Just Relax!

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?

How well do you do that? Why?

Take a few moments and relax!

I found a Unicorn!

Yup, I found a unicorn... in the BIBLE!

Well, sort of.

I've been reading through the Psalms for my regular devotions, and to mix it up I've been reading them in the Septuagint (LXX); yes, I'm on a bit of a LXX kick.

Anyway, just yesterday I was reading through the famous Ps 22 when I bumped right into a unicorn. Needless to say, neither of us were expecting it, but neither me nor the unicorn were hurt in any way, so I think we're all good.

Any normal translation will read something along the lines of this:

Psalms 22:21 (ESV) "Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen!" [ESV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT, NKJV all say "wild oxen"]

What I read in the LXX was:

Psalm 21:22 [22:21] (SAAS) "Save me from the lion's mouth, My humiliation from the horns of the unicorns."

That I know of, there are only 3 published English translations of the LXX (Sir Lancelot Brenton's, the St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint [SAAS], and the New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS]) and they all have "unicorn" in this verse!

The word here is "monovkerwV" (monokeros) meaning simply, "one-horn" (mono = one; keras = "horn"). So, with the help of my old Greek prof, we put together the following:

- The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament).

- This translation was done by Jews in Alexandria, Egypt

- The term "wild oxen" has been taken to be referring to an antelope type animal known as an "oryx"

- In Egypt, the hieroglyph for oryx is something that looks a lot like: ó

- Based on the hieroglyph one can easily see how people would then call the oryx a "one-horn"

But, why then would it not just be translated as a "one-horn" or oryx?

Well, the fact is that this word, monokeros/one-horn, was also used in ancient Greek literature to describe what is thought to be the origin of the "myth" of the unicorn.

Ctesias, a Greek physician from the 5th century BC, writes about an unusual creature they (supposedly) found in India:

"[§45] In India there are wild asses as large as horses, or even larger. Their body is white, their head dark red, their eyes bluish, and they have a horn in their forehead about a cubit in length. The lower part of the horn, for

about two palms distance from the forehead, is quite white, the middle is black, the upper part, which terminates in a point, is a very flaming red. Those who drink out of cups made from it are proof against convulsions, epilepsy, and even poison, provided that before or after having taken it they drink some wine or water or other liquid out of these cups. The domestic and wild asses of other countries and all other solid-hoofed animals have neither huckle-bones nor gall-bladder, whereas the Indian asses have both. Their huckle-bone is the most beautiful that I have seen, like that of the ox in size and appearance; it is as heavy as lead and of the color of cinnabar all through. These animals are very strong and swift; neither the horse nor any other animal can overtake them. At first they run slowly, but the longer they run their pace increases wonderfully, and becomes faster and faster. There is only one way of catching them. When they take their young to feed, if they are surrounded by a large number of horsemen, being unwilling to abandon their foals, they show fight, butt with their horns, kick, bite, and kill many men and horses. They are at last taken, after they have been pierced with arrows and spears; for it is impossible to capture them alive. Their flesh is too bitter to eat, and they are only hunted for the sake of the horns and huckle-bones."

The people of the day thought of the monokeros/unicorn (latin: uni = one; cornu = horn) as an actual, true to life animal and not as a mythological creature (as opposed to, say, sirens). The best I can understand, it was only in the middle ages when the unicorn began to take on more mysterious, magical, and mythological traits... although based on what Ctesius says, it's easy to see why.

On the other hand, some people think that the monokeros is really just talking about a rhinoceros.

Incidentally, the King James also says "unicorn" in this verse as it follows the latin Vulgate for this verse (Jerome used the LXX to translate the Psalms).

So, I guess that's that.

Uh, I guess, feel free to comment (or not) as you feel fit?

Jesus, History, and the Greek NT

Here's a great little clip (OK, it's about 10 min.) of BW3:

Jesus and History from CPX on Vimeo.

Serpents, Sirens, Scripture, and Starbucks

What is your favourite Starbucks drink?

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.

... mmmmm... Starbucks...

New Testament Poetry

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?

Do you ever read commentaries? If so, which ones?

All Creatures... Pt 5

So finally we arrive at the Gospels!

How does Jesus interact with the natural world? Does He teach about how we should interact with creation?

In my opinion, Jesus' interactions with nature are very much tied together with Paul's teaching that Jesus is the second Adam (Rom. 5; 1Cor. 15). Jesus exercised perfect authority over creation much in the same way that Adam did in the garden of Eden.

We see Jesus exercise His Lordship and Sovereignty over creation in a variety of ways:

Calming the storm (Mk4), walking on water (Mk6), cursing the fig tree (Mt21), etc.

An interesting one is this passage from Mark 1:13 (ESV):

"And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him."

This one is interesting because scholars are in debate as to how the animals fit into the picture here. In the Greek this verse is all one sentence with three parts: 1) ...He was tempted by Satan; comma 2) and He was with animals; comma 3) and angels served Him; period.

No one is 100% sure where part #2 fits. The text doesn't indicate whether the animals are connected with the temptation or with His rest and recovery from the temptation. Different scholars ride different sides of the fence here. Personally I lean toward (and so do the ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT translators: notice the phrasing breaks) connecting the animals with His rest and recuperation.

This is because of the "Jesus = Adam 2.0" thing as well as the fact that Mark says that Jesus was "with" the animals (incidentally, the "wild" part of "wild animals" is inferred, not explicit. It is one word, therion, which is generic meaning any living creature other than humans). It doesn't say that Jesus fought or struggled with them; it says He was with them.

Obviously I have my own leanings on this one, but let's just acknowledge that the text isn't super clear here. As such we shouldn't read too much into it.

There are other miracles where I'm not sure if they'd fit into what we're talking about, like turning the water into wine and the multiplication of food... And how do human healings fit in?

Don't you just love this drawing of Jesus and the sheep? It's gotta be one of the cheesiest ones around! :)

Now, unless you can think of some passages that I'm missing, we also need to acknowledge that Jesus doesn't really teach/preach much in connection with "geo-stewardship." However, I don't think this can be read-into too much either. Arguments from silence usually aren't very strong.

For example, while Jesus doesn't really preach about geo-stewardship we can't ignore the beginning of the Gospel of John. There it is clear that it was through Jesus that all of creation was created (Jn. 1:3, 10). If it was Jesus who created the world and called it "very good" (or was it Jesus who created and the Father who proclaimed it "very good"? Either way I don't know that it makes any difference) then that says something about Jesus' opinion of the created world.

Now, the other aspect is that Jesus had a very specific mission. He says, Himself, that His mission was to the people of Israel (Mt. 15:24, etc) and not to the gentiles. It is only when He gives His disciples "the Great Commission" that Jesus really opens wide the doors for Christian witness.

And this brings us to "the Great Commision" in the Gospel of Mark; Mark 16:15 (ESV):

"And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation..."

I find this really interesting because the word for "creation" here is "ktisis" which Mounce defines in his dictionary as "...that which God has created... encompass[ing] both inanimate creation and animate creatures such as people."

Throughout history people have taken this to mean all sorts of different things. Francis of Assisi, for example, took this very literally and actually preached to animals! I think that might be taking it a bit far... :)

Now, this ties into some of the ideas from my previous series of posts which were asking, what is "the gospel?" I believe that prior to Paul's diverse usage of euangelion the biographers of Jesus (particularly Matthew & especially Mark) view the gospel as being a proclamation that Jesus is the rightful King of everything. If we hold this to be true (...if...) then this fits perfectly with Mark's account of the Great Commission. In other words, we might be able to paraphrase Mark as having Jesus say something like, "proclaim my rightful Reign and Rule over this world to all of creation (inanimate and animate)."

So, throughout the Gospels we see Jesus exercise His authority over creation through a variety of miracles and then upon His ascension He commands His followers to continue to proclaim that authority.

[** again, let me make it clear that this is also, even primarily, meaning that we are to proclaim the Kingdom of God to PEOPLE. This is not either/or. We are to make disciples and you can't really make trees disciples that I am aware of :) **]

So, what might it mean for us to proclaim that "Jesus is Lord over all creation" (which includes the earth, plants, and animals) to all creation?

"All creatures of our God and King..."

Here's another big word for you: anthropocentrism. It means to view the world as though humanity (Gr. anthropos) is the centre of it all. Evangelical Christians (like myself) are notoriously anthropocentric.

Take for example our favorite verse, John 3:16 (ESV) ¹⁶ "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

The way we read this is usually like so: "For God so loved humanity, that he..." But is that what it says? I'd say no! For God so loved the world. The New Testament word here is kosmos which refers to the observable created order; God sent Jesus because He loves ALL of his physical creation. That means trees and tigers, earthworms and elephants, hamsters and humans.

God didn't send Jesus to die for me (not only is that anthropocentric, it's egocentric!), He sent Jesus to redeem all of creation (which, thankfully, happens to include me).

As we saw in my last post, Romans 8 tells us that all of creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth (ever been in a delivery room!?! That's a vivid metaphor). Creation suffers under the curse of sin and God's plan is not to send humans to heaven when they die and then let the rest of creation perish. God's plan is to recreate the world into the place He originally intended it to be.

Understand this: heaven is not our home. Heaven is a pit-stop on the road to a New Heaven and a New Earth (Is. 65:17; Rev. 21:1). I don't know if there will be dogs in heaven but there were a whack-load of animals in Eden and I'm guessing a recreated "Eden" won't be any different!

So what does this have to do with my previous post? Everything.

Jesus inaugurated His Kingdom and we, as His followers, are to continue His work until He comes again to bring it to completion/perfection. If His task was nothing less than the redemption of the whole of creation then this, too, is our task.

Yes, Conservative Evangelicals, I am saying that it is part of our God ordained mission to care for plants and animals (insert shocked gasps).

No, I'm not getting all "PETA" or "Greenpeace" on you. If you know me you know that I have no problem shooting and eating animals. I have no problem cutting down trees and using them for firewood or to build something with. I hunt and camp frequently... in fact, that's part of why I care deeply about this.

The fact is that the Bible does give us a theology of zoology. The Bible gives us a theological framework for environmentalism. For some reason we don't like using these words, so we usually call it stewardship... but we also usually ignore this topic all together.

[ I blame American dispensationalists but they're pretty easy to blame ] :)

There's a lot more I'd like to say and explore so please join me over the next number of weeks and leave your input.

So, what do you think?

What scriptures speak to our stewardship of the animal and plant world?

What do you think that passage from Romans 8 means to us?

What do you agree/disagree with so far?

The Gospel in the Gospels

So, the theme that I'm running with for the next few weeks is that there may be a need for us to rethink what the Gospel/Good News (euangelion) really means. Our tendency as Western Christians has been to personalize/individualize our faith and so the Gospel has been taken by many to mean: the good news of my personal salvation... Christ died for me.

I'm certainly not going to argue the basic truth of such statements, but that is not what the Gospel is. Based on what we talked about last week, the thesis that I'm testing (and please understand that this is a trial-run of this idea. I'm arguing for this idea to see if it holds under scrutiny... so please provide some) here is that the Gospel is a proclamation of the Lordship of Jesus.

And, just so you know, this isn't just me making stuff up. Aside from some very major New Testament scholars pursuing this theme, the fact that Bible translation guru, Bill Mounce (ESV, NIV2011), would include "...rise to power, or decree of the emperor that was to herald the fulfillment of hopes for peace and wellbeing in all the world..." in his definition of Gospel really says something.

So this week we're going to tackle the usage of Gospel in... the Gospels:

Surprisingly, euangelion doesn't show up all that often in the Gospels!

Matthew x4

Mark x7

Luke x0

John x0

**Gospel may show up in Luke & John in our English translations but (and I checked) euangelion isn't there in the Greek.**

In Matthew the euangelion is intimately linked with the Kingdom (Mt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14). This makes perfect sense with this "proclaiming Lordship" definition of Gospel. If Jesus is preaching the Good News of the Kingdom of God then to think of the gospel as a proclamation that there is a New King and a New era coming into being fits perfectly.

In fact, that is one of the major themes of Matthew: that Jesus, the descendant of King David is the one true heir to the throne of Israel and is bringing about a new Kingdom, one where the purposes of Israel are being fulfilled through Him.

Basically, there's no way that we can really think of gospel as being about personal salvation (at least not in the 4 Gospels) because Jesus is preaching the gospel prior to His death and resurrection!

Observe Mark 1:14-15 (ESV)

¹⁴ Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, ¹⁵ and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

Again we see this link between the Kingdom and the Gospel. Again, the gospel cannot mean Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice for us because it hasn't happened yet. So, in order for those people to "believe in the gospel" it has to mean something else. Again, in my mind, it makes perfect sense that Jesus would mean:

"The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe [that God's Messiah is the one true ruler of all creation]"... or something along those lines.

This also makes perfect sense with Jesus' constant healings and exorcisms. If the only reason why Jesus came was to die for my sins why did He bother doing all that extra stuff? He did it to demonstrate that He was the true Lord of Creation coming to claim His rightful throne. Jesus had God-given power and authority over all creation: physical (healings, calming seas, multiplying food, etc) and spiritual (exorcisms, forgiving of sins, etc).

So, what do you think?

Is this starting to make sense?

What problems with this idea do you see?

What strengths?

Good News for the Gospel

Our word "Gospel" comes from the Old English: gōd spell which means "good tidings." This was a direct translation (in it's day) for the Greek εὐαγγέλιον (euangelion): good message... the good news!

Naturally, the vast majority of English Bibles translate euangelion as either good news or gospel. But what does euangelion really mean? Does it really do the concept of euangelion justice to simply translate it literally as good news?

The reason why I bring this up is because recent scholarship (the last few decades) has been revealing that there is a depth of meaning behind euangelion that can't be captured by a literal translation. As more and more manuscripts are discovered that are also written in Koine Greek we can get more context for how certain words are used. It has become clear that the word euangelion is used most frequently in a very specific context: announcements to the citizens of the empire concerning royalty, specifically birth and coronation proclamations.

"The word euangelion was not invented by the Gospel writers... It referred to an announcement of 'glad tidings' regarding a birthday, rise to power, or decree of the emperor that was to herald the fulfillment of hopes for peace and wellbeing in all the world" (Mounce's CEDONTW).

"The idea of good news... had two principle meanings for first-century Jews. First, with its roots in Isaiah, it meant the news of YHWH's long-awaited victory over evil and rescue of His people. Second, it was used in the Roman world for the accession, or birthday, of the Emperor" (NT Wright's glossary in his "for Everyone" series).

So euangelion is not just, "Hey, honey, I've got some good news. I got a raise at work..."

No! Euangelion is all about, "GOOD NEWS!! An heir; a SON has been born to the emperor!" or "GOOD NEWS!! The reign of the new King has just begun! It's the beginning of a new era!"

On top of this, it is of note that in the Gospel of Mark the word euangelion is used 7 times (for those of you unfamiliar with the significance of numbers in the Bible please read: this). Couple this with the fact that the passion narrative in Mark's gospel is "arranged according to the coronation ceremonies of the Roman Emperor" (Velvet Elvis, 64) and I think we are running into a pretty significant theme.

The reason why I bring this up is because I think a lot of Christians are under the impression that the gospel is about personal salvation... but maybe it's not!

Over the next few weeks I'll be developing this line of thought (and it's implications) a bit more.

In the meantime:

What do you think?

How is this similar or different from what you think the Gospel is?

What implications do you see when you encounter this alternative definition of euangelion?

What is church anyway?

Coming out of last week's post I think it might be good to do our own re-evaluation of what "church" really is. If we want to "do" church in the way that we believe the Holy Spirit is directing us through the scriptures then it can't hurt to crack the case wide open and take a good look. Please join me as I work through this. I firmly believe in community hermeneutics so I cherish your thoughts.

First of all, let's throw out the word "church"... for now. The history of the word "church" is slightly convoluted and even misleading. It has a whole lot of connotations wrapped up with it and no small amount of baggage. However, once we've rid ourselves of "church" (the word, not the concept) what we are left with is this: ekklesia (also sometimes spelt ecclesia; either way it is a transliteration of the Greek word, εκκλησια).

Ekklesia is the word used in the NT that we usually have translated for us as "church" (Acts 19:32 is the exception; here ekklesia is used in its secular context... see def'n below). However, there is a lot of stuff packed into this one word. From Mounce's Expository Dictionary...:

"church is derived from ekklesia ('to call out'), so the church is the 'called-out ones' of God. In

its secular use ekklesia refers to the gathering of the competent citizens of a city-state in order to decide issues regarding laws, office appointments, and public policy. But the prototype of the NT ekklesia lies not in Greco-Roman history but in the assembly of God's people in the OT (cf. Acts 7:38) which developed into the Jewish synagogue as the gathering of the community of God..." (my emphasis).

In the Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint (henceforth abbreviated as LXX - if you are unfamiliar with the LXX it may be worth while checking out one of my previous posts here), the word ekklesia shows up quite often (see, for example, 1 Chron. 28:8, Deut. 31:30, Micah 2:5, Neh. 7:66). In these cases that I found, ekklesia is always translated as assembly; and not just any assembling of a group of people, it is always the assembly of the people of God. In fact, the phrase the church of God comes not from the NT but the OT; from the LXX.

So, the roots of our word for "church" actually come from the OT assemblies ("ekklesias" LXX) when the people of Israel were "called out" for God's purposes. This is the basis for what would become the Jewish synagogue. And the Apostle Paul (who uses the word ekklesia more in his letters than anywhere else in the NT combined) used the basic synagogue structure when planting churches. Also, as a semi-connected tidbit, it was Paul's branch of the pharisees that believed that the LXX was equally inspired and authoritative as the Hebrew scriptures.

SO WHAT?

First: Contrary to popular belief "Church" is not just a NT thing. It has deep roots in the OT worship/covenant gatherings. When Jesus used the word ekklesia (Matt. 16:18; 18:17) he wasn't coining a new term. The people of Jesus'/Paul's day knew the word and what it meant; namely, the gathering together of God's people for God's purposes.

Second: Ekklesia is primarily a gathering/assembly of like-minded people. Recently I have heard a lot of people and read a number of books that are trying to combat the idea that the church is a building by saying, "you can't go to something that you are." This is partly right... but I want to draw a distinction here. I am not the ekklesia; we are the ekklesia. "Church" cannot, by definition, be attached to anyone or anything singular. I, by myself, am not the "church"; I can't gather/assemble with myself . A Christian standing by himself/herself is just that: a lone Christian. The ekklesia, as Paul describes it, is a body with many parts. A finger severed from the hand is just a finger; when attached to the hand it is part of the body. So, if you have any illusions that you are the "church" get rid of them. You are not the ekklesia; but we are.

I think that's enough for today. I'll be continuing with this exploration over the next few weeks so please add your voice to this discussion.

In your mind what aspects define "church?"

What aspects of today's "church" life do you think are scriptural?

What aspects are cultural (man-made/society imposed)?

Leggo My Eggo

While we're just having fun and sticking to the completely nonsensical take a look at this:

"All things are better in Koine, it's what the scriptures really say"

For those of you who don't know, Koine (Κοινὴ) is the Greek dialect that was spoken as the common language of the western world for approximately 600-700 years (from Alexander to Constantine). Within Christian circles it is often simply referred to as "Biblical Greek" as it is in this dialect that the New Testament was written. The Septuagint (LXX) is the Koine Greek translation of the Old Testament.

I suppose the whole "Leggo my eggo" section (I almost died laughing) might require a bit of an explanation: In Koine, lego is the verb meaning "I say" or "I speak." Legomai (pronounced "leggo my") is the middle/passive indicative "voice" for this verb.

As for "eggo," what they are really saying is ego which is the first person singular pronoun, "I." Thus the Koine phrase legomai ego (or "leggo my eggo") means something like, "I say to myself." For all of you nerds (like me) who think that this is totally hilarious, you can even buy legomai ego T-Shirts.

They also refer to Daniel Wallace and Bill Mounce who are authors of the most common Koine Greek grammars out there. I'm personally a Mounce guy myself.

Anyway, next week I'll be back and ready to think.

PS - for those of you who want to continue mulling over the "soul issue," check out Jared's blog. He's included quotes from Murphy's book.

Soulless? (Part II)

As we continue this discussion I want to address the last two comments from last week's post. How do the Biblical writer's use NEPHESH? and is there a difference between the OT and NT concepts of "soul?"

My argument centres around the Septuagint (LXX). For those of you who may not know, the LXX is the Koine Greek translation of the OT. It is well known as a generally poor translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, but it has value to us in several ways:

First of all, because Greek was the language of the day, the LXX was the "Bible" used by Jesus, the disciples, and the early church. If you've ever run into a passage in the NT where it is quoting the OT but the wording isn't quite right when compared to the actual OT passage, that's because they were quoting the LXX, not the original Hebrew.

Secondly, the LXX is very helpful in bridging the cultural gap that I referred to last week. In the NT, especially the Gospels, we have Greek language but Hebrew culture. How do we know which is which? The fact is that a lot of our NT lingo is actually OT lingo, we just don't know it. When we look at the LXX we see words like "church (ecclesia)" and "baptism (baptizo)," which we normally think of as NT concepts. So when Jesus says "church" he wasn't coining a new phrase. He was using the LXX term for OT worship gathering. When the NT writers say "baptism" they are using the OT LXX term for ritual purification (ie. Naaman,2Kg5:10).

The LXX is our linguistic bridge between the OT and the NT.

The reason that this is pertinent to our "soul" discussion is because of the relationship between NEPHESH (Hebrew "soul") and PSYCHE (Greek "soul"). The LXX translates the Hebrew word NEPHESH as PSYCHE. So when a NT writer uses the term PSYCHE he is not identifying "soul" with Greek dualism but with the OT monistic concept of NEPHESH. This is highlighted by Lev. 21:11 (ESV) -"[A Priest] shall not go in to any dead bodies nor make himself unclean..." What is interesting about this verse is that the word "bodies" is actually the word NEPHESH.

But not only is this a "dead NEPHESH" but in the LXX it is a "dead PSYCHE!"

A dead "soul?" That doesn't work from a dualistic perspective, does it?

This link between NEPHESH and PSYCHE is solidified by NT Wright:
“… the word soul is rare in this [dualistic] sense in the early Christian writings. The word PSYCHE was very common in the ancient world and carried a variety of meanings … the New Testament doesn’t use it to describe, so to speak, the bit of you that will ultimately be saved. The word PSYCHE seems here to refer, like the Hebrew NEPHESH, not to a disembodied inner part of the human being but to what we might call the person or even the personality” ("Surprised by Hope" 152).

The fact is that (I would argue) there is no Biblical precedent for dualism. When we see soul (PSYCHE) in the NT it is referring to the OT concept of a holistic being: the spiritual and physical as one integrous being. Yes, we see Paul talking about the battle between the physical and the spiritual aspects of our being but that is part of us as humans living the the tension of how God created us. Remember, Paul was a Pharisee. Odds are he was referring to PSYCHE as NEPHESH and not Plato's kind of PSYCHE.

Sorry for the long scholastic rant.
What do you think?
Are there any other aspects of this that we should be taking a look at?

Jesus was totally into Camping

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν.

You may be slightly more familiar with this phrase as "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (Jn 1:14 ESV). A friend of mine who is a linguistic major at the UofS (yeah, most of you know her) sent me this phrase last week.

Her Greek textbook includes little snippets of the New Testament from time to time and one of the unique words it highlighted from this Biblical phrase was "ἐσκήνωσεν."

Wow! Cool! Isn't that amazing!

Oh, just wait, maybe I should translate that first. This word, ἐσκήνωσεν, is the word "dwelt" (ESV) or the phrase "made his dwelling" (NIV). However, this may be one of those cases where the Bible translators add a little "culture" to their translations.

After all, it sounds nicer to say that the Word "made his dwelling among us" rather than saying that the Word "tented with us."

Yes, that's right: tented. Because the root of the word ἐσκήνωσεν means: "to pitch tent, to encamp... to dwell in a tent..."

The Word became flesh and tented with us.

So is there any theological significance to this?

What do you think?

We have to rely on our English translations a lot. Knowing that there are a lot of situations like this where our translators don't translate things quite literally how much do you trust your english Bible?

Or we could keep it simple: what translation do you use? and Why?

What Have We Done to Christmas?

Every Christmas I hear a lot of talk (and do my share of talking) about how Christmas isn't what it should be; the business and bustle, the craziness of commercialism, the madness and mayhem of materialism, the glorification of gifts, etc...



That is all true, we really have messed up what celebrating Christmas should be and the "spirit" of Christmas. But we've also messed up the Biblical story. Here's what I mean... and I know that most of this is small picky stuff, but it all adds up to give us an inaccurate picture of Christ's birth:



There was no donkey. We always see pictures or paintings, or movies, or plays with Mary riding a donkey. I've even seen a play where the donkey was the main character. There was no donkey.



Well, I suppose there may have been a donkey but it is just as likely that it could have been a horse or a camel. Or maybe Mary walked or rode on the back of a cart. The fact is that we just don't know. The bible says absolutely nothing about how Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem.



There was no inn. There was no inn and no inn-keeper. I've also seen a number of plays where the inn-keeper was a very main character. Guess what... He didn't exist.


This one needs a little explaining. First of all, there are no historical records indicating that Bethlehem had any sort of inn at this time period. Secondly, Bethlehem wasn't a big enough centre to have an inn, especially due to the fact that it was so close to Jerusalem.



But the the big reason is that there has been a gross translation error in many English Bibles every since the KJV translated the Greek word κατάλυμα (kataluma) as "inn". Kατάλυμα really means "guest room" (the TNIV, NLT, and other newer translations have corrected this error). This makes way more sense due to the fact that this was Joseph's home town. Joseph would have had family to stay with in Bethlehem. The guest room was full, so when Jesus was born they lay him in the manger that was in the entrance of every first century Jewish home. That's why the bible states this all so nonchalantly.



If you care, the real word for "inn" is πανδοχεῖον (pandocheion) as seen in Luke 10:34.



And while we're at it, let's debunk the notion that the magi showed up at the birth scene. They didn't. They came quite a bit later (possibly as much as 2 years later) and they found Mary and Jesus in a "house" (Matt. 2:11) not a barn or a cave or an inn. A house (gr. - οἰκία eng. - "oikia"... yes, this is where "Ikea" gets its name from).


And to shatter any last vestiges of what we may think the original Christmas may have been like... it probably happened in Spring. According to historical records the only time that shepherds spent the full night with their flocks (Luke 2:8) was in Spring during the lambing season. And, to back up this little theory, there was a comet reported during the spring of the year of Jesus birth.

So, somehow over the years of retelling the Christmas story we've changed a lot of things. Time-frames have been changed, characters have come in at the wrong time, some characters that weren't even there have been added, locations are wrong...

Wow, we've really messed things up! Whenever we read the actual accounts in our Bibles we need to make sure that we are seeing only what is actually there and not all of these extra traditions and tales that get added into it.

What do you think?
How different is all of this when compared to your imaginings of Christmas?
Do you know of other mistakes, misinterpretations, or misconceptions?

Here's a little task for you all: below is a Christmas card that I've scanned in. How many things are wrong with this picture?
Enjoy!