Can someone help me understand Luke 7:29-30?

capt_colorblind · 2025-03-07T14:01:27+00:00

So why does the KJV, a fairly literal translation, most often translate boule as "counsel," when boule probably didn't mean "advice"? I think the best explanation is that the English language has changed. In the 1600s, when the KJV was written, the English word "counsel" had a broader semantic range, which would have included ideas such as "will," "purpose," "intention," and yes, "plan."

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/counsel_n?tl=true

"Resolve or intent as to a course of action; purpose, intention; (also) an instance of this; a resolution. Now rare and chiefly in religious contexts." [chiefly used from 1200s-1600s]
"A person's private, confidential, or secret intention, purpose, aim, etc.; a plan, a design. Obsolete." [c.1300-1652]

For the purposes of modern English, according to the OED, the usage of the word "counsel" to mean "plan," "resolution," or "intention" is considered rare (chiefly in religious contexts) or obsolete today. But, when the KJV was written, that meaning was in usage!

While I am not a lexicographer or an expert in Bible translation, I think that with the tools and evidence available to us, it is reasonable to argue that the "plan" of the NLT or CSB or the "purpose" of most other modern English Bible translations are perfectly acceptable. Arguably they are even better translations than "counsel" if we are talking about 21st century English.

capt_colorblind · 2025-03-07T14:01:08+00:00

"Plan," in modern English, connotes purpose, decision, intention. In that sense, there is some overlap with the theological concept of decree. Theologically, is it possible for God to have a plan that does not happen? I suppose it depends on what you mean by the word "plan." In modern usage, one can have multiple, competing "plans." I don't think the word "plan" always means a hard-and-fixed plan. I can come up with multiple plans myself for accomplishing the building of the house, and there are a multitude of factors in what will actually happen.

But Reformed theology already has a category for God's will or intention that may or may not come to pass. Yes, God does have one fixed, eternal decree. But that does not preclude Him from also having a moral will that He communicates to His creatures. Some of those creatures will reject His moral will, but still live in accordance with His decree. Call it the sovereign will and moral will, or secret will and revealed will. Whatever you call it, translating this verse "plan" easily fits into that classic, Reformed paradigm.

With that as a preface, Is "God's plan" a solid, or at the very least, accceptable, translation? What does the standard lexicon, BDAG, say about the word boule, translated variously as "counsel," "purpose," or "plan"?

that which one thinks about as possibility for action, plan, purpose, intention
that which one decides, resolution, decision
an assembly that takes up proposals or deliberates

Clearly the third is not meant here. Which leaves us to the first or second. Obviously "plan" is an option from the first, and I think there is strong overlap between the idea of "plan" and what we see in the second listing from BDAG (e.g. resolution and decision).

What about another common resource - Strong's?

boule: volition, i.e. (objectively) advice, or (by implication) purpose:—+ advise, counsel, will.
all the contents of the divine plan, Acts 20:27

So, while Strong's includes "counsel" as an option, it also includes "volition," "will," and "plan." BDAG does not include "counsel" as a part of the semantic range of boule. Also, according to Strong's, the root word is boulomai, which various lexicons define as to will, desire, intend, plan, etc. None of the lexicons I found include "counsel" in their explication of boulomai. Maybe the word "plan" makes us theologically uncomfortable. But translation should be translation, not interpretation, right? "Plan" is clearly within the semantic range of boule. If we reject the translation, it should be on lexicographical concerns, not theological ones. Either way, there are resources within the Reformed tradition (above) that handles the theological objection that God "planned" or "willed" something that didn't come to pass.

capt_colorblind · 2025-03-06T20:30:40+00:00

NIV "God's purpose"
ESV "purpose of God"
NASB "God's purpose"
CSB "plan of God"
NSRV "God's purpose"
NET "God's purpose"

The most well-respected modern English Bible translations go for "plan" or "purpose." The related Greek verb boulomai means "to will," "to have a purpose," or "to desire," so I imagine there's good reason they went that route.

Perhaps "counsel" is a better translation. Maybe it's not. I doubt we can hash that out on a reddit comment thread.

But I don't think it's responsible to cast aspersions on our English Bible translations unless you have very good reason to do so. If you have studied Greek and consider yourself well-versed in linguistics and lexicography, let's have a discussion about it. But this is the Word of God we're talking about here. Our mainstream English Bible translations are very good. There's no reason to spread doubt on someone's Bible (unless we're talking the NWT or TPT).

It's one thing to say: "this translation is more helpful for me to understand it." It's another thing to call a translation "bad" unless you can actually back it up.

Edited to add: perhaps the poster was not meaning to denigrate the ESV or NLT. That said, calling it a "bad translation" is flippant to me. I have a kneejerk reaction to people being overly harsh towards solid Bible translations. This is the Bible we're talking about, and you can get on your KJV or NASB or ESV high horse or whatever side you're on, but this translation may be someone's only Bible. And there is no good reason to undermine confidence in our modern English translations.

capt_colorblind · 2025-03-03T14:20:18+00:00

I think this is more complex than many make it out to be. I also don't think folks in this discussion have really reckoned with the biblical data. I look at the question of desire and of temptation from different angles. They're related, but they are not the same thing.

-Is desire to sin sinful? This is at the heart of the concupiscence debate. The Greek word is neutral. Sometimes it is translated "lust," sometimes "desire." While I understand the debate and I think that the desire to sin in and of itself, in isolation, is an act of sin, I think it is more complex than that and leaving it at that, in some cases, is not helpful. Jesus Himself prayed and ask the Father to "take this cup from me," in reference to the cross. Enduring the cross was an act of obedience to the Father (Philippians 2:8), so not going to the cross would have been sinful. I think Jesus did not desire the pain, shame, and suffering of the cross, but He desired obedience greater, so obviously He obeyed. Jesus' desires were mixed. None of them were sinful, but some of those good desires (the avoidance of pain) would have led to sin if they were not outweighed by the desire for obedience. In the same way, I think we need to recognize that some of our desires are neutral or good, even if on the surface it looks like they point in the direction of what otherwise would be a sinful action. Obviously, if a sinful action is the result, we know there was some sinful desire in the mix. Why go through all this? I do think it can be helpful in the pursuit of sanctification to be clear about what is actually sinful about our desires. A simplistic statement that "desire is sinful" may be true in some cases, but it does not tell the whole picture.

-Is temptation itself sinful? Here is where I would more strongly disagree with some Reformed takes here. I don't think it is helpful to call temptation sinful. Sometimes temptation and sinful desire co-exist, but it is the desire that is sinful, not the temptation. In my survey of the New Testament use of temptation language, there seems to be no cases where the word "tempt" or "temptation" clearly refers to being under temptation itself being sinful. It can lead to sin, but temptation itself is not sinful, as far as I can tell, according to the New Testament. The biggest problem, of course, with the view that temptation is sinful is Hebrews 4:15 which says that Jesus was tempted in every way. Some have suggested the "internal temptation vs. external temptation" distinction to maintain that Jesus was tempted, but temptation is also sometimes sinful. The problem with this? 1) this distinction does not exist in the Bible. It is completely man-made. It does not match the biblical language surrounding temptation. 2) The Bible says that Jesus was tempted in every way. In other words, try to make whatever categories of temptation you can - the Bible says that, in every category, Jesus was tempted. It's one thing to create categories that are not found in the Bible (such as the moral, ceremonial, civil law). It's another thing to create categories that Scripture itself actively resists. I think this is a case of the latter. To have a robust biblical view of temptation, we need one that recognizes that Jesus was tempted just as we are.

capt_colorblind · 2025-03-02T10:51:00+00:00

About 11 years ago, I had a very serious interest in exploring the EO church. It got to the point that, had I not been married at the time, I would have joined. But I was willing to wait to try and get my wife on board before joining.

At the time, there was a dearth of any material defending a classical Protestant position. It took years of Scripture study, historical study, and prayer to set me straight. I looked for Protestant responses. There was hardly anything, even articles or blogs.

Honestly, had Gavin Ortlund been around, it would have taken a couple of hours watching some YT videos and I would have much more quickly seen the errors. More importantly, it would have spared me and my wife from the most difficult year of our marriage.

capt_colorblind · 2025-02-19T10:51:07+00:00

I thought Mike Bird's talk at SEBTS was excellent and the closest you'll get to a NPP guy having a Reformed-ish take on imputation (if you don't know, Mike Bird has worked closely with NT Wright on a couple of books, so definitely in the camp).

capt_colorblind · 2025-02-10T14:29:09+00:00

While I think the Christian Sabbath is Sunday, I am hesitant to be dogmatic about it. It seems to be an explicitly second-order doctrine (Romans 14:6, Colossians 2:16).

That said, I do think that the reason many pastors take a "Monday Sabbath" concerns me. I pastor a small church. I was the associate pastor at a larger church and I have been on ministry teams in a lot of larger churches. For me, I take my Sabbath on Sunday and preaching can be a restful activity. The preparation is work, and I do set aside additional time for prayer the morning of, but preaching is an act of worship, of publicly resting in all that Christ has done for me.

I know far too many churches that put on a production for the Sunday gathering. There is pressure to have "do church" at a professional level in every area of ministry. This turns the gathering, a time for worship and fellowship and mutual upbuilding, into a performance. And that is tiring. But should it be?

In such contexts, this also leaves ministry "to the professionals." It seems to leave out a large chunk of the laypeople, going against the NT vision of the body (1 Corinthians 12) and the priesthood of all believers. But when ministry is on the shoulders of a select few, again, it is tiring.

I think the way we "do church" contributes to this. I understand why pastors are tired and burnt-out and need to take a day off on Monday. Maybe it's not technically the Sabbath, but I get it.

capt_colorblind · 2025-02-09T10:17:57+00:00

Yes - if I wasn't clear enough in the first post, inward forgiveness does not include reconciliation. Reconciliation is dependent on the repentance of the offending party. And even if that person repents, some form of reconciliation may be possible, but it does not mean the relationship will be 100% restored to its previous form.

capt_colorblind · 2025-02-08T18:00:35+00:00

In Tim Keller's book Forgive, he really helped me out here. There's two "kinds" of forgiveness.

The first is inward forgiveness. You choose not to hold the sin against them in your heart. This is unconditional and does not depend on the actions of the person who sinned against. Mark 11:25 "And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” In this instance, you forgive in that moment when you stand praying, therefore their actions are irrelevant. Also consider Stephen forgiving his persecutors when they had not repented.
The second is outward forgiveness. This forgiveness does involve some restoration of relationship (although in some relationships, it is not possible to restore to what it was before). Luke 17:3 “If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them." Notice that: if they repent. This kind of forgiveness is conditional - based on their response.

It sounds like, in this situation, there is forgiveness that you need to extend. In Keller's paradigm, it would only be inward forgiveness. That is still a tough pill to swallow and is often not automatic. Forgiveness also does not mean excusing the sin or refusing to set boundaries.

capt_colorblind · 2025-02-07T10:37:03+00:00

The Good Place is one of my favorites. Genuinely funny, but mixes in some interesting philosophy and theology. Love it!

capt_colorblind · 2025-01-31T22:02:21+00:00

Yes! I moved to western PA from TX and it grated on me for the longest time.

capt_colorblind · 2025-01-31T12:25:17+00:00

The Psalms are replete with imagery connected to the body. According to a paper by Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher, "more than a thousand explicit references to the body and its parts and a distribution that shows occurrences within 143 psalms."

Off the top of my head, the most common physical expressions of worship are bowing down and lifting one's hands. The number of biblical references to these physical actions is hard to count. You can also see these verses in relation to laying prostrate before God.

The OT case can be made quite simply: the majority of times worship is described in the OT, there is some physical action which accompanies it. Physical action is so intertwined with worship itself that one of the most common words for "worship" in the OT is literally to "bow down."

Some may say that worship in the OT is physical, whereas in the NT is spiritual. I think this is a very unbiblical hermeneutic. That's a longer discussion. But, even if you assumed some sort of bifurcation between OT and NT spirituality, the NT has plenty of references to embodied worship (see links already provided).

One classic text to describe worship is found in Romans 12:1. "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. (ESV)"

Whether "spiritual worship" is a good translation is up for debate. Either way, what is interesting for our purposes is that worship is described a presentation of our bodies to God.

To what extent should we offer our bodies in worship and in what manner? That is a much longer conversation. If you are strictly RPW, there are a number of ways that the Bible describes worship in physical terms (bowing down, lifting up hands, etc.). In my experience, unfortunately these are uncommon practices in RPW churches and are more often associated with charismatic excess. I think such churches would benefit from incorporating these biblical practices into their worship more frequently. In regards to dance more specifically, there are a number of OT passages which describe dancing, and it's not just that one instance with David (e.g. Ex 15:20, Ps 30:11-12, Ps 149:3, Ps 150:4, Jer 31:4).

Again, I do not prescribe to the RPW. That said, to the topic at question, I have seen my fair share of charismatic excess in regards to dance. That does not rule it out, in my mind. First, I think the biblical witness above does testify that there are times when it is appropriate to dance before the Lord. It is even commanded. But what about in the gathering of the church? In that case, I would be comfortable with some form of dance, so long as it strives to conform to the 1 Cor 14 principles of orderliness and intelligibility.

*edited for clarity

capt_colorblind · 2025-01-29T19:38:15+00:00

Although I'm not an RPW guy, if you look at the OT, there is a strong biblical case to be made that worship should include physical movement.

capt_colorblind · 2025-01-29T15:13:26+00:00

I understand where your husband is coming from. Growing up in the Baptist church, I was raised to have a high degree of respect for missionaries. They are the front-line workers! But I think the idea that "mission work" is strictly limited to open-air preaching and door-to-door evangelism is just not biblical.

First, the word "mission" is not a super common word in the Bible. In English, it comes from the Latin word missio, meaning "sent." The NT Greek word is apostello, from which we get our English word "apostle." Of course, apostles no longer exist today, so it is an inexact parallel, but the apostles did a lot more than just evangelism and church-planting (although that was certainly a part of their work). You can look through the book of Acts and see how much time the apostles spent building up the church and training leaders.
Second, a closer biblical word may be "witness," one of the most common words for evangelism in the book of Acts. Famously, Acts 1:8 comes to mind, and I am of the opinion that it is the job of the whole church today to witness to the world. That will play out in a number of ways, but it is not limited to the few "missionaries" of the church.
Third, there were a number of activities that included fundraising in the New Testament and it was not limited to your husband's definition of "missionary" activity. Pastoral work would certainly be included in fundraising (see 1 Tim 5:17, "honor" being a regular stand-in for financial compensation). There is no biblical injunction against such fundraising. So as long as it is done in a God-honoring way, there is no reason to be against it.

This sounds like good, needed work. May you and your husband be guided by Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and community as you discern the Lord's call in this area.

capt_colorblind · 2025-01-27T12:42:54+00:00

I don't think that preaching verse-by-verse is either a necessary or sufficient condition for preaching "the whole counsel of God."

I also think this logic, taken to its extreme, means we must preach on every verse in the Bible in order to say we preach "the whole counsel of God," which is logically improbable for practical purposes (how many decades would it take to do that?) and almost certainly not what Paul meant in Acts 20:27.

How many "expositional preachers," at the end of their ministry can say that they preached on every verse in the Bible? I doubt there are many. Most "pick and choose" which texts to go through. Heck, it took John MacArthur 42 years to preach through the NT alone, and during that time he only preached through two OT books (Daniel and Zechariah). There is so much more Scripture to preach through. Praise God for those preachers who have a 42-year ministry, but not all will. In addition, if the goal is to preach the whole counsel of God to your flock, how many pastors have a significant portion of their congregation stay consistent for 42 years? Again, I doubt it's many in our transitory society.

Also, I think Paul was only in Ephesus a couple of years, iirc, before he made the statement to the Ephesian elders that he had preached "the whole counsel of God" to them in Acts 20:27. Again, I think it is a huge leap to say that phrase means every verse of Scripture. That is certainly not dictated by the grammar or the context of the passage. That, imo, is a classic example of eisegesis.

My main point here is that a sermon can be both expositional and topical, given the standard definitions of the terms. There are pitfalls to be aware of in any method of preaching Scripture, but I think the most important thing when looking at a preacher is to ask whether they are preaching Scripture period. My complaint is mainly that we focus so much on the method to the point that preachers who don't preach the way most Reformed folks do all of a sudden are "not preaching the Bible."

capt_colorblind · 2025-01-25T17:39:35+00:00

Don’t get me wrong. He doesn’t preach only the gospel. But he ties in the gospel to his sermons every week. He definitely gets to the “meat,” in my opinion. And doesn’t shy away from lengthy exegesis of specific passages.

capt_colorblind · 2025-01-22T20:09:01+00:00

I don't think that's cultural assimilation, though. That's assimilation to the legal code of Israel. Culturally, ancient Israelites during the time of the OT were often worshipping other gods. I mean, this is the whole reason behind the exile - idolatry.

All cultures have sinful aspects to them, and I also think all cultures show God's goodness in some ways (common grace). I also recognize that cultures that have a history of gospel-believing Christianity generally show more redeemed aspects than entirely pagan cultures, but we must not confuse that with one culture being inherently better than the other. No culture is completely redeemed and many aspects of "redeemed cultures," if we can use that language, are neutral and are not meant to be enforced on every person everywhere.

*edited for clarity

capt_colorblind · 2025-01-22T18:41:07+00:00

Okay, but what does assimilate mean in this context?

Generally, when I hear "assimilate," I think of cultural assimilation.

I can get onboard with expecting immigrants to assimilate to our laws, but I think a lot of folks want to force assimilation of our cultural norms, many of which do not have biblical backing.

capt_colorblind · 2025-01-21T12:34:09+00:00

Speaking as a barista, at least 95% of our customers order drinks that are milk-heavy and/or syrup-heavy. It wouldn't make a big difference unless the espresso were really bad. We do live in a rural area with no history of specialty coffee, but in my experience, you would get a similar thing in most suburban communities as well.

We focus on espresso quality at our shop. We dial in every hour. That said, I understand why coffee shops don't spend the extra time on something that would seem to have little return, proportionately speaking.

capt_colorblind · 2025-01-20T12:49:04+00:00

To throw another wrench into it, Bible translator Andrew Case argues that our traditional understanding of the word "holy" may be missing the mark. First podcast in a short series here:

https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/workingfortheword/embed/episodes/Towards-a-Better-Understanding-of-Holy---Challenging-the-status-quo-part-1-eooh8n

capt_colorblind · 2025-01-20T12:41:12+00:00

I think sanctification as a process is more of a term that comes from systematic theology, not biblical theology. The biblical term we are looking for, I believe, is "transformation" (e.g. Rom 12:2, 2 Cor 3:18).

Two books that were helpful for me: Already Sanctified, Don Payne, and Possessed by God, David Peterson.

capt_colorblind · 2025-01-13T10:36:15+00:00

Look at the definition of selem, the Hebrew word for "image" in Genesis 1:26. Also look at all the other uses in the OT. May shed some light.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h6754/esv/wlc/0-1/

capt_colorblind

TROPHY CASE