Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Hebrews 6:4-6: Can Those who Fall Return?

    Again I’m addressing a very small portion of this chapter. To get the context in mind, please read my previous post Hebrews 6:1-3: Going On Toward Perfection. These three verses have generated a great deal of commentary, because they appear to be saying that if one falls away from the Christian walk he cannot return, that repentance is no longer possible. And certainly read in isolation, that is precisely what the passage says.

    I relate my own experience with these verses in my personal testimony, Drawn to the Cross. In that experience I was led to question this interpretation by broader considerations of scripture from outside the book of Hebrews. That testimony is repeated both in my study guide to Hebrews, and in my book Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic.

    Here, however, I want to look more directly at the context of this passage in the book of Hebrews, to see whether any other interpretation, including my own, is possible in the context of the book. To do that, let’s look first at the major elements of the context, and then at the elements of the doctrinal statement made in the three verses.

    This passage comes right after 1:1-3, which talks about laying the foundation, and the need to keep moving forward. In my previous post on that passage I suggested that the basics of faith listed in those three verses corresponded to conversion, to one’s joining the Christian community. Following verses 4-6, we have the expression of hope that follows in verses 13-20, in which our author expresses his confidence that verses 4-6 are not going to apply to his audience. If we broaden our view a bit, this comes immediately after establishing Jesus as a priest, greater than the angels and than Moses, but still understanding our situation and our weakness. Immediately following he begins to discuss the eternal and perfect priesthood of Jesus, the way to God that allows us to approach the throne of grace boldly.

    With those elements in mind, let’s go back to the verses themselves:

    4Now it is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gifts, become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and tasted the good word of God and the wonders of the coming age, 6and then fallen away to be renewed to repentance. It’s because they are crucifying the Son of God again for themselves, and putting him to open shame. — Hebrews 6:4-6 (from my TFBV project).

    What I see as the elements of this doctrine are:

    • A person may be enlightened, consisting of tasting the heavenly gifts, partaking of the Holy Spirit, tasting the good word of God, and the wonders of the coming age
    • From that state, a person may fall, and that fall is equated to crucifying the Son of God again, and putting him to shame.
    • Such a person cannot be renewed or brought to repentance.

    Since few commentators really want to just say outright that if you’ve left the faith, you can’t return, there have been numerous attempts to explain this. Indeed, there should be, because the idea that it is impossible to return after backsliding, for example, which is a possible interpretation, seems contradictory to quite a number of Biblical teachings. One would have to picture the prodigal son driven off by his father on his return, for example!

    Such interpretations have dealt with various elements:

    • Some interpreters look at the various requirements of enlightenment, and determine that very few, if any, people have actually attained that state, and thus it would only be someone who had truly been enlightened, and not merely converted to Christianity, who would be unable to come to repentance.
    • Some interpreters deal with the idea of falling away, claiming that the falling away is not just any simple departure, but rather a complete and utter stubborn rejection, complete with public renunciation of Jesus.
    • Some adjust the concept of impossible, pointing out that it might be humanly impossible, but that with God, all things are possible

    Can the context point the way through this? I think so. First, I do believe it is right to try to find a sense of hope in the passage, because while the author of Hebrews is handing out some fairly tough medicine, there is a strong element of hope in his presentation. As I have noted, he expresses confidence that his readers will not fall in the way described here. Because of both the immediate context and the broader context of the book, I think we need to understand a more hopeful message than that you can fall from grace and you’re finished if you do.

    Further, I think that the idea of saying that it may be impossible in human terms, but with God all things are possible does not fit well in the context. We are quite clearly presenting a divine opportunity of salvation throughout the book, and I suspect the readers would hear that here. In addition, if he’s saying it’s impossible, but it’s really possible, then these three verses don’t seem to move forward very much, and it’s a strange way of saying it.

    Further, though I think the question of just how enlightened a person is before they fall is quite appropriate, since this passage follows a description of conversion, I think it is likely to contain a warning that is applicable to people at the stage of their Christian life just described–immediately after they have acquired the basics.

    As for the fall, on the same basis I think it is right to inquire what was considered a fall by the author. There are those who believe this would only be a denial of Jesus in the face of martyrdom. When the persecution was over, some would desire to return to the community even though they had denied Jesus in the face of death. Some commentators suggest that this was forbidden by this text.

    Let me suggest a view that relies a little bit on each of these approaches to interpretation, that applies a warning, and yet also provides a basis for the message of hope that follows.

    First, the warning applies to everyone who has undertaken the Christian journey. That is the context and that is what is suggested. If you have taken that first step with Jesus, this warning applies.

    Second, there is a point to which you can fall from which repentance, turning back becomes impossible. More on that in a moment.

    Third, note that it is “impossible.” It does not say that God will reject you, but rather that the repentance itself is impossible.

    Now to support this, look back at Hebrews 3:7-4:11. Here we have the review of God’s offer of a “rest” for the people of God. One of the requirements to enter that rest is that we listen to God and do not harden our hearts. Consider further the discussion, Hebrew 2:3, of the quality of salvation offered–“how shall we escape” if we neglect it?

    What I am suggesting here is that if we reject the voice of God repeatedly, and thus harden our hearts, we will come to the point at which we will no longer desire to repent. This is a necessary warning no matter where you are in your experience, because you don’t want to get in the habit of hardening your heart and not listening. Whether you are very near such a problem or far enough away, you just don’t want to go there. If you follow the “hardening” path, there will come a time when repentance is impossible. That point can also be described as one at which you would not hesitate to crucify Jesus again. The more you have both heard and rejected, the more danger you are in.

    Note also that all of this refers not to non-Christians but to people already on the Christian journey, as our author sees it. It is a warning about moving forward, and continuing to listen to and be led by God.

  • Hebrews 6:1-3: Going On Toward Perfection

    1Therefore, leaving the beginning of the message of Christ, let us carry on to maturity, not re-laying the foundation of repentance from dead works, of faith in God, 2of the doctrine of baptism, of the laying on of hands, of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3This we will do if God pleases. — Hebrews 6:1-3 (from my TFBV project)

    This is too short of a passage to recommend for separate study, but it will make for a reasonable sized blog entry. Put this passage inside of the broader picture of Hebrews 5:11-6:20. To summarize this background, our author has established his idea of the priesthood, and given us the human attributes of Jesus as a priest, but now he begins to make a transition to discuss the essential nature of the new priesthood. All priests had the human characteristics of the priesthood. Why was Jesus different?

    As we move forward we are going to see that a perfect priesthood, in his view, is what will bring perfection or maturity and a clear conscience to believers. The two tie together. So in these few verses we have a study of our side of the problem. What is it that we need? First, in 5:11-14, he tells his readers that they are not mature enough to hear everything he has to say. I’ve already discussed what I see as the key text here, verse 14, being trained to distinguish good and evil.

    But at the beginning of chapter 6, he calls on the people to keep on moving, “moving on toward perfection.” As a United Methodist, with connections to the Wesleyan tradition, this phrase “going on toward perfect” is an important and central text. I’m going to suggest, however, that our author has a dual meaning in mind. First, he’s moving on toward perfection, or completion, in his argument about the priesthood. There is a parallel here between the divine work and the human work. The divine priesthood, or the divine effort on behalf of humanity, moves from the partial (the old priesthood) to the complete (the priesthood of Jesus). God doesn’t stop with the job partially completed. Second, he’s referring to the lives of the believers. Now at this point I listed these in what might be seen as reverse order of importance. What he is explicitly saying is that the believers need to keep moving forward.

    But what is his primary thought? I would suggest that he sees the moving forward of the heavenly and of the earthly as necessarily intertwined. He is calling on his readers to get on board and move on toward perfection, as God did through the ministry of Jesus. He says he’s not going to lay the foundation again. In this foundation are six elements:

    1. repentance from dead works
    2. faith in God
    3. baptism
    4. laying on of hands
    5. resurrection of the dead
    6. eternal judgment

    I have heard some interesting thoughts from this, including someone who thought that one of the foundational thoughts involved was how to raise the dead, thus raising people from the dead should be a regular, foundational part of ministry. But look at the list carefully. In many modern traditions we don’t have all the elements, laying on of hands especially, in accepting someone into the body of Christ, but those in churches with a any sort of high church flavor will recognize much from the baptismal ceremony and vows. These are the elements that go into bringing people to a basic relationship with Jesus and with his church in most of the Christian tradition. So what our author is telling us is that he is not going to talk again about the basics of salvation, rather, he is going to move on to matters of the Christian life after one’s conversion. Verses 4-6 especially refer to one’s continuing Christian life.

    With that, he places even the course of his argument in the hands of God and then proceeds to some of the most difficult text in the book, Hebrews 6:4-6.

  • Praying to be Seen

    A few years ago a number of my students in an introductory Bible study class arrived very excited. There was a town coucil here in Florida (I forget precisely where), that had invited a Wiccan–a witch!–to offer a prayer opening a public ceremony. My students were discussing what they would have done about this obviously heathen prayer, and were cheering folks who had turned their backs on the person offering it.

    “I bet you would have done something good!” said one of them to me.

    “I would have stood silently and respectfully as she prayed,” was my response.

    Why is it so difficult to respect someone else’s spirituality, their prayers, or any other religious activity they pursue? Now we have a story of a school at which one student did not want to sit through a Christian prayer at the commencement, and the ACLU filed suit on his behalf and got an injunction to prevent it. I understand the student’s position. It can be very uncomfortable to be in the minority, especially a minority of one. At the same time, I must say that I have a problem with the ACLU position on this one. I think student initiated, student led prayer, even in a public ceremony should be regarded to some extent as free expression, though at the High School level there would be some limits to this. (See the story at Judge Blocks Prayer at High School Graduation, thanks to Ed Brayton, Religion and the Majoritarian Impulse for calling my attention to this.)

    I think that there are much better ways to deal with a situation like that, including finding ways during the year and at various school ceremonies to acknowledge the beliefs of students who are in the minority. I’ve been in the minority religiously, growing up as a Seventh-day Adventist. “Do you go to church on Sunday?” asks someone. “No,” I reply, intending to continue with “we go to church on Saturday. But I see the “you heathen” look, and I know this is not a person who is interested in hearing about alternatives to the expected Sunday spent in church. That, of course, is very minor, but Seventh-day Adventist businessmen often had considerable problems with Sunday blue laws. Their faith required them to stay closed on Saturday, and the law required them to stay closed on Sunday. The majority felt it had the right to enforce its brand of spiritual life.

    So back to this high school. What do the students do? About 200 of them stood up during the principals opening remarks and recited the Lord’s prayer. Now I have a serious problem with this. Whether the judge was right or wrong about the law, his injunction was the law. Those students said that they didn’t really care about that, they were going to make their prayer demonstration anyhow, disrupting the ceremony. They announced loud and clear that they were the majority and they didn’t much care what the minority thought, or what a federal judge ordered. Others at a rehearsal booed the student involved in the suit.

    Now how does a prayer demonstration fit in with Matthew 6:5: “But when you pray don’t be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray in synagogues and standing on street corners so people can see them. I tell you truly, they have their reward.” How does the attitude of rebellion stand up against Romans 13:1-7? I do believe there is a proper time to protest, but is the use of prayer as a mode of protest really something we want to do?

    But I have a better idea for us as Christians. Consider Philippians 2:4: “Let each person not look after his own interests, but after the interests of others.” What would the Christ-like attitude be in this situation. I’m not talking about the law here. What would our Christian standard be? I would suggest that Christian students–or better Christ-like students would seek to find a way to make the one in the minority feel more comfortable. Perhaps they could acknowledge his faith in some way during the ceremony. Such an approach might prevent a case like this from going to court in the first place.

    The Christian majority in this country is whining about persecution quite a bit these days. We’re dealing with words, folks, and as Christians we’re in the majority. No, your own little sect, or big sect, whatever that may be, and my sect, are not all by ourselves in the majority, but Christians are. We are mostly putting up with one another, and most of the claimed persecution seems to be cases in which we don’t get to do precisely what we want, or what we’ve always done, because there is someone pesky outsider to object.

    It’s not that we’re not free to pray; we are. Our children can pray in public school right now! They can do it legally. What is not permitted is having the state sponsor it. So the real problem is not that your child can’t pray. It’s that you can’t have the teacher force him, and other people’s children, to pray in some specified way.

    But prayer as a demonstration is just noise. I suspect, based on the words of Jesus, that God is not particularly pleased with that sort of noise.

  • Every So Often Links

    I often run across things I’d like to mention on this blog just to call folks’ attention to them, but I hate numerous, short blog entries in which my only contribution is to say, “Hey! Look at this!”

    So I think that every so often I’ll provide a series of links to things that I find exceptionally interesting for some reason or another. I’ll try to keep these short and group them by topic so you can find anything you might be interested in quickly. I’m not sure how regularly I’ll do this, but we’ll see. This will also give me an opportunity to link to some of my own material on the more specialized blogs I contribute to without cluttering this one up with excessive numbers of posts.

    Theology

    Since I so regularly find things to dislike about William Dembski and his blog (Uncommon Descent), I should mention that I really enjoyed his recent article on theodicy, Christian Theodicy in the Light of Genesis and Modern Science. I disagree with him quite profoundly, but I found the article well-written. I hope to have time to write a response sometime soon. (I started with the first version, and my link is to a revision, but you might as well go to the most recent version.)

    Methodism

    Head on over to Locusts and Honey and get into the discussion on Changes to the UMC Candidacy Process. How important is doctrinal orthodoxy in your choice of pastor?

    Nate Loucks has an interesting entry on Funding for the Poor which I found via the Wesley Daily.

    Chris Morgan’s post Just Wondering, also found via Wesley Daily (whatever would I do without Shane Raynor?), set me to wondering why we don’t set about cleaning up the act on our own side of the political spectrum instead of complaining about the other side. But then Chris continued with a nice post along that very line, titled Bipartisan Corruption.

    Bible Translation

    Wayne Leman has started a new series over on the Better Bibles Blog, discussing some material by Wayne Grudem and Jerry Thacker, titled Key Issues Re: Bible Translation: critique #1. I enjoyed the first entry. Wayne is always very careful, and gentle but thorough in his critiques.

    From My Specialized Blogs

    On the Participatory Bible Study Blog, I’ve been discussing the priesthood as taught in the book of Hebrews, starting with What is a Priest?. The series is interrupted by some discussion of 1 Corinthians 1 and 2, Baptized Foolishness. I will be continuing my series there on the book of Hebrews, but interspersing it with a few comments on other scriptures.

    On the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter, I am doing a series on designing personal continuing education for pastors, starting here. Too frequently, continuing education is a matter of checking off the appropriate boxes on a form. What do you need to study?

    I also just started The Jevlir Caravansary, a place to play with poetry and fiction. You won’t see any more posts here about my fiction reading. That will allow me to stick to religion and society issues with my focus on the religion side here, and have fun there.

    Just Plain Funny

    DaveScot’s posting of a known hoax over on Uncommon XXXX, and the great fun had by all in trashing him for it. It was the sort of fascination that keeps you watching a multi-car pileup on the interstated. You really don’t want to see another car crash, but you just can’t stop watching! Start with Ed Brayton over on Dispatches from the Culture Wars. I do have to add my two cents worth here. I’m a Christian who teaches on prayer and advocates prayer in your home and in your church. People can pray in the military. It’s fine, and they should pray, but you do nothing for prayer or the kingdom of God by perpetuating a well-known hoax. I would add that real spirituality isn’t helped by putting the force of the state behind it, which is why I am strongly in favor of separation of church and state.

    Well, that’s it for the moment. I make no effort to produce a comprehensive list of anything. These are just things that caught my eye.

  • A Step for Abiogenesis?

    In a short article, ScienceNOW Daily news discusses some new research that may shed light on how life first emerged on this planet. I want to call attention to the article for a couple of reasons, but primarily because this, in my view, is how real science is done, and how it sounds when announced. No, they don’t know that this is an element of the formation of life, no, they don’t have the rest of the process, even the next step, figured out. What they have done is provide one more option, and filled in one more blank in the unknown.

    Michael Behe, in his book Darwin’s Black Box describes structure after structure and process after process, recounting how we have discovered new complexity as we continue to learn more about how the function. What is a black box at one point in the history of science will not necessarily remain so. Unfortunately, Behe uses all this skillful writing to produce an ode to ignorance, and complains that evolutionary pathways have not been found. He believes they never will be. But as things get more complex, one simply has to work harder to learn the details that are part of the complexity of nature. In this case, there is now a new reaction that opens up possibilities for study. Does it resolve the problem? No! But it suggests new research and provides more options for continuing the search. That’s how science works.

    Some may be wondering how I, a “theistic evolutionist” got onto the topic of abiogenesis. After all, the expected method of argument for theistic evolutionists is to distinguish evolution of life from abiogenesis. I do believe they should be regarded as distinct. But I also believe that abiogenesis will be solved, and an pathway for the origination of life will be formed. How then can I relate this to my belief that God is the creator of life? Actually, I believe God is the creator of everything. I believe God created the universe as a system, a system that works.

    Let me use the analogy of my car. I don’t regard periodic maintenance requirements for my vehicle as a sign of the wisdom of the engineers. Sure, they did well to warn me of those requirements, but I would be happier if they were less frequent, and if it were practical to produce a vehicle that never required maintenance, that would be even better. I also don’t look at the simple parts of my car and determine that they did not require an engineer, while the more complex parts must have been designed. I know that each element was put there as a part of the design strategy of the car. That they work together (mostly) seamlessly, and that I cannot find parts that are “more designed” than others is not a defect.

    Now as all analogies, this one has it’s limitations. My car is very little like a universe. But I think it does illustrate my point. If God designed the universe correctly, then it should work. If it requires periodic maintenance, like my car, it gives evidence of manufacture by a less-than-perfect creator.

    I don’t like the idea of tinkering, whether it comes at the time of speciation or when life first came into existence. I creidt life to God whether intervention was required or not, but I suspect a competent God of getting it right the first time (A “fully gifted universe” to borrow Howard Van Till’s phrase).

    So folks, I think this one will be solved in the next few years, and if you hooked your faith in God to the impossibility of life being formed from non-living matter without special miraculous intervention, you will be disappointed.

    But make no mistake, no matter how thick the gloves are on God’s hands, no matter how many processes supposedly separate him from his handiwork, it is still God that does it. An omnipresent God is not less present when working through process (and consistent processes at that), than he is working directly. The evidence suggests that he prefers working through consistent processes.

  • Reading Psalm 46

    I’ve been reading Psalm 46 in my devotional time, and have gone through it numerous times now. I’ve blogged about some of the things I’ve been thinking about while working with this Psalm at Threads from Henry’s Web, in an article entitled Translating Psalm 46. Reading poetry is a bit different from reading prose, particularly theological prose. Some people derive theology from the Psalms much too easily. One should pay attention to the genre. (See my article Interpreting Poetry for some ideas.)

    But first let me call attention to some alternate ways of looking at Psalm 46. Martin Luther’s hymn, A Mighty Fortress is our God, translated into English long ago, is built on this Psalm.

    A mighty fortress is our God, a trusty shield and weapon;
    He helps us free from every need that hath us now overtaken.
    The old evil foe now means deadly woe; deep guile and great might
    Are his dread arms in fight; on Earth is not his equal.

    With might of ours can naught be done, soon were our loss effected;
    But for us fights the Valiant One, Whom God Himself elected.
    Ask ye, Who is this? Jesus Christ it is.
    Of Sabbath Lord, and there’s none other God;
    He holds the field forever.

    Though devils all the world should fill, all eager to devour us.
    We tremble not, we fear no ill, they shall not overpower us.
    This world’s prince may still scowl fierce as he will,
    He can harm us none, he’s judged; the deed is done;
    One little word can fell him.

    The Word they still shall let remain nor any thanks have for it;
    He’s by our side upon the plain with His good gifts and Spirit.
    And take they our life, goods, fame, child and wife,
    Let these all be gone, they yet have nothing won;
    The Kingdom ours remaineth.

    In dealing with translation I tried pouring the content into the form of an Italian sonnet, just for fun (Psalm 46 as an Italian Sonnet). When interpreting poetry, there are many ways to try to “feel” the result, and the feeling is often more important than the theology. In fact, those who have suffered trouble, both Jews and Christians, may wonder about God being “an easily found help in trouble.” People who trusted in God have not always found their help in the form of physical rescue. Often they find strength to endure the trial, or even to go to their deaths, but they are not always saved.

    But this Psalm is a resounding affirmation of God’s power and protection over those who trust in him, and of his presence with his people.

    Textual Issues

    Let me note one textual issue here. Some commentaries add the refrain from verses 7 and 11 between verses 3 and 4 as well. No translations have taken up this conjecture, and it is built entirely on structural considerations. I would suggest that this addition is forcing the text to fit a theory on the structure of the text. It also breaks an extremely eloquent contrast between verses 3 and 4. In verse three we have the chaotic waters roaring and behaving in a destructive way, but in verse 4, the waters are under control and are the source of life.

    Interpretation

    This psalm is usually viewed as a cultic hymn, and indeed it may have found its setting in that context, but I think one needs to get a little bit more specific. This is a community response to trouble based on the most fundamental theology about God. Yes, we can express this confidence in the cult, but the specific situation from which it grows is one of threatening danger, specifically of invasion.

    Verses 1-3 speak of God as creator. Elements here reflect the creation division of the water and the land, the flood as a sense of cosmic destruction (the feel of the P source), and God’s protection of his city. I would place this Psalm before the exile, so I don’t see Ezekiel as a source, but he is surely pulling from the same body of imagery in describing the river of Ezekiel 47.

    That same sense of moving from the God whose power is over all, and who is still in charge even in the midst of chaos is presented here by the stark contrast between verses 3 and 4. Raging waters become life-giving, controlled streams in God’s city. God is present there, it’s his sanctuary. It is the same creator God who is in charge, who sits on the flood (Psalm 29:10-11), who also dwells peacefully with his people and will protect them.

    Verse 7 introduces the refrain, and then verses 8-10 reflect God’s authority over the nations. The nations are in chaos like the sea (see the imagery of Daniel 7), but God is in control there. God is powerful and capable of destruction. God brings his own people peace. For a discussion of this dual imagery, applied to Jesus, see Jesus as King and Priest.

    The God of our parents is with us.

  • Translating Psalm 46

    One of the things I find difficult to present to lay audiences is the range of options that a translator has in dealing with any passage. In particular poetry offers may options. One is not presented with just a couple of binary yes/no choices; rather, one is presented with a huge range of options, each of which will convey some of the meaning and feel of the passage and ignore other elements.

    Hebrew poetry is a good example of these problems. This week I was led to Psalm 46 in my devotions, and after spending some time studying it in Hebrew I started to play with translation options.

    I’m not going to discuss this extensively, as I’ve discussed most of the questions in my book (What’s in a Version?), or in materials on my web site about translation (Bible Translation Selection Tool is a good starting place). Here I simply want to link to some translations and also provide some of my own showing what Psalm 46 looks like based on some of these possibilities. Please bear with me as these are part of my own devotional work and are not designed to be literary masterpieces. In fact, one good thing to comment about would be suggestions for improvement, which could help me (and other people) get an idea how to convey this type of thought.

    Here are the options I’ll be illustrating:

    • Interlinear (my translation)
    • Literal (ESV)
    • Modernized (my translation)
    • Modernized and simplified (CEV)
    • Rewritten in poetic form in target language (my translation, if it can be called a translation)

    I recommend reading it in The Message, but I do not have an online source to link to, and due to copyright considerations I’m not going to quote that much here. It is nicely modernized, but somewhat less daring than some of Peterson’s other translations. Before you start reading these various versions, re-read the Psalm in your favorite version just to fix in your mind what you’re used to.

    Interlinear

    Hebrew transliteration is using my loose transliteration system. This is not intended to be precise, but just enough to hang the interlinear on.

    in the earth

    lamenatseach libney qorach al-;alamoth shir
    To the director, for the sons of Korah, on high notes, a song.
    elohiym lanu machaseh wa;oz  
    God for us a refuge and strength  
    ;ezrah betsaroth nimtsah meod  
    (a) help in trouble found much  
    ;al-ken lo niyra behamiyr erets  
    on this not we will fear when moved the earth  
    ubemot harim beleb yamim  
    or when moved mountains in heart of seas  
    yehemu yechmeru memayw  
    roar are troubled waters-its  
    yir;ashu hariym begaawathow selah  
    will shake mountains at sound-its —  
    nahar pelagayw yesamchu ;iyr elohiym
    (there is) a river streams-its make glad city of God
    qodesh mishkeney ;elyon
    holy (place) of sanctuary(ies) of (the) most high  
    elohiym beqirbah bal timot  
    God in middle-its not it will be moved  
    ya;zereha elohiym lipnowth boqer  
    shall help her/it God before morning  
    hamu goyim matu mamlekoth  
    were troubled nations were moved kingdoms  
    nathan beqolo tamug arets  
    he gave with voice-his melts earth  
    YHWH tsebaoth immanu  
    YHWH of hosts (is) with-us  
    misgab lanu elohey ya;aqob selah
    place of refuge for us (is) God of Jacob —
    lechu chezu mip;aloth YHWH  
    come see wonderful works of YHWH  
    asher sam shamoth baarets  
    which he set desolations  
    mashbiyth milchamoth ;ad qetseh haarets
    making cease wars up to end of the earth
    qesheth yeshabber weqitsets chanith  
    bow he will shatter he will break spear  
    ;agaloth yisrof baesh  
    chariots he will burn with fire  
    harpu ude;u kiy anokiy elohiym
    be quiet/still and know that I (am) God
    arum bagoyim arum baarets  
    I will be exalted in the nations I will be exalted in the earth  
    YHWH tsebaoth immanu  
    YHWH of hosts (is) with us  
    misgab lanu elohey ya;aqob selah
    refuge for us God of Jacob —

    ESV

    The ESV rendering of Psalm 46 is comfortably conservative and will sound fairly familiar to those acquainted with the KJV. The reason is that the translation philosophy and most of the approach of the ESV is similar to that of the KJV.

    My Modernized Translation

    I’m still following the general structure of the Hebrew, and not introducing elements of English poetry, except for trying to keep the lines a bit similar in length. I’ve taken liberties with repeated words and been fairly free with rewording, and in one case reordering lines.

    (To the director, for the order of Korah, on high notes, a song)
    1God is our safe hiding place,
    Easy to find when danger strikes.
    2We won’t fear

    When the world is broken,
    When mountains crash into the sea.
    3When roaring waves crash over us,
    As mountains shake at the sound.

    4There is a river, with streams that make God’s city glad,
    The holy place where lives the Highest God.
    5God is there, right in town!
    The city won’t be moved.
    Early in the morning,
    God will help.
    6Nations are troubled!
    Kingdoms totter!
    God shouts!
    Earth trembles!

    7YHWH is here with his army.
    Our parents’ God is our high ground.

    8Come! See what YHWH has done!
    The kinds of places he’s wiped out.
    9He stops wars anywhere-now!
    He splinters bows and breaks spears!
    He burns chariots!
    10Calm down. Know that I’m God.
    All nations will know that I am boss.
    The world will know that I am in charge.

    11YHWH is here with his army.
    Our parents’ God is our high ground.

    Modernized and Simplified (CEV)

    The key element of the CEV is simple vocabulary, simple structure, and a close attention to ease for public reading. I find the style a little bit informal, but some will like that.

    Psalm 46 as an Italian Sonnet

    For this you need to go to my poetry and fiction blog, the Jevlir Caravansary, where I have posted the sonnet version. I think I got most of the thoughts into the sonnet, though of course the form is substantially different, and things are not in the same order.

  • Jesus as King and Priest

    With the reference to Melchizedek (chapter 7), the author of Hebrews ties Jesus as King to his argument, though he doesn’t dwell on that. There is a key thought here that I would like to look at briefly. Often we find people disagreeing over just what type of person Jesus is. Is he the gentle, forgiving Jesus, or the ruler who rules with a rod of iron?

    That answer is that he is both. I’d like to illustrate this briefly from Revelation 5, which combines the two sets of imagery in one short passage:

    5Then on eof the elders said to me, “Stop crying! Look here! The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has won the right to open the book and to break its seven seals.”

    6And I a lamb standing among the four creatures around the throne and among the elders, looking as though it had been sacrificed. It had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God who are sent out into all the earth. 7And he came and took the book out of the right hand of the one who was sitting on the throne.

    –Revelation 5:5-7 (from the TFBV project)

    The issue in this passage is the one who can open the seals, i.e. the one who has the sovereignty over history and who is able to open the seals and reveal what is to take place. One feels one is on the right track with the “lion of the tribe of Judah.” That sounds like a sovereign, one who can take charge. But when John turns to look, it’s a lamb, and it looks as though it has been sacrificed. It’s not even a healthy lamb!!

    But nonetheless, he is the one who has the sovereignty and proceeds to open the seals. This is the same theology as expressed by Philippians 2:1-11, only expressed symbolically. Consider this type of royal imagery “read into” Hebrews through the reference to Melchizedek, combined with the statement that Jesus, who must have something to offer as a priest, offers himself (Hebrews 8:3 and 9:12).

    The Lion is the Lamb.

  • Why a New Priest?

    The author of Hebrews is at some pains to make it clear to us that we need a new priest and indeed a new priesthood. As I’ve noted in previous entries, he has specific characteristics he expects in this new priest. The heart of his argument for a new priesthood is contained in chapter 7. Note that he builds the basis for this argument in chapters 1-6, and that he discusses the actual impact of the new priesthood in chapters 8-10, but the argument in favor of the new priesthood is in chapter 7.

    He has established to his satisfaction that Jesus is greater than the angels and greater than Moses. He has established that Jesus is able to empathize with us, because he is just like us. He is certain that Jesus is the new priest and that there is a new revelation now that is greater than the Torah. But he needs to find something there that points to a new order of priesthood. He finds that necessary “hook” in the story of Melchisedek in Genesis 14:18-20. A second reference to Melchizedek in Psalm 110 refers to an order of priesthood, and also helps relate the priesthood to royalty.

    Melchizedek has one wonderful feature that is helpful to the argument for a new priesthood: He arrives on the scene without geneology, and disappears without record of his dath. Thus our author can use him as the type of an eternal priesthood. He is clearly not happy with the idea of a set of rituals that go round and round year after year, and at least to his way of thinking don’t finally accomplish anything. Oh, they help people along the way, but doesn’t it have to end somewhere? So he wants a priesthood that will not end, that is eternal by nature, because only such a priesthood can accomplish an eternal redemption, once and for all, that doesn’t need to be repeated. I’m intentionally redundant. That’s precisely what our author sounds like in chapter 7.

    I’m going to discuss this some more in future entries. For now notice that the key to understanding how Melchizedek is used in Hebrews is the lack of genealogy along with no record of death. Combined with Psalm 110, “priest forever,” this makes the ideal type for his antitype of an eternal priesthood.

    I suggest reading Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, followed by Hebrews 7 to fix this picture in your mind.

  • An Evolutionary Understanding of Kinds

    One of the key issues in the creation-evolution controversy is the extent to which Genesis 1-2 should be understood as narrative history, and whether its statements with regard to the physical world should be taken as scientific statements, or at least as statements that carry some scientific content.

    I was just reminded of the importance of this issue by an essay by Alvin Plantinga, “When Faith and Reason Clash” in the collection Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, edited by Robert T. Pennock. In answering the question of what we do when our scriptural position and that of science clashes, Plantinga says (p. 121), “. . . I don’t know of any infallible rule, or even any pretty reliable general recipe. All we can do is weigh and evaluate the relative warrant, the relative backing or strength, of the conflicting teachings. We must do our best to apprehend both the teachings of Scripture and the deliverances of reason; in either case we will have much more warrant for some apparent teachings than for others. . . .”

    He then proceeds to divide “evolution” into five claims, two of which are the Ancient Earth Thesis and the Common Ancestry Thesis. The reason I list just these two is that the difference between them is the focus of this short essay. I think also that the handling of these two elements by creationists of all varieties will emphasize the problems with any notion of “theistic science.” Plantinga regards the scientific evidence for an ancient earth to be so strong, and the scriptural evidence for a young earth to be weak enough that we can accept an ancient earth. Common ancestry, on the other hand, he interprets differently. He sees the scientific evidence as much weaker, and the Biblical evidence much stronger, and thus he feels justified in rejecting it.

    Let me note first that I don’t think that the Bible makes scientific statements, and thus there should not be an issue of conflict between what the Bible teaches and what one learns from science, since they are talking about different topics. Nonetheless I want to look at the difference between these two issues on the assumption that one might extract some scientific information from Genesis. Is the Ancient Earth Thesis or the Common Ancestry Thesis better supported scientifically? Is either of them more forcefully contradicted by scripture? How would one deal with this approach?

    Old earth creationists (OEC), and many intelligent design (ID) advocates see the evidence for an old earth as extremely strong, but in general they want to maintain some sort of historical and scientific truth claims for the early stories of Genesis. For a recent example, see William Dembski’s Christian Theodicy in the Light of Genesis and Modern Science in which he attempts to reconcile the idea that physical death is the result of human sin with an old earth in which death occurred prior to the existence of human beings. I hope to respond to that article some time soon. It’s really quite interesting. Here, however, I am simply noting that it takes the scientific evidence for an old earth seriously, seeing it as solid enough to effectively require that one deal with it, and thus requiring a somewhat complex interpretational solution.

    Ignoring Dembski’s new view for the moment, however, let me look at just how difficult it is to reinterpret Genesis so that it will support an old earth, based on previous claims. In this way I’d like to outline just how solid the Biblical evidence is for each position, since according to Plantinga we should apparently judge each of these elements and relate them to the validity of the scientific evidence.

    Read as narrative history, Genesis 1-11 teaches several things:

    • a young earth, in the neighborhood of 6,000 years old
    • special creation in the course of a week
    • a specific incident resulting in a fall of humans from their relationship to God which resulted in their expulsion from Eden, commonly interpreted as the source of all physical death
    • moral deterioration of humanity to a point beyond redemption except for a few
    • a universal flood that destroyed all those not in the ark, including all human and animal life, but apparently not plant life
    • the formation of multiple languages from an original universal language at the Tower of Babel

    In reinterpreting these elements, old earth creationists do the following:

    • In some sense regard the creation days as long periods of time. (There are multiple ways of doing this, but I’ll regard it as just one element of interpretation.)
    • Deal somehow with the sense of “special creation” in the passage, when this creation is accomplished over long periods of time and with significant detours (extinction events, for example)
    • Find a way to understand physical death before the fall narrated in Genesis 3. (Again, there are a variety of explanations, but they are all more complex than the narrative history reading of Genesis 3.)
    • Dealing with moral deterioration and the flood as one element, they need to restrict the range of the flood so that it does not completely disrupt the geological record, as a universal flood surely would.
    • Relate the apparent history of language and patterns of migration with the Babel story. (I have really never seen anyone address this issue, but I think it would come up if the others were to be solved.

    Note that I’m not particularly singling out any of these elements as wrong, or even extremely improbable. I’m simply looking at the weight of scriptural evidence that must be reinterpreted in order to accept an old earth view under Plantinga’s idea of theistic science. If one is to read Genesis as narrative history with scientific content, then I think the young earth folks have the inside track on straightforward exegesis.

    Now let’s turn to common descent. At the risk of oversimplifying, since I’m not a biologist, let me state this simply as the descent of all life from a single life form by descent with modification. To reconcile such a picture with Genesis we need to deal with at least two elements of the old earth scenario, time and physical death prior to the fall. But the reconciliation already provided by the young earth advocates already cover those points. In addition, we need to deal with the issue of reproduction after their kind. And that is where I would really like to discover what the great problem is.

    In the good old days of George McCready Price, whose books were part of my early education, creationists tended to believe that species were very closely fixed. A “kind” was a rather tight package and corresponded closely to species. Over time, that has changed, and with good reason. But creationists of all varieties are still trying to find the boundaries of “kinds.” Why are they doing that? Most importanly why are people who can accept an old earth hung up on the issue of kinds?

    If we can accept a range of variation within a population and still call that reproduction “after their kinds,” then where in the Biblical text is this absolute warrant for a hard coded boundary? By shifting the distribution of characters in a population, you can move the population anywhere you wish without any single creature ever failing to reporduce “after its kind.” It seems to me that rather than being the most difficult element of the picture, “after their kinds” is actually the easiest one to deal with. Once any variation is permitted within the definition of such reproduction, there is no inherent limit on such variation.

    Thus with much less effort than is required to allow an old earth we have an explanation for common descent that is in accord with scripture. What is more, many of the difficulties inherent in spreading special creation over a period of time are removed. Many people question the idea of special creation that takes long periods of time simply because it hardly seems “special” any more. The OEC tells the evolutionist that God took the same amount of time, permitted the same amount of death and destruction, allowed the same number of species to become extinct, only the creation is more personal and special. The question is why? If, on the other hand, God was using variation and natural selection as the process of creation, then the time factor and the “after their kind” explanation make perfect sense together.

    It seems to me that there must be some other issue here, and with that issue we’re headed straight back toward the dreaded “God of the gaps” theology. The real point is that OECs can still see specific, identifiable acts of creation by God with an old earth, but if we allow creation of all life forms via descent with modification, this evidence for the existence and activity of God disappears. I think that is the real reason why there is so much greater resistance to common descent than there is to an old earth (though one shouldn’t underestimate remaining Christian resistance to an old earth). But I think scripture can be interpreted to support common descent with greater ease than an old earth. In fact, the greatest barriers have already been eliminated by the old earth argument, and indeed, common descent helps make some better sense of some of the difficulties that the old earth view introduces.

    I can’t leave this subject without noting that I believe that either set of interpretations, young or old earth, are misguided. We need only look at the nature of the “after their kinds” statement to see the problem with reading science from Genesis. There is no definition here to determine just how descent with modification would occur. There is no limit on the “kinds.” Evolution by this standard could wander anywhere. We know that in actuality, evolution is constrained in its pathways by the existing form of the creature. There is simply no statement in Genesis 1-11, and I would suggest in the entire Bible, that is defined in such a way that it could be used directly in science. Further evidence for this is provided by the large number of alternate interpretations applied to the text. I used just one general set, but any OEC could challenge me on any point and claim he has a better interpretation. But that would simply show that the original statement was not well-defined in a scientific sense.

    Theistic science is a non-starter, at least from the Biblical point of view. The Bible fails to provide such knowledge.