Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Augsburg NT Commentary on 2 Corinthians

    I took a detour from working through 2 Corinthians with the Anchor Bible commentary and read Frederick W. Danker’s volume II Corinthians in the Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament series.

    This is a 214 page commentary, but has more content than you might expect because it doesn’t include the Biblical text along with the commentary. That can be slightly inconvenient, but on the other hand it does mean more content in a smaller book.

    I really enjoyed reading through this commentary. Danker is an extremely good writer. Commentators don’t have many opportunities to be eloquent, but he manages it from time to time when discussing the theology and application.

    Danker covers critical issues, discussing the question of the unity of the letter. He presents the reasons for the various divisions, but he also presents reasons mostly from rhetorical criticism as to why the book might be more unified than is often thought.

    The highlights of this commentary include:

    • Extensive discussion of rhetorical issues
    • Outstanding discussion of Greek culture
    • Extensive quotation of parallels, primarily from Greek culture, but also from Hebrew backgrounds
    • Frequent helpful comments on theology and application useful for preachers.

    It’s out of print, as I believe most good books are, but there are still used copies available, or you can do what I did and get it from a library.

  • Regeneration and Baptism of the Holy Spirit

    OK, readers, this is a strictly Christian type of argument. Is regeneration and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit the same thing?

    Since I haven’t link to him in so long, some may think I no longer read Adrian Warnock’s blog, but that is quite incorrect. I still subscribe to his RSS feed, but he’s been reposting his most popular articles from last year, and I had already commented on the ones I wanted to. Today, however, I read his post Lloyd-Jones on How to Grieve the Holy Spirit. To quote briefly:

    “There is nothing, I am convinced, that so ‘quenches’ the Spirit as the teaching which identifies the baptism of the Holy Ghost with regeneration. But it is a very commonly held teaching today, indeed it has been the popular view for many years. It is said that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is ‘nonexperimental’, that it happens to every one at regeneration.Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones So we say, ‘Ah well, I am already baptized with the Spirit; it happened when I was born again, at my conversion; there is nothing for me to seek, I have got it all’.” [Please read the larger quote from Adrian’s blog.]

    Since I have published previously on this topic, let me start my response with a quote:

    I believe that the baptism is an experience God intends for all Christians, and that ideally it should occur in connection with initial conversion and water baptism. There are ongoing opportunities for the Holy Spirit to ‘infuse’ us with more gifts and increases in gifts throughout our spiritual walk. There is ALWAYS more!”

    This is from a summary of the pamphlet I Want the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The pamphlet expands on it, but is still very brief. Essentially, I deal with two concerns. The first is the possibility that any singular experience can be used to divide Christians into classes. Thus we have “Spirit-filled” Christians and ordinary Christians. The second is that we decide that a singular experience is all there is of Christianity. There is a variant on this that would suggest that once one has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a specific, identifiable event, then that is the end of one’s experience.

    My friend Dr. Bob McKibben, in his book Holy Smoke! Unholy Fire!, holds a somewhat different view. (Note that my company publishes Dr. Bob’s book.) I begin my quote after he has referenced four texts in the gospels about the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

    Each of these passages refers to the same setting. John the Baptist is making reference to Jesus Christ and in each case the baptism of the Spirit is something that is yet to come. John is referring to a future event, which most scholars contend is the day of Pentecost. Let’s move from the gospel references to the Book of Acts:

    And while staying with them he [Jesus] charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:4-5)

    In this passage, our Lord is speaking to the disciples sometime after His death and resurrection, but before His ascension into heaven. Like the verses found in the gospel accounts, Jesus is speaking of an event that is yet to happen. Again, like the gospel accounts, this text is looking forward to the Day of Pentecost.

    There is a reference in Acts 11 that looks back rather than forward, but again you will find that it refers to the ministry of John the Baptist:

    As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, “John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 11:15-16)

    The seventh and last verse which refers to the baptism of the Spirit, without using the exact phrase, is found in I Corinthians 12:13. This verse clearly speaks of unity within the church, which is the Body of Christ. This verse also makes clear the point that there are not two different groups or categories of Christians. As you read this verse, do so prayerfully, discerning what Paul was desperately trying to impress upon his beloved in Corinth:

    For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and all were made to drink of one Spirit. (I Corinthians 12:12-13)

    Paul used the metaphor of the human body to explain the principle of unity within the Church. Just like the body, the Church is an organic whole made up of many different members. But Paul is making it painfully clear that even with the plurality of members, there is only one kind of Christian. The church – body of Christ does not possess two different kinds of Christians, some with the Holy Spirit and some without, or some with more of the Holy Spirit and some with less.

    Using these seven Biblical references to Baptism of the Holy Spirit, I believe that there is only one Baptism of the Holy Spirit and it occurred on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts, chapter two.

    I fully understand Bob’s concern here with only one class of Christians, but I also share the serious concern expressed in the quotation that Adrian has provided. In the end I’m probably more concerned about the latter. Too many Christians see only a singular experience, and see no possibility for growth or change. I see sufficient scriptural evidence to suggest that we are talking about two things in the life of the believer, yet that the two elements should ideally happen simultaneously. Unfortunately, we tend to believe that if both happen together, we have no need to stoke the fire after that, and on the other hand if the two occur separately, we have an excuse to divide Christians into classes.

    I’d suggest one class–Christians who have entered the gate (regeneration) and are following the path. But if you are on that path and have not experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit in your life, seek it out. It doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit hasn’t worked in you–you would hardly have entered the gate without the Holy Spirit’s work. It does mean that there is more to experience in your life with God.

  • Fordham Institute Criticizes Science Standards Compromise

    According to the Bradenton Herald, Paul Gross used the word “dishonest” in reference to the compromise language. Personally I prefer “silly” or “inane.” The changes didn’t change the meaning.

  • Life of a Rumor

    One of the nastiest sins you can have break out in your church is gossip. Unfortunately, it’s also one of the most common–more common than the common cold. I have seen church congregations broken apart by gossip, and nobody involved thought they were doing anyone any harm.

    Excuses for spreading rumor and innuendo vary. Sometimes people just don’t see the harm. Sometimes they believe the rumor is true. Other folks just can’t help it; the rumor is too juicy and they just have to tell someone.

    If another person draws their attention to it, there are plenty of excuses. Here are some samples:

    “I’m just doing my duty as a church leader to find out the truth.” This one works even if you’re on the hospitality team, or you help park cars. You’re still a leader, right?

    “I’m not spreading the rumor. I’m trying to control it and let people know how unreliable it is.” OK!

    “I’m not talking about _____ (the subject of the rumor). I’m dealing with the people who spread it.” Well, no problem then!

    But my favorite is: “I’m just telling you so you can pray for _____ more specifically.” I’ll make sure to pass on your inside information to God in my next prayer in case he missed it.

    There are a few malicious tale bearers, but most people simply talk, and they never realize what they are doing. But the spread of a rumor can do a great deal of damage. Generally also the rumor becomes more believable the more people who repeat it. It’s not evidence. It’s how many times you heard it. By the time you get to the people talking about the people talking about the rumor, nobody knows where it started, and it has a life of its own.

    Similar things happen in the media, I think, and with similar effect. A newspaper publishes a story that may (or may not) have inadequate support. Then we get the media outlets who spend their time talking about how nasty it was for the first outlet to release the story, but the general public simply hears the rumor again and again. Multiple experts get on the various talk shows to comment on whether the original story should have been published. Then more experts talk about whether we should be talking about the story. Before long viewers, readers, and listeners are no longer sure just what the story was.

    Finally, of course, bloggers like me start talking about the media that talked about the media that talked about the media that originated the story . . .

    It’s driven by the fact that we, the public, will watch this kind of thing. It’s a human thing, just like gossip in a church community. If we don’t want it, we’re going to have to learn to change the channel, read a different web page, listen to a different radio station, or perhaps simply go and research the facts as best we can.

    Let me recommend two sites I’ve been using more and more: PolitiFact and FactCheck.org. We need to be aware that even they can be wrong, but looking for the facts is a number of steps above simply chewing on the rumors.

  • Search for the Historical Simon Peter II

    This post continues from this one and is part of my series blogging through Ben Witherington’s book What Have They Done with Jesus?

    This chapter continues the theme of the previous chapter. Witherington is creating profiles of the various claimed eyewitnesses in the New Testament and then using them to tell us about Jesus. With certain assumptions, this isn’t a bad plan. It makes for engaging reading. The problem for me is that I don’t accept all of the assumptions he uses, and without those, the procedure can look fairly silly.

    If I’m not convinced on the face of it that the book of Matthew, for example, is a totally reliable witness to the life of Jesus, then how will I be convinced that I know Peter based on that book, and that I can rely on the testimony of this “Peter reconstruction” to establish facts about Jesus.

    I should make one proviso here. Witherington has a number of chapters, most of the book, to go, and may do a better job of establishing the historical basis for accepting the source documents as reliable. I simply don’t see that he has done so yet.

    To illustrate my point, let me refer to pages 82-87 which discusses the incident with Cornelius. Early in this process Witherington makes this statement:

    … We can pretty much rule out the possibility that he made it up: it is hard to imagine Luke, who idolized and was a one-time companion of Paul, making up a story about Peter being the first missionary to the gentiles. … (p. 83)

    Now I see several problems here. Witherington makes the assumption that Luke-Acts was written by the companion of Paul, which implies a certain interpretation of the “we” passages in Acts. That’s a good possibility, and I’m inclined toward it myself, but it is not a consensus position. But then he makes the assumption that Luke would want to make Paul the initial apostle to the gentiles. I think even if the first assumption is good, Luke (whoever he was) shows that he wants to connect Paul more closely with the Jerusalem church than Paul does himself. What better way to legitimize Paul’s mission than to claim that Peter actually opened the door?

    I see a much more favorable view of Jerusalem in Acts than there is in Paul’s epistles, and this would suggest that whether or not Luke idolized Paul (an uncertain statement), he apparently also wanted to present Paul as being on good terms with the Jerusalem church.

    There is a subtheme of these chapters that I do appreciate a great deal, and that is the place of women in the early church. Luke-Acts is a good place to find this theme presented. One shouldn’t be surprised that we occasionally have to read between the lines. For those who pay attention it is clear that Luke is giving a greater place to women and to non-Jews. Witherington tracks this theme very carefully.

    My negative comments should not be taken as meaning I’m not enjoying the book. Witherington writes quite well and it’s very interesting following his logic. As a presentation of one way of providing a profile of Jesus, it’s quite good and thorough. Thus far it has been instructive and interesting.

  • KJV Only and Pisseth Against the Wall

    I found these two videos after reading this post. I post these because they are so humorous in the way they proudly and piously display extreme ignorance.

    First, 7 common sense reasons why we should never leave the KJV BIBLE. What is even more humorous about this is that it is listed under the category “education.”

    Then the one with preaching about “pisseth against the wall”, who is “Pastor Steven L Anderson, pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona, expounds on the King James Bible phrase, “him that pisseth against the wall.” (according to his info on YouTube.)

    If you can’t self-fisk these, see my FAQ on Bible Translations for a good start. You can also check out the pamphlet I edited, What About the KJV?.

    Oops! Forgot the hat tip: One Thing I Know

  • More Positive Note on New Bible Project

    Peter Kirk has a more positive view of the new Bible translation project I blogged about yesterday, though he also hedges that positive view a bit. I think he makes some good points, and if things go in that positive direction, I believe I would alter my own attitude.

    I would suggest also reading the comments to his post. With reference to both comments, I am always amazed at people who talk about “accuracy” apart from considerations of the audience. Accuracy is not something that exists in a vacuum. A text must be translated so as to have an impact on and be understood by a particular audience. This isn’t either/or. It must be both/and.

    I use the metaphor of the one-ended telephone cord, which I talk about here on my Threads blog, and also in my book When People Speak for God.

  • Testimony – John 4:39-42

    There’s a short sequence of thoughts here at the end of the story of the Samaritan woman (Woman at the Well) that makes an important point about testimony. Many Christians are hesitant to share their testimony. One of the reasons is that they’re afraid they don’t know enough. But you don’t have to know very much to express what has happened to you personally.

    The woman at the well gives her testimony that Jesus had told her everything she had done (John 4:39). The same verse notes that many believed because of her testimony. But what did her testimony accomplish? Did it, by itself, convince people to believe in Jesus?

    In verse 42 we get the testimony of the people afterward. They have come and seen Jesus because of her testimony, and now their belief no longer rests on her words, but on their own knowledge and experience of Jesus. The weight is off the woman who originally gave testimony. Her testimony didn’t need to do anything more than bring the people who heard it to Jesus.

    That’s all our own testimony needs to do. We can be joyful when people come back and say, “It’s no longer because of what you said that I believe. I’ve seen and experience Him for myself!”

  • Threads Post on KJV Only

    I have posted a couple of YouTube embeds and some short comments on the KJV-Only preaching on my Threads blog.

  • New Life Version: Simplified Vocabulary

    One way to get my checkbook or bank card out nearly every time is to present me with a substantially new edition, or a new translation of the Bible. A substantial part of my bookshelves is occupied with these various versions and editions. The majority of them even get read on a reasonably frequent basis.

    I picked up a copy of the New Life Version (NLV) several months ago, and even added it with very brief notes to my Bible Version Selection Tool. Today I grabbed it for my daily lectionary reading, in which I’m reading the texts for the third and fourth Sundays in Lent for cycle A. This is a good way to improve my impression of the version.

    A key goal of this version is simple vocabulary and readability especially by those for whom English is a second language. My overall impression is that the task of simplifying the vocabulary is well done. At the same time, I thought that the syntax was not nearly as well done. I don’t mean it was choppy or too simple stylistically, but often excellent vocabulary choices were embedded in difficult sentences. Perhaps some folks with more experience in English as a second language teaching or related work might comment. Are the examples I provide below actually easy to follow? In any case, the simplified vocabulary is quite worthwhile.

    Two additional points that do not relate to either of these two issues. The common standard of translating YHWH as LORD is abandoned. It is translated Lord throughout. That probably is in accord with the desire to simplify. Also, poetry is not broken out into lines. That is also probably part of the simplification.

    First, here are some examples of simplified vocabulary. Note that I will present these in two columns, with the more common rendering first. The “more common” rendering is in no way intended as a standard, nor as a better translation. It’s just for comparison. Note also that the reference given is just as an example. The word may be used in many other verses.

    Common Term NLV Term Reference
    murmur or complain argue Exodus 17:2
    Stone throw stones at Exodus 17:4
    Rod special stick Exodus 17:5
    Sacrifice give a gift 1 Samuel 16:2
    Anoint pour oil on 1 Samuel 16:13
    Kneel get down on ___ knees Psalm 95:6
    Wilderness place where no people live Psalm 95:8
    Ancestors early fathers Psalm 95:9*

    * I have to wonder about this one. It makes sense to me, but does it work in the English as a second language setting? I can only assume the translators are better acquainted with the need than I am.

    Second, syntax issues. The following sentences seem more clumsy than necessary to me:

    He called the name of the place Massah and Meribah because of the arguing of the people of Israel, and because they tested the Lord, saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?” — Exodus 17:7

    In this case the normal pattern of shortened sentences seems to be abandoned, and the syntax seems much more complex to me than the vocabulary.

    The Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you be filled with sorrow because of Saul, since I have turned away from him being king over Israel? — 1 Samuel 16:1

    I would note particular “turned away from him being king.” I wonder how easily speakers of English as a second language would understand it. I have to think about it myself.

    I was angry with the people of that day for forty years. — Psalm 95:10

    I hate putting this one down because I’m not sure how I would rephrase it, but again, I’m not sure it is all that easy to read.

    They said to the woman, “Now we believe! It is no longer because of what you said about Jesus but we have heard Him ourselves. We know, for sure, that He is the Christ, the One Who saves men of this world from the punishment of their sins. — John 4:42

    This one could do with some more use of the short sentences used elsewhere in the NLV, or so it seems to me.

    I think that gives enough of the flavor. This version seems to me to make an excellent effort to fill a need, but I’m not sure that the syntax doesn’t work against the valuable work on simplifying the vocabulary.