Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Baptized Foolishness

    I often hear 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 applied to the issue of whether one needs to know Greek in order to comment on certain translation issues. It’s difficult to see how anyone could imagine that this passage applies to such a situation. Certainly there are spiritual things which a Christian will understand differently than others, but you either read Greek or you don’t.

    First, let’s look at the broader context of the passage. (I will quote portions, but I assume that everyone can look this up in their Bible.)

    The first epistle to the Corinthians is, as the word “epistle” denotes, a letter, written by the apostle Paul in response to problems in that church. It is often treated as a kind of random collection of advice to that church, but that is not really the case. There is a very important unifying theme. That’s why I won’t limit my discussion to the verses you specified. In particular, verses 10-17 set the scene for the entire book.

    Paul first says that the problem in Corinth is a division into factions (1:10-12) then he asks pointedly whether Christ has been divided (13). He continues by asking whether they were baptized into his (Paul’s) name. He then takes one of his famous detours to explain who he did, or did not baptize, on which his memory is not terribly clear (14-16) but verse 17 sets the state for his discussion of 18-31. He was not called to baptize but to preach. It is the proclamation of Jesus Christ that is the focus of Paul’s work.

    This is a thematic statement for the epistle. As we read through the entire letter, we see that Paul sees a central problem in the factions of the church. People are dividing themselves up over different evidences of how spiritual they are. Not only that, they are questioning Paul’s leadership, because he doesn’t fulfill their particular tests of spirituality. Some see the truly spiritual person as one who bears wisdom. Others see those who ignore deeds of the flesh as truly spiritual. Others test their spiritual state by their wealth, and even bring such wealth into the communion service. Yet others see the mark of their spirituality in the various gifts of the Spirit, and especially in the gift of tongues. Thus for them, the one who speaks most in tongues is, in fact, the most spiritual person.

    Paul challenges this view in chapters 12-14, and then in chapter 15, he returns to this initial point—the preaching of Jesus Christ, crucified, dead and also resurrected. He makes clear then that the only true completely spiritual state comes with the resurrection or transformation when this corruptible puts on incorruption and this mortal puts on immortality (15:54-55). Until that time, our spirituality, whether manifested in knowledge, prophecy or tongues is still partial and limited. I note here that any idea that the canon of scripture constitutes perfect knowledge is in direct contradiction to Paul’s message to the Corinthian church. We absolutely do not have perfect knowledge. That is reserved to the kingdom of God.

    Now having set this context, I return to 1:18-25 (with further reference to 26-31). It’s interesting to me that this passage is brought up frequently when someone is losing an argument. “My argument may look foolish,” is the cry, “but it’s really divine wisdom!” I have seen this used again and again in opposition to serious study, whether that is through study of the original languages, or simply a careful look at a passage in context. “If it isn’t simple, it must be false,” is the war cry of some.

    I will suggest that this attitude is actually one of the things Paul would oppose, based on the principles in this passage.

    18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

    1 Corinthians 1:18-19 (NRSV)

    We immediately see that Paul has a specific type of “foolishness” in mind—the foolishness of the cross. Paul’s argument here is that the world finds the idea of a savior who died on a cross to be foolishness, and the notion that such a savior rose from the dead impossible (see chapter 15), but that this is God’s wisdom and the core of Paul’s preaching.

    Paul’s intent here is to place the cross—and specifically the foolishness of the cross—at the center of the proclamation. When someone takes this point and then tries to apply it to just any form of human foolishness, that seems to me to border on blasphemy. It is not that God has taken all foolishness and made it wisdom; rather, through Jesus Christ, God has taken a specific thing—the incarnation—and cancelled the human wisdom of the world with that. Notice verse 19. It is the foolishness of the cross that destroys the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning. Was it all wisdom and all discernment? Hardly. Paul speaks of a spiritual gift of discernment. Paul speaks with respect of the Hebrew scriptures which place a great premium on wisdom.

    Verse 21 puts further emphasis on this. It is through the foolishness of the proclamation, which Paul has already alluded to in verse 17 as the focus of his ministry, that God has chosen in order to save people. For Paul, opening the good news of a relationship with God, one which he believed would culminate in a resurrection-transformation, to everyone was a very critical proclamation. And it was made possible, in his view, not through words of wisdom, but through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

    Now verse 25 is also critical. “For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength” (1:25 NRSV). It is not that human foolishness is greater than human wisdom, it is that God’s foolishness (relatively speaking) is greater than the greatest of human wisdom.

    Now does this say that any foolish thing someone can say about scripture is alright and that nobody should challenge it? No. Even Paul wished to use words of wisdom in speaking to the Corinthians. He wished they were mature enough to hear them (2:6-10). Did he say that someone who doesn’t know a language actually does? No, he simply elevated the foolishness of the cross above the wisdom of the world. I repeat that trying to carry all forms of human foolishness past logical objections by trying to ride them in on the “foolishness of the cross” at a minimum borders on blasphemy to Christian ears.

    Now let’s look at 26-31. Here Paul points out that many of the members of the Corinthian church were not terribly important, rich, or wise by the world’s standards when they were called. This is one of a number of places in this letter in which Paul makes the effort to put everyone on an even footing before God. Later, in chapter 12, Paul will point out that all gifts come from one and same Spirit who gives them out as he wills. Again, all stand on a level field before God. After discussing those gifts Paul switches again to the calling (12:12-13). Again, he speaks of equal footing.

    Chapter 13 makes this more explicit, and also gives us a key principle. What if I have various gifts, even all knowledge? If I don’t have love, I am nothing. That’s because the principles of love as expressed in 13:4-8a all tend to keep me from making a faction out of my particular talents or gifts. They take the pride out of those gifts.

    In chapter 8:1-2 (and following), we see a misapplication of knowledge. Someone who knows that an idol is nothing can use that knowledge to hurt another brother or sister. Knowledge puffs up. But does Paul suggest we need no knowledge? Not at all! He refers to knowledge as a gift. I love verse two and use it frequently. Anyone who thinks he already knows doesn’t know the way he should.

    I recall a youth pastor who had listened as I spoke about the scriptures and answered questions from his youth group. At the end he said he had a question. “I’ve been studying the Bible now for four or five years and I feel that I’ve pretty much got it. What do I do now?” he asked. I admit to being pretty close to speechless. When we quit looking for more knowledge, when we allow the idea that we have attained to stop us, we are truly in a pitiable state.

    So what does my knowledge of Greek do for me? It allows me to read Greek and to comment on Greek words. Does it give me special status before God? Absolutely not. Does it give me the inside track on salvation? On sanctification? Absolutely not. All it does is allow me to read and understand Greek. Can my understanding improve? Absolutely. I pray continually that it will improve.

    On the other hand, does Paul’s statement here suggest in any way that someone who doesn’t know Greek can read it anyways? Again, not at all. The one who reads and the one who doesn’t are not to judge one another spiritually because of that.

    There is the reverse error that I also see in the church. Because of this passage many Christians celebrate ignorance. They figure that God has chosen the simple things to confound the wise, so let’s be as simple as we can. That is precisely the same error—believing that the state of my knowledge gives me a special place with God. There is only *one* foolishness which is elevated here: the foolishness of the cross.

    I leave you with a text from Hebrew scriptures, in which wisdom personified is crying out in the street:

    22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
    How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
    and fools hate knowledge?
    Proverbs 1:22 (NRSV)

  • Was Jesus a Lawful Priest and Sacrifice?

    I’m going to post next on the nature of the priesthood of Jesus, by looking at the major passages in the book of Hebrews. These especially chapter 2, 4:14-16, and 7. Obviously that list is not exhaustive, as priesthood is fundamental to most of the book, but those passages will get us started. First, however, I want to address the question in the title: Was Jesus lawful as either a priest or a sacrifice? I’ve seen this discussion between Jews and Christians, and a great deal of confusion was generated.

    The short answer is no. Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi, much less of the family of Aaron. He was not qualified according to the Torah to be a priest. Neither was he qualified to be a sacrifice. Humans are not kosher animals, and they are nowhere specifically authorized as sacrifices. Indeed human sacrifice is specifically forbidden.

    But none of this should be a surprise to a Christian Bible student, though unfortunately it seems to be for some. Indeed, the author of Hebrews is not only aware of this point; it’s a key element of his argument. Recall that he has been establishing Jesus, and the witness to Jesus, as superior to the Torah as a revelation. I have noted how this is completely contrary to the Jewish approach to scripture and its interpretation. (Note that I am in no way trying to tell Jews how to approach scripture; I’m addressing this to Christians, but the difference needs to be understood for interfaith discussions.) Having made such an argument he continues by establishing Jesus as a new kind of priest, on which he spends almost all of chapter 7, and then chapter 8 introduces the concept of a new covenant. If Jesus were here, he would not be a priest. There already are priests, but more importantly, Jesus comes from the tribe of Judah, and there is no privision in Torah for such a priest (Hebrews 7:14).

    Rather than trying to argue against this obvious fact, the author of Hebrews bases his argument for the superior priesthood of Jesus on that fact. He was not a priest like the old, Levitical priests. He was a priest of a new order, based on a new covenant, and new regulations. (We’ll discuss the priestly order of Melchisedek in a later entry.) He argues this superior priesthood on the same basis as he has argued the superiority of the revelation that comes through Jesus–he maintains that in all ways Jesus’ ministry is superior. Note that he does not start by establishing the ministry of Jesus from the Old Testament scriptures. (Those who recall how much Old Testament he quotes, hold your exclamations and questions.) Rather, he starts with the superiority of the established testimony of Jesus (2:1-4) and of his priesthood and sacrifice (7-10 passim), and then looks for pointers to something superior that is to come in the Old Testament scriptures.

    Thus the correct answer to the title question is, again, no. Under the Torah, Jesus was neither lawful as a priest nor as a sacrifice. Further, he was not offered according to the law. Does this mean that Jesus is not a priest or a sacrifice? Well, according to the book of Hebrews, he is. He is lawful because he inaugurated a new law.

    I would two other points. The first is the nature of metaphor. Jesus was not killed as a sacrifice from the point of view of those who did it, or from the point of view of those who watched. The Romans crucified Jesus as a routine act of political intimidation. The observers were, well, intimidated. One of the ways in which we can understand this is as a sacrifice–and indeed it was. But we will neither understand everything about it by this means, nor will we be able to connect it to a sacrifice at every point.

    The second is the idea of type and antitype. This is expressed in Hebrews 8:5. The earthly things are a sketch and shadow of heavenly things. Those who understand this passage as indicating that there is a building in heaven proportional to the tabernacle or the temple, and that in the most holy compartment of that temple there is an ark of the covenant miss the point. The ark of the covenant was the shadow, the representation, the physical expression of God’s presence. The heavenly reality is God’s actual presence. To read about the antitypical most holy place, read Revelation 4, and the experience of worship around the throne of God.

    Beware of getting two little or two much out of these types of parallels.

  • Are You a Priest?

    A key element of the participatory study method is getting up close and personal with the application. Since God indicated in Exodus 19:6 that his intention for Israel was that they should be a nation of priests, and that a similar goal was expressed for Christians in 2 Peter 2:9, the question I want to ask is how this applies to me.

    Let’s make a more extensive list of activities of a priest:

    1. Teaching to distinguish holy from unholy, clean and unclean, right and wrong (see my previous post on priesthood)
    2. Bearing sin (High Priest particularly)
    3. Presenting sacrifices
    4. Judging issues based on their knowledge and divine instruction
    5. Leading in worship

    This list isn’t exhaustive, but it gives us some idea.

    Many people have a hard time seeing themselves in this role, but God presents it as an ideal. I think if we clean out the theological terminology, there is nothing here that we can’t all do.

    First, though not all of us are teachers by office (James 3:1), all of us have something to teach. At a minimum, we can share our own testimony. (I wrote some notes on this for the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter blog.) We do not ourselves carry other peoples sins, but we can help them find forgiveness. We can all present sacrifices–in the modern Christian sense with our gifts, our service, and our praise of God. We do not all serve as judges, but we can all participate in the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:16-21). Finally, we may not all see ourselves as leaders in worship, but we all can be. It’s easy to lean on the worship leader to get us into the attitude of worship. How much better would it be if each person in a worship service was helping to lead their little corner of the church into worship?

    But there is one major difference when we are all part of the priesthood. While we are called to do all of these things as a member of Christ’s “royal priesthood” we are also called to receive from one another. Today you may be the leader, helping someone else get closer to God. Tomorrow it may be you who needs the help. The benefit of a nation of priests or a priestly kingdom is that we are all equipped to help one another.

    That is the call of the priesthood.

  • Tee-Ball and Perspective

    I rarely post something just to point to another entry, but this one is so good, I can’t resist: Adam Roberts posts a bit about Tee-Ball and the perspective of parents and kids at SOTHBLOG, in a post titled Little. I found it via Wesley Daily, to which I give thanks!

    I was particularly touched when he mentioned the group of 16-17 year olds playing without much in the way of parental support. It’s easy to forget that our teenagers, college age youth, and young adults need support. They’re so anxious to be seen as independent, and they can make it to and from their own games, so it’s easy to take the lazy way and let them take care of themselves. But if you do, you’re going to be wondering why they take the lazy way when it comes to keeping in touch with you. I was reminded of the day that my stepson James, then 15 and playing freshman basketball, was headed out to a game. For some reason his mother was not in town, and he informed me that since the game was in another county, and “wasn’t important anyhow” that I didn’t need to go. I went. I cheered. When he got home he said, “Thanks for coming to my game.” When I saw the look on his face (James was very expressive–his looks were paragraphs at least), I was glad I hadn’t accepted the excuse.

    You only get these chances once! Thanks to Rev. Adam, Coach Adam, or whatever he’s being called at the moment for a fine reminder!

  • Revelation: Progressive or Continuous?

    Working on the book of Hebrews over on my Participatory Bible Study blog has led me to do some additional thinking about revelation or inspiration, and how it functions. One of the key claims of the book of Hebrews is that Jesus is a greater revelation than that provided by the Torah. In order to support this claim, he has to first establish that revelation is in some sense progressive, though he does not develop a doctrine of progressive revelation, but rather establishes that a new, greater revelation can supercede an earlier one.

    This is a key difference between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism sees the Torah as the ultimate revelation, and everything that follows is less authoritative. The idea of something appearing that would supercede the Torah is pretty much anathema. It is typical of later religions to make a claim that their own newer revelation is greater than what has gone before. For Christianity, it’s Jesus and the New Testament, but then many Christians want to claim that revelation has ceased. For Islam (or at least the vast majority of it), the Qur’an is the final revelation, and cannot be superceded. It’s finally the perfect thing.

    But Christians divide on this point, some believing in one form or another of continuing revelation, while others believe that revelation ceased with the age of the apostles. Amongst Christians liberals and charismatics tend to see revelation as continuing, while the reformed movement and those related to it see revelation as complete with the Bible. There are a number of special cases, such as the Roman Catholic church and the concept ofthe “magisterium.” Technically, this is not continuing revelation, but in effect, it certainly gives that appearance. The Latter Day Saints have their living apostles who can bring out new revelation.

    I grew up as Seventh-day Adventist, and one of the key controversies between SDAs and the rest of the Christian community is over Ellen White. Can you have a modern prophet, and how does this relate to scripture? Here again I think there is a difference in the way things are expressed and the way they are put into practice. My experience was that many Adventists used the writings of Ellen White as though they were scripture, no matter how church doctrine was stated. But I don’t think SDAs are alone on this issue. The place of the prophetic movement in charismatic and pentecostal churches is very similar and I see some of the same things being done either with words from the Lord, visions, and writings. Some conversation here between modern charismatics and Seventh-day Adventists might be valuable. I have often wondered how Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel would fare if we had as detailed a record of their lives, along with copies of every letter they ever wrote. Fortunately or unfortunately we don’t get to compare the first draft of Jeremiah with the second, and attempts at a chronology of his message are often quite speculative.

    So let me ask first whether revelation is progressive. I think “progressive” is a terribly dangerous word. In biology, evolution is often described as a progress from simple to complex, primitive to modern, with “modern” defined as “better.” As time goes forward some suppose that organisms become better adapted to their environment, so that we have a constant movement toward perfection. But if you read descriptions of evolution by actual biologists, this picture doesn’t seem to work quite as well. One can say for certain that variety has generally increased, i.e. there is more now than there was in the Cambrian period, but none of the other claims I mentioned can be made with certainty. “More complex” may mean less adapted, and thus natural selection would select for simplicity. The environment changes as well, so one cannot be certain that we’re always moving to better adaptation.

    Why bring biological evolution in here? Simply because progressive revelation is often compared to biological evolution, often in a negative sense. It’s part of the “applying evolution to everything.” Well, one can certain apply some evolutionary concepts to anything that changes, but that’s not really the issue here. “Progressive revelation” has gotten tangled with the same types of misunderstandings that are involved in biological evolution. First, it is assumed that any new revelation must automatically supercede an older revelation. Second, it is assumed that as time goes on the revelation we have in our possession will be better and better, i.e. that we will become closer and closer to the truth about God.

    Just as the inevitable progress of biological evolution does not seem so well founded, and just as adaptation can go on for many millions of years without any assurance that anything actually gets 100% adapted, so I see little reason to assume that revelation will be progressive in either of those senses. What I personally hear from the Lord is more adapted to my circumstances. A current revelation to a church community will be better adapted to their time and their place, but because we are imperfect people, we will always have problems fully comprehending that revelation. A perfect revelation cannot be 100% adapted to imperfect recipients.

    But my prior paragraph could easily be misunderstood. The biological analogy breaks down. The revelation is not, in fact, adapting itself. Rather, the revelation is coming to different people, in different circumstances, at different times, and in different ways. It has always been that way. We can refine our understanding, but again, because we are imperfect, there is no guarantee that we are always getting better. We can hope we are, but we cannot be certain. The next generation could look back at our time and laugh, just as many of us laugh at a prior time.

    I think that God is continually revealing himself, continually speaking. We hear with varied clarity. In scripture and established traditions, we take those things that have been heard, confirmed, and reaffirmed at many times and in many places. What Isaiah said is not necessarily better than what someone hears from the Lord in their morning devotions. But Isaiah’s words have been used and tested repeatedly by many people over a long period of our tradition, and so have been accepted as of genuine, general value over a wide geographic area and over a broad range of times and places. The fact that his book is scripture is a definition of the community that accepts it, not a simple derivation from the nature of the content.

    I know there will be those who are disturbed. I am overcome by delusions of grandeur, and am receiving revelations of the quality and value of those of the prophet Isaiah. [Pause for effect :-)] Well, no, I’m not. But if God speaks to me, and if I hear correctly, the words of God are just as true whispered in my ear as in anybody else’s. And of course they are just as true whispered in anybody else’s ear, including the ear of someone I despise, as they are in mine.

    I have more options to test these words now because I have scripture, as defined by my community, and I can even dabble in scripture as defined by other communities just to check things out. This increase in quantity and variety gives me an advantage. One pictures Abraham, as tradition suggests dealing with idols as was the family business, and suddenly addressed by God. “Get out of here! Go somewhere that I’ll show you!” Abraham has very little to go on. Scripture doesn’t exist yet, and won’t for centuries. He simply has to decide whether to accept what the voice says (presumably based on the patriarchal tradition, but do you want to decide on God’s voice based on your family tradition?) or not. I have it easier. I have a community; I’m not about to found one. I have other people who at least claim to hear God speak, though this is often more of a hindrance than otherwise. There’s more variety.

    But fundamentally God speaking is God speaking, and I don’t think it’s getting better or worse. We just have more instances of it to study. So I reject the term “progressive” and prefer “continuous.”

  • Priesthood, Sacrifice, and Christian Theology

    I want to call the attention of the readers of this blog to some posts I’m starting in the Participatory Bible Study blog. I’m looking at the nature of priesthood and sacrifice in connection with views of the atonement. This portion of my blogging through the book of Hebrews will take me a number of entries, and I will only point to them once here. For those interested in such issues as the substitutionary atonement, particularly penal substitutionary atonement, and how this compares with other views may find that series interesting.

    The sub-series begins with What is a Priest?.

    Admin note: I’m going to be out of town over the weekend teaching a weekend discipleship seminar. If any comments get stuck in moderation, they’ll probably be stuck until I return.

  • Isaiah 24-27 – Textual Issues

    I’m approaching the textual issues for these four chapters from the point of view of English translations. I want to look for those textual issues that actually have an impact on major English translations. This is a procedure you can follow any time you study a Bible passage, assuming you don’t know Greek or Hebrew and can’t use original language tools. Check the footnotes in a variety of translations, and note readings that are used as the primary text, or that are suggested as alternates. These may results from several sources:

    • LXX/Septuagint
    • Syriac
    • Other versions, Latin, Coptic, Georgian, etc.
    • Other Hebrew manuscripts-there are, indeed, some small variations even in late Hebrew manuscripts.
    • Dead Sea Scrolls
    • Conjecture, normally tagged something like cn or cj (Check the abbreviations in your Bible translation for details)

    This list applies to the Hebrew scriptures. In the Pentateuch, add the Samaritan Pentateuch as a source. In the New Testament, you need a different list.

    I’m going to limit my list this time to the New Living Translation, the New Revised Standard Version, and the Revised English Bible. I’m limiting the number to three just for space. There are a number of other good Bible translations to use in this type of study, including especially the New English Translation and the English Standard Version.

    These versions contain the following numbers of textual footnotes in the four chapters we are considering, including places where the translators indicate that the Hebrew meaning is uncertain:

    • NLT – Has a small number of translation notes; no textual notes. (The absence of textual notes is significant also.)
    • NRSV – Lists seven verses with textual notes
    • REB – Lists eight verses with textual notes

    The value of looking at multiple versions is illustrated here. As you will see in the chart, the REB and NRSV lists only match in one case. We will compare readings in the NLT, where in some cases an issue is resolved by the translators, but they did not feel a footnote was necessary. In normal study, you can survey more translations. I looked at the English Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, and the New English Translation, though I did not include them in the chart.

    Verse REB NRSV NLT
    24:15 the eastern regions, footnote indicates that the Hebrew is uncertain in the east In eastern lands
    All translations reflect one probable reading. There is no textual variant, but there is some uncertainty as to translation
    25:5 deletes “heat in the shadow of a cloud” includes this phrase, but divides the poetic lines differently Includes all, divides as REB
    This passage using some difficult phrasing. REB sees the phrase “heat in the shadow of a cloud” as out of place, NLT translates as is, but NRSV begins a conditional clause at the end of verse 14, carrying it forward into verse 15, thus including the phrase, but nonetheless making greater sense of the passage. Personally I would go with the NRSV translation here; REB is deleting a phrase because it is too uncertain to translate.
    25:11 despite the struggle of their hands with every stroke of his hands and all their evil works
    The NRSV marks the word “struggle” with a footnote indicating the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. Even though neither the NLT or the REB provide a footnote, it is clear from the difference in their rendering that the meaning is somewhat uncertain. The problem is with the rendering of the Hebrew word ‘arbah, “movements (or nimble movements)” associated with hands. The meaning is clearly metaphorical, and the translations differ in their rendering. This is a good issue to resolve when you get to exegesis.

    I call attention to the fact that only comparing translations and comparing footnotes would bring this type of issue to the attention of a Bible student who does not read Hebrew.
    26:4 he (using the parallel line with “LORD” to indicate the meaning) LORD GOD LORD GOD
    Another NRSV footnote not reflected in the others. The Hebrew reads “Yah YHWH,” and this is handled differently by the different translations. Since there is no significant change in meaning, the rendering is largely a matter of taste. Many commentators regard the duplication as an error as the use of the abbreviated “YAH” is unusually before the full tetragrammaton “YHWH.”
    26:8 We have had regard to we wait for you we love to obey your laws
    The REB here claims to follow the 1QIs(a) reading, which leaves off the “you” suffix on “we hope (for)” or “we look to.” Literally as far as possible, “Even/also the path of your judgments, YHWH, we look to [you]” which would allow a number of renderings. Is it in the path of judgments that they look to the Lord, or is it the path provided by God’s judgments that they look to? Again, though the scroll and the versions that generally follow it suggest a reading here, exegesis is more likely to provide an answer to how this should be rendered. Note again that only one version provides you with the footnote indicating there is something to study here.
    26:11 zeal for your people zeal for your people eagerness to defend your people
    Hebrew literally reads “zeal of the people” here. Only the REB provides a footnote indicating we are dealing with a variant, though all three versions make the same translation choice. Again, the footnote alerts you to an issue.
    26:16 chastened by the whisper
    (REB also notes that Hebrew reads “they” rather than “we” as other versions translate)    		 poured out a prayer bowed beneath
    Both REB and NRSV call attention to the issue here. This is one to settle in exegesis, though you should be very careful in coming up with a decision if you can’t check the Hebrew.
    26:18 REB note word “like” in the Hebrew delete “like” delete “like”
    All translations render in a similar way, but REB calls your attention to an underlying variant. It is not at all certain how one would translate if the word “like” is included.
    26:19a their bodies (second line), footnote indicates Hebrew “your body” Your dead (collective) their bodies
    The meaning here is identical, but REB again alerts us to the textual issue.
    26:19b those long dead those long dead in the place of the dead
    This is not a textual issue but one of translation. The Hebrew word is “shades.” NLT takes it as the dew falling in the place where the shades live, thus “place of the dead” while the other translations take “shades” as those who have been dead a long time.
    27:6 time to come days to come the time is coming
    Hebrew is literally “those to come” or “the coming ones” which could certainly refer to days. All three versions take this as a reference to time.
    27:8 His quarrel with Jerusalem ends . . . By expulsion He has punished Israel only a little
    Hebrew literally “by expulsion, by exile you contended against them.” I would suggest the variety of renderings makes a footnote a good idea, but only the NRSV provides one in this case.

    *F: – footnote reading; T: – reading incorporated into the text

    This is obviously an incredibly quick tour of the textual issues in the chapters. Many will find these all too minor to take very seriously, but I think they do illustrate the type of information a serious Bible student can find by working with multiple translations and making serious use of the footnotes. Unless you can work with the source material in the original languages, you will have to settle your choice between the renderings of various versions during your exegesis.

    My next entry on Isaiah will deal with various elements of the passage as they can be examined with form criticism. Remember that this will be a kind of dissection approach to the text. Later we’ll look again at the whole to ask what genre the whole composition is.

  • What is a Priest?

    If you read through the book of Hebrews as a whole, you cannot help but notice the central place that the concept of priesthood has for the author of the book. His metaphors come strongly from the tabernacle or sanctuary service, and especially the wilderness version. Where he refers to these things he doesn’t reference the second temple or even Solomon’s temple, but the original tent. Some believe this means he wrote after the temple was destroyed, but I would suggest that there must be a greater motivation than that. The wilderness tabernacle itself was not in existence either. I would suggest that his interest in the tabernacle is because he sees this version as the pristine form, the inaugural form, if you will, and because it is the form described directly in Torah. He is working on a contrast of the person of Jesus with the whole of Torah, so he takes his illustration from the Torah as directly as possible. (We will note when we discuss his use of the Old Testament that he works from the LXX to some extent.)

    The problem for modern readers is that we do not hear the same things by these words as he probably did. Terms like priest, high priest, sacrifice, pure, impure, and even worship don’t necessarily mean the same thing to us simply because we live in a vastly different cultural context. The sacrifices fit well into their cultural context and served a teaching purpose. I was energized by studying through Leviticus with Jacob Milgrom’s 3 volume commentary in the Anchor Bible series (see my review).

    [For those who are working through my study guide, you might stop at this point and work with the advanced question on priests, ministers, and intercessors, and fill in the chart on page 29.]

    Milgrom suggests two key functions of the priest. These are not the only functions, but they are critical. First, according to Leviticus 10:10-11, the priests are to be teachers, and the key element that they teach is distinguishing sacred from common and pure from impure. (I could write an entry on that, but I will refrain for the moment. Milgrom’s key comments are on pp. 615-618 of Volume 1 of his series.) This function is restated and reemphasized in Ezekiel 44:23-28. This pair of distinctions is pervasive through the book of Leviticus, and it is made clear that the priests are to know them, to be able to render judgments about them, and to teach them.

    Secondly, priests, and particularly the High Priest, were to carry and/or carry away sin. This is illustrated at Exodus 28:38, but could well be expanded from many other passages in Exodus and Leviticus, looking at how sin is handled in connection with sacrifices. (Again, Milgrom comments in his first volume, pp. 622-625.) So we have these two functions that we often do not think about in connection with priests and the tabernacle–teaching and bearing sin and impurity. (Note these two are not identical, something Christian readers often miss.)

    The tabernacle, and particulary the priestly service as carried out in it, is the central metaphor of Hebrews, the means by which he conveys his message. If we don’t understand his metaphor, we’re not going to understand what it means. This is something we will work on through several posts.

    Do these two key elements of the priestly function play a role in the book of Hebrews? Indeed they do.

    First, the learning of distinctions:

    14Solid food is for the mature, for those who through practice have exercised their understanding to distinguish good and evil. — Hebrews 5:14 (from the TFBV project).

    This single reference would not be nearly as important as it is if it did not occur in a section leading up to one of the key points of the book. At the end of chapter 5 our author is explaining why he can’t go deeper into certain things: Believers need more maturity to understand. The key requirement of maturity is a well-trained discernment. Isn’t it interesting that one of the key things the priests were to teach the Israelites through the sanctuary service was precisely this? All those weird rules about which animals to eat and which not to, and what to touch and what not to were, at least in part, an exercise in learning how to make distinctions.

    We are frequently hesitant to make distinctions in the church, fearing the dreaded accusation of “discrimination.” But our author here is affirming that there are right and wrong actions, and that the mature Christian has a mind trained to choose between them. We must guard against a critical spirit or nitpicking on non-essentials, but there is a place, and apparently a fairly substantial one, for making distinctions.

    Second, bearing sins . . .

    4 . . . it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to carry sin away. — Hebrews 10:4 (TFBV)

    This is again a key problem addressed by the book of Hebrews. His answer is the once and for all sacrifice for sins by Jesus who is able to bear away the sins of many once and for all.

    27And just as it is the nature of men to die one time, and after that the judgment, 28so also Christ will appear again without sin, having offered himself to bear the sins of many, to those who wait for salvation. — Hebrews 9:27-28 (TFBV).

    So two key elements of the book of Hebrews are based on these two functions of the priesthood as taught in Exodus, Leviticus, and Ezekiel. In future entries, I will discuss the characteristics that our author believes make Jesus the perfect High Priest.

  • High School Bible Classes Again

    In a previous post, The Best Place to Teach the Bible, I discussed my view that home and church or other private organizations were the best way to teach the Bible. I’ve had a couple of comments to that post that I think deserve some comment, and since I don’t like to make post-length comments here on my own blog, I’m going to comment in another post.

    First, Dave L. comments:

    Henry, I agree with your position concerning keeping the Bible out of schools, but had a question for you on one of your responses above, namely, “just because someone reads Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek [doesn’t mean] they will agree on what the Bible says.

  • Is Theistic Evolution a Bad Term?

    I have a serious problem with the term “theistic evolution.” I’m a theist. I accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for how life diversified on earth. I also accept the theory of gravity. I’m not a theistic gravitationist.

    Now I do understand the difference here. Evolution has become the center of a theological debate, and many people are accused of being atheists because they believe in evolution. The term “theistic evolutionist” makes it clear that someone believes in God and also accepts the theory of evolution. Then there is the additional confusion introduced by the term “desitic evolution” or “deistic evolutionist” which would technically refer to a person who is a deist and also accepts the theory of evolution. Since deism refers to a God who does not intervene in creation, there is the suggestion that deistic evolution differs from theistic evolution. Presumably deistic evolution would refer to unguided evolution, while theistic evolution would refer to some sort of guided evolution. Guided evolution could take on quite a number of forms, including potentially intelligent design (ID) theory. But that is not what is normally meant by theistic evolution.

    My mind was brought back to this subject by a discussion on Dispatches from the Culture War. Ed Brayton got into a discussion with one poster in particular on whether theistic evolution and ID are compatible (ID and Theistic Evolution). One poster has apparently “discovered” that they are, despite the fact that practically everyone who claims either title holds that the two views are not compatible. There really isn’t any kind of controlling body that can tell us who is a theistic evolutionist and who is not, thus the confusion grows.

    I would like the term “theistic evolutionist” to refer to someone who is a theist and accepts the theory of evolution. For example, I accept essentially the neo-darwinian synthesis (to the extent that this has meaning for someone who is not a scientist), and I’m a theist. I can be properly called a theist because I believe that God intervenes in the universe, though in a very limited sense. (For details, see The Hand of God, and its two succeeding essays.) I don’t believe God intervenes in the universe because it isn’t working properly. In other words, I hold that such miracles as occur are in the nature of communication, which can involve incidental physical effects, but that they are not a correction to the functioning of natural law.

    The evolution that I accept is no different than that which an atheistic evolutionist would accept. It is my theological position that theology does not provide the tools to study origins, nor does my own discipline of Biblical studies. These disciplines are simply not equipped to provide that information. I do not and cannot contribute to the development of the theory of evolution. I can work what other people discover into my own worldview to whatever extent that is necessary. So the “theist” and the “evolutionist” are substantially separate. I’m simply a theist who accepts a particular theory. The use of the combined term suggests that my theism is in some way an element of evolutionary theory, but at least for me it is not.

    Because of the problems I listed at the beginning of this post, I still use “theistic evolutionist.” It’s much more convenient than “theist who also happens to accept the theory of evolution.” But at the same time I find the need to make it clear that my theism is never an explanation for any natural process. Natural processes are to be studied naturally, and as of now, that’s via the scientific method.

    There are many variations between an old earth creationist position, and my own variety of theistic evolution. I see old earth creationism as starting with those who see the days of creation as long periods of time and thus phases of God’s creation. Such old earth creationists need to explain the boundaries past which they believe variation and natural selection cannot take changes (baraminology, in young earth parlance). Views then move through various types of progressive creationism to guided evolution. Those who believe that the correct answer to a science question is “God did it” do indeed hold a theory compatible with intelligent design. But that is not my position, nor is it the position of most theistic evolutionists I know or have read.