Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Anointing in the Passages for Lent 4A

    For finding lectionary passages online, I recommend Textweek.com, which provides some quite valuable services for lectionary passages.

    This is just a brief note on this theme which has been very striking to me as I repeatedly read these passages. Anointing has a variety of implications in the Bible, and these passages would allow one to teach or preach on those uses.

    In 1 Samuel 16:1-13, God instructs Samuel to anoint David as king. In this case anointing represents a selection and empowerment for a particular position of authority. It’s interesting that the two books of Samuel make a fairly strong case that the king of Israel must be chosen by God and that the prophet is the one who executes that decision. This tradition presumably lasted, as we find it applied to Jehu, who is a general in the army (2 Kings 9:1-13). Once one of the sons of the prophets anoints Jehu, he goes and claims the throne. Now Jehu is a general, and certainly has the force behind him, but the anointing clearly has effect as a catalyst, and in bringing people in behind him.

    In Psalm 23 we have anointing more as grooming and comfort. You feel good when you are anointed, and this anointing shows God’s care for the psalmist.

    In John 9, we have the anointing with mud made with spit. The material is interesting, and the result is also different, in this case the giving of sight. I’m not sure the two (empowerment/authority and healing) are not related to some extent. Notice that throughout the passage the actual chosen (were some anointed?) religious leaders were unable to see, while the man who had been born blind but is now healed sees clearly.

    Ephesians 5:8-14 may seen unrelated because it doesn’t reference anointing. But it references light and darkness, seeing and not seeing. It ties very closely to John 9. While we tend to focus on the physical miracle, the spiritual implications are front and center for the gospel writer, and for Paul. Once one encounters Jesus, one sees in a way that one has not seen before. The contrast is light (after Jesus) versus darkness (before Jesus). The healing (anointing?) presence of Jesus makes the difference.

    I haven’t really fleshed this out, but these are some initial impressions on these passages.

  • Reading from the NIrV

    The New International Reader’s Version never got much traction, especially here in the United States, but I do have a copy, and I chose to do my lectionary reading from it this morning. That kind of reading is helpful in getting a quick feel for a version. I can ask myself how I would teach this passage if I were using this particular version. Because the lectionary includes a variety of types of passages, I get a feel for how it will read.

    This version is to some extent aimed at the same readers as the New Life Version, about which I blogged a couple of days ago. Those for whom English is a second language should do well with this version, as should children, and those working on their literacy. Christian programs designed to teach reading could use this as a reader.

    It pretty much reverses the comments I made on the NLV. First, it is much more even in its style. This probably results from committee work, and from the fact that it is the revision of an existing version. One person will have a hard time matching a committee in terms of making the style even. Of course, one should note that a committee will never produce the likes of The Message either, while one man did!

    The NIrV uses very simple syntax. Let me quote a couple of verses from 1 Samuel 16 to illustrate:

    The LORD said to Samuel, “How long will you be filled with sorrow because of Saul? I have refused to have him as king over Israel. Fill you animal horn with olive oil and go on your way. I am sending you to Jesse in Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.”

    But Samuel said, “How can I go? Saul will hear about it. Then he’ll kill me.”

    The LORD said, “Take a young cow with you. Tell the elders of Bethlehem, ‘I’ve come to offer a sacrifice to the LORD.’ Invite Jesse to the sacrifice. The I will show you what to do. You must anoint for me the one I point out to you.” — 1 Samuel 16:1-3

    Now you’ll also notice that unlike the NLV, the NIrV uses some of the somewhat technical terms, “anoint”, “elders”, and “sacrifice.” The NLV avoids all of these. The NIrV answer to the problem of this sort of vocabulary is a dictionary provided in the back, at least of my edition. Many Christian I encounter cannot understand the problems with these words that seem common to them. But if you grew up in church, you actually speak a “church” dialect. Even many unchurched people in the United States grew up with this church dialect. Versions that aim for readers whose English is at all weak, or who are not part of the church community already, have to take such issues into consideration.

    This type of simplified syntax, and partially simplified vocabulary works better in some types of passages than others. I was reading lectionary passages for Lent 4 and 5 of cycle A this morning. Let me list the passages in the order of how effective the NIrV translation was. I’m considering here public reading, preaching or teaching, as well as conveying the intention of the passage as it was written. Any Bible translators reading this will almost certainly be able to predict this list if they know the eight passages.

    1. 1 Samuel 16:1-13
    2. John 9:1-41, John 11:1-45
    3. Ezekiel 37:1-14
    4. Romans 8:6-11; Ephesians 5:8-14
    5. Psalm 23, Psalm 130

    Basically, the simplified syntax is quite effective in narrative portions. I wouldn’t mind preaching from those passages at all using this version. It is a little bit less effective in the gospels, and that difference is accentuated because it is the gospel of John which is somewhat subtle in vocabulary and symbolism. Normally, I think a passage from the prophets would be difficult to work with in this simplified of a version, but Ezekiel 37 is narrative in form, and it’s actually quite effective there. The epistles lose something in translation. Paul is writing complex, and the translation is simple. Finally, such simplified syntax does very poorly in poetry, though the NIrV does break out poetic lines unlike the NLV.

    All of these differences are not faults of the translators or translation; they are simply facts of life. When you translate poetry, for example, you can translate either the literary quality and nuances, to whatever extent possible, or you can stick with the intellectual content. The NIrV, quite understandably, sticks with the intellectual content. You can’t write great poetry with simplified syntax and vocabulary.

    There was one really awkward wording, and I’m not sure exactly how I would explain it in teaching. I’d probably simply give my own translation and explain from that. It’s in 1 Samuel 16:5, where Samuel tells the elders of Bethlehem, “Set yourselves apart to him . . . ” I’m not sure what that would mean. I know what the Hebrew means, but I don’t recall heard “set apart to ___” unless the blank was verbal.

    Overall, I maintain my initial impression. This version is a good version for outreach or for use by anyone who is working on reading skills in English. Though there are a number of good alternatives, such as the CEV, NCV, or the TNIV. The last of these is not quite a simplified as is the NIrV, or at least that is my impression.

  • Would Jesus Do This?

    Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland seems to believe that Jesus would respond to courtesy with violence:

    On a Sunday when Tarico was present, Hutcherson was preaching on gender roles. During his sermon, Hutcherson stated, “God hates soft men” and “God hates effeminate men.” Hutcherson went on to say, “If I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I’d rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end.”

    “That was a joke,” Hutcherson said Friday, when I asked him about the comment. But it’s not really funny, is it?

    This doesn’t seem like an appropriate, Christ-like statement to me, even as a joke. I think it’s important that men realize they can be Christian and be men at the same time. But we don’t need a concept of masculinity that calls for inappropriate violence.

    When I read that I thought of the many times I have opened the door for a man. Sometimes I do so because the man is elderly. Sometimes I do it because he is carrying a heavy load. Sometimes I do it just because it’s convenient. I don’t think it makes me any less masculine.

    It’s time we reject definitions of masculine that involve senseless violence. Defending my home, yes. Defending my country, yes. Running around attacking people because I don’t like their personality or the way they portray themselves, absolutely not. I can’t even see how it can be a question.

    Bill Engvall talks about handing out “Stupid” signs. Perhaps we need a “violent bigot” sign. Then I could be sure never to open the door for such a person.

    (HT: Dispatches.)

  • The Historical Virgin Mary – I

    After discussing Simon Peter, Ben Witherington, in his book What Have They Done with Jesus? proceeds to deal with the information we have available on the Mary, the mother of Jesus. This continues with chapter 5. (Previous entry in this series is Search for the Historical Simon Peter – II.)

    I should make it clear that while I have been complaining about some of the historical claims that have not been backed up adequately in my view, Witherington is doing an excellent job of covering the details and connecting them. I wouldn’t want to give the impression that this work is careless or poorly written. I have a certain tendency to focus on points of disagreement.

    Mary and the virgin birth is another point of disagreement. While I believe one can make somewhat of a historical case for the resurrection, or at least that something extraordinary did happen Easter morning that changed the disciples from cowards into courageous men. It’s harder to demonstrate just what that must have been. I don’t believe a miracle can be proven historically, but one can point to something that was not ordinary.

    But the virgin birth is much harder to demonstrate or suggest historically. Witherington makes the claim on page 99 that this is all too improbable not to be true. I think this is an odd claim. First he appeals again to the criterion of embarrassment. Why would the disciples make up a story that involved embarrassing information? This use of the criterion is quite good. Indeed, there must have been something to explain. Then Witherington suggests that an easier way to counter the charge of an illegitimate birth would be to propose Joseph as the father. But I’m guessing that Witherington hasn’t worked in politics. I doubt that suggestion would have done anything to counter the original charge.

    As a point of faith, one can accept a virgin birth. For those who accept Jesus as the Christ, it becomes much easier to accept the idea of a virgin birth rather than an illegitimate birth. But as a matter of historical probability, I think we must admit that, even for the mother of an extraordinary person premarital sex is a more probable explanation than a virgin birth. This seems to me to be a place where one must clearly separate the “faith view” from a simple statement of historical probability.

    Witherington continues with some excellent material correcting common misconceptions about the meaning of the early chapters of Matthew and Luke, and the early life of Jesus. He quickly and effectively outlines the material we have, and notes the things that we don’t know.

    Of course the goal of the chapter is to place Mary as an eyewitness to Jesus, and thus to find what we can learn about Jesus from what we have heard about Mary. Witherington even notes that if Luke 1 & 2 comes from any witness, that witness must most probably be Mary.

  • Stump Speeches and Empty Rhetoric

    I’ve watched with some interest the debates over Barack Obama’s rhetoric. He has been charged with using empty rhetoric instead of presenting actual solutions.

    I have a bit of a problem with this. Stump speeches generally are mostly fluff. They’re designed to encourage and excite the faithful. They’re supposed to be emotional. I haven’t seen all that much substance in anybody else’s stump speeches either. I looked around, but I can’t find any sort of analysis, and I’m not certain how it would be done.

    I do think there’s about as much substance in this campaign as in any, and I believe with a number of tools on the internet that there it’s even easier this year to get at the candidates’ views and records, irrespective of stump speeches. It seems to me that all the complaints about Barack Obama’s words derive form the fact that he delivers low substance lines so much better than anyone else in the campaign.

    As I’ve said before I’m not 100% satisfied with Barack Obama as a candidate. As an independent in a closed primary state I didn’t have anything to say in the Democratic nomination either. But I see no reason to reject a candidate because he delivers a stump speech very effectively. I think his opponents should find something else to talk about.

    They could always try more substance themselves.

  • Narrative from the Pentateuch

    I frequently recommend reading the story of the exodus through conquest as a kind of connected narrative, trying to learn from the stories. The problem I’ve discovered is that many people skip over the ceremonial and legal parts of the Bible and thus often miss important narrative points that are interleaved with those elements.

    Ultimately, I recommend that you read the whole thing, but for those who may prefer to try something a bit lighter, here’s a connected path, with chapters to be skipped in [brackets] along with a summary of what you’re missing there. There will be occasional short genealogies or legal items of just a few verses that I include with the reading.

    Genesis

    1-4:16 [4:17-22 – Kenite genealogy]
    [5 – Patriarchal genealogies]
    6-9
    [10 – Table of Nations]
    11:1-9
    [11:10-26 – Second patriarchal genealogy]
    11:27-32
    12-24
    [25:1-18 – Abraham and Keturah + genealogy]
    25:19-35:29
    [36 – Esau’s genealogy]
    37-50

    Exodus

    1-20 (note that I include the giving of the 10 commandments in the narrative)
    [21-24:8 – Law and covenant]
    24:9-18
    [25-31 – Instructions for the Tabernacle]
    32-34
    [35-40:33 – Regulations and building the tabernacle]
    40:34-38

    Leviticus

    [1-8 – Instructions for various offerings]
    9-10
    [11-27 – Various laws, feasts, sacrifices and other regulations]

    Numbers

    [1-8 – Census, along with various duties and laws]
    9-14
    [15 – More laws and ceremonial regulations]
    16-17
    [18-19 – Priestly Responsibilities and the ceremony of the red heifer]
    20-25
    [26 – New census]
    27
    [28-30 – Various laws]
    31-33
    [34-36 – various laws, list of tribal leaders]

    Deuteronomy

    1-3
    [4-30 – repetition of the law]
    31-34

    I do not mean to imply that the legal and ceremonial sections are less important; far from it. I believe they have great spiritual insights. But those who are just starting to read the Pentateuch might do well to start just a bit lighter.

    Let me also recommend my essay Interpreting Stories for use in connection with these narratives.

  • Healing and Restoration from Jeremiah 32

    Thomas Durst has a nice, short, devotional post drawn from Jeremiah 32:36-44, which he quotes from The Message. It’s titled Healing and Restoration.

  • Church Politics Good and Bad

    Not too long ago I posted about the necessity for church politics. Today I was reading Frederick W. Danker’s commentary on 2 Corinthians, and I ran across a similar argument, based on 2 Corinthians.

    Let me quote it:

    Much of Paul’s success lay in his political acumen, with a flair for recognition of the potential of others for service. If politics is the art of mobilizing power and resources, material and human–with whatever bureaucratic structures are necessary–to satisfy the optimum requirements for justice and to ensure the safety of the powerless, St. Paul qualifies as one of its masters. There are those who shy away from the use of the terms politics and bureaucracy in connection with ecclesiastical matters. But if politics is presumed to be so intrinsically tainted that the institutional church is embarrassed by the term, there is no reason to expect “politicians” to think better of themselves. There is no escape from reality–politics and bureaucracy are facts of life, and it is primarily a question of whether there will be good or bad politics and good or bad bureaucrats. It is also true that groups of people ultimately determine which kind will prevail. In this letter to Corinth, Paul exposes practitioners of bad politics and invites his addressees to insist on good politics. He himself claims to be a politician dedicated to the interests of God and Jesus Christ, and therefore of the Corinthians’ interests. It is not surprising therefore that many of Paul’s statements in this letter relate to matters of morale, authority, teamwork, and obedience.

    I think this paragraph presents a very important truth, and it is well supported by the epistles of Paul, and particularly 1 & 2 Corinthians. Whether in politics or in the church, when we dismiss all politics as dirty or unnecessary we simply guarantee that we will have bad politics.

    Cynics around the country will fail to vote or fail to express their opinions and then will complain. But they themselves are complicit in the fact that politics is dirty, because they do not participate and place their votes against the bad politicians.

    In many churches there are people who complain about the way the church functions. In my own United Methodist denomination many like to complain about the larger church organization, but very few people want to get involved and do the hard work of making church politics function well.

    We have to get involved and expect–no, insist on–more. Otherwise we’ll continue to get less.

    (I wrote a short review of Danker’s commentary on 2 Corinthians here.)

  • Ralph Nader Running for President

    . . . according to this MSNBC.com story. He had an exploratory campaign for about a month. Normally an exploratory campaign is designed to see if you ought to run. Now here’s what I want to know. What would he have had to discover to persuade him not to run?

  • From YEC to Theistic Evolutionist

    Since I’ve made this journey myself, I’m always on the alert for other stories of similar journeys. It’s interesting that I’ve found many more such stories amongst those studying science. On the religion side, it’s generally those who studies nuts and bolts material (textual criticism, history, archeology, and so forth) who start to see holes in the fabric of a literalist view of the Bible.

    Dr. Steve Matheson has an interesting post at Quintessence of Dust on this very topic, discussing the story of paleontologist Stephen Godfrey, as told in an article in Science. It’s worth reading Dr. Matheson’s summary even though the article is available only to subscribers.

    In these discussions by scientists I frequently see discussions of the need to prepare a theological framework to help people migrate their faith along with their science. I personally found this very difficult coming up as a Seventh-day Adventist. I ended up leaving the church entirely for a period of 12 years, before finding my own balance. There are a couple of problems. For many conservative Christians, any alteration in one’s view of the Bible is apostasy, and thus there is little room for adjustment. The view has to be shattered and then rebuilt. There are some careful theologians and specialists in Biblical studies who also have an interest in the people they teach who can help with this, but they are few and far between. On the other hand, there is too much of a tendency in those who make the journey to laugh at those who have not and expect them to jump. This is combined with a tendency to minimize the gap involved. I personally often have trouble expressing the differences in interpretation without sounding impatient and condescending, so I understand the difficulty. At the same time I know I’m speaking against positions I once held myself with some fervor!

    “Just don’t take it so literally” becomes the mantra. But “not taking it so literally” is not an adequate foundation. Just how do you take it? What does the Bible mean in a new context? Besides the problem of oversimplification there is a difference in terms of theology. There is not a single Christian theology to which one can appeal in this case. In particular dealing with issues like randomness and teleology, Arminians and Calvinists tend to see things very differently.

    I’d add one more thing. Because of my writing (on religion, not science), in which I state my positions, I was never able to conceal the change from my family, most of whom are still young earth creationists. That is probably the hardest single thing for them to accept about my faith as it now stands. It’s a good idea to understand that this is a significant issue. At the same time, I’m not going to keep quiet, simply because I know many are afraid to speak up because they feel that there are so few who will understand. It’s important to be present and accounted for!

    In any case, I’m glad to see the discussion going on.