Matthew 1:25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Helvidius stressed that the word “until” here indicates the notion that Joseph and Mary engaged in normal sexual relations after Jesus was born. Jerome [whose arguments are still followed by Roman Catholic apologists] argued that the word “until” does not necessarily indicate that Mary had normal sexual relations with Joseph. There are several passages that could be used in this regard, but, just for example, take the following in the LXX:

2 Samuel 6:23 And Melchol the daughter of Saul had no child till the day of her death.

Clearly, in this instance, no one is going to suggest that Melchol started having children after she was dead.

Svendsen’s contribution was to distinguish between different phrases that are translated “until” in Greek. The Greek term heos alone can be used, as can the phrases heos an, heos hou, etc. What Svendsen pointed out is that the Greek here is heos hou, and in the New Testament as well as in the literature 200 years surrounding the birth of Christ, the phrase heos hou means “until a specified time [but not after].”

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists reacted to this thesis in various ways. Some people absolutely did not know what they were talking about, and ignored the fact that Svendsen’s thesis is based upon Saussure’s distinction between diachronic and synchronic study of language. Hence, they couldn’t understand why Svendsen rejected the uses in the LXX as being relevant. In fact, many people misrepresented his views as saying that Svendsen did not view the examination of the usage of the term in the LXX as relevant to the meaning in the NT, and even misrepresented his view to scholars garnering alleged rebukes of him by famous protestant scholars. Of course, the reason why the usages in the LXX did not affect his thesis is because he demonstrated a disconnect between the way the phrase was used in the LXX and the way it was used in the time period of the NT thus indicating diachronic semantic variance. It is this diachronic variance that allowed him to conclude that the LXX uses did not affect his argument.

Others took a more reasonable tactic, and pointed out that there is other literature that is of questionable dating that may date from the 200 years surrounding the birth of Christ which contain uses of heos hou where the action of the main clause is not terminated. Svendsen pointed out that even if such dating is correct, one still has to take into account archaizing tendencies on the part of some authors, and, indeed, if what he is saying is correct, then the usage of heos hou in this way may indicate that the date of these works are not to be placed in the 200 years surrounding the time of Christ.

I still largely agree with what Svendsen wrote. Even if one could come up with instances of heos hou in the two centuries surrounding the birth of Christ, it would still make Jerome’s interpretation highly unlikely. As Svendsen points out, even in the LXX, the meaning of heos hou as “until [and continuing]” is quite rare. Thus, although Svendsen’s thesis does not settle the issue absolutely, it most certainly does make the Roman Catholic interpretation very highly unlikely.

However, as I have been studying pragmatics, I have wondered if Svendsen’s argument is incomplete. The reality is, Svendsen, in order for his thesis to even be written, had to assume that there was a way in which we can tell whether the action of the main clause is terminated by the action of the subordinate clause. It is this very methodology that he used to categorize all of these uses of heos, heos hou, etc. Likewise, Roman Catholics, when they were looking for counterexamples, had to have a way of telling whether something is a counterexample or not. This suggests that there is a way in which this issue can be settled by simply relying upon normal rules of communication. It is here that I believe that Gricean and Neo-Gricean implicature can help us.

A little background is in order here. Grice’s theories of implicature developed out of a desire to understand what goes on in conversation. He started with certain things that speakers and listeners assume when they are interacting. The main principle of Gricean and Neo-Gricean theories is what is called the “Co-operative principle.” This is summarized by Huang as

Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged[1].

Grice then lists four maxims which help us accomplish this:

1. Quality-Make sure that your contribution is something you believe to be true, and not something you believe is false or which you are unsure of.

2. Quantity-Make sure you are as informative as is required, and not more informative than is required.

3. Relation-Make sure your contribution is relevant.

4. Manner-Be clear by avoiding ambiguity, prolixity, and disorder[2].

In Neo-Gricean theories, some of these principles were collapsed into one. For example, in Horn’s version, all of these maxims are divided into Quantity [Q] and relation [R] maxims, while in Levinson’s Neo-Gricean theory, they were divided into Quantity [Q], Informativeness [I], and Manner [M].

These principles help us to avoid a major problem in language. Consider the following example given by Huang[3]:

John has had nine girlfriends.
a. John has had at least nine girlfriends.
b. John has had exactly nine girlfriends.

The sentence “John has had nine girlfriends” is subject to the interpretation found in both a and b. We could treat this sentence as semantically ambiguous, but the problem is that such an interpretation runs the risk of falling prey to Occam’s razor[4]. The difficulty also is that there are other words that are likewise subject to this kind of interpretation such as “all” or “some.” If someone says, “Some of the candy in the bag is purple,” in terms of strict semantics, this does not rule out the possibility that *all* the candy in the bag is purple. If all the candy in the bag is purple, then some of the candy in the bag is purple. This is a major problem since, as Huang suggests, it would turn a dictionary into an exercise in proliferation[5]. The same analysis can be give to our text:

Joseph kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son.
a. Joseph kept her a virgin at least until she gave birth to a son.
b. Joseph kept her a virgin only until she gave birth to a son.

Huang, in discussing this problem, suggests that this problem can be solved by a division of labor between semantics and pragmatics. He suggests that, semantically, we can assign the meaning “at least” while getting to “only” or “exactly” through the use of pragmatics, and, imparticular, conversational implicature[6]. The reason has to do with Grice’s Quantity maxim, namely, that a speaker must not be more informative than is required. Thus, one can say that, both in the case of the number 9, and the word “until,” the reason the speaker doesn’t say “exactly nine” or “only until” is that, to do so, would be superfluous. We assume that speakers mean “only” or “exactly” precisely because we assume that they are giving us sufficient information. The same thing goes for the word “some.” If someone says, “Some of the candy in the bag is purple,” we assume that they are giving us sufficient information, and we likewise conclude that only some and not all the candy in the bag is purple.

I had this experience at work recently. A customer and I were looking to see if a particular camera came with a SD card, and we found the word “contents” and then a list [camera, charger, instruction manual, etc.] but we did not find “SD card” on the list. Hence, she went over, and started looking at the SD cards. Why? Because she assumed that the list contained *only* the things written under the “contents.” She assumed this based upon the fact that the person who wrote the list was being sufficient in his communication.

Hence, we would have, by Q-Implicature:

He kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son.
+>He kept her a virgin only until she gave birth to a son.

So, we have accounted for how protestants read this passage. Now, why is it that Roman Catholics can point to examples of “until” where it clearly does not mean “only until?” The answer is very simply that conversational implicatures can be defeated. For example, Huang calls our attention to this sentence[7]:

His wife is often complaining.
+>His wife is not always complaining.

However, consider what would happen add another sentence:

His wife is often complaining. In fact, she complains all of the time.
~+>His wife is not always complaining.

Normally, we assume that when a person uses the term “often” that they are giving us sufficient information, and thus, they do not mean to suggest that his wife is always complaining. In this case, the semantic entailment of the second sentences [she complains all the time] defeats the implicature. Implicature can also be defeated by background assumptions and context. Consider the example we looked at earlier:

And Melchol the daughter of Saul had no child till the day of her death.
~+>Melchol, the daughter of Saul, had no child only until the day of her death.

The reason why this implicature is defeated is because of our background knowledge of the way in which childbearing works. Childbearing only occurs when a person is alive, not when they are dead.

The point is that we assume that the author is giving sufficient information [only until] unless we have semantic entailment, background assumptions, or something in the context that contradict the implicature. This is why I believe Svendsen was able to categorize all of the examples of the various phrases.

Also, this will work regardless of the Greek phrase used. Consider the Greek phrase heos an which is notorious for being used when there is no termination in the action of the main verb:

Matthew 2:13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.”

Remain there until I tell you.
+>Remain there only until I tell you.

This interpretation is born out by the fact that, after Herod dies, the angel tells them to return.

Mark 6:10 And he said to them, “Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there.

Stay there until you depart from there.
+>Stay there only until you depart from there.

This interpretation is born out by the fact that it would be foolish to assert that, once they depart from that place, they are going to be staying in the same place. However, consider instances in which heos an very clearly cannot mean “only until.”

Matthew 22:44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’?

Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet
~+>sit at my right hand only until I put your enemies under your feet.

Why does this implicature not follow? It does not follow because of the context of the Psalm [110:4] which says that he is a priest forever, but also because of our background knowledge that both the New Testament present the kingdom of Christ as something which endures forever. Hence, it cannot be that the honor which Christ receives lasts only until his enemies are put under his feet.

Let us now return to the implicature I proposed earlier:

He kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son.
+>He kept her a virgin only until she gave birth to a son.

In order for the Q-implicature to be defeated, the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox apologist must show that there is something that the passage entails, that we assume as background, or that is in the context that would defeat this implicature. If they cannot do that, then, by the normal assumption that speakers are giving us sufficient information, we can assume that Matthew is contradicting the Roman Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity.

However, what is worse is that I believe the context actually confirms the Q-implicature I have noted earlier. Consider the beginning of this pericope:

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

The crucial phrase is “before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” Words like “before” trigger what is called a “presupposition.” To see this, simply use the word “before” in another sentence:

Before I went to the store, I mowed the lawn.
>>I went to the store.

Before we saw the eclipse, we saw a spectacular meteor shower.
>>We saw the eclipse.

Before we saw the aurora borialis, we looked at the newspaper to see if the conditions were right for it to occur.
>>We saw the aurora borialis.

Before I caught the ball, I slipped and fell.
>>I caught the ball.

I could continue, but I think you get the point. Hence, going back to Matthew 1:18, we would have:

before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
>>They came together.

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists have not so much rejected this conclusion as they have the meaning of the term “come together” as having any relevance to sexual relations. They suggest that it is not meant to be taken in a sexual fashion. The problem is that, if you take the phrase “they came together” in a sexual fashion, it provides a nice inclusio between verses 18 and 25 as both would be clear statements of the virgin birth. Also, if we take this to simply be referring coming together in a living arrangement, then it would have virtually no relation to Mary being found to be with child. That would be a problem both before they came into the living arrangement, as well as after they came into the living arrangement. Not only that, but the point seems to be that Joseph knows that he is not the father of the child, and that is why he wants to put her away. That would fit nicely with “before they had sexual relations, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.”

Hence, the real problem with the argument of those who hold to the perpetual virginity is, instead of arguing contextually, they have run off to other instances of “until,” which are not pragmatically parallel to Matthew 1:25. However, if the Q-implicature in Matthew 1:25 is to be defeated as it is in the texts they like to point to, they must show that some parallel exists, when it very clearly does not.

[1]Huang, Yan. Pragmatics. Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics. Oxford University Press. New York, NY. 2007. p.25
[2] ibid.
[3] ibid, p.7
[4] ibid.
[5] ibid.
[6] ibid, pgs. 7-8
[7] ibid, p.32

+> Conversationally Implicates
~+> Does Not Conversationally Implicate
>> Presupposes

Now, I have not read Driscoll’s book, so this is not meant to be a review of Driscoll’s book. It is, however, meant to be a criticism of the line of thinking that produced Driscoll’s sermons on the Song of Songs. I want to make some brief comments on the topic, because I am deeply concerned that people believe that this is an appropriate contextualization of the Biblical treatment of sexuality.

First of all, there is no doubt that the Bible presents sexual pleasure as something that is good. Consider, for example, the imagery of a water fountain satisfying [Proverbs 5:15-19], or the imagery of spices, fragrances, and honey [Song of Songs 4:10-11]. Such sensual imagery speaks to the inherent goodness of sexual pleasure and sexual fulfillment. Examples of such could be multiplied indefinitely throughout the poetry about marital love in the Hebrew Bible.

Still, my biggest concern is not only to look at what is said, but how it is said. When we look at these poems of the Hebrew Bible which express the love between a husband and a wife, they are most definitely sensual, but in a very modest fashion. In fact, even some of the parallels in the Ancient Near East are very modest, even though they are very clearly sensual, and many times, quite immoral. For example, the “wasf form” where the bride is asked to dance at her wedding feast much similar to Salome’s dance of the seven veils. Yet, we find much of the same imagery in this context that we find in the Song of Songs [Carr, G. Lloyd. The Song of Songs in Longman, Tremper III, Ryken, Leland. The Complete Literary Guide to the Bible. Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1993. Kindle Edition]. Yet, this is where you find parallels to some of the most beautiful modest imagery in the Song of Songs. The point is, even in what most of us would consider to be a grossly immoral and sexually perverse act, you still have this kind of modesty.

However, that changes when you have passages like Ezekiel 23 in which you have fornication laid out in all of its ugliness. Feminist critics will object that this is a sexualization of women. However, most of them have missed the point. Yes, it is indeed meant to portray this misuse of women, but it is meant to do so in order to show what Israel has done to herself. She has prostituted herself in this way, and has degraded herself in so doing.

You might be thinking that, as someone whose main area is the Hebrew Bible, that I am not taking into account the New Testament. However, I think an equally strong case can be made for this distinction even in the New Testament. Consider 1 Corinthians 7, and notice how, in simply verses 1-2 Paul already uses two euphemisms for sexual relations: “to touch a woman” and to “have his own wife.” Marital sexual relations are clearly in view here, and yet, Paul is not graphic even when he speaks about the authority of the husband over the wife’s body, and vice versa.

This modesty in speaking of sexual relations seems to point to the intimate and private nature of the act itself. More than that, it points to the beauty and the wonder of sexual relations between two people, something that, even when talked about by someone else, needs to be spoken of with modesty so as to respect the relationship. However, there will be times when such language is necessary to expose the degrading nature of sexual immorality. Thus, I would conclude that modesty in the language about sexuality is not something that can be written off as culturally based, and thus written off in our contextualization as Driscoll has done. The modest language the Biblical authors use reflect their views of sexuality. I say this, not only because of these examples, but because of the repeated examples of modesty that we find in the Hebrew Bible, as well as explicit language being used strategically to prove points about sexual immorality.

On the side of application, therefore, this also means that how *we* speak of sexuality betrays *our* views of it. To put it bluntly, if we use explicit XXX rated language of sexuality, then that is our view of it. Do we view our sexual relations as something beautiful and intimate between two married people? Or as something explicit and vulgar to be spoken of in such an immodest fashion? Aside from the exegetical nonsense that is produced by approaching the Song of Songs as a manual for sexual therapy [something MacArthur addresses in his review of Driscoll, and I therefore don't need to get into here], it also betrays a lack of respect for sexuality itself, something that even the pagans of the Ancient Near East were unwilling to do even with their sinful sexual actions.

To be even more blunt, to use this kind of racy language with regard to sexual relations shows contempt for the good creation God has made sexual relations to be. We do not go around using vulgarity of our parents, because to do so would show disrespect for them. Why then do we do it with sexual relations? If Driscoll described his parents in the way he describes sexual relations, he would be criticized for breaking the fifth commandment. Yet, I believe Driscoll has violated the greatest commandment of the law by showing contempt for a beautiful aspect of God’s good creation [Deuteronomy 6:4-5]. That is very dangerous.

As Schaeffer said, when there is no place for God as God, there is no place for man as man either. What we have here is a loss of “humanness,” or man being man. Now, all of the sudden, man is whatever he believes himself to be, even if that means that he must inflict pain upon himself in order to convince himself that he is not what his creator made him to be. That is the essence of Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Bisexual behavior. It is an utter ripping away of human dignity.

This is the kind of dehumanization to which the false gospel of secular humanism leads. The sad thing is that there actually are people who applaud this utter destruction of human dignity. Also, because the logic that is used to justify this kind of behavior can also be used to justify everything from polygamy to pedophilia and even bestiality, the loss of humanness will simply continue since there is no Christian consensus [which begins with God and the Bible] giving us the moral absolutes to prevent it.

What is disturbing about this video is how those who promote this destruction of human dignity are now forcing everyone else to accept it as well. This is what happens when you have a position that is unnatural, and works against the very way in which God intended you to function. You have to have an elite which imposes their will on everyone else. The problem is that this too will collapse, as more and more humanness is taken away. Society cannot exist unless man is allowed to be man, and man cannot be allowed to be man so long as God is not allowed to be God. It eventually leads to chaos because everyone wants to be who they think they are, and yet, still interact with each other in a society. That is where the false gospel of secular humanism leads.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with a Christian who decides that they don’t want to celebrate Christmas. However, I do have concerns about the grossly reductionistic argumentation used to say that celebrating Christmas is somehow sinful and idolatrous. There are many parallels to the arguments used by exclusive psalmodists, and Family Integrated Church proponents. The argument seems to always take the same form:

What warrant do we have for X in scripture?

The problem that I have is not with the question, but with the fact that it already presupposes agreement on something for which I doubt very much there is agreement from the beginning: hermeneutics. You see, to say “We have warrant for X in scripture” or “We don’t have warrant for X in scripture” depends upon how you interpret scripture. I have found that people who pose the question, “What warrant do we have for X in scripture?” are simply assuming a particular hermeneutic that they don’t want defend. The logically prior question to “What does scripture say?” is “How should we determine what scripture says?” This really is the crux.

Let me give an example of how this might play out. Let us assume that there is a person who has an empirical view of language, and, therefore, interprets the Bible in such a way that he makes God empirical. Here, one’s view of language determines how one is going to read the text. Also, consider the influence of neo-Platonism upon the hermeneutics of the Alexandrian school. There is a reason why the Alexandrian school argued for a “deeper” meaning. It was because of a pre-commitment to neo-platonic philosophy of language. The point is that one’s hermeneutics and philosophy of language determines what you will say is commanded in scripture, and what you will say is not commanded in scripture.

Hence, yesterday, when I saw one of my friends ask the question, “Where are we commanded to remember the birth of Christ in scripture?,” I immediately asked, “What would convince you that we have a command in scripture to remember the birth of Christ?” Such a question changes the whole scope of things. It puts the question back to one’s philosophy of language, and how one derives certain commands from scripture. This is something I have not seen exclusive psalmodists, Family Integrated Church proponents, or those who say that we should not celebrate Christmas [usually also esclusive psalmodists] address. Yet, it is vital to the whole question.

The problem is that this question is vital to understanding the regulative principle, since it is vital to understanding how to apply the text of scripture. It is somewhat ambiguous as to the view of language that many of these people take, but I have found that, largely, they will argue that, unless you have the text commanded in the very words or the semantics of the words of the text, it is forbidden. The difficulty with this argument is that it reduces language down to words, and focuses on words as the primary element of language. This can be seen in the common question:

What warrant do we have in scripture for singing uninspired songs?

While there is no doubt that words are important to language, the problem is that meaning is not necessarily wrapped up in the individual words of a sentence. Let us, for example, take the common Hebrew verb אמר. This term is found, not only in the Hebrew Bible, but also in uninspired Hebrew inscriptions. Hence, what does it mean to say, “The Hebrew term אמר is inspired?” It cannot be understood to be inspired unless it is put within a a context, a context of other words surrounding it. However, even that is insufficient. There have been many copy errors that have crept into the manuscripts over time. One most rightly ask whether a person doesn’t have the word of God simply because they have a manuscript that reads דבר rather than אמר. This is why most evangelical theologians speak of verbal-plenary inspiration, that is, that it is not just the words, but meaning created by the context itself that is inspired, and that is why verbal inspiration cannot be considered apart from plenary inspiration.

The truth of this can be seen in a phenomenon known as “semantic entailment.” John Frame, in his devastating review of R. Scott Clark, points out a common problem in this regard:

…within the bounds which God has prescribed, and that we do not add anything to that worship which has been divinely instituted, or corrupt it in any part, even the most unimportant.

Taken literally, however, this would exclude sitting on pews, standing for hymns, reading Psalm 50, and any number of things which God does not specifically “prescribe.” Therefore Clark, following the tradition, distinguishes between “elements” and “circumstances” (230). The RPW literally governs only the “elements” (word, sacraments, and prayer), but not the circumstances, which would include such things as the time and place of worship, the use of pews, etc.

One problem here is that there are some things we do in worship that are neither elements nor circumstances in the official definitions. Reading Psalm 50, for example, is not an element, because God nowhere commands us to read precisely that passage. But neither is it a circumstance, because circumstances are “common to human actions and societies,” (WCF 1.6). So some have spoken of “expressions” or “forms” as a third category. But it is not clear what the status of this category is with regard to the RPW.

I think that this can be understood if we allow that language has a semantic field. Consider, for example, the common phenomenon called “semantic entailment”:

1. I got a cat today.

2. I got an animal today.

As one can see, the truth of the first guarantees the truth of the second, and the falsity of the second proves the falsity of the first. However, let us assume that scripture contains the words of the first, but does not contain the words of the second. The difficulty can be readily seen. What happens if we find out that the second one is false? A person who is consistent with their exclusive psalmody will say that the inerrancy of scripture has not been affected, because it is not the inspired word of God that has been proven wrong. However, as can be clearly seen, if #2 is wrong, so is #1.

However, one will still press that #2 is not the specific words of scripture, and to that I agree. #2 is not *verbally* inspired, but it is inspired because it is related to the *plenary* aspects of the words of scripture. This is why, again, verbal aspects of inspiration cannot be separated from the plenary aspects. If that is true, then the exclusive psalmodist must explain this relationship.

However, it is precisely this relationship between words that allows us to understand what Frame has said above. For example, notice the similarity in the relationship between the two sentences above and these two sentences:

1. We can sing the Psalms.

2. We can sing Psalm 50.

What this points out is that language has a semantic field. When you main a statement, it will entail a wide variety of things. It is the same for scripture, and that is what I believe is, at least partially, what is to be understood when we speak of the *plenary* aspect of inspiration. The problem is, if this is the case, then exclusive psalmody is thereby refuted. Why? Because one must ask the question as to whether one can sing songs that semantically entail the message of scripture, since entailment is related to the plenary element of inspiration.

This also will refute those who say that we should not celebrate Christmas because there is no command in scripture to do so. Consider the following:

Psalm 105:5 Remember His wonders which He has done, His marvels and the judgments uttered by His mouth,

In this verse, we are commanded to remember the wonders of God which he has done. Hence, you have the following relationship:

1. We must take time to remember the mighty acts of God.

2. We must take time to remember the incarnation.

One can readily see the entailment between 1 and 2. About the only thing I have heard in response to this is that we should remember the incarnation year round. Of course, there is no doubt of the truth of this statement. However, the problem is that even the exclusive psalmodist has to admit that, although we are to remember the great truths of scripture, there are times during the year when the pastor will take time to preach on a particular topic, and to reflect upon a particular truth. One must ask why there is such arbitrariness in that they will allow a specific time to reflect on, say, the doctrine of predestination, but not upon the incarnation.

However, many exclusive psalmodists will continue demanding that the means of remembering it by a particular holiday be found in scripture. Aside from, again, pointing to the above problem of reading, specifically Psalm 50, my response is, just as the Family Integrated Church has problems with speech act theory, so also exclusive psalmody will have problems with speech act theory. The threefold division of speech act theory into locution [text and its meaning], illocution [what the text intends to accomplish], and perlocution [what the text actually accomplishes]. Consider this:

Locution: Remember the great acts of God, including the incarnation.
Illocution: To get God’s people to remember the great acts of God, including his incarnation.
Perlocution: God’s people set up a special [non-mandatory] holiday to remember the incarnation, namely, on December 25.

The key is whether it is consistent with the illocution of the commands themselves. Exclusive psalmody seeks to reduce language to locution alone, and doesn’t understand the fact that language intends to accomplish certain things. Yet, we do this all of the time when we talk about language. Consider the example of the railing at the edge of the upper deck of a baseball stadium. The upper decks of baseball stadiums are hardly common to human experience, and yet, we recognize that it is a legitimate application of the command to protect human life that we have sufficiently high railings at the edge of the upper decks. The key is what the *intent* of the command is.

Some exclusive psalmodists, in an attempt to avoid the battering rams of pragmatics against their position, will try to make a distinction between worship, and the moral commandments of God. However, such a distinction actually proves the point I have been trying to make all along, and that is that the position itself is totally arbitrary. It treats the commandments of God as normal human language, but then arbitrarily does not treat the commandments of God with regards to worship as normal human language. That is why I said at the beginning that one’s philosophy of language becomes very important in understanding what scripture commands, and what it does not command. However, the exclusive psalmodist is arbitrary. He treats the language of worship in one way, and the language of God’s moral commandments in another way. However, it is just this arbitrariness in hermeneutics that is the main criticism exclusive psalmodists, as Calvinists, accuse Arminians of engaging in!

Not only that, but it is very dangerous to do this. I had someone give me a good illustration of what happens when you reduce language down to locution. Let us say that two people go out hunting. The first guy has a gun, and the second guy keeps watch out for game. All of the sudden, the second guy sees some game to the right, and he says, “Shoot to the right!” The problem is that, although the first guy shoots to the right, he misses on his first shot, and the game starts running to the left. However, the first man continues to shoot in the exact same spot, even after the animal well out of sight to the left. The second guy then says, “What are you doing? Didn’t you see that the game started running to the left?” To which the first guy responds, “Yes, but I was obeying your command to shoot to the left.”

Without recognizing the intent of the commands, and thus, what the command deems as important, and what the command does not deem as important, an exclusive psalmodist can become exactly like the first man in this illustration. He knows the commandments of God, but he doesn’t understand what their intent is, and thus, does not see how God’s commandments with regards to worship reflect his nature and character. Thus, many exclusive psalmodists end up serving the god of reformed tradition rather than the Triune God of the Bible, as the intent is given to them by the reformed traditions, and not by a careful examination of the text itself. Properly understanding and applying God’s commands involves understanding God himself, and understanding how he has revealed himself in his word. Without that understanding, applications of scripture, even in the context of worship, become impersonal and mechanical, with no purpose whatsoever since it does not seek to understand what *God* deems as crucial to worship. Because exclusive psalmody views the bear command, apart from its illocution, as what is crucial to God’s desires in worship, it reduces God’s desires down to individual words, and does not understand what those commands are seeking to accomplish.

Hence, it is out of concern that I write this post. We need to stop with the simplistic views of language. Yes, the Puritans were exclusive psalmodists, but they were also living at a time when the study of the humanities was in its infancy. While one can never be sure what the Puritans would do if they had all of the knowledge that we have, we should, at very least, take this knowledge into account when we deal with the commands of God. We cannot glibly say that what is crucial to the commands of God is anything that is not common to human experience, as if God is not also concerned with the things that are common to human experience in his worship.

We also should stop using, “That’s not found in scripture” as a catch phrase to stop all rational thought. Not only does it presuppose a particular hemeneutic, but most of the time it presupposes a hermeneutic that ignores what scripture entails, presupposes, and intends to accomplish. There is a place for such a phrase, in that things such as the Bodily Assumption of Mary, the Queenly Coronation of Mary, the idea that delay of marriage is a sin, the idea that deliberate childlessness is a sin, etc., have nothing to do with what scripture entails, presupposes, or intends to accomplish. However, one must make clear that this is what they mean before they use the phrase “That’s not found in scripture.”

However, there is also a principle of Hebrew wisdom literature called the “acharit” or “the end.” That is, things might be pleasant now, but ultimately, in the end, if you are not acting wisely, it will hurt you. The quiverfull movement is a perfect example of our modern culture which doesn’t understand that principle. While obesity can be caused by many things, consider those who eat and eat and eat and eat, and then wonder why they are fat. Consider those who indulge in movies and entertainment all day and night, and then wonder why it is that their work didn’t get done. It is “the end” that they didn’t have in sight.

Now, I think “the end” is beginning to come into focus for at least one well known quiverfull group, the Duggars. Just recently, Michelle Duggar miscarried. What most people don’t know, and doctors are starting to point out, is that miscarriages are actually very common at their age. Apparently, one an two conceptions for people at Michelle Duggar’s age end in miscarriage.

In other words, now, for every two children that the Duggars conceive, at least one will die. However, it is even worse than that. The other problem is, just as human beings get old, so do female eggs. The longer an egg is in a female body, the more it ages, and hence, the greater potential it has for producing birth defects. In other words, even for children that may survive this ordeal, the child could still end up with a serious birth defect that would place incredible demands on a mother who already has nineteen other children to deal with.

The point is that the acharit has come for Michelle Duggar. If she keeps going down this road, she will continue to either kill children through miscarriage, or be forced to neglect the children she has due to having a special needs child. This is total irony for a woman who does this because she says that she “loves life.” She now has a choice: either give up quiverfull, or give up her love of life. It is that simple.

I think what this also points out is that one of the main problems with militant fecundity is that it does not realize the effects of sin on childbearing. That does not just come in the pain of childbearing, but in miscarriages, in the aging of the body and human eggs. If you do not factor these things in, then you will be acting like we are living in a pre-fall world when we are not. That is why family can never be used as a weapon for conquering and society, since family itself has been tainted by human sin. Family, individuals, and society all need the transforming power of the gospel to transform hearts and minds. Outside of that, there is no redemption to society or family at all.

However, I can say that some of the attacks upon him have come from folks who obviously hate God, and use Tim Tebow’s faith to spew their hatred out in the public arena. I love something Douglas Wilson said once. There are only two tenants of atheism: 1. God doesn’t exist; 2. I hate him. This can be seen in the following article which I found by a link on ESPN. In it, although you can find some football analysis which I, again, am not competent to address, you can also find exactly what is spoken of above. For instance:

Just because a bunch of people believe something does not make it true. This is obvious, even to a child. People once thought the earth was flat.1 But here’s a more complex scenario: If you were living in Greece during the sixth century, and there was no way to deduce what the true shape of the earth was, and there was no way to validate or contradict the preexisting, relatively universal belief that the world was shaped like a flat disc … wouldn’t disagreeing with that theory be less reasonable than accepting it? And if so, wouldn’t that mean the only sixth-century people who were ultimately correct about world geography were unreasonable and insane?

Trust the insane!

I think it is interesting that most people are not buying the idea that God does not exist, and even atheists are willing to admit that. In response, we have an appeal to “trust the insane.” This is actually very easy to refute. It is insane to believe that everyone is trying to kill you. Thus, according to Klosterman, we must trust in the fact that everyone is trying to kill us. It is insane to believe that there are little purple elephants everywhere. Therefore, we must trust in that. I don’t really think Mr. Klosterman wants to go this route, as it will land him in the mental hospital rather quickly.

Still, he is right that the majority don’t necessarily have it right. Still, what hurts his case here is that the notion that people in the sixth century believed the earth was flat is a historical fallacy. Even Wikipedia, hardly a conservative source, lists this as a myth of history. It is not that people *never* believed in a flat earth, but the idea that it was ever the majority is something that has been dismissed as fiction. What is worse is that the head of the Flat Earth Society, Daniel Shenton, is one of Mr. Klosterman’s fellow secularists, believing in things like the myth of Evolution and global warming. I thought that secularists were supposed to be rational? Yes, we should not always assume that the majority is right, but we also should be careful to not frame the debate in the way Klosterman has.

And this, I think, is what makes Tebow so maddening to those who hate him: He refuses to say anything that would validate the suspicion that he’s fake (or naïve or self-righteous or dumb). My guess is that Ryan Fitzpatrick or Aaron Rodgers would blow him away on the GRE, but Tebow has profound social intelligence, at least when he speaks in public. It’s not that he usually says the right things; he only says the right things, all the time. As a result, he fuels a quasi-tautological reality that makes his supporters ecstatic, even if they don’t accept it as wholly valid.

How Mr. Klosterman could know that Fitzpatrick or Rodgers would blow Tebow away on the GRE I don’t know. Again, this appears to be more bigotry: If you are a Christian, you must be either naive, self-righteous, or dumb. That is why people were lining up left and right to debate Greg Bahnsen when he was alive [they weren't]. That is why people are just lining up to debate his disciples like Michael Butler, Douglas Wilson, or John Frame [they are not]. The reality is that these secularists choose very carefully who they will exalt as a public spokesperson for Christianity. They will never put someone like Butler, Wilson, or Frame in the same spotlight as Tebow, because they know that they will have to deal with the tough philosophical issues that make secularism a philosophy standing completely in mid air. Much better to put a Christian football player in that position.

I doubt many Christians believe that God is unfairly helping Tebow win games in the AFC West. I’m sure a few hardcores might, but not many. However, I get the impression that especially antagonistic secularists assume this assumption infiltrates every aspect of Tebow’s celebrity, and that explains why he’s so beloved by strangers they cannot relate to. Their negative belief is that penitent, conservative Americans look at Tebow and see a man being “rewarded” for his faith, which validates the idea that believing in something abstract is more important than understanding something real. And this makes them worried about the future, because they see that thinking everywhere. It seems like the thinking that ran this country into the ground.

Now, with regards to agnosticism, I don’t believe there is such a thing. As a Christian, I believe that all men know God, and the only reason you get people who call themselves “agnostic secularists” is because they suppress that truth in unrighteousness [Romans 1: 18, 21]. This is a perfect example here. The crucial phrase is ” believing in something abstract is more important than understanding something real.” In other words, things that are abstract are not real. Therefore, because the laws of logic are abstractions, they must not be real. There, we just destroyed reason. I would wonder how you can even do predication without abstractions. What does it mean to say, “This is a tree,” without some conception of what “treeness” is? Ironically, all reason is destroyed by this position. Not only is all reason destroyed by this position, but ethics are as well since moral laws are likewise abstractions.

It is ironic then to find the assertion that it is this kind of thinking that ran this country into the ground. As Francis Shaeffer showed, it is actually secularism that is running this country into the ground, since the destruction of reason, ethics, and yes, even science is something that is intrinsically built into secular thought, given that you cannot come up with universals such as the laws of logic or laws of ethics simply given particulars or, what Klosterman calls “what is real.” The problem is that there is no way to logically reason from the way things are to the way they should be. There is no logical relationship between the two, and therefore, any attempt to begin with man autonomous from the revelation of God in the Bible will *always* result in the destruction of a society.

It’s difficult to take an “anti-faith” position. There’s no pejorative connotation of the word faithful. The only time “faith” seems negative is when it’s prefaced by the word “blind.” But blind faith is the only kind of faith there is. In order for someone’s faith to be meaningful, it has to be blind. Anyone can believe a hard fact that everyone already accepts. That’s easy. If you can see something, you don’t need faith. Faith in the seeable is meaningless.

I think part of the problem in responding to this is that much of evangelicalism has painted itself into this corner. I have “liked” Francis Shaeffer’s memorial page on Facebook, and, just recently, someone posted this quotation:

Vishal Mangalwadi–”Christianity lost America because 20th-century evangelicalism branded itself as the party of faith. By default, Secularism (science, university, media) became the party of truth. This is one reason why 70% Christian youth give up meaningful involvement with the church when they grow up.”

The point he was making is that Schaeffer taught against this danger many times. When you divorce faith and reason, you make faith irrational. Then, the concept of being “certain of what we cannot see” becomes “being certain of something even when it is unreasonable” rather than “certain of something that is not yet fully realized.” Modern evangelicalism, by its emphasis on experience, and its thinking that reason is the property of the secularism rather than the property of Christ, has given the secularists a birthright that is not theirs.

The alternative to this position is not to think of faith as not being based in reason, but to see reason as based on faith. When we do this, faith is not something that is “blind,” but, rather, something that is the necessary precondition for sight in the first place! If that is the case, then one may speak of not seeing faith [in the sense that it is not fully realized; we are not in the new heavens and new earth, and Christ has not returned], and yet, seeing in the sense that we know these things will happen, since it gives us the foundation for our reasoning.

But meaningful faith is dangerous. It simplifies things that aren’t simple. Throughout the 20th century, there were only two presidents who won reelection with a bad economy and high unemployment: FDR in 1936 and Reagan in 1984. In both cases, the incumbent presidents were able to argue that their preexisting plans for jump-starting the economy were better than the hypothetical plans of their opponents (Alf Landon and Walter Mondale, respectively). Both incumbents made a better case for what they intended to do, and both enjoyed decisive victories. In 2012, Barack Obama will face a similar situation. But what will happen if his ultimate opponent provides no plan for him to refute? What if his opponent merely says, “Have faith in me. Have faith that I will figure everything out and that I can fix the economy, because I have faith in the American people. Together, we have faith in each other.”

The irony of this statement is that this is exactly what happened last election. People were fed up with the presidency of George W. Bush, and all that Obama gave us was vague concepts of “change” and “fundamental transformation.” People just believed him, even though there was very little specific about his position. It was more faith in Obama than anything. Of course, Obama is failing, and it is more an indictment on the people who trusted in a mere man than upon Obama himself. As a Christian, I don’t trust in political leaders for salvation, both temporal and eternal. Our politicians need to give up their secularism, and embrace Christ as their God and king. Secularism *is* destroying our nation, both intellectually as well as financially, and it will continue to do so, until we give it up, and return to the Christian base which is the only sustainable foundation for a society.

More than that, I would say that Klosterman is misrepresenting the Biblical position on faith. The evidence for the existence of God is so overwhelming that, not only does Paul say that deep down in their heart of hearts even atheists know that God exists, but also that existence itself is predicated upon the existence of God. When you say that you are going to trust something because, if you didn’t, existence would be impossible, that is hardly like a person who says, “Just trust me because I say so.”

I think it is really sad that a Christian football player cannot simply go about his business playing football, and must put up with this anti-Christian bigotry. I do think it is indicative of the age we live in though.

The issue is generally framed in this way. The left will generally say something like, “You have all of these poor people who just keep getting poorer, and all of these rich people who just keep getting richer. The rich need to pay their fair share, and thus, we should tax them so that we can give government handouts to help the poor.” You also have many people on the right saying that the poor don’t want to work for their money, are lazy, and don’t want to work. They want the government to get out of politics so that the rich will be better able to create jobs both through purchases as well as through making and hiring businesses.

I would like to, first of all, say that I am concerned that the question is being framed in the wrong light. I think it is true that there are many poor people who are on food stamps, and yet have a big screen television, fancy clothing, and the latest I-pod technology. However, I am also certain that there are people who are dirt poor, even though they have done everything they can to find work. I also am sure that there are rich people who are likewise immoral, and think only about themselves and their money.

In fact, I was reading in this text from Jeremiah, and it clearly condemns a lack of justice:

Jeremiah 2:34-35 Also, in your hands is found the blood of poor and innocent souls. I have not found them in burglary. For concerning all these things you have said, “I am innocent; truly his anger is turned from me.” Behold, I am entering into judgment with you because of your words, “I have not sinned.”

The problem is that this is only part of the picture. For example, the passage goes on to say:

Jeremiah 2:36-37 Moreover, why do you so easily change your way? Will you be shamed by Egypt just as the shame from Assyria? Also, from this place you will go out and your hands will be upon your head; for the Lord has rejected those in whom you trust. You will not prosper under them.

What I find interesting is that Jeremiah immediately goes and condemns trusting in the governments such as Assyria and Egypt. They will not deliver them from God’s impending wrath. One might say, “Okay, but clearly God’s wrath is against them for not providing social justice; doesn’t that count for something?”

The difficulty is that Jeremiah’s diagnosis of the problem is not that simple. What follows in chapter 3 is a discourse about the idolatries of Judah in the form of the imagery of adultery and harlotry. This is made clear in 3:9 when it is said that Judah committed adultery with stone and trees. Jeremiah even says that the kingdom of Israel was far better then the treacherous Judah [3:11]. It is an interesting picture. In dealing with the nature of the problem, Jeremiah discusses the idolatry of his people. Also, this is clearly implicit in the solution given as well:

Jeremiah 3:22-25 Return, O apostate sons, and I will heal your apostasies. “Behold, we are coming to you, for you are the Lord our God. Surely hills, wildness, and mountains are deceptive; surely the salvation of Israel is with the Lord our God! Shame has eaten the toil of our fathers from our youth: their flocks, their cattle, their sons, and their daughters. Let us lie down in our shame, and let our reproach cover us; for we have sinned against the Lord our God as well as our fathers until this day, and we have not obeyed the Lord our God.

Very clearly, Jeremiah states that the Lord is the salvation of Israel. It is returning to the Lord that is clearly at issue in Jeremiah, both in terms of solving the problem of social justice as well as idolatry. However, the solution doesn’t stop here; it continues to Jeremiah 4:

Jeremiah 4:1-4 If you return, O Israel, then return to me, utters the Lord, and if you turn aside your detestable things from my presence, and do not wander, and swear as the Lord lives in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness, then the nations will be blessed in him, and in him will they glory. For thus says the Lord to each man of Judah and Jerusalem, “Till for yourselves fallow ground, and do not sew thorn-bushes. Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and remove the foreskin of your heart, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, lest my anger goes forth like fire and consumes, and there is nothing to extinguish it before the wickedness of your works.

It is also interesting that Jeremiah gives, as the solution to this problem returning to the Lord He also gives as a solution the circumcision of the heart, which the apostle Paul very clearly identifies as regeneration.

A couple of observations concerning what we have talked about so far. First, Jeremiah acknowledges that a lack of justice is clearly a problem. However, where Jeremiah goes with the solution is much different then where the left goes with it. Jeremiah notes that the problem is deeply rooted in the idolatry of the heart, the serving of other gods, and the trusting in foreign governments to keep them from wrath of God against their sin. Jeremiah gives to solutions to this problem. The first is that they return to God, and the second is that they circumcise the foreskin of their hearts, and are given a new heart.

The reason I believe this is relevant to the whole issue of social justice is because I believe that we are looking for the solution in all of the wrong places. As I said, there are problems of poor people not wanting to work, and rich people not helping those in need. However, these problems cannot be changed simply by high taxes on the rich. For one thing, just because someone isn’t using their money in a way you think is right does not give you the right to take it from them. I might have a hundred thousand rubies that are exactly the same, and yet, refuse to give it to someone who doesn’t have a ruby. Now, you can say that I wouldn’t miss one ruby because I already have a hundred thousand, but would it be right for you to take a ruby and give it to that person simply because I think I am being stingy with my rubies? No, it would be called “theft.” The first problem with taxing the rich to take their money simply because they are rich is that it violates the eighth commandment, “Thou shall not steal” [Exodus 20:15]. Whether we like what someone does with their money or not, we cannot steal it from them out of envy, and use it in the way we think it should be used.

For another thing, Jeremiah points us to a solution that is at the root of all forms of greed, whether it be the poor who don’t want to work, or the rich who don’t want to help those in need, and that is that it is a problem of the idolatry of the uncircumcised heart. The problem with having the government tax people is that this will not solve the problem, because the problem is an issue of the heart of man, something which no government taxes can change. You see, once the rich people get into office, the whole plan will be turned on its head. In a system like this, it is always who has the might has the right.

However, worse than and related to that, I think that going to government taxes is trading one idolatry for another idolatry. It is trading the idolatry of money for the idolatry of the state. That is why God declares to his people in Jeremiah 4:1 that if they are to return, they are to return to him. The problem is that the kind of social justice that is put forward by the left posits a return, but it is a return to another idol-the idol of the government and the state. We have already seen that there are many problems with this line of reasoning in that who has the right all depends on who has the might. However, it is worse than that. First of all, I have, indeed, seen poor people who live on food stamps, and yet have all of the finest televisions, computers, I-pods, clothes and jewelry money can buy. How can the government avoid allowing this to happen in its quest to rid the world of poverty? This is simply another kind of greed. Also, given the Biblical teaching of the fall and the sinfulness of humanity, what assurance do we have that the government will not abuse this power, and make it a sin to be rich? What will happen if someone works hard in order to build up money for his family only to have it taken away simply because he has more money than the poor person living next door who is simply living of the government?

I think that what is really going on here is that we have three different idols: the idols of personal peace, affluence, and the state. Many times it is a mixture of several. For example, people will be more than happy to trust in the government to steal from rich people all so they can continue to have their things, and be left alone in their self-centeredness. Also, yes, it can come from the fact that the rich only care about their personal peace and safety, and don’t care about the person sitting next to them. Also, simply seeing the problem of poverty, and trusting in the government to solve that problem all so you don’t have to deal with the hurt and the pain that comes from that situation. It is much easier to give the government the ability to play God and create “social justice.”

Francis Schaeffer did a series of television programs called How Shall We Then Live?, and it seems like these programs are incredibly prophetic. I would invite you to listen to these programs when you get a chance, as they relate directly to this topic:

One of the things that Schaeffer says in these videos is that poverty and inflation are actually pressures that are pressing against the idols of personal peace and affluence. The problem is, as we have seen, when you run to the government to deal with these problems, the government simply is not big enough to deal with these problems. For example, one can consider that, even if one were to tax the rich, many of them could still get out of it by tax evasion. Then, in order to avoid that, more authoritarianism and control would have to be applied by the government with stricter and stricter regulations. Very quickly, in order to preserve our personal peace and affluence, we find ourselves in a manipulative, authoritarian government, who is manipulative and authoritarian simply because it cannot deal with the issue of wickedness of the human heart. At that point, our idols of personal peace and affluence will crush under the weight of these problems. Humanism simply does not last long with these kinds of pressures piling upon it.

The only real solution to these problems is to return to the Christian base and foundation as found in the Bible. The Christian message offers, not a message of authoritarianism, but a message of transformation of the heart such that people will desire to obey what God has said. In the Christian life form, there is then a basis upon which to judge, not only the greedy rich person, not only the “poor” person with affluence simply given to them by the government, but also to judge the government when it steals, and when it abuses its God given authority. Thus, Christianity with its gospel which transforms the heart can withstand these pressures, while the idols of government, personal peace, and affluence cannot and will not.

There are some things from the article I would like to comment on though. I do believe that this study has done nothing more than show that there are differences between legal jargon and narrative jargon. Koppel addresses that concern here:

Before you dismiss all this by saying that all we did was discover that stories don’t look like laws, let me point out there are plenty of narrative sections that the computerized analysis assigned to the P family (or, more precisely, to the nameless family that turns out to be very similar to what the critics call the P family). Two prominent examples are the story of Shimon and Levi in Shechem and the story of Pinchas and Zimri.

I want you to take a look at the last story, and tell me what you notice:

Numbers 25:10-15 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 11 “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned away My wrath from the sons of Israel in that he was jealous with My jealousy among them, so that I did not destroy the sons of Israel in My jealousy. 12 “Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give him My covenant of peace; 13 and it shall be for him and his descendants after him, a covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the sons of Israel.’” 14 Now the name of the slain man of Israel who was slain with the Midianite woman, was Zimri the son of Salu, a leader of a father’s household among the Simeonites. 15 The name of the Midianite woman who was slain was Cozbi the daughter of Zur, who was head of the people of a father’s household in Midian [NASB].

Do you notice all of the legal jargon; things like “covenant,” “peace,” “atonement.” Hence, we have very clear legal context to this passage. Also, note that the other text is in the context of the rape of Dinah, as well as the circumcision of the men of Shechem. You don’t think that this is something that is legally significant!!!!????? In other words, a narrative can address a legal topic; hence you would expect to find overlap when this happens.

Also, the mere fact that they produced similar results to the proponents of the Welhausen hypothesis only proves what I stated in my first article, namely, that they have the same presuppositions about language that the proponents of the Graf-Welhausen theory have. Authorship is not simply wrapped up in words and synonyms. It is not even simply wrapped up in style, as style will change depending on the topic and the participants in the discourse. One must consider the discourse context as well as the individual words that are used. The point is that, if you have the same linguistic presuppositions, you will come to very similar results. The question is whether language can be reduced down to synonyms groups or commonly used words like prepositions. Such is too simplistic. In fact, using this methodology, one could conceivably break the text down into any number of groups depending upon the ways in which discourse factors end up relating to one another.

I don’t agree with Koppel’s reasoning; still, his writing is far more careful than the sensationalistic stories you hear in the news media right now. He has laid out his methodology, and he has shown the conclusions to which it leads, and points out that the news media has gotten it all wrong. While I disagree with the methodology, at least Koppel has the honesty to admit that his research does not prove the sensationalistic claims of the media.

The plot is based upon the famous fairy tale Rapunzel; a king and a queen are about to have a baby, but the queen is very sick. The king sends his men out to find a special flower that came down from the sun, and has the power to heal. However, what they do not know is that an old woman has already found the flower, and has been using it to make herself young again. The woman accidentally uncovers the hiding place for her flower in her effort to hide from the king’s men, and thus, the king’s men find the flower, take it back to the queen, and make a medicine that does, indeed, heal the queen. However, it produces a child whose hair has all of the magical qualities of the flower itself. It can glow like the sun, heal any sickness or injury, and yes, even make the old young again. The old woman finds this out, and kidnaps the child for herself.

Eighteen years pass, and the child has been kept in a tall tower with no door, but has now grown up. Throughout that time every day on her birthday she sees lanterns that she thinks are stars which the king and queen send up into the sky. Although she has been forbidden by the old lady to go outside her whole life, for her eighteenth birthday, the kidnapped princess now named Rapunzel asks the old lady [who she thinks is her mom] if she can go see the stars for her birthday this year. She declines telling her how bad and how wicked the world is, and how she would never be able to fend for herself.

Meanwhile, a thief by the name of Flynn Rider [aka Eugene] and his bandits have just stolen a jewel crown. Eugine ditches the two other bandits with the crown, and the king’s men chase him off into the woods. Maximus, the horse, chases him down, and forces him to hide behind a drapery of verdant foliage. However, this drapery is hiding Rapunzel’s tower from view. In order to escape from Maximus, he climbs the tower. Rapunzel promptly knocks him out with a frying pan, and ends up hiding the bag with the crown. Rapunzel makes a deal with Eugene; if he takes her to see the lights, the she will give him the crown back.

However, on the way the old lady catches up to Rapunzel, and tells her that all Eugine is after is the crown; once he gets that, he will desert her. The old woman then bribes the two bandits, who are now interested in getting revenge against Eugine, to help her stage a scene wherein it appears that Eugine has ditched her with the crown, and left these two bandits to harm her. Of course, “mother” comes to her rescue. However, in reality, what has happened is that the two bandits have knocked Eugine unconscious, tied him in an upright position to the wheel of the boat, and pushed the boat right toward the castle of the royal guard. Hence, he couldn’t answer when Rapunzel called him. The two bandits then feigned being knocked out, in order for her mother to be proven “right.”

So, she returns to the tower with her mother. However, now she realizes that she is the long lost princess. She confronts the old woman on it, and she responds by locking her up in the tower. Eugine escapes from the king’s guards, and goes after Rapunzel back to the tower. He calls for Rapunzel to let down her hair; her hair promptly falls, and he climbs up. However, what he doesn’t know is that this is all a trap; when he gets to the top of the tower, the old woman stabs him in the lungs. Now, Rapunzel offers the old woman a deal; Rapunzel promises that she will go with her if the old woman will only let her heal Eugine. However, Eugine won’t have it; he wants to die, so that she will be free of the slavery of this woman.

As far as the ending goes, I will not tell you how it ends; I don’t want to spoil the movie for those who have not seen it. However, I do want to address Andrea Reins’ review, as I believe it has grossly dissembled and distorted the point of the film. For instance:

As this new-fashioned fairy tale unfolds, we’re treated to an interesting commentary on homemakers and why these captives to domesticity are setting themselves up for eventual disenchantment. In spite of the fact that Rapunzel has been locked away from the world and dominated by a sugary sweet despot, we find her a delightful, adorable girl, with a zest for learning and a creative flair. Eventually, though, she wearies of the monotony. Though it’s a mockery and misrepresentation of homemaking, it holds an interesting element of truth. When life is divorced from a larger dominion purpose, the eventual result will be frustration and misery.

What I don’t think Reins is seeing is that this is *not* divorced from its “dominion purpose.” You see, it is the dominion purpose of Mother Gothel that she stay in that tower. That is the problem. I think this movie accurately describes what happens when the purposes of God are confused with the purposes of men, as is done in the radical Christian Patriarchy movement. Also, I would point out that, as an aside, the radical Christian Patriarchy movement grossly abuses Genesis 1:28 in this regard. Not only is dominion given to both men and women [as I have argued elsewhere], but it ignores the affects of the fall on this dominion. Not only does it ignore the affects of the fall, but it ignores the fact that it is the through God-man Jesus Christ that dominion is restored, not the the vision of an earthly, biological father. When you are constantly trying to help your “father” attain his vision rather then seeking follow Christ and his will for your life, whether it is your father’s will or not, then you are, indeed, doing the very same thing that Rapunzel was doing in that film.

Rapunzel was disheartened because even her more useful skills had no point beyond filling her time and whiling away the hours.4 The real problem here is that, within the world of the film, we’re only given two options, two choices in life- both of which are unsuitable, but one of which is deemed acceptable by its creators. The first, obviously, is for Rapunzel to stay in the tower trapped forever in a life of childish meaninglessness. The second is presented shortly as Rapunzel, in turmoil over her choice to run away, is advised by Flynn,

“Does your mother deserve it? No. Would this break her heart and crush her soul? Of course, but you just got to do it…..This is part of growing up—a little rebellion and a little adventure. This is healthy.”

This is the first major sermon statement of the story, and from here things spring into action as we’re shown, for the remainder of the film, that chronic rebellion is innocent, healthy fun, and disobedience in pursuit of our heart’s wildest desires actually leads to enlightenment and maturity.

I would say that this is a misrepresentation of the film. If I wanted to say how the film should really be taken, I would write it out this way:

Does your mother “deserve” it? No. Would this “break her heart” and “crush her soul?” Of course, but you just got to do it…..This is part of growing up—a little “rebellion” and a little “adventure.” This is healthy.

Note how I have added the quotation marks. This statement follows a lengthy scene in which Rapunzel is fighting with herself over whether or not to leave to go see the lanterns. She has just set foot outside the tower for the first time since she was a baby. However, she has been so manipulated at this point, that she thinks it would be “hurting” her mom to leave. Eugine is using humor in order to mock the silly notions that her mother has been putting into her head. You see, this is why this movie so offends the radical Patriarchalists. The mother’s dominion purpose is being served by her daughter being in that tower, and she has had to manipulate Rapunzel into believing all kinds of absurdities in order for that purpose to be realized. However, according to the radical patriarchalists, she is the head of the home, and this girl has an obligation to obey her, and to bring about her “vision.” The point is that this whole movie points out, at a deeper and more fundamental level, the idolatry of the Christian Patriarchy movement.

Biblically speaking, maturity isn’t defined by the childish assertion of our autonomous wills, but rather by a life lived in terms of God’s Word.6 What Tangled doesn’t tell little boys and girls, is that there is a third option of dealing with the situation in Biblical maturity and wisdom, or that the Bible paints an entirely different picture of the home and its purposes. Instead, Tangled only teaches that behind door number two lies all the adventure we’ve been waiting for.

I had to chuckle at the first statement. Several times Reins mentions the Stay at Home Daughters movement [not merely daughters who want to stay at home, but people who argue that it is God's given role for them to stay home]; to say that this movement has to engage in the most egregious misuse of scripture is an understatement. As I said, I don’t have any problem with daughters who want to become a wife and a mother; that is a good and noble way to serve God. However, the amount of exegetical gymnastics you have to engage in in order to say that this is something a woman *must* do is incredible.

Also, I don’t think that what this movie is teaching is that, behind door number 2 ["rebellion"] is where you find adventure. What it is saying, if anything, is that you should not live your life to always do what other people want you to do, and that includes your parents. That is why this strikes at the heart of the radical Christian Patriarchy movement. Karen Campbell is fond of calling this movement “patriocentrism.” That is a very good term; it is, in essence, idolatry of the father, raising there views equal to God’s view. The old woman in the film simply did not have God’s interest in mind; she had her own interests. Now, do I think that the movie, because it was made by a secular company, did not make clear that one needs to obey God rather than men in such circumstances? Absolutely. However, the point is very clear; parents are not God, and yes, they are capable of living for themselves, and seeking their own will rather than God’s will. However, the question is whether we are going to obey God rather than men. In fact, in the admonition that Paul gives for children to obey their parents, Paul adds that they should obey them “in the Lord.” He doesn’t say that they should obey their parents in their parents; he also doesn’t say that they should obey their parents in the father’s dominion purpose. He says that they should obey their parents “in the Lord” [Ephesians 6:1].

Of course, we could overlook this because, after all, Mother Gothel is really just a wicked captor bent on using Rapunzel for her own ends. But, the fact is that Rapunzel’s actions are carried out in the understanding that this is her mother and it’s really not until the last few minutes of the film that she finds out otherwise. Theirs is the relationship which is modeled throughout the film as mother/daughter. Parents are sinners, just like their children, but one person’s sin doesn’t excuse the sin of another.7If we’re prepared to say that Mother Gothel’s sins are inexcusable, we must be prepared to say the same of Rapunzel’s.

I would say that, because Mother Gothel was seeking her own ends, what Rapunzel did was not sin. Reins simply cannot understand that she is putting her parents in the position that only God has the right to hold, and that is a position of unquestioned authority. If, for even one second, the parent’s desires are placed above God’s desires, then it is idolatry. If, for one second, parents are given the same unquestioned authority that the Bible has, it is idolatry. Why? Because our goal is to not be slaves to the desires of other people; we are to be slaves of Christ, and him alone. Therefore, if we want to enjoy looking at God’s creation [remember, at this point in time Rapunzel thinks the lanterns are stars], and we are not breaking any of God’s commands in so doing, who is mere man in any position of authority to bind our conscience as if it came from scripture itself? Who is mere man to impose rules on us that defy all reason and logic, just for their own personal gain?

I think that what has happened is that we do see a lot of disobedience from children today, and, again, in evangelicalism, it seems like, when we seek to solve a problem, we always overreact. We forget about the fact that, in our obedience to our parents, we must obey “in the Lord,” not adding to his commandments, and certainly not contradicting them. When you allow mere men to do this, you are committing idolatry. This should be a wake up call for parents that, when you put restrictions on children, you need to be doing so in order to teach them the principles found in God’s word. When you place a restriction on your children that is based upon your own selfish motives, and not upon a desire to instruct your children in the commandments of God, you are exalting yourself to a position you have no business being in, and the child is not being “rebellious” to contradict you.

But the story marches on, and we find that rebellion has its rewards as romance fills the air. We also find out that children’s movies are a great way to ensure a break down of morality in the future. We see this in a number of ways- running away from home with a complete scoundrel, camping out in the woods with said scoundrel, an unbiblical view of love, emotional enticements (e.g. smolder), and also, within the dialogue.8 In the beginning, Flynn steals the tiara of the missing princess(Rapunzel) in order to fulfill a utopian, childhood dream. The tiara bounces around until it comes into Mother Gothel’s possession and as she confronts Rapunzel, the lines read like a teenage romance about losing one’s purity. Mother Gothel tells Rapunzel that the only thing Flynn is after is the tiara and as soon as he gets it, he’ll leave her. Then later, after they’ve ‘fallen in love’, Rapunzel tells Flynn that she has something to give him(the tiara)- she was scared to give it to him before, but she’s not scared anymore. Though we’re talking about a tiara now, we won’t be in a few years as similar lines are heard in teenybopper films. To a great extent, the things that we watch and listen to as children are the most influential in forming our character and worldview, in defining who we’ll become as adults. It’s those who control the education of children that will control the future of nations.9 But, education isn’t merely academics, all of culture is educating and it, in turn, flows from underlying religious beliefs. Tangled is schooling its viewers in the acceptance of immorality.

Completely left out of this whole incredibly ersatz discussion of what actually happened in the film is the fact that the two characters changed at the end of the film. Yes, at the beginning Eugine even admits that he was only seeking his own ends, but that his true dream was Rapunzel. Exactly what is meant by that is further explicated when he is willing to die so that she can be free of the tyranny of the old woman. That sounds an awful lot like the love of Christ to me. Did not Christ die so that we could be freed from the slavery of sin? In fact, I almost got the feeling that Eugine’s life of crime was his “tower” if you will, which kept him in slavery and bondage. It wasn’t until Rapunzel stopped thinking about always trying to please her mother, and Eugine stopped thinking about pleasing himself, and they started caring for one another that things really turned around. Now, I am not arguing that this is necessarily a Christian ending. They may have repented of the idolatry of parents and the idolatry of self respectively, but who knows of other idolatries may have creeped up. Still, the self-sacrifice that these two showed for each other at the end of the film is something that nicely mirrors the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It’s no surprise then, when we find that our hero is really nothing of the sort. Even among his fellow thieves, he commands no respect. Then again, Rapunzel doesn’t appear to be in much need of rescuing anyway. Their relationship is one of mutual, self-serving interest. He’s a helpless, sensitive, emotional male- an accessory to the capable, brilliant, amazing Rapunzel. And, because she’s an emancipated princess who knows how to get her man, in the spirit of Indiana Jones she wields her 70 foot hair, pulling off all kinds of daring feats and rescues. But, as the film climaxes, we’re assured that this is all okay.

This is simply absurd. They way in which Rapunzel cowered in that tavern is enough to tell you that she is not the “emancipated princess.” She still struggles with her manipulative mother all of the way through the film, and it is Eugine who helps her to break free of her manipulation. So, she helps him with her hair, and he helps her in breaking free from her abusive mother. Sounds like, again, we are using the Biblical terminology of “helper.” Also, to speak of Eugine as “helpless” is absurd in and of itself. Was he not someone who was constantly giving the king’s army the slip? In fact, is that not how he found Rapunzel’s tower in the first place?

As Rapunzel is offering to rescue Flynn one more time and give her life for his, he pulls a clever move- picking up a shard of broken glass, he cuts off her magical hair, sending the wicked Mother Gothel spiraling into old age and oblivion and assuring us that we modern women can have our feminism AND the heroism of men(of course, Rapunzel’s magical tears do have the last word since they’re required to bring the now deceased Flynn back to life.)

I think the point is that their love for one another brought him back to life. Also, notice the use of terms like “feminism.” Of course, to these folks, a girl simply going to college makes her a “feminist.” In other words, if you don’t commit the idolatry of parent worship, then you are a “feminist.” I would like to know, does she really think Rapunzel had this feministic attitude when she was cowering at the tavern, or when she was being manipulated by her mother? Also, is not the whole point that her mother was constantly telling her that she would never survive, and that everything out there is bad? Is not a part of the movie that she is overcoming the manipulation of her mother? How is this “feminism?” I don’t know.

In the end, Rapunzel is finally reunited with the king and queen and as the film closes, we discover some final lessons- that good governments reward sin and indulgent parents are real parents. Flynn is embraced, his thievery ignored, and welcomed, as Rapunzel’s new husband, a prince in their kingdom. His fellow thugs realize their dreams, too, and all of this was achieved, of course, without good character on anyone’s part; by the end of the film, we’re left without a single good role model in sight.

Of course, in the end, Eugine recognizes his own selfishness, and is willing to give his very life so that Rapunzel can live; however, all of that is conveniently ignored by Reins. I would like to suggest that, in this movie which is made by pagans, Rapunzel and Eugine are far closer to an example of the self-sacrifical love of Christ than what Andrea Reins presents in her review. I couldn’t help but think of this passage of scripture the whole time I was watching the movie, and thinking of Rein’s review:

Luke 15:7 “I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

Also, consider what else Jesus said:

Matthew 21:31 “Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The latter.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax-gatherers and harlots will get into the kingdom of God before you.

The point is that, even in a movie made by pagans there is still more repentance of idolatry than in the branch of the Christian Patriarchy movement that Reins is a part of. It is amazing to me to see pagans more capable of understanding repentance and true love than a Christian who has the very example of Christ! However, that is the blinding nature of idolatry, and we should all be wary of falling into that trap. Notice the following paragraph:

While the intellect may recognize danger, a film that appears as innocent and adorable as this delights the emotions. We exit the theater and, as our bodies go back to the real world, our minds are still in false one. In this make believe world, freedom is equated to license and duty to bondage. But, this so called freedom is nothing more than bondage to sin. The reality is that we live in a world governed by a sovereign Creator and only a life lived on his terms leads to blessing and freedom.11 Tangled is aptly called a fairy tale, because in the real world sins have their rewards and a life of unmitigated bliss is not one of them. Packaging all of this in a humorous, expertly crafted children’s film is ingenious, really. As such, it is heedlessly given the stamp of ‘wholesome entertainment’ and we, leaving our discernment at the door , imbibe the beliefs of a culture that is at war with God. Among children, though, one brilliant exhibition isn’t enough. They’ll consume it, again and again, until, through sheer repetition, their souls are imbued with depravity.

Notice the way in which she writes this. Notice how she uses the terms “duty,” “bondage to sin,” “a world governed by a sovereign Creator,” “a life lived on his terms” and “sin.” Notice what is missing? Yes, proof that her assessment of what is going on is correct from the scriptures. As I have said, the radical Christian Patriarchy movement is not real big on defending their interpretations of scripture. Most of their interpretations are just simply assumed. The way Reins is trying to get us to see the world is that the radical Christian Patriarchy movement is “God’s way,” ironically echoing the methods of the old lady in the tower. Of course, that would require exegetical proof, and, since none is given, I think it is only fair to conclude that it is simply rhetoric.

Also, another interesting parallel to this film is the phrase “imbibe the beliefs of a culture that is at war with God.” It is difficult to know how to interpret that, but, as I see it, the logical conclusion of radical Christian Patriarchy, especially with its dualism [the culture is bad, and you need our secret knowledge in order to be good], is something like the tower out in the middle of nowhere. Notice how, in the movie, even when Rapunzel got out of the tower, her mother was still manipulating her. Hence, any contact with the world must be filtered through the parents. That is why I would say that it would have been absolutely impossible to make this movie unless it hit the radical Christian Patriarchy movement right between the eyes.

As a Christian, I have a foundation to answer this problem. I can go back to the scriptures, and not only assert that God has said something, but actually defend *from the text* the fact that God has said something, because I believe that God has spoken in normal human language. As most of you can tell, I am not afraid of exegetical interaction. God has spoken freely in this world so that anyone can pick up a Bible and test whether or not God has really said something by listening to him speak in the text. However, the problem is, when you don’t have good exegesis and hermeneutics, you have to become the old lady in the tower. You need an authoritarian elite, whether it be popular authors, parents, or both. That is why hermeneutics and proper interpretation of scripture are infinitely important.

I realize that I have been very hard on the radical Christian Patriarchalists, and, imparticular Andrea Reins in this post. However, my concern is that, when the authority of scripture is usurped by the authority of man, either to bind to people’s conscience things that aren’t found in God’s word or to contradict God’s word, it will lead to a dangerous authoritarianism.

Roger Perkins – The Nature of the Godhead – Affirmative 01 from Bruce Reeves on Vimeo.

I will be reviewing the first 12:37 of this video. Beginning at about 5:17, Mr Perkins states the following:

The Hebrew word most often translated “God” is from Strongs number 430, and it is אֱלֺהִים. You can look in Strongs, Vines, Browns Drivers and Briggs, and so forth, and they will define this term as a plurality of God’s attributes, his majesty, and his greatness; and its plural form, אֱלֺהִים, means multiple gods, but in its singular form it means the one true God which is why אֱלֺהִים is translated in the singular. אֱלֺהִים is the plural form of the singular אֱלוֹהַּ number 433, which is the singular form denoting the numerical one. אֵל, number 410, is the shortened form of אֱלוֹהַּ which is, again, the numerical singular “one God,” but אֵל, number 410 is the shortened singular form meaning “the almighty” denoting the one singular God of Israel. You can go to Brown Driver and Briggs pages 41-43 for more on this. So, we see that אֱלֺהִים is a plurality of the one God’s attributes, and אֵל and אֱלוֹהַּ is the one singular, individual God.

Approximately 265 times, ladies and gentlemen, אֵל and אֱלוֹהַּ is applied to the Old Testament God using the strongest term available to denote his singular, numerical oneness.

This presentation is entirely confused. The first big problem is this idea that the plural means a “plurality of God’s attributes.” There are numerous problems with this. The difficulty is that this use of the plurality of the word “God” to refer to one God did not begin with the Israelites. It is this fact that really causes a problem for this idea that the plural here is meant to refer to a “plural of attributes.” For example, take this text from the Amarna Letters, EA 299. The first line and a quarter is transliterated and translated:

a-na LUGAL EN-ia DINGER.MEŠ-ia ^dUTU-ia
To the king, my lord, my god, my sun god…

What is interesting is that the logogram DINGER [the logogram for "īlu," the Akkadian word for "god"] clearly has the MEŠ sign immediately following it, which is the sign used to make logograms plural. Yet, this word is clearly in apposition to LUGAL [šarru], which is clearly singular. In fact, the very next phrase identifies this receipient of this letter with the sun god [^dUTU] which is clearly singular. Hence, if you tried to translate according to the number, you would get something like, “To the king, my lord, my gods, my sun god…” which doesn’t make any sense. That is why most Semitists will recognize that these usages in the Amarna letters are the first examples we have of the plural form of “God” being used as a singular. For example, Marvin H. Pope writes:

That the use of the so called plural of majesty in reference to a single god is pre-Israelite is virtually certain from the use of īlanī as singular in the Amarna letters, but there is no certain attestation of the pre-Israelite use of אֱלֺהִים as a singular [Pope, Marvin H. El in the Ugaritic Texts. Brill Academic. Boston, Massachusetts. 1955. p.21]

Even George Barton, clear back in 1890 recognized this fact about the Amarna letters:

It will be seen, therefore, that ilani-PL with the force of a singular occurs more than forty times. That it really is a singular is shown not only by the fact that it is in apposition with a singular noun, but by a variant, sarri, bili-ya ili-ya ILU šamši-ya etc., where ilu occurs in place of ilani-PL (See No.193: 1, 10, and No. 198: 1, 3) [Barton, George A. A Peculiar use of Ilani in the El-Amarna tablets. JAOS 15 p.cxcvii

What this shows is that the use of the plural of "god" to refer to one god was not unique to Israel[1]. However, does this mean that the king of Gezer in EA 299 is referring to all of the king’s attributes? It doesn’t make any sense at all.

That is why most Hebrew grammars take this to be the “plural of majesty” that Pope was talking about. However, this does not refer to the attributes of God. Bruce Waltke and Michael O’Connor define the “Plural of Majesty in this way:

Related to the plurals of extension and of abstract reference is a group of intensive plurals. In this usage (sometimes called the pluralis majestatis) the referent is a singular individual, which is, however, so thoroughly characterized by the qualities of the noun that a plural is used. Two of the great monsters in the Bible are designated with intensive plurals.[Waltke, Bruce. O'Connor, Michael. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Eisenbrauns Publications. Winona Lake, IN. 1990. 7.4.3a][2]

In other words, what Waltke and O’Connor are saying is that the plural אֱלֺהִים is used because the God of Israel is so completely characterized by divinity. The excellent update to Williams’ Hebrew Syntax by John C. Beckman describes this as a “Plural of Respect,” and defines it this way:

A plural word may refer to a single, honorable or fearful object or person [Williams, Ronald J. Beckman, John C. Ed. Williams' Hebrew Syntax. The University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Canada. p.2]

Likewise, the classical grammar of Gesenius describes the “plural of majesty” in this way:

Of (c): the pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis, as has been remarked above, is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification, treated under e, which are mostly found in poetry [Gesenius, Wilhelm. Kautzsch, E. Cowley, A.E. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Oxford University Press. New York, NY. 1909 §234g].

In other words, the plural of majesty does not refer to “a plurality of God’s attributes,” but, rather, it refers to a summation of these attributes, and the fact that the person so addressed is so fully characterized by these attributes that the plural is used. In other words, it refers specifically to the attributes if deity, and the fact that the Lord is fully and completely characterized by the attribute of deity, not the fact that he has more than one attribute.

What is more fascinating is the fact that the plural of majesty is not simply used of God, but also of humans as well. The grammars list these uses:

Isaiah 1:3 “An ox knows its owner, And a donkey its master’s [בְּעָלָיו] manger, But Israel does not know, My people do not understand[3].”

1 Kings 1:43 But Jonathan replied to Adonijah, “No! Our lord [אֲדֹנֵינוּ] King David has made Solomon king.

Isaiah 19:4 “Moreover, I will deliver the Egyptians into the hand of a cruel master[אֲדֹנִים], And a mighty king will rule over them,” declares the Lord GOD of hosts.

2 Kings 22:20 “Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be gathered to your grave [קִבְרֹתֶיךָ] in peace, and your eyes will not see all the evil which I will bring on this place.”‘” So they brought back word to the king.

Hence, are all of these things speaking of the plurality of attributes of the master of a donkey, David, the Assyrians, and Josiah’s grave? It doesn’t make any sense.

Secondly, there is a major problem with this usage of the singular. Mr. Perkins assumes that, whenever the singular is used in reference to God it refers to a singularity of person. The problem is that the uses of the singular in any given language are far more complex than this. You have mass nouns such as “mail” which may refer to one or more letter [Go get the mail]. You have collective nouns such as fruit. If I were to say “I want fruit for dessert,” it wouldn’t mean that I want only one piece of fruit simply because the singular is used.

Worse than that, even in cases where the singular is a numerical “one,” the semantics of this oneness must be defined contextually. For example, I have a [singular] blanket on my bed. However, does that mean that the blanket is an absolute singular, and cannot have mixed fibers, or different colors simply because I used the singular? I can speak of a [singular] salt granule, but that one salt granule contains both a sodium ion and a chlorine ion. It would be absurd to conclude that, just because I use the singular “blanket” that I therefore have ruled out the possibility that my blanket has mixed fibers, or that it is multiple colors. It would likewise be absurd to conclude that, just because I speak of one salt granule, that I therefore am saying that this granule is not made up of sodium and chlorine ions. The point is that the nature of the singularity must be argued from the context. The fact that the singular is used of God 265 times is absolutely meaningless, without some conception of what the singularity means when it refers to God in the singular.

For example, let us take a look at some of the passages he lists:

Isaiah 43:10-12 You are my witnesses, utters the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you will know, and you will believe on me, and you will understand that I am he. Before me there was no God formed; after me there will not be one. I, I am the Lord. There is no savior apart from me. I have declared, I have delivered, and I have proclaimed that there is no foreign thing among you, but you are my witnesses declares the Lord, and I am God.

Also, we must note the context of this passage. The context of this passage is the return from exile, and Israel as the witness of God. The point is that Israel is a witness of God to his uniqueness among the nations. No other gods are like him. There is no other savior besides him, and there is no foreign thing [probably meant as "foreign god"] amongst Israel; they are the Lord’s witnesses. Hence, the oneness here is stressed upon his unique divinity, and his uniqueness among the nations. There is no one else who is like God, and Israel and their return from exile is a witness to his uniqueness. However, that says nothing about whether this unique God is a uni-personal or a tri-personal being, only that no one is like him in his divinity.

Genesis 14:18-20 Now Melchizedek, the king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was a priest of God Most High. Then he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High who acquired heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then he gave him a tenth of everything.

Now, I think it should be obvious what the phrase “God Most High” is referring to here. It is not referring to a singularity in person, but, again, the uniqueness of God’s attributes. He is “God Most High.” Hence, again, the context is not a context of the personhood of God, but a contrast in his attributes with the attributes of other beings and other gods[4].

Nehemiah 9:17 But they refused to hear, and they did not remember your wondrous deeds which you did with them, and they stiffened their neck, and the set themselves first of all to return to their bondage in their rebellion. but you are a forgiving, merciful, and compassionate God, slow to anger, and great in loving-kindness, and you did not desert them.

The context of this passage is the great works which God did for the people of Israel, and yet, even though they rebelled against him, God still was gracious and merciful. Therefore, again, we see an emphasis upon God’s attributes, and not on his personality.

Isaiah 44:8 Do not tremble and do not be afraid. Have I not proclaimed and declared from then on that you are my witnesses? Is there a God or a rock beside me? I do not know of one.

Again, the key to this verse is its context:

Isaiah 44:9 As for those who form idols, all of them are meaningless; their delight will be of no profit; their witnesses do not see, and will not know so that they will be ashamed.

Again, the contrast is between the witnesses of God and the witnesses of the idols, and the one true living God verses all of the false idols among the nations. Again, this has nothing to do with whether this one true God exists in three persons. All it is saying about him is that he is the one true God against all of the false Gods. Hence, again, there is nothing in this verse that speaks of whether this one true God who is distinct from all false Gods is a uni-personal or a tri-personal being[5].

I think it would be best quote Perkins at this point in this next verse:

Isaiah 45 and 21 tells us [now listen very closely to this if you would], there is no other אֱלֺהִים, plural besides me, a just אֱלוֹהַּ, singular. So, one individual אֵל says there is no says there is no plurality beside me. Imagine how the two other divine persons felt if one of them declared that there was no other plurality beside me.

There are a couple of things that should be noted here. First of all, the Hebrew term used here is not אֱלוֹהַּ but אֵל. Second, the Amarna material I quoted above should be enough to refute the notion that we are referring to a plurality just because of the fact that the plural אֱלֺהִים is used. Perkins is simply in error. Again the context, verse 20, clearly points out that we are dealing with the one true God against the false Gods of the nations. However, we must ask, why is the plural and the singular used. The answer is that this is parallelism. As I pointed out before in my response to Kent Brandenburg, the singular and plural set in parallelism is a common grammatical feature of parallelism in Biblical Hebrew. Also, the end of this verse would refute him as well: “There is not, except me.” That is very clearly parallel to the “plural” phrase he quotes “there is no God beside me.” Thus, apparently, God is a plurality if we read the text in the way that Perkins is reading it!

Again, the same thing is true of the Hebrew term אֶחׇד. It must be examined in its context. Perkins quotes from Deuteronomy 6:4, but, again, fails to quote 6:5:

Deuteronomy 6:4-5 Hear O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is one, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

Again, the context is the worship of God. The point is that God alone is to be worshiped, and God alone is to be loved with all of our heart and with all of our being. Again, this text says nothing about whether this one God who is to be worshiped exists in three persons or one person.

Next, Perkins says this:

Isaiah prophesied that the son would be born, and that he would be given. Then he gave the attributes of that name; he gave the attributes; he says “wonderful counselor, the mighty God, the eternal father” did you hear that? It says tonight, I will repeat it again, Isaiah 9 and 6, he called Jesus, he referred to the name, and he puts the attributes in that name, and part of that was the mighty God [not a mighty god] and the eternal father [not a eternal father]. This would be very strange language, ladies and gentlemen, if it was a second individual in the Godhead, being called by the name of the first individual in the Godhead. The mighty God and the eternal father, and I would ask tonight, respectfully, what is the first divine individual doing wrapped up in the name of the second divine individual. My opponent’s position would have Isaiah’s prophecy unfulfilled. If Isaiah is not calling Jesus the eternal father, ladies and gentlemen, then is he also not calling him “wonderful,” is he also not calling him “counselor,” and is he also not calling him “the prince of peace?” Will my honorable opponent be consistent and say that Jesus is also not “wonderful,” that Jesus is also not “the prince of peace?” The actual text itself ties the eternal father to the name of Jesus. So, we have a clear demonstration here of the duality in Christ Jesus that he was simultaneously the son given and the eternal father, and the mighty God.

This argument hinges upon the use of the article “the” by Perkins. The problem is that the definite article is not found in the Hebrew at all. I suppose it could be assumed, because we are dealing with a name, but, again, as Perkins notes here, the point is to give the attributes of this person. A much better translation could be achieved by capitalizing the beginning of each of these titles, and to leaving off the definite article as the NASB has done. That gets across the fact that we are talking about a name, but also shows the attributive nature of these titles.

Finally, why is all of this important? It is important because of Perkins’ conclusion:

So that my first premise tonight is well-established based upon the actual grammar of the Old Testament Hebrew and the Old Testament Jewish writers believed one אֶחׇד individual אֵל of God. That is my first premise.

Of course, he discusses whether or not the Hebrews before the time of Jesus believed in the Trinity. My own opinion is that the Hebrew scriptures leave the issue ambiguous. They will make statements like “God cannot be seen,” and then show instances such as Isaiah 6 where God was indeed seen. The ambiguity requires resolution, and that resolution will either come in the revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament, or in the Jewish traditions which seek to explain [however inadequately, I believe] the way in which these paradoxes can be understood. Still, if the Hebrew Bible teaches that God is uni-personal, then the Hebrew Bible, as scripture, must be believed. However, Perkins fails to interact with the actual context of the Hebrew Bible to show that, in any way shape or form, any of its statements about the oneness of God are dealing with his person rather than his being. Because of that, I would conclude that Perkins has not established the modalist perspective from the Hebrew Bible.

[1]There have been attempts to connect the Ugaritic ‘ilm, ‘ilhm, and the Phoenician ‘lm with this plural, but the examples are too ambiguous to be conclusive.

[2]See also, Jouon, Paul. Muraoka, T. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Part Three: Syntax Pontifical Biblical Institute. Rome, Italy. 2005. §136d-f, who separates the plural of majesty and the plural of intensity, although still allows that the two uses are analogous.

[3]To be fair, this could also be conceived of as grammatical parallelism with the בְּעָלָיו being parallel to the קֹנֵהוּ in the first colon.

[4] I am well aware of the interpretation that says that “God Most High” was actually a title for a pagan deity. As a Christian, I would obviously disagree with this understanding of the passage. However, I am also certain that Mr. Perkins would as well, so there is no reason to address it here.

[5]This also refutes the common Jehovah’s Witness argument that Jesus is God, but he is not God in the same sense that Jehovah is God. Aside from the fact that this is a departure from monotheism, it also has the added disadvantage of handing the argument to Isaiah’s opponents. Why could not a pagan respond, “Well, Baal is God, just not in the same sense that the Lord is God?” Thus, it would totally destroy Isaiah’s argument about the uniqueness of God among the nations.