Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Not Through the Law: Romans 4:13

    One of the major elements of the new perspectives on Paul is the changing view of justification. In a broad sense, one could say that justification involves not a moment of personal salvation, but rather a moment of incorporation into a broad community, known as the people of God, kingdom of God, or the body of Christ. One of the things that Jesus did was to make it possible for you to become part of that community, and it is that community that will eventually be glorified.

    The individual aspect of salvation is not eliminated, but is certainly pushed more into the background. There is less room here for the individual who has “prayed the prayer” and then never done another thing that appears related to being Christian. James might call on that person to show his or her faith by works.

    Lately, I have been trying to read passages in Paul with this option in mind just to see how it fits. I am not fully convinced of the change, but I am becoming more so. Today I was again reading Romans 4:13 (it’s part of this coming Sunday’s lectionary passages), and it hit me again:

    For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. (NRSV)

    Now if “law” generally refers to the Torah–and I think that’s not a bad suggestion for Romans and Galatians at least–then there’s something obvious going on here. The Torah came after Abraham. God inaugurated this whole thing without any such written body of law. Grace was the only option. Grace had to act before there was even any knowledge that things could be other than what they already were. Revelation comes to Abraham as a grace, and grace comes to him by revelation.

    This reminds me of an issue I have with some Christian apologetics that attempts to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the Christ, by means of tying a series of prophecies together that he fulfilled. Enough prophecies apparently should bring certainty. But how many prophecies did Abraham need? Did Moses have to fulfill a string of prophecies to prove he was anointed by God? No, each person comes through an act of God at the time. The prophecies are much more a case of tying Jesus back into the tradition stream–the community if you will–than it is a case of proving that he fits some specification.

    God can come and act without getting ducks in a row. “For while we were still weak, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly” Romans 5:6 (NRSV).

  • Colgate Cares Giving Child Fun Center

    Colgate Cares will give one fun center to a hospital and they are inviting votes as to where it will go.

    Many of my readers know that in 2004 we lost our 17 year old son James to cancer after a five year battle. Each year our son John Webb, supported by the rest of the family and many friends, hold the John Webb Winter Golf Tournament to raise money for the child life program at Sacred Heart Children’s Hospital here in Pensacola. The reason we chose that particular project was simply that James chose it before he died. He said that was the most difficult thing for him, and that is also not where the big bucks usually go.

    Right now the Colgate site has suspended voting for a technical issue, but I want to call your attention to it in any case, and hopefully you will get on there and vote for a hospital near you or one you prefer. More importantly, take this opportunity to look at some of the hospitals and consider getting involved just a bit. Childhood cancer is very difficult for parents, children, families, friends, and all the wonderful medical professionals who fight it. Every ray of sunshine is appreciated.

    So go and vote, and also learn.

  • Genealogy Problems

    A few weeks ago someone asked me to post my college paper on the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11. This was the paper that started me on the road away from young earth creationism. It is actually not very earthshattering, but it did start my thinking.

  • Frank Schaeffer for Obama

    Read more on Levellers – Frank Schaeffer: “Why I Am a Pro-Life Obama Supporter”.

  • Some CJB Terminology in Romans

    I did my lectionary reading today from the Complete Jewish Bible. Each day I read two sets of lectionary texts, one from the current week, and one from the week following. I try to choose a different version each day, and also read them at least once from the original languages.

    This week’s epistles passage is Romans 5:12-19, and next week’s is Romans 4:1-5, 13-17. I’m going to stick to some terms in those to give a flavor of the use of terminology. I will work through these in the order in which they appear in Romans. Note also that I would not criticize all of these renderings. I’m just trying to provide a flavor for those who have never worked with this version. Some of these are not bad, in fact, though they will sound very unusual to the ears of one who is accustomed to one of the more standard English versions.

    Romans 4:1 Avraham replaces the familiar Abraham. In the CJB all names are replaced with something close to their Hebrew equivalents, even when translating Greek.

    Greek kata sarka (according to the flesh) translated “by his own efforts.”

    Romans 4:2 Greek ergon (works) translated “legalistic observances.”
    Romans 4:3 Greek graphe (scripture) translated “Tanak.”
    Romans 4:13 Greek dia nomou (through the law) translated “through legalism”
    Romans 4:14 Greek ek nomou (from the law) translated “by legalism”

    Greek pistis (faith) translated “trust”

    Romans 4:16 Greek to ek tou nomou monon (to one who holds to the law) translated “those who live within the framework of the Torah”
    Romans 5:13 Greek me ontos nomou (when there is no law) translated “when there is no Torah”
    Romans 5:15 Greek Iesou Christou (Jesus Christ) translated “Yeshua the Messian.”

    Again, as I mention in my notes on this version, the literary style and quality is quite variable as the translator makes an effort to clarify his understanding of Jewish concepts in the text. He may be hyper-literal or ultra-paraphrastic in order to accomplish that goal.

  • CJB Detail Entry Updated

    I have updated the entry for the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) in my Bible Version Selection Tool. This adds notes on the version, which were vanishingly brief before, and now it’s merely brief!

  • Review of Evidence for the Bible

    I sent a free review copy of Elgin Hushbeck’s book Evidence for the Bible to Christopher Smith of Mild-Mannered Musings, and he has begun his review. It is fairly negative but is also very substantive, and it’s my policy to post a link to any substantive review, negative or positive. In fact, I will be going to the official Energion Publications blog and posting a link as well as soon as I’m finished this post.

    I’m not going to enter the debate myself, but I do continue to invite bloggers who will review the books or blog on reading them in response to debates by others to ask for review copies. I send the books on a case by case basis, but the vast majority of those who request will get books. The only reason I would not send books at this point would be if someone had requested free books before and then never said anything. The main reason for me staying out is that I am myself somewhat more liberal than Elgin Hushbeck, and I think a man shouldn’t have to debate his publisher.

    I will also take a hit specifically on the German citation noted in the review. Mr. Hushbeck does not read German, but I do. The errors hit me in the face on first glance today, but I confess I missed them in dozens of passes through before. I can only claim that I must have seen what I expected to see. My company is a small publisher (19 titles so far) and this is an area that will improve as we grow. Right now I personally have to take responsibility for all the proof-reading in foreign languages because I’m the only one in the company who can. On the other hand, when alert readers catch things and tell me, I can add them to an errata list.

    In any case, I expect to read this series of posts with interest.

  • Not Doing Evolution Sunday

    Well, actually I am. Just not officially. First let me note that I was reminded that I needed to say something about this by a comment from Laura, who also provided this link to further information about the weekend.

    First, let me tell you what I am doing for evolution Sunday or Darwin Day. I’m headed to Tallahassee to attend Darwin Day activities that will be held at the medical school there. I will also attend the annual meeting of Florida Citizens for Science, of which I’m a board member. I commend a strong commitment to and involvement in defending evolutionary science, and public school science standards. I believe that public school science standards must teach solid, consensus science, and the theory of evolution is foundational in the biological sciences.

    Second, let me commend those churches and religious organizations that are commemorating evolution Sunday. If this works well in your context this is great. I’ll discuss a bit below about what I believe “works well” and why.

    Finally, let me tell you why I and the non-profit religious education organization I lead are not doing anything specific on Evolution Sunday. I believe the theory of evolution, and only the theory of evolution should be taught in public school because it is consensus science. There is no substantial scientific controversy about it in the community of scientists in the relevant fields. The amount of noise generated on the issue does not relate to any scientific controversy but rather to religious, philosophical, and social controversies.

    And that is the key point for me. While I do not believe the scientific controversy is significant or legitimate at the moment, the religious controversy is very legitimate. It is much more widespread, and has much further to go before there is any consensus, if there ever will be. One of my strongest objections to teaching any version of creationism, including intelligent design, in public schools, is because I do not trust the state and state employed science teachers to teach religious ideas in a balanced manner. It’s not their training, and it’s well-nigh impossible to do in any case. Besides the church-state issues, which I take seriously, you could destroy a semester of science class just running through the number of different views and how they would step on one another.

    The proper place to do this, I believe, is in the home and in the church. (I will note in passing that while I am a strong supporter of public education, and my children attended public schools, I am not opposed to home schooling and believe it should be an option available to parents.) But whether you are homeschooling or not, if you are a parent you need to be paying attention to these issues and providing your children with information and reading material, and then discussing these issues with them. Sunday School classes need to undertake such discussions openly.

    Thus I would call for churches to use the same weekend to discuss religion and science from whatever perspective you choose. My preference for churches is that how one integrates one’s beliefs with science be open. A church that can allow everyone from theistic evolutionists to young earth creationists to share fellowship would be a wonderful thing. I once taught a class in Genesis to a small group, in which the lady who always took the seat to my right was a theistic evolutionist of vigorous views, while the one to my left was a young earth creationist. We all remained friends as well.

    I also know many pastors who have no problem with theistic evolution, but who simply don’t want to go there. If your church holds an explicit doctrinal position against theistic evolution, then perhaps you ought to search for some other church. But if your church does not, perhaps you ought to express the range of positions that are acceptable under your doctrinal standards, and give church members the freedom to express and discuss their beliefs.

    I think Evolution Sunday is effective in a church in which evolution would be the default position of the membership. Bringing that out into the open is good. It is also good to discuss and learn more about it. But plan also to find out how your neighbors think. For example, many Christians I know who accept evolution think the opposition largely consists of young earth creationists. That is not the case. In a church where more views are likely to be represented, I think this Sunday (or one could choose any of a number of other Sundays) can be dedicated to the topic without telling people the conclusion.

    Above all, I would hope this would be a time of some reconciliation in churches. I know I express myself forcefully and regularly on this topic. But I also have said repeatedly that I have no difficulty with fellowship in church with those of opposing views. It would just be nice to know that they could accept me on the same basis. And I have no problem with them also forcefully expecting their views, providing again there is that caveat about fellowship.

    Whatever you do or don’t do, enjoy the weekend!

  • Dobson is Lying

    . . . or so says Ed Brayton on Dispatches from the Culture Wars. I’m not sure if he’s right, though I’m inclined to agree that many conservative leaders will back McCain, especially if Hillary Clinton is the democratic nominee. Ed’s post also brings up my largest concern with McCain–Supreme Court nominations. The conservatives are afraid he won’t nominate conservatives. I’m afraid he will. Is it flip or flop?

  • Turn off Rush Limbaugh and read Russell Kirk

    So says Joe Carter. I once heard Russell Kirk speak, and I would say it’s good advice. (I date myself a bit there!) More importantly, not being conservative myself, let me suggest that liberals and moderates quit seeing all conservatives through the lens of the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. This would require us to read folks like Russell Kirk, and actually think when we respond!