:2, 4]
Of English versions
ante-dating the KJV, the one most closely followed by the KJV is the Geneva
Bible of 1560. At Daniel 3:25, we find
“the sonne of God.” The KJV, apparently,
merely reproduced the Geneva Bible unaltered.
The Geneva Bible here has a significant marginal note: “For the Angels
were called the sonnes of God, because of their excellencies; therefore the
King called this Angel, whome God sent to comfort his in these great torments,
the sonne of God.” These remarks clearly
indicate that they did not consider the fourth man to be a
theophany/Christophany. Their opinion
here as commonly elsewhere, is in harmony with the published opinion of Calvin.
As long ago as the first
quarter of the 19th century, Methodist commentator Adam Clarke
addressed the issue of how Daniel 3:25 should be translated. After quoting the KJV, he remarks: “A most
improper translation. What notion could
this idolatrous king have of the Lord Jesus Christ? For so the place is understood by
thousands. Bar-elahin signifies a
son of the gods, that is, a Divine person or angel; and so the king
calls him in ver. 28: “God hath sent his ANGEL, and delivered his
servants.” And though even from this some
still contend that it was the Angel of the covenant, yet the Babylonish
king knew just as much of the one as he did of the other. No other ministration was necessary; a single
angel from heaven was quite sufficient to answer the purpose, as that which stopped
the mouths of the lions when Daniel was cast into their den.”
I myself have long
assumed--without detailed investigation--that Daniel 3:25 was a theophany, even
while acknowledging the superior accuracy of the ASV over the KJV. However, upon closer consideration, I must
now agree with our friend the Methodist.
It was an unnamed angel, a created being and not the Creator Himself,
who appeared in the fiery furnace, just as it was an angel and not God Himself who
appeared in the den of lions with Daniel (in the 6th chapter of
Daniel, there is little dispute about this matter).
Let us hear the end of the
matter: the ASV, NASB. NIV and NKJB margin give a literal English translation
of the inerrant Aramaic original. Their
interpretation of the text exactly corresponds with that of Luther some
400-plus years earlier. It is certainly
not some new “higher critical” attack on the Scriptures. Rather, it is a precisely accurate English
rendering of the original, and thereby acknowledges and honors the infallible
nature and absolute authority of the inspired original text. The KJV merely reproduced the reading of its
great predecessor, the Geneva Bible, which in turn precisely followed the Latin
Vulgate, which in its turn literally followed the Greek translation of
Theodotion. While precedent for
the KJV’s translation can therefore be cited, nevertheless, the ASV et al.,
are squarely based on the ultimate and sole infallible authority, the
Scriptures as originally written. That
settles the matter for the individual who genuinely accepts that authority.
As for who the fourth man
in the furnace was: while the view that it was a theophany, a pre-incarnate
appearance of the Second Person of the Trinity is the prevailing view (no doubt
in part due to the incorrect renderings of Theodotion, Jerome, the Geneva
Bible, and the KJV), that it was a created angel has been long-held by devout
and doctrinally orthodox scholars, from Calvin to the Geneva Puritans to Adam
Clarke, and no doubt many others before and after them. One’s interpretation of this passage is
certainly not a test of orthodoxy.
And rather than being a reason for condemnation, the translation “a son
of the gods” as found in the aforementioned English versions is a mark in their
favor, rather than a cause for reviling them.
---Doug
Kutilek
----------
BOOK REVIEWS
FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT: THE LIFE AND WORK OF BENAJAH
HARVEY CARROLL, by Alan J. Lefever.
Austin, Texas: Eakin Press, 1994.
180 pp, hardback.
The name B. H. Carroll has
long been revered by Baptists in America, particularly among Southern Baptists,
but also among independent Baptists.
Carroll, besides being the founder of Southwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary in Fort Worth (at one time the largest seminary in the world, and perhaps
is still), was also the mentor of J. Frank Norris, “godfather” of three
different independent Baptist groups.
B. H. Carroll (1843-1914,
and if you ever wondered why he went by his initials, what would you do if your
parents named you “Benajah Harvey”?) was part of an exceptionally large family
with 24 children (12 natural-born, 12 adopted) in a Baptist preacher’s
home. He served as a Texas Ranger, and
then as an infantryman in the Confederate army during the American Civil
War. At 6’4” and 250 pounds, Carroll was
an imposing figure. His lifelong long
flowing beard added to his distinctive appearance.
He had become a skeptic
during the war (after a false profession of faith and baptism as a youth), but
was converted after the war’s end, and immediately sensed a call into the
ministry. His sermon, “My infidelity and
what became of it” is an oft-reprinted classic.
After a couple of brief pastorates, he was called to First Baptist
Church of Waco, Texas, where he remained for 28 years. He also taught at Baylor University, where he
served for many years as a trustee as well (he also served as a trustee of
Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky). He was active in all aspects of Southern
Baptist Convention life and organizations.
After his resignation as
pastor in 1899, Carroll founded what developed into Southwestern Seminary. He had during nearly the whole of his long
pastorate been involved in training young men for the ministry. The seminary was merely the culmination of
his efforts to provide the churches with an educated ministry.
During his lifetime, there
was no more influential Southern Baptist pastor in Texas than Carroll, whose
opinion was eagerly sought and whose word was accepted as virtually the “final
word” in any controversy. No doubt today
he is best known for his many books, especially his multi-volume An
Interpretation of the English Bible which is the edited lecture notes for
his famous 4-year course of study through the English Bible. Numerous topical books and books of sermons
were also published (mostly after his death).
The chief reason Carroll is
today know for his books much more than his deeds is the fact that many of his
books have been more or less continuously in print since his death, while there
was precious little--and that of a poor sort--published about his life. His brother, J. M. Carroll (famous for his
pamphlet “The Trail of Blood”) and J. W. Crowder issued in 1946 the only
previous book-length biography of B. H., viz., Dr. B. H. Carroll, Colossus
of Baptist History. It was chiefly
an anecdotal account, fulsome in its praise and somewhat “blind” to his faults,
and on the whole not very satisfying. A
decade ago, the situation was improved somewhat by James Spivey’s 22-page
summary of Carroll’s life and views in Baptist Theologians, edited
by Timothy George and David S. Dockery (reviewed by me in The Biblical
Evangelist, July 1, 1992).
In theology (an area not
dealt with in much detail in this book but to a fuller degree in Spivey’s
chapter mentioned above), Carroll was a semi-Landmarker, moderate Calvinist,
and in eschatology, post-millennial.
Lefever has produced a
worthy volume (though not without its limitations). It is his doctoral dissertation from
Southwestern Seminary revised. He had
the advantages of access to both the church records of First Baptist Church,
Waco, Texas, as well as the archives of Southwestern Seminary, along with
numerous dissertations and theses produced by students in the seminary. He has made good use of his sources, and has
produced a readable, informative volume.
I do wish more had been said about Carroll’s reading habits--what he
read, especially--and about his family (the names and number of his children
are no where given in full), and next to nothing is said about his wives
(except for the first, whom he married when he was 18 and she 15; she was tried
for adultery and found guilty, and a divorce granted when he was 20). Some survey of his writings, their nature, quality,
etc. could have been included.
--Doug
Kutilek
----------
THE SEVEN WONDERS OF THE
ANCIENT WORLD, edited by Peter Clayton and Martin Price. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1993. 176 pp, hardback.
I suppose that almost
everyone has heard of the storied “seven wonders of the world” spoken of
collectively, but most also (like myself before reading this little book)
couldn’t name more than one or two, much less all seven, and are even less able
to say anything about them.
The “seven wonders of the
(pre-Roman) ancient world” are: the great pyramid at Giza, the hanging gardens
of Babylon, the statue of Zeus at Olympia in Greece, the mausoleum at
Halicarnassus, the colossus of Rhodes, the temple of Artemis (Diana) at
Ephesus, and the lighthouse at Alexandria.
The notion of seven wonders dates back to antiquity, though just what
monuments made up the list was rather fluid, until fixed in its present form in
the Middle Ages.
The authors of the various
chapters reconstruct the monuments (only the pyramid--by far the oldest--still
exists) from ancient written descriptions and representations on coins and
other artwork, along with the findings of modern archaeologists. The origin of each, the individuals
responsible for its execution, along with an account of the fate of the
monument are given.
Five of the seven have
Biblical connections, some quite directly.
Of course the Israelites in Egypt no doubt saw the pyramid, the Jews in
Babylonian exile where familiar with the famous hanging gardens, the lighthouse
at Alexandria was certainly a familiar sight to Apollos who was from
Alexandria, the temple of Artemis (Diana) at Ephesus was central in the events
that transpired there in Acts 19, and when Paul and Luke stopped at Rhodes,
Acts 21:1, the colossus was still extant though fallen into ruins. The book then, serves as general “background”
for several Biblical narratives, in addition to its window into the ancient
world.
---Doug
Kutilek
DRAMA IN THE REAL LIVES OF
MISSIONARIES, vol. I, by Clifford E. Clark.
Milford, Ohio: John the Baptist Printing Ministry, n.d. 163 pp., paperback.
We reviewed the sequel to
this volume a couple of months back, and just want to briefly mention this
book. Like its companion volume, this
contains brief biographical sketches of ten missionaries of the 20th
century, most being Baptists associated with various groups (including WFBMF,
BBFI, BIMI and WBF), though some outside the Baptists are also included. Among the accounts are those of missionary
martyr John Birch (who had nothing whatsoever to do with the far right
political organization which appropriated his honored name), founder of BBF
missions Fred Donnelson, missionary extraordinaire Bob Hughes (BBF,
Philippines), Rachel Saint (instrumental in reaching the Aucas, who murdered
her brother Nate, Jim Elliot, and three others). These and the rest are all of particular
note, having been used by God for the spread of the Gospel to those still in
darkness. Informative, challenging,
motivating. These are missionaries worth
knowing about, and emulating.
---Doug
Kutilek
---