There’s a new book on the Trinity that I’m looking forward to picking up in a couple of months. Andres J. Köstenberger and Scott R. Swain have coauthored Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel, volume 24 in the New Studies in Biblical Theology (NSBT) series, edited by D. A. Carson. It’s 224 pages and due to be released sometime in July.

Here’s how Köstenberger summarizes the book:

Part One situates John’s trinitarian teaching within the context of Second Temple Jewish monotheism. Part Two examines the Gospel narrative in order to trace the characterization of God as Father, Son and Spirit, followed by a brief synthesis. Part Three deals more fully with major trinitarian themes in the Fourth Gospel, including its account of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and mission. A final chapter discusses the significance of John’s Gospel for the church’s doctrine of the Trinity, and a brief conclusion summarizes some practical implications.

Carson has this to say about it:

This present volume is the joint product of a Neutestamentler and a systematic theologian. In their collaboration they have simultaneously attempted a detailed exegetical and theological understanding of what the Fourth Gospel says about God, using the categories of that Gospel itself, and mature understanding of the links between that text and the systematic formulations of what came to be called the doctrine of the Trinity. In what sense is it proper to think of the doctrine of God in John’s Gospel as trinitarian? Some are so suspicious of links between biblical exegesis and systematic theology that they will deplore any ostensible connections between the two, afraid that the latter will domesticate the former and stain it with anachronism, or that the former will dilute the latter and render it insipid. Drs Köstenberger and Swain, thankfully, are not numbered among them.

Perhaps I’ll share some thoughts on it later.

This is my final post on the pronunciation of “propitiation.” I promise.

The Oxford English Dictionary, “the definitive record of the English language,” has the answer to the mystery behind Carson’s unusual pronunciation of “propitiation” as prō-pĭs-ē-ā-shŭn. As I suspected originally,¹ it is an older pronunciation formerly used in England and France. Here’s the relevant portion from the pronunciation section: “Anglo-Norman propiciatiun and Middle French propiciation, propitiation (French propitiation, †propiciation).”²

No doubt, then, Carson picked it up in French Canada or during his studies in England at Cambridge University.

See also the previous two posts:

• The Proper Pronunciation of “Propitiation”
• Update on the Pronunciation of “Propitiation”

HT: Mark L. Ward Jr., who sent me a PDF of the entry.

Footnotes

1. In my original post, I said, “Just a guess, but I wonder if it is British or reflects Carson’s knowledge of French. (Carson grew up in French Canada and studied in England.)” ↩
2. Cf. also this: “Forms: lME propiciacioun, lME-15 propiciacion, 15 propiciacyon, 15 propiciatyon, 15 propitiacion, 15 propycyacyon, 15-17 propiciation, 15- propitiation.” ↩

I recently wrote about the various pronunciations of “propitiation” that are in use by pastors, theologians, and scholars, making particular reference to D. A. Carson’s peculiar pronunciation: prō-pĭs-ē-ā-shŭn.

According to the poll, the majority of the readers of this blog follow the pronunciation that I use: prō-pĭsh-ē-ā-shŭn. A couple prefer prō-pĭt-chē-ā-shŭn or prō-pĭch-ē-ā-shŭn. But no one—at least from my limited readership—follows Carson’s prō-pĭs-ē-ā-shŭn.

However, Michael White pointed out in a comment that Carson’s pronunciation is listed in Webster’s 1828 as the only pronunciation for “propitiation.” I haven’t found any more information beyond that, but this at least confirms my strong suspicion that Carson doesn’t make mistakes in the pronunciation of his theological terms!

I haven’t yet had a chance to look it up in OED, so this is all that I’ve been able to uncover. If anyone has any more light to shed on this, I’d be interested to find out more.

See also my other two posts:

• The Proper Pronunciation of “Propitiation”
• The Pronunciation of “Propitiation”: The Mystery Solved

While traveling to OH for my sister’s wedding last weekend, I had the opportunity to listen to D. A. Carson’s (Wikipedia | Theopedia)¹ three-part series on the New Perspective on Paul (Theopedia): “The So-Called New Perspective on Paul Critiqued” (Pt 1 | Pt 2 | Pt 3 also here: Pt 1 | Pt 2 | Pt 3).² He delivered it at Reformed Theological Seminary in 2005. It’s a helpful overview and introduction to the issues.³ If you don’t have a good grasp on the New Perspective, this is a good place to start.

But the New Perspective is not the subject of this post. During the course of the third lecture, Dr. Carson repeatedly referred to propitiation (Theopedia) when working through Romans 3. What struck me as odd was his pronunciation of the term. He consistently said prō-pĭs-ē-ā-shŭn (e.g., 48:54). Perhaps as intriguing was that he pronounced the verb form, “propitiate,” (correctly, in my view) as prō-pĭsh-ē-āte rather than the expected prō-pĭs-ē-āte.

That pronunciation was new to me. I have always pronounced it prō-pĭsh-ē-ā-shŭn, which I believe is the standard (and correct) pronunciation. I’ve also heard both prō-pĭch-ē-ā-shŭn and prō-pĭt-chē-ā-shŭn (which are nearly indistinguishable),⁴ but never have I heard—until now—prō-pĭs-ē-ā-shŭn.

It reminded me of my pastor during my teenage years who would always pronounce “Deuteronomy” as “Deuteromony”—probably just a childhood mistake that was so ingrained that it couldn’t easily be unlearned (or perhaps he was ignorant of the fact, and no one was ever bold enough to tell him!). I’d like to thing there’s something else going on here since we’re dealing with one of the premier NT scholars of our day—one who would certainly know better!

Does anyone have any ideas? Just a guess, but I wonder if it is British or reflects Carson’s knowledge of French. (Carson grew up in French Canada and studied in England.)

All the dictionaries that I’ve looked at that have a pronunciation list only the pronunciation prō-pĭsh-ē-ā-shŭn.

• Random House: prəˌpɪʃiˈeɪʃən (pruh-pish-ee-ey-shuhn)
• American Heritage: prō-pĭsh’ē-ā’shən
• Merriam-Webster’s: prō-ˌpi-shē-ˈā-shən

Take the poll, and let’s settle this once and for all!

 Loading ...

Update: Michael White has pointed out in the comments that Webster’s 1828 lists prō-pĭs-ē-ā-shŭn as the only pronunciation. Very interesting. I’ll have to look this up in OED to find out more about its history.

See also my other two posts:

• Update on the Pronunciation of “Propitiation”
• The Pronunciation of “Propitiation”: The Mystery Solved

Footnotes

1. See also Andreas Kostenberger’s ten-page biography of Carson. ↩
2. See Andy Naselli’s nice collection of Carson audio. ↩
3. See Adrian Warnock’s summary. ↩
4. E.g., Steven Lawson follows the latter pronunciation. See his sermon “Ten Reasons Why the Bible Teaches Definite Atonement: The Reality of Christ’s Propitiation” (e.g., 0:21). ↩

On Sunday I’m teaching our Sunday school class on the subject of tongues. I’m basically going to do an overview using the paper I wrote for Dr. Reimers’s Pneumatology class. In doing a little review, I reread Gaffin’s article in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views and found it insightful and solid. I then decided to take a look at Carson’s Showing the Spirit since I bought it recently for my Libronix Digital Library System. Carson takes issue with Gaffin on a few points, but I’m at a loss to understand one of Carson’s objections. Maybe you can help me see what I’m missing.

Gaffin says,

It is gratuitous to insist that this passage teaches that the modes of revelation mentioned, prophecy and tongues, are to continue functioning until Christ’s return. Paul is not intending to specify the time when any particular mode will cease. What he does affirm is the termination of the believer’s present, fragmentary knowledge, based on likewise temporary modes of revelation, when “the perfect” comes. The time of the cessation of prophecy and tongues is an open question so far as this passage is concerned (Perspectives on Pentecost, 111; quoted in Showing the Spirit, 69 n. 57).

According to Gaffin all we can say for sure from this passage is that the sign gifts will have ceased by the parousia. Maybe they will have ceased earlier than the parousia; maybe they will cease at the parousia. That will have to be decided outside this passage, since that is not what Paul is addressing. So neither the cessationist nor the continuationist can make an argument for his position based on 1 Cor. 13:8ff.

Carson responds,

In other words, Gaffin recognizes that this passage cannot be used to teach that prophecy and tongues ceased in the first or second century, so he tries to neutralize the connection with the parousia by saying that the exact time of cessation is not specified at all, which can then be dealt with on dogmatic rather than exegetical grounds. But Paul specifies that prophecy and other gifts will cease when perfection comes; and if with Gaffin that perfection is connected with the parousia, then his interpretation sees too little in the text (Showing the Spirit, 69 n. 57).

Carson seems to counter argue that that all of these gifts will cease at the parousia. In other words, they will remain valid gifts until then. That’s what it seems to me. Yet Carson goes on to conclude,

If this point [“the perfect”] is located at the parousia, then there is nothing in this passage to preclude a valid gift of tongues or prophecy today. This would not necessarily mean, of course, that each contemporary claim of a particular gift is valid. Nor would it necessarily mean that a charismatic gift or gifts could not have been withdrawn earlier than the parousia. But it does mean that Scripture offers no shelter to those who wish to rule out all claims to charismatic gifts today (70, italics mine).

Notice the italicized text. It appears to me that Carson concludes the exact thing that he chides Gaffin for arguing. The fact that Paul says the gifts will cease when the perfect comes does not mean that they will remain until “the perfect” comes, only they will not remain beyond that point. What am I missing? It seems that Carson is being inconsistent, but there’s a greater probability that I’m not thinking clearly or misreading something. Am I misreading Gaffin, Carson’s response to Gaffin, or Carson’s conclusion? I’d appreciate any feedback.