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.

A little break from Romans: Who was the short one?

Sing with me!

"Zacchaeus was a wee little man, and a wee little man was he..."

Or was he?

Most of us are at least somewhat familiar with the beginning of Luke 19:

"[Jesus] entered Jericho and was passing through. And there was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax collector and was rich. And he was seeking to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was small of stature" (vs. 1-3; ESV)

It's that last phrase "... he was small of stature" that is so interesting.

Because neither the wording nor the grammar of Luke give a clear indicator which "he" is being referred to. Is "he" Zacchaeus; or is "he" Jesus?

For all we know, maybe Zacchaeus was 6 ft tall and it was Jesus who was the short one! Maybe the of-average-height Zacchaeus couldn't see Jesus through the crowd because Jesus was short!

Of course, the traditional view is equally as plausible, we just don't know 100%.

So, next time you run across this story remember that it might (might, maybe, possibly, etc...) actually be more accurate to sing:

"Jesus was a wee little man, and a wee little man was he!"

Resurrection!!!

Easter is all about celebrating the real, physical, historical resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

I think most of us are on the same page with this one, but you might find some of this interesting:

NT Wright:

Lee Strobel:

William Craig Lane:

Happy Easter!

Christus Victor

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 triumph at 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?

How to be un-Christ-like

I have to confess that I am doing in these last posts something that I hate when other people do it: intentionally stating things controversially just to get a reaction.

Please forgive me.

But there is a point behind all of this. What I desire is that we all understand who Jesus, the son of Mary & Joseph, really was: He was a first century Jew, living in first century Jewish culture.

As he heard the voice of the Father in His life He was obedient. This obedience led Him to observe the OT Law in the way that the Father originally desired all humanity to observe it. It was because of this perfect obedience that Jesus could be our all sufficient

sacrifice and completely fulfill the Law.

I'm assuming that most of us won't have too many issues with what I stated above. What I take issue with is that we don't usually let all of that interact with our Christian calling.

It is precisely because of all of this that we don't need to be like Christ.

Jesus was obedient to His God-given vocation to be the Son of Man; the Messiah.

I however, have not been called to be the Messiah. I have been called to be the best darned Timothy Braun that I can be; the one that God wants me to be. Jesus' vocation was to fulfill the OT Law. I have not been called to live under that Law. To do so would be to return to slavery (Gal. 5:1). Instead I have been called to live under the "law of the Spirit of Life" (Rom. 8:2).

Jesus didn't get to live under the Law of the Spirit...

Jesus didn't get to (in His unresurrected human life) live under the New Covenant because it was by His death that it was inaugurated (Heb. 9:15-22).

To actually live the way that Jesus lived would mean returning to the Old Covenant.

Don't be like Jesus; be who Jesus wants you to be.

Was Jesus a Christian?

Was Jesus a Christian or a Jew?

Maybe it's just me but I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Jesus was a Jew.

This is one reason why I think "What Would Jesus Do?" is actually kind of a silly question.

What would Jesus do?:

Jesus would eat kosher.

Jesus would worship corporately on Saturday.

Jesus would observe the Passover, the Feast of Booths, etc... all of the Jewish religious feasts.

Jesus's scriptures would consist of only the Old Testament.

Jesus would get his male children circumcised (had He married & had He then had children).

I think you get the idea.

The point of the Messiah (at least partly) was that He was the ultimate Human (that's what the phrase the Son of Man meant: the person who epitomizes what mankind was meant to be). In the context

of Judaism this means (in part) that the Messiah was to be the ultimate Law abider; as Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17 (ESV).

I think this is part of why it is so important that we seek to truly understand the Old Testament and Judaism in general. After all, if the purpose of the Messiah was to fulfill God's purpose for the Law then shouldn't we, as followers of that Messiah, seek to understand exactly what it was that He fulfilled?

If we neglect to understand His purposes how can we truly be followers of Him?

Galatians 5:1 (ESV) says: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Paul says that we no longer need to observe the Law because Christ fulfilled the Law; to return to the Law would be slavery.

However, if we don't understand what we have been freed from are we really free?

Ignorance is not freedom...

... nor is it bliss.

What do you think?

What do you think it means that Jesus was the ultimate human?

What do you think it means that Jesus was the ultimate Law abider?

How important do you think understanding the OT is?

** ** ** **

Any other ideas about what I should blog on?

Yup, I'm taking requests :)

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?

The Person who is Truth

So this last week I was in Winnipeg for our BGC national conference... hence last week's lame post on willow whistles:)

While we were there I attended another workshop by Tim Bartel. You may remember another post I had on one of his workshops from the 20/20 Summit in February. It was all about the clashing of the Modern and PostModern worldview within the church. If you care to, you can get a refresher here.

This workshop was very similar but the audience was totally different. Maybe next week I'll get into that but for this week I want to sort out something that has been driving my thoughts for a while now.

It became clear, once again, that Modern Christians do not understand PostModern Christians' perspective on truth. Modern Christians hold on to the notion of factual, propositional truth while PostModern Christians believe that truth is relational.

I believe that truth is a person.

The problem with the modern notion of truth is that it puts God in a box. The modern worldview focuses so much on logic/reason/empiricism that God becomes subject (hence not supreme) to these; God needs to measure up to our standards of logic/etc. I can't buy that.

Here is why I believe the PostModern perspective of personal truth may be stronger:

John 14:6 (ESV): Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus IS the path to God. Jesus IS truth. Jesus IS life.

Is Jesus literally "the way"? Yes. I don't think anyone who reads this blog is a universalist. We all believe that it is only through Christ that we can be in relationship with God. No arguments there.

Is Jesus literally "life"? Yes. Jesus is the source of all life. All things were made "through him" (Jn 1:3, 4, 10).

Is Jesus literally "truth"? Yes. After all, John 8:32 (ESV) says "...you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Who sets us free? The person of Jesus. It is not the adherence to static propositions that brings freedom into our lives. No, it is a personal relationship with the Christ; the Messiah that is the Way to God, the source of all reality (Truth), and the source of existence (Life).

In a way, these three (Way, Truth, Life) are their own mini-Trinity. They are both independent and co-dependant at the same time.

The only way to God is by experiencing the Life and Truth of relationship with Christ.
Truth is reality; the way things really are: true existence.
Existence itself has it's source in the Christ the Creator...

It's True!

Does any of this make sense?
Do you have anything to add to either the Modern or the PostModern perspectives?
Is this too much thinking for Summer?

Maybe I should just stick with Willow Whistles.

Making Christ in our Image

OK. Take a look at each of these pictures (Click on them for larger, clearer images).

What do you think?

Is one of them any more acurate or innacurate than the others?

What similarities are there?

Is it OK that Africans or Asians would think of Jesus as being African or Asian?

... or Caucasians as Caucasian?

Primogeniture

Recently I have been thinking about Primogeniture (firstborn rites and customs) and the theological significance of the first child born in a family unit.

Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, in the NIV translation of the Bible, the term "firstborn" is used 132 times. Obviously there is something of significance here. After all "salvation" (usually considered a more important Christian concept) is only said 122 times!

Most of the time we see scripture talking about firstborn rites I think we automatically write it off as mostly cultural. There's obviously some truth to this as primogeniture is not unique to ancient Israel. Most cultures of the Ancient Near East practiced very similar firstborn customs.

But then you read scriptures like Ex 34:19"The first offspring of every womb belongs to me..." or Ex 13:22 "Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal." As well, the firstborn of every family received a double inheritance when his father died.

And this isn't just a strange Old Testament thing either (not that it should be ignored even if it was). Jesus is considered by Paul to be the "firstborn among many brothers" in the family of God (Rom 8:29). Jesus is also called the Firstborn: "over all creation" (Col 1:15) and "from among the dead" (Col 1:18, Rev 1:5). In other words, being the "firstborn" is essential to the identity of the Christ.

So, is there anything to primogeniture for us today?
Is this just a cultural thing?
Is it just a theological thing?
Is primogeniture more important than salvation!?