Posts

Put away from thee a froward mouth ... (Prov. 4:24)

‎WTT Proverbs 4:24 הָסֵ֣ר מִ֭מְּךָ עִקְּשׁ֣וּת פֶּ֑ה וּלְז֥וּת שְׂ֜פָתַ֗יִם הַרְחֵ֥ק מִמֶּֽךָּ׃
APB Proverbs 4:24 Put away from you a crooked mouth And put devious lips far from you.
crooked. This word occurs only here and in Prov. 6:12. Its cognates (מַעֲקָשׁעקשׁ) consistently describe what is not straight (Mic. 3:9). It is the opposite of blameless (Job 9:20tam; Prov. 11:20tamim). Those whose paths are crooked do not know the way of peace and there is not justice in their paths (Isa. 59:8). To put away a crooked heart is to have nothing to do with evil (Psa. 101:4). It is the worthless (beliya‘al) and wicked (’aven) man who walks with a crooked mouth. Lady Wisdom declares that all her words are righteous (tsedeq); none of them are crooked or perverse. To put away a crooked mouth is to walk in integrity (Prov. 19:1; 28:6; 28:18).
How do you put away a crooked mouth? By refusing crooked thoughts. By leaving the company of those who are crooked. By choosing blameless companions. By choosi…

The desire of a man is his kindness? Rereading Proverbs 19:22.

Proverbs 19:22 תַּאֲוַ֣ת אָדָ֣ם חַסְדּ֑וֹ וְטֽוֹב־רָ֜שׁ מֵאִ֥ישׁ כָּזָֽב׃
KJV Proverbs 19:22 The desire of a man is his kindness: and a poor man is better than a liar.
NASB Proverbs 19:22 What is desirable in a man is his kindness, And it is better to be a poor man than a liar.
Translation All other OT instances of תַּאֲוַ֣תta'avat (desire) followed by a personal noun are subjective genitives (Psa. 10:3 - his soul's desire; 10:17 - the humble’s desire; Psa. 21:3 - his heart’s desire; Psa. 112:10 - the wicked’s desire; Pro. 11:23 - the righteous’s desire; cf. Prov. 21:25; Isa. 26:8). That would suggest taking ta’avat ’adam here as ‘a man’s desire.” The word desire can be negative or positive. It depends on the context, usually the following genitive, to determine which it is. That it can be negative (greed) without a genitive is shown by Num. 11:4 and Num. 11:34, where Israel is greedy for meat.
חַסְדּ֑וֹhasdo - Waltke, 2:115, notes, “Ḥesed is a homonym meaning both “unfailing ki…

A Sketch of a Biblical Theology of Sanctification: Wesleyan-Arminian but not Wesleyan/Nazarene

Image
By way of helping my brothers, whether Wesleyan-Arminian or non-Wesleyan-Arminian, see how the doctrine of sanctification can be articulated in scripturally derived categories, differ markedly from Wesley at various points, and yet still be Wesleyan-Arminian, I offer the following brief list of ways in which such a biblical theology would be distinct from standard published Wesleyan and Nazarene systematic articulations and definitions of sanctification.[1]
A biblical theology of sanctification through a Wesleyan-Arminian lens would affirm the following: 1.Post-conversion consecration and God’s entire sanctification of believers is grounded in and flows from union with Christ (Rom. 6, 12). 2.Regarding Sin 2.1.Sin is any violation of God’s word (Rom. 5:13; 1 John 3:4; Jam. 4:17), incurs guilt, and requires atonement (Lev. 4-6; 1 John 2:1-2). Personal culpability for sin is based on knowledge, intent, and capacity (Deut. 19:4-6; Num. 9:6-8; Num. 35:23; 1 John 1:7). 2.2. Believers are call…

Sanctification: Overlap and Differences between Wesleyan and Reformed understandings

As this series of reviews on Michael Allen's Sanctification heads to a conclusion, a couple windows into areas where Wesleyan theology[1]  overlaps with Allen’s Reformed presentation and where it differs from his presentation may be appropriate.

1.Areas a Wesleyan-Arminian Biblical Theology of Sanctification overlaps with Allen’s Presentation in affirming 1.1.union with Christ as the ground of all salvific benefits, including sanctification. 1.2.positional sanctification through union with Christ. 1.3.progressive sanctification—one’s character becoming increasingly like Christ and the potential for increasing relational intimacy to God 1.4.the ongoing sanctification of those who have been made perfect positionally (τετελείωκεν Heb. 10:14). 1.5.the NT describes believers as holy ones who testify on the basis of a good conscience (2 Cor. 1:12; Acts 24:16; 1 Tim. 1:19) rather than describing them with terms that focus on what remains to be transformed (e.g., “sinners”; “sinners saved by gr…

If thou hast done foolishly ... (Proverbs 30:32)

WTT Proverbs 30:32 אִם־נָבַ֥לְתָּ בְהִתְנַשֵּׂ֑א וְאִם־זַ֜מּ֗וֹתָ יָ֣ד לְפֶֽה׃
KJV Proverbs 30:32 If thou hast done foolishly in lifting up thyself, or if thou hast thought evil, lay thine hand upon thy mouth.
APB Proverbs 30:32 If you have been foolish* by exalting yourself Or if you have schemed**, put your hand on your mouth.
*The verb ‘have been foolish’ is nabalta and is the only occurrence of the Qal form of this verb (nabal II). The Piel has the sense of ‘treat s.one disdainfully’ (Holladay). See Isa. 32:6-7 for an extended description of the nabal. Waltke says, “Verse 32a presents the foolish situation of plotting one’s self-exaltation through boasting.”
**The word ‘schemed’ (zamam)can mean ‘plan, think’ and occurs 13x in the OT )Gen. 11:6, Deut. 19:19, Ps. 17:3, Ps. 31:14, Ps. 37:12, Prov. 30:32, Prov. 31:16, Jer. 4:28, Jer. 51:12, Lam. 2:17, Zech. 1:6, Zech. 8:14, Zech. 8:15). NASB: plot evil; ESV: devising evil; LEB: devised evil. It normally requires a complementary infinitiv…

Proverbs 14:17 A quick-tempered man acts foolishly

Proverbs 14:17 קְֽצַר־אַ֭פַּיִם יַעֲשֶׂ֣ה אִוֶּ֑לֶת וְאִ֥ישׁ מְ֜זִמּ֗וֹת יִשָּׂנֵֽא׃
APB Proverbs 14:17 A quick-tempered man acts foolishly, And a man of evil schemes is hated.
Exegesis The word translated ‘evil schemes’ (mezimmah) can be positive (prudence, 1:4; 8:12; discretion, 2:11; 3:21; 5:2) or negative (12:2; 14:17; 24:8). It is the context that determines its reference. The phrase ‘ish mezimmot ‘man of schemes’ occurs twice in Proverbs (12:2; 14:17). In Proverbs 12:2, Yahweh delights in a good man but He condemns a ‘ish mezimmot. This requires us to understand the ‘ish mezimmot as someone who is not a good man and is worthy of Yahweh’s condemnation. Given that background, ‘ish mezimmot in 14:17 is not merely hated by people, but also by Yahweh. In Prov. 24:8, the ‘master of mezimmot’ is one who “plans to do evil.” So then, in every instance in which mezimmah is in a construct-absolute relationship with a term referring to a person, it means ‘evil schemes.’
Theological Reflection

A wise man fears ... a fool is careless (Proverbs 14:16)

Proverbs 14:16 חָכָ֣ם יָ֭רֵא וְסָ֣ר מֵרָ֑ע וּ֜כְסִ֗יל מִתְעַבֵּ֥ר וּבוֹטֵֽחַ׃
Proverbs 14:16 A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless. (NASB)
Translation Notes The NASB seems to have unnecessarily downshifted the sense of yare’ to ‘be cautious. ’ Elsewhere, when used with turning aside from evil, the NASB consistently renders it  ‘fears,’ since it usually has God/Yahweh as the object (Job 1:1, 8; 2:3; 28:28; Prov. 3:7; 14:16; 16:6).
Further, this is the only place the NASB translates מִתְעַבֵּ֥ר as ‘arrogant,’ following BDB which offers only this passage for that sense. All other clear instances mean “be enraged, full of wrath” (Deut. 3:26; Psa. 78:21, 59, 62; 89:39; Prov. 20:2). Prov. 26:17 could mean this, but there are textual issues there. It seems more reasonable, therefore, to translate it here as ‘full of wrath.’
Keil & Delitzsch reason similarly: “Most interpreters translate 16b: the fool is over-confident (Zöckler), or the fool rus…

A Biblical-Theological Review of Michael Allen's Sanctification - Part 9: Chapter Eight - Grace and Nature

Image
Chapter 8: Grace and Nature Chapter 8 considers “two realities: the promise of the new creation and the nature of the new creation” (200). Allen addresses “how the grace of new creation relates to the nature we have been granted, namely, how regeneration pertains to and informs our thinking of the relationship of grace and nature” (200). He concludes that “the dynamic of biblical sanctification … can only be described fittingly in eschatological terms: the moral tension involved here is neither sequential (as if holiness means the simple transversal from sinfulness to righteousness, with no remainder), nor partitive(as if some portion of the self were holy, with others remaining depraved), but redemptive-historical (wherein the Christian is marked by the sign of the pilgrim, no longer captive in Egypt yet still sojourning to Canaan)” (211).
Affirmation Allen uses Hebrews 3-4, 8, and 12 to frame a realized eschatology in terms of Israel’s journey to Canaan. I applaud his avoidance of t…