James White on Hermeneutics

Here is a good primer on the basics of hermeneutics and biblical exegesis by Dr James White.

Acts 18:17

ἐπιλαβόμενοι δὲ πάντες Σωσθένην τὸν ἀρχισυνάγωγον ἔτυπτον ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος· καὶ οὐδὲν τούτων τῷ Γαλλίωνι ἔμελεν. (Acts 18:17 BGT)

Ἐπιλαβόμενοι δὲ πάντες οἱ Ἕλληνες Σωσθένην τὸν ἀρχισυνάγωγον ἔτυπτον ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος. Καὶ οὐδὲν τούτων τῷ Γαλλίωνι ἔμελλεν (Act 18:17 BYZ)

And they all seized Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him in front of the tribunal. But Gallio paid no attention to any of this. (Act 18:17 ESV)

Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things. (Act 18:17 KJV)

.

Textual note:

πάντες: p⁷⁴ א A B it^{c, dem, p, ph, ro, w} vg, cop^bo.

πάντες οἱ Ἕλληνες: D E Ψ 33 181 614 945 1175 1409 1739 1891 2344 Byz [L P] ...

πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι: 36 307 453 610 1678

I have recently preached a sermon on Acts 18:1-17, which can be accessed here. In this text, one thing that I had to do was to decide how to deal with the textual variants in the text. There is one other textual variant that alters the meaning of the text in verse 5, but I judged it was not worth going into that. For Acts 18:17 however, the variant does seem important enough that I had to make a short note in the sermon at least concerning the variant, although I don't know if anyone in the congregation was interested in it.

The textual variant here concerns who was it that beat up Sosthenes the chief ruler of the synagogue (τὸν ἀρχισυνάγωγον). The Critical Text that is mostly preferred by most modern translators only has the ambiguous word πάντες ("all"). The King James and New King James versions follow the Majority Text and have the words πάντες οἱ Ἕλληνες ("all the Greeks"). Not reflected in any translation (and rightly so) is the variant πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ("all the Jews"), which is stated as being found only in 5 miniscules.

It is a caricature that modern translators are blind devotees to Westcort and Hort, two early British textual scholars. It is however true that modern textual criticism prioritizes earlier manuscripts over later ones, regardless of the number of manuscripts under consideration. After all, it is not the number of copies that matter, for one manuscript copied numerous times in later manuscripts is still considered as one text for the sake of determining the correct reading of the Scriptures. In this case, the critical text reading is supported by many earlier manuscripts, not just Codex Sinaiticus (א) but also at least one papyrus (p⁷⁴), whereas the Majority text reading has only three majuscules (D, E, Ψ) and a plethora of later miniscules. Thus, the critical reading is to be preferred here because of better and earlier attestation.

When one looks at the variants, it is also easier to understand how the variants can come about if πάντες is the original text. The verse in the Critical Text and in the ESV is ambiguous because we are still left wondering who is the "all" that is beating up Sosthenes. It is not a surprise if later scribes would add in the phrase οἱ Ἕλληνες ("the Greeks") as an explanation first, which was then inserted into the later miniscules. The fact that 5 miniscules have the alternative phrase πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι shows us that at least some Byzantine Greek scholars understood the "all" to be predicated of the Jews, and thus amend the text accordingly. It is therefore easier for us to understand how the variants could come about as Byzantine scholars attempt to understand who are the "all" referred to in Acts 18:17.

It should not be too surprising that this variant is important because it affects how we are to understand Acts 18:17, and what exactly is happening in this narrative. If it were the Greeks assaulting Sosthenes, then one exegetes the passage differently than if it were the Jews that were assaulting Sosthenes. While taking the ambiguous text, it seems to me that the overall sense of the text is to interpret it as referring to the Jews, thus "all" equals "all the Jews." For, first, we see in the return to Gallio's reaction in the later part of verse 17 that the beating up of Sosthenes is related to the charge against Paul and the fact that Gallio threw out the case. Therefore, second, while the action of Greeks beating Sosthenes is plausible, for Greeks to beat up Sosthenes because of charges against Paul is rather implausible. Thirdly, the beating up of Sosthenes was meant to provoke Gallio, and therefore the later part of verse 17 tells us that Gallio decided not to be provoked. How would the Greeks beating up Sosthenes provoke Gallio after Gallio had declared the charges against Paul a purely internal matter? It is only if we read it as the Jews beating up Sosthenes then we see some division among the Jews being stirred up, coupled with assault, in an attempt to provoke Gallio into action on internal Jewish matters, which he had earlier declared he had no wish to be judge in. And thus, fourthly, interpreting the "all" as "all the Greeks" would make Gallio's inaction to the beating of Sosthenes senseless and even cruel, as if Gallio was totally heartless and indifferent to the Jews. This contradicts Gallio's explicit statements that the reason why he refused to adjudicate on the charges against Paul was because he did not want to judge on what he perceived to be internal religious matters. It is only if we see Gallio's inaction as a refusal to be provoked by Jews beating up their fellow Jew Sosthenes that Gallio's actions makes sense.

From both a textual and contextual perspective therefore, Acts 18:17 is speaking of "all", that is all the Jews, beating up Sosthenes. The Majority Text reading is therefore in error here, and therefore sermons that are preached based upon the King James and New King James rendering of Acts 18:17 will be in error. This is most certainly an argument against using the King James version today, but, more importantly, the importance of proper exegesis from the original languages for pastors and preachers of the Word.

Language and exegesis

In this video, Dr. James White has shown why a little Greek is a terrible thing:

This is one consequence of treating Greek and Hebrew as code, instead of languages. This is also one reason why "pastors" like Joseph Prince are to be avoided, because they think the mere mouthing of Greek and Hebrew, and using concordances, make one able to understand the text; it does NOT. While koine Greek and biblical Hebrew are "dead" languages, there was a time when people were actually speaking these languages. Languages do not function like code, and Kerrigan Skelly merely shows what happens when they are treated that way.

Brief thoughts on the Peter Leithart trial

The final court of the PCA, the SJC (Standing Judicial Committee) has recently ruled in favor of dismissing the suit against Peter Leithart concerning his Federal Vision views. That this is a sad day for orthodoxy is surely the case.

The fact of Peter Leithart being a Federal Visionist seems rather obvious, especially in his public affirmation of documents like the Joint FV Profession. The Profession itself states "This statement represents the views of those who drafted it, contributed to it, and signed it." Therefore, by the fact that Leithart is a signatory, and that the statement itself claims that every signatory holds to the views expressed in the statement, it is very obvious that Leithart is a Federal Visionist. If Leithart claims to be orthodox in his theology, except he uses infelicitous language, then the question should be put to him whether he rejects FV theology? If he has a change of mind since he signs the statement, surely he should be the first one to request for his signature to be withdrawn, and denounce the FV theology as heretical. Why should anyone give him the benefit of the doubt that the meaning behind his "infelicitous language" is orthodox and in line with the Westminster Standards, when there is explicit evidence that he himself proclaimed himself as a FVist? If he has truly changed his mind, let him produce the fruits in keeping with his repentance from it.

With the Kellerites and the Federal Visionists flourishing within the PCA, one wonder how much worse it could possibly get.

ADD: Here is a reflection by a teaching elder on this ruling.

Paper: Gender Roles: Ordained Order of Mankind towards the Creator

I have finally received back the last of my papers to be returned from last semester. The paper is entitled Gender Role: Ordained Order of Mankind to the Creator, being an exegesis of 1 Tim. 2:8-15. The paper can be found here. An excerpt:

The issue of women ordination in particular and women ministry in general is a hotly debated issue since the 1950s. With the rise of Feminism in the general culture, the Feminist movement has also impacted even professing Evangelical and Reformed churches. Numerous articles and books have been written on this issue, and it has generated controversy in churches and denominations. With the splitting of Evangelicalism into approximately two camps on the issue of women in the church, namely Egalitarians (“Biblical Feminists”) and Complementarians, accusations and counter-accusations have been made regarding the compromises and distortions of biblical teachings done by the other camp. Recently, egalitarian theologian William David Spencer has formulated a document entitled “An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity,” in which he accuses Complementarians of embracing Subordinationism in order to prop up their belief in the submission of wives to their husbands. Such a charge has been made before, and it is easily refuted.

[more]

Paper: The Prophetic Portrayal of Judgment against King Jeroboam

Here is another paper which I have wrote, this time on 1 Kings 13:11-34. An excerpt:

In this paper, we would like to look at the narrative passage of 1 Kings 13:11-34. While certainly within the larger framework, 1 Kgs 12: 30-13:34 is one large pericope, with 1 Kgs 12:30-33 and 13:33-34 forming the two ends of an inclusio, yet within this larger pericope we can discern two parts: 12:30-13:10 and 13:11-34. The second part has been termed the disobedience of the Man of God and its consequences by Werner E. Lemke, and we shall look into it in greater detail

[more]

Psalm 109 and imprecations

Structure of Psalm 109

• vv. 1-5: Trials of David
• vv. 6-20: Call for judgment upon wicked men
• vv. 21-26: Call to YHWH for help
• vv. 27-29: Call to YHWH for salvation and vindication
• vv. 30-31: I will praise YHWH for my salvation

יִֽהְיֽוּ־יָמָ֥יו מְעַטִּ֑ים פְּ֜קֻדָּת֗וֹ יִקַּ֥ח אַחֵֽר׃ (v. 8)

Let his days be few, and let another take his office

γενηθήτωσαν αἱ ἡμέραι αὐτοῦ ὀλίγαι καὶ τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λάβοι ἕτερος (v. 8 LXX)

Let his days be few and may another take his office

τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω ἕτερος (Act 1:20ff)

let another take his office

Psalms 109 is an interesting psalm which I had the opportunity to teach this Lord's Day. It is a psalm of trials, call for justice, help and salvation, and ending with praise for the Lord's salvation. As a psalm, it gives us the manner to call unto God in times of trial for His help, salvation and vindication.

If as we believe that the psalms are the inspired songs of praise in the Bible, and thus we are to sing them, then Psalm 109 should be sung. The problem however comes when we approach verses 6-20. Should we sing these verses? Perhaps some people would sing it with gusto, but would you think it is proper to sing verses such as the following?

Let his sons be orphans, and his wife a widow (v. 6)

Let his posterity be cut-off, in another generation wipe out their name (v. 13)

Imprecations are found in other psalms as well, so the question before us is how to deal with them.

In Psalms 109, we can see how a redemptive historical reading of the psalm could shed light in the issue. Verse 8 of Ps. 109 is cited by Peter in Acts 1: 20 in choosing a replacement for Judas Iscariot into the Apostolate. Peter applied the verse, and thus by synecdoche apply the entire section to Judas Iscariot as the cursed wicked man, a type of the one who oppress the godly (in his betrayal of our Lord Jesus Christ).

Imprecations are therefore directed against the reprobates, not our personal enemies, of which Judas Iscariot is foremost (Jn. 17: 12). Redemptive historically, the wicked in David's psalm are the type of the reprobates in eternity.

In David's time, the wicked are dealt with by strict justice, thus the Church in the form of Israel yielded the sword against evildoers. In our time, the Gospel is being proclaimed and the execution of God's judgment is held back. Yet, such restrain will be removed in the last day when Christ comes again, and God's justice at the Eschaton will be meted out.

The imprecations for us therefore is eschatological in nature, as opposed to the present reality under the Mosaic economy. The singing of the imprecations is meant to proclaim God's justice in the eschatological judgment against the reprobates, those who manifest their wickedness in rejection of God and Christ.

It is therefore not surprising that the modern effeminate churches do not sing the imprecations, but that is for another day.