Latest / Reformed Thinking / Detractio in the English Bible: Rhetorical Omission, Ellipsis, and Translation

Transcript

Detractio in the English Bible: Rhetorical Omission, Ellipsis, and Translation · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome to Reform Thinking. I am so glad you were joining us
• 0:03
  today. Yes, it is great to be here for
• 0:04
  another deep dive. So think about this.
• 0:07
  When we sit down to read the English Bible, we tend to assume
• 0:12
  that all the meaning of the text lives entirely in the words
• 0:15
  printed right there on the page. Right, the visible ink.
• 0:18
  Yeah, well, precisely. We look at the ink, we analyze
• 0:22
  the nouns, we parse the verbs, and we just assume that
• 0:25
  visibility equals meaning. Which is a very normal way to
• 0:28
  read a book, to be fair. It is, but think about reading a
• 0:32
  piece of sheet music instead. OK, sheet music.
• 0:35
  Right. If you sit down at a piano and
• 0:37
  play every single written note, but you completely ignore the, I
• 0:41
  mean the quarter rest, the half rest, those moments of absolute
• 0:44
  prescribed silence, wait, I shouldn't say dot dot dot those
• 0:48
  moments of rescribed silence. You ruin the song.
• 0:51
  Oh totally, the song just becomes noise.
• 0:53
  Yes, the silence is an active part of the composition, and
• 0:57
  today our mission on this deep dive is to take an exhaustive
• 1:00
  look at this very concept in Scripture.
• 1:02
  It is a massive topic. It really is.
• 1:05
  It is a concept known as detractio.
• 1:07
  We are examining A striking contrast today.
• 1:09
  And we are using some very thorough reformed sources for
• 1:13
  this deep dive to frame that contrast.
• 1:15
  We are on one hand, we have the brilliant inspired omissions
• 1:19
  made by the Holy Spirit, and we call that rhetorical Detractio.
• 1:22
  The good kind of silence. Right.
• 1:24
  But on the other hand, we have the disastrous rebellious
• 1:27
  subtractions made by human beings, which are sources call
• 1:31
  theological detractio. The very bad kind of silence.
• 1:34
  Yeah, the terrifying kind. And, you know, addressing you,
• 1:38
  the listener directly here. Understanding this concept will
• 1:41
  completely alter how you read your English Bibles.
• 1:44
  It really changes the whole landscape of personal study.
• 1:47
  It takes those chers difficult or seemingly abrupt verses and
• 1:51
  shifts your view of them. You stop feeling like they are
• 1:54
  incomplete and you start recognizing them as
• 1:56
  intentionally concentrated. Yes, concentrated is the perfect
• 1:59
  word for it. So what are we talking about
• 2:02
  when we say the Bible intentionally leaves things out?
• 2:04
  Well, to grasp this, we first have to recognize the
• 2:07
  distinction between a defect and a deliberate design.
• 2:10
  OK, break that down for us. So in classical rhetoric there
• 2:13
  is a recognized category of modifying ordinary expression,
• 2:17
  and it is called subtraction. Detractio is the intelligible
• 2:21
  omission of A word, phrase, or some sort of syntactical
• 2:26
  element. Meaning the text leaves a
• 2:27
  specific component unstated. Right, it leaves it unstated,
• 2:31
  but it expects the reader to recover that missing piece from
• 2:35
  the immediate context. You will often hear this
• 2:37
  discussed alongside the concept of ellipsis, right?
• 2:40
  Yes, very similar concept, but we need to be clear here, this
• 2:43
  is not a mistake. It is not a typo.
• 2:45
  No, not at all. It is not an accident where an
• 2:48
  ancient author simply forgot to write down a word, nor is it a
• 2:52
  sign of an unrefined primitive language.
• 2:54
  Which is an assumption people sometimes make about ancient
• 2:56
  texts. They do, yeah, but it is
• 2:59
  actually a purposeful economy of language.
• 3:01
  The friction we experience happens because the English
• 3:04
  language requires a massive amount of syntactical fullness.
• 3:07
  We need all our grammatical pieces in a row.
• 3:09
  We do. English is built on a very
• 3:11
  strict subject verb object framework.
• 3:15
  We like our subjects clearly identified, our verbs explicitly
• 3:19
  present, and our connecting words.
• 3:21
  You know our Ands butts and therefore is neatly tying
• 3:25
  everything together. So our brains do not have to
• 3:28
  work too hard to follow the logic.
• 3:30
  Exactly. But Biblical Hebrew and Coin
• 3:32
  Greek do not operate under those English rules.
• 3:35
  They possess a very compact, terse style.
• 3:38
  So they could just drop things out.
• 3:40
  Yes, the writers of Scripture can drop a subject, omit A
• 3:43
  connective word, or entirely bypass a verb to create an
• 3:47
  incredibly concentrated, forceful statement.
• 3:50
  The silence speaks. The idea that the silence speaks
• 3:52
  is fascinating. Let's ground this in the
• 3:54
  specific biblical examples from the text, because looking at the
• 3:57
  mechanics makes it so much clearer.
• 3:58
  Sure, let's look at the. Songs take Psalm 34.17.
• 4:01
  If you open a standard English translation, you usually read
• 4:03
  something like When the righteous cry for help, the Lord
• 4:06
  hears and delivers them out of all their troubles.
• 4:09
  That sounds like a perfectly normal English sentence.
• 4:11
  Right, but in the original Hebrew phrasing, the subject to
• 4:14
  righteous is actually omitted. It is just not there.
• 4:17
  It is not there. The text simply says cry out and
• 4:20
  Yahweh hears. Wow.
• 4:22
  Yeah, and by dropping that subject, the entire focus of the
• 4:26
  sentence shifts. How so?
• 4:28
  Well, it takes the spotlight off the specific identity or the
• 4:31
  moral standing of the sufferers, and it throws the entire weight
• 4:34
  of the sentence onto the raw action, the cry of the needy,
• 4:39
  and the Lord's gracious, immediate response.
• 4:41
  That changes the whole feel of the verse.
• 4:43
  It really does, yeah. Or look at Two Samuel 6.6.
• 4:47
  This is the historical account of Ooza in the Ark of the
• 4:49
  Covenant. Oh, that is a jarring passage.
• 4:52
  Very. The oxen stumble, Ooza reaches
• 4:54
  out his hand to steady the ark, and God strikes him dead on the
• 4:57
  spot. Just immediate judgment.
• 4:59
  Yes, and the syntax in that passage is incredibly abrupt.
• 5:03
  Yeah, the phrasing does not linger.
• 5:05
  It's not offer a long emotional buildup or over explained Ooze's
• 5:09
  internal motivations. The grammar reflects the event.
• 5:11
  Exactly the abruptness of the grammar matches the sudden,
• 5:15
  severe judgement of God's holiness.
• 5:16
  It doesn't give you time to process, just like ooze didn't
• 5:19
  have time. Spot on.
• 5:21
  And then we see it again in the New Testament in Acts 13.29,
• 5:24
  describing Christ's burial. What does that one say?
• 5:27
  The text says And when they had carried out all that was written
• 5:30
  of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.
• 5:34
  OK, so who is the they in that verse?
• 5:37
  Well, that is the point. The text leaves the specific
• 5:39
  agents unstated. The narrative does not elaborate
• 5:43
  on who they are in that specific clause.
• 5:45
  Oh, I see. Leaving those agents unstated
• 5:48
  highlights the redemptive historical event itself.
• 5:52
  The humiliation of the cross is front and center.
• 5:54
  That is a brilliant way to frame it.
• 5:56
  It is like turning off all the ambient floodlights in a theater
• 6:00
  so a single piercing spotlight hits the main action on the
• 6:02
  stage. That spotlight analogy is
• 6:04
  perfect. But I have to push back a bit on
• 6:06
  how we interpret the creation of these texts.
• 6:08
  OK, push back. Does this imply the biblical
• 6:11
  authors were sitting at a desk mathematically calculating every
• 6:14
  single missing word for artistic flair?
• 6:17
  I mean, are we applying A postmodern literary critique to
• 6:22
  ancient herdsmen and fishermen? That is a highly relevant
• 6:25
  distinction, and it touches on the core of how we view
• 6:27
  inspiration. Because we don't want to make
• 6:29
  them out to be modern novelists. Right, we do not need to picture
• 6:33
  the biblical authors drafting and redrafting with a meticulous
• 6:37
  mathematical formula for omission.
• 6:39
  OK, so how should we view it? Well, it matters less whether
• 6:43
  the omission was a highly calculated artistic choice
• 6:46
  planned out on a drafting board, or if it was simply the natural
• 6:49
  linguistic economy of the writers native idiom.
• 6:52
  The result is the same. Yes, the functional reality is
• 6:55
  the exact same. The text, as breathed out by the
• 6:58
  Holy Spirit and received by the Church, operates with that
• 7:01
  omission firmly in place. The omission is authoritative.
• 7:05
  Absolutely. And because that omission is
• 7:07
  there, the text directs our focus and demands active,
• 7:11
  attentive reading. The Bible refuses to indulge a
• 7:14
  passive reader. You cannot just gloss over a
• 7:16
  jarring syntactical gap. No, you.
• 7:18
  Can't. The omission slows you down.
• 7:21
  It forces you to infer, to look at the surrounding verses, and
• 7:25
  to mentally engage with the narrative momentum.
• 7:27
  It makes you work for it. It does.
• 7:29
  It narrows your focus and strips away secondary details so you
• 7:32
  are staring directly at the central theological action.
• 7:36
  So before we can even begin to identify the danger of human
• 7:39
  beings taking words out of the Bible, we first have to
• 7:42
  thoroughly understand how God intentionally leaves things out
• 7:45
  by divine design for our benefit.
• 7:48
  Precisely. The gaps are meant to train our
• 7:50
  minds. I see how that functional
• 7:52
  reality plays out. And you know, this spotlight
• 7:54
  effect does not just happen in historical narratives.
• 7:56
  It shows up everywhere. Yeah, it changes shape
• 7:59
  drastically depending on the specific genre of scripture you
• 8:01
  were reading. Which brings us to the grammar
• 8:04
  of Grace. The grammar of grace.
• 8:06
  I like that. Let's look at how this plays out
• 8:09
  across different types of biblical literature.
• 8:11
  In Hebrew poetry, for example, the writers frequently utilize
• 8:15
  parallelisms. Where 2 lines of verse relate to
• 8:17
  each other. Yes, and often they omit verbs
• 8:20
  in the second line of a parallel couplet.
• 8:22
  How does that work in practice? Well, the first line establishes
• 8:25
  the action and the verb, and the second line leaves the verb out
• 8:28
  entirely. Oh, so it forces the reader to
• 8:31
  carry the action over in their mind to complete the thought.
• 8:34
  Yes. This binds the two lines into a
• 8:37
  singular cohesive movement. This structural unity actually
• 8:42
  reflects the unchanging character of God.
• 8:45
  The action stated once holds true for the entirety of the
• 8:48
  thought. That is a beautiful way to
• 8:50
  understand poetry. It is then, if you jump over to
• 8:53
  the New Testament, you see a completely different application
• 8:56
  of the Gospel of Mark. Mark is famous for his pacing.
• 8:59
  He really is. Mark uses a Greek literary
• 9:01
  device called Ascendetin, which is the omission of conjunctions.
• 9:05
  O he drops the connecting words between clauses.
• 9:07
  Exactly. I always picture Mark's Gospel
• 9:10
  as a high octane action film where the director cuts out all
• 9:13
  the slow transition scenes. No sweeping establishing shots.
• 9:17
  None. He cuts all of that to force the
• 9:19
  viewer straight to the climax. It creates A rabid fire, urgent
• 9:22
  narrative pace. Everything is happening
• 9:24
  straightway and immediately. Mark is rushing the reader
• 9:26
  toward the cross. He is, and then you have the
• 9:28
  Pauline epistles. In Romans 5 point uneat.
• 9:31
  Paul uses brachlegy, which means extreme brevity.
• 9:35
  Paul is usually known for those massive run on sentences.
• 9:38
  Right, but here he actually omits the main verb entirely in
• 9:43
  the original Greek. What does the English say?
• 9:45
  In English we read therefore as one trespass led to condemnation
• 9:49
  for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to
• 9:52
  justification and life for all men.
• 9:55
  OK, so where is the verb missing?
• 9:57
  Well, in the Greek, Paul drops the verbs lead and leads.
• 10:02
  The result is this stark, immediate contrast between the
• 10:05
  trespass of Adam and the righteousness of Christ.
• 10:09
  The gap creates a massive theological tension.
• 10:11
  If we connect this to the broader reality of how Scripture
• 10:14
  functions within the life of the church, we see how these
• 10:17
  syntactical gaps actively train the congregation.
• 10:20
  Training through syntax. Yes, God speaks with precision
• 10:23
  in both his speech and His silence.
• 10:25
  When Paul drops that verb in Romans 5, he removes any
• 10:28
  linguistic distractions so the reader is forced to confront the
• 10:31
  absolute difference between Adam's ruin and Christ's rescue.
• 10:34
  It is intensely pedagogical. It trains the believer in
• 10:37
  reverent attentiveness. Think about the original
• 10:39
  audiences in Rome or Ephesus hearing these epistles read
• 10:42
  aloud. Because they were hearing them,
• 10:44
  not reading them silently. Exactly.
• 10:46
  They would feel the rhythm, the urgency and the abruptness in
• 10:48
  the spoken delivery. The biblical writers are leaving
• 10:51
  matters implicit so that the congregation has to lean in.
• 10:54
  They have to actively listen. They have to ask what is
• 10:57
  assumed, what carries over from the previous phrase, and what
• 11:00
  relationship exists between these contrasting clauses.
• 11:04
  But we shouldn't confuse this with vagueness, right?
• 11:06
  Absolutely not. We must not confuse use this
• 11:09
  with vagueness. Vagueness conceals meaning.
• 11:12
  Vagueness is the result of a sloppy mind.
• 11:15
  And God's mind is not sloppy. Never.
• 11:18
  This kind of rhetorical omission sharpens meaning.
• 11:21
  God's Word cultivates A disciplined inference in the
• 11:23
  reader. It demands that you love the
• 11:26
  Lord your God with all your mind.
• 11:27
  The mechanics of that are brilliant, but here is where we
• 11:32
  hit a massive practical hurdle for the average person.
• 11:35
  The translation issue. Yes, because the original Hebrew
• 11:38
  and Greek operate with such concentrated force, bringing
• 11:41
  them into English forces a massive collision of
• 11:44
  interpretation for translators. It really is a constant
• 11:47
  tightrope walk. It is.
• 11:49
  You are weighing clarity against compression.
• 11:52
  It is like, well, it's like trying to play a piano piece
• 11:55
  written for someone with 12 fingers but you only have 10.
• 11:58
  That is a great analogy. Thanks.
• 12:01
  You have to make adjustments to make the melody recognizable to
• 12:04
  the human ear, but you have to be terrified of rewriting the
• 12:07
  composer's song. Because if an English translator
• 12:10
  supplies too much syntax in order to make the sentence
• 12:13
  smooth and readable, they flatten the text.
• 12:15
  'S force the sentence just loses his punch.
• 12:18
  Right, but if they supply too little, keeping it hyper literal
• 12:21
  to the original languages, the text becomes totally obscure and
• 12:25
  unreadable to an English speaker.
• 12:26
  Because our language which simply does not work that way.
• 12:29
  It doesn't, so formal equivalence translations like
• 12:32
  the New American Standard Bible or the King James Version will
• 12:36
  often use italics. I've seen those.
• 12:38
  Yeah, they use those italics to signal where words have been
• 12:41
  supplied by the translator to make the sentence function
• 12:44
  grammatically in English. But this brings up a critical
• 12:47
  distinction between rhetorical omission, which is the authorial
• 12:50
  expression we've been discussing, and textual
• 12:52
  omission. Those are two very different
• 12:54
  things. Very different.
• 12:56
  Textual omission is a describable error during the
• 12:59
  copying and transmission of manuscripts, and that belongs to
• 13:02
  the field of textual criticism, right?
• 13:04
  Confusing those two things leads to massive interpretive errors.
• 13:08
  If a modern translator thinks a verse is broken because a scribe
• 13:12
  lost a word in the 2nd century, they might try to fix it, when
• 13:16
  in reality it was an intentional rhetorical omission meant to be
• 13:19
  punchy. Which completely ruins the
• 13:21
  author's original intent. Yeah.
• 13:24
  But I have to ask a pointed question here, and I think this
• 13:26
  is where a lot of people get tripped up.
• 13:27
  Go ahead. If translators are actively
• 13:29
  adding italicized words that God did not breathe out in the
• 13:33
  original text just to make the English make sense, aren't they
• 13:37
  doing the very thing we are warned not to do?
• 13:40
  That is the $1,000,000 question. How can you trust the English
• 13:43
  Bible as the inerrant word of God if human translators are
• 13:47
  openly admitting they're adding linguistic scaffolding to it?
• 13:50
  That is the exact tension every faithful translation committee
• 13:53
  wrestles with, and it raises A vital question about the nature
• 13:56
  of human language itself. OK, lay it out for us.
• 13:59
  We have to draw a hard, unyielding line between
• 14:02
  supplying legitimate grammatical scaffolding, which is strictly
• 14:05
  necessary for the English language to function at all, and
• 14:08
  altering theological substance. Two very different things.
• 14:11
  Yes, when a formal equivalence translation uses italics, that
• 14:16
  visible boundary is an act of great humility and transparency.
• 14:19
  It's honesty. It is.
• 14:21
  The translator is actively admitting to you, the reader.
• 14:24
  This specific word is not in the original Greek or Hebrew
• 14:27
  manuscript, but English grammar demands A verb or a subject here
• 14:31
  for you to comprehend the sentence.
• 14:33
  So they're showing their work. Exactly.
• 14:35
  Those visible boundaries of italicized words actually
• 14:39
  protect the reader. They show you the precise seam
• 14:42
  where the inspired text ends and the necessary linguistic bridge
• 14:46
  begins. How does that protect the
• 14:47
  church? It protects the Church from
• 14:49
  mystical or novel interpretations.
• 14:51
  Without those italics, someone might try to build a bizarre
• 14:54
  aberrant theology on a missing word, completely unaware that
• 14:57
  the omission was simply a standard feature of ancient
• 15:00
  Hebrew syntax. Not some hidden spiritual code.
• 15:03
  Right. Translating scripture is an
• 15:05
  immense fearful responsibility. The translator has to constantly
• 15:10
  evaluate if resolving the omission will change the
• 15:13
  emphasis of the verse. Because adding a word changes
• 15:17
  the spotlight. It does if the original Greek
• 15:19
  shifted attention away from the actor to highlight the action by
• 15:22
  dropping the subject and the English translator decides to
• 15:25
  add the subject back in for readability.
• 15:28
  They have actively changed the focal point of the verse.
• 15:31
  That is why recognizing Detractio is so vital for anyone
• 15:35
  studying the Bible. It reminds us that translation
• 15:37
  always involves judgement. The italics are not additions to
• 15:41
  God's revelation. They are transparent tools to
• 15:44
  help you traverse the vast gap between two very different
• 15:47
  linguistic worlds. They preserve the integrity of
• 15:50
  the original by showing you the mechanics of the translation.
• 15:52
  Exactly right. Well, that distinction between
• 15:54
  theological substance and linguistic scaffolding clears up
• 15:58
  a lot of confusion. It is a helpful boundary.
• 16:00
  But the fine line between supplying a needed English verb
• 16:05
  and deciding to omit an uncomfortable divine truth
• 16:08
  brings us to the dark mirror of our study.
• 16:10
  Human subtraction. Yes, this is the high crime of
• 16:14
  theological detractio. We move from the beauty of the
• 16:17
  unspoken to the blasphemy of heretical omission.
• 16:20
  Scripture does not take this lightly.
• 16:22
  No, it gives explicit terrifying warnings against this.
• 16:26
  In Deuteronomy 4.2, Moses delivers the law to Israel, and
• 16:30
  we see the Hebrew word Gara, which means diminishing,
• 16:34
  clipping or shaving off God's statute.
• 16:36
  The. Shaving coin.
• 16:38
  Yes, Israel is commanded not to diminish the weight of the law
• 16:42
  by ignoring the parts they dislike.
• 16:44
  And we see this in the New Testament too.
• 16:46
  We do at the very end of the biblical Canon in Revelation
• 16:49
  22.1 Teen we see the Greek word aphario which means taking away
• 16:54
  from the prophecy. John's warning, right?
• 16:56
  John writes that anyone who does this risks having their part
• 16:59
  taken out of the Book of Life and out of the Holy City.
• 17:01
  These are not minor procedural warnings.
• 17:04
  No. They are ultimate warnings, and
• 17:05
  our sources outline several specific theological systems
• 17:08
  where human beings have committed this crime of
• 17:10
  subtraction. And we should clarify for the
• 17:12
  listener here. Yes.
• 17:14
  To be clear to you, the listener, we are analyzing the
• 17:17
  arguments laid out in historical Reformed theology to understand
• 17:21
  how this framework identifies subtraction.
• 17:24
  We are neutrally reporting what the sources argue.
• 17:27
  Right, looking at church history through this lens.
• 17:29
  When we look at church history, we see this playing out
• 17:32
  institutionally. The Reformed argument states
• 17:35
  that Roman Catholicism functionally subtracts from the
• 17:38
  sole authority of the 66 books of the Bible by elevating
• 17:41
  tradition alongside it. So let's scriptura versus
• 17:44
  scripture plus tradition. Exactly.
• 17:46
  The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, paragraph 9
• 17:49
  establishes the analogy of faith that the infallible rule of
• 17:52
  interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
• 17:56
  If you elevate church councils or papal decrees to the same
• 17:59
  level of authority as the biblical text, the math is 0
• 18:03
  sum. Yes, you are functionally
• 18:05
  subtracting from the sufficiency of the scriptures because you
• 18:08
  are declaring the Bible needs outside help to be
• 18:11
  authoritative. And the framework applies this
• 18:13
  to Protestant movements as well. Right, it does.
• 18:16
  The historical Reformed framework also points to
• 18:18
  Arminianism. It argues that by making final
• 18:22
  salvation dependent on human free will or foreseen faith, the
• 18:27
  Armenian system subtracts God's sovereign decree in election.
• 18:31
  OK, looking at Westminster Confession chapter 3.
• 18:33
  Chapter 3 outlines God's eternal decree, and the Reformed
• 18:37
  argument states that making election conditional leaves EU
• 18:41
  unconditional election out of the biblical framework.
• 18:44
  Thereby diminishing the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation.
• 18:47
  Yes. So what are the historical and
• 18:50
  theological mechanisms behind those subtractions?
• 18:53
  Well, the mechanisms are vital to understand.
• 18:55
  When we look at the Council of Trent, for instance, the
• 18:58
  formalization of tradition as an equal pillar of revelation
• 19:01
  fundamentally altered the interpretive lens of the Church.
• 19:04
  It is a subtraction by addition. Yes, by adding a secondary
• 19:07
  authority, you diminish the primary authority.
• 19:10
  And regarding the Remonstrance of 1610, which formalized
• 19:13
  Armenian theology, the subtraction occurs in the realm
• 19:16
  of causality. What do you mean by causality?
• 19:18
  If the ultimate determining factor of salvation rests in the
• 19:21
  creature's choice rather than the Creator's decree, the
• 19:25
  biblical texts that assert God's sovereign prerogative texts like
• 19:29
  Romans 9, must be functionally minimized or reinterpreted to
• 19:34
  fit the theological system. That is theological detractio.
• 19:37
  It is, But this is not just an issue of 16th and 17th century
• 19:41
  debates. This analytical thread continues
• 19:44
  into modern church movements. Like what?
• 19:47
  Consider the seeker sensitive and prosperity gospel movements
• 19:50
  that gained massive traction in the late 20th century.
• 19:53
  Oh, that is a huge example. These movements pragmatically
• 19:56
  omit the reality of hell, the absolute necessity of
• 19:59
  repentance, and the offense of the cross in order to make their
• 20:02
  message more palatable and marketable to a secular
• 20:05
  demographic. They just leave the hard parts
• 20:07
  out. Yes, by intentionally
• 20:09
  withholding the difficult realities of divine justice and
• 20:12
  human depravity, they offer a gospel without the law.
• 20:15
  Which isn't a gospel at all. Right.
• 20:17
  A gospel that only promises earthly flourishing and
• 20:20
  emotional well-being while ignoring the wrath of God
• 20:22
  against sin is a severely truncated message.
• 20:25
  It is a subtraction that leaves the listener in mortal danger.
• 20:28
  And the framework addresses cults too, right?
• 20:30
  Furthermore, the framework addresses mysticism and cults
• 20:34
  seeking new, extra biblical revelations.
• 20:37
  Functionally declares the existing 66 books of the Bible
• 20:40
  to be insufficient for life and godliness.
• 20:43
  Like groups claiming new prophecies.
• 20:45
  Yes, and groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses provide the
• 20:48
  most blatant textual example of this.
• 20:50
  In their translation. In their New World translation,
• 20:53
  they actively alter the text of John 1.1, translating it as the
• 20:57
  word was a God, intentionally subtracting the absolute eternal
• 21:01
  deity of Christ to fit their Aryan theology.
• 21:04
  What is the common denominator here?
• 21:06
  The thread running through every single one of these examples,
• 21:09
  whether institutional, theological, or pragmatic, is
• 21:12
  the issue of supreme authority. Who has the right to determine
• 21:15
  what is true, what is necessary, and what is binding on the human
• 21:18
  conscience? The progression there is
• 21:21
  chilling. It is like a theological buffet
• 21:24
  line, which is an analogy we see play out in modern
• 21:27
  evangelicalism all the time. The buffet line that paints a
• 21:30
  picture. People walk down the line with
• 21:33
  her tray, eagerly piling the sweet dessert of grace, mercy
• 21:37
  and unconditional love onto their plate.
• 21:39
  But they outright refuse to take the vegetables of God's
• 21:43
  sovereignty, His uncompromising justice, and the strict demands
• 21:47
  of the moral law. They want the sugar, not the
• 21:49
  nutrients. Yeah, they edit the meal to suit
• 21:51
  their cultural palate, completely ignoring the fact
• 21:54
  that a diet of pure sugar will eventually kill you.
• 21:56
  That is a stark reality. It is, and the reform analysis
• 22:00
  also touches on some specific hermeneutical frameworks that
• 22:02
  deal with how we interpret the Old Testament.
• 22:05
  I want to neutrally introduce an argument concerning replacement
• 22:08
  theology, sometimes called supersessionism, and the Israel
• 22:11
  Church distinction. OK, let's unpack what the
• 22:13
  sources say there. The dispensational argument
• 22:16
  states that ignoring the distinction between ethnic
• 22:18
  Israel and the Church is a form of Detractio because it strips
• 22:21
  away literal earthly promises made to the Jewish people.
• 22:25
  That is a well known critique. Interestingly, this critique
• 22:29
  groups replacement theology alongside liberal higher
• 22:33
  criticism, which it says strips the Bible of its supernatural
• 22:37
  character. Grouping those two together is
• 22:39
  quite a claim. So, to help the listener
• 22:42
  understand this specific academic critique, what is the
• 22:45
  mechanical logic behind linking higher criticism with
• 22:48
  replacement theology? How does the framework argue
• 22:52
  that both are committing a form of subtraction?
• 22:54
  To understand that linkage, we have to examine the
• 22:57
  philosophical starting point of the interpreter.
• 23:00
  Let's look at liberal higher criticism first.
• 23:02
  OK, the post enlightenment academic movement.
• 23:04
  Yes, Higher criticism, particularly as it developed
• 23:08
  post Enlightenment in Europe, approaches the biblical text
• 23:11
  with an A priori assumption against the supernatural.
• 23:13
  Meaning they rule out miracles before they even read the text.
• 23:16
  Exactly. The critic looks at a text
• 23:18
  describing a miracle, a predictive prophecy, or or the
• 23:21
  bodily resurrection, and assumes that these elements must be
• 23:24
  later mythological editions by the early church.
• 23:27
  So they feel justified in removing them.
• 23:29
  Therefore, the critics job is to demythologize the text, to cut
• 23:33
  away the supernatural elements, to find the supposedly
• 23:36
  historical moral core. Think of Thomas Jefferson.
• 23:39
  Yes, think of Thomas Jefferson literally taking a razor blade
• 23:43
  to the Gospels to cut out the miracles.
• 23:46
  That is the physical manifestation of higher
• 23:48
  criticism. It functionally subtracts the
• 23:51
  divine nature of the text, reducing it to ancient human
• 23:54
  literature. OK, so how does that link to
• 23:57
  replacement theology? Well, the critique you mentioned
• 23:59
  argues that replacement theology operates with a parallel
• 24:02
  mechanism, albeit in a different theological sphere.
• 24:05
  So when God makes specific land based ethnic promises to Israel
• 24:10
  in the Old Testament, the hermeneutic of replacement
• 24:13
  theology spiritualizes those promises, applying them entirely
• 24:16
  to the New Testament church. Taking them away from literal
• 24:19
  Israel. Yes.
• 24:20
  The critique argues that by allegorizing or spiritualizing
• 24:24
  those explicit literal promises, the interpreter is functionally
• 24:28
  subtracting the original meaning and the original recipient from
• 24:31
  the text. I see the parallel they're
• 24:33
  drawing now. The core analysis connecting
• 24:35
  these two very different schools of thought is that the root
• 24:38
  cause of the subtraction is intellectual autonomy.
• 24:42
  Intellectual autonomy. Yes, it is the creature
• 24:45
  attempting to sit in judgment over the infinite Creator.
• 24:49
  When a human being, whether a secular academic or a well
• 24:52
  meaning theologian, decides that a portion of God's Word is
• 24:55
  unpalatable, unnecessary, or historically untrue, and
• 24:59
  functionally removes its force from their belief system, they
• 25:02
  are committing treason. That is a heavy word.
• 25:05
  Treason. It is a functional declaration
• 25:08
  of war against the King of Kings.
• 25:10
  They are actively deciding that their finite, historically
• 25:13
  conditioned mind is a better judge of truth and reality than
• 25:16
  the infinite omniscient law giver.
• 25:18
  That concept of intellectual autonomy is devastating because
• 25:21
  it exposes the pride underneath our interpretation.
• 25:24
  He always comes down to pride. It does, right?
• 25:26
  So what does this all mean for the person listening to this
• 25:28
  right now? If the threat of theological
• 25:31
  Detractio is that pervasive, from academic commentaries down
• 25:35
  to the church down the street, how do we protect ourselves?
• 25:37
  We need a defense mechanism. We do.
• 25:40
  Recognizing this theological treason requires a holistic 3
• 25:45
  pronged defense mechanism within the daily life of the believer.
• 25:49
  Historical theology categorizes this defense into the head, the
• 25:53
  heart, and the hands. Head, heart, hands.
• 25:56
  A classic reformed structure. Let's break those down
• 25:59
  sequentially. First, the head which represents
• 26:02
  our doctrine and our intellect. We are called to stand firmly on
• 26:05
  the analogy of faith. Which we mentioned earlier.
• 26:08
  Right. As we mentioned with the
• 26:09
  Westminster Confession, this is the principle that Scripture
• 26:12
  interprets Scripture. We do not interpret clear
• 26:15
  passages by obscure ones, and we certainly do not interpret the
• 26:18
  Bible through the lens of modern secular psychology.
• 26:21
  We let the Bible speak for itself.
• 26:23
  We have to actively reject the pragmatism of secular philosophy
• 26:26
  that whispers to us, telling us to edit the biblical message to
• 26:30
  make it more culturally appealing.
• 26:31
  That takes care of the head. Then there is the heart which
• 26:34
  represents our affections and our desires.
• 26:36
  We must cultivate a holy, reverent fear of God's eternal
• 26:40
  decree and a genuine, deep seated love for His Providence.
• 26:44
  Loving what God loves. Yes, and we have to reject the
• 26:47
  idols of self-sufficiency. It means we should actually
• 26:50
  learn to love the hard parts of the Bible.
• 26:53
  The passage is about wrath, judgement and election because
• 26:56
  they are breathed out by the God we claim to worship.
• 27:00
  That is a tough pill to swallow for many.
• 27:02
  It is, but it's necessary. And finally, the hands, which
• 27:07
  represents our actual physical obedience.
• 27:09
  In Reformed theology, this is known as the third use of the
• 27:13
  law. The law is a guide.
• 27:14
  Exactly. The law does not save us, but it
• 27:17
  acts as a perfect guide for the believer's life.
• 27:20
  Obedience is the natural, inevitable fruit of our union
• 27:23
  with Christ. So how does that play out in
• 27:25
  culture? This means we must address
• 27:27
  specific, highly controversial modern sins like issues of
• 27:31
  sexual ethics or gender, without softening the text. 1mm It means
• 27:35
  families must teach their children the whole counsel of
• 27:38
  God. Not just the easy parts.
• 27:40
  Right, including the bloody, difficult, terrifying passages
• 27:42
  of the Old Testament. Not just sanitize kid friendly
• 27:45
  stories about arks and animals. Noah's Ark is actually a
• 27:48
  terrifying story of judgement. It is, but I have a very
• 27:52
  practical question for you. Think about a normal listener
• 27:55
  sitting in the Pew on a Sunday morning, maybe visiting a new
• 27:58
  church. OK, picture the normal listener.
• 28:01
  How can they actively guard against that seeker sensitive to
• 28:04
  Tracteo when they're just listening to a 30 minute sermon?
• 28:08
  I mean, how do you spot an omission when by definition an
• 28:11
  omission is something that isn't there?
• 28:13
  That is the most crucial boots on the ground application of
• 28:16
  this entire discussion. Spotting an omission requires
• 28:19
  that you already know the whole council of God.
• 28:22
  You have to know the baseline to know what's missing.
• 28:24
  Exactly. If your personal Bible reading
• 28:26
  only consists of popular comforting versus the
• 28:29
  theological highlight reel, you will never notice when the
• 28:32
  strict demands of the law, the urgent call to repentance, or
• 28:36
  the terrifying reality of God's wrath that are missing from a
• 28:39
  sermon. Because you don't even know
• 28:40
  they're supposed to be there, right?
• 28:42
  You spot seeker sensitive detractio by noticing what is
• 28:45
  consistently absent over a long period of time.
• 28:48
  You have to evaluate the trajectory of the pulpit.
• 28:51
  What should they be listening for?
• 28:52
  Is human sin only ever described as brokenness, mistakes or a
• 28:56
  lack of self fulfillment? Or is it rightly and
• 29:00
  consistently called high handed rebellion against a holy
• 29:03
  sovereign God? Huge difference in those
• 29:06
  definitions. Massive difference.
• 29:08
  Is the cross of Jesus Christ presented primarily as a
• 29:11
  sentimental example of sacrificial love?
• 29:14
  Or is it explicitly presented as the substitutionary atonement
• 29:18
  that satisfies the unbending righteous justice of the Father?
• 29:23
  You have to hear both. You listen for the categories of
• 29:25
  Justice, Wrath, Repentance and blood.
• 29:28
  If those categories are missing week after granted week, you are
• 29:31
  witnessing Detractio in real time.
• 29:33
  That is a great metric for discernment.
• 29:35
  But true guarding of the truth is not just an exercise in
• 29:37
  critical listening. It is fundamentally grounded in
• 29:40
  the indicative of the gospel. Meaning what God has already
• 29:43
  done. Yes, that means we do not pursue
• 29:45
  obedience or doctrinal purity out of a rigid, joyless legalism
• 29:49
  or a terrifying fear of losing our salvation that.
• 29:51
  Isn't driven by fear. No, the imperatives of
• 29:55
  Scripture, the commands for our conduct, the thou shouts, are
• 29:59
  only possible because of our secure standing in Christ.
• 30:02
  Our spiritual junior with the resurrected Christ is the engine
• 30:06
  that empowers our obedience. Same end of that.
• 30:09
  When the weary, battered St. sits in the Pew on a Sunday
• 30:12
  morning and is acutely aware of their own failures to keep the
• 30:16
  law, they find staggering rest in knowing that God never
• 30:20
  subtracts His mercy from His covenant people.
• 30:22
  He never takes it away. You guard the truth by clinging
• 30:26
  desperately to the finished, unalterable work of Jesus
• 30:29
  Christ, knowing that He perfectly fulfilled every single
• 30:33
  demand of the law that we so often try to edit, soften, or
• 30:36
  escape. That shifts the burden from our
• 30:38
  performance to Christ's perfection, which is a massive
• 30:40
  comfort. It is the only true comfort.
• 30:42
  And this individual guarding of the truth naturally climaxes and
• 30:46
  how the gathered body of believers worships corporately.
• 30:48
  The corporate gathering is where this all comes together.
• 30:51
  It is the historical Reformed tradition highlights that in
• 30:54
  corporate worship, absolutely nothing must be added to or
• 30:58
  subtracted from God's commands. This brings us to a concept
• 31:02
  known as the regulative principle of worship.
• 31:04
  A cornerstone of Reformed liturgy.
• 31:06
  For listeners unfamiliar with that term, it contrasts with the
• 31:10
  normative principle. Breakdown the difference.
• 31:12
  The normative principle found in many Anglican or Lutheran
• 31:15
  traditions says that whatever is not explicitly forbidden in
• 31:19
  Scripture is permitted in worship.
• 31:21
  So if it isn't banned, you can do it.
• 31:23
  Right, but the regulative principle found in the Reformed
• 31:25
  tradition argues the exact opposite.
• 31:29
  Whatever is not explicitly commanded in Scripture is
• 31:32
  strictly forbidden in corporate worship.
• 31:34
  That is a much. Tighter boundary, Very tight.
• 31:37
  The idea is that the sermon must perfectly fit the liturgy, and
• 31:40
  the liturgy must be entirely prescribed by the Word of God.
• 31:44
  The public prayers, the reading of the Psalms and the hymns of
• 31:47
  congregation sings must reflect a full, ungarnished truth.
• 31:51
  They cannot be edited from modern sensibilities.
• 31:54
  They cannot shy away from the doctrines of sovereign election,
• 31:58
  divine justice, human depravity, or the absolute necessity of
• 32:02
  repentance. The songs have to tell the
• 32:04
  truth. And the historical texts also
• 32:06
  connect the audible word, which is the preached sermon, to the
• 32:10
  visible word of the ordinances, specifically believers, baptism,
• 32:15
  and the Lord's Supper. The physical manifestations of
• 32:17
  the Gospel. Yes, we're taking in the Lord's
• 32:19
  Supper actively rebukes the prosperity gospel because it
• 32:22
  centers the entire gathering, the entire focus of the church
• 32:26
  on the broken body and the shed blood of a crucified Savior.
• 32:29
  Not on upward mobility or financial blessing.
• 32:31
  Exactly. It also actively rebukes liberal
• 32:34
  theology by affirming the literal, physical, bodily
• 32:37
  resurrection of Jesus because we are eating a meal in
• 32:40
  anticipation of his physical return.
• 32:42
  The ordinances protect the doctrine they.
• 32:44
  Do I always think of corporate worship like a balanced
• 32:46
  liturgical diet? If a church is song, Book only
• 32:49
  ever features modern choruses that talk about personal
• 32:52
  victory, emotional highs, and human potential, and the
• 32:56
  congregation never sings about God's wrath, human total
• 32:59
  depravity, or the desperate need for repentance that church is
• 33:03
  committing. Corporate liturgical Detractio.
• 33:06
  They are leaving out essential nutrients.
• 33:08
  They are actively starving the congregation by withholding the
• 33:12
  necessary nutrients of the whole counsel of God.
• 33:15
  If we follow that liturgical diet analogy to its logical
• 33:18
  conclusion and connect it to the person and work of Jesus, we see
• 33:22
  the ultimate remedy for our human tendency to subtract.
• 33:26
  Tell us more about that. Christ is the eternal Incarnate
• 33:29
  Word of God. During His earthly ministry, He
• 33:32
  perfectly obeyed every single jot and title of the Father's
• 33:35
  command, without ever once committing to Tractio.
• 33:38
  He never Cliff the law. He never softened the hard truth
• 33:41
  of the Law to gain a larger crowd or avoid controversy with
• 33:44
  the Pharisees. He never omitted the severe
• 33:46
  cost, heavy demands of discipleship.
• 33:48
  He preached the whole truth. When the gathered church
• 33:51
  partakes in the visible ordinances of baptism and the
• 33:54
  Lord's Supper, they are functionally sealing this
• 33:57
  objective reality to their souls.
• 33:59
  They are participating in His obedience.
• 34:01
  Participating in these prescribed means of grace
• 34:03
  empowers the congregation to resist the crushing pressure of
• 34:07
  the secular world to edit the Gospel message.
• 34:10
  It anchors them. The visible ordinances
• 34:12
  physically anchor the Church in the objective historical reality
• 34:16
  of Christ's perfect active obedience, His penal
• 34:20
  substitutionary death on the cross, and His bodily
• 34:23
  resurrection from the tomb. Which leaves no room for
• 34:26
  subtraction. It physically and spiritually
• 34:28
  reminds the believer that the Word of God is entirely
• 34:31
  sufficient, absolutely authoritative, and completely
• 34:34
  intact. We do not need to add our
• 34:36
  cultural relevance to it, and we dare not subtract its offensive
• 34:39
  edges. This has been a staggering,
• 34:41
  dense, and heavily informative discussion.
• 34:43
  There is so much to digest here. Let's summarize what we have
• 34:46
  covered on this deep dive. We have looked closely at the
• 34:49
  dual nature of Detractio. On one hand, we are learning to
• 34:53
  Revere the brilliant, inspired economy of the Holy Spirit's
• 34:56
  silence. The intentional gaps.
• 34:58
  Those terse, abrupt, syntactically broken passages in
• 35:02
  our English Bibles are not missing pieces or Skibal
• 35:05
  mistakes. They are intentional, highly
• 35:08
  concentrated literary devices meant to focus our attention,
• 35:11
  slow us down, and demand active, engaged reading.
• 35:15
  And we respect the translators for navigating that.
• 35:18
  Yes, we have to respect the immense tension translators face
• 35:21
  when trying to build linguistic bridges to bring that force into
• 35:24
  English without altering the theology.
• 35:26
  But then there is the negative side.
• 35:28
  On the other hand, we must fiercely, constantly guard
• 35:31
  against the rebellious human instinct to subtract from God's
• 35:34
  unabridged truth. In all its forms.
• 35:36
  Whether it is through massive institutional theological
• 35:39
  systems that diminish God's absolute sovereignty, pragmatic
• 35:42
  church growth models that omit the necessity of repentance and
• 35:45
  the offense of the cross, or our own sinful hearts trying to
• 35:48
  avoid the sharp edges of the moral law.
• 35:50
  It is all an attack on authority.
• 35:52
  We have to recognize that taking away from God's Word is a direct
• 35:56
  assault on His supreme authority.
• 35:59
  We guard against this by engaging our head, our heart and
• 36:02
  our hands, resting entirely on the finished, perfect work of
• 36:06
  Jesus Christ, and gathering in corporate worship that sings and
• 36:10
  preaches the whole unedited counsel of God.
• 36:13
  As we close our time together, I want to leave you with a
• 36:15
  specific historical thought to Mull over.
• 36:18
  I'd love to hear it. It builds on everything we have
• 36:20
  discussed regarding the commutative nature of silence.
• 36:24
  Consider the absolute unbroken silence of God between the end
• 36:28
  of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament.
• 36:30
  Intertestamental period for. 400 long years between Malachi and
• 36:35
  Matthew. There was no prophetic voice.
• 36:37
  There was no new revelation. It was a period of apparent
• 36:41
  terrifying omission and deafening silence for the nation
• 36:44
  of Israel. 4 centuries of nothing.
• 36:46
  What if that massive historical detractio was not an absence of
• 36:50
  God's activity, but the ultimate tension building setup?
• 36:53
  Oh wow. What if that 400 year silence
• 36:56
  was sovereignly, perfectly designed to prepare the entire
• 36:59
  world for the loudest, most definitive word ever spoken into
• 37:02
  human history? The Word made flesh.
• 37:05
  That changes how we view those blank white pages sitting
• 37:08
  between the Old and New Testaments.
• 37:10
  The refs are truly just as critical to the composition as
• 37:12
  the notes. Thank you for joining us for
• 37:15
  this deep dive. This is reformed thinking,
• 37:17
  signing off. Keep reading the whole word and
• 37:19
  keep listening to the silences.