As I continue to meander through the Psalms I, once again, stumbled upon Psalm 131 and thought it tied in nicely with the last post and the idea of relaxing, having full confidence in God as our parent (although, certainly not a father in this case!).
Anyway, our household currently has a nursing child in it, so this simile is particularly poignant for me.
I think we all have times in our lives when we seriously just need to relax... just let things rest in the hands of God and relax.
I don't necessarily claim to know how to do this very well but there have definitely been times in my life when I've needed to relax and, no doubt, there will continue to. I was reminded of this a few weeks ago as I have continued to read through the Psalms in the LXX. I was reading through Psalm 46 that day and ran into the famous phrase from verse 10. Most translations have the phrase, "Be still, and know that I am God."
However, the New English Translation of the Septuagint translated this verse as "Relax, and know that I am God!" Relax!
It's amazing how just a slightly different phrasing can catch your attention, isn't it? Of course, before I wanted to meditate too much on the thought of relaxing in God I wanted to know if this was a trustworthy way of translating this word:
The LXX uses the word, "sxolasate" (scholasate). This word means "to have time or leisure for" or to "be unoccupied, stand empty" (BDAG).
This word is relatively rare in the NT. It is used in 1 Cor. 7:5 as the word "devote" (in most translations) in the phrase "devote yourselves to prayer." In other words, make the time for prayer. It is also used in Mt. 12:44 in the other sense of "emptiness" or "unoccupied."
So, for the most part, I think this word could very well be translated as "relax" based on this word... but what about the original Hebrew? Is sxolasate a fair translation of the original Hebrew word?
Well, apparently the Hebrew word is "raphah" which means "to sink, relax, sink down, let drop..." It sounds like there's probably something to this!
So while we might all still think in terms of "Be still" maybe we can let this idea of relaxing in who God is shape how we view what being still actually looks like.
In what ways do you "relax and know" that He is God?
Here he's doing a silly little promo for the SBL's (Society of Biblical Literature's) new critical Greek Text of the New Testament. They are doing their best to give the NA27/UBS4 a run for their money! And yes, in case you weren't sure, this is funny.
And while we're at it, I want to share a link with you that may prove to be extremely valuable for those who care. Here (yes, click here) is a website that someone has put up listing EVERY SINGLE CHANGE in the various forms of the NIV (NIV'84 - TNIV - NIV'11). This is an insane amount of information! So, if you want to know how these various updates differ, this is the place to go.
Ah, good ol' Joshua:
Yesterday Ben Witherington posted an interesting discussion between himself and colleague Lawson Stone. Drs Witherington and Stone are both Profs at Asbury Theological Seminary. Witherington is Professor of New Testament Studies and Stone is Professor of Old Testament Studies. Here they get into a gracious debate about the nature of violence in the Bible and the idea of God as a Warrior. If you've ever struggled with the violence in the Bible or the whole issue of war, non-violence, and pacifism you should check this out. Very interesting.
A while ago I discovered a website by a guy named Jim LePage. Jim is a graphic designer and has been doing a project simply called "Word." Basically, he's been doing "book covers" for each book of the Bible. He's come up with some pretty interesting stuff. Check it out: here. Click on the picture to see a larger view and a write-up/reflection on his thoughts as to why he did what he did for that particular book.
Here are a few samples.
Some of them are pretty straightforward, like this one from Nehemiah:
Some of them are mildly ironic, like Job:
You get the idea.
Ecclesiastes:
1 Samuel:
Judges
All of the ones I posted here are pretty tame. Others of his are a little more provocative. There are some of these that, in his own words, "will probably not be hanging in the youth room of your church."
Anyway, check out his pictures and his little write-ups.
Some of you may be aware that the NIV has been undergoing an overhaul. Well, the revision is pretty much done and, while it won't be in print until next year, they have given the text to BibleGateway.com so that people can preview it. So, head on over to BibleGateway (click here) and check out a few of your favourite verses.
Just for clarity: the revision has been referred to as the "NIV2011" during this process to help distinguish between the current NIV (1984) and the revised one. However, when it hits the printers it will simply take over the name "NIV" and the older one will become known as the NIV1984. The only reason why I mention this is because this is what you will find on BibleGateway's site.
There are about a zillion reviews of this revision online so I don't feel the need to do a critique/comparison here (nor have I read it extensively yet). However, as I've casually browsed through it I noticed a few things:
Yaaaay! The "inn" is no more!: Yes, one of my old Christmas hobby horses (seen here and here) has been corrected in the updated NIV which now reads: (Lk 2:7) "7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them."
Gender Inclusive Language: For a lot of people this is a big one. The new NIV has followed suit with the NRSV; they have used inclusive language where they believe it fits the context but then use a footnote to inform the reader of what they have done. Here's what I mean: (Rom 1:13) "13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters,[d] that I planned many times to come to you..."
We then see that footnote [d] reads: "The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in 7:1, 4; 8:12, 29; 10:1; 11:25; 12:1; 15:14, 30; 16:14, 17."
I find it interesting that this is the reversed version of what the ESV did. The ESV translated "adelphoi" simply as "brothers" but then had a footnote saying that, because the word is referring to a family unit, it could equally be translated as brothers & sisters.
There's lots of other stuff that could be mentioned but there's no need for me to do it. Check out the revision yourself and let me know what you think! I would highly recommend that you read (or at least skim) the translator's notes (click here).
If you read a handful of verses and don't notice any big differences, that's because approximately 95% of the text is identical to the old 1984 NIV.
I've been doing some prep for a study I'm going to be leading through the book of Micah. As part of my prep I was reading through Micah in the Septuagint (LXX). For those of you unfamiliar with the LXX, it is (in simple terms) the Ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament.
Why would anyone study the Greek OT when we have the Hebrew OT?
Well, most importantly, it is well documented that the Early Church used the LXX as their scriptures! The LXX was
the "Bible" for the vast majority of Christians during the apostolic era and beyond (in fact, the Greek Orthodox Church still uses the LXX as their OT). So, if we want to understand what the early Christians believed it is obviously very helpful to read and understand the scriptures that they were using. There are other compelling reasons to study the LXX, but I'll leave it at that for now.
Anyway, as I was comparing the LXX to my ESV (based on the Hebrew text) I ran across this:
Micah 1:8 (ESV) 8 For this I will lament and wail; I will go stripped and naked; I will make lamentation like the jackals, and mourning like the ostriches.
...versus...
Micah 1:8 (NETS - LXX) 8 For this she shall lament and wail; she shall go unshod and naked she shall make lamentation like that of dragons, and mourning like that of the daughters of sirens.
For those of you who might care:
wJV drakovntwn(hōs drakontōn: of serpents) ... yes,
dravkwn
/ drakōn, "serpent" is where we get our word “dragon” from!
wJV qugatevrwn seirhvnwn(hōs thugaterōn seirēnōn: of the daughters of sirens)
Without getting into the details of why the Hebrew and Greek are so different, what struck me (I was quite shocked!) was the appearance of sirens in scripture (and dragons for that matter! Although "serpent" is probably a better translation) .
For those of you who might not be familiar with sirens, they are legendary figures from Greek mythology. Supposedly they were beautiful sea women who would lure men to their deaths with their beautiful voices. They would sing their irresistible songs and sailors would then seek out the source of the music only to crash their ships on the rocks and drown.
Probably the most famous encounter with sirens is in Homer's Odyssey (book 12... portrayed here in this picture) where
Odysseus plugs his men's ears with wax so that they can't hear the voice of the sirens while he straps himself to the mast so that he can hear their beautiful song without the danger of succumbing to it.
So, while this is certainly an extremely loose translation of the original Hebrew text, it definitely portrays a very vivid picture of the mourning prophesied by Micah.
There is very little doubt that "serpents/dragons" and "sirens" were not part of the original text written down by Micah (or his scribe) however, as I already mentioned, this is what the people of the early church would have read and thought of as scripture during the first few centuries of Christianity.
Just imagine! Thousands upon thousands of Christians... for literally centuries had serpents and sirens used as similes in their scriptures! What might the Apostle Paul have said about this text had he been preaching from Micah?
What do you make of pagan, mythological figures showing up in scripture?
Can you think of any other examples of this type of content showing up in scriptures?
Anyway, over the course of history different Greek authors and poets adapted the sirens and eventually they became mermaid-like creatures... always singing their irresistible song and luring people to their demises. Understandably they came to represent indulgence and temptation.
And so I find it appropriate that Starbucks uses a siren as their logo. It's not quite as clear on their newer logo, but their original logo shows the siren quite clearly.
All of us who are Bible readers are pretty familiar with poetry in the scriptures. However, for most of us, our experience with Biblical poetry is pretty much limited to the Psalms. We probably also understand that sections of Job, the prophets, etc are also done as Hebraic poems, but honestly, the only way we really get that is 'cause our English translations indent the text in a way that says to us: "THIS IS POETRY."
Without having at least a basic understanding of Hebrew or Greek there's no way we'd know that certain sections are poetry. This is where having a GOOD commentary helps immensely.
Recently I've been walking through Paul's letter to the Colossians with a group of guys.
Colossians just happens to be one of the New Testament books with a strong poetic presence. There isn't a lot of poetry in the New Testament (although there is likely a lot more than we usually make note of; ex. 1Tim3:16; 2Tim2:11-13; etc) and with the language barrier, what poetry is there we often miss.
One of the most amazing, powerful, and beautiful images of who Christ is, is provided for us in the form of the poem in Col. 1:15-20. Maybe in another post I'll break this one down, because I love it and think it's amazing! ...
... but this isn't the kind of poetry/literary device that I'm talking about. With this poem we can see it's structure and form even in English and can, as such, identify it as poetry. There are also sections of Colossians that are chiastic (don't know what a chiasm is? Click: here). These can also be identified in English.
But there's so much more going on within the text that we just can't see without the help of either a good commentary or a knowledge of (in this case) Greek.
Here are a couple of examples:
Alliteration:
Colossians 2:1-2 (ESV) 1 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ...
It was Ben Witherington's Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Colossians that pointed out to me that the phrase "all the riches of full assurance" is, in fact, an alliteration: pan ploutos tes plerophorias.
Rhyme:
Here's where Witherington's emphasis on rhetoric really comes into it's own (speaking of Col. 2:16-19):
"Again, this section can best be appreciated if heard and not read. For example the end rhyme sets the cadence in 2:16 with brosei, posei, and merei and in vv. 18 and 19 with thelon, ton angelon, embateuon, kraton, ton haphon, syndesmon, and then epichoregoumenon and symbibazomenon. The length of the terms goes from two syllables to three to seven and six. By the very sounds of the rhetoric, Paul is building to a conclusion and the most polysyllabic terms, those that make the biggest impression, are served up last" (pg 151).
I know that this might look and sound a little technical, but surely you can see how (even if you don't know a lick of Greek) these groups of words rhyme with each other and that the rhyming words are grouped together by the number of syllables.
Punning?:
Colossians 2:8 (ESV) 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
In N.T. Wright's commentary on Colossians(his IVP/Tyndale commentary, not the "for everyone" commentary) he proposes that the Greek verb for "take captive" (sylagogein) is a pun off of synagogue (synagoge). This makes perfect sense providing you agree with his thesis that the threat to the Colossian church is one with Jewish roots (ie. don't get "taken captive" into a "synagogue").
So, obviously not many of us will ever learn the original languages of the Bible in a way that we would be able to catch these subtle (or not so subtle) poetic/literary devices, but we are all capable of picking up a good quality commentary! Unfortunately, the more accessible the commentary, the less likely it will pick up on stuff like this... it's the more difficult-to-read, scholarly commentaries that will make note of this.
What other literary devices can you think of that show up in the NT?
How important do you think it is that we are able to identify these literary devices?
How do the existence of poetic/literary devices in a text influence how we interpret/translate a passage of scripture?
Those of us who are Christians and regularly read the New Testament are used to the imagery of light. We are familiar with statements like "I am the light of the world" (Jn 8:12) and "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all" (1 Jn 1:5), etc...
However, last spring I was going through the covenant passages and ran across an interesting description of what happened when God made His covenant with Abraham:
Genesis 15:12, 17-18 (ESV)
12 As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him... 17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. 18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram...
At the time I found this imagery of darkness striking and intriguing but didn't think too much about it until just recently as I read through the book of Exodus where I found more darkness associated with the presence of God. As Moses is up on Mt Sinai receiving the Law we see this:
Exodus 20:21 (ESV)
21 The people stood far off, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.
And Deuteronomy's description of these events is very similar:
Deuteronomy 4:11 (ESV) 11 And you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom.
And when Solomon dedicated the newly built temple:
1 Kings 8:12 (ESV) [also: 2 Chr. 6:1] 12 Then Solomon said, "The Lord has said that he would dwell in thick darkness...
We also see a fair amount of darkness language associated with God in the Psalms. This is just one of numerous instances:
Psalms 18:9-11 (ESV) 9 He bowed the heavens and came down; thick darkness was under his feet. 10 He rode on a cherub and flew; he came swiftly on the wings of the wind. 11 He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him, thick clouds dark with water.
Now, of course there is also a whole lot of light language used to describe God... in fact, as we would suspect, there is much more light language than there is darkness language but I find these scriptures fascinating.
What is your initial reaction to associating darkness with God?
What do these darkness scriptures say to you about who God is?
One of the things I've really noticed in reading Romans again is that it's dangerous to isolate passages. Paul's reasoning is so circular (addressing a certain topic and then re-approaching it from a different/contrasting angle) that it becomes really important to make sure that we grasp the bigger context of the letter before drawing conclusions from a specific passage. Because of this, Romans is really easy to "proof-text."
It is because of this greater context that I think we need to make sure that when we read these verses at the beginning of Romans 2 that we see ourselves as being the ones addressed. I think there is the temptation to read the end of chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 2 as addressing other people. In contrast, I think the full context of Romans tells us that God's judgement falls on all people; these passages are talking about me.
The problem is that, in at least some sense, we are all hypocrites. Of course, this theme is developed further in chapter 7 but I think we see the beginnings of this thought process here in verses 6-8. Unfortunately, I see both vs. 7 and vs. 8 at work in my life. I strive to "...by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality..." but all too often it is vs. 8's "self-seeking" that is lived out in my life.
So in this passage Paul continues to lay the foundations for his letter: there is not a single person upon whom judgement does not fall. (it's not until later on in chapter 3 that Paul really starts talking about the solution to this predicament)
This brings to my mind our tendency as North American Evangelicals to dwell so much on forgiveness and freedom that we lose the sense of the enormity of our failure to live as true, image-bearing humans. Our (ie. my) inability to live holy lives is nothing less than catastrophic.
I think that this is something many of us need to spend a bit more time meditating on... I know it might not be "fun" to dwell on such thoughts, but that's not the point is it?
I'm not sure how to segue that into something to spark comments so I suppose I'll just leave it there! I guess maybe the upside to this post is we're not alone; we're all in the same boat (vs. 11)!
We all stand condemned before God and there is no excuse.
That's the gist of this final section of Romans chapter one: Romans 1:18-32.
As we leave behind Paul's introductory comments and finally begin to interact with his main thoughts we see that he starts off by stating the problem: the righteous shall live by faith (vs. 17) but no one is righteous and there's no real excuse (18-32).
Paul is laying the foundations for what is to come. Before we can understand what it is that Christ has accomplished we need to understand why He did what He did. Paul lays it out for us in strong, vivid language.
The Breakdown:
vs. 18-23: God's judgement and wrath are coming on humanity because we have ignored the revelation of God (evident even through nature) and chosen to go our own way.
vs. 24-25: idolatry; worshiping the created rather than the Creator
vs. 26-27: sexual immorality; specifically homosexuality
vs. 28-32:in some sense, God gives them what they want and they reap the consequences of that lifestyle.
I don't know that I can think of another passage in the NT that so starkly states the human condition. Paul's analysis of the state of the world is striking and, unfortunately, fits with our world today just as well as it fit his world nearly 2000 years ago.
However, I also think that it's a bit unfortunate how I've seen this passage used. Often this passage is used in a "fire & brimstone" kind of way. Christians go around and use this to judge and condemn the world around them. However, I'm not sure that is the way that Paul intended this passage to be used. Like I said before, Paul is setting the foundations for his argument, he is stating our common condition.
That common condition is that all of us are under God's condemnation... and it's just that: God's judgement. Notice in vs. 18 that it is God's wrath which is revealed from heaven. It is God who is going to judge the world, not us.
In fact, in 2:1 he warns the Romans not to go around judging others because we are all guilty of these kinds of sins. After all, isn't that what chapter 3 is all about (3:10-12, 22-23)?
I think we should contrast this with the mission that has been given to us from God: the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:16-21). God has entrusted us with the Good News(after all, that is quite literally what euangelion means: "good message"... but we've already talked about that in past posts). In other words, He's got the whole judgement thing taken care of, our task is to spread the positive aspect of this message which is that, even though we are under God's judgement, we can be reconciled to God.
Those are just some of my thoughts coming out of this passage.
OK, so I promise that I'll try to do more than just two verses at a time, otherwise it'll take forever to get through this book, but Romans 1:16-17 sort of stand on their own as the real starting point of Paul's letter.
Because it's only two verses, I'll provide them here: (ESV)
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith." [if you want to read this in another version click: here.]
I think most of us are pretty familiar with these verses, so I'll leave it to you to comment on them however you feel led, but it was a phrase from vs. 17 that stood out to me: "...from faith for faith..."
The way the ESV phrased this had me confused for a bit.
Here's some translation samples:
"...from faith for faith..." ESV
"...from faith to faith..." NASB, KJV, NKJV
"...through faith for faith..." NRSV
"...by faith from first to last..." NIV
"...from start to finish by faith..." NLT
Without a doubt it is the first two options that are the most literal (the only difference being how to translate the preposition, "eis" which can mean, depending on the context, "into, unto, to, towards, for, among").
However, based on the phrasing in Greek it is quite possible that this phrase may be idiomatic, as the NIV & NLT seem to lean towards (the ESV has a footnote on this phrase which states: "Or beginning and ending in faith" which agrees somewhat with the interpretive translation of the NIV & NLT).
Is there a theological difference between these first two options?
Does the Gospel reveal the righteousness of God from faith "for" or "to" faith?
Is there a difference?
Based on how you interpret that, which of the other translations do you think explain it best?
So in our second post on the book of Romans we are still finishing off Paul's introductory statements.
If you don't have a Bible with you, you can read todays section here: Romans 1:8-15.
Doesn't Paul just look insanely suave in this picture :)
Anyway, let's get to the text.
What stood out to you?
Probably what stood out to me is in verses 11 & 12. What I love is that Paul sees this "spiritual gift" that he want's to give the Roman Christians as being mutual encouragement. Isn't this a big part of the beauty of a healthy, functional church? I don't know that there is a more joyful thing in Church life than to see a church and it's leadership mutually encouraging one another.
Not only does Paul want to give encouragement to his fellow believers, but he also desires to receive encouragement from them.
Encouragement isn't just supposed to flow one-way. Paul wants this to be mutual; it's a two way street!
Of course, there are other things that I could talk about in this brief section but I'll leave the rest to you.
Until then, some thoughts: (maybe more for meditation than for comments... but I'm OK with either)
In what ways do you see mutual encouragement in your church?
In what ways are you encouraged by the leadership of your church?
In what ways do you encourage the leadership of your church?
So yesterday I was thinking (a dangerous pastime, i know:), and realized that it has been a while since I've been through the book of Romans. And then I thought, "Hey, why not walk through Romans on the blog?"
I've seen people do these sorts of series on blogs, but I've never done it, so let's give it a try!
Will you walk through Romans with me?
I know that many of you will have studied Romans at some point and so will have lots to offer. But this doesn't need to be a strictly academic "study" of Romans. Whether your approach is more academic or more devotional doesn't matter. Leave your thoughts. I just ask that your comments be centred on the text we are talking about; with Romans we could get side-tracked with a tonne of rabbit-trails and this is going to take long enough as it is :)
My goal is to post twice a week (Tuesdays & Thursdays/Fridays?) ...but I make no promises.
Most of you know that my preferred translation is the ESV and so it is likely that most of the time I will be referring to it's text. Feel free to bring in whatever translation you like. I will post a link to the text from "Biblos.com" so that you can select whatever translation you like.
Romans starts off in a typical Pauline manner: a run-on sentence. Yes, these 7 verses are one single sentence in the original text! [In Koine Greek there are no grammatical rules forbidding "run-on sentences" so this often becomes a translation issue, particularly when translating Paul's writings]
Here's the English translation breakdown (in alphabetical order):
ESV = 1 sentence
KJV = 1
NASB = 1
NIV = 4
NKJV = 2
NLT = 8
Kudos to those translations that managed to keep it as a single sentence in English (although some stretched it a bit by using a few too many : and ; - KJV).
Keeping it to one sentence in English is great, but when you read it you understand why some translations chose to break it down for us; these 7 verses can be a little hard to follow. But, this is part of Paul's writing style, so we'll just have to get used to it!
As I was working through this greeting I started trying to work out what his main point is (aside from obviously functioning as a greeting/preamble to his letter). There are so many asides (ie. dependent clauses) that it's hard to figure out what the main sentence is.
Nonetheless, I think we get a little insight into the passion that drives Paul here. He can't even introduce himself without preaching the Gospel! He has barely given his name and status ("slave" & "apostle"... I think "slave"is a better translation than "servant"or even the more literal "bond-servant"... what on earth is a "bond-servant?"... it's a slave; a "servant" who is "bound"; ie. NOT FREE) before he goes off and starts preaching theology. That's Paul for you!
So, anyway, will you join me as we journey through Paul's letter to the Romans?
What insights can we glean from this first, long sentence?
So, I have a pretty busy week going on here and don't have time to do a proper post... sorry.
Instead I will leave you in good hands. Here is an interview from the Euangelion Blog that I read recently talking about the authorship of Hebrews. Michael Bird provides us will a little preface and then conducts the interview:
The authorship of Hebrews is a funny question. The eastern church attributed it to Paul, Origen was ambivalent about it, suggestions have included Barnabas and Apollos, but a small cohort of scholars have suggested Luke's authorship of Hebrews or else Pauline authorship via Luke. There has been interesting proposals on this topic of late. One contribution is David Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews(Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, forthcoming 2010) - which I have not read yet. The other contribution to the subject is an essay by Andrew W. Pitts and Joshua F. Walker entitled "The Authorship of Hebrews: A Further Development in the Luke-Paul Relationship" which is forthcoming in S.E. Porter (ed.), Paul's Social Relations (Pauline Studies 7; Leiden: Brill, 2010). I spoke to Andrew Pitts about their essay and he answers my questions below:
1. What started your thinking about the Pauline "source" of Hebrews?
We began working on this project during the 2008 annual meeting of the ETS-SBL meetings in Providence and Boston. At the meetings, we talked about the different features of Hebrews that point to authorship—style, vocabulary, its apparent oral qualities, theological viewpoints and manuscript tradition, among others. We had always thought that a Luke-Paul collaboration was possible and so we set out to examine various strands of evidence to see what direction they might point in. The somewhat recent trend toward understanding Hebrews in an oral context seemed to have some significant implications for authorship. If Hebrews is a speech, then it may have had stenographer (speech recorder). The content and manuscript (external) evidence pointed to Paul while the linguistic and literary (internal) evidence seemed to us to indicate Lukan involvement. This theory seemed to handle the bulk of the evidence presented on this matter, evidence which was often dichotomized into Luke only and Paul only data. But both sets of data, to our mind, seemed significant and neither could be easily side-stepped. We found, then, that a Pauline origin best explained the main content of Hebrews, accounting for elevated style of the document via Luke’s involvement.
2. What is the basic thesis of your chapter on the authorship of Hebrews?
The evidence we examine suggests that Hebrews likely represents a Pauline speech, probably originally delivered in a Diaspora synagogue, that Luke documented in some way during their travels together and which Luke later published as an independent speech to be circulated among house churches in the Jewish-Christian Diaspora. From Acts, there already exists a historical context for Luke’s recording or in some way attaining and publishing Paul’s speeches in a narrative context. Luke remains the only person in the early Church whom we know to have published Paul’s teaching (beyond supposed Paulinists) and particularly his speeches. And certainly by the first century we have a well established tradition within Greco-Roman rhetorical and historiographic stenography (speech recording through the use of a system of shorthand) of narrative (speeches incorporated into a running narrative), compilation (multiple speeches collected and edited in a single publication) and independent (the publication of a single speech) speech circulation by stenographers. Since it can be shown (1) that early Christians pursued parallel practices, particularly Luke and Mark, (2) that Hebrews and Luke-Acts share substantial linguistic affinities and (3) that significant theological-literary affinities exist between Hebrews and Paul, we argue that a solid case for Luke’s independent publication of Hebrews as a Pauline speech can be sustained. We don’t claim to have “solved” the problem of authorship in terms of absolutes or certainties, but we do think that this is the direction that the evidence points most clearly.
So, what do you think?
If you find this interesting and want to read more, please do so. The interview continues: here
There is a word used in the New Testament that provides us with a wonderfully vivid picture of what Jesus accomplished as the Christ. This word, triumph(qriambeuvw), is only used twice in the Bible:
2 Corinthians 2:14 (ESV) But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession,and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere.
Colossians 2:15 (ESV)
He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
This word, triumph, is not simply another word for "being
victorious" (the word for victorious, nikavw, is used 28x in the NT). This word comes from a very specific practice from the ancient
world which the Romans perfected.
Since every single person to whom the New Testament was originally written lived under Roman rule it is safe to say that they would all be familiar with this practice and it is quite likely that a significant number of them would have witnessed something very similar to a triumphat some point in their lives.
The Roman Triumph was a celebratory procession that marked a great victory and the end of a war. This procession (a glorified parade) was designed to heap praises upon the victorious General and to heap abuse and shame upon the hapless losers.
But not just any soldier or General could qualify for a proper triumph. No! they had to meet a strict set of criteria in order to qualify. They had to:
1. be a of a certain social class and from a proper family line
2. kill a minimum of 5,000 enemy soldiers
3. bring their army home with them (symbolizing that the victory was so complete that there was no need to leave soldiers behind to keep the peace)
4. the senate had to approve and endorse the triumph
5. etc... (there were a lot of criteria)
Once the General met all of these qualifications he could have his triumph which looked roughly like this:
1. Leading the parade were the members of the senate who endorsed the triumph
2. Trumpeters and priests with incense (engaging the senses of the onlookers... notice how in 2Cor2:14 Paul talks about fragrance...)
3. Carts and wagons full of the spoils of war
4. the conquered war leader/king with his family and other important people of the conquered nation all of whom were bound
5. the victorious General with his family and other important people. The General is crowned with the laurel wreath.
6. finally the procession is rounded out with the disarmed, defeated army who gets to march through Rome while the people ridicule them.
And once the whole procession reaches it's destination the defeated army is sold into slavery and the defeated leaders are publicly executed. This usually happened either by crucifixion or strangulation: both of those emphasize the helplessness of this once powerful leader.
Take a few minutes and watch the video below. This gives you an idea of what sort of imagery Paul and Timothy were using when they wrote 2 Cor. & Col. This is the imagery they wanted to conjure in the minds of their readers/listeners:
[warning: this is a little graphic]
So, I'm going to leave the application of this to you!
What is the significance of Paul/Timothy's use of triumph?
What does this say about what Jesus has done?
What other thoughts do you have that this brings to mind?
Matthew 24:37-42 (ESV) 37 As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. 42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.
As I've mentioned before (and as you can see in the side-bar) I've been reading Ben
Witherington III's book The Living Word of God. In his chapter, "Truth Telling as an Art-Form" BW3 uses the above passage as an example of how certain texts are often abused.
For years these 6 verses have been used to describe "the Rapture." As I read BW3's interpretation of this passage I felt like I was slapped across the face! What is described here is so NOT rapturous! In fact, it is very much the opposite of what we picture when we think of the rapture. After thinking through this I was very much frustrated that I had never really read this passage properly before.
Often it is only verses 40-42 that are quoted from this passage and what is left out is the context of the analogy that Jesus is using: Noah.
"As were the days of Noah...they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."
What is described in the following verses where two people are side-by-side and one person is "taken" has nothing to do with 1 Thess 4 or any other passage that supposedly describes the Rapture. What Jesus describes here is the opposite.
Two people will be side-by-side and the people who will be "taken" will be those who (as in the days of Noah) are"swept away" in the flood of judgement.
After all, that's exactly what happened with Noah. The righteous (Noah and his family) were left behind to restart God's creation while the unrighteous were destroyed.
And so, it is not the righteous who will be taken away... it is the righteous who will be left behind! It is the unrighteous who will be swept away.
So, if you want to keep your ideas of the Rapture you'll have to use different scriptures than this one!
I don't know why I had never thought of this passage this way before. Now it seems so obvious, and it makes way more sense in the full context of Jesus' teachings on end times... too much dispensationalism in my Sunday School I guess!! :)
So, what do you think:
What do you think about this interpretation of Mt. 24?
Have you ever had something like this happen where you've thought of a certain passage a certain way most of your life only to have it flipped around on you?
What other passages do you think are often misinterpreted?
So, my main point from last week was that we need to let the Bible serve its own agenda rather than us pushing our agenda onto it. We need to come to the scriptures and let them shape us; let them tell us what they are designed to say.
One of my biggest beefs with "creationists" is that in many (...but not all...) cases I don't think they use the Scriptures properly. Week hermeneutics = poor theology.
Maybe I'm a heretic but I honestly don't think that the point God is trying to make through Genesis 1 is an historical (by modern standards...), chronological account of how He created.
If He thought it was important to let us know the exact "how", He would have given us more specifics. As it is, Genesis 1 is VERY unspecific (scientifically/historically speaking). Genesis 1 is moving; it is beautiful; it is powerful... it is theological... but it is not scientifically or historically precise.
If God wanted it to be, He would have made it that way.
If God wanted Gen. 1 to be scientifically/historically accurate He would have explained how there was "light" & "dark" (Day 1) before there was sun, moon, stars (day 4).
If God wanted Gen. 1 to be scientifically/historically accurate He would have explained how there was "evening" & "morning" (every day) before He had created the sun and moon (day 4).
In fact, how were there "day"s before day 4? How were they measured? Were these metaphorical days (day/age theory... Heb. "yom")? Were they 24 hr. periods (the Hebrew is rather ambiguous)?
There is just as much theory and speculation in creationism as there is in evolution.
Please do not read anything into the picture below: it's a joke! :)
As I mentioned last week, Genesis 1 is a Hebraic poem.
The 6 "days" of creation in Genesis 1 follow an ABC - ABC formula (with "day" 7 providing the "D" conclusion):
Day 1. A
Day 2. B
Day 3. C
Day 4. A
Day 5. B
Day 6. C
Day 7. D
Each of the "days" has a parallel.
A breakdown of the structure of Genesis 1 is as follows:
A. Day 1: Light and Dark || Day 4: Sun, Moon, Stars
B. Day 2: Sea & Sky || Day 5: Fish & Birds
C. Day 3: Fertile Earth || Day 6: Land Animals (including Mankind)
D. Day 7: Rest
In the first half of the parallel God creates something and then in the second half He populates it: ie. Day 2 - God creates the sea; Day 5 God creates Fish.
Remember, most scholars agree that it was Moses who wrote Genesis. This was written so that it could be read to (not by) the people of God: it was an oral culture. Things were written so that when they were read they could be remembered (hence the Hebrew emphasis on REPETITION).
This was written to a people who did not know or value science. It was written to a people who needed to know who God was, what He had done, and how they were called to live in response to that.
These words still speak powerfully to us today but we cannot impose our western/modern cultural expectations onto an ancient religious text. When we do that we come up with some wacky stuff!
In the end I believe that what we are intended to know is simply this: GOD CREATED.
God created all that is.
God created us:
A. in His image
B. as the climax of His "good" creation
C. to live in unity with Him & the rest of His creation.
I am not trying to say that really getting into creation-science is wrong or bad, 'cause it's not. I think it is important to have "specialists" in all areas of Biblical scholarship... but it should be just that: people who are passionate about the theology of Genesis, not people who are passionate about reading science into the text.
"Asking the [Bible] the right sort of questions, and avoiding asking the wrong ones, is a key not only to understanding the Bible as a written expression of God's Word, but it also prevents us from creating more troubles in interpretation than are necessary" (Ben Witherington III; The Living Word of God, 25).
********
I have provided, as bookends for this post, two quotes that I hope can emphasize the point I am trying to make:
I hope that in post-modernism we as Christians may be able to regain a view of the Bible that was damaged during the modern era. Following the Enlightenment much of Western Christianity bought into the worldview of modernity. One of the results of this was an emphasis on "Systematic Theology." Systematic Theology was a way of approaching theology that followed the scientific method. Observe the following quotes from two prominent Christian Systematic Theologians:
“…the theologian must be guided by the same rules in the collection of facts, as govern the man of science.” - Charles Hodge
“the laws of methodology are as essential in the science of systematic theology as in any other science” - L.S. Chafer
“... the Bible contains the truths which the theologian has to collect, authenticate, arrange, and exhibit in their internal relation to each other” - Hodge
I won't take the time and space right now to argue with these quotes other than simply saying that I think this approach to theology has had some very destructive results (if you want some of these ideas just ask and I can comment on them). One of these results is, in my opinion, the largely pointless debate of creationism/evolutionism.
One of the biggest follies Christians have committed is attempting to claim scientific truth in the scriptures. Just ask Copernicus, Galileo, etc...
Obviously this is a hugely dense topic with a tonne of baggage so there's no way I can deal with this with any justice in a blog post but for now I will just highlight one or two points.
Genre, people... genre. In most cases it is not very difficult to identify the genre of any given passage of scripture. For example, to argue that the earth is flat because Ps. 135:7 talks about the "ends of the earth"; or to say that the sun goes around the earth because Ps. 104:22 says that "the sun rises"... to argue these points is just plain silly. Why? (aside from the fact that science has clearly proven otherwise) Because it is poetry! Why on earth would one attempt to derive scientific fact from a sacred poem? Maybe it's just me, but you'd think that a religious poem would be trying to address something other than the natural sciences.
Here's the thing: the Bible has it's own agenda. In a sense it is providing us answers to questions that we may not be asking. So part of the interpretive task for any and every Christian is to find out what questions we need to be asking it (see top & bottom quotes). When we come to the scriptures with our own questions/hypothesis we are almost guaranteed to be misinterpreting it.
It is coming out of this that "Biblical Theology" has risen. The emphasis in Biblical Theology is to read the Bible as a whole and to discern what God's agenda is in the written Word and then yield our agenda's to His.
In short: Systematic Theology starts with our questions and looks to the Bible to answer them while Biblical Theology starts with the Bible's answers and asks us to change our questions.
[This is not to say that all Systematic Theology is bad or that all Biblical Theology is good; nor is it saying that Systematic Theology isn't Biblical or that Biblical Theology isn't in some sense systematic. They are just two different approaches]
So, if we are to even begin to address the creation/evolution debate we need to come to the creation account with no agenda (as much as is possible) on our own part. Or maybe I should say, our only agenda needs to be to hear the answers that God provides us with and then ask if we've been asking the right questions.
I'd like to keep going but I'm not sure how much more you poor readers will keep reading... maybe more next week.
Please provide me with your thoughts and comments :)
********
"Even when only partly understood, the Bible remain(s) bigger than the niches to which it (has been) relegated. For it requires that we be hearers of the Word,
listening for what it asks us, not bringing ourquestions to find the Bible's answers, but prepared to have our current questions revised or even discredited by its own" (James McClendon; Ethics, 37).
I think it goes without saying that all churches claim to be Biblically rooted, so I always think it's kind of funny when people say things like, "well, we're just trying to get back to the way they did it in the Bible." First of all I think it's funny because it comes across as more than a little pretentious (as if the rest of us aren't "biblical") and secondly... well, that leads me into the bulk of this post:
Whenever we're dealing with hermeneutics (interpretation of the scriptures) there are a number of questions that need to be asked. One very important one is this: is the text we are looking at descriptive or prescriptive? In other words, is the text we are looking at simply describing stuff that took place (with little or no bearing/obligation upon us to respond to it in a given way)
or is the text clearly stating something in such a way that it demands a specific response from us as we read it?
Our discussion on "church" is the perfect example. What we see in the NT is this:
1. Christians gathering at the temple/local synagogue to hear the scriptures read (no Christian would have their own copy of the scriptures).
2. they would then leave these rather large gatherings and meet in necessarily smaller groups in their own houses in order to discuss what they heard from the scriptures, pray, and break bread.
Now, the whole house church movement (backed up by Viola, Barna, the Dales... which started
this set of posts) is centred on #2. They see the descriptions of meeting house to house and say that the truly Biblical model is based on small groups of Christians meeting not in church owned buildings but in homes.
But I don't know if they asked this important hermeneutic question: is what we see in the NT (when it comes to ekklesia) descriptive or prescriptive?
When the NT writers recorded what the ekklesia was doing was it simply a description of how they chose to meet? Ie. there is no obligation for future generations of Christians all around the globe to meet in this precise manner.
Or when the NT writers recorded what the ekklesia was doing was it prescriptive? Ie. how the early Christians met is the way that God requires all of us to be meeting.
It is because of this greater context that I think we need to make sure that when we read these verses at the beginning of Romans 2 that we see ourselves as being the ones addressed. I think there is the temptation to read the end of chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 2 as addressing other people. In contrast, I think the full context of Romans tells us that God's judgement falls on all people; these passages are talking about me.
vs. 26-27: sexual immorality; specifically homosexuality 
I think most of us are pretty familiar with these verses, so I'll leave it to you to comment on them however you feel led, but it was a phrase from vs. 17 that stood out to me: "...from faith for faith..."
Often it is only verses 40-42 that are quoted from this passage and what is left out is the context of the analogy that Jesus is using: Noah.
As I mentioned last week, Genesis 1 is a Hebraic poem.
key not only to understanding the Bible as a written expression of God's Word, but it also prevents us from creating more troubles in interpretation than are necessary" (Ben Witherington III; The Living Word of God, 25).
