Treasures Old and New: Biblical Texts and Meaning

Through Immigrant's Eyes? Reading the Bible from Various Perspectives

2011-11-19T06:13:00.003Z

Institute of Biblical Research is a premier biblical studies fellowship guided by evangelical principles. IBR sponsors morning devotions at the annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature, and an annual lecture.

This year's annual lecture was entitled "Reading the Bible through Other Lenses: New Perspectives and Challenging Vistas," and given by Denver Seminary professor M. Daniel Carroll. The premise was that we can discover valid new interpretations of the Bible if we look through the eyes of the diaspora community. By diaspora community, Prof. Carroll refers to those who migrate to other countries, such as Latinos crossing the border into the U.S. It was very stimulating, but ultimately I have some serious disagreements.

In recent decades, we've been challenged to look at the Bible from various perspectives. How would our interpretation of various passages change if we read the text from the perspective of a woman, of an African, or of a slave? No doubt our own experiences often prevent us from hearing the word of God from these other perspectives.

Prof. Carroll gave some examples. He suggested that Abraham's lie about his wife being his sister might be understood differently if we looked at it from the eyes of an "undocumented worker" (no doubt he meant to say "illegal immigrant”). Accordingly, Abraham was an immigrant who was responsible for feeding his clan, and so desperate to do so during the famine that he was willing to risk Sara. Such risks, Prof. Carroll said, must be taken during desperate times, as reflected in the plight of many immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexican border.

Prof. Carroll also pointed out to Joseph, Prince of Egypt, who adopted Egyptian customs, but still named his children with "Hebrew" names, retained his native language, and insisted on being buried in his home country. Prof. Carroll then asked if this might have implications for the requirement of learning English in the U.S.

A third example (although there were several more) was Ruth. He suggested that we might be able to understand the book of Ruth if we read it from the viewpoint of an immigrant.

Now for my disagreements.

Let me first pass on an urgency of Gordon Fee's, that we must do exegesis in the context of the Church. By exegesis, I refer to the process of interpretation whereby we ascertain the interpretation that the author meant to convey. Prof. Fee was saying that he, as a Pentecostal, desperately needs to hear what Presbyterians and Baptists and Methodists and Anglicans, etc. have to say about the text. As a Baptist, I spot things in the Bible that a Presbyterian might overlook. Since I'm not a Pentecostal, I might overlook a valid concern in the biblical text that a Pentecostal might see. So, Dr. Fee is right to say that we need each other to help hear the biblical text.

All this is true of the other perspectives as well. In a sermon series through 1 Timothy, I remember giving a short shrift treatment to the text of 1 Tim 5 dealing with widows. And then on the following Monday when re-thinking the Sunday service, I realized that a good portion of the church consisted of widows—I missed an important text simply because I made no attempt to understand it through someone else’s experience. Consequently, when we look at the biblical text, we should attempt to read it from multiple perspectives.

But ultimately, since exegesis is all about determining the author's original intention, the one set of glasses that is all important is that of the author. For the Pauline letters, we must put on the glasses of a first century Hellenistic Jew. For Micah, we must put on the glasses of an 8th century Israelite.

I think it is improbable that the book of Ruth was written from the viewpoint of an immigrant. Historically, reading Ruth with the eyes of an immigrant might help us understand how Ruth felt, but this does not help us understand how the author wanted us to understand the book. I suspect that the author’s perspective was that of a Hebrew living in Israel looking at the immigrant, which is quite different from the converse situation.

Likewise, the story of Abraham and his lie was not written to be read from the eyes of an immigrant. Consequently, it is all-together irrelevant for the interpretation of the story what the motive for Abraham’s lie was. The reality, according to the biblical author’s perspective, was that Abraham risked the Covenant Promise by giving the mother of his future progeny to the Egyptian king, and so failed in his faith. Reading the text from an immigrant’s perspective might make one more sympathetic with Abraham, but this was extraneous to the author’s intention.

If I may be capricious—for the sake of looking on the other side of the equation…, one of Dr. Carroll’s examples lends itself to be read from the perspective of an American capitalist. Joseph the immigrant came into Egypt, learned the Egyptian language, and adopted Egyptian customs, and achieved the highest possible success as an Egyptian. As the leader of his country, his first obligation was to protect his own citizenry. This is why he sold wheat to non-citizens for a profit, and did not indiscriminately allow foreigners to deplete Egypt’s resources.

Ultimately, Kenneth E. Bailey's works on understanding the Bible through Middle Eastern eyes is so much more valuable for interpreting the Bible.

Which Bible Translation Is the Best?

2011-08-29T16:57:00.003+01:00

English is privileged above all other languages to have many excellent translations. In the Bible translations wars, it is embarrassing that we fight so vigorously over which one is the best, when in fact any of our top five translations are better than any Spanish or Chinese or Russian or Indian version. Few of the 4 million Nagas in the Himalayan foothills have access to a version in their native language. Thus, it is with some embarrassment that I dare give my opinion on English translations.

Task Oriented Translations

Preliminarily, I deny that there is such a thing as the BEST English translation. The issue for English versions is which one is best for the particular job. We have to ask, Which version is best for…

Evangelism or new converts? (New Living Translation)
Detailed word-for-word study? (English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, American Standard Version 1901)
Public reading? (New International Version)
Intensive reading programs such as read-the-Bible-in-a-year programs? (New Living Translation)
Children? (New International readers’ Version—NIrV)
Adults with reading disabilities or difficulties? (New International readers’ Version—NIrV)
Solemn or stately occasions? (KJV; New King James Version)
The most powerful vocabulary to convey difficult concepts found in the Greek? (New English Bible)
Memorization? (New International Version)
Artistic, high impact rendering (The Message)

While Bible users should settle on one primary version, they should recognize that some translations are more effective for certain tasks.

Formal Equivalent vs. Dynamic Equivalence

Translations can be placed between two extremes. On the far left are those versions which attempt a word-for-word equivalence. This is called “formal equivalence.” This approach attempts to give exact representation to the Greek and Hebrew syntax, and to reduce vocabulary down to its most common meaning (not nuanced meaning). So, if the Greek has five words, it will try to use five English words in translation. Greek idiomatic expressions are represented literally, instead of idiomatically. Word order and order of clauses are retained as much as possible. English style is not prioritized. The most extreme examples of formal equivalence yield an English text which sounds like “translation English,” much as a foreign diplomat with poor English skills would talk. (King James Version does have some archaic elements in it, but much of its peculiarity derives from its formal translation of the Greek and Hebrew—it is translation English!)

On the far right are those versions which attempt to convey accurately the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew, without being slavish to the syntax of the original languages. This is called “dynamic equivalence.” There is no concern for exact representation of syntax, and biblical idioms are put into natural English language. Priority is given to English style so that there is no hint of the awkward elements in the original language which might otherwise adversely affect the translation.

Here are some contrasting examples between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence (the two lists correspond to each other):

Formal Equivalence

he lifted up his eyes to Jesus
bowels and mercies
Jesus said to him, saying
And the LORD said to Abram
And they, having heard the king, went
And opening his mouth, he taught them saying
And it came to pass, sitting at meat, he spoke

Dynamic Equivalence

he looked at Jesus
compassion and mercies
Jesus said to him
Now, the LORD said to Abram
After hearing the king’s instructions, they went
He began to teach them. He said
Later, while eating, he said

The advantage of formal equivalence is that it gives the Bible student a good idea of the exact wording of the original language. This approach is excellent for careful, detailed analysis of the text. Conversely, the advantage of dynamic equivalence is that it is easy to read, for it conveys the message in natural English.

Specific Versions

Of the standard English versions, the most formal equivalent translation is American Standard Version 1901 (widely available on-line and in most Bible software). Less rigid formal equivalent versions are English Standard Version and New American Standard Bible (1995 update).

Today’s most popular and best dynamic equivalent version is New Living Translation. Additionally, Today’s English Version (= Good News Bible) was widely popular in the last quarter century, and remains useful. Since these versions prioritize English style, they are excellent for those who might spend an hour or longer of (non-contemplative) straight-through Bible reading. They are also useful for evangelism, or to introduce the Bible to people who are unfamiliar with biblical lingo.

There are several versions which are in between the two extremes. Preeminent of these is New International Version. It attempts to serve two masters equally—one master being the Greek and Hebrew syntax, the other master being English style. Thus, NIV attempts to mirror the Greek and Hebrew as much as possible, while keeping good English style. This balanced approach makes NIV an excellent translation for memorization and for public reading. As such, it would serve well as anyone’s primary Bible translation. NIV is produced by evangelical translators.

New Revised Standard Version also attempts to be balanced between formal and dynamic equivalent. It is slightly more formal than NIV, and is popular among mainline (less conservative and liberal) denominations. The New American Bible, which was produced by Catholic scholars, also takes a balanced approach.

Comparing Versions

Those researching a given biblical passage should compare several versions for differences in meaning. If only four translations can be used, I recommend using New King James Version, American Standard Version, New International Version, and New Living Translation. If eight translations can be used, I recommend using these four plus English Standard Version (or New American Standard Bible), New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, and Holman Christian Standard Bible.

Where NKJV differs from the other versions, it may be due to textual issues rather than translational issues.

Southern Baptists, Bible Translations, and the Condemnation of the NIV

2011-06-17T14:13:00.002+01:00

A majority of the men at the Southern Baptist Convention today condemned the New International Version on the basis that it is not a faithful translation of the word of God.

At issue is whether men must translate with something like “goodwill to men” rather than “goodwill to people,” or whether men must translate that God wants all men to be saved rather than all people, or whether we must always refer to the Israelites as the “sons of Israel” instead of “children of Israel.”

In formal Greek linguistic categories, the nouns and pronouns in question are in the masculine, but nonetheless convey the inclusion of women. The NIV does not always render these nouns and pronouns with their corresponding masculine forms, but rather with English words which convey the same meaning as the Greek.

Because of NIV’s tendency to render the meaning of the Greek rather than slavishly reproducing formal masculine linguistic categories, certain influential men brought their case against the NIV before the Southern Baptist brethren. The resolution narrowly passed by the votes of a few men.

Ironically, the version most closely associated with Southern Baptist is the HCSB which translates many of these same passages similarly as NIV.

The fault lies with a handful of men, sometimes scholarly ones, who innocently say, “I prefer a more literal version such as the ESV.” Well intentioned laymen and pastors combine this innocent statement with their rightly placed belief in inerrancy, and conclude, mistakenly, that literal versions are theologically preferable, while anything less is liberal.

Let those men who study these issues be more cautious about how they promote certain Bible versions. There’s no such thing as the one best version. There is, however, such a thing as the best version for a particular need:

literal versions are to be preferred for exact and detailed study involving vocabulary and syntax (ESV ASV NASU)

dynamic equivalent versions are to be preferred for lengthy or protracted or speed reading, such as reading-the-Bible-in-a-year programs, or for evangelizing men (NLT TEV)

middle-of-the-road translations for Bible memorization or for public reading (NIV NRSV)

We men who teach the Bible need to stop saying that “literal translations are best for those men who believe in inerrancy.”

Scholarly men need to stop providing fodder for the demagoguery of translation theory, because what they say will produce misguided resolutions such as what was passed at the Southern Baptist Convention today. This is so unfortunate because misguided resolutions trivialize other resolutions that good men might pass at the convention. For example, the men of the Southern Baptist Convention rightly reaffirmed their belief in hell, but they did so while condemning the NIV. How can men take one resolution seriously when the other is so unfounded?

Another unintended consequence of this misguided resolution is to reinforce the KJV-only laymen and churches in their suspicion against “untrustworthy” versions. The resolution sets back churches at least a year or two in the effort to get into the hands of our churchmen a more accurate translation than the 400 year old linguistically outdated KJV.

Just for clarification, all of my aforementioned references to “men” are meant to imply women as well and are included to illustrate that men don’t talk the way that the authors of the resolution expect men to translate.

The Problem with the English Standard Version (ESV) and Theological Demagoguery

2011-06-11T16:55:00.002+01:00

The problem with the English Standard Version (ESV) is not with the translation itself, but with the theological demagoguery that its advocates use to promote it and to discredit its competition.

This demagoguery involves thoughtless assertions that the more literal a translation is the better. Accordingly, dynamic equivalence is made suspect as the invention of liberal scholars. The intended conclusion of such demagoguery is that people who believe the Bible should stick with formal equivalent versions such as the ESV. These claims are faulty in so many ways, but in this post, I’ll just point out one.

ESV is marketed as having an eighth grade reading level. This in itself shows that ESV fails in its intended purpose to be formal equivalent. It intends to render all of the Bible at the same reading level, even though some of the individual books and authors of the Bible are easier to read than others.

In the New Testament, the Greek style and vocabulary of John’s Gospel is so simple that an intermediate Greek reader can just about speed read it, while the Greek style and vocabulary of Luke-Acts and Hebrews is so complex that advanced Greek readers struggle mightily therein.

If ESV really felt that formal equivalency were a theological tenet rather than a pragmatic tool, the translators would have translated the easy to read Greek into easy to read English, while those Greek books which are more difficult to read would be translated into more advanced English. As it turns out, the reading levels for the ESV are about the same throughout the Bible. Thus, readers get no sense of the level of difficulty of the Greek behind the English translation.

Of course, the only reason why the publishers cast aside formal equivalence in regard to readability levels is because difficult-to-read Bibles don’t sell. A case in point would be the short-lived New English Bible which, for example, translated the lofty prose of Heb 1:3 as referring to Christ as the effulgence of God’s glory, the impress of his substance. Stuff like this doesn’t sell.

Ultimately, we need to cast aside the notion that translation methods reflect theological commitments. Rather, we should take advantage of the availability of so many very excellent translations, and use the best translation according to the occasion: use the right tool for the job.

Acts 13:48 in Bauer's Greek Lexicon

2010-01-26T21:03:00.006Z

And as many as were disposed for eternal life believed.

http://jmleonardfamily.googlepages.com/Acts1348BDAGscan.pdf

Graham Stanton Dies

2009-07-20T16:35:00.002+01:00

Graham Stanton, towering scholar, Cambridge's Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity, and Fellow of Fitzwilliam College

He died on Saturday (July 18).

He barely knew me, but even when he had his own struggles with cancer, he went beyond all expectations in seeing that my application to Cambridge was considered, and keeping me informed of the process.

I did my Gospel of Matthew thesis (master's, Regent College) at a time when there was hardly any decent secondary literature on Matthew available. During that time, he oversaw the difficult process of getting Allison and Davies' ICC commentary to completion. And he produced the introductory work on Matthew "A Gospel for a New People" http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-New-People-Graham-Stanton/dp/0664254993/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248103838&sr=8-2

More recently, the book "The Gospels and Jesus" http://www.amazon.com/Gospels-Jesus-Oxford-Bible/dp/0199246165/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248103838&sr=8-1... Read more

Thank God for his careful scholarship. The world will be so much less without him. May a new generation like him arise.

2 seconds ago · Delete

That I Might Know Him

2009-06-24T08:53:00.002+01:00

Phil 3:1-11
North Wales Baptist Church, Pennsylvania
Nov 9, 1997

In today's text which Paul has so passionately given us, we find three important points. To start with, Paul is contrasting two opposing means of attaining righteousness. One way which he and others had failed at was Jewish observances; he argues here and elsewhere that if holiness could be attained through Jewish observances, then Christ would have never needed to die. Instead, the only way to attain holiness is through faith in Jesus Christ.
Consequently, Paul lets us know that knowing and experiencing and understanding Christ through faith is his all consuming passion. His goal is to attain the holiness for which he was created, and thus he is willing to sacrifice any and every thing which would prevent or hinder him from knowing Christ. He gives it all up in order to grow in his intimacy with Jesus. And he urges his readers to do the same.
What is our all consuming passion? If we had the means, money, and wherewithal, and if we had none of our mundane, day to day obligations, how would we be spending our time? Where would we be devoting our energies and creativity? What do we live for? When the bills are paid, and we clock out at work, and we have some free time that we've eeked out of our schedule, what do we do, where do we go, what things do we long for? What is our treasure? Where are our hearts?
More often than not, my obsession is on the hiking trail in the mountains of West Virginia, or rather more ideally, in the North Cascades of Washington state. Unfortunately, my work schedule is so tight and I've gotten so fat, that all I can do is read hiking magazines and watch TV movies with mountain scenery and whine to my wife, "Why can't we live there in the mountains?" I'm afraid though, that many Christians misplace or forget what their all consuming passion should be. Paul's all consuming passion was to intimately know Jesus Christ, and thus become more like him.
In today's text, Paul provides two implicit reasons as to why knowing Christ is so important. First of all, knowing Christ through faith not only saves us from the wrath of God, but it also rescues us from our sins. Certainly, faith saves us from Hell, but it is also the God-given means of delivering us from the enslaving power of sin. The law and other Jewish observances could never do that. When we grow in our personal intimacy with Jesus, then the sins which so often enslave us lose their strength so that we really do become free. Test my words to see if they are true: Think of the particular sins against which you have struggled over the years. Do you recall how impotent they became when you were regularly praying and worshiping God in your private devotional life? The words of the gospel song echo this idea: You are to praise the Lord in your personal worship, for the chains that seem to bind you serve only to remind you that they drop powerless behind you when you praise him. So then, we learn from this text that knowing Christ rescues us from the enslaving power of sin.
The text also teaches that knowing Christ is the means whereby we get on the right track toward attaining holiness. Look back over your life. You younger Christians may be only able to look back a few months or maybe a year. Some of us may be able to evaluate the past five or ten years of our lives as Christians. Others of us may be able to look back over the better part of a century to consider our progress in the Christian life. However long you can look back, I want you to ask yourself how much you have grown in holiness. Is your life any different than it was last year, or 10 years ago, or fifty years ago? I've been a Christian now for 30 years. I preached my first sermon 20 years ago. But not too long ago, I took a good, long look at myself, and realized that many of the same sins I struggled with 20 years ago are still plaguing me. And this is tragic, because the gospel promises deliverance from the power of sin. Of course, Paul writes in this very passage that he hasn't attained sinless perfection, but he emphatically states that he is pressing on to attain the goal. And the means of growing in holiness is through growing in intimacy with Jesus. Paul explains elsewhere that as we gaze upon Jesus, he transforms us so that we become more like him. "As we gaze on his kingly brightness, So our faces display his likeness, Ever changing from glory to glory, Mirrored here, may our lives tell the story, Shine on Me, Jesus, Shine on Me." And this is the very reason why Jesus has taken hold of us.
The final thing that I want to stress from this passage is how vastly more important knowing Christ is. Paul gives up everything in order to know, experience, and understand Christ in personal intimacy. In fact he counts everything else as repulsive refuse in comparison to knowing Christ. After all, what gain do we have if attain the whole world but fail to grow in holiness. We have to own the words of that great gospel song for ourselves: "Jesus is all the world to me." Or what about that other gospel song, "I'd Rather Have Jesus than Anything This World Affords Today."

One of my favorite spirituals is the song, "Give Me Jesus."
In the morning when I rise, give me Jesus,
In the dark midnight was my cry: give me Jesus,
Just about the break of day, give me Jesus,
O when I come to die, give me Jesus.
Give me Jesus, give me Jesus, you may have all this world, but give me Jesus.

I'm sure we would all agree intellectually that knowing Jesus is of far surpassing value than anything else this present evil age can afford, but although Jesus is calling us to greater intimacy with him, we fill the empty spaces of our lives with more and more and more dryness. One poet wrote,
Shall we buy a new guitar, shall we drive a more powerful car
Shall we work straight through the night, shall we get into god-awful fights
Leave the lights on, drop bombs
Do tours of the east, contract the beast
Bury bones, break up homes, send flowers by phone
Take to drink, go to shrinks
Give up meat, rarely sleep
Race our horses for bets
Train dogs, test rats
Fill the attic with cash
Bury treasure, spend our leisure
Do anything at all
So we cannot hear his call

Jeremiah writes, "My people have committed two sins: They have forsake me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water. Now why go to Egypt to drink water from the Shihor? And why go to Assyria to drink water from the Euphrates?" But Isaiah extends the invitation to the people of God today, "Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters. Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good. Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live."
It is time for God's people to re-prioritize their lives, to revitalize their private worship time so that we grow in our relationship with Jesus and thus become more like him. By a fluke of the English language, our Bible translation reads, "Lord, teach us to pray." Perhaps we know a little of how to pray, but the request is, "Lord, teach us to pray.

Q and A: Divine Identity

2008-12-13T12:05:00.002Z

There was a period for questions and answers. I fear that perhaps the best questions weren’t always asked or were presented without sufficient clarity for my mind. To be sure there were several really good questions, but I didn’t take notes, and my mind only conjures up my own question and Peter Head’s question on messianism and its impact on divine identity. Dr. Head’s question was especially significant since I’m not sure that the speakers spent much time dealing with Jesus’ Messiahship as a part of his divine identity.

My own question was this:

“We’ve been working under the higher criticism template that the New Testament documents had a low Christology, and that Christology evolved over the centuries until it reached full Trinitarian expression at Nicaea and Chalcedon. Yet you [Profs. Bauckham and Hays] have attempted to smash this template, and to argue for a high Christology in the New Testament writings, along with others such as Prof. Bockmuehl, Prof. Fee in his Pauline Christology, Dr. Gathercole in his The Pre-Existent Son, Prof. Hurtado in his Lord Jesus Christ, and others. My question is, Are you being persuasive, and would you prophesy to us about the future state of the question in about ten years?”

I was satisfied with the answers, and also struck in several ways. Prof. Bauckham expressed his hope that their message would fall on listening ears especially among younger scholars, confessing that many seasoned scholars may already be too entrenched to hear. He also shared with us his own experience of moving away from the old template with which he could have been pleased to keep as his own, except that the evidence itself pushed him to abandon it (as I blogged earlier).

Prof. Hays then stated that the two lines of interpretation have been clearly delineated, and that the conflict between the two sides was fierce. He stated that there are some on the other side of the line who dismiss arguments from his side as poor scholarship. He said much more, but sad to say, I can’t recall several other aspects of his response. I myself have not read the book reviews or heard the polemics play out at meetings such as Society of Biblical Literature, etc. However, I have read one review—James D.G. Dunn’s review of Dr. Gathercole’s The Pre-Existent Son, and judging by Dunn’s comments, I’d have to say that Prof. Hays’ characterisation of the raging conflict is justified.

Richard Hays on Divine Identity in Luke

2008-12-13T11:14:00.002Z

This is the fourth post in a series of posts dealing with the deity of Jesus.

I’m struggling to find the words to express how good both speakers were. They both gave really, really important papers, made really, really significant points throughout, and spoke very, very persuasively. In my little world, I doubt I could overestimate the value of these two papers. This was indicated by the audience’s expression of appreciation at the end of the day. The applause went on and on and on. The applause seemed more typical of the response an audience would give to a great opera performance. Someone called for an encore….

Interestingly, some people were quite sure that Prof. Bauckham gave the better of the two papers. Not so, in my estimation. Perhaps it was simply my American ears which gravitated toward Prof. Hays’ presentation more so than the subtleties of Prof. Bauckham’s reading. But I think also that I probably have a predisposition for Prof. Hays’ use of narrative to discern Jesus’ identity. I learned a great deal about general methodology in Prof. Hays’ presentation which will be useful not only in the quest for divine identity, but for the whole range of interpretive issues in the Gospels.

Thus, I appreciated Prof. Hays beginning with the question of how narrative impacts the issue of identity: 1) identity unfolds cumulatively through the whole book so that one must not focus merely on isolated pericopes; 2) in order to appreciate the cumulative impact of narrative, one must engage in multiple re-readings—reading it from the back to the front; 3) narrative allows for irony and ambiguity; 4) narrative identity isn’t simply what is unique, but what is characteristic of a person; 5) identity is enacted, and is not merely a matter of one’s nature. All of this I think is extremely important for any understanding of the theology of the Gospel writers and, in regard to divine identity, will ultimately lead the sensitive reader to an understanding that Jesus is portrayed as nothing less than Israel’s LORD/Lord.

Prof. Hays made it clear that he thinks that due appreciation of these five aspects of narrative will result in a high Christology in the Gospels. In this regard, it is remarkable that Prof. Hays makes his stand for a high Christology in Luke—the subject of his paper—which is otherwise reputed to have the lowest Christology of the four Gospels. But Prof. Hays is so overwhelmed by the evidence as it arises through narrative analysis that he can, in good conscience, direct Jesus’ Emmaus road statement toward his sceptical colleagues: “‘How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:25). This was one of the great moments in Prof. Hays’ presentation.

Let me hasten to say that despite my previous comment, I’m not so sure that Prof. Hays would make his stand for a “high” Christology in any book. He does not think the categories of “high” and “low” are helpful. Yet, he does buck against the consensus of modern New Testament critics who deny that the Gospels held to Jesus’ pre-existence or who think that they assume Jesus to be a subordinate being to God. Since I didn’t fully grasp his critique against the traditional terminology of high and low Christology, I will end up retaining it throughout this post with the caveat that the reader should understand that Prof. Hays avoids those terms.

An important corrective for me was Prof. Hays’ claim that Lucan depictions of Jesus as the Son of God entails more than just royal-political identity. For the last 15 years I have thought that in the Synoptic Gospels, the title Son of Man (cf. Dan 7) entails a higher Christology than the title Son of God. I had understood Son of God in the Synoptics to refer to Jesus’ kingly, messianic status as heir to the Davidic throne, as opposed to the Johannine understanding of Jesus being in nature God the Son. In contrast, Prof. Hays argued that Son of God in Luke indicates Jesus’ origins, and serves as a polemic to the worship of the emperors who made claims about their own divine nature. Jesus’ statement about his Sonship in Luke 10:21-22 that “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" must be understood in terms of Jesus’ divine identity and not merely in terms of his right to David’s throne. The fact that this passage sounds as if it had been lifted out of John’s Gospel amidst all its high Christology (what Prof. Hays calls a Jubelruf) reinforces the notion that Son of God in Luke has major implications for divine identity. See also 1:26-38; 3:22; 9:35; 22:29; 23:46.

After discussing Jesus as the Son of God, Prof. Hays turns to Jesus as the awaited LORD of the New Exodus/End of Exile. The Baptist claimed to be preparing the way of the LORD (3:4-6; Isa 40)—the LORD who would bring about the New Exodus. In light of the Baptist’s declaration, who is it that actually comes? What does this say about Jesus’ identity? Was he not the LORD himself? And when the Baptist is in prison and questions Jesus’ divine identity, does not Jesus make further claims about his identity as Israel’s LORD when he tells John to look around and see the fulfilment of Isa 35? This precipitated one of the great moments in the lecture, as Prof. Hays proceeded to recite the lines from the Wesley hymn, “Hear him, ye deaf; his praise, ye dumb, your loosened tongues employ; ye blind, behold your saviour come, and leap, ye lame, for joy.” Thus, Luke depicts Jesus as the “coming one” in fulfilment of those Old Testament passages which speak of the LORD leading Israel out of captivity and back to Zion. The capstone to all of this is Luke’s declaration through the mouth of Peter that this Jesus whom they hanged on a tree, was vindicated by God who raised him to life and is now Lord of all (Acts 10:36). Indeed, reading from back to front, we see that all the references to Jesus as Lord, when taken cumulatively, ultimately blur the distinction of the Lord Jesus and Israel’s LORD.

If Prof. Hays is right in seeing all this as indicating Jesus’ divine identity, then there are a number of elements which fall into place with greater clarity: 1) the fusion of Jesus’ action with God’s; 2) the visitation theme; 3) calling on the name of the LORD; 4) Jesus’ sending of God’s Holy Spirit; and others.

Prof. Hays also remarked on how Luke’s use of sources does not negate the theology explicit in the source. For example, if Luke appropriated pre-existing hymns in Luke 1-2, it means that he embraced their theology. The same is true for Luke’s use of Mark. Whenever Luke does so, it means that he probably liked Mark’s theological emphasis. This is so obvious, but yet a scholar no less than James D. G. Dunn, for example, tries to water down Paul’s high Christology in Phil 2 by suggesting that since Paul borrowed the “hymn” from another source, then it is questionable whether Paul really embraced its theology—an argument strongly refuted in Prof. Fee’s Pauline Christology. All this leads to the conclusion that if Luke appropriates Marcan material without substantially altering it, then Luke also imports Mark’s Christology as well.

On a side note, Prof. Hays expressed some degree of scepticism about Q. His narrative analysis is viable despite either the use or non-existence of Q.

Prof. Hays concluded with several implications for theological reflection on divine identity: 1) Luke’s Gospel requires a fundamental rethinking of God: God is not a theological/philosophical construct, but an acting person (this is why the categories of high and low are not helpful, for God reveals himself in lowliness); 2) Jesus makes good on the Second Exodus prophecies—he is the LORD of the Exodus present with his people; and 3) preaching needs to recover narrative intertextual continuity.

What more can I say? ‘Twas a tremendous day for Cambridge. Ultimately, I walked away feeling that Moses and all the prophets had been opened up to me, as to Cleopas on the road to Emmaus, and that I had clearly been shown how the Christ had to suffer and then enter his glory.

Richard Bauckham on Divine Identity in Mark

2008-12-12T09:45:00.007Z

This is the third blog on this colloquium; scroll down for the first two.

Intro
Prof. Bauckham, if he doesn’t already assume this matrix (i.e., as outlined by Don Lewis here) certainly does reinforce it. He emphasises first the assumed monotheism of the earliest Christians and then traces how they incorporated Old Testament language and characterisations of God in their assessment of Jesus’ own identity. As such, Bauckham argues more for a Christology of divine identity rather than divine nature.

Prof. Bauckham himself suggested a matrix for understanding God: 1) God is the sole creator, and distinguished from the creature; 2) he is the sovereign ruler, and distinguished from his subjects; 3) he will achieve his eschatological rule; 4) he has his unique name YHWH; 5) he alone may be and should be worshiped.

This interpretive framework for understanding divine identity was applied to Jesus as the earliest Christians sought to understand his own identity. Jesus was not identical to God, but uniquely shares his identity or is included therein. The whole of Prof. Bauckham’s paper shows how this was worked out in Mark’s Gospel.

One of Prof. Bauckham’s important points was the insistence of the early Christians to apply Ps 110 to Jesus: “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’” (the most quoted Old Testament text in the New Testament). The early Christians took the inviolable Old Testament principle that God’s rule cannot be asserted by the creature, yet Jesus is the one who ushers in the kingdom. This has implications for not merely Jesus’ pre-existence, but also for his eternality. If Jesus shares the divine identity, he must have shared it eternally. Along these lines, Prof. Bauckham debunks the low Christology of the old adage which stated that Jesus merely functions as God by asserting that in order for Jesus to function as God, he must truly be God.

Six Passages
Prof. Bauckham commented on six passages in Mark, as quickly outlined below….

In the exorcism of 1:21-27, the striking element is the new authority which Jesus displays. He casts out the demon not by some technique or by prayer to God, but by his own striking authority.

In the healing of the paralytic (2:1-12), Jesus is accused of usurping the divine prerogative to forgive sins. His accusers appear to have made a correct deduction. After all, the psalmist says, “Against you alone have I sinned” emphasising that sin has a personal effect toward God, requiring his personal forgiveness. This is reinforced by the Marcan reference to the Shema (Deut 6:4-6) in the Pharisee’s rhetorical question, Who can forgive sin but God alone? “But God alone” rendered literally is “God is one.” Moreover, the text does not say, “Your sins have been forgiven,” as some have (customarily?) suggested that a priest perhaps might have said in connection with Temple prerogatives, but rather, “Your sins are forgiven.” Indeed, Simon Gathercole suggests that there may be no example in extant literature that a priest ever said, “Your sins have been forgiven.”

In the stilling of the storm (4:35-41), the question of Jesus’ identity becomes an open question, one which is not explicitly answered until late in the Gospel. The motif of rebuke and obeying is found in this text, and is part of a constellation of passages which appropriate divine prerogatives to Christ’s own identity: 1:25, 27; 4:39, 41, 42.

Walking on Water (6:47-52): ego eimi (cf. 14:62).

In Jesus’ conversation with the rich man (10:17-22), monotheism is again reinforced with the same Shema formula as found in Mark 2:7: God is one. Jesus’ reply about God alone being good is not a radical disassociation of himself from the divine identity, but rather a provocative irony.

Only in Jesus’ answer to the high priest (14:61-64) is the question of Jesus’ identity explicitly answered. It comes as a climax to the whole narrative of Mark’s Gospel. It is then reinforced by the centurion at Jesus’ death who declared that Jesus was the Son of God. Strangely enough, however, Prof. Bauckham seemed to deny that the Old Testament text behind this passage (Dan 7) has implications for divine identity, a point which Prof. Hays rightly pressed him on.

Thus, questions regarding Jesus’ identity arise in 1:27; 2:7; 4:41; 10:18; which are finally resolved in Jesus’ answer to the high priest’s question, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” (14:61). I would argue that Jesus’ reply claims more for himself than the High Priest could have imagined, but I’m not sure that Prof. Bauckham himself made this point.

My Reflections
Prof. Bauckham’s background contrasts greatly from my own. He says he used to be perfectly happy with the old template that the New Testament documents began with a low Christology, but evolved over the centuries into Trinitarianism. This all changed, he says, as he looked more carefully at the New Testament documents himself.

In contrast, I have fundamentalist roots, and at Free Will Baptist Bible College, we examined the deity of Christ primarily from the standpoint of prooftexts but also through occasional good exegesis. Certainly the good exegesis was reinforced at Regent College, especially with an appreciation of the appropriation of Old Testament theological concepts by the New Testament writers. Consequently, I’m not surprised at Prof. Bauckham’s conclusions.

In many ways, what Prof. Bauckham presented today is a more nuanced and sophisticated version of the understanding of the deity of Christ that was taught to me back at Free Will Baptist Bible College. Perhaps the most striking difference is in the personalities. On one hand, fundamentalists from Bob Jones University taught me the deity of Christ in the early 1980s. On the other hand, yesterday, a scholar highly respected by everyone, who is at the absolute apex of academia, stood up at the lectern at the University of Cambridge and declared, “Mark’s Gospel portrays Jesus as sharing in the divine identity,” which, as far as I can tell, does nothing less than affirm the deity of Christ. If he had done so at Free Will Baptist Bible College, the crowd would have shouted, “Amen.”

A final comment in this regard, I’m not sure I share Prof. Bauckham’s concern to distinguish the issue of Jesus’ nature as being divine and the issue of Jesus’ divine identity. It seems that the emphasis on Jesus’ divine identity leads nowhere else except to Jesus’ full deity in nature.

Primitive Christian Christology

2008-12-12T08:20:00.001Z

Don Lewis’ Christian History course has been helpful in my understanding of the Christology of the earliest Christians. Here is his basic interpretive matrix: 1) the earliest Christians were fiercely and uncompromisingly monotheistic; 2) they believed that God intervened in human history; 3) this intervention in human history culminated in the incarnation: God became flesh—and this was human flesh, a human being; 4) the incarnation was that of Jesus Christ; 5) God continues to dwell with his people through the Holy Spirit. Whatever your view of Jesus, it must fit into this five-fold matrix if it is to fit into the theological parameters of the primitive Church.

This interpretive matrix falls short of the exactitudes of Chalcedonian Trinitarianism, but provides the basis for its later development. Thus, Gordon Fee can rightly refer to Paul’s “latent” Trinitarianism. This matrix also marks the parameters for Divine Identity in the Gospels. For example, the fierce monotheism of the earliest Christians bars various theories that Jesus was some sort of subordinate deity. Also, the emphasis on the reality of the incarnation bars theories which would claim that Jesus was less than God or less than man.

Bauckham and Hays on Divine Identity: Tyndale House Colloquium

2008-12-11T18:34:00.006Z

Today, Tyndale House featured a premiere conference on “Divine Identity.” The old template which scholars have laboured under for about a hundred years has been that the New Testament documents began with a low Christology and eventually evolved over the centuries, culminating in the high Christology Trinitarianism of 4th and 5th century Nicaea and Chalcedon. Accordingly, Peter, Paul, and Mary or any other early Christian could never have believed that Jesus was God.

Our speakers today smashed the template. It is a tribute to Tyndale House that two scholars of such sterling and high reputation were brought in for a day long conference on this important topic.

The first speaker was Richard Baukham. Yes, of course he is a great scholar and retired professor at St. Mary’s College at St. Andrews University, Scotland. More significantly is that he produces scholarship and books which shake the academic establishment not merely on account of the radical nature of his claims, but on account of the importance of the subject material. The last book of his which I read was Jesus and the Eyewitnesses which made the revolutionary claim that the Gospels actually are traceable to eyewitness accounts. Yes, I know that this is not revolutionary for conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, but it is altogether revolutionary that a major, highly respected biblical scholar would make such a claim. Prof. Baukham is reputed to be perhaps the leading New Testament scholar in all of Great Britain.

The second speaker was Richard Hays, Professor of New Testament at Duke Divinity School. I first encountered Prof. Hays through one of my own professors, Gordon Fee who himself is one of the few really great Pauline scholars. Prof. Fee urged me to read Prof. Hays work Echoes of Scripture way back in 1992, and Prof. Hays’ scholarly capital has done nothing but grow since then. He is currently working on a mammoth project dealing with the use of the Old Testament in the Gospels. This work was reflected in today’s colloquium as Prof. Hays opened up to us how the Old Testament was employed to reveal Jesus’ divine identity in the gospels. I’m pleased to say that Prof. Hays and I share a study carrel together at Tyndale House while he is on sabbatical, and he has consistently been a very kind and considerate person during these last five or six months. I look forward to reading his work in the coming years.

I suppose we had about 125 people for the colloquium. This is a large number, considering Tyndale House did not advertise the event. We had students and professors from way up north in Scotland as well as south England. I had lunch with Dr. K. Brower of Nazarene Theological College, Manchester, and several of his students (two from Russia, one from Swaziland, and one from England). I also met several students from Oak Hill College, an evangelical pastoral training school here in England.

It was a great day for New Testament scholarship, and Tyndale House Warden Pete Williams should be commended for organising such an outstanding event. I will post a couple of more blogs about the lectures themselves.

Incarnation and Omniscience

2008-12-11T08:49:00.003Z

In trying to sort out the question of the incarnation and divine omniscience, we're mixing together several ingredients. First, we throw in the biblical texts which say a) Jesus is God; and b) Jesus' knowledge was limited. Then, we mix in the divine attributes, including omniscience. Finally, we mix in our philosophical attempts to understand the ins and outs of the Trinity--and since philosophy is rational and since our reason is often faulty, we should expect some uncertainties in this endeavour.

Some ingredients simply don't mix well, and maybe they shouldn't be thoroughly mixed together. I'm not sure. But the point is that it is going to be hard to make all the data fit with each other.

Bottom line:
1) Jesus is God
2) God knows everything
3) The Bible speaks of Jesus' knowledge being limited
4) Somehow the first three points fit together without contradiction

In all this, we should fully embrace the incarnation. Jesus wasn't born fully aware that Mary must eat protein in order to produce the stuff in her mammary glands which would deliver milk from her breasts into his stomach if he capably sucks her nipples, and that his body would produce waste which would soil the clothing rags which Zach the merchant sold to her ten years ago as a blanket. (Forgive me if this is a bit crude--I hope not.) He didn't lie there in her arms sucking her breast and thinking, "Oooh, the pizza she ate last night is a bit spicy."

But by the time he was 12, he did have a sense of his special and unique relationship with God so that he could refer to him as MYFather."

This understanding of his special relationship with God as his Father was confirmed to him by the voice from heaven at his baptism: "This is my Son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased." The divine revelation propelled Jesus into the wilderness to contemplate his mission. Yes, indeed, he was God's Son, but the question remained, what kind of Son would he be?

In the baptismal declaration, the divine voice cited passages from Gen 22 (God telling Abraham to take his son, his only son whom he loved) with a Suffering Servant passage in Isaiah. The implication here is that Jesus as God's Son would be the Suffering Servant who would be offered up as a sacrifice; for (as in Gen 22), God himself would provide the sacrifice. The time in the wilderness was a time of contemplation and meditation on the baptismal declaration, and Satan tempted him along those lines: "If you are the Son of God, then...."

All this suggests that while Jesus understood himself as having a unique relationship with God as his Father, Jesus did not have a clear vision of his ministry until about age 30 when he was baptised. The plea at Gethsemane then was a genuine plea that another way would be made manifest.

More remarkably, Jesus' faith in God was a real faith--not one based on the omniscient knowledge of final outcomes. In his full humanity, he trusted God with his life, holding fast to his belief that God would raise him on the third day. Not being omniscient, Jesus allowed himself to be arrested, beaten, mocked and crucified. Not being omniscient, he cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." Not being omniscient, he could only put his faith in God, as reflected in his final cry, "Into your hands, I commit my Spirit."

This is our God, the Servant King.

Gender Neutrality and Bible Translation

2008-09-22T10:46:00.000+01:00

First, let it be clear that I think it is silly for us to have to change language in order to appease the squeaky wheel.

I think that if someone says, "If any man would follow me, let him take up his cross and follow me," everyone knows that he is talking generically. There is no need to say, "If any person would follow me, let him OR HER take up his OR HER cross and follow me."

However, let me point out that those who claim that gender-neutral translations are inaccurate do so on weak grounds. The complaint is that gender-neutral translations change the wording of the Bible. This simply isn't true.

Here is the crucial question: if the Greek uses a masculine pronoun, does it always mean male only, or can it include both genders? The answer to this is, of course, that it can include both genders.

This being the case, then the question arises, Which pronoun in English is best to use in order to convey the inclusion of both genders?

My answer, as indicated in the first couple of paragraphs above, is that the masculine gender is perfectly capable of conveying the inclusion of both genders. However, if an English translation does indeed use some means of conveying the inclusion of both genders, it does not follow that the genderless translation is inaccurate.

If the genderless translation reads, "If any person would follow me, let him OR HER take up his OR HER cross and follow me," it may be cumbersome and pedantic, but it is nonetheless accurate. The same is true for, "If anyone would follow me, let them take up their cross and follow me."

If we want to criticise NLT, NRSV, TNIV, etc., for something, let us criticise them for being so committed to appealing to the spirit of the day as to produce awkward translations. But we cannot criticise them for producing inaccurate translations.

And let us not forget that even the ESV, which in its sales propaganda criticises these other versions for their gender neutrality, consistently translates the Hebrew phrase for "the sons of Israel" as "the children of Israel"--which boggles my mind given the ESV translation philosophy.

The Difference between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology

2008-08-18T08:12:00.005+01:00

Systematic theology is an exposition of truth about God and his purpose and interaction with humanity based both on scripture and what can be known or surmised from general revelation (e.g., psychology, science), as it is probed from a person’s contemporaneous perspective and synthesised into a coherent logical system to address the comprehensive life questions facing the world in which he currently lives.

This definition is rather off the cuff and may have some weaknesses, but two points worth emphasising is that 1) systematic theology employs the logical categories and priorities of the contemporary world, and 2) systematic theology is not solely based on scripture (special revelation), but also on knowledge culled from other sciences (general revelation).

This may be compared with biblical theology. Biblical theology is an exposition of biblical truth according to the Bible’s own terms and categories and urgencies. It is limited in terms of its basis to the biblical text itself apart from the sciences, although the disciplines of archaelogy, history, sociology, etc., may shed light on our understanding of the text.

Biblical theology is descriptive, while systematic theology is prescriptive. Thus, biblical theology tells us what they believed back then, while systematics tells us what we ought to believe. Of course, the biblical writers wrote with a view that their theology was something which should be imported and imposed world-wide for all time and for all people, and thus, the prescriptive nature of the text cannot be gainsaid. Yet, the task of biblical theology as a discipline is to sort out their beliefs back then precisely so that systematic theologians can put it into modern categories and logical systems to prescribe to moderns how they should now live.

On a side note, one should distinguish that systematics is an exposition of what one should believe, while apologetics is a defence of that exposition.

Two further observations are in order. First, a person can take a biblical theology approach to individual books and corpuses of the Bible and produce such a thing as a “biblical theology of the Pastoral Epistles” or a “biblical theology of the Pentateuch.” The same is true of the two testaments. There is such a thing as a “biblical theology of the Old Testament” and a “biblical theology of the New Testament.

Of course a proper biblical theology takes into account the entire canon. One certainly cannot do a biblical theology of the Johannine writings and call it simply a biblical theology. This is especially true of a biblical theology of the New Testament; one can produce a biblical theology of the New Testament, but without the Old Testament, it cannot truly be called a biblical theology.

Secondly, biblical theology can be organised in various schema and still be considered a biblical theology. Biblical theology does not require a sequential or a synchronic presentation in order to qualify as biblical theology. In Gerhard Hasel’s Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, examples of these various schemas are outlined. He discusses 1) Dentan’s paradoxical attempt to present a biblical theology in traditional dogmatic categories, 2) the Genetic-Progressive presentation, 3) the Cross-Section presentation, 4) the Topical presentation, 5) the Diachronic presentation, 6) the “Formation-of-Tradition” presentation, and others (28-114). My point here is that the no matter how you organise or present the “stuff” of biblical theology it will still be recognisable as a biblical theology, so long as it is descriptive of the biblical text and retains its same categories and priorities.

In passing, one should note that the older systematic theologies cannot be relied upon for accurately distinguishing between systematics and biblical theology for the simple reason that biblical theology is a relatively young discipline, with relatively few biblical theology works being published prior to the 20th century, and only blossoming into full flower in the last half of the 20th century.

This concludes my discussion of the differences of biblical theology and systematics. Here are some supporting citations and thoughts from important works (all EMPHASES belong to me):

Waltke (An Old Testament Theology): Dogmatic (systematic) theologians serve the church best when they rely on orthodox biblical theology for explications of Scripture from which they frame abstract universal propositions in accordance with a coherent system APPROPRIATE TO THE CHURCH’S CONTEMPORARY SITUATION (31).

Waltke: [Famed systematician Charles] Hodge failed to realize adequately that the biblical writers had their own priority of ideas and coherency of thought and that the biblical theologian aims to honor that priority and arrangement by tracing the trajectory of the themes that are found in and run through the books (51).

Waltke: Systematic (dogmatic) theologians present the Christian message to the CONTEMPORARY WORLD. They draw the impetus for organizing this message from outside the Old Testament. John Calvin…organized his material according to the four divisions of the Apostle’s Creed. Philip Melanchthon organized his theology according to one book of the Bible, Romans. Since the seventeenth century, theologians typically employed philosophical categories derived from Greek thought, such as Bibliology, (the study of the Bible), hamartiology (the study of sin), penumatology (the study of the Spirit), and so on (64).

Waltke: Biblical theologians differ from dogmaticians in three ways. First, biblical theologians primarily think as exegetes, not as logicians. Second, they derive their organizational principle from the biblical blocks of writings themselves rather than from factors external to the text. Third, their thinking is diachronic—that is, they track the development of theological themes in various blocks of writings. Systematic theologians think more synchronically—that is, they invest their energies on the church’s doctrines, not on the development of religious ideas within the Bible (64).

I. Howard Marshall (New Testament Theology): “[Systematic theology] is intended to DESCRIBE a theology that is not so much a description of what Christians believe as rather what they OUGHT to believe” (43).

Gerhard Hasel (Old Testament Theology): In detailing the birth of the discipline of biblical theology Hasel writes, “…Johann Philipp Gabler…made a most decisive and far-reaching contribution to [biblical theology]…. Gabler’s famous definition reads: ‘Biblical theology possesses a historical character, transmitting what the sacred writers thought about divine maters; dogmatic theology, on the contrary possesses a didactic character, teaching what a particular theologian philosophizes about divine matters in accordance to his ability, time, age, place, sect or school, and other similar things” (17).

Hasel: “Biblical theology is not aiming to take the place of or be in competition with systematic theology as the latter expresses itself in the form of system building based on its own categories either with or without the aid of philosophy” (33).

Millard Erickson (Christian Theology): “So we propose a more complete definition of theology: that discipline which strives to give a coherent statement of the doctrines of the Christian faith, based primarily upon the Scriptures, placed in the context of CULTURE IN GENERAL, worded in a CONTEMPORARY IDIOM, and related to ISSUES OF LIFE… (21).

Erickson: “Theology must also be CONTEMPORARY . While it treats timeless issues, it must use language, concepts, and though forms that make some sense in the context of the present time…. It is not merely a matter of using today’s thought forms to express the message. The Christian message should address the questions and the challenges encountered TODAY” (24).

Erickson: In distinguishing two competing approaches to biblical theology with systematic theology, Erickson writes, “We might today call this the distinction between descriptive biblical theology and normative biblical theology. Note, however, that neither of these approaches is dogmatics or systematic theology, SINCE NO ATTEMPT IS MADE TO CONTEMPORIZE OR TO STATE THESE UNCHANGING CONCEPTS IN A FORM SUITABLE FOR OUR DAY’S UNDERSTANDING” (24-25).

D.A. Carson (“The Role of Exegesis in Systematic Theology” in Doing Theology in Today’s World, Woodbridge and McComiskey, eds.): Biblical theology is bounded in two ways. “First, its subject matter is exclusively biblical…. Second, it organizes its subject matter in ways that preserve corpus distinctions. It is less interested in what the New Testament or the Bible says about, say, the sovereignty of God, than it is in what Paul (or Isaiah, or John) says about this subject…. This means, in turn, that biblical theology is organized chronologically, or better, salvation-historically…--both within any one corpus…and from corpus to corpus (45).

Carson: “Systematic theology, then is Christian theology whose internal structure is systematic; i.e., it is organized on atemporal principles of logic, order, and need, rather than on inductive study of discrete biblical corpora (45).

Since Carson is not so interested in contrasting systematics with biblical theology, some of his statements about systematics which actually do contrast with systematics need to be elucidated. For example, when he emphasises that systematics poses atemporal questions (45-46), this implies that biblical theology addresses the priorities of ancient Israelites and early Christians which may not necessarily coincide with those urgencies facing humanity in other cultures or time spans.

Carson rightly discerns that biblical theology is imminently concerned with the theology of a given corpus (the doctrine of land in Joshua, resurrection in the Johannine literature, the kingdom of God in Matthew, etc.). He also rightly discerns that there is such a thing as unity and diversity between the corpora, and that one corpus might take a different perspective on any subject matter, and that good biblical theology must ultimately integrate these different perspectives into a unified theology. It is important to note, however, that the synthesis of a given theological issue in the various corpora is neither the product nor the task of systematic theology. Such a synthesis is still entirely the domain of biblical theology. Now, if the results of such a synthesis were to be applied to the contemporary and eternal questions which dog humanity, and re-cast in logical hierarchies and categories, as well as integrated with whatever other knowledge can be culled from the realm of general revelation, then the final result would be systematic theology.

Doing Coptic Papyrology in Leipzig

2008-08-12T15:37:00.005+01:00

I attended the Second International Coptic Papyrology Summer School in Leipzig, Germany last month. It was a first class experience. We had an 18:6 student to teacher ratio, with 26 lectures, a tour of the Egyptian museum, a papyrus-making practicum, and about 28 hours of hands-on manuscript analysis. Students were given their own Coptic manuscript (dating back to 5th to 8th centuries), and were given responsibility for transcribing, translating, analyzing and presenting them to the Summer School, with guidance from the teaching staff. Additionally, students and teachers alike generally ate all their meals together, affording the opportunity for excellent informal discussion. The setting at the University of Leipzig also was first rate.

Well known Coptologists on the teaching staff included Anne Boud’hors, Stephen Emmel, Sebastian Richter, guest speaker Uwe-Karsten Plisch, and others. Georg Schmelz (Mannheim/Heidelberg) in particular spent hours with me working on my transcription. Students attended from Spain, Sweden, United States, United Kingdom, France, Austria, Germany, Finland, and Canada.

I was given a papyrus manuscript about the size of a regular sheet of paper (27 cm x 17 cm) with seventeen lines of text written lengthwise. The text itself measures 23 cm x 14.5 cm. Perhaps as much as 20-30% of the text has been lost, mostly broken off on the right (especially in four finger-like lacunae), but also due to ink fading and holes elsewhere. The manuscript varies unevenly from a light to medium brown colour, with dark brown ink.

The manuscript is a letter, written from someone named Stephanos John the Less (or perhaps, the Lowly) to a superior named Papa Damine; their names are written on the verso (back side). Given the extensive reference to prayers and to God, a reference to the Church and to a deacon, as well as the reverential tones of address, the letter seems to have been written in a religious setting, perhaps having something to do with a monastery. The main topic of concern, judging from the surviving text, is that certain books had arrived in good order. The Coptic word for book occurs six times. Its provenance is unknown.

This letter had not been analysed previously by any modern scholar. In recent years, it was encased in glass, but had not been catalogued in the old inventory at Leipzig. Indeed, since this was a letter sent from one individual to another, one might assume that I was one of the very few people to have ever read it, now or then. While somewhere deep in my subconscious mind I may have held out hopes that the letter contained clues about the whereabouts of the Ark of the Covenant, or about some important bit of missing history, letters of this kind usually are not important by themselves. Instead, they are most useful when they are fitted together with scores and hundreds of other letters to give us a picture of life in antiquity.

The text was written in a “regular hand;” the scribe lacked the sort of skill typically requisite for fine literary works. The letters are rather awkward, tight, and thin, without artistic variation in thickness. They typically have a pronounced slant, especially with the letters tau and iota, and were written in unligatured block letters. Sometimes the letters are so tight that they were probably difficult to read even when the ink was fresh. At places, one may easily discern where the scribe had to re-ink his writing tool. Further analysis is necessary to discern if the formation of the letters might suggest a date or provenance.

The text is written in fairly “normal” Sahidic, with few dialectical indications. For example, there is but one occurrence of the beta personal suffix instead of fai. At some points, there is deviation from literary Sahidic, such as the unexpected use of the definite article with holokotte, as if the gold coins were some specific, known coins, as well as the unexpected absence of one or two object markers. There occurs also an otherwise unattested variation of the name Enoch. There appears to be three instances of apparent spelling errors. In the six occurrences of ϫwwme(book), it inexplicably occurs once as ϫwwmi. In addition to nomina sacra, there is one titular abbreviation.

The text seems to follow standard letter writing conventions of the day. A good half of the letter appears formulaic. The actual issue which is addressed is found in the middle nine lines, while the introductory and concluding lines consists of standard greeting and closing formulae.

One of the unresolved difficulties of this letter is the shift of narrative voice. It begins in the first person plural. Then at some point, it shifts to first person singular. Later, it makes a reference to a certain Stephen. This last fact is especially odd since the author’s name is said to be Stephen. Indeed, although the text is lacunose, the closest context is a warning not to look (or consider?) something…of Stephen.

Here is a preliminary translation:

With God, before all things, we greet and bow a multitude of times
before the footstool of the feet of your piety of honoured father
…from least to greatest
…greatly your prayers…
through your fatherhood in… …these two books…
(to receive?) the money in books to us. As for the rest, I sent (and) they…
…to us on the fourth. And they brought them in good shape. Behold God!
your prayers brought the remaining books to us. And…
…the matter which satisfies the will of God. Do not look…
…a book of Stephan to us a little of Marine. You…
…go up to them… …well that…
book and your… God … of the books…
we work well. And as the prayer be upon us, then we are (habitually) doing it for your pi-
ety. And the prayer [be] on us and your holy prayers [be] upon the
church. …bow to your piety…
the Deacon greets you nicely. And Enoch salutes you. Salvation
be to you. Until next time. Be well.

With God of Jesus, Papa Damine. Stephanus the Less.

Developments in Textual Criticism and the Münster Colloquium

2008-08-11T10:25:00.005+01:00

25 years ago, people were writing articles about the death of textual criticism, as if everything that could be said about the field had already been said.

Now, we are experiencing some important developments in various aspects of the field. Specifically, we are facing a major attack on the reliability of the transmission of the text, as well as a new method behind the publication of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament text.

Last week, the Institute for New Testament Text Formation Research (INTF) held a major colloquium in which about 55 of the very best text critics were present. If you care to know, I'm talking about people such as Eldon Epp, Larry Hurtado, Barbara Aland and all the Münster people, David Parker and the Birmingham [England] people, the Tyndale House people, Dan Wallace, Bill Warren, Tjitze Baarda and the Amsterdam people, Joel DeLobel, Paul Foster, David Trobisch, Maurice Robinson, Michael Holmes.) No, Bart didn't come.

I was the junior-most member present. I was entirely star-struck, but all the legends of the field were so gracious and warm and welcoming. We all stayed at a hotel which had a couple of lounges which were conducive to sitting down and chatting over coffee, even to the late hours of the evening. We had our meals together too. These personable conversations were so good that the conference was worth attending even if you didn't attend any of the sessions.

Early on, it became obvious that a good number of people think that the transmission of the text from about 80 C.E. to 170 C.E. was so wild and erratic that we will never be able to backtrack from our oldest manuscripts (late second to early third century) to the "original" text.

My PhD project focuses on this particular issue as it is reflected in one particular "wild" manuscript which is one of the oldest manuscripts of Matthew's Gospel.

The other major issue is the new method for assessing textual variation being used by the INTF which produces the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament text. This is THE critical text which serves (more or less) as the basis for all our recent translations of the New Testament, as well as most commentaries.

INTF has developed a computer program which charts the relatedness of a given textual variant to other variants in the same variant unit. They call it the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM), although some people are simply calling it the Münster method. The method is probably too complex for me to understand, let alone explain. In fact, one of the concerns is that so few outsiders understand it well enough to be able to critique it. Nonetheless, the Nestle-Aland 28th ed will be corrected against it in the Catholic Epistles (i.e., James-3 John) when it comes out in 2010.

An interesting result of the Münster method is that it is finding more and more individual Byzantine readings to be more plausible. This accords well with the general flow of textual criticism over the last 20 or 30 years. I should hasten to say that this does nothing to help out the theory of the priority of the Byzantine text, but simply reinforces the notion that one cannot dismiss a reading simply because it is Byzantine.

One would have thought that Maurice Robinson--one of the world's only Byzantine priortists--would have been pleased to hear that the Münster method was pushing for more Byzantine readings. I talked to him about the issue on several times. Prof. Robinson has to be one of the very nicest, most engaging, and most interesting personas in all of textual criticism.

If I understood him correctly, Prof. Robinson says that he has read every article written by Gerd Mink (the brains behind the Münster Method) whether in German or in English. While many were hesitant to accept the method on the basis that they really didn’t understand it, Prof. Robinson was stating that he opposed the method precisely because he did understand it. He claimed that if he were to feed his presuppositions into the computer’s programming, the Münster method would spit out a Byzantine Priority schema.

To be sure, Prof. Robinson often has a way of seeing the otherwise overlooked elephant in the room. However, condemnation from one corner of the room probably is not enough to dismiss the Münster method. It will be interesting to see how people like Dan Wallace (Dallas Seminary), Bill Warren (New Orleans Baptist Seminary), the Tyndale House people, and Epp and Holmes react to it in the coming years. David Parker and Birmingham seem to be solidly behind the method.

One wonders if all this will lead to a competing edition of the Greek New Testament.

For a more robust review and discussion of the colloquium, go here and to the blog posts prior to it: http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2008/08/mnster-colloquium-on-textual-history-of_06.html

Goethe-Institut and Learning Theological German

2008-08-11T08:41:00.004+01:00

A good reading knowledge of German is important for doing PhD research in the humanities. In addition, a scholar should be adept enough in German to listen to an academic lecture in German. How does one acquire these skills?

The Goethe-Institut is well known and respected for teaching German. The Institute has an extensive program from the beginning steps in German to advanced German. Unfortunately, although there are many strong points about the Goethe method itself, the program is not suitable for academics.

I attended the Institute located in Hamburg. The facilities are truly first rate and conveniently located across from the central train station. The personnel are friendly and dedicated. Perhaps one of the strengths of Goethe is that as soon as you walk into the facilities, there is such a concerted emphasis on German-only that you almost feel guilty for speaking English.

My A4 Intensiv course (four weeks) consisted of an initial introductory day of placement testing on the first Monday, followed by daily (Mon-Fri) instruction over a period of three weeks, until the fourth week. On the fourth week, classroom instruction concluded on Tuesday which comprised a review for those taking the course exam. These details are important to note, for all the course details on the website and correspondence otherwise suggest that the last day of instruction is on the final Thursday of the fourth week. For my part, I did not find out otherwise until the final Tuesday afternoon, an hour prior to conclusion. This had major implications for my travel itinerary. Moreover, instead of getting a good four weeks of instruction, in effect, the A4 Intensive provides only 15 days of classroom instruction, or 16 days if you count the review for the exam.

Classroom instruction was from 9:00 to 1:30. This included a 30 minute lunch break and an additional 15 minute short break.

Classroom instruction was very effective. In my program, we had a 1:6 teacher-student ratio. This was supplemented usually by the presence of a Goethe-Institut teacher-in-training assistant so that we actually had a 1:3 teacher-student ratio for most of the time.

Teaching was generally very lively and engaging. The course was taught 95% in German, even from day one. Not only was this method desirable, but it was nearly necessary since we had two Russians, an Iranian, and a Mexican in my class. There were times, however, that an explanation for a German word would go on and on and on, when a simple English translation would have been more time-efficient. The classroom instruction was effective in helping us students become accustomed to speaking conversational German.

My class had the misfortune of having our initial teacher go on holiday. Then, our assigned substitute missed several days due to illness. We ended up having four different teachers. One got the impression that some exam material was overlooked in the process.

My major disappointment in the classroom instruction was that grammar was taught assuming that students had no background in it. Consequently, the instructor spent a huge amount of time explaining the concept of the accusative case, for example. After several hours, I began to wonder how long it would take to teach the dative case…. On the other hand, some of the other students seemed to never fully grasp the concept and were left with their heads spinning.

On a related matter, the scholar seeking a German Sprachkurs should be aware that Goethe-Institut aims its instruction at a 20-something audience wanting to learn to say things like, “I meet you at the disco at 10 pm” and “I like to go on cruises.” We had one lesson on German beer lexicon.

Another misfortune was that, in my case, I had previously actually finished an entire course book on reading German, and had translated some very difficult academic German. However, because I could not say things like, “I would like a hamburger and coke,” I was assigned to the very beginning German course. To be sure, I needed to take beginning German precisely because I couldn’t say such things. However, I desperately needed to improve my ability to read German, but Goethe-Institut did nothing to help me in this matter.

When I approached the personnel at Goethe-Institut about this problem, I suggested that a reading group would be very helpful. This seemed to the Institute director to be a sensible solution. However, despite her enthusiasm and expressed intention, such a reading group never materialised.

Seeing that my reading skills were going undeveloped, I ended up hiring a private tutor. This was a very beneficial move, especially since my tutor was so good. I paid him 15 euro/hr, and met with him an hour a day. When classroom instruction ended so abruptly for me, I was able to meet with him three to four hours a day over my last four days in Hamburg.

Goethe-Institut is very expensive. For many people, the expenditure may prove entirely beneficial. You get a great teacher-student ratio; you get first rate teachers with a first rate teaching method; you get first rate facilities. However, perhaps a better approach for some people would be to attend a less expensive program and apply the savings to hire a private teacher.

Another indicator that Goethe-Institut is designed for non-academics is its textbook. I can’t recall the title of it, and I can’t look at it to see because I simply threw it away when I was done. It is full of pretty pictures and seems more designed to impress the reader with the notion that learning German is fun rather than being a bona fide grammar. Using the book as a supplemental workbook might be a good idea, but the German student needs a grammar with which he may become intimately familiar so that he can quickly consult it again and again for future reference.

Goethe-Institut has a cultural program to supplement its classroom instruction. The Institute makes this a prominent feature in its promotional literature and website. In my case, it consisted of various cultural experiences in the afternoons daily (perhaps an evening or two as well). I participated in two events: a city tour and a visit to a coffee shop to experience authentic German coffee along the riverfront. I found both experiences of minimal benefit. The city tour in the open-top bus was conducted entirely in a German which was spoken so quickly as to be entirely incomprehensible to most of the students. Consequently, each of us simply conversed to his own friends in his own native language. The authentic German coffee experience was similar, except that we ended up sitting at Starbucks since the other café was too crowded. Both events consumed the entire afternoon. Ultimately, I decided I could more profitably spend my time studying. This was altogether unfortunate, because I think the cultural program could be of great help if only there were some very simple German lessons built into the events.

If my sole purpose in attending Goethe-Institut had been to work on speaking and hearing German, then I must confess that it helped me enormously. If the course had assumed that the students had a basic understanding of language systems, then we could have approached grammar more aggressively, and I would have had even more practice at dealing with more complex sentences. However, one of my major goals was to work on my reading skills, but I regretfully say that Goethe-Institut was of no help to me at all in this regard. For this reason, I would recommend that the academic who needs to develop his German should try something else.

One possibility would actually involve Goethe-Institut. The Institute does offers special classes for businesses. If there were perhaps five or six academics willing to take a course together, I suspect that Goethe-Institut would be flexible enough to offer a course for academics. If so, I think that this would be extremely beneficial, and that Goethe-Institut would be perhaps the best place to do it.

Here's my shorter review in German:

Ich hatte leider nur 16 Tage Unterrichts bzw. 3-3/4 Stunden jeden Tag. In meiner Klasse waren wir sechs Schüler. Weil wir einen Praktikanten gehabt haben, war das Verhältnis von Lehrern zu Schülern 2:6.

Die Einrichtungen waren prima und modern, die Angestellten waren freundlich und professionell. Nach dem Unterricht bot das G.-I. jeden Tag ein Kulturprogramm an. Die Veranstaltungen, denen Struktur fehlte und die auf junge Leute abzielten, halfen leider nicht, Deutsch zu sprechen.

In mancher Beziehung war der Unterricht nützlich. Wir übten vor allem, miteinander zu sprechen. Das war mir hilfreich, weil ich bisher nur Lesen gelernt hatte. Da ich nur wenig Deutsch spreche, platzierte das G.-I. mich in Start Deutsch A-1.

Es hat weitere Enttäuschungen gegeben. Weil der Unterricht nicht auf Akademiker und Gelehrte ausgerichtet war, war die Grammatik sehr langsam und langweilig und oberflächlich. Der Unterricht hat meine Lesefähigkeit gar nicht verbessert. Weil das Lehrbuch viele schöne Bilder aber nicht viele Grammatikdiagramme oder Grammatikdaten hat, ist es nicht so gut. Ich werde nicht weiter mit diesem Buch arbeiten können.

Ich bat darum, dass das G.I. eine Lesegruppe als einen Teil des Lehrplans anböte. Das ist aber, trotz anfänglichen Wohlwollens, leider nicht geschehen.

Deshalb engagierte ich einen Privatlehrer. Wir trafen uns miteinander für jeweils eine Stunde an sechs Tagen, dann für je 3-4 Stunden an meinen letzten vier Tagen. Wir konzentrierten uns erst auf das Lesen, dann auf die Satzstruktur, danach auf das Verfassen von Texten und schließlich auf das Reden. Außerdem verbrachte ich viele viele Stunden mit Deutschlesen und -hören.

Silenced Women of Corinth: The Text Critical Solution

2008-05-14T19:35:00.001+01:00

The Papyri and the KJV-Only/TR and Byzantine Text Type

2008-05-06T21:56:00.002+01:00

In their overturning of the Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort had no access to early papyri discovered these last 100 years or so. If they had, then they would have said, "And what's more, the Byzantine Text Type is not represented in the papyri."

The discovery of the papyri also had a counterbalancing effect, though. Westcott and Hort thought that Codex Vaticanus represented the pure form of the Greek New Testament. To be sure, Codex Vaticanus almost certainly represents the purest manuscript available to us, but it is only "relatively pure."

Some people on the Byzantine Priority side of the debate have gotten hold of some of this latter argument, and have claimed that certain readings which conform to the Byzantine Text Type give evidence that the Byzantine Text Type was early. This is a misrepresentation of the evidence.

Eldon J. Epp divvies up the papyri according to four groups: A (Byzantine, with Codex Alexandrinus its early representative); B (Alexandrian, with Vaticanus its leading representative); C (P45, W, and other mixed manuscripts somewhat mixed between the Alexandrian and Western text types, formerly conceived of as the Caesarean text type); D (Western Text, with Codex Bezae its leading representative.

The following chart, which shows which papyri belong to which group) reveals how wrong the Byzantine prioritists misuse the data:

A (Byzantine): none prior to the sixth century

B (Alexandrian): 37 prior to sixth century

C (Western-Alexandrian mixed): 5 candidates prior to sixth century

D (Western): 11 prior to sixth century

["The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the Second Century" in Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism by Epp and Gordon D. Fee; the article was written in 1988, and more early papyri have since been found, none of which can be classified as Byzantine.]

The point is that the Byzantine Text Type is not represented in the now over 125 papyri presently extant.

One thing is absolutely certain: the papyri do nothing to help the Byzantine Text Type advocates and the KJV-only/TR advocates. They only disallow the rejection of individual Byzantine readings solely because they're Byzantine.

What Is the Majority Text Type

2008-04-27T23:08:00.000+01:00

What is the Majority Text Type?

The question is misleading and needs qualified.

Is it the text reflected in the majority of Coptic manuscripts of the Bible?

Is it the text reflected in the majority of Greek manuscripts dated to the first four hundred years? Or to the first eight hundred years? Or altogether?

Is it the text reflected in the Latin manuscripts New Testament which was favoured by the western Europeans used at the time of Erasmus?

Majority Text advocates and some people aligned with them think that we should use the text type represented in the majority of Greek manuscripts. What they don't want you to know, however, is that their favorite text type does not become the majority until the eighth or ninth century.

Out of the 125 papyri manuscripts (generally dated prior to 4th century), that text which gradually evolved into the Majority Text Type of the late middle ages cannot be found—not even a single representative. The late middle ages Majority Text Type does not seem to have existed until the late fourth century. The earliest manuscript evidence for the late middle ages Majority Text Type are A and C which date to the fifth century, and even these are only 80% toward the evolved state of the late middle ages Majority Text Type.

Deacon Phoebe--Paul's Man for a Tough Job

2008-04-26T17:56:00.004+01:00

Important Background Information on Romans

I think it is clear that Phoebe was a high ranking representative of the church of Cenchrae who was sent by Paul as his representative to deliver the highly sensitive document known as the Epistle to the Romans to the many disparate churches in Rome. He cites her rank and title by way of introduction to the churches. If he were guilty of exaggerating her position, it could end up being a big mistake.

Think about how significant this woman Phoebe was. Paul entrusted her with the task of delivering his epistle into the midst of a very explosive situation.

After Claudius kicked out the Jews, the Christian churches lost their entire church leadership, leaving Gentiles to arise to the occasion of taking over leadership of their churches. Thus, overnight, the churches in Rome flipped from being predominantly led by Jews, over to not having any leadership, and then over again to be being led by those less familiar with the Old Testament.

All this was enough turmoil in and of itself. But when Claudius' ban was lifted a few years later, many if not most of those Jewish Christian leaders returned to Rome, expecting to be reintegrated back into church leadership.

Imagine, as pastor of your church, the previous pastor showed up expecting to resume his ministry!

Meanwhile, while the Jews were away, the Gentiles gave up living like Jews, and they ate all meats. Which was fine, until the Jewish Christians showed up again. Thus, you have chapters 13-15 of Romans.

So, Paul wanted to say a positive word to help the Jewish and Gentile Christians to get along with each other, to be altogether united. But his big goal was to solicit sponsorship for his Spanish mission and to see if any of the Christians in Rome had ties to the Roman administration in Spain (or at least, this latter point has been deduced by Robert Jewett in his massive Hermenia commentary on Romans).

At any rate, the whole situation was extremely sensitive. And so Paul sent his best man to handle the job, which, in this case was a woman. She was no ordinary lowly servant-girl of the Lord. Jewett brings us up to date on where scholarship is today in regard to Phoebe the deacon:

Although earlier commentaries interpret the term διάκονος as a subordinate role,
it now appears more likely that she functioned as the leader of the
congregation. That διάκονος was an official title of leadership has been shown
by Borckhaus and Holmberg, and is strongly indicated by earler references in Rom
11:13; 12:7; and 13:4. In the light of its use in 1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4;
11:15 and 23 to refer to missionaries, including Paul himself, it is no longer
plausible to limit her role to philanthropic [i.e., womanly] activities.
Fiorenza contendst that... '[she] is a missionary entrust with preaching and
tending churches...It can be concluded, therefore that Phoebe is recommended as
an official teacher and missionary in the church of Kenchreia.' However, in the
light of the possessive qualification, 'deacon of the church in Kenchriea,' it
seems more likely that she functioned as a local leader rather than as a
traveling missionary."

As it turns out, the big reason why earlier commentators thought that the term διάκονος meant a lowly servant here and not a church leadership position in 16:1 was simply because Phoebe was a woman! An honest look at comparable usage pushes the conclusion that Phoebe was indeed Deacon of Cenchrae, and that Paul entrusted her with this significant responsibility of organizing a support network for his Spanish mission.Why would Paul entrust such a big job to a woman? Perhaps because so many of the church groups in Rom 16 were headed up by women.

Scholarship, Byzantine Text Type, Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus

2008-04-21T22:58:00.001+01:00

Text Scholars who advocate the Byzantine Text Type, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus are so few that they could all sit in my living room, more or less comfortably.

Foremost on this list is Maurice Robinson who, with William Pierpont, published The New Testament in the Original Greek. This Greek New Testament represents what Robinson believes is the purest form of the Byzantine Text Type, and therefore, what he thinks is closest to the original Greek. There is much to be admired about this work, if one assumes that the Byzantine Text Type reflects the original texts of the New Testament writers. However, Robinson, despite his considerable efforts, has not been persuasive. Robinson teaches at Southeastern Baptist Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina and is a member of the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.

Hodges and Farstad do not attempt to find the purest form of the Byzantine text. Rather, as implied by their title, The New Testament according to the Majority Text, they assume that whichever reading is attested by a majority of manuscripts is most likely to be original. This contrasts with Robinson who is willing to entertain the notion that the best reading did not get preserved in the majority of manuscripts.

If you don't like the standard edition of the Greek New Testament (the Nestle-Aland/UBS text) which is nearly universally accepted by Greek scholars, these two aforementioned editions are your only other options, unless you resort to out of print editions (which are out of print for good reasons).

If you decide to use one of these alternative editions, you should be aware that few Christian colleges and seminaries use them. You should also be aware that no published Bible translation in any language has ever been based on them. And you should also be aware that no Bible commentary series in any language has been based on them.

We all should be circumspect about whom we trust to tell us which reading is God's word and which isn't. Indeed, the paramount importance of the text of the Bible is so great as to justify the learning of Greek and the science of textual criticism. Otherwise, we are absolutely dependent upon other people who have.

In the case of Hodges and Farstad, and in the case of Robinson and Pierpont, they are all godly men (Pierpont died a few years ago). On the other side, however, is a full, overwhelming array of evangelical scholars (and others, too) who are the giants in the field of New Testament. These scholars have judged these two critical editions as having failed in their effort to establish an alternative to the standard edition (Nestle-Aland/UBS).

This reality in itself does not refute Byzantine priority or the Majority Text Type. However, for those who don't have the time or means to weigh the arguments carefully, this reality should make them stop and think before drinking the Kool-aid.

Why a Wedding Ceremony?

2008-04-18T09:56:00.004+01:00

What is the wedding ceremony?

It is when a couple swear on solemn oath before God and many witnesses that they bind themselves in holy matrimony til death part them.

Ceremonies develop for a reason. You just don't throw it out for the sake of throwing it out.
In the old days, the solemnizing of oaths before God and many witnesses was designed to protect the family, especially in regard to the woman and any product of the civil union (i.e., God's blessing of children) who might otherwise fall into crippling deprivation should the man run off. The man swears that whatever is his is hers, and vice versa, and to be responsible for the welfare of their children.

This solemnizing of oaths was done publicly. It was a matter of public record, so that if someone broke their vows, the greatest shame and reproach was brought down upon the guilty party by the entire community.

We should retain these good things as much as possible. Thus, if you are one of the groomsmen in a wedding, and the man subsequently abandons his family, you should be personally insulted and grieved and should hold the groom accountable, and give every measure of aid and comfort to the bereaved wife and children.

Marriage counseling should include a full explanation of ceremony. Pastors should tell the couple that they are swearing on oath before God and many witnesses, and that they are putting their highest honor on the line in making such vows. If they break such a solemn vow, then their word in regard to anything else is meaningless.

Tough stuff. Right stuff.

Isaiah 53 and Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement

2008-03-15T22:48:00.003Z

The Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement, briefly, is the understanding that the purpose of Jesus' death was to satisfy the wrath of God against sin. God is absolutely holy, and his holy nature requires the sin be punished. Because God is just, he must punish sin. Thus, because God loved the world so much, he sent his Son Jesus to die and bear the punishment as a substitute for our sins. God poured out his wrath upon Jesus (instead of us) when Jesus died on the cross, so that whoever might believe on him would be united with him in his death so that the believer's sin debt would be paid.

This position is not universally accepted. Some Wesleyan theologians and Eastern Orthodox strongly oppose this. Isa 53, however, is very clear on this subject.

Here are the points one must touch when looking at Isa 53.

the Servant was wounded for our transgressions
the Servant was inflicted with the stripes of whips for our healing
the Servant had the iniquities of us all laid upon him
the Servant was but put to death for the transgression of the people "to whom the stroke was due,"
Yahweh was pleased to bruise the Servant
Yahweh put the Servant to grief
the Servant's soul was offered as a sin offering
Yahweh will see the travail of the Servant's soul and be satisfied
the Servant will bear their iniquities
the Servant bore the sins of many

In sum, God wounded, bruised, whipped, grieved, and put Jesus to death as a sin offering for our transgressions, and thereby was "satisfied." If this isn't penal satisfaction, then I don't know how else the prophet or the Apostles could make it clearer.

Pastor's Page: Down to the Water to Pray

2008-01-20T23:42:00.000Z

This is a short devotional formatted to fit a church bulletin page (in a large print font) which churches may freely reproduce, if the blog address is cited.

What is baptism? Is it something which must be done to infants to keep them from hell in case they die? Is it something you do for salvation? Is it like a kindergarten graduation ceremony or a birthday party to make someone feel special? Baptism is too often misunderstood and underappreciated by the Church, even by us Baptists who carry its namesake.

The first urgency, the first order of business for a new follower of Jesus, is to obey his command to be baptized. Baptism is not optional. Nor is it to be deferred for the sake of one's personal feelings or preferences. If one fails to be obedient to this first command, what is the point of following Jesus at all?

Yet, baptism is not something which saves. Rather, it is for the person who is already saved. It is for those who have already decided to follow Jesus.

Indeed, baptism is a person's declaration to the world: "I am a Christian. I follow Jesus. I pledge my life and devotion to him." As such, baptism is not a private event. It is a public event, to be undertaken before many witnesses.

Moreover, baptism is a multifaceted symbol: 1) the washing away of sins through faith in Christ; 2) the dying and burial of the old life, and the begin-ning of the new life; 3) the placement of a person into the family of God, the Church.

If you are already a believer but have not received believer's baptism, why don't you join us down at the water to pray?

Covenant Benefits in Hebrews

2008-01-16T07:32:00.000Z

Covenant Benefits in Hebrews

Feet Washing? Yes! An Act of Worship!

2008-01-13T13:09:00.000Z

Last week, I happened across a great deal on a volume in a very scholarly series (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplements) on feetwashing in John 13 by John Christopher Thomas. I bought the book and found out that Thomas studied at Princeton under Bruce Metzger and that this study came to completion at the University of Sheffield under A.T. Lincoln. I also discovered that Thomas is a professor at Church of God Theological Seminary in Cleveland Tennessee, a school with which I would have some affinity in terms of our mutual Arminianism (though I might not quite fit in on other issues).

As it turns out, Chris Thomas has just arrived here at Tyndale House for some intensive reseach at our wonderful biblical studies library. We had an enlightening discussion yesterday.

The book is entitled Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community. Skimming through it, the point was emphasized that feetwashing was not just a one time event which happened during Holy Week. We must assume that John included this story in his gospel to argue that feetwashing was to be normative within the church life. We might also assume that the Johannine churches (if we are permitted to use such terminology!) practiced feetwashing as an act of worship, closely connected with confession of sin.

Chris made the point in our discussion (perhaps also in his book) that nowhere else in all of antiquity is there any example of a social superior stooping to wash a socially subordinant or inferior person's feet. This makes Jesus' use of the towel and basin a shocking feat (sorry about that).

This has two implications. First, the historicity of this event cannot be doubted, for in accordance to the standard liberal scholarly criterion of dissimilarity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus), a gospel writer nor the Church would have ever invented such a strikingly unusual event (Chris attributed this argument to another scholar whose name escapes me). Secondly, feetwashing in the Johannine Community was practiced in such a way as to supercede any mundane cultural practice; it was done as an act of worship.

This last implication then has a consequent implication. If the early Church practiced feet washing as an act of worship intricately connected with confession of sin, and in such a way as to transcend their culture rather than of practical necessity, doesn't this oblige the modern Church to do the same?

It seems that most Christians--even those who are very deeply submitted to the Bible--look at me with the strangest of expressions when I tell them that I practice feetwashing, as if the concept were akin to snake-handling! One gets the impression that Christians automatically dismiss feetwashing without giving it the first serious consideration. This reaction is all the more striking seeing how emphatic John's portrayal is of Jesus' insistence that the disciples wash one another's feet, and how John obliged his churces to do the same fifty years or so later

I should note that my friend J. Matthew Pinson (President, Free Will Baptist Bible College) who is well qualified by any standard to say so, has told me that Baptists in North America typically practiced feetwashing until the late 19th and early 20th centuries. One must surmise that the demise of the practice is hardly due to biblical considerations. While the practice may not be esteemed in Western Christianity, I suspect that the more newly established churches in the developing world may in fact practice it more regularly.

In addition to the scholarly exegesis found in Chris Thomas' book, Pinson's work, The Washing of the Saints Feet (156 pages) is a good start toward a biblical reintroduction of feetwashing as an act of worship into our modern churches: http://randallhouse.langineer.net/details.asp?product=1479

Pastor's Page: Pilgrim Warlfare

2008-01-13T13:05:00.000Z

This is a short devotional formatted to fit a church bulletin page (in a large print font) which churches may freely reproduce, if the blog address is cited.

Stories are told of the Italian armies in WWII occupying some of the remote Greek islands (cf. Corelli's Mandolin). Political life in Italy was quite unsettled, and events turned so that some army units became isolated and abandoned for much of the war. Cut off from their top commanders, these Italians, who never were enthusiastic about Mussolini or Hitler, settled into daily village life and quickly forgot their status as soldiers of the Italian army. When British and American naval units arrived, the Italians didn't know whose side they were supposed to be on!

The Italians' assimilation into Greek life may have worked well for the Allies, but the same can not be said about Christians living in this old world.

St. Peter is fond of reminding us that we our pilgrims. Although we are God's "elect" people, he says that for now we are "strangers in the world" (1:1). In preaching this theme, Peter borrows exodus term-inology, telling us to "gird up the loins of our minds," as we prepare to move out of Egypt (1:13). He urges us to live our lives as strangers, not contenting our-selves with this world's trappings, since we have been rescued out of its darkness (1:17; 2:10). In 2:11, Peter appeals to us as pilgrims and strangers as the basis to abstain from this world's sinful desires.

Such desires "war against [your] soul," Peter says. In this war, we better know which side we're on!

Refreshing Communion

2008-01-06T21:05:00.001Z

Communion is the Church's most solemn act of worship and should be its apex. This being the case, all participants, from the pastor to those in the pews, should apply themselves to realize the fullness of its meaning. Here are some considerations, theological and practical, which I've learned over my years of ministry and reflection which are often overlooked in many services. I'm hopeful my blog prompts others to share their suggestions with me as I aspire to grow further in my experience of Communion.

In the Church's more recent history, with the strong emphasis on Open Communion, we have not been restrictive enough on who is invited to participant. Too often, the minister issues an open invitation to participate to anyone who simply believes in Jesus and has accepted him as Lord, without further restriction. Let me suggest that the invitation should be less open: only baptized believers should participate. Baptism is the outer sign of entry and participation in the Covenant people; as such, it assumes priority over Communion. If certain believers have not yet professed their faith before many witnesses in the waters of baptism, they should not yet share in the privilege of Communion. I don’t think the congregation need dismiss unbaptised people form this act of worship as the early Christians did, but I think the minister can fairly indicate that Communion is for baptised believers, without too much ado. Ultimately, for those churches which (rightly) practice Open Communion, the individual, baptised or not, is the one to make the decision, but the pastor can do much to encourage baptism first.

Along these lines, I have been amazed at how politically correct the Church has become in its efforts to be all-inclusive. No minister wants to make unbelievers feel uncomfortable in excluding them from participation, and hence, much effort is made to tone down the inevitable exclusivity of this act of worship: "If you don't feel comfortable about participating, just allow the bread and wine pass you. It's no big deal." Quite the contrary! It is a big deal. In fact, I make a point of it. I say something to the effect, "If you aren't a believer, then, as you pass the bread and wine on, let it be a reminder that you are still in your sins and are excluded from Christ's salvation." Incredibly, a trend in overly seeker-friendly churches is to invite participation from people solely on the basis that they've been feeling warm fuzzies or are simply seeking spiritual renaissance, or some rot, thus robbing the Spirit of the opportunity to convict unbelievers as they observe Christians participate in this symbol of communion with their Lord.

One of the great missteps of the Church in our present age is the failure to prepare spiritually for Communion. Nearly any given Communion Sunday (for congregations which observe Communion monthly or quarterly, or even less), the members of the church arrive at worship without the first thought of Communion until they see the Communion table bedecked with the Communion elements. They have arrived without giving a moment's thought to repentance, spiritual renewal, or special Bible readings and meditations, let alone fasting. Such lack of preparation reduces significantly the participant's openness to the Spirit during the actual act of worship.

Several practical things can be done to counter this, primarily in regard to raising the congregation's awareness of the need to prepare. Simple things can be done such as prior bulletin notices and announcements to the congregations and at special meetings in the days preceding the Communion service. I made it a practice to send out mailings to all the members of the congregation simply urging them to come prepared for Communion. Such letters also encouraged attendance, especially in those churches which observed Communion quarterly, for if someone missed Communion Sunday, he would end up going six months without it—and for some, even longer, a neglect which the apostles could scarcely understand.

Communion is also a time to reach out to those church members who have been negligent in their church attendance. Contact through letter or in person can be made informing them of Communion and asking them to renew their commitment to Christ and his church during this special time.

One unfortunate problem with Communion observance is that too often it is tacked on to the end of the service, as if it were an epilogue, rather than the apex. In addition to these aforementioned practical suggestions, the service itself can be crafted to emphasize Communion from the beginning of the worship to the end, more or less obviously. In particular, the call to worship (in whatever form) can be designed to prepare for Communion. The announcements can help the congregation prepare by mentioning Communion particulars in advance, an explanation of Communion can be given to the children during the children's sermon, and, most importantly, the sermon itself can emphasize some aspect of Communion. If the service is crafted to point to Communion as its apex, then the congregation will perceive Communion as the service's apex.

Communion is multifaceted. A theologically and exegetically deep preacher can hardly exhaust its complexity. Too often, we get stuck on the one theme of Christ's sacrificial suffering on our behalf, and our unworthiness. While this theme is central to this act of worship, such themes as our community with our fellow believers, our future eschatological fellowship, our present fellowship with Christ, our Passover deliverance from Egypt (i.e., sin), our newness of life, and many other themes ought not be neglected. Preachers would be wise to think on these various themes as they prepare their regular sermons, so that they can draw these themes out in practical application.

To bring freshness to Communion observance, churches may consider varying the mode of distributing the elements from time to time. Each mode has its own theological significance. The practice of coming forward to receive the elements may signify the believer's coming to Jesus in worship. The practice of distributing the elements while the congregation is seated affords the opportunity to emphasize the unity of the saints, in that all may actually partake simultaneously. A more creative means of observance, space and time permitting, is to arrange tables for thirteen place settings, and serving Communion in groups; the thirteenth place remains empty to represent Christ's presence, and a church leader is appointed in advance to say the words of the institution, distribute the elements, and pray.

One of my pet peeves is that the Communion bread itself sometimes is cheap and distasteful. Sometimes, it gives a person the impression of Styrofoam. The joyful resolution to this is to ask a breadmaker in the congregation to make homemade bread for the Communion element. The serendipities of this practice are several, not the least of which being that the pastor normally gets a free loaf out of it! Likewise, since I typically have done ministry among grape juice churches, I buy the best tasting sparkling grape juice I can.

When the words of the institution are read, the minister may add to the congregation's appreciation of them by enacting them. Thus, as the reader says that Jesus took bread and broke it, the minister may lay hold of the bread and tear it apart in dramatic re-enactment. Likewise, the minister may pour the wine from the flask into the chalice as the reader reports Jesus' saying about the cup being his blood poured out for the forgiveness of sin.

To underscore Communion as a special experience in believers' lives, some churches recognize and celebrate a person's first communion. This can be done more or less elaborately, depending on congregational sensibilities, even including furnishing the communicants with their own keepsake special Communion chalice and plate. To some, such celebrations seem a bit outlandish, but personally, I regret not being able to recall my first Communion, and such recognition would remedy such loss.

Communion deserves afterglow. Instead of rushing through the end of service, I often invite the congregation to share something of their spiritual journey and walk with the Lord as the Communion service draws to a close. I announce this in advance so as to encourage an openness to the Spirit's leading. Or, sometimes the congregation would stand holding hands in a large circle, and individuals would express their own thankfulness in spontaneous final prayers. These afterglow moments were well received by many people in the congregation.

The ultimate in Communion afterglow, however, is feetwashing as an act of worship. I am told by one of my Baptist historian friends that the vast majority of Baptists in North America practiced feetwashing up to the beginning of the 20th century. To most people, however, it sounds like quite an oddity. The uninitiated may not ever appreciate feetwashing, but for those who practice it, feetwashing leads to such a self-humbling and Christian intimacy which is so much the essence of discipleship that its practice seems entirely befitting for Communion.

No matter how committed to Christ people may be, some will inevitably miss Communion Sunday. It is incumbent upon the church, then, to offer a make-up Communion service, with appropriate prior notice. Ministers should also see to it that homebound members receive Communion regularly. While some constraints are in order, even these private Communion services should be done with scripture readings, songs/hymns, and prayers. Communion is best observed between several people, and ministers would do well to involve several others at such opportunities.

Pastor's Page: I've Been Changed!

2008-01-06T17:01:00.000Z

This is a short devotional formatted to fit a church bulletin page (in a large print font) which churches may freely reproduce, if the blog address is cited.

We are blessed from time to time with wonderful divine encounters which move us emotionally. Often we are so filled that we are moved to tears and could shout, "Glory to God!"

These are wonderful moments to be cherished. Many of us especially experienced this when we first accepted Christ. We'd love to linger in these moments, but the world is too much around us. After a while, even the afterglow starts to dim.

While some may think that the emotional experience is what is supremely important, this is not the essence of true spirituality. True spirituality is centered in our relationship with God. The essential product of that relationship is Christ-likeness. Our goal is not some spiritual "high," as wonderful as it truly is. Rather, the goal is a changed life, especially as we live in a world which is hostile to Christ's kingdom.

Week after week, I pray that people would be changed through our Sunday worship. Certainly, I pray for radical change which comes through our initial experience of God's saving grace. But more basic for God's people is the change which occurs little by little every week as we gather around Christ's throne and worship him every Sunday morning.Let's be faithful to all our services, truly worshiping Christ, so that all may see how we're becoming to look like him!

Pastor's Page: "Behold He Is Coming"

2007-12-30T21:39:00.000Z

This is a short devotional formatted to fit a church bulletin page (in a large print font) which churches may freely reproduce, if the blog address is cited.

John the Revelator tells us, "Look! He is coming! And every eye will see him!" One of these days, we will hear a mighty shout and trumpet blast, and we will all look up to see Christ coming.
For some, this will be an incredibly good and joyous sight. For others, this will be a time of the greatest mourning. The contrast could hardly be greater. Christians long for that Day; we talk about it with great anticipation, and we pray that God would haste its coming. When it does happen, we'll sing and shout the victory!

Not so, the unbeliever! The Revelator continues, "Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him" (1:7). Elsewhere he says,

Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty,
and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the
mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and
hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the
Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand"
(6:15-17)?

For those who have not placed their full allegiance in the slain but risen Lamb Christ Jesus, the day of his coming will be a day of disaster, not salvation; a day of wailing, not joy, a day of unassailable grief which will never be abated throughout all eternity.

Why such contrast? Why the extreme between great joy and great distress? The great divide falls on our acceptance of Christ's claims over our lives. Maranatha!

Pastor's Page: The Ugly Side of New Birth (Advent #4)

2007-12-19T08:53:00.000Z

Duffy Robbins, a Youth Ministry professor, humorously recounts all the unsightliness and un-comeliness of giving birth. He notes that a first-time visitor from another planet would assume that something truly horrific was happening in the mater-nity ward, as he heard all the screaming, and wit-nessed the frenzied activity, and incredible pain and hardship associated with human birth. Robbins' tongue-in-cheek analysis conveys the important fact that bringing forth new life is messy business.

This was true even of the birth of the Savior. The miraculous conception brought shame to the couple. There was hardship in making the journey to Bethlehem. Being sent to the stable to share lodging with the sheep was insulting. There was panic in every step as they fled with Herod's thugs in hot pursuit. Bloodshed, violent shrieks of anguish, and tear-streaked cheeks filled nurseries in every household in Bethlehem as Herod raged over the one who was born King of the Jews. This birth was indeed a messy business.

But these labor pains were not in vain. The Savior was born, and so, New Life was brought into this world—like never before.

As with any new birth, we pace wearily through our daily lives, facing potential tragedy on every side. Yet we experience all this while fixing our eyes on Jesus who says, "Behold, I make all things new!" (Rev 21:5).

The Priesthood of Every Believer and How Churches Should Be Governed

2007-12-10T00:29:00.000Z

The Priesthood of Every Believer
and How Churches Should Be Governed

Introduction
As a sometime pastor, and as a scholar of the church (in training), I have an intense interest in what the Bible says about church governance. Does the Bible support the notion of a church governed by the pastor, a board, or the congregation? This post argues for congregational government, tying it to the doctrine of the indwelling of every believer, which is often overlooked in this discussion.

Definitions and Dynamics
Preliminarily, I should define some basic elements of the various types of church governance, with relevant commentary. First there is episcopal government in which an individual has sole authority in the church and rules by fiat. This is seen in Roman Catholicism in which the Pope rules the churches through his bishops and priests, but is also exemplified in the Episcopal and Methodist churches. Since the 1960s (more or less), this type of church governance has (ironically) become increasingly popular within the independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches in the U.S., following the model of people such as Bob Jones, John R. Rice, and Jack Hyles.

Second, a presbyterian model puts church governance into the hands of a board. Although the board is traditionally referred to as an elder board, it might also be called any other number of titles, such as trustees or even deacons (!). But perhaps the most important aspect of presbyterian governance is that this board controls the church and is self-perpetuating. That is, when an elder resigns, dies, or rotates off the board, the church does not choose his replacement, but rather the board chooses his replacement.

Third, a congregational or baptistic model puts church governance into the hands of the congregation which appoints leaders to various positions to facilitate the decision making/implementation process. The pastor may have more or less authority, and likewise other church leaders such as deacons and trustees, according to the previously defined limits outlined in the church's by-laws which were drawn by the congregation.

Plurality of Elders in the New Testament

Before making my argument for congregational government, I should address the claim that the Bible teaches a church governance of a plurality of elders, since this gets stated so often and gets little analytical scrutiny. Yes, to be sure, we know that there were elders in the early church and that the elders surely would have wielded leadership authority. However, this does not automatically mean that such elders reflected a presbyterian model in which they had unilateral control over the church and were self-perpetuating.

We also know that the apostles or their delegates appointed church elders in new churches. But again, this does not necessitate the notion that such elders, in turn, appointed their own replacements or had unilateral authority over the church.

On the contrary, there is reasonably good evidence to suggest that once a church became self-governing, it was the church itself which designated its own leaders, rather than the apostles or their delegates. A case in point is, of course, 1 Timothy, where the church was in leadership crisis, in part, because Hymenaeus and Alexander had been excluded from the church, necessitating Paul's extensive instructions about the church choosing their replacements. This assumes that the list of 1 Tim 3 was not written for the sake of Timothy. In fact, Timothy had just previously discussed the Ephesian situation with Paul at an undisclosed location as Paul was on his way to Macedonia (1:3). If it were Timothy's task to appoint elders, Paul and Timothy would have simply resolved the issue face to face, with the letter disclosing additional words of encouragement to those whom they had already chosen. Instead, the list appears designed to help the congregation figure out whom they should choose as their new leaders.

Doctrine of the Priesthood and Indwelling of Every Believer
Historically, episcopal government dominated the later years of the early church, as churches modeled their governance after the dictators of Rome. Many centuries later, in the Reformation era, the church came to understand the doctrine of the Priesthood of Every Believer, along with the Spirit's indwelling of every believer. This raised serious questions about episcopal governance and ultimately re-distributed or devolved authority from an individual bishop or priest to an elder board.

Baptists, however, took this doctrine more seriously and applied its implications more consistently in terms of church governance. If every believer really is a priest and is indwelt by the Spirit, then it is possible for even the lowest maidservant to be led by the Spirit of God. As such, the input of each person was cherished in the decision making process, at least in theory. (One wonders how freely Baptist women were permitted to contribute in those early years of the movement.) Consequently, while presbyterians were willing to devolve authority away from the monarchical bishop to a small group of elders, Baptists devolved authority all the way to the individual members of the church so that the congregation formed its own governance.

Conclusion
Earlier I said in a sideward comment that it is ironic that so many independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches have retroverted back to a papal model in which the pastor has all authority. Someone referred to these pastors as "protestant popes." What is so ironic about this trend is that this is a wholesale discarding of deeply considered convictions which our Baptist forebears held, and it is done without much serious thought. Baptists ought to embrace the doctrine of the Priesthood and Indwelling of Every Believer since they have traditionally held to this doctrine moreso than any other Christian movement.

This doctrine of the Priesthood and Indwelling of Every Believer puts congregational governance on a solid biblical basis. I'm not aware of any biblical text which speaks against the notion that the church congregation chooses its own leadership and defines the limits of leaders' authority, nor am I aware of any text which suggests that a board or an individual is supposed to have unilateral authority over the church. On the contrary, there are texts which seem to assume that the congregation determines its own leaders, and the doctrine of the Priesthood and Indwelling of Every Believer makes congregational governance the most biblical approach to this important issue.

Pastor's Page: A Tale of Two Kings (Advent #3)

2007-12-09T22:37:00.000Z

This is a short devotional formatted to fit a church bulletin page (in a large print font) which churches may freely reproduce, if the blog address is cited.

A Tale of Two Kings

One king wasn't born a king at all; he hadn't even a drop of royalty in his blood. He had to scratch, connive, conspire, and backstab all the way to his throne. The other King was born a true king, not by virtue of his genealogy—although he was descendant of kings—but by virtue of his very nature.

One king looked like a king. He wore royal garments and was surrounded by royal courtesans. He lived in fine palaces and was protected by body guards and armies. The other King didn't look like a king at all. He wore swaddling rags and claimed a feeding trough for a crib. His courtesans, so to speak, were bedraggled shepherds.

One king sought everyone's worship and adoration. He exerted his kingship like a petty thug or a child tyrant. On hearing the news of another king being worshiped, he took drastic desperate steps to stop it. The other King was meek and lowly. To those who worshiped him, he gave the gift of rest and life. To show his love for us, he stretched his arms wide open to receive us as he drew his dying breaths.

One king died and was buried. No one mourned his death or built a great memorial to him. The other King, too, died, but was resurrected to life. His monument to us is an empty tomb.

O come, let us adore the true King.

A Christmas Choral Reading for Five Readers

2007-12-08T20:39:00.000Z

It Was in a Dream:
A Christmas Call to Discipleship

A Christmas Choral Reading for Five Readers

James M. Leonard
Christmas, 2007

http://jmleonardfamily.googlepages.com/itwasinadream%3Aachristmascalltodisciplesh

Pastor's Page (Advent): Near to the Heart of God

2007-12-02T18:17:00.000Z

This is a short devotional formatted to fit a church bulletin page (in a large print font) which churches may freely reproduce, if the blog address is cited.

God is so, so very different from us: all knowing, all powerful, all wise, all holy. Yet, we were created "in his image." This means we have some things in common. In particular, God created us as persons, not as things or objects. He created us as thinking and reasoning beings. He created us as relational beings. He created us to have a right relationship with him as thinking persons who are free to act in this Creator-creature relationship. And there is one more thing about this relationship: it involves God's deep love for us.

The sad thing about this relationship is that we have all acted contrary to God's intentions. We have personally sinned against him. We have personally rebelled against his will. We have personally insulted the Spirit of his grace. As such, we have alienated ourselves from our Creator, and this torments our souls.

The Good News about Christmas is that God did not leave us in our alienation. At the right time, God came so close to us as to become one of us, through the incarnation of his Son, Jesus Christ. By doing so, he showed us his own desire to restore a right relationship with us. Christ came so that we may once again come near to the heart of God.

The Text of Micah

2007-11-30T22:36:00.000Z

I don't dabble much in Old Testament Textual Criticism--mostly because I don't know anything about it (except for Wurstein's The Text of the Old Testament which I read 15 years ago and don't remember anything I read.

OT text criticism is a different world altogether from NT textual criticism. Bruce Waltke, an evangelical Old Testament exegete, built his scholarly career after establishing himself as an Old Testament text critic. He did his Harvard PhD on the Samaritan Pentateuch. I studied under him, but never took any of his text criticism classes (same with Fee!).

I'm reading Waltke's commentary on Micah currently. Fantastic read. He lays out some basic text critical data. In the New Testament, we have 5500+ Greek manuscripts and about 15,000+ manuscripts of ancient versions. Nearly every verse of the New Testament shows some variation (mostly minor, but many major) in the tradition.

The situation is completely different in the Old Testament. For Micah, we get the Masoretic text letter for letter from a manuscript called the Leningrad Codex--it is rather late--dating to 1010 A.D. Hebrew manuscripts of Micah prior to this are few and far between. However, found in one of the Dead Sea Scroll caves (Cave 5) was a scroll of Micah now known as Mur 88 or Mur XII. It was written about the time of the Second Jewish Revolt (132 A.D.). Incredibly, as Waltke points out, "[It is] virtually identical with the [Masoretic text = Leningrad Codex = BHS]; its nine [!!!] variants from the 1600 words of [Micah] are incidental." Waltke then lists them--all of which are nothing but minutiae (sometimes less than a jot or tittle).

The other ancient sources which attest to the text of Micah are:

23 fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls cache, known as 1QpMic
A disputed number of fragments which comprise the Dead Sea Scrolls document 4QpMic or 4Q168.
Ancient citations of Micah in the Zadokite Documents
Septuagint (the Greek translation of Micah--but the text form is different from Masoretic text type)
A Greek translation--Kaige-Theodotian--closer to the Masoretic text type
Aquila's Greek translation (c. 130 AD)--even closer to the Masoretic text
Syriac
Old Latin
Latin Vulgate
Aramaic targums

As can be surmised, our attestation for Micah is extremely thin compared to any New Testament writing--although the Dead Sea Scrolls date earlier than any of our New Testament manuscripts. But what is amazing is how well preserved the Masoretic text is when compared between the 130 A.D. Qumran manuscript and the 11th century Codex Leningrad.

What Is Interim Ministry?

2007-11-30T22:21:00.000Z

When a church loses its pastor, all kinds of things go topsy turvy. More often than not, the pastor leaves due to crisis. His departure is bound to upset a good number of the congregation if he leaves on bad terms. Typically, the Board of Deacons makes sure the church gets pulpit supply. Sometimes this is erratic, often with late Sunday night calls of desperation to find someone. Often, the pulpit supply is good, at other times, maybe not. A major problem is that the Deacons finally find someone willing to come on a regular basis. But then, this preacher gets into his head that maybe he should become pastor. He starts building up loyalties in the congregation. In effect, this circumvents the legitimate pastoral search. It becomes a runaway enterprise which the pastoral search committee can't control. Meanwhile, the church has not had a chance to recoup or heal from its recent loss. Ultimately, the church will likely hire the interim minister, but because the prior problems have not been resolved, the new pastor loses it in another 1-3 years. The cycle repeats itself.

A programmatic Interim Ministry fixes this problem. Some denominations facilitate this process. When the church declares a vacancy, it can appeal to the denominational structure to send it an interim minister. This interim minister is specifically trained to deal with the oddities and demands of interim ministry. He is employed by the denominational agency and is subcontracted out to the church. He serves as long as the denominational agency and the church mutually consent. One of the commitments made by the interim minister is not to candidate for the pastorate of his interim ministry. This is a huge bonus. It allows him to do the things he really needs to do without becoming conflicted by an interest in getting the job. Actually, the interim minister who knows that he cannot be considered for the pastorate can spend his capital on fixing any dysfunctionalities of a church without worrying about his job security. Everyone knows he is a short termer (perhaps 1-3 years), and is willing to give him some slack. They also realize he is not doing this or that for his own gain, but out of his professional concern for the church. The "dedicated" interim minister is, in effect, an outside consultant who becomes intricately connected to the church. Many churches are like dysfunctional families. Dysfunction is passed on from generation to generation until someone breaks the cycle. The specially trained interim minister works on breaking this cycle.

Fortunately, you don't have to re-invent the wheel. Specialists have studied interim ministries and have outlined a program for interim ministry.

Occasional Diversion: Roger Waters' Opera Ca Ira

2007-11-30T21:32:00.001Z

Roger Waters was the creative genius of the phenomenally successful rock group Pink Floyd, which has managed the incredible feat of posting top 10 albums in each decade since the 1960s.[1] In 1984, he put out his first solo album, and now in 2006 he has succeeded in writing and releasing an epic opera on the French Revolution, called Ça Ira: There Is Hope.

This is not a rock opera, and is entirely devoid of those elements which characterize rock music. Waters doesn't sing on it, but such credentialed opera vocalists as Bryn Terfel play leading characters. The opera has been performed at significant operatic venues.

Here are some seasoned reflections, now that I've owned the CD for more than a year and have become intimately acquainted with it.

First, once you know the music, it sticks to your head moreso than any other item in the Floyd-Waters repertoire. I put the opera away for a few months, then recently played it, with the result being that the music is ominously present in my mind constantly, unavoidably.

Second, the poetry is highly Watersian. The poetry is worthy of publication by itself. There are many, many memorable lines, full of irony, freshness, and explosiveness. If you memorize these lines, you'll never lack for an a propos comment.

Third, recurring motifs intertwine and hold this massive work together, to the delight of the audience.

Fourth, great special effects aboud, of course, meeting and exceeding Floyd fans' high expectations.

Fifth, an amazing melting pot of irony, horror, and levity is achieved through the mocking innocence of young voices (children's), for example, "But we are not rats. We're not even human!"

Sixth, the opera achieves a great psychological impact. Much of the music requires repeated listening to catch the lyrics (typical of operatic voices, I think). Consequently, you get to know the music before the text gets processed in your minds. Thus, for example, in the song "Sugar, Silver, Indigo," you're surfing an exhilarating musical wave when finally the words crash down on you that the insatiable desire for the three imports "...make even the wisest man an idiot," which can't help but produce a snicker and a nodding affirmation. There is a complete libretto included with the cd, facilitating understanding of words and scenes.

One of the great keys to Waters' success is how he typically weaves the album together so that it has perfect segues with an exponentiating psychological impact. Does this album qualify? Much of it holds together, but perhaps not perfectly like Dark Side of the Moon, The Wall, and Amused To Death. Maybe after becoming more thoroughly acquainted with the music, some of the drag in sections will become less so.

It seems to me that Waters has a conceptual problem which keeps us from being endeared to the warm fuzzies of the French Revolution. The Revolution was not a glorious thing. Yes, we love liberty, but such a virtue seems to get lost in the messiness and vacillations of the French Revolution. A more obvious venue for an opera on glorious liberty would have been the American Revolution. But, given Waters' obvious disdain for America, I don't suppose this would have been an appealing theme to our composer!

The listener really doesn't know what to think about poor King Louis. The music seems to make us want to grieve over his death, but we have a hard time doing so logically, since he was so flawed. We are conflicted. The opera works toward a climax with the death of King Louis, and the listener somehow expects a conclusion here. But then we go on for some time, sometimes with great affectation. But instead of the expected epilogue after the King's execution, we forge on to new territory.

One of the amazing psychological effects produced by this album is how increasingly terrible the guillotine becomes. The first few times you hear the sound effect, you say, "Wow, that's cool." But after you get to know the music, you begin to dread the moment of the shrill sound of the falling of the blade. This dread reaches its apex in the song, "We want to get rid of the guillotine" in which we are treated to a parade of executions. Really and truly, Waters reproduces the dread of the guillotine within the listeners, almost as if we had been there. The end result is that this album is not one of those albums you would care to listen to for the sheer fun of it. You won't be putting this cd into your player without thinking twice about whether you're ready for it.

Musical reference to earlier albums is almost nil. Of course, there are points here and there where the listener delightfully says, "That sounds Floydian" or "that sounds Watersian." But such moments are rather subtle, and normally do not constitute a motif referral. The one major exception is the appropriation of "As we lie here in the dark, nothing interferes, its obvious..." from Pros and Cons for the lyrics of Cousin Bourbon of Spain. That tune is powerful in any context.

Ultimately, I can't help but think this opera album really is very important musically and lyrically. I would recommend to most anyone to buy it.

Translation Theory: American Standard Version (1901)

2007-11-28T09:02:00.000Z

By far the best, most brutally literal (or minimalistic) standard translation is the American Standard Version (1901). It's great to use when your looking for the exactitudes of the Greek and Hebrew language, although it is awkward, and sounds like the Iranian Ambassador trying to give a soundbite in English.

But today, in looking at Matt 14:24 dealing with the boat being swamped by the waves of the sea, I found a place where ASV really, totally fails to keep up with its translation philosophy of minimalism, and ends up translating rather dynamically.

The problem is that Matthew incorporates a Greek technical term denoting distance. Our standard of measuring distance is the mile or kilometer. The Greeks used the term stadia. Matthew writes that they were many stadia from the land. NIV/TNIV says the equivalent, except without using stadia: " but the boat was already a considerable distance from land." This works fine, and is a good example of sticking with the Greek text as much as possible without hurting the English language.

Normally ASV will stick to the Greek even to the point of offending the English language, but in the case of Matt 14:24, ASV gives a strikingly dynamic (!) translation: "But the boat was now in the midst of the sea." In this case, ASV would make you assume that the Greek would have the word θαλασσα (sea) in this verse, and that the fuller expression "midst of the sea" could be found if you used a Greek interlinear. While you normally can assume things about the Greek behind the ASV without bad things happening to you, in this case, your assumption would get you into trouble.

I hate to say it, but my favorite brutal English translation, ASV, dropped the ball. Yes, it does give a good dynamic equivalent translation; but we don't use ASV for its dynamic equivalence!

In contrast, a good example of ASV's usefulness as a brutally minimal translation is found in Exod 1:13-14 which reads, "And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor: and they made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field, all their service, wherein they made them serve with rigor."

Here, ASV shows the five-fold recurrence of the word serve/service as it correctly reflects the Hebrew. No modern translation (not even ESV) would dare to give such a brutal translation, precisely because any elementary school teacher would simply tell the student to find some other word, rather than boringly repeat the same word five times in the course of two sentences.

But Hebrew narrative is different. It loves this sort of repitition and uses it to convey theology. In this case, the emphasis is that Israel was exemplifying life under the curse of working by the sweat of the brow (Gen 3). By emphasizing this point, the narrator is setting the stage for God to restore the Sabbath Age of Rest (Gen 2:1-3) and to bring Israel into the land of Rest.

No English translation of this passage, other than ASV, calls attention to this motif. If you cannot read Hebrew, the only way to access this narrative technique is through the brutal minimalism of ASV.

The digital ASV is easily accessible everywhere (e.g., http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202;&version=8;), although its print form is hard to find. If you find one tucked away in a dusty corner of a church somewhere, take it and put it to good use.

Advent Weekly Themes, Daily Scriptures

2007-11-27T07:51:00.000Z

Week One: Repentance and preparation--Isaiah 40:1-5.

Candle lighting: One purple candle.

Scripture memory: Isaiah 40:3
A voice of one calling:
“In the desert prepare
the way for the LORD;
make straight in the wilderness
a highway for our God.”
Suggested Scriptures:

Daily Scripture

Sunday Isaiah 40:1-11, “Comfort for God’s People”
Monday Matt 3:1-12, “John the Baptist Prepares the Way”
Tuesday Rev 2:1-7 “To the Church in Ephesus”
Wednesday Acts 2:14-41 “Peter Addresses the Crowd”
Thursday James 4:1-12 “Submit Yourselves to God”
Friday Isaiah 1:10-18 “Let Us Reason Together”
Saturday 1 John 1:5-2:2 “Walking in the Light”

Suggested Hymn: O Come, O Come Emmanuel

Week Two: Good News--Matt 4:12-17

Candle lighting: Two purple candles

Scripture memory: “The time has come. The Kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15 NIV)

Daily Scriptures:
Sunday Mark 1:14-15 with Matt 11:1-6 “Good News”
Monday Luke 4:14-30 “Jesus Rejected at Nazareth”
Tuesday Isaiah 52:7-12 “Blessed Are the Feet”
Wednesday Rom 1:8-17 “Not Ashamed of the Gospel”
Thursday Gal 1:6-9 “No Other Gospel”
Friday Eph 1:3-14 (The Gospel Paul Preached)
Saturday Matt 4:12-17 “Jesus Begins to Preach”

Suggested Hymn: It Came upon the Midnight Clear

Week Three: Joy and Anticipation--Luke 2:8-20

Candle Lighting: Two purple candles and the pink candle

Scripture Memory: Luke 2:10-11
But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.

Daily Scriptures:
Sunday Luke 2:8-20 “The Shepherds and the Angels”
Monday Zech 9:9-17 “The Coming of Zion’s King”
Tuesday Isa 60:1-5 “The Glory of Zion”
Wednesday Rom 8:18-27 “Future Glory”
Thursday Philippians 4:4,10-13 “Joy and Contentment”
Friday 2 Peter 3:3-14 “The Day of the Lord”
Saturday Rev 6:9-11; 22:12-21 “Jesus Is Coming”

Suggested Hymn: How Great Our Joy!

Week Four: Royalty: Christ is King--Isaiah 9:1-7

Candle Lighting: Two purple candles followed by the pink candle, then by the third purple candle

Scripture memory: Luke 1:32-33
He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.

Daily Scriptures:
Sunday Isa 9:1-7 “To Us a Child Is Born”
Monday Luke 1:5-25 “The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold”
Tuesday Luke 1:26-38 “The Birth of Jesus Foretold”
Wednesday Luke 1:39-45 “Mary Visits Elizabeth”
Thursday Luke 2:1-7 “The Birth of Jesus”
Friday Matt 1:18-25 “The Birth of Jesus Christ”
Saturday Matt 2:1-23 “The Visit of the Magi”

Suggested Hymn: Hark! the Herald Angels Sing

Christmas Eve or Day: Christ is born--John 1:1-18 or Matt 1:18-2:23

Candle lighting: Two purple candles followed by the pink candle, then the third purple candle, and finally the Christ candle (the white candle)

Scripture memory: John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Suggested Hymn: What Child Is This?

Pastor's Page: Getting Ready! (Advent #1)

2007-11-27T07:40:00.000Z

We invest so much of ourselves into the coming of Christmas. We spend gobs of money buying gifts. We spend countless hours looking for really nice gifts. We send cards and letters. We spend more time and more money in the decorating. We attend Christmas parties. We load up our grocery carts and refrigerators. The whole ordeal of planning our meals, purchasing the foods, and preparing them takes many, many hours. We spread a beautiful table cloth and set out our finest china. Not only do we spend time and money buying gifts, we even go to great efforts to wrap them.

Preparing for the coming of Christmas is all well and good. However, none of it matters if we're not prepared for the coming of Christ.

"Where is this `coming' he promised?" so ask the skeptics. "Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation," they say. But God hasn't forgotten his promise. Truly, truly, Christ is coming.

How embarrassed we would be if we forgot to buy a gift for a close loved one. How much more will we be embarrassed if Christ's coming catches us by surprise?

During this Advent season, don't be too busy to prepare for Christ's coming. Preparing for Christ's coming is so much more important than getting ready for Christmas.

http://treasuresoldandnewbiblicaltexts.blogspot.com/

Pastor's Page: Joying a Great Joy Greatly (Advent #2)

2007-11-27T07:16:00.000Z

Awkward as it may sound, "joying a great joy greatly" is pretty close to the Greek of those biblical passages describing people's response to the coming of the Lord (see Matthew 2:10). Of course, not everyone is so eager for the coming of the Lord, but those who earnestly seek him are filled with a glorious and unspeakable joy (1 Peter 1:8).

Why such joy at the birth of a baby? Yes, we're all happy about the birth of any baby. But this baby was different, filling not only his parents with unspeakable and indescribable joy, but also even strangers with the kind of joy which is otherwise never, ever experienced. What was it about this baby which brought such joy?

The birth of this baby Jesus was a demonstration of God's great love and commitment to us—let us rejoice! The manger scene was a fulfillment of promises made long ago that God would not leave us in our fallen state—let us rejoice! The angel's announcement signaled that the time had come for a new beginning which will culminate in the new heavens and the new earth—let us rejoice!

This news eclipses even the joy of happy faces opening presents around the Christmas tree. In fact, without the coming of Christ, we'd be left to live in die in the worst sort of misery. So, for this reason, we "joy a great joy greatly."

http://treasuresoldandnewbiblicaltexts.blogspot.com/

Master's Thesis: Fulfillment of Temple Theology in Matthew's Gospel

2007-11-25T21:04:00.000Z

Chapter 1

Introduction to the Problem
and Preview of Argument

1.1. Introduction

This chapter is designed to introduce the issue of Jesus and Temple in Matthew's Gospel. The history of research is outlined, followed by a preview of the argument contained in the subsequent chapters.

1.1.1. Review of Modern Scholarship

Developments in modern biblical scholarship have made a study on Jesus and the Temple in Matthew a timely endeavor. Such a study is propelled by advances in the third quest for the historical Jesus and in recent analyses of Matthew's theology. Both of these fronts are briefly analyzed in the following paragraphs.

1.1.2. The Third Quest for the Historical Jesus

The third quest for the historical Jesus has often found the relationship between Jesus and Temple at its center. This is the case, at least to some extent, in works by Marcus Borg, S.G.F. Brandon, Craig Evans, Richard A. Horsley, Ben F. Meyer, Jacob Neusner, but especially so in works by Bruce Chilton, Ernst Lohmeyer, E.P. Sanders, and N. Thomas Wright. The relationship between the historical Jesus and the Temple is explored further in section 3.2., and one may read Sanders for an extended analysis and review of the quest for the historical Jesus. Based upon the insights and contributions of these recent scholars, one may conclude that any resolution to the problem of the historical Jesus must explain Jesus' relationship to the Temple.

A study of the relationship between Jesus and the Temple in Matthew contributes to the quest in two significant ways. First of all, upon mature reflection of the text, one may find numerous indications of the historical relationship between Jesus and the Temple. Second, Matthew, as a member of the primitive community, is able to proffer his own assessment of the relationship between Jesus and the Temple, which may in fact reflect the historical situation. While the following chapters do not emphasize the quest, they certainly invite further consideration of the issue, especially in regard to Matthew's document.

1.2. The Theology of Matthew

In the 1960s and 1970s, redaction criticism came to the forefront as a critical tool of biblical scholarship. Remarkable advances have been made using this tool in conjunction with synoptic studies. However, just a few works providing a more comprehensive overview of Matthew's theology have been published, despite the availability of numerous works which detail specific aspects of Matthean theological peculiarities. To date, there is no work which provides a careful analysis of Matthew's Temple theology.

This last statement needs some qualification. H. Frankemö1le analyzes Matthew's Presence theology, focusing on 1:23 and 28:20 and other texts which refer to Immanuel's presence with his Church. Frankemö1le, however, does not seem to relate his discussion to Matthew's Temple theology. A few works, briefly or in passing, discuss Matthew's Temple theology in counterpoint to one or more of the other Gospels (e.g., Telford, Chance, and Weinert), or in the context of a general overview of Temple theology (e.g., R.E. Clements, B. Gartner, Lloyd Gaston, and R.J. McKelvey). However, the value of these works in regard to Matthew is largely vitiated by their brevity and lack of in depth analysis. No article or monograph provides a comprehensive discussion or even an adequate overview of Matthew's Temple theology.

Given the general interest in redaction criticism and in the Temple's role in the third quest, this dearth of inquiry regarding Jesus and the Temple in Matthew is striking. One would think that a study of Jesus and the Temple in Matthew would considerably advance present knowledge of Matthew's theology and the historical Jesus. Furthermore, such a study would almost certainly impact the issue of early Jewish Christianity and the parting of the ways since Matthew seems to have such a Heimat and since the Temple would likely have been a significant factor in debates between the parent and child communities (cf., e.g., the role of the Temple in Qumran's quarrel with the parent community). Consequently, a study of Jesus and the Temple in Matthew offers the potential to make considerable advances toward a better understanding of the historical Jesus, Matthew's own theology, and the relationship between primitive Christianity and Judaism.

1.3. Preview of Argument

Matthew inherited from the OT a rich and multifaceted Temple tradition. At the heart of this tradition was the notion that God had made his dwelling with his holy people and that God's abiding presence was manifest in the Temple. These traditions developed throughout the course of Israel's history, beginning at Mt. Sinai and continuing with numerous national crises, so that in the last and succeeding years of the kingdom, there arose a vision of a new eschatological Temple associated with the establishment of God's rule. In conjunction with this new vision, there arose disputes regarding cultic procedures and other issues which created some dissent within Jewish society, so much so that some fringe groups distanced themselves from the Temple and engaged in a thoroughgoing polemic against it. Against this background, Jesus and the Christian movement arose. There is evidence that Jesus himself took some (prophetic) action against the Temple and predicted its destruction. Some Christian communities reflected on Jesus' actions and predictions and concluded that the Temple had become obsolete and that somehow the eschatological Temple had arisen and was now comprised of members of the Church; in short, OT Temple theology was viewed as being fulfilled in the Church. Matthew's Gospel seems to reflect one such community.

That Matthew viewed the Church as fulfilling OT Temple theology is suggested variously throughout his Gospel. First of all, Matthew emphasizes God's presence with his faithful people, the Church, in the person of Jesus who is Immanuel, God with us. This emphasis is obtained by Matthew's repeated allusions to the Immanuel passage or its theology. In so doing, Matthew has incorporated the absolute fundamentum of OT Temple theology in describing Jesus' relationship to the Church. Second, Matthew describes the founding and functioning of the Church in terms which have a Temple domain. Third, Matthew hints at the Temple's defilement and underscores Jesus' declaration of judgment against the Temple in such a way as to establish that it is no longer the dwelling place of God. These elements of Matthew's Temple theology are explored in the following chapters with the intention of establishing that Matthew viewed the Temple as having been surpassed by the presence of Jesus in his Church in the new age, and therefore, as having become obsolete and destined for destruction. Matthew's community, then, is probably to be viewed as belonging to a larger Christian community which also viewed the Temple as obsolete and surpassed by something greater in the eschatological age.

What Is Reformation Arminianism?

2007-11-25T00:47:00.000Z

What Is Reformation Arminianism?

Introduction
For those well acquainted with the Calvinist-Arminian debate, Reformation Arminianism (or Classic Arminianism) is a theological system which emphasizes universal atonement within a framework of Calvinistic total depravity and the penal satisfaction view of the atonement.

For those less acquainted with such matters, Reformation Arminianism is first of all a way of understanding how salvation is accomplished within the main lines of Protestantism, which tends to emphasize human freedom of the will rather than a deterministic/predestinarian approach.

Reformation Arminianism is an older cousin to Wesleyan Arminianism, the latter being propagated in the American churches through denominations such as some Brethren groups, Methodist groups, Nazarene and Holiness groups, and by many Pentecostal/Charismatic groups. These groups traditionally have rejected total depravity and penal satisfaction view of atonement, and are well known for viewing salvation as something which can be lost at a moment's indulgence in sin (i.e., "Repeat Regeneration").

Reformation Arminianism, in contrast, is an accurate reflection of Arminius' own theological urgencies and is subject to perhaps only 25% of Calvinistic refutational argumentation, leaving about 75% to knock over straw men. In many ways, Reformation Arminianism assumes the some of the important urgencies of the larger Reformed movement, and is several steps closer to Calvinism than Wesleyan Arminianism.

These issues have been hotly debated since the late 1500s, but seemed to lag much in the 1970s-1990s. During this period Calvinism seemed to be on the decline, prompting such journal articles as the cleverly titled, "Where Have All the TULIPs Gone?" However, in the last 10-15 years, there has been a tremendous resurgence of Calvinism, putting this important issue back on the table for discussion as local churches find themselves in the midst of the debate.

Presuppositions
Reformation Arminian soteriology, like Calvinism, presupposes holiness as the basic character of God which is absolute. Thus, sin must be punished. A sin against an infinite and absolutely holy God demands an infinite and eternal punishment. Consequently, for Calvinists and Reformation Arminians alike, hell is not an arbitrarily created punishment, but rather one which is necessary to the holiness of God. God can't just simply forgive sin; sin must be punished. God's wrath must be satisfied.

Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement
Reformation Arminianism and Calvinism both view Jesus death as substitutionary. Instead of God's wrath being poured out upon deserving sinners, Jesus died in their place, bearing the full wrath of God. Traditional Wesleyan Arminians believe that Jesus' death was not a sin payment, but rather an astonishing demonstration of God's love for humanity, designed to draw them to the Father. In contrast, Reformation Arminianism and Calvinism both agree that Jesus' death was a payment for sin to satisfy God's wrath. The sole point of disparity between Reformation Arminianism and Calvinism regarding the atonement is not its nature, but its extent: was it universal, or did Jesus only provide payment for the sin debt of the elect?

Penal Satisfaction: A Double Payment?
A recurring argument in the debate against Reformation Arminianism is that if Jesus' death was a payment for sin, and if Jesus died for all humanity, then how could unbelievers rightly be sent to hell for sins which were already paid? Universal atonement, then, was argued to teach either universal salvationism (everyone goes to heaven), or to imply an unjust double payment for sin. (One wonders if this argument may have driven later Arminians to reject penal satisfaction.)

Reformation Arminianism unties the knot by appealing to the idea that the atonement was provided for everyone, but only applied to believers. (Lewis Sperry Chafer was one person who wrote a strong article to this effect, which was republished in a DTS journal in the late 1970s or early 1980s.)

Calvinists have a strong knee jerk reaction to the notion of an atonement which is provided but not applied, as witnessed in Murray's work Redemption Accomplished and Applied. However, the careful Calvinist must concede that even within a Calvinistic system, atonement consists first of substitutionary payment followed second by application of the payment.

This two-fold aspect of the atonement is, in principle, assumed by both Calvinists and Reformation Arminians. The difference is that Calvinists think that the atonement is applied automatically and co-extensively to the elect at the God-ordained time, while Reformation Arminians think that the atonement is applied not automatically, but on the condition of faith. Actually, to be precise, Reformation Arminians think that the atonement is applied to the individual's account when the person is united with Christ through faith. But at any rate, both sides explain salvation in terms of the atonement being provided, and then applied—either automatically, or conditionally.

If Calvinistic atonement is not explained in terms of first being provided followed subsequently with its application, then a very strange scenario emerges wherein the elect end up having been eternally justified, without ever being children of wrath and under condemnation and without God in the world. The whole point of salvation is that we actually lived in disobedience to God, but that God rescued us from this situation. If atonement was automatically applied at the point of Christ's sacrificial death, then the elect really didn't have an old way of life from which to be rescued. At this point, however, I'm not trying to defend or refute one position or the other, but only to assert that both sides must hold to a two stage salvation event, one in which atonement is first provided, followed by the application of the atonement to the individual.

Total Depravity
Reformation Arminians take total depravity seriously. With Calvinists, they affirm that by himself, an individual cannot understand biblical revelation, or put his faith in Jesus, or do anything to earn salvation. The difference between the two is that Calvinists think that regeneration must occur first for these things to happen, while Arminians believe that God is capable of enabling a person to believe, with the result being that God regenerates him.

To put it more starkly, Calvinists don't have any room for the idea that God could enable an unregenerate person to believe, while Reformation Arminians insist that God enables belief prior to regeneration. Of course, the Calvinist position is tied to the notion that God's grace is irresistible, and whoever is called cannot do anything but respond in faith. In contrast, Reformation Arminians think that a person whom God convicts is enabled to believe, but can continue to resist.

In some sense, the Reformation Arminian position is not really an assertion of the human's free will. According to Reformation Arminianism, the individual by himself is still unable to choose God by his own free will. His nature is such that he cannot overcome his propensity toward rebellion by his own strength. Like Calvinism, Reformation Arminianism believes that it is only by God's gracious intervention that a person could overcome his total depravity. The difference lies in the fact that Calvinists think that God cannot enable a person to believe without first regenerating him, while Reformation Arminians think that the enabling happens prior to regeneration.

Salvation through Faith
Calvinism and Reformation Arminianism have the same nuanced definition of faith. I can't quote him exactly, but the Calvinist J.I. Packer defines faith along the lines of a person coming to the point of total self-abnegation where he understands that he has no resources of his own to merit salvation, and a complete trust in Jesus and his work on the cross for salvation. This is a good definition, and Reformation Arminians should be happy with it.

On the other hand, Calvinists have often charged that Arminians seem to make faith into a work worthy of salvation. This might be a Wesleyan Arminian perspective, but Arminius and Reformation Arminianism would strongly deny it. In the Reformation Arminian system, faith is not a meritorious act.

However, faith is the condition or agency through which salvation comes, as attested by the Pauline formula that salvation is through faith. Calvinists have objected to this position first on the ground mentioned before that unregenerate people cannot believe, and second, on the ground that this would make salvation by works.

I find it entirely ironic that Paul's main thrust is that if you pursue salvation by faith, then you are not pursuing it by works, to use his language to the conclusion of Romans 9. Assuming the same definition of faith, as outlined above, if salvation is by faith, then it is not by works. Simply put, when the Calvinist claims that Arminians believe in a works-salvation, the response is that if it is by faith, by definition it cannot be by works.

And if God in his sovereignty chooses to make faith the condition whereby the atonement is applied, then who are you, O man, to say otherwise?

We are left to conclude then, that if God is capable of enabling an unregenerate person to choose to believe in him, and if faith is not a work, and if God established faith as a condition for salvation, then Reformation Arminianism's view of salvation through faith is internally consistent.

Robert E. Picirilli (Grace, Faith and Free Will) has made the case that the ultimate issue between Calvinism and Reformation Arminianism is whether or not salvation is through faith. It seems that Calvinism has a very difficult time speaking clearly on this issue. On one hand, Calvinists want to affirm that salvation is by grace through faith, but on the other hand, they seem to formulate much of their views as if faith is the happy response of having been saved, as if the Pauline formula said, "Salvation by grace unto faith."

The Issue of Continuance
If salvation is by grace through faith, Reformation Arminians argue by extension that continuance in salvation (i.e., eternal security) is also by grace through faith: "salvation by grace through faith; continuance in salvation by grace through faith."

Ironically, Arminius himself claimed that he wasn't prepared to take a position on whether or not a genuinely saved person could ever make shipwreck of his faith, explaining there are strong passages on both sides of the issue, and urging that further study is needed. Arminius' heirs, however, reject the notion that once you are saved, you are always saved.

Reformation Arminianism differs remarkably from Wesleyan Arminian on this issue. Wesleyan Arminians seem to think that a true believer is subject to losing his salvation by sinning. Ultimately, their view seems best explained as "salvation by grace through faith; continuance in salvation by not sinning."

In contrast, the Calvinist position on continuance seems best expressed as, "salvation by grace unto faith; continuance in grace unto faith."

Dialog
The Calvinist-Arminian dialog probably ought to proceed along these lines. Unfortunately, J.I. Packer's classic article "Arminianisms" which has informed so much of the Calvinist animus against Arminianism betrays little or no awareness of Arminius or of Reformation Arminianism (he knows only of "Rational Arminianism" and "Evangelical Arminianism," i.e., Wesleyanism). As a result, a huge amount of the Calvinist animus is against straw men or, at least, against a lesser form of Arminianism which makes a much easier target than Reformation Arminianism.

PhD Proposal: Codex Schoyen

2007-11-24T11:00:00.000Z

Versional specialist Tjitze Baarda (Free University, Amsterdam) wrote of the Schøyen codex that it "presents us with a most intriguing version of Matthew, and therefore it should be studied carefully to establish the place which it takes in textual history…. I entertain the hope that this enigmatic text will become the object of a careful investigation in the near future. It might be an appropriate research object for a dissertation of someone who is interested in the relation of the Greek text and the early translations of the New Testament in general and the Coptic versions in particular" (NT 46.3, p.306).

Codex Schøyen 2650, the recently discovered (1999) Coptic manuscript of Matthew's gospel, is extraordinary for its great antiquity (300-350 C.E.), and sensational for its unusual text which may differ from canonical Matthew. Its editor, the late Hans-Martin Schenke, claimed it reflects a Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew derived from a Greek Vorlage unlike any other extant manuscript. His conclusions would have a wide range of consequences for Matthean studies, including the formative development of the gospels.

Some of these conclusions were questioned on methodological grounds by Baarda. While Baarda emphasized that his criticisms could only speak to the small portion of text which he examined (Matt 17:1-9), he urged that a full review of the entire manuscript be undertaken.
Even if some of Schenke's conclusions go too far, ms. Schøyen 2650 remains a potentially important witness to the text of Matthew. The great antiquity of the codex gives it automatic significance. Further, it may reflect one of the earliest attempts to translate Matthew into Coptic, and give indication of the latitude a translator might deem appropriate. Moreover, the publication of ms. Schøyen 2650 necessitates reconsideration of the development of the Coptic versions. A thorough understanding of the Schøyen codex and the place of the Coptic versions will probably become increasingly critical as Egypt continues to be the primary source of new manuscript discoveries.

Therefore, I propose to analyze ms. Schøyen 2650 in the hopes that codicological, papyrological, and textual data will assist in explaining its unusual text and its role in transmission history. This analysis will be achieved by a comparison of ms. Schøyen 2650 with other Coptic versions and manuscripts, and with the translation dynamics of other early versions, with a particular sensitivity to textual variation in the whole manuscript tradition. Ultimately, the project will be designed to make ms. Schøyen 2650 and the Coptic versions more helpful in establishing the text of Matthew, and address implications regarding the formative history of Matthew's gospel.

10 (or More) Views on Women in Ministry

2007-11-24T00:14:00.000Z

Here is an exercise for you. Choose which position seems closest to your own. Then try defending it. The list is arranged from strictest to most free.

I start with a reminder from the two strictest texts....

1 Cor 14:33b-35: As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Tim 2:11-12: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

1. Women must keep absolutely silent in church ministry. They are not permitted to pray or sing aloud in worship, nor are they permitted to teach or vocally participate in the learning process by asking or answering questions, etc.
2. Women's vocal participation in congregational worship must be limited to joining with others as the whole congregation sings, prays, recites scripture, etc; no vocalizations as individuals in prayer, song, etc.
3. Individual women may participate in worship by singing or praying in front of the congregation, so long as there is no teaching or leading involved.
4. Women may teach only other women.
5. Women may teach only other women and boys who are not yet men.
6. Women may teach both men and women, but they may not lead worship services.
7. Women may lead worship services, but they may not preach or hold a "ministry position" such as Minister of Music.
8. Women may lead worship services and teach, but they may not serve as deacons.
9. Women may serve as associate ministers or as deacons, but may not serve as pastors.
10. Women may serve as pastors, so long as they serve under a male authority at the next denominational level (e.g., a woman pastor under a male area minister).
11. There are no restrictions on women in ministry.

After identifying which view represents your own view, cite chapter and verse to support it.

Presuppositions for Biblical Interpretation and the Meaning of the Term Exegesis

2007-11-24T00:07:00.001Z

Basic Biblical Interpretation

Rule #1: The Bible is God's Word. It is perfect, containing no mistakes.

Rule #2: We're going to do what the Bible says.

Rule #3: We're not going to interpret the Bible according to the world's latest whim.

Rule #4: Our goal is to interpret the Bible according to the ancient author's original intention.

Rule #5: So long as we agree in the first four rules, we're not going to break fellowship with someone who comes up with a different interpretation than our own.

Exegesis

Definition: A Bible study process to determine the author's intended meaning to his original audience.

The process includes doing word studies, context studies (phrase, sentence, paragraph, chapter, section, book, corpus, testament), historical and sociological studies, etc.

"What the text meant to them back then."
Exegesis must precede application to our modern situation:

"Making what the text meant to them back then relevant to us today."

Scriptures Relevant for Formulating Your Doctrine of Continuance in Salvation

2007-11-24T00:01:00.000Z

Some NT Scriptures Possibly Supporting Eternal Security

John 17:11-12—"...Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name...so that they may be one.... While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe.... None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction...."

John 6:39-40--"And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

John 10:28-29--"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand."

Rom 8:30-38--"And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us...." Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies.... Christ Jesus...is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword...? No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Rom 11:28-29--"As far as the gospel is concerned, [Israelites] are enemies on your [=Roman Christians] account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable."

Phil 1:6--"...being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

2 Tim 1:12--"...yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day."

1 Pet 1:5--"...who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time."

Eph 1:13-14--"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession."

Eph 4:30--"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."

2 Cor 1:21-22--"...He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."

2 Cor 5:5--"Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."

1 Cor 10:13--"...and God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear...."

2 Tim 4:18--"The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom...."

Some NT Scriptures Possibly Supporting the Possibility of Apostasy

Hebrews--This book seems to have been written to Jewish Christians under pressure to turn away from Christ and revert back to Judaism. This is suggested by 1) repeated warnings against turning away; 2) the author's call to continue in the faith; 3) the extensive argumentation for Christ's superiority over Judaism. The warnings and appeals are found in 2:1-4; 3:1,12-15; 4:1,11; 6:1-8; 10:19,22,24,26-31, 35-39.

Heb 2:1-4--"We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?"

Heb 3:12-14--"See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first."

Heb 4:1--"Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it."

Heb 4:11--"Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fa1l by following their example of disobedience."

Heb 6:4-6--"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall way, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Heb 10:26-31--"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

2 Peter was written to Christians who were under the potential influence of false teachers who claimed that a Christian could sin as much as they wished. Peter writes to these Christians urging them not to follow these false teachers.

2 Pet 1:5-10--"...make every effort to add to your faith.... For if you posses these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if anyone does not have them, he is near-sighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall....

2 Pet 2:18-22--"For [these false teachers] mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.... If they [=false teachers OR those "who are just escaping..."] have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

1 Pet 1:5--"...who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time."

1 Tim 1:18-20--"...holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

1 Tim 4:1--"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

Parable of the Sower: some sown among thorns grew but then were choked out by the cares of the world (Mark 4:1-21; Matt 13:1-23; Luke 8:4-15)

John 15:5-6--"I am the vine; you are them branches. If a man remains in me and I in him he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."

Gal 5:4--"You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from Grace.

Gordon Fee and Textual Criticism

2007-11-23T23:59:00.000Z

(This is the text of my successful argument that Gordon Fee should be given the 2006 Hall of Fame/Lifetime Achievement Award by the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.)

Perhaps the student can be forgiven for nominating, from his limited experiences, his own favorite professor to an award. Perhaps, despite the student's own experiential limitations, that professor really is deserving. Let me argue such on behalf of Gordon Fee in regard to the highly esteemed and world renowned Evangelical Textual Criticism Hall of Fame/Lifetime Achievement Award.

First, let me explain that as a student of Prof. Fee, amazingly, I actually never read a single textual critical work of his. I came to study with him well after he had established his reputation as text-critic-turned-exegete, and my work with him was exegetically oriented, with only sideward glances at text criticism. What I know of his tc work comes from informal readings after my graduate degree.

In this light, I was surprised to find in my first real tc research paper how often I resorted to citing Prof. Fee's various works. The variety and scope of his writings and their strategic importance necessitated such frequent citation.

With a few exceptions, scholarship in textual criticism is not so much reflected in tomes, but in shorter research articles (Colwell and Birdsall, for example, had but two tc books published between them). Prof. Fee has written two volumes on tc, but his research articles are of such importance that we recall them as quickly as we recall the names of the few larger, important books in the field. These works are often definitive, and future scholarship will not be able to avoid prefacing their work with reference to Prof. Fee's works.

One example of this is William L. Petersen's 2002 article, "The Genesis of the Gospel" (in A. Denaux's New Testament Textual Exegesis) wherein he argued for a closer look at the early Fathers to determine gospel texts which look quite different from our canonical gospels. Despite his recognition of the cautions expressed in Prof. Fee's article, "The Text of John in Origen and Cyril of Alexandria" (Bib 52 [1971], 357-394), one wonders if the phenomena Petersen observed in citations from Theophilus (40) and the Didache (51-53) may be explicable in terms proffered by Prof. Fee thirty years earlier. Prof. Fee's passionate cautions regarding Patristic evidence were such as to have spilled over even into his introductory exegesis courses. One suspects that the radical revision of the Patristic evidence in the apparatus of NA-27 had a portion of its impetus from Prof. Fee's own writings (see also "The Text of John in The Jerusalem Bible: A Critique of the Use of Patristic Ciations in New Textament Textual Criticism" and "The Use of Greek Patristic Citations in New Testament Textual Criticism: The State of the Question").

Prof. Fee has had a knack for publishing strategically important articles for the discipline. This was true of his debunking of the myth that the "Alexandrian" text form was a recension. To a large degree, this work confirmed the basic Hortian program of reconstructing the NT text largely on the basis of the strict text form behind B, at a time when such confidence was beginning to lag.

Prof. Fee has been in the frontlines on issues which have been polemical. At a time when some Christian conservatives (Evangelicals and Fundamentalists) were being swayed by a revival of the Majority Text, Prof. Fee entered the arena and published several articles and debates on the issue. The same is true over the issue of eclecticism; his arguments for a reasoned eclecticism have seemed to have won the day against the rigorous eclecticism of Kilpatrick and Elliott.

Prof. Fee's work still speaks to current issues in tc. The last two decades have seen an increasing interest in the relationship between tc and gospel formation prior to 180 CE. Much of this scholarship would undermine our confidence in our critical text and in the "original text." Prof. Fee has probably written the definitive work looking at the implications of synoptic harmonization for the Synoptic Problem ("Modern Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem: On the Problem of harmonization in the Gospels"). Also, he himself has recognized the first 300 years as the "Period of Confusion," yet gives an analysis of this period which is far more sympathetic to Evangelicals and to the issue of biblical authority than is often given ("Textual Criticism of the New Testament;" cf. Koester, Petersen, Ehrman). In a short review of Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of the Text, Prof. Fee politely and with some subtlety shreds methods and conclusions so thoroughly that the book needs to be re-read with great reservation (Critical Review of Books and Religion, Aug 1995, 203-206).

I wonder if Prof. Fee has made his own contribution to the canons of criticism. He argues that "one criterion above all others superintends the scholar's choice at any point of textual variation: the variant that best explains the origin of all the others is most likely original." This probably is not original to Prof. Fee, but in my own limited experience, I have not seen the criterion stated so lucidly elsewhere.

A word should be said in regard to Prof. Fee's relationship to evangelicalism. As a Pentecostal, he admits to having some tensions within his evangelical world. One of these tensions is his emphasis on the Spirit's role in interpreting the text. He is more concerned with what, for example, Paul meant than what the text actually said. As such, he has been a little outside of the issue of inerrancy, and one wonders if maybe his emphasis on the Spirit has more in common with Prof. Parker and the living text approach than the earlier comment may suggest.

More importantly, however, Prof. Fee's evangelicalism can be seen in his far-reaching exegetical work. In an era when the Pastorals were considered not even deutero-Pauline, but trito-Pauline, Prof. Fee argued for their authenticity, and his tiny commentary on the Pastorals (New International Bible Commentary) rocked liberal scholarship way back on its heels. The same is true in regard to Paul's Trinitarianism; while it had become commonplace to dismiss orthodox Trinitarianism as a later Church development, Prof. Fee has boldly argued that the Trinitarianism of the later creeds is latent in Paul's writings, and largely assumed in his theology (God's Empowering Presence, 898; cf. Pauline Christology, 2007).

One important exegetical insistence of Prof. Fee's has import for some recent developments in tc. In the attempt to reconstruct primitive forms of the gospels prior to 180 C.E., a number of scholars have argued that the early Fathers and texts seem uninformed in regard to Jesus' life and teaching. They point out that this is a feature of the earliest Christian writings, and surmise that the four canonical gospels must not have been widely received by the Church in the first two centuries. In so doing, they point to the Pauline writings which have little to say about Jesus' life and ministry, suggesting that Paul knew little of Jesus' life. Prof. Fee would cry foul to this line of reasoning, arguing first of all the ad hoc nature of the Pauline epistles, and that they were task oriented, not treatise of theology or ethics. Typically, Paul wrote to fix problems, and the situation rarely would have required Paul to cite sayings or deeds of Jesus. In this regard, Prof. Fee was fond of pointing out that overly skeptical scholars would assume that Paul knew nothing of the Lord's Supper, except that, quite incidentally, observance of the institution had become a problem in Corinth, requiring Paul to address the situation. Likewise, in our attempt to push the text beyond the 180 C.E. barrier, we should remember this admonition, and ask whether a writing or a writer really had the occasion to refer to Jesus' life and ministry.

But for Prof. Fee, the goal of exegesis is hermeneutics…how one applies what was said back then to our lives today. I think if this is not the essence of evangelicalism, it is very close to its core. For it is only the appropriation of the text into our lives that we are truly Christian. And this is clearly evident in Prof. Fee's life's work.

Misquoting Metzger

2007-11-23T23:48:00.000Z

I'm intrigued by the conclusion in Prof. Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, in which Metzger and Prof. Ehrman take pains to correct the impression that the text of the NT was transmitted haphazardly. They write,

Lest the foregoing examples of alterations should give the impression that scribes were altogether willful and capricious in transmitting ancient copies of the New Testament, it ought to be noted that other evidence points to the careful and painstaking work on the part of many faithful copyists…. Even in incidental details one observes the faithfulness of scribes…. These examples of dogged fidelity on the part of scribes could be multiplied and serve to counterbalance to some extent, the impression that this chapter may otherwise make upon the beginner in New Testament textual criticism (4th ed., 271).

One wonders how this conclusion can be squared with Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. Indeed, the foregoing two paragraphs in their entirety would seem to serve to contradict the most basic impression found in Misquoting Jesus.

The Beast and the False Prophet of Revelation are "She's"

2007-11-23T23:42:00.000Z

The Beast and the False Prophet of Revelation are "She's"

Yep, that's right, according to my Bible, the Beast is a she, and so is the second Beast, her false prophet.

--at least according to my French Bible (I've just about read through the French NT as part of my prepatory studies for my PhD).

In French, the word for beast is bete (often the "st" sound in English is found simply as a "t" sound in French). Bete is a feminine noun. In English, we generally don't assign gender to nouns like they do in French, Spanish, most other Romance languages, Greek and Hebrew, etc. In English, "book," for example, is an "it," but in French "book" is a "he."

This scrambles up our translations sometimes, as it does with reference to the two Beasts in Revelation.

In Greek, the noun "beast" (therion) is neuter, and is usually referred to as "it." However, the two Beasts of Revelation are personal entitities. Consequently, our English versions are quick to use personal masculine pronouns for them (he, his, him). This is quite natural, and is similar to what we do in regard to the Holy Spirit which, in Greek, is neuter (it, its).

However, in French, since beast (bete) is feminine, it would be quite a slaughtering of the language to assign masculine pronouns to the Beast. Consequently, in the French translation, "she" had seven heads, and no one was able to make war with "her," and "she" spoke blasphemies.

So, this raises the issue of the translator having to be a slave to two masters. The first master is the Greek, which would require the English translator to use neuter pronouns for the Beast: "It" spoke blasphemies; "it" had seven heads, etc. But this conveys to the reader that the Beast was a non-personal entity, when clearly it was a thinking, feeling, acting being worthy of a personal, not impersonal, pronoun.

The second master to which the translator must be a slave is the receptor language, for example, English. To make sense to English readers, the translator ought to use the personal pronoun--either the masculine or the feminine would be justifiable. (Here is a clear case of our male-bias getting the best of us.) However, this is in conflict with the Greek master, for the Greek does not assign gender to the Beast.

All this is true also for French.

In most passages, NIV and NRSV try to please both masters equally. ESV, NASU, RSV, all try to give precedence to the Greek master. NLT tries to give precedence to the English master.

Sometimes, it's a hard task to try to serve two masters, but in translation theory, you really need to.

Transferal of Old Testament Temple Theology to the Church

2007-11-23T23:38:00.000Z

One of the major components of OT religion is the Temple. It is an essential element of Jewishness. It factors also into the millennial schemes of some. While Dispensationalists would reject the notion of future sacrifices, a Restored Temple is a future expectation for them.

In contrast, the biblical writers viewed that there was an essential transferal of OT theology from national Israel to the Church. This was not so much a matter of making the Church equivalent to Israel, but rather that the Church was included into Israel by virtue of Christ's position as heir of the OT promises. As such, the Church is the true remnant of Israel, being akin to the stones being raised up as children for Abraham on the basis that they, like Abraham, believed in God.

One example of the transferal of OT theology to the church is Temple theology. The essential element of Temple theology is that the Temple was the locus of God's presence. Without this element, Temple theology would be nil. The motif is so strong and obvious, I won't detail it in this overview, although I wrote about 150 pages on it in my Master's thesis.

Matthew takes this motif and transfers it to the church. In his view, the Temple was no longer the locus of God's presence. Like Ezek 8-11, Matthew represents Jesus Immanuel as abandoning the Temple at the conclusion of Matt 23 and Matt 24:1. Rather than God's presence residing at the Temple, it has moved to reside in God's people, Jesus' disciples.

This portion of Matthean theology is perceptible in his Immanuel inclusio. Jesus himself is Immanuel, God-with-us (Matt 1:21). And he is with us always, even to the consummation of the age (Matt 28:20. Moreover, the theme is reinforced at significant points in Matthew, for where two or three are gathered in Jesus' name, Immanuel is present with them.

The fact that God's presence is removed from the Temple, makes the Temple a haunt for every kind of foul spirit and abomination; the swept house is made seven times worse. It is left to them desolate. It deserves to be torn down, without a stone being left atop the other. No longer is it a house of prayer, as the house of prayer now belongs to the disciples of Jesus who gather in his name, and among whom Immanuel is present as they ask anything in his name.

In every conceivable way, Matthew takes every aspect of Temple theology and transfers it to the church. Much more could be said.

But the one point I'm arguing is that the Church receives all the OT promises. Temple theology is but one example of an OT theme or promise being transferred to the Church. This was an interpretive matrix of the earliest Christians. By virtue of their faith in Jesus—the Supreme Jew—they were all made joint-heirs with Jesus, regardless of race.

Phoebe, the Deacon of Cenchrea

2007-11-23T23:34:00.000Z

Only among those people who are opposed in principle to women in ministry is it necessary to put forth an argument that the list of people in Rom 16 reflect the various house churches and their pastors in Rome.

But let's start with Phoebe as a deacon. The most natural way to read the Greek is that she was a deacon. Those who have this entrenched notion that women could not be deacons are compelled to look for a different reading which they must admit is at least a little strained. Yes, "diakonos" can mean servant, but in Pauline ecclesiological usage "servant" takes on the nuances inherent in "Servant of the Lord" language from the OT, especially in regard to Moses. While non-ecclesiological usage could refer to someone who does menial task, anyone who is referred to as a diakonos in ministry takes on a high status. In fact, according to context, diakonos is often translated as "minister".

Moreover, the fact that Phoebe is listed as a diakonos "of the church Cenchrea," makes likely the diakonos is an official position. This is all the more obvious when we take into account that Paul is giving formal introduction to her to the Roman churches. Such formal introductions were commonly given in letters of referral, which this epistle contains for her. In such letters, the referrer would normally emphasize the referee's official capacity.

If Paul did not mean to imply she held an official church title, then he blundered badly, for his letter of recommendation, as it would have most naturally been read, leaves the Romans with the notion that he falsely inflated her resume. Such blunders are the sort of issues which create distrust, especially since Paul had no personal authority over these Christians (he had done no prior ministry with them, nor had he established any of their house churches).

Furthermore, as Greek scholars often comment, if Paul did not mean to convey Phoebe's status as an ordained deacon of the Church of Cenchrea, he could have easily avoided doing so by using one of the cognates of diakonos, such as the verb diakonew (perhaps as a participle), or the noun diakonia (service).

So yes, the translation can possibly be that she was merely a servant and not a minister/deacon. But who would want to argue such? Only those who have already decided that women could not be deacons.

Cranfield, whose commentary on Romans is unsurpassed for its exactitudes on these kinds of matters concludes, "We regard it as virtually certain that Phoebe is being described as 'a (or possibly "the") deacon' of the church [of Cenchrea].'

Authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles

2007-11-23T23:30:00.000Z

Back in the 60s and 70s, you could only find people who accepted Pauline authorship of PE (Pastoral Epistles) among the more conservative schools not exactly well known for critical scholarship.

Then in the early 1980s, Gordon Fee wrote his small but groundbreaking commentary on the PE which 1) provided a reconstruction of the situation behind the PE which made sense of the textual data; and 2) gave critical reasons refuting liberal interpretation of some of the data--yes, there are some significant differences of style, but they can be accounted for.

The impact of Fee's analysis was so great that my survey of the best six commentaries on PE earlier in this decade showed that four of the six accepted Pauline authorship. In my estimation, the best commentary on PE is by Robert Mounce in the Word Biblical Commentary, which is profoundly indebted to Fee in reconstructing the situation behind the PE.

I just finished reading through the PE in French and Greek. Time and time again, I found myself saying, "If this is by a forger or a pseudepigrapher, why would he have have bothered mentioning this detail?"

Part of the problem leading up to belief that PE are inauthentic is that scholars took Timothy and Titus to be pastors who were supposed to establish fledgling churches with a proper church order. This certainly isn't the case for 1 Timothy, for Ephesus was one of Paul's oldest churches, they had had elders there for at least half a dozen years, and Timothy was not serving as a pastor, but as an apostolic delegate to fix major, major problems there. (Many older commentaries and Bible helps such as the notes from NIV Study Bible are badly mistaken on these things).

The issue of ordaining elders is also a misstep behind the acceptance of the inauthenticy of PE. According to Luke, the laying on of hands as an act of commissioning for a specific role in the evangelical task is attested prior to Paul's missionary journeys. Why would he not lay hands on elders as he appointed church leaders?

In the case of Ephesians, Paul was not giving instructions on which people should be ordained as church leaders in a new church. Quite the contrary. The only reason why he had to appoint new leaders was because he, apparently, had laid hands hastily on several of them a few years earlier, and they turned out to be scoundrels. He disfellowshiped them, and the resultant vacancies necessitated the appointment of new elders.

Much more could be said.

The Kiss in Christian Fellowship

2007-11-23T23:23:00.000Z

Larry W. Hurtado (University of Edinburgh) has become one of my favorite biblical scholars, whose expertise is textual criticism and Christianity in the first two centuries. Nearly every page of his writings is fresh and relevant and teaches me something new.

He discusses the intimacy of the earliest Christian worship, explaining that Christians didn't meet in huge temples, but in people's homes. Even the homes of wealthier people could only accommodate 40-50 people, thus everyone had an intimacy with each other which probably exceeds what we have in today's church (excepting, of course, that which might be found in a vibrant small group).

Here is what he says about the holy kiss. Note my final comment after the quotation.

The simple exhortation to share the kiss, without any further explanation,
indicates that the gesture was quite broadly practised and familiar among the
first-century Christian groups. ...It is likely that the "holy kiss" or
"kiss of love" is to be understood as given and received in the worship
setting. Later references to the holy kiss in Christian writings of the
second and subsequent centuries consistently treat it as a liturgical action
[i.e., an act of worship], often linked specifically with the
Eucharist.

Also, we learn that it was given mouth-to-mouth, an
exchanged kiss, expressing mutual intimacy and affection among all congregants,
and that for the first century or so at least, the kiss was exchanged with
members of one's own sex and the opposite sex as well.

In time,
from fears of impropriety and in efforts to abate pagan rumours of Christian
promiscuity, later church authorities sought to restrict the kissing to members
of one's own sex. Similarly motivated were rules that the holy kiss was to
be given with mouths closed and that no second kiss was permitted...! (At the
Origins of Christian Worship, 42-43).

Hurtado goes on to discuss the differences between the holy kiss of Christians and the socially accepted kiss in the Middle East.

It is not enough to say that their kiss was the same as our handshake. Today, we will shake hands with anyone and everyone, but the common kiss of the first century was more restricted. You just didn't kiss everyone.

The kiss was for intimates--one's own family and perhaps extended family. The kiss may be extended beyond this for greetings to express somewhat extraordinary honor. However, the NT kiss was different. It was shared between all the members of the fellowship, and done so as an act of worship.

Tregelles and the Hortian Text

2007-11-23T23:15:00.000Z

(Some of this discussion was inspired by a 2005 or 2006 Society of Biblical Literature presentation by Peter Head on the text critic Tregelles, of whom I have no first hand knowledge.)

Few people incur the wrath of KJV-onlyites as Wescott and Hort do.

Throughout the 19th century, scholars were studying the thousands of variant readings which were known to exist in the Greek manuscripts. As they studied the manuscripts and the readings, scholars realized that some manuscripts agreed with others more than others. When they sorted it out, they came to a general consensus that there were three (more or less) broad streams of related manuscripts.

One of those streams came to be known as the Byzantine text type which, by a fluke of history, claimed the most manuscripts, the vast majority of which were 12th century or later.

Previously, naïve students of the text of the Bible assumed that whichever reading could boast of the most manuscripts was most likely to be the original reading. This method, if it could be called such, made the place of the Textus Receptus, secure and made all (English) Bible believing Christians feel confident about their KJV.

However, the work of various scholars in the 19th century, and especially of Westcott and Hort, unraveled this confidence. Once they demonstrated that all those manuscripts of the Byzantine Text were simply the offspring of one of the three or four grandchildren of the original text, scholars realized that you can't just count manuscripts to determine the original reading.

In effect, Wescott and Hort overturned the discipline of textual criticism from a democratic election into a something more like a representative republic. To press the analogy, it would be like the state of West Virginia with its 3 million people getting the same number of representative votes as the State of California with its 20 million votes.

Consequently, whenever someone might point out to 200 Byzantine manuscripts with a given reading compared to one or two manuscripts from another text type, the response would be, "So what? We don't count manuscripts anyway. We weigh them." Thus, a large quantity of late manuscripts supporting one reading only shows that the reading of one variant reading produced more manuscripts which are currently extant.

This overturning of the basic (pseudo)-methodology of the Textus Receptus (~ Byzantine ~ KJV), then is one of the great legacies of Westcott and Hort, and this is the reason why they are hated so much by KJV-onlyites. But there's more to the story….

KJV-onlyites rarely are capable of attacking Westcott and Hort on methodological grounds. The reality is, few of them are capable of reading Hort's famous introduction. Consequently, the attack against Westcott and Hort is almost entirely ad hominem. In particular, Hort is attacked for things like rejecting inspiration, or maybe even high doctrines like the Trinity…, whatever. (Apparently, little is known about Westcott's own personal life.)

Actually, KJV-onlyites know only one or two things about Hort, but their rhetoric gets fanned into ever increasing inflammatories and deprecations.

But now, the record needs to be set straight!

I'm not going to defend Hort. Yes, he was a liberal.

However! Let me tell you about an Englishman named Tregelles. Apparently, Tregelles was a devoted believer, deeply involved in the Brethren movement which continues to be Great Britain's equivalent of American Fundamentalism, albeit gentler. He was known for his personal piety and theological orthodoxy.

Tregelles was not famous like Cambridge professor Hort was, even though Tregelles was older. Tregelles had been working on his own edition of the Greek New Testament, being well ahead of Hort. But the two men struck up a serious camaraderie, resulting in Tregelles sending Hort his edition and notes on the Greek New Testament as each page was written.

To be sure, Hort was critical of Tregelles for his firm belief in scripture, but Hort was impressed by Tregelles' work. In fact, Tregelles had a huge impact on Westcott and Hort's New Testament. A comparison of Tregelles' text to Westcott and Hort's text would see a characteristic similarity between the two.

Scholars are in the habit of referring to the Standard Text (i.e., Nestle-Aland's critical text) as the Hortian text. In reality, however, perhaps we should speak not so much of the Hortian text, but of the Tregellian text!

With all this background information, it seems that we can all dispense with the vicious attacks against Hort for his liberalism. KJV-onlyites might be able to make hay, so to speak, by attacking Hort, but in reality, Hort's text was largely derived from a seriously devoted believer who was committed to biblical inspiration, theological orthodoxy, and holy living.

Elders, Deacons, and Baptist Polity

2007-11-23T23:01:00.000Z

Let me speculate as to why Baptists historically avoided the term "elder" (though, obviously there are exceptions, the most notable being "Elder Benjamin Randall").

Baptists, as we know, decided that the church's sole locus of authority should not be a ruling board. Of course, ruling boards were called "presbyteries" or "board of elders" or some such back then. Thus, the term "elder" in recent centuries had the connotation of a very powerful individual church leader who, with the help of a few other people, was in the habit of making all the major decisions for a church, without approval of the church membership. Thus, for example, we have the tragedy of Grace Church, Nashville, where the four member elder board dissolved a highly functioning church without any consultation or vote of the congregation.

Since our Baptist forefathers wanted no part of a system of church governance where a board of elders had sole authority over the church, I now speculate that they came to avoid the term "elder" precisely because it had such a negative conotation to them.The same happened with the term "bishop." Baptists exchanged the term "bishop," which connotated an authoritarian semi-Pope, for the more apt term "pastor" which conveys that the leader leads by persuasion, administration, and example, rather than by fiat.

In fact, since in recent history the term "elder" came to connote such a powerful church leader who, with a few others, made all the church decisions unilaterally, we might even be able to say that the term has evolved far beyond its meaning as expressed in the NT documents.

At any rate, since the term "elder" had this negative connotation, Baptists had to replace the term with another term. Of course, the Pastoral epistles portray deacons as church leaders, and so that term was readily available. Consequently, Baptists set up a system of leadership wherein a certain number of church leaders were elected to do pastoral kinds of ministry, without usurping the authority of the congregation. These leaders were just like the NT elders, but they didn't call them "elders" precisely because of the perceived evolution of the meaning of the term. In this light, again, I don't care if you call them deacons, or elders, or Grand PooBahs.

This group of people chosen by the congregation helps the pastor direct the affairs of the church, provides spiritual guidance to the church, helps formulate vision, ministers in various ways, helps hold the pastor accountable to the congregation, and represents the interests of the congregation. They don't however, usurp congregational authority. If an "elder board" operates on this model, then it is a "congregational" model, even if it calls itself an elder board. Essentially, it is Baptistic/congregational.

If, however, the board--whether called Deacons, Elders or Elderberries--has ultimate authority over the congregation, it is a "presbyterian" form of government.

Paul Might Have Said that, but He Meant Something Different

2007-11-23T22:55:00.000Z

Because of our view of inspiration—since we value the Book so highly, we sometimes over-exegete a passage and ascribe to it too much meaning. Sometimes, an inspired word gets phrased by the author in such a way not because the author meant to convey a point of theology, but merely to be poetic.

Here is one such example, using Young's Literal Translation, barbaric though it be….

For His blessed ones do possess the land,
And His reviled ones are cut off (Ps 37:22)

The oddity is that the ones who are reviled are written in the divine possessive: God's reviled ones. We're certainly familiar with the first line's phrase "his blessed ones," but the second line makes us scratch our heads and ask, Why would the psalmist refer to cursed people as being of God's own? (The standard English translations smooth out the oddity of the Hebrew, but there is nonetheless identical parallelism between the two possessive forms, and Young's accurately reflects this.)

If we over-exegete this passage, if we try to cull from the text a point of theology—as we normally do since we value the Bible so highly, then we end up creating some theological point about reprobates and non-Covenant participants (=unsaved people) being a class of "God's people." I can see it now—some Fundamentalist book titled The Cursed People of God, or some such; it smacks of a new chapter in Calvinistic supralapsarian electionism.

However, if we back off a bit, we will see that what determined the odd phrasing was not a point of theology, but literary considerations. The psalmist determined the form of the second line when he used the standard phrase, "his blessed ones." In Hebrew parallelism, the second half of the couplet (to use an English term) is supposed to correspond in some way to the first half of the couplet. So, in good literary fashion, the psalmist created the oddity found in the second half out of literary considerations, and not theological considerations. We don't need to write a new chapter in our systematic theology books to cope with this odd phrase.

This sort of thing happens from time to time elsewhere in the Bible, including the Pauline epistles. For example, it has been argued that Jesus is the same as the Spirit (non-Trinitarianism). This claim is made on the basis of 2 Cor 3:17 which reads,

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

The passage does indeed literally say that Jesus is the Spirit. But the question is not so much a matter of what Paul said, but what he meant by it. In this case, I think literary considerations were the motive for this odd phrase, and not theological considerations.

This issue may seem threatening to us who have such a high view of Scripture. Indeed, it ought to make us raise our defense mechanisms. I understand this a little bit better now as opposed to 10 years ago when I argued this issue with a significant Free Will Baptist scholar, with the two of us retorting back and forth, "But what did Paul mean?" and "But what did Paul say." Nonetheless, "grammatico-historical" interpretation requires us to take into consideration literary features to help us determine the meaning of words and phrases so that in some cases, the sensitive exegete may not be bound by the mere lexical meaning of words in order to get to the author's intended meaning.

David & Bathsheba: Understanding OT Narrative

2007-11-23T22:46:00.000Z

We hold the Bible in great esteem and wish it to rule our lives. So we constantly appeal to Scriptures in support of various issues which we are discussing. For the most part, Scripture is fairly self-interpretive, but on many contentious issues scripture lacks immediate clarity. The fact that the Bible was written so many years ago, and in a language and culture very far removed from our own, and sometimes in literary genres in which we're not experienced often requires more exegetical work to be done. All this is especially true of the Old Testament stories.

These stories are designed not just to preserve history. They were preserved in order to teach theology and the path of righteousness for Israel's generations in perpetuity. However, the moral of the story is not always obvious to us today as we listen to them in English in our 21st century North American context. Sometimes, we hear preachers or teachers build a case for behavior based on a reading of an OT story which is quite alien to the author's intention.

One example I might cite is that I heard a well-loved, hard-hitting preacher preach on Jacob and Esau to about 300 men who loved his style of preaching. He made a big point to say that since Esau was a hunter and Jacob preferred the indoors and was a chef, then Jacob was a "momma's boy." These 300 men, many of whom were very much hunters, and who were very much oriented toward male machismo, took away from this sermon that Esau was more oriented toward God's righteous path for men than Jacob. Exegetes grieve when a congregation's most hearty "amen's" arise at lines like, "Jacob was a momma's boy" rather than the main point of the story which comes in the form of the divine comment, "So Esau despised his birthright" (Gen 25:34). Regrettably, often a preacher's sermonic reflections are driven by crowd-pleasing one-liners than by exegesis.

OT narrative, however, is sometimes complex and not so easy to discern as my analysis of the Jacob and Esau story might suggest. Sometimes, the point is very subtle. For example, Gen 35:8 records Rebekah's servant Deborah having died and the place of her burial. The subtle point behind this comment often goes unnoticed until the sensitive reader asks, Why does Rebekah's death and burial go without biblical notice? This might be especially important since the death and burial of both Sarah and Rachel are indeed given notice. As we investigate the matter, we realize that Rebekah's last actions were her scheming to deceive Isaac into giving her son Jacob the birthright, her initiative in rescuing her son from Esau by sending him away from the land of his rightful inheritance, and her self-serving fomenting of contention regarding Esau's marriages to Canaanite women. With this in mind, we see that the biblical author wants to condemn her actions by not giving notice of her death and burial. Herein lies a cluster of theological and moral points: 1) trust in God who first made the promise that Esau would serve Jacob; 2) do not seize the initiative away from God in keeping his promise; 3) be not overly ambitious and self-seeking; 4) give proper respect and submission to the God-called head of the family. Much more could be said.

All this is prelude to a quick look at the narrative regarding the story of David and Bathsheba (2 Sam 11-12). Here are some pointers for getting the most out of the story without inventing unintended points.
One often noticed point comes in the form of the author's editorial notice that this occasion happened "in the spring, at the time when kings go off to war." Surely, this is an indication that the occasion for the sin arose while David was neglecting his mandate to take dominion of the Promised Land.
The sin is manifestly more flagrant by the rhetoric used by the loyal servant, "Isn't this Bathsheba…the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" Implicit in this turn of phrase ("Isn't this) is that David should indeed have already known something of who she was. Moreover, she is explicitly denoted as a man's wife, and this man was a well known man to David, who made his list of famous warriors in 23:39. Finally, the Gentile (Hittite) Uriah is shown to be more righteous than the Jewish king; the Gentile knows and lives God's way, but the God-privileged Israelite king does not.
David's neglect of the spring war campaign is made more flagrant by faithful Uriah's refusal to go home and sleep with his wife while the army and the ark were deployed in the field.
David's sin is again intensified by his cover-up plan to get Uriah drunk so that he would be taken home to sleep with Bathsheba: "David made him drunk."
Again, the sin is intensified not only because of Uriah's planned murder, but also by the unplanned deaths of some of the other men with him in battle.
David's service as the commander-in-chief is blackened further in that initially he was rightfully and predictably angry over Joab's battle tactics which caused the lives of a number of men, but then when he heard of Uriah's death, his anger was mitigated. Accordingly, he sends a message to encourage Joab, "Don't let this upset you…."
Despite the above clues being so obvious, the author provides yet another clue in the form of divine commentary: "But the thing David had done displeased the Lord."
Upon hearing Nathan's parable, David burned with anger and righteous indignation, showing his hypocrisy. He spewed forth a condemnation and punishment for the man. His own word of condemnation sets up his own judgment by God, and foreshadows the death of his newborn baby.
Another divine commentary is offered: "Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes."
David's restoration is explicit in his confession "I have sinned" and in Nathan's assurance, "The Lord has taken away your sin." Still, David would face the consequence, namely, the death of the child.
David's pleading, fasting, and self-humiliation would not remove God's judgment against the child. This is interesting in that there might be some poignant parallel to Moses' effective intercession for Israel. Confer also Hezekiah's similar, but effective prayer for prolonging of life.
Perhaps a main point of the whole story is encapsulated in 12:20. After fasting and praying in utter submission and humiliation, the child still dies. Despite this severe disappointment, once the child is dead, David gets up, washes, puts on body lotions and changes clothes so that he might go worship Yahweh in the house of the Lord. This can preach.
In light of the severe condemnation handed to David by the Lord, the question arises whether David will truly be restored. What's more, and this may be relevant to our modern day issue of divorce and remarriage, God blesses David specifically in regard to his relationship with Bathsheba. Here's what's striking:
--The biblical author no longer censor's David by referring to Bathsheba as Uriah's wife. Quite the contrary, she is now explicitly referred to as David's wife.
--David comforts Bathsheba. This meets with the author's approval as is implicit by several indications.
--The comfort David afforded to Bathsheba was explicitly connected to his going to her and lying with her.
--This renewed sexual relationship is given divine consent and sanction. This is explicit in that the child born to them (Solomon) was specifically mentioned as being loved by God. This is likely the only occasion in the Bible where a newborn child is specifically mentioned as being loved by God.
--David's response to this sanction by God is to give the child a second name, Jedidiah, which, in fact, means, "loved by the LORD."

Some of this analysis is more obvious than others. No doubt, a careful reading of the story in Hebrew would lead to more discoveries, as would an increasing understanding of Israelite culture and other OT literature. I myself am no expert in reading OT narrative, and hope to increase my abilities in the coming days. I have written this as an invitation to encourage further studies in reading OT narrative so that we can get the most out of reading our Bibles.

Basics of Translation Theory

2007-11-23T22:38:00.000Z

The Meaning of Ka’at
Let’s consider the Igkaadian language, a make-believe language. We find the occurrence of the word ka’at in a text, but we don’t know what it means. Since there is no Igkaadian lexicon (=language dictionary), we can’t look it up. So we do the work ourselves by finding as many occurrences of the word as possible. Note how the range of meaning changes in each sentence:

I’m going to the ka’at to get a drink.
Some would suggest the meaning “bar” or “drinking fountain,” etc.

Go to the ka’at and fill up your canteen as soon as you have pitched your camp.
Here the context suggested by “canteen” could be a campout, prompting some to suggest the meanings “river, spring, lake,” etc.

During the seventh inning stretch, I’m going to the ka’at to buy me a soda.
The context is a ball game during which a soda could be purchased. Thus, we should think of something like a concession stand.

During the next commercial, I’m going to walk into the kitchen to get me a cold soda from the ka’at.
The context is watching tv (as indicated by the reference to the commercial break). Here we find out that the ka’at may be located in the kitchen and that one can get a cold soda from it. Thus, ka’at could refer to a refrigerator in this context.

If we could just find a few more references to ka’at in the extant literature of the Igkaadian language, we could be more exact in determining its meaning. Unfortunately, in our case, this is all we have to go on. We’ll have to make a decision based on these few occurrences, unless perchance, archaeologists someday discover either more Igkaadian texts or another cognate language which has a word similar to ka’at. (To illustrate this last point, I may not know the Spanish word iglesia, but since it appears to be derived from the Greek word ekklesia, then I can usually surmise that iglesia must have something to do with “church.”)

[We should pause to note that a number of words found in the Hebrew Bible occur only once or twice anywhere in any Hebrew text. This makes translation very difficult. The KJV translators, for example, admitted that for some words, they were merely guessing the best they could. In the past 100 years, archaeologists have discovered a number of other Hebrew texts, and a number of Semitic languages related to Hebrew have also been discovered (Akkadian, Sumerian, Ugaritic, etc). This has helped immeasurably in translating those words which occur only rarely.]

Formal Equivalence vs Dynamic Equivalence
So, synthesizing the data above, we attempt an explanation of the word ka’at. Minimalistically (that is, “literally,” but in reality that term is inaccurate), ka’at is some sort of source for quenching one’s thirst. Usually, we would try to assign a one-word English equivalent (= gloss) equivalent to ka’at, but unfortunately, I can’t think of one.

To go beyond this minimalistic (“literal”) definition, the context must be ascertained. In some contexts, ka’at could mean a concession stand, a refrigerator, a bar, or an outdoors body of water such as a lake, spring, creek, or well.

Here is where “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence” part ways. Formal equivalence (the translation theory behind NASB, ESV, the old ASV, and to some extent NRSV) would generally translate ka’at with its one word minimal equivalent. On the other hand, dynamic equivalence (the translation theory behind NIV) would generally translate ka’at according to the fuller meaning supplied by the context of the individual passage.

An Example from the Greek
The above discussion of the imaginary Igkaadian word ka’at is applicable to the difficult Greek word sarx. Here are a few sentences illustrating how biblical writers may have used it:

Great Aunt Elsie would like to attend revival meetings this week, but her sarx is too weak to climb the steps up to the church building.
Here, Aunt Elsie’s body is too weak or frail.

We disciples wanted to pray with Jesus, but our sarx was weak.
Here, although somewhat ambiguous, the statement seems to reflect the context of the disciples’ great sleepiness.

An unregenerate person wants to do the desires of the sarx.
It seems here that sarx refers to human nature in all of its fallenness.

Do not eat sarx sacrificed to idols.
Here, sarx seems to refer to meat (or some other sort of food).

Ouch! Don’t touch me. My sarx is sunburned.
Skin....

No one knows where the sarx of Moses was buried.
Here, sarx seems to refer to a dead body.

Do not let anyone compel you to circumcise your sarx.
For Jews, the term sarx may refer to that part of the male organ which was cut off for religious purposes.

Jesus Christ was born son of David, according to the sarx.
Here (cf. Rom 1:2-4), the human lineage of Christ is referred to.

Meaning of Sarx: Formal and Dynamic
From all of the above examples, it is clear that sarx is “multivalent,” that is, it has many meanings depending on context. One might assign the word “flesh” as a minimalistic one-word gloss for it. This is what the NASB usually does. In contrast, depending upon context, the majority of modern translations will try to supply the most specific meaning to a given context. Thus, you will see the word translated in the NIV as sinful nature, muscle, meat, flesh, skin, body, human nature, muscle, etc., depending upon the context.

Inerrancy and Translational Theories
Some claim that inerrancy works better with formal equivalence than dynamic equivalence (see, for example, the gracious and positive contributions that Bro. Danny has made in a number of posts). The argument assumes “plenary verbal inspiration” (viz., God gave the biblical writers the inspired message in such a way as to guarantee that the Greek and Hebrew words they chose were sufficient and accurate to convey this meaning to their audience [at least this is close to how Forlines defines inerrancy]). They argue that since inspiration extends to the very words of Scripture, the English words which are in exact correspondence to the very Greek and Hebrew words should be used. In light of the foregoing examples, I think the weakness of this argument is apparent.
What would be the formal equivalence of sarx? Well, actually there is no formal equivalence to sarx apart from context! Meaning is determined entirely by context. That is why we should translate the meaning of the text (the con-text) rather than fragmenting it by translating minimalistically. I think most people can see that a so-called literal translation does not bring us any closer to the original meaning of the Greek. Consequently, I reject the notion that formal equivalency reflects inerrancy better than dynamic equivalence.

Formal Equivalency and “Translation English”
Every night on tv news, we hear many foreign politicians speak who are not fluent in English. This is what we call “translation English.” The speaker thinks of what to say in his own native language and then does a minimalistic translation into English, making his comments sound awkward.
While in India, I saw a sign written first in Hindi and translated minimalistically into English: “It is crime to make dirty the Taj Mahal.” A good dynamic equivalence translation would have ironed out that awkwardness.
Using an American dictionary, a Chinese restaurant manager once wrote “Check is not acceptable,” when good English idiom would demand something like, “Checks are not accepted” or simply “No Checks.”
If the hispanic reporters covering news in Washington had to go by formal equivalence, they would have to talk about El Presidente Bush en la blanca casa instead of casa blanca.
While overseas, I asked in French, “Ou est la salle de bain?” which is a word for word translation of the important English phrase, “Where is the room of the bath.” No one understood me, except for the one person who knew a little English. He explained to me that the proper phrase is “Ou est le petit coin,” which minimalistically rendered is, “Where is the little corner.”
This kind of awkwardness abounds in the formal equivalence translations (less so in ESV). This is why we read “coals of fire” instead of “fiery coals,” and “power of glory” instead of “glorious power.” Or, “the earnest of the Spirit” instead of “the earnest, which is the Spirit.” Or, “his meat was locusts and wild honey” instead of “his food was locusts and wild honey.” Or, “if any bowels (!) and mercies”(Phil 2:1). Many, many such examples abound. We who have been born and reared on KJV all of our lives have gotten so used to such awkwardness that we don’t even notice it. Put KJV’s Psalm 23:1 (“I shall not want”) into the hands of inner city youth in East St. Louis, and they won’t have a clue as to its meaning.

One should also note how formal equivalence lacks cultural sensitivity. KJV’s word for word formal equivalence of Heb 12:8 reads, “But if ye be without chastisement..., then are ye bastards, and not sons.” Few of us would otherwise use the somewhat crass word. The same is true for Saul’s statement that David “pisseth.” A formal equivalence seeks words to accurately convey meaning without causing the kind of offense which is otherwise absent in the original language.

Another example of cultural insensitivity of a different kind is the phrase about Adam having to work by the sweat of his brow. One translator working with a people in Africa who didn’t yet have the Scriptures in their language asked the people about this passage. They were entirely befuddled by the phrase “by the sweat of his brow.” The missionary later explained that in their tropical jungle setting, you can be sitting at ease in the shade of your front porch sipping lemonade and still have beads of sweat on your forehead. He asked the natives how they express the idea of hard work. They responded by talking about how all the men would pull with all their strength on a rope tied to a tree in order to uproot it. Their local idiom for such effort was, “busting their gut.” Here is just another example where dynamic equivalence works far better than formal equivalence in expressing the meaning of God’s word.

What’s Great about the Formal Equivalence Translations
While the formal equivalence translations are not the best for general reading or for scripture memory, they are extremely helpful in doing detailed exegetical work. For example, the ASV (1901) is the only commonly used English translation to reflect the five-fold repetition of the Hebrew word ‘bd in Exod 1:13-14:

And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor: and they made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of value of service in the field, all their service, wherein they made them serve with rigor.

Obviously, this is a very awkward translation, and ultimately, very poor. However, itnot good English, then it is not a good translation.
The NIV does a good job of maintaining a good balance of being obedient to two masters. The one master is the original language; the other is the receptor language (English). On one hand, slavish obedience to the original makes for a poor translation. On the other hand, over-commitment to the receptor language loses too much of the original language. NIV does an admirable job of serving both masters.
Again, NIV is not dynamic equivalent. It lies very much in the middle between formal equivalent and dynamic equivalent. Thus, while NASB, ASV, and ESV make for very good translations for doing lexical (word) and syntactical (sentence structure) studies for people who don’t know the original languages, the NIV is a premiere, perhaps the premiere translation for general use, for general reading, and for memorization.

Background Analysis of 1 Timothy

2007-11-23T22:27:00.000Z

(Much of the below discussion is at least inspired by Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Timothy, if not largely based thereon.)

A Translational Issue
On any reading of 1 Tim 3:15, it is clear that Paul states here the reason for having written this epistle, and so the verse is extremely important for the exegesis of the epistle. Further, from a strict reading of the KJV, it sounds like Paul has written this epistle for the express purpose of correcting Timothy’s behavior in particular: “These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God....” In light of the severity of this letter, the KJV translation would suggest that Timothy himself is the one who needs some pretty serious correcting.

In contrast to KJV’s emphasis on correcting Timothy’s behavior, the NIV translates, “Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household....” This translation indicates that Paul’s letter is a corrective to the people of the church, rather than a corrective to Timothy.

The difference here is because there is no expressed subject of the verb anastrephesthai (to conduct, to behave). The KJV supplies the second person singular (thee), the NIV supplies the third person plural (people), the NRSV and ESV supply the third person singular (one). Only the larger context can rightly determine who should be the subject of anastrephesthai (to conduct, to behave).

Timothy Sent to Fix the Church at Ephesus
We must remember that the church at Ephesus was practically in full revolt against Paul and Timothy. Paul had heard of problems at Ephesus. So, he dispatched his “go to” man Timothy to fix the problem (or maybe Paul and Timothy were traveling through, discovered the problem, and Timothy was left behind). Note how often Timothy is given the most difficult tasks in Paul’s missionary work; he must have been an incredibly dependable man, worthy of Paul’s comment “I have no one else like him” (Phil 2:20).

Timothy’s Initial Failure
After some time in ministry at Ephesus as Paul’s itinerate representative, Timothy had had enough of the church at Ephesus. (He sounds like some of the beleaguered pastors I know!) Timothy traveled some distance to meet Paul somewhere as Paul was journeying on to Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3). Timothy broke down and wept uncontrollably as he told of the crisis in Ephesus and how the church there had fallen apart (or at least, we might think this is a possible explanation of Timothy’s tears in 2 Tim 1:4). We see that the church leaders had refused to submit to Timothy’s leadership and exchanged the gospel for a bunch of meaningless talk, myths, and stupid controversies (1 Tim 1:3-6, etc.).

Radical Feminism
Not only was Timothy having severe problems with the church leadership, but also with the women as well. Ephesus was a city of radical feminism. It was the center of the Artemis cult (KJV: Diana), a religion which was run by women, featuring male slaves serving as prostitutes for the women adherents. Midwives belonged to the Artemis cult and would set up worship shrines in the rooms of the women in the process of childbirth, perhaps invoking Paul’s sideword and otherwise bizarre comment that “women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”

Consequently, women were used to running things, and as Christianity grew in Ephesus, some of their old ways crept into the new religion. The women “hankered” after marriage (1 Tim 5:11 NEB), were often idle and gossipy, “going from house[church] to house[church] saying things they ought not to” (5:13). They dressed gaudily (2:9), to show their wealth to the false leaders of the church who were themselves motivated by greed (6:3-10). During worship, these women seemed to have constantly wrangled with Timothy, undermining his authority (2:11-12). It seems fairly sure that the false leaders and these radical feminists were in league with each other.

Timothy’s Despair
I get the impression from Paul’s reference to Timothy’s tears (2 Tim 1:4), that Timothy may have even asked Paul to release him from his ministry in Ephesus. Some of us have been there and can sympathize with Timothy’s situation. I’m sure Paul himself was grieved to have heard all these problems and to see his “true son in the faith” brought to tears. However, he nonetheless returned Timothy back to Ephesus. He writes, “As I urged you when I went to Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus and command certain men not to teach false doctrine...” (1:3).

Timothy Sent Back to Ephesus
Before sending Timothy back to Ephesus, it seems that Paul came up with a plan to help Timothy regain control of the church. First of all, practical things such as prayer between the two men and some useful words of wisdom would have been in order. Next, Paul decided that it was necessary to excommunicate Hymenaeus and Alexander (1:18-20). Third, Paul would write a letter to the Ephesians.

Paul Addresses the Church through the Letter to Timothy
This third part of the plan, however, would have to modified somewhat. If Paul wrote the epistle to the church, the church leaders would not even bother reading it, especially when they got to the part about Hymenaeus and Alexander. So Paul sent Timothy back to Ephesus, promising to send a letter shortly. However, to assure that this letter would actually be read, Paul addressed it not to the church, but rather to Timothy. Timothy, of course, would announce that he received a letter from Paul and that he would read it to the church at Ephesus.

Meanwhile, Timothy did indeed excommunicate Hymenaeus and Alexander and implemented other ideas undoubtedly suggested by Paul while he awaited the letter. When the letter did arrive, Timothy read it to the congregation. On the surface, it sounded as if Paul were addressing Timothy directly. However, Paul’s words would constantly speak beyond Timothy to the members of the church themselves. And the transparency would have been quite thin!

This is seen especially in 3:15, “Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household....” In this verse, perhaps Paul purposely omitted the subject of anastrephesthai (to conduct, to behave) so that the subject would be ambiguous. At any reading, though, Timothy’s behavior was not the behavior being corrected.

Qualifications of Church Leaders as Case Specific
Note how much discussion Paul gives to qualifications of overseers, deacons, and deaconesses. See how some of the qualifications directly reflect the failures of the church leaders at Ephesus. The reason for this lengthy discussion is not so much to give us a set of ministerial qualifications for the 21st century North American scene, but rather because Paul had just excommunicated two of the church leaders, and there were some vacancies that needed to be filled. How often it is that a pulpit committee interviews a pastoral candidate in light of the weaknesses and failures of the last pastor!

So I think 3:15 primarily addresses the specific situation at Ephesus, although we must not overlook the general principles which might apply to comparable situations in the modern church.

Epilog
In the end, it seems that Timothy’s mission failed in Ephesus. My heart sinks at such thoughts, but this is the best view of the evidence. In 2 Timothy, the same problems seem to be very much alive. Alexander had left, but Hymenaeus picked up another friend, Philetus. Paul withdrew Timothy from Ephesus, calling him to his side during his difficult, final imprisonment. Paul warned Timothy, when he would make his way to Rome, to be on his guard against an Alexander the silversmith who did him “a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done” (2 Tim 4:14). If this is the same Alexander, it seems that we can blame him for Paul’s recent arrest, dungeon imprisonment, and ultimate martyrdom. (This evokes great emotion in me, even as I sit here typing.)

Not all was lost at Ephesus, however. In his later years, John the Revelator took up residence in Ephesus and wielded great influence there. In his address specifically to the Ephesians in Rev 3, he no longer needs to chide them for false doctrine. Instead they had forsaken their first love. The message seems to have been heeded, for early Christianity is well attested in Ephesus well into the following centuries.

Timothy as a Model for Keeping the Faith
Nonetheless, my heart goes out to Timothy, who stood alone for God against a wayward, difficult church, despite severe opposition and lack of personal respect (1 Tim 4:12). His stellar example should inspire us all to keep Paul’s charge:

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. Keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.
Keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time--God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen” (a collage of texts from 1 and 2 Timothy).

Historicity of the Lucan Birth Narrative

2007-11-23T21:52:00.000Z

Some scholars get a kick out of debunking our traditional understanding of Christmas. While our portrait of Christmas could sometimes be more accurate, the traditional essentials are true. And any historical improvements to the traditional understanding are likely to increase our appreciation of Christ’s birth, not diminish it.

Many efforts have been made to undermine the historicity of some elements of the Christmas story. One target in particular is the empire-wide census for the purpose of taxation. (For further reading, see the scholarly summation in I. Howard Marshall’s New International Greek Text Commentary on Luke.)

First, skeptics like to point out the fact that no independent record exists of an Augustan census (Luke 2:1-2). However, we are aware of the fact that Augustus brought major reforms to empire administration, that a major census would be an on-going enterprise of many years, and that local authorities sometimes would take a local census under the all-encompassing imperial mandate and under the emperor’s name. For example, our census in Luke may have been initiated locally, but the local governor would have his authority grounded ultimately in no one less than Caesar, and could rightfully claim he was doing so in Caesar’s name.

Second, skeptics reject the notion that a census would be done by requiring people to report to their hometowns, as Luke 2 indicates. However, we are aware of some censuses which required landowners to return to their hometowns for registration. Perhaps we are to assume that Joseph owned land in Bethlehem.

Third, skeptics question the presence of Mary on the journey. Two possibilities seem evident. First, we know that women of Syria—the geo-political region in which Herod’s kingdom was located, required women 12 years and older to register. Further, the delicate situation between a righteous man and the untimely pregnancy of his betrothed may have made it unwise for Mary to be left behind.

Perhaps the most difficult issue which remains is the date of the census. According to the biblical record, Jesus was born during the reigns of the Roman emperor Augustus and the Judean king Herod, while Quirinius was governor. The problem is that Herod the Great’s death is dated to about 4 B.C., and Quirinius’ rule is dated after Herod’s death, from A.D. 6-9, twelve years later or more. Biblical historian W.M. Ramsay argued from a famous Latin inscription that Quirinius also served as a military governor in Syria, alongside the civil governor during the conquest against rebels in northern Syria, and that this earlier governorship was dated prior to Herod’s death. Another explanation is that the census was initiated by the previous governor of Syria in 4 B.C., but only completed years later under Quirinius’ governorship. At any rate, we do not have to conclude that Luke was mistaken.

If a person approaches accords the biblical record with a modicum of respect, then the aforementioned moments of skepticism will be fleeting.

Deborah among the Judges

2007-11-23T21:36:00.000Z

In the narrative of Judges, a pattern emerges. It has come to my attention that some in recent years are convinced that Deborah was not a judge. This claim is supposed to be based on a comparison of the narrative pattern. I list here, from a quick perusal, the pattern as it seems to have been based on Othniel as the paradigm and invite the reader to see whether or not Deborah fits the pattern. The pattern is listed under each judge, but coloured gray if the element is not explicit in the narrative.

Othniel
Israelites did evil
God gave them over to oppression from enemy
Israelites cried out for deliverance
He raised up a deliverer
Spirit of the Lord came upon Othniel and he became a judge
Victory came
Israel had peace

Ehud
Israelites did evil
God gave them over to oppression from enemy
Israelites cried out for deliverance
He raised up a deliverer
Spirit of the Lord came upon Othniel and he became a judge
Victory came
Israel had peace

Shamgar
Israelites did evil
God gave them over to oppression from enemy
Israelites cried out for deliverance
He raised up a deliverer “He too saved Israel”
Spirit of the Lord came upon Othniel and he became a judge
Victory came
Israel had peace

Deborah
Israelites did evil
God gave them over to oppression from enemy
Israelites cried out for deliverance
He raised up a deliverer Deborah was judging Israel, Israel came to her for judgment
Spirit of the Lord came upon Othniel and he became a judge (Deborah is already depicted as a prophet, so as to make an explicit comment redundant

Victory came
Israel had peace ; Israel grows stronger and defeats Jabin; song of celebration

Gideon: he has the fullest array of elements of any of the judges
Israelites did evil
God gave them over to oppression from enemy
Israelites cried out for deliverance
God sent a prophet; also, an angel to Gideon
He raised up a deliverer
Spirit of the Lord came upon Othniel and he became a judge
Victory came
Israel had peace
Gideon gets a huge payment, etc…

Abimelech (the anti-Judge)

Tola
Israelites did evil
God gave them over to oppression from enemy
Israelites cried out for deliverance
He raised up a deliverer Tola rose to save Israel
Spirit of the Lord came upon Othniel and he became a judge
Victory came
Israel had peace

Jephthah
Israelites did evil
God gave them over to oppression from enemy
Israelites cried out for deliverance
He raised up a deliverer
Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah and he became a judge
Victory came
Israel had peace

Ibzan
Israelites did evil
God gave them over to oppression from enemy
Israelites cried out for deliverance
He raised up a deliverer
Spirit of the Lord came upon Othniel and he judged Israel
Victory came
Israel had peace

Elon
Israelites did evil
God gave them over to oppression from enemy
Israelites cried out for deliverance
He raised up a deliverer
Spirit of the Lord came upon Othniel and he judge Israel
Victory came
Israel had peace

Abdon
Israelites did evil
God gave them over to oppression from enemy
Israelites cried out for deliverance
He raised up a deliverer
Spirit of the Lord came upon Othniel and he judge Israel
Victory came
Israel had peace

Samson
Israelites did evil
God gave them over to oppression from enemy
Israelites cried out for deliverance
He raised up a deliverer
Spirit of the Lord came upon Samson (13:25); (he judged Israel 15:20)
Victory came
Israel had peace

Thematic Overview of the Epistle of James

2007-11-23T21:34:00.001Z

Themes in James

The value of trials and troubles
The problem of double-mindedness
Appropriate view of wealth and
Avoiding favoritism toward the rich
The end-result of tolerance of sin
Importance of listening and doing
The problem of an uncontrolled tongue
The relationship of faith and deeds
The wisdom manifest in right relationships with the people of God's church
Patience in suffering
Praying faithfully

Revival through Prayer: Case Studies in 2 Chronicles

2007-11-23T21:17:00.000Z

Revival through Prayer: Case Studies in 2 Chronicles

Rev. James M. Leonard
55th Annual Meeting
Council of Baptist Churches of North East India[1]

Introduction
Why, in its mature reflection, has the leadership of CBCNEI chosen the topic “Revival through Prayer”? No doubt, there is a genuine concern for revival by the leadership. Also, the leadership must perceive that revival does not come through new building projects, through new worship styles, or through any other number of worthy endeavors, but rather through prayer. In one of my more perceptive moments, I envisioned myself standing at the corner of my own church building trying with all my might to push it forward. But alas, no matter how hard I tried to push the church building forward, it didn’t move at all. Really, we have nothing we can do to move the church forward except to pray. Thus the topic is well chosen.

Why 2 Chronicles?

I have narrowed the assigned topic to consider revival through prayer in the context of 2 Chronicles. There are two reasons for my choice of 2 Chronicles.

Theology of the Temple in 2 Chronicles
The first reason for choosing 2 Chronicles is because of the centrality of prayer in its presentation of temple theology, a dominant theme in the book. As one reads the account of Solomon’s great dedicatory pray of the temple (6:14-42), one is struck by the emphasis placed upon the People of God as a praying community. Repeatedly and formulaically, Solomon refers to those occasions when the Israelites would come to pray to God in the temple. This theme is revisited by Jesus when, after chasing out the buyers and sellers from the temple, he declared, “My house will be called a house of prayer…” (Matt 21:13 NIV, and pars.). [2] As such, the People of God as a praying community is an important element of the theology of the temple.

Another major emphasis in Old Testament (OT) temple theology is that the temple is the place of the presence of God. More precisely, it is the house of God, the place where he lives. If we were to do an archaeological dig in the Judean hills, and if we were to find a building with a lamp stand, a table for food, and a chair to sit in, we would surmise that the building was likely to be someone’s house. And thus it is so with the temple, with its golden lamp stand, table of the Presence, and the Ark of the Covenant with its Mercy Seat as a throne chair. These particulars indicate that the temple was God’s house, the place of his abode.

Solomon was amazed that God would condescend to come down from heaven to dwell among his people. Yet this was a fact long engrained in the thoughts and minds of those ancient Israelites. One need only recall that the tabernacle was centered in the midst of the camp, with the twelve tribes surrounding it to highlight the point that God dwells in the midst of his people. In fact, the apex of this theological notion is found in the lofty and bewildering text which states that “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14 NIV).[3]

The fact that God dwells among his people is the basis for God’s hearing their prayers. By all means, Solomon asserts, God hears from heaven, but he prays that God would especially be present within the earthly temple and hear the prayers of his people when they come to it. Likewise, as Jesus transfers OT temple theology to the church, he emphasizes the fact that whenever two or three pray in his name, the prayers will be heard because he himself is in their midst (Matt 18:19-20).

In all this, one cannot help but be amazed at how eager God is to hear our prayers. Not many people are eager to listen to me teach or tell stories or complain. But God is eager to hear us. He is so eager that he condescended to dwell in the building built by Solomon and in the Church built by Jesus.

2 Chronicles 7:14 as Paradigm
The second reason for appealing to 2 Chronicles to inform us about revival and prayer is that its most well known and beloved verse is paradigmatic for OT revival:

[quote]…if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land (7:14 NIV). [/quote]

By paradigmatic, I mean that the author intended this passage to be the model for every generation to follow, and that it is the basis for evaluating the People of God.
The context of this well known passage is the construction and dedication of the temple. Once the temple had been constructed, Solomon gave a dedicatory prayer, a summary of which is found in the last 27 verses of chapter 6.

This dedicatory prayer is formulaic, with Solomon revisiting four basic points:
1. The likelihood of Israel’s straying
2. The assuredness of God’s chastening
3. The condition of Israel’s repentance and prayer for relief at the temple
4. The petition that God would hear and act

This four-fold formula is exemplified in vv. 36-39:

[quote]When they sin against you…and you become angry and give them over to the enemy…; and if they have a change of heart…, and pray…toward the temple I have built for your Name; then from heaven, your dwelling place, hear their prayer and their pleas…. [/quote]

After Solomon’s lengthy dedicatory prayer, the Lord answers him. The answer is dominated by two assumptions.

The first assumption in the Lord’s answer is encapsulated in the important word pairing, “My people.” The word pairing is pregnant with meaning. One element is the covenantal relationship between Israel and God. Related to this is the love relationship between the two. Further, the terminology implies fellowship. These concepts have significant implications for prayer. Specifically, it is through prayer that God and Israel enjoy all the prerogatives of covenant, love and fellowship inherent in the phrase “My people.”

The second assumption is encapsulated in the phrase “called by my name.” This modifying phrase completes the previous word pairing “My people.” Together, they produce the phrase “My people who are called by my name.” “Called by my name” indicates that Israel is supposed to reflect God’s character. Israel was supposed to live in such a way that God would “not be ashamed to be called their God” (Heb 11:16 NIV). Further, the phrase implies that Israel was to function as God’s ambassadors, speaking and acting under his authority and in his name.
Unfortunately, these two assumptions could never be assumed in the real life of Israel’s precarious history. In reality, Israel often did not fully participate in its covenantal life of love and fellowship with God. In reality, Israel did not often reflect God’s character or serve effectively as his ambassador. At such moments in its national history, Israel really needed revival.

This is an important point of application for our churches today. We must evaluate ourselves in such terms. Do our churches truly appreciate what it means to be called “My people who are called by my name”? Do our churches enjoy the covenantal life of love and fellowship with God? Do our churches reflect the character of God in such a way that it can be said of them, “Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God” (Heb 11:16 NIV). Are we engaging the world around us in the high position of God’s ambassadors who speak in the name of the high King? If our self-evaluation finds us lacking, then we truly need revival.

After expressing the presuppositions implied in the phrase “My people who are called by my name,” God sets forth the four conditions for revival. They are deliberate and specific:

1. Humble themselves
2. Pray
3. Seek God’s face
4. Turn from their wicked ways

Much could be said about each of these. One could examine them lexically, syntactically, and theologically, and even historically through narrative examples found in the OT. However, I would suggest that instead of an exegetical study of the four conditions, one would benefit more from a meditative examination of each of them. One does not humble oneself, pray, or seek, or repent by doing exegetical studies. The best way to know what these four conditions are is to participate experientially in them. If you want to know what they mean, meditate at length upon each one.

When the four-fold condition of revival is met, God gives a three-fold assurance:

1. God will hear from heaven
2. God will forgive their sins
3. God will heal their land

When God fulfills these promises, then revival is experienced.

The author of the book of Jonah uses this paradigm in his account of the great Ninevite revival. When the people heard the word of God, they met the conditions for revival. First, they humbled themselves. They put on sack cloth. Even the king who would be loathe to stand up for any ceremonial occasion, arose from his throne, stripped himself of his royal garments, put on sackcloth for himself, and sat down in a pile of ashes. The king and the people weren’t the only ones to put on sackcloth, but also the livestock was made to do so! These were extreme acts of self-humiliation which reflected a genuine state of heart.

Second, they fasted. Many moderns do not appreciate the spiritual discipline of fasting, and as such they do not realize that fasting is a natural consequence of urgently and wholeheartedly seeking God’s face. When people urgently and radically seek the face of God, food becomes secondary.

Some fasts are relative. For example, some people fast during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. This fast is limited to eating from sunrise to sunset; thus, a person is permitted to eat as much as possible before sunrise and after sunset. However, the situation in Nineveh required absolute fasting. They were not to eat any food at all. In fact, even water was prohibited. Further, the fast was extended to all the livestock. The point of all this is that seeking God’s face is serious business and takes precedence over even the essentials of life.

Third, the Ninevites turned from their wicked ways. The Ninevites were famous for their atrocious way of life. They made a practice of displaying the heads of their defeated enemies in great heaps. They were guilty of great war crimes against innocent people. Yet, when they heard the word of God, they turned from their wicked ways.

Finally, they prayed to God. Actually, the description of their praying is much more intensive. The text refers to them as crying mightily to God. This applied to every Ninevite. We might note that even the livestock could be said to cry aloud to God. The animals had participated in wearing sackcloth. The animals had participated in the absolute fast. No doubt, as a result of their thirst and hunger, every animal bawled and bleated as loud as possible. More than one commentator has suggested tongue-in-cheek that even the cattle repented.

The net result of the Ninevites humbling themselves, seeking God’s face, turning from their wicked ways, and praying is that God had compassion on them and averted his great wrath from them.

Of course, the Ninevites were not privileged with the status reflected in the nomenclature “My people who are called by my name.” Yet, perhaps this makes the Ninevite revival even more poignant for us: if God hears the prayers of the pagan Ninevites, how much more will he hear the prayers of the very people whom he has called and bestowed his own name. And if God is willing and eager to pour out his mercy and compassion upon the godless Ninevites, does he not earnestly desire to send revival upon those for whom he did not spare his own Son (Rom 8:32)?

Revival in 2 Chronicles: Rehoboam, Asa, and Jehoshaphat as Case Studies

If 2 Chron 7:14 is paradigmatic for the chronicler’s history of Judah, then we should see this played out in its histories of the Judean kings. I find the histories of three kings especially instructive: Rehoboam, Asa, and Jehoshaphat.

Rehoboam: The Issue of Humility (2 Chron 10:1-12:16)
Solomon’s son Rehoboam is notorious for having caused the secession of the northern tribes from Judah. When those tribes rejected his kingship, he mustered his soldiers for battle to invade the north. However, he was warned by a prophet not to go to war against the rebels. Having obeyed the warning, he was divinely established on the Judean throne.

In subsequent years, Judah experienced positive growth. Its defenses were increased significantly. There was great stability and political competency. Even the remote towns and villages were well stocked with supplies. More importantly, there was spiritual growth. There was widespread observance of the law, and many faithful worshipers migrated to Judah from the northern tribes because of Judah’s continuance in its covenant with the Lord.

All this growth came as a result of Rehoboam’s allegiance to God and obedience to the prophetic warning not to go to war against the northern tribes. Unfortunately, all this success fostered pride and self-reliance in the hearts of Rehoboam and the elders. They failed to appreciate that all this prosperity came at the hand of God’s blessing, and they no longer thought of themselves as lowly servants.

Jesus told a parable which is instructive for this context. When servants return home at the end of a long, hard day of labor in the field, they do not immediately begin to prepare their own meal so that they can relax and enjoy the evening. Rather, Jesus pointed out that they enter the master’s house and immediately prepare the master’s meal, and only afterward do they make preparations for their own meal and comfort. Jesus then told his disciples, “So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty’” (Luke 17:10 NIV).

Because Rehoboam did not display this attitude of humility, God chastised him and Judah by sending Shishak of Egypt against him. God’s message was then made clear: “You have abandoned me,” God told Rehoboam, “therefore, I now abandon you to Shishak” (12:5 NIV).
In the case of Rehoboam and his leaders, this ominous message was heard. They realized that Shishak’s attack was part of God’s judgment, and they submitted themselves to God’s rule. This is indicated in their united confession, “The LORD is just” (12:6 NIV).

True to his promise to Solomon in 2 Chron 7:14, the Lord heard their prayers. The text twice indicates that the Lord mitigated the calamity at the point when they humbled themselves (12:7, 12).

In Rehoboam’s case, everything seemed to be perfectly good, with peace and prosperity everywhere. But at such moments, Satan uses our pride to entice us away from God. We may even entertain the notion that we are humble enough, that we don’t have a problem with pride. Yet, humility is a first step toward revival. If you don’t need revival, then you don’t need to worry about humility. However, the reality is that we all need revival, and, this being the case, we need to humble ourselves.

Humility begins with understanding who God is in contrast to what we ourselves are. We are not God, yet we usurp God’s position and prerogatives. We assume that we have created our good situation, and we fail to recognize that every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of lights (James 1:17). We forget that we cannot even take our next breath except by God’s own good graces.

Much more could be said about humbling ourselves, and those who realize their need for revival would do well to explore deeply their profound need to humble themselves. If we think we are already sufficiently humble, we are deceiving ourselves and we will never experience revival.

Asa—The Issue of Seeking the Lord (14:2-16:14)
Asa, Judah’s fourth king began his rule with the stunning command that Judah was to seek the Lord (14:4). This is in keeping with one of the conditions for God sending revival.
Early in his reign, Zerah the Cushite marched a vast army against Judah. This became a test of Asa’s faith. Since Asa had already committed himself to seeking the Lord, his faith was proven in this test.

In response to the Cushite crisis, Asa prayed to God, recognizing that God is absolutely unique and unlike anyone or anything else. He appealed to God for help, and he confessed his reliance upon God. Perhaps some of the lessons from Rehoboam’s annals had been studied carefully by Asa, and thus he avoided the sin of self-sufficiency committed by his predecessor.
As a result of Asa’s prayer, God struck down the Cushite army. Then God sent Asa a message with the following principles:

The Lord is with him when he is with the Lord
If Asa were to seek the Lord, the Lord would be found by him
If Asa were to forsake the Lord, then the Lord would forsake him

But perhaps the heart of the message was that God encouraged him to be strong and not to give up, for his work was to be rewarded.

Immediately after this event, Judah experienced a great revival. The idols were removed. The altar was repaired. The revival was so evident that faithful worshipers of God in northern Israel migrated to Judah because “they saw that the LORD his God was with [Asa]” (15:9 NIV). More importantly, there was a great stress on seeking the Lord. The Israelites made a covenant to seek the Lord “with all their heart and soul” (15:12), and they swore to do so “wholeheartedly (15:15). And they kept their oath, for the chronicler comments that they sought the Lord “eagerly” (15:15).

As a result of the Judahites diligently seeking the Lord, God gave them rest[4] on every side (15:15). Thus, they experienced revival.

I think there is an important lesson to be learned from this. God granted Asa the strength to perform great ministerial feats as a result of him eagerly and earnestly seeking God’s face. For example, the problem with idolatry was one which was entrenched in Israelite society. Other kings had sought to rid the countryside of various local idols, but without success. Idolatry had become too entrenched for even strong and godly kings. Yet, when Asa sought the Lord’s face, he was empowered to remove them successfully.

This is a truth which applies to our situation today. Drug addiction and sexual immorality among youth may seem to be so entrenched as to make the removal of such abominations impossible. The caste system may seem so entrenched in some areas of the Church in India as to make its removal impossible. Corruption in government may seem so entrenched as to make its removal impossible. Nominalism seems so entrenched within some segments of the tribal churches as to make its removal impossible. So also, the idols of Asa’s day seemed so entrenched as to make their removal impossible. Yet, when the people of God earnestly and eagerly seek the face of God, God empowers them to overcome these societal sins and restore the land. God encourages us, telling us that our work will be rewarded, if we really do seek him with all our hearts.
I wish we could move on to the next king, but there is an unfortunate episode which concluded Asa’s life. Israel was attacked by one of its enemies, and instead of seeking God’s help, Asa made an alliance with Syria. When God’s prophet spoke against Asa, he became furious and imprisoned the prophet.

As a result of Asa’s behavior, God struck him with a terrible, painful foot disease. Again the issue of seeking God’s face is an important factor in the story. The text says that Asa still refused to seek the Lord, even though the foot disease was extremely painful. In fact, Asa preferred rather to seek help from the witch doctors who practiced spiritistic medicine. In such a pitiful and sad state, he died. Seeking the Lord is a lifetime endeavor, one which will never be fully completed until we see him face to face.

Jehoshaphat—The Issue of Prayer and Praise (20:1-30)
Of the three case studies, this one is the most joyous. Jehoshaphat was faced with an overwhelmingly vast army, brought together by a Moabite and Ammonite alliance. The appearance of this vast army was a great surprise to Jehoshaphat and to Judah.

The king resolved to seek the Lord. He proclaimed a fast, and he prayed.

The content of Jehoshaphat’s prayer is important. First of all, he recognized God’s omnipotence and his rule over all kingdoms. Second, he asserted the prerogatives granted by God to Solomon at the dedication of the temple. That is to say, Jehoshaphat asserted Israel’s commitment to pray at the temple in all situations. He also cited the grievance against his enemies and his deep dependence upon God. He then made reference to Israel seeking God by saying, “Our eyes are upon you” (20:12 NIV).

God responded to this prayer by giving his assurance to Jehoshaphat.

The revelation of this assurance prompted a great time of worship. The king bowed, setting the example. Then all the people worshiped, as led by the Levites. Next, the king appointed soldiers to sing and praise as part of the army’s formation for battle. The anthem was “Give thanks to the LORD, for his love endures forever” (20:21 NIV). It must have been a great sight to see all the Judean army, in mass formation, singing, praising, and praying to God.

Even as they were worshiping, God gave them the victory. The text reads, “As they began to sing and praise, the LORD set ambushes against the men of Ammon and Moab and Mt. Seir…” (20:22). The end result of this great time of prayer and praise was a great victory for the people of God.

I have seen this principle at work several times. I was in the city of Jalandhar, in the state of Punjab for several days of ministry among the churches there. The Christians there were new Christians; they had accepted Christ only two or three years earlier. They were some of the happiest Christians I have ever seen in my life. Their deliverance from fear, sin, and evil spirits were very much a part of their communal recollection. Their worship services were characteristically full of great joy. There was a great revival movement happening there, and the Christians simply assumed that it was just a matter of time before the whole city would turn to God. In fact, they looked for the conversion of the entire state of Punjab!

In contrast, I visited another city in mainland India where the church had been in existence for many years. In fact, one of the churches had been established more than 150 years ago. Yet, these Christians seemed to have lost their joy in worship. They had developed a “siege” mentality in which they felt like they were powerless to share the gospel with their non-Christian friends, family, and neighbors. Worse, the churches in this city seemed to be unable to cooperate with each other.

I am sure this latter example is not God’s idea of a healthy church. The remedy for this situation goes back to the formula of 2 Chron 7:14. The church must humble itself, pray, seek God’s face, and turn from its wicked way.

A Final Word

The words of the Lord found in 2 Chron 7:14 are not haphazard or arbitrarily constructed. Nor are they merely formulaic, as if one could experience revival by checking off a four point list; seeking the Lord, repenting, humbling oneself, and praying requires a full-fledged devotion that exceeds such a mechanical approach.

Perhaps even the notion of seeking revival is misguided. Perhaps in all our eagerness for revival we sometimes forget first and foremost to seek the Lord. We are called to seek the Lord, not to seek revival. So often, the church pursues programs and activities in the hopes that revival will come. As admirable as fresh ministerial approaches may be, they are a poor substitute for genuinely seeking the Lord.

In one of the many echoes of 2 Chron 7:14 found throughout the OT, Jeremiah records the Lord’s gracious invitation to seek him. He writes,

[quote]“I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you,” declares the Lord… (Jer 29:11-14). [/quote]

This passage reflects the amazing fact that God is eager for our fellowship. It also emphasizes that God will graciously present himself and “reward those who earnestly seek him” (Heb 11:6).
Spanning the centuries and crossing many a cultural divide, the Lord issues the same invitation to our churches today: humble yourselves, pray, seek God’s face, turn from your wicked ways. Each admonition requires much meditation and much action. Much is required of us, but God rewards those who seek him. And in doing these things, revival will come.

**********************************

[1] This paper approximates the seminar twice presented at the Annual Meeting at Sivasgar, India, 22-23 April 2005. The author expresses his deep appreciation to CBCNEI for the invitation to teach and preach, and is thankful for the privilege of representing ABC-USA at the meeting.
[2]Despite much scholarly discussion of the OT idea behind Jesus’ “house of prayer” saying, little reference is ever made to the obviously important dedicatory prayer of Solomon.
[3]As remarkable as this passage sounds in English, the Greek and the Hebrew behind the Greek is even more remarkable. Skenow, the Greek word behind the English phrase “made his dwelling” is the verbal form of the noun skenos, which is typically rendered as “tent.” Through the use of this term, John is probably conferring the tabernacle/temple (tent) theology of the OT upon Jesus. Further, the consonants (radicals) which form the Hebrew word Shekinah (in reference to glory of God as manifested in the temple), are comprised of the same consonants which form the Greek words skenow (to make one’s dwelling) and skenos (tent). This phenomenon is probably intentional.
[4] The term “rest” is an OT technical term denoting something of the restoration of the life of Eden. It can be seen as a remedy to the Adamic curse of labor. It was the remedy also to the intensive labor Israel experienced in Egypt. As such, God led them to the land of rest. David was not permitted to build the Temple, but the privilege was given to Solomon precisely because he was a man of rest to whom God would grant rest. The apex of this theological motif is found in Matt 11:28-30 where Jesus offers rest to all those who are burdened and weary.

Why I'm Studying Coptic

2007-11-23T20:37:00.000Z

Somebody pm'd me and asked about my PhD project, explaining they were interested in how my studies in Coptic were going.

Interested in Coptic Matthew? I asked. Are you crazy?

In prior years, our interest in the ancient versions was that they might help us with text critical issues. For example, in 1 Tim 3:16, we're not sure if the text is supposed to read "who" or "God." Whichever is the correct reading, Paul goes on to connect the word to Jesus. If "God" is the correct word, then here you have an iron-clad reference to Jesus' deity. If "who" is correct, then you lose this prooftext for his deity.

The difference between "God" and "who" is that God is spelled theos--actually, the th is one letter, the letter theta. Theta looks like a round 0 with a dash going through it. In contrast, "who" is spelled os.

The reason why these two words were confused is that Christians always "abbreviated" theos with the first and last letters: theta and sigma with a line over both letters. Thus, the two words looked nearly alike: who--OS; and God--OS (with a dash in the 0 and a line over top).

Since Coptic and the other two ancient versions (Latin and Syriac) were translated in the second or third centuries, and since they have completely different translation words for "who" and "God," they tell us what their Greek manuscripts read. In these languages, you can't confuse "who" and "theos." This is especially important since we don't have any manuscripts of 1 Tim 3:16 earlier than the fourth century.

But my particular project goes in a different direction. I'm working on a specific manuscript named Codex Schøyen. It came to light back in 1999 and is owned by a private collector in Norway (http://www.schoyencollection.com/Coptic.htm#2650). It supposedly dates to the early fourth century (300-325), and if true, it is the oldest substantial copy of Matthew's gospel we have; it is the earliest text of Matthew in 11 whole chapters.

Few have published on the manuscript. Only two monographs exist, the authors of which have died since 2003 (Schenke and Boismard). Their work was methodologically faulty and their theories probably untenable. Apart from these two, Tjitze Baarda, a retired professor in the Netherlands, has written three articles. As far as I know, however, I'm the only one working on it now. (I invite additional information….)

Of course, this manuscript is already extremely important due to its old age. But what makes this manuscript even more interesting is that its text is rather different from all the other manuscripts of Matthew. We would use the technical term "wild," relatively speaking. Nearly every verse has two or three unique readings, often more. For example, the paralyzed man lowered through the roof had been paralyzed for 18 years; when Matthew was called and left his tax collector's booth, it was to Peter's house that they went for a meal (with many tax collectors and sinners); they don't accuse Jesus of blasphemy when he forgives sin; the text almost never says "behold" (in stark contrast to biblical Matthew); instead of Jesus' fame getting spread throughout "all the land," it spreads in the district (without "all"). The list could go on and on.

But otherwise, each verse of Codex Schøyen corresponds to our biblical Matthew. This project is important, especially in these last 10 years, because some scholars are making dramatic claims that the biblical text changed wildly in the late first, second and third centuries. The two dead scholars referenced above used Codex Schøyen to accentuate this claim.

My task is to give a more reasoned explanation for the peculiarities of this text. I have a long way to go before really understanding how this text was ever produced, but I think I will be able to explain a good number of peculiarities simply as translation technique, and a good number of peculiarities as normal text critical issues. Hopefully this will de-mystify this manuscript, and keep it from being the poster child of the chaos mongerers and extreme sceptics.