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?

When in Rome... 2:1-11

OK, back to Romans. Today will be: Romans 2:1-11.

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)!

When in Rome... 1:18-32

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.

What does Romans 1:18-32 bring to your mind?

When in Rome... 1:16-17

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?

What do you take this verse to mean?

When in Rome... 1:8-15

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?

When in Rome... 1:1-7

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.

WELCOME TO ROME!

Not the "Rome" I was thinking of:

Here's the link: Romans 1:1-7

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?

Changing Orthodoxy?

So, while I have a fairly "high" view of orthodoxy, I do believe that God calls us to constantly evaluate and, if necessary, adjust our beliefs and practices in order to realign ourselves with His will.

But how is this done?

When it is simply a matter of an individual changing his/her beliefs/actions that is one thing... but what about when it is the/an entire church that needs to change their "orthodoxy?" What then?

This is where a number of passages (ie. Matt 16 & 18), but particularly Acts 15, come into play.

I would encourage you to take the time to read this chapter (here). If you have time, reading chapter 14 is also helpful for context.

The gist of what's going on in this chapter is that while Paul & Peter have been proclaiming the Gospel to everyone (including Gentiles) they clearly have not been requiring them to, upon conversion and baptism, begin adhering to the Mosaic Law (particularly after the whole Acts 10 deal: here).

Obviously this is a HUGE break in orthodoxy. Those Pharisees who have become Christians can't handle the idea that God wouldn't require Gentiles to follow the "Old" Covenant and begin debating with Paul and Barnabas on the matter.

So the Church convenes a council to address the matter.

The "orthodoxy" at issue: the practice of circumcision and adherence to the Law of Moses (15:5)

Due process is followed including:

- a gathering of the leaders of the Church (vs. 6)

- debate (vs. 7)

- reports of God's work as pertaining to the issue at hand (Peter, vs. 7-11; Paul & Barnabas, vs. 12)

- The leader of the Church (in this case, James) proclaims the judgement as reached in the council (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, vs.28).

In this case the answer is, No!, Gentile Christians do not need to be circumcised (the sign of the Old Covenant) nor do they need adhere to the Mosaic Law save on several points (vs. 29).

The precedent set by this situation is an excellent one, especially as far as changing orthodoxy goes. In my reading of this passage (and other key texts) I would say that no one person has any right or authority to change what orthodoxy is.

It is only when God's people gather together under the proper leadership that God has put in place and, led by the Spirit, they discuss, debate, and ultimately decide what orthodoxy is that orthodoxy can amended.

And, as we can see in this situation in Acts, this sort of orthodoxy making has the definite ring of authority.

Obviously, as I said above, the implications of all this are huge.

What sort of implications does this have?

What do you make of this? Why?

A Pharisee and the Gospel

Last week we looked at the way the Gospel/Good News (euangelion) was used in the writings of Matthew and Mark. In these books my thesis that euangelion is a proclamation of the Lordship of Christ held up pretty well. The majority of the time euangelion is coupled with the kingdom of God/Heaven which makes a perfect connection.

But the fact is that compared to Paul, the biographers of Jesus barely used the word gospel. Here's the full break-down of euangelion:

Matthew x4

Mark x7

Acts x2

Paul x59

So while there is definitely a huge level of significance as to how Jesus used the word (or it was used in direct reference to His ministry) if we want to really wrestle with this we have to wrestle with Paul.

Now, in my opinion, Paul was too educated for our own good :)

I don't remember where I heard it (so don't go spouting it off like I'm about to) but I remember hearing somewhere that today's equivalent of Paul's Pharisaical education is that of at least 2 doctorates.

Paul's writing is dense, intricate, "wordy", full of run-on-sentences (which are allowed in Greek), metaphors, mixed-metaphors, analogies, vague illusions... the list can go on. There is no doubt that Paul was an intellectual and wrote as an intellectual. Paul's writings make the Gospel of Mark and Peter's letters (for example) look like "Run Spot, run!"

As a side note, it is unfortunate for us as English readers when our translations "smarten up" rough Greek like Mark's and Peter's and at the same time "dumb down" Paul's Greek. We lose the personality of the writers when the language in our translations are homogenized.

Anyway, all of that is to say that Paul's usage of euangelion is rather diverse. He doesn't use it in a conveniently uniform way like we saw in Matthew and Mark. Instead we see him using phrases like, "the gospel of your salvation" (Eph. 1:13) or "the gospel of peace" (Eph. 6:15). These don't fit nicely with my thesis and therefore must be ignored... just joking.

Instances such as these fit better with a literal translation of euangelion ("good news") rather than an idiomatic (Lordship proclamation) translation. This brings me back to my original question from a few weeks ago: is it better to educate people on the semantic range of our word Gospel or is it better to translate it differently depending on its context?

Aside from that, I think I could probably make a case that "the gospel of peace" can still fit within my thesis (see Mounce's def'n in my original post). At the very least we can agree that euangelion is not confined to an announcement of personal salvation, nor is it quite so simple as a literal good news. The New Testament usage of it is way too broad to be simplified into either of those.

Michael F. Bird addresses complex words like gospel in his introduction to Pauline theology:

"In the ancient world, the title 'Lord' (Kyrios) was also used of the Roman emperor. In the Roman era, terms like grace, gospel, parousia, justice, freedom, Lord, saviour, and Son of God were employed in Roman political propaganda and utilized in the prayers and rites of the imperial cult, which focused on worship of the Roman emperor. By analogy, then, the 'good news' that 'Jesus is Lord' carried with it the implication that Caesar was not Lord... We see that Paul's gospel had theopolitical consequences in that it claimed for Jesus an immense authority and power which threatened that of Rome" (Introducing Paul, 84).

In fact, Bird uses the comparison that proclaiming the Lordship of Christ in the Roman world would have been pretty much the same as proclaiming 'Jesus ist Fuhrer!' in Nazi Germany!! An interesting analogy.

And I still think that a significant portion of the time that Paul talks about euangelion it fits closely with this idea of Lordship:

"gospel of Christ" x8 (Rom. 15:19; 1Cor. 9:12; 2Cor. 2:12, 9:13, 10:14; Gal. 1:7; Phil. 1:27; 1Thess. 3:2)

"gospel of God" x5 (Rom. 1:1, 15:16; 1Thess. 2:2, 2:8, 2:9)

"gospel of his son" (Rom. 1:9)

"gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2Thess. 1:8)

"glorious gospel of the blessed God" (1Tim.1:11)

"gospel of the glory of Christ" (2Cor. 4:4)

There is absolutely no doubt that the theme of Lordship is evident all throughout Paul's writings. After all, by my quick count, Paul uses the phrase "Lord Jesus" or "Lord Jesus Christ" a minimum of 72 times as well as referring to the Kingdom of God (of whom, of course, Jesus is Lord) a minimum of 14times.

However, a lot of the time the way Paul uses euangelion is ambiguous enough that you can't strongly argue for or against a specific definition. An example of that is Romans 15:20 - "and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel..." This usage is so generic that it doesn't exactly lend any weight to either side.

The phrase that got me scratching my head was "my gospel" x3 (Rom. 2:16, 16:25; 2Tim. 2:8).

This doesn't really fit with my "Lordship" definition. Here Paul seems to simply mean "the message that I preached to you."

So it appears that Paul's usage of euangelion does include, but is not limited to a Lordship proclamation. Depending on the context Paul flexes the word to make it fit his purpose; typical Paul!

Anyway, what do you think?

What other texts might tie into this?

What do you think about the translation issue?