The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible

A few years back Reformation Heritage Books released The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible. Its general editor is Joel R. Beeke, with Michael P.V. Barrett and Gerald M. Bilkes as OT and NT editors, respectively. This study Bible brings together study notes in the Reformed tradition with the text of the most lasting translation from the era of the Reformation, the King James Bible.

Reformation Heritage has a special right now on all copies of this Bible (as much as 50% off) – including large print and leather versions. Click for details.

This study Bible includes introductions to each book of the Bible and each main division of books. Study notes typically take up around 1/4 of the page, and include a notable feature: “thoughts for personal/family worship” from each chapter. Also included are doctrinal articles and essays on practical Christian living from a Reformed perspective, along with the text of several influential early church creeds and Reformation-era confessions and catechisms. The list of such documents includes the Nicene Creed, the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the Westminster Confession of Faith among others. Instead of the King James Translators’ Preface, this study Bible includes a look at the King James Version’s tradition, text and translation. This is essentially a defense of the superiority of the King James Bible while stopping short of declaring it as the only acceptable Bible. The editors admit, “Others who believe in inspiration and preservation as dogmatically as we have a different opinion as to how and where God preserved His Word.”

This study Bible is nicely formatted and easy to read, and I have no doubt that the devotional and study helps included are excellent in the whole. The one draw back in my view, is that it does not preserve the footnotes from the 1611 King James version – but in that respect, it follows the majority of King James Bibles published today. Unfortunately, this leads modern readers to assume that the King James text is more settled than that of the modern versions since the KJV does not resort to footnotes to record the literal Greek or Hebrew meaning, offer an alternate translation or mention that some manuscripts have a different reading. Unfortunately, that is a wrong assumption since the King James translators do all of those things in the dozens of footnotes included in their original 1611 translation. Reading the translators themselves on the topic of Bible translation (by reading their preface) is quite instructive and highlights the challenge facing all Bible translators, and once more I lament that the preface was not included in this KJV study Bible.

That said, this is a helpful tool and worthy of inclusion on your study shelf. The King James Version is still used today in large part because it was such a good translation and it merits careful study, even today.

Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers:
Westminster Bookstore, Amazon, ChristianBook.com, or direct from Reformation Heritage Books.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

Echoes of Mark in the Gospel of John

Many people have wondered why the New Testament includes four different Gospels. The differences can be confusing, and critics argue that they betray a difference of opinion among early Christians about Jesus and His message. Evangelical Christians respond by stressing that each of the Gospels is a separate, unique witness to the authenticity of the account of Jesus Christ’s life and ministry. The very fact that they are written from different perspectives and have different points of emphasis, strengthens their ability to independently testify to the truth of the Christian message.

In analyzing the Gospels, scholars have often claimed that John’s Gospel was written by someone who had no clear knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). The theology in John is more advanced, and must come from a later date in the “evolution” of Christian doctrine. From this scholarly debate has come a fresh look at the literary evidence in the Gospels themselves, and the results have been startling (or encouraging, depending on your perspective). NT scholarship is starting to change its tune on this point, in fact. Even for those of us who aren’t scholars (I include myself here for sure), there are meaty takeaways that can improve our grasp of the interplay between the Gospels – and heighten our appreciation of the revelation of Jesus we find there.

In this post, I want to highlight that the author of the Gospel of John (who I hold is John the Apostle), is not only familiar with the Gospel of Mark, but that he also assumes that many of his readers have read Mark. He even structures His Gospel (John) so that it fills out and explains much that Mark does not include in his Gospel. In short, there are echoes of Mark in John’s Gospel, and John intends His Gospel to differ from Mark’s. As Richard Bauckham puts it, “John is explicitly incomplete in aspects which… the Synoptic Gospels supply.”[1]

Puzzling Statements (John 3:24; 11:2)

What follows here is drawn from a chapter titled “John for Readers of Mark” by Richard Bauckham[2]. In reading Jonathan Pennington’s book Reading the Gospels Wisely, I came across a summary of Bauckham’s thoughts on this, and I have dug up more on the topic from simply following the helpful footnotes for more info.[3]

Two small and seemingly insignificant verses reveal John’s knowledge of Mark. And following their lead, a few other verses throw open the door to how John and Mark dovetail together.

John 3:24 “(For John had not yet been put in prison).”

John 3:24 is an aside, a parenthetical expression that is quite odd. Bauckham himself explains this quite clearly:

To understand the reason for the explanation, we are obliged to postulate implied readers/hearers who know more than the Gospel itself has told them. They seem to be expected already to know that John’s ministry came to an end when he was imprisoned, but even this knowledge is not sufficient to account for the explanation. Whether or not readers/hearers already know that John was imprisoned, they do not need to be told the obvious: that he was not yet imprisoned when he was still baptizing.[4]

Of the few references to John the Baptist’s imprisonment in the Synoptics, the one most likely referred to here is Mark 1:14. The comment in John 3:24 is there to let the reader know that this portion of Jesus’ ministry is taking place in between Mark 1:9-13 (which details Jesus’ baptism and subsequent temptation in the wilderness) and Mark 1:14 (which has Jesus going to Galilee to start his ministry there — right after John is imprisoned). This section in John’s Gospel, begins right after Jesus’ baptism (as hinted at in John 1:30) and continues through John 4:43 (where Jesus goes into Galilee for formal ministry — his time at Cana in John 2 was before his public ministry). So John wants his readers to know that John 1:19-4:43 fits between Mark 1:13 and 1:14.

John 11:2 “It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill.”

This statement in John 11:2 is similarly puzzling. Why name Mary of Bethany as the one who anointed Jesus one chapter before the story of Jesus’ anointing (by Mary) is told in John (chapter 12)? Readers of Mark (and the other Synoptics) would have known of a woman who anointed Jesus in Bethany. John connects their knowledge of that story with his account by naming the woman here. (She is not named in Mark 14:3-9.) John will go on in chapter 12 to use a different chronology than Mark, putting the anointing before the triumphal entry, rather than after it.

Filling Out, Re-Ordering, and Summarizing Mark

From these two examples, you can almost imagine John as he is writing his account of Jesus’ ministry. He feels the need to re-order a story here or there from Mark, and add a name or highlight a detail. He moves the clearing of the Temple (Mark 11:11-25) to the beginning of Jesus’ Judean ministry (John 2:13-22), and gives a new account of Jesus’ trial before Annas (John 18:13-23) not mentioned in Mark, just prior to the trial before Caiaphas (John 18:24). John’s briefer mention of Caiaphas’ trial is due to it already being discussed in detail by Mark (Mark 14:53-65).

At other points John quickly passes over long sections already mentioned by Mark, and fills out what Mark only hints at. John skips the sending of the 12 (which Mark includes), but gives a fuller account of the feeding of the 5,000 – explaining why Jesus and the disciples have to leave in such a hurry (Mark 6:45 compared to John 6:14-16). John also includes the longer discourse about the Bread of Life (John 6:22-71) which follows the miracle. And this is the closest John gets to mentioning the Lord’s Supper (this omission may serve to interpret/stress the significance of the Lord’s Supper).

Next, the second half of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee (Mark 6:54-9:50) “is summarized by John in a single sentence” (in John 7:1a)[5]. Mark 10:1 mentions a ministry in Judah followed by time beyond the Jordan (where Mark 10:1-31 takes place). John follows along by giving us a long description of Jesus’ Judean ministry (John 7:10-10:39) understood as occurring in the gap implied in Mark 10:1, and then devotes just a few verses (John 10:40-42) to describe the beyond-Jordan ministry that Mark already described more fully (Mark 10:1-31).

One more puzzling reference in John may allude to Mark. John 14:31, ends with the curious words “Rise, let us go from here.” But John 15 continues the conversation from John 14. The words “rise, let us go” or literally “get up, let us be going”, are also found in Mark 14:42, “Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.” Bauckham interprets this echo from Mark as a way John emphasizes that Jesus is voluntarily facing his death (mentioned in the verses just prior to 14:31)[6]. John uses these familiar words (to readers of Mark) as a way to call to mind Jesus’ decision to embrace his suffering.

For a fuller look at the arrangement of John in relation to Mark, the following two articles take Bauckham’s argument, expand on it, and provide tables comparing the two accounts side by side:

Historical Corroboration?

There may even be evidence from Church history that supports the treatment above. We have the following testimony of Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, of what Papias wrote (in the early second century) concerning Mark’s Gospel.

Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

“This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.[7]

Concerning this passage (and the brief quote evidently from Papias on Matthew), Richard Bauckham draws this conclusion:

The only reason Papias could have had for thinking that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark both lacked the kind of order to be expected in a work deriving from an eyewitness is that he knew another Gospel, also of eyewitness origin, whose chronological sequence differed significantly from Mark’s and Matthew’s and whose ‘order’ Papias preferred.[8]

The presbyter (or elder) John, that Papias mentions, is sometimes understood as John the Apostle and author of John. In any case, a good argument can be made that Papias prefers the chronological order of John’s Gospel to that of Mark. Bauckham points out how the Muratorian Canon (late second century list of New Testament books with brief commentary) betrays influence by Papias, and so it’s statement that John wrote his Gospel “in order” suggests that Papias indeed did prefer John’s order to the lack of order in Mark and Matthew.[9] Here is the quote from the Muratorian Canon:

For so [John] confesses (himself) not merely an eye and ear witness, but also a writer of all the marvels of the Lord in order.[10]

Even More (Interlocking/Transposing Mark’s Theology)

Beyond the literary dovetailing described above and the historical pointers that John intended to re-order the Gospel accounts of Mark and Matthew, other testimony to Mark’s presence can be found through observing John’s own theology and points of emphasis. Pennington pointed out what he calls “the interlocking relationship of John and the Synoptics.”[11] This is a broader look at the question, and examines how in John’s theology and inclusion of material he is aware of Mark (and the Synoptics). Pennington draws from D.A. Carson on this point. Carson points out that in “many places… John and the Synoptics represent an interlocking tradition… they mutually reinforce or explain each other, without betraying overt literary dependence…”[12] Carson goes on to list many ways where the Synoptics and John overlap and interlock when it comes to theology and message. Andreas Köstenberger goes further and calls John’s approach a “theological transposition” of the Synoptics. For further study on this, see the resources listed in this note.[13]

Conclusion

I have rambled on and on, but I hope you can now appreciate even more how closely intertwined the Gospels are with one another. A lot of literary crafting is going on here! Readers of John who are unaware of Mark, can still find a coherent account of Jesus’ life and ministry in John. But the pointers are included for those aware of Mark to see how and where John is adding to Mark’s account and providing a fuller picture of the life of Jesus Christ.

Paying close attention to how each Gospel develops vertically (through its own account of Christ’s ministry) and horizontally (through its parallel passages and interlocking/dovetailing with the other Gospel accounts) is important for fully understanding each author’s intent. I also trust that you are better equipped for responding to criticisms directed at the discrepancies between the Gospels. Most of all I hope you can see how the life of Christ and the significance and message of the Gospel transcends any single telling. None of the Gospels alone can contain or explain it, and all four together only scratch the surface, as John himself says:

John 21:25 “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

Footnotes

[1] Richard Bauckham, “The Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus,” online essay, p. 3 (This essay matches the name of a chapter from Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology [Baker Academic, 2015]).

[2] Richard Bauckham (editor), “John for Readers of Mark”, The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences [Eerdmans, 1997], p.  147-172. [Preview available online here].

[3] Jonathan T. Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction, p. 64-66; also p. 59 note 16 and p. 194 note 12.

[4] Bauckham, “John for Readers of Mark”, 153. This quote is taken from Amazon’s “look inside” preview of the book. I had not yet purchased the book at the time this post was first published.

[5] Ibid, 156.

[6] Bauckham, “The Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus”, p. 8.

[7] “Eusebius of Caesarea – On Papias – original Greek Text with English translation“, [from Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 39], paragraphs 14 and 15 accessed 11/13/18.

[8] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony [Eerdmans, 2006], p. 226. My attention was brought to this by Kyle R. Hughes, “Papias and the Gospels: Analysis and Evaluation of his Testimony in Eusebius’ H.E. 3.39“, accessed 11/13/18.

[9] Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 425, ff. Note also that Bauckham holds that “presbyter John” is a disciple who was an eyewitness follower of Christ and the author of the Gospel of John, but he does not believe he is the Apostle John (son of Zebedee).

[10] The Muratorian Canon, lines 35-37, accessed 11/13/18.

[11] Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely, p. 64-65.

[12] D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), [Apollos/Eerdmans: 1991], p. 52, ff.

[13] Andreas Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters [Zondervan, 2009], p. 555-563. Also see a fuller treatment (but without the handy tables) in “John’s Transposition Theology:
Retelling the Story of Jesus in a Different Key”, available online here (this is a chapter in Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology [Mohr/Siebeck: 2012]).

Image created from icons available here and here.

A Biblical Theology of Living Water

In my most recent opportunity to preach, I enjoyed tracing out a biblical theology of living water. My text was Ezekiel 47:1-12, and the focus was on Ezekiel’s vision of a river of life flowing from the end-times Temple sanctuary (you can see my notes and download the audio here). In one part of the message, I traced out a biblical “history of living waters” in a journey through the Bible. I want to share that outline here. The message was received well, and I hope I gave people a taste of the richness that biblical theology has to offer.

  1. Eden’s Four-fold River
    • Gen. 2:10 “A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers.”
            » Gold, onyx are mentioned in Gen. 2, and they are central to the Temple. There is a tree of life in the garden too, like Ezek. 47, and Rev. 22.
    • SIDENOTE: 3 points illustrating why Ezekiel is looking back on Eden with his prophecy in Ezek. 47.
      1. Ezek. 36:35 “land shall be like a garden of Eden.”
      2. Eden called the Mountain of God in Ezek. 28:14 and the temple vision starts with the Temple on a high mountain (Ezek. 40:2).
      3. Outside of Eden was wilderness – similar to the Dead Sea region being a wilderness (prior to the coming of the river in Ezek. 47).
  2. Water from the Rock (Exodus) – preserved life
    • Ps.  78:16 “He made streams come out of the rock and caused waters to flow down like rivers.”
    • Exod. 17:6 “you shall strike the rock and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink.”
  3. The Joyful River of God
    • Ps. 46:4 “There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God.”
            » There is no river in Jerusalem.
    • Ps. 36:8-9 “and you give them drink from the river of your delights. For with you is the fountain of life…”
    • Ps. 63:1 “…my soul thirsts for you; my flesh faints for you, as in a dry and weary land where there is no water.”
    • Is. 12:3 “With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.”
  4. The LORD is the Fountain
    • Jer. 2:13 “they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters.”
    • Jer. 17:13 “they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living water.”
  5. Streams in the Desert (New Exodus) – renewed life
    • Is. 35:6 “waters break forth in the wilderness, and streams in the desert; the burning sand shall become a pool, and the thirsty ground springs of water.”
    • Is. 43:19 “For I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.”
    • Is. 48:21 “they did not thirst when he led them through the deserts; he made water flow for them from the rock; he split the rock and the water gushed out.”
    • Is. 49:10 “He who has pity on them will lead them, and by springs of water will guide them.”
    • SIDENOTE: the NT draws on this, with John the Baptist using the same cry given in Is. 40:3 – another New Exodus passage.
  6. Cleansing with Water and the Outpouring of the Spirit
    • Is. 44:3 “I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.”
    • Ezek. 36:25-27 “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean… I will put my Spirit within you…”
  7. Renewed Israel and a fountain in Jerusalem
    • Is. 58:11 “you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters do not fail.”
    • Zech. 14:8 “on that day living waters shall flow from Jerusalem.”
    • Joel 3:18 “in that day… a fountain shall come forth from the house of the LORD and water the Valley of Shittim.”
    • Zech. 13:1 “on that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness.”
            » To cleanse sin.
  8. New Jerusalem (ultimate fulfillment)
    • Rev. 22:1-2 “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.”
            » Clearly draws from Ezekiel.
    • Rev. 7:17 “For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd and he will guide them to springs of living water.”
            » ultimate New Exodus.
  9. CONCLUSION from this Biblical History
    • Water is connected with spiritual joy and life in God’s presence.
    • Water is sourced in God – the True Fountain of Life.
    • Water is associated with the Temple:
            » Eden itself was a paradise – “Garden of God” – depicted in Ezek. 28 as a mountain.
            » Eden is the template to which the Tabernacle and Temple imagery point back to.
            » Ezekiel’s temple looks back to Eden with the “trees of life” on its banks (Ezek. 47).
    • Water is associated with the Holy Spirit who will be outpoured and cleanse the renewed Israelites (and believers in Christ) of their sins.

Charles E. Hill on Developments in New Testament Textual Criticism

A common assumption among critics of Christianity is that the New Testament was standardized after a long period of textual flux. Only by the fourth century A.D., it is argued, were the competing texts consolidated into standard recensions that became the Alexandrian text and later the Byzantine text. This two to three hundred year period of textual flux gives skeptics room to assume that along with the text, received doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the role of subsitutionary atonement  were also only lately agreed upon.

While there had been textual evidence that seemed to suggest great textual fluidity in the first two centuries after Christ, the more we study the early NT papyrii (over 60 significant portions of NT manuscripts that date from the apx. A.D. 125 to the 400s) the shorter any period of textual flux becomes. Last year, Dr. Charles E. Hill delivered the Spring academic lecture at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando on the topic of the early development of the New Testament text. And his lecture which is available online, does much to clear up this question (see the lecture description here). In 53 minutes (he begins at the 6 minute mark) he gives an overview of the history of textual criticism and details how the scholastic consensus from textual critics familiar with the evidence has shifted in the last few decades. The takeaway from his lecture is that the New Testament text is much more solid than skeptics would have us believe.

If you are interested in textual debates, the new atheism, or textual criticism, this lecture will be informative. Even for those who may be majority text proponents, the recounting of the current state of textual criticism today will prove instructive. Hill is the John R. Richardson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary Orlando, and has graduate degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary California (M.Div.) and the University of Cambridge (Ph.D.). He is the author of several books, and was co-editor and contributor to The Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2012).

Sermon Download: Rivers of Living Water

This past Sunday, I had the privilege of preaching at our church again. My text was Ezekiel 47:1-12 and the theme was living water. I had so much fun exploring the biblical theological theme of life-giving water. My sermon borrowed from the ideas I gleaned from G.K. Beale on how Jesus in both John 4 and John 7, alludes to Ezekiel’s eschatological temple and specifically chapter 47, where the river of life flows from the center of the temple. See an earlier post with relevant excerpts from Beale.

Ezekiel is not often the focus of a sermon, so I took time to introduce the book and situate the hearers to the context of chapter 47, particularly. John 7:37-39 provided the application and somehow I managed to get this all done in about 50 minutes! I am thankful for the opportunity and for how the Lord helped my scattered thoughts make sense. There was a good reception of the message and I pray it continues to bless those who hear it. Grasping the beauty of biblical theology has the potential to be truly transformative (it has been for me).

I’m sharing the sermon here, and you can find all my recent sermons from The Heights Church, St. Paul, here.

If you don’t have time to listen to the entire sermon (52 minutes), please do look over my notes.

Place: The Heights Church, St. Paul
Date: April 30, 2017
Title: Rivers of Living Water
Text: Ezekiel 47:1-12
Notes: Download PDF
Audio Link: Click to listen (right click to download)