Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Resistance to Evolutionary Theory Confirmed!

    Just two posts ago I commented on the resistance to evolutionary theory and what I think are the actual reasons for it. Today I came across a blog that truly confirms everything I said from the other side. The blog is called The Sheep’s Crib. In a post titled EVOLUTION: Croco-fish can’t crack Chritian commitment!. In this post you will find the attitude I discussed expressed and defended from the Bible.

    Now anyone who has read my series on creation and evolution, and particularly my post Creation, Evolution, and Genesis 1-11, will know that I disagree with that blogger’s point of view on what these scriptures actually mean. I don’t believe theistic evolutionists are denying the faith. But he does, and he is bold enough to admit it and to proclaim that he simply won’t do that. His stance reminds me of the position of Dr. Kurt Wise, author of Faith, Form, and Time who admits that there is much evidence for evolution, but then states that for him the Bible is primary, and thus we must study until we discover the truth. I disagree with him, but that’s an honest position.

    I not only disagree with both those positions, but I deplore their approach, while accepting and commending their integrity in holding to their position. This contrasts with the folks who try to claim that the evidence does not exist, or is not what it clearly is. But what all of these groups share in common is a rejection of the evidence based on a prior religious commitment.

    I hold, on the contrary, that the physical evidence is part of God’s word or communication to us, and that we must listen to everything God has said in every way.

  • Literary Criticism

    To conclude the content part of my series on Biblical criticism, I want to discuss literary criticism. Much of the practice of literary criticism is similar to genre and to a lesser extent canonical criticism.

    Essentially, literary criticism involves forgetting about the historical and theological aspects and simply reading the Bible as literature. One can even read portions as different types of literature. For those who are primarily concerned with extracting propositional truth from the Bible, this may not seem like a very useful activity, but as with any literary study, it can be a very powerful and useful experience for the student.

    This process does not require you to decide that the Bible is untrue, or that it does not contain theological or historical information. It merely means that you look at it in a different way. In many cases this will help you see more clearly the historical message, even though this is the goal.

    Consider Samuel and Kings, for example. These four books tell the story of Israel from the end of the time of the judges through the Babylonian exile, a time period of around 500 years. One approach, and indeed the most common approach, is to study the text and its sources in order to find the maximum amount of historical information possible. Alternatively we ask the question of what theological lessons the author is trying to portray through these events? But the literary critic would ask questions about the overall plot and various subplots, and look at the characterization of the various kings. Why does the author emphasize the kings that he does? What is the literary purpose of the Elijah and Elisha story cycles? Who are the characters and what can we discover about them?

    In the Psalms, this approach can be especially effective. Here again the actual genre of the text is more important. In Samuel-Kings we disregard the actual genre, a sort of historiography, and look at it in terms appropriate to a work of fiction. In Psalms, we are looking at poetry, and can study each Psalm as poetry while looking for the genre (more in the sense in which that term is used in form criticism). Here the questions are form and structure and the simple art of the poetry. (See my paper on Psalm 104.)

    Literary criticism is a large topic, and would require much more than a blog entry, so I’m going to err on the side of brevity–a very uncommon error for me!–and stop with these few very general remarks.

    I will be following this with a series of posts applying critical methods to Isaiah 24-27. I think this is a very interesting passage to use as a test case, and I expect to post several entries on it. Because these are demonstration passages for the critical methodologies I have been discussing here, I will post these on this blog rather than my new Participatory Bible Study Blog, where I’m currently discussing the New Testament book of Hebrews.

  • Resistance to Evolutionary Theory

    Why is it that some people resist evolutionary theory so stubbornly? Many times I have used the argument that evolutionary theory is more complex than creationism, and that we are asking people to go against their intuition in favor of the evidence. But the more I think about it, the less I think that is true. I do think that most creationist thoroughly and systematically misunderstand the basics of evolutionary theory. But I’m going to suggest that the misunderstandings result from the need to reject it, and not the other way around. Most of these folks could understand, but at the most fundamental level they don’t want to.

    Many of you will find this article pretty redundant. The reason I took up the topic is because of the example, which is in my area of expertise, and thus it tickled me to use it as an example. In addition, it was when I did a paper on the comparison of the Septuagint and Masoretic text versions of the genealogies that I first began to question young earth creationism. I read my first creationist literature before I was ten, and was pretty much steeped in it by the time I was in college. Then I began to examine it critically.

    Let me illustrate from Kent Hovind’s Creation Science Evangelism, and their article titled Who Was Cainan? This is actually a rather simple question, and I’m only going to discuss it briefly as an illustration. Basically, if you take your choice of available modern Bible versions, and read the genealogy of Jesus provided by Luke, you can find the order of the post-flood patriarchs. (Luke reads these leading back to Adam, and I’m going to put them in chronological order here.) Luke has Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Shelah (also known as Sala) and so forth (verses 35-36). You can compare this to the genealogy of Genesis 11:10-13, and the order is Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah. Cainan is missing from the list.

    Now there is a simple explanation for this. This additional name occurs in the Septuagint (LXX), and this indicates that there is a textual variant in the text of Genesis, and the LXX, or another manuscript containing the same variant, was likely Luke’s source for this passage. Alternatively, the name could have been added by a copyist based on the same source, but the evidence for this is vanishingly light. If you consider the evolution of a text of this nature, you will start most likely with oral transmission for a period of time, followed by creation of written copies (there’s little agreement on the date of writing, though I suspect they may be quite early in the process of development of the Pentateuch, and form a framework for portions of it). These written copies are then included by redactors in broader documents, and then those documents are copied multiple times. Luke simply uses the documents available to him.

    Now old earth creationists use this very case to suggest that there may be gaps in the genealogies of Genesis, thus giving us Biblical room for a greater age for humanity on earth, and certainly a much earlier date for the flood. I would suggest in addition that the very formation of the lists into 10 names before and 10 names after suggests selected lists. So the old earth creationists find this name very convenient in support of their position.

    CSE cites Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis, who indicates that he believes this is one of the few copyists errors in our largely excellent manuscripts. For him, it is the autographs that are inerrant, and not any copy or translation. Thus, we solve the problem more or less by assuming a copyist’s error, and also assuming that the form of the text we have is correct. There is considerable variation in the genealogies in the LXX of Genesis 5 & 11, but this is beyond the scope of this entry. Also, I’m not trying to criticize Sarfati, and am not basing this on his work. (You can see his discussion at Cainan on the Answers in Genesis site.) So one set of young earth creationists would solve the problem with the assumption it was an error.

    But CSE does not approve of this answer. They want a result that allows them to claim that the Bible as they have it is inerrant, and not some autographs they can’t get a look at anyhow. So they must somehow preserve both the chronology of Genesis 11, and the presence of the name in Luke 3:36. Thus they explain how even if there was an intervening generation, the chronology would be unchanged. I’ll leave you to read the creative explanation directly from their site if you care to. In producing this ad hoc explanation, they use another interesting tactic, citing another group with very low credibility, Gail Riplinger’s AV Publications. Gail Riplinger is the author of one of the worst pieces of trash I have ever encountered in print, titled New Age Bible Versions.

    (At one point I started to critique that book, but after just a few pages I found there was insufficient space in the margins to keep track of even the major falsehoods, much less the more minor, but significant errors. (James White, who is much more conservative than I, nonetheless took the time to go through the book in detail. He has a lengthy response to New Age Bible Versions on his site, New Age Bible Versions Refuted. Riplinger in turn calls White’s material “libellous” and “actionable,” though I can’t see where she has tried to sue. For anyone who thinks Riplinger’s material has any value, look at her answer to the supposed question, “What is the most subtle change that new versions are making?”. In this she argues that changing the capitalization of pronouns that refer to God is changing the orthography of God’s word. I kid you not.)

    Now why do I go to this example? To illustrate a method. Neither CSE nor AiG can simply follow the evidence where it leads. The old earth creationists get into this situation in some cases, though in this case they have an explanation that accords with the evidence, though not, in my opinion, all of it. CSE has a previous theological position that the KJV as they have it must be inerrant, and thus there must be an explanation for that set of English words. AiG has a position that the autographs must be inerrant, and thus they must assume that the autograph did not contain the fateful added name. Old earth creationists accept the name because it is actually helpful to their claim that there are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11.

    You might say that I reject all these explanations simply because I want the passage to be inaccurate. But that is simply not the case. I would be fine with whatever variant was correct in the book of Luke, but the evidence points to the presence of Cainan in that text. It is possible, of course, that I’m wrong on this. Sarfati’s point about documents of the LXX might have some validity, though I think it’s weak. But you see, it would be no problem for me if he turned out to be right, and Cainan was not in the sacred, though unattainable, autograph.

    But the key here is that in the cases I cited we have something that must be true, so an ad hoc explanation for how it is true. With any ancient near eastern document, literary, or historical, the approach of historians is to examine critically its claims, and to determine its credibility based on that kind of historical study. Nobody thinks that the Sumerian antediluvian king lists are historical documents. Why? Because they give preposterous lengths for the reigns of the kings. But in the case of the Bible we are told to ignore all evidence in any direction except to confirm some interpretation. We should let the Bible speak for itself, and if we did we would realize that these lists belong to a different category of literature than “historical records” and could then treat them as such.

    So is it that evolution is counterintuitive? It seems rather intuitive to me, especially common descent. There is simply so much about the animal world that suggests a genetic relationship. I think it is not common sense, or our intuition that is the problem, but rather a prior commitment to treat a certain document as historical no matter what the evidence suggests. This results in a backwards methodology. A source is accurate not because one has checked it and found it so to the best of one’s abilities, but rather because it supports the position that already must be true.

    So one stray patriarch tells the story.

  • Witness without being a Pest

    Over on Philosoraptor, Carol Roper has an open letter to theists entitled Sick and Tired of God Talk. Carol talks about how tired she is of various standard questions from theists, general theists who want to convert her, and in this country one would assume mostly Christian theists. Carol is an adamant atheist, and she finds these people and their words and behavior annoying.

    I’ve been planning to write a response to this essay for more than a year, if I remember correctly, but I haven’t gotten around to it. My response is not directed at Carol. After all, she knows what annoys her and what doesn’t, and I’m not about to try to tell her what’s what. But reading her article suggested some things that Christians do that I think are quite annoying and also counterproductive.

    There seems to be a divide between some Christians who want to push themselves on everyone in a frantic race to convert and bring into church membership as many people as possible. “Jesus is coming back,” they think, “and he’s going to accidentally fry a bunch of people if I don’t get busy.” The answer, they seem to think, is to work on the statistics as fast as possible. Going door to door or randomly down the street and confronting people with what they think is the gospel is the only way they can see to really get into action and catch all those people before they go to hell. Their level of panic is matched on the other side by people who are quite apathetic. To hear them, Christianity is a dirty secret that one ought to keep as quiet as possible. Jesus may be returning, but he’ll have to deal personally with the people, because these folks aren’t going to do anything.

    The first group supports their behavior by claiming that the gospel does offend people, and if they share the Good News with someone and they become offended, it’s not their problem. They gave the warning! But the question is, is it the gospel message that’s offending people, or is it you and your behavior? Studies have shown that people who are persuaded to accept Jesus as their savior by means of manipulative monologue generally do not stay in the church, while those who enter the church through a relationship with an individual Christian normally do stay. (My copy is loaned out right now, but you can find extensive discussion of this issue in Faith-Sharing, by Fox & Morris.)

    I mention this because I think it shows that the frantic, manipulative method of witnessing is ineffective, even when measured by numbers. I don’t think measuring by numbers is the appropriate way for a Christian to measure witnessing. A witness is about being obedient to God. The fruit of that may show in your challenge to others to behave better, to help others more, or to think more seriously about spiritual issues. You may never see any fruit that you can hang on your church wall, so to speak. Fruit is God’s measuring stick, not yours. If we remembered this as Christians, we would cause far fewer problems.

    The usual excuse is simply that we are commanded to be witnesses and to make disciples, so how can we stop? I am absolutely not telling anyone to stop witnessing. In fact, I don’t think you can stop. If you are a Christian, you are a witness. The question is what kind of witness you are going to be.

    I’m also not saying that everyone on the street or knocking on a door is a pest. There are many legitimate reasons to do this sort of thing. If you are truly there to help, that’s one thing. If you are there to teach them your theology, that’s another.

    A person who is so apathetic that most people don’t know of they are a Christian at all sends the message that Christianity is a sort of sideline that has a very low priority in their life. Christians are, to borrow the words of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, “mostly harmless,” but they also aren’t much good for antything.

    A person who is frantic, and portrays panic, while bumbiling ineffectually from person to person sends the message that Christianity is a group of people in a panic, afraid that the world will end. Not only that, they have a God who is not really prepared for the end. These Christians portray their faith as something that is actually dangerous to the world, as they live their lives contrary to the command of Jesus, as though the world would end at any moment. Ecology? Who cares? Jesus is coming. Social Security headed for bankruptcy? Don’t worry! Jesus will come before I need it!

    So how does one manage to witness without being a pest?

    Start by living your faith. Christianity worships God as creator and upholder of all that is (Hebrews 1:1-3), and also as a God who offers unearned favor to humanity, so much so as to cross the gap between infinity and the finite in Jesus Christ, who showed to us what God was like. We needn’t be in a panic.

    Love your neighbor. This does not mean to sneak your way into your neighbor’s heart so you can convert him. It means that you build relationships because you love and value people. People will know if you are insincere. If you live up to your Christian principles and don’t make your Christianity either a secret or a wall between you and your friend, you are being a witness.

    Learn to speak other spiritual languages. By this I mean to learn to talk about topics of interest in terms that the other person understands. Even as a Christian I am offended when a politician uses his or her faith as lever to get my support. I don’t know the sincerity of those faith claims. But if a candidate, of any faith or none at all, has lived according to certain principles, that is something I can understand and test. In communicating with a non-Christian, for example, WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) is probably not the best question to ask. But if you think that your Christian principles are also good principles, perhaps you can find a way to express those good ideas other than by claiming they are divine commands. You are not denying Jesus just because you argue for his moral principles based on something other than the fact that he gave them as commands.

    Learn the basis for your faith. This may not be the same as the basis for my faith. What brought you to your position of faith? Are you confident of that? Your personal testimony is more important than any amount of logical argument. If you are not an apologist by nature or training, you don’t have to behave like one. (An apologist is one who answers questions about the Christian faith professionally.) When people ask, answer for yourself. That’s not waffling. That’s just talking about what you know.

    Wait for questions. If you live a life that is a good witness, inevitably people will ask something about your beliefs. That is your opportunity to answer. But remember it is not your opportunity to manipulate them. You believe that your Christian experience is a good thing, and it’s natural for you to want to share. When someone asks that means they want you to share. Then is when it’s fine.

    Don’t resort to force. Many Christians today are trying to get the government to do their job for them. By this I mean by advocating state-sponsored, teacher led prayer in public schools, public displays of religious documents such as the Ten Commandments, introduction of intelligent design into the schools, and radical action against abortion and abortion clinics. I think all of those things demonstrate that we don’t really believe in the power of the gospel shared with the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives. We think we need to use force in society just as we sometimes use manipulative language and behavior in our personal witness. Be a witness. Then let God do his part.

    Think about it this way. You might be a pest, rather than a witness if:

    • You knock on doors belonging to people you don’t know, but can’t name your own next door neighbors
    • You know all the details of soteriology*, but don’t know where to get help for a homeless person
    • You think salvation is equivalent to joining your church congregation
    • You talk to people you despise so you can “save” them, and yet continue to despise them
    • You’re sure your relationship with Jesus makes you more special than everybody else
    • The only language you know how to speak is “church-ese”
    • You set a mental timer counting down until you will break off a friendship if the stubborn jerk doesn’t accept Jesus
    • You can’t carry on any conversation that isn’t about your religion
    • You try to befriend someone only because you think you can get him to attend church

    *If you have to ask what that is, you’re probably a pretty reasonable person to talk to!

  • Hebrews 1:1-4: Jesus and the Word

    We now start on the meat of Hebrews 1:1-4. I will refer back to this verse a number of times and expand on comments I make in this entry, but I want to provide a fairly clear, point by point summary of what we can learn from these verses.

    Introductory Notes

    Let me display the text in close to the order of the Greek text, phrased. (I prefer outlining, but I don’t have any really good way to display outlines as part of the blog.) Remember that I mentioned previously that these four verses constitute one long sentence in Greek.

    in many portions

    and

    in various ways

    in ancient times

    God spoke

    by the prophets

    in these last days

    he spoke

    to us

    by a son

    whom he made heir of everything

    by whom also he made the universe

    who is the brightness of his glory

    and

    the exact representation of his real essence

    who carries everything by his powerful word

    who when he had made purification of sins

    sat down at the right hand of the majesty in high places

    thus becoming as much greater than the angels

    as the name he has inherited is greater than theirs.

    There are several places where my phrasing might be questioned, but I think the structure is fairly clear. This phrasing tends to show the entire sentence aiming like an arrow to the key statement of verse 4, which leads into the argument from verse 5 and following. You might want to look again at my comments about translation. I suggested that verse four should be separated in an English translation from verses 1-3, in order to show how it both concludes verses 1-3, and also points forward to verse 5. In other words, it should be connected equally to both passages. I still think that, but one might call my position some interpretive structuring of the text. But is there any way you could structure verses 1-3 that doesn’t bear on interpretation?

    Key Elements

    There are several key elements of this passage that we need to notice. These will form a foundation for our study of the rest of the book, as they formed the author’s introduction to his topic.

    The Word of God

    The word of God has come at various times or portions, and in different ways. This is an essential point for the book of Hebrews because our author is going to try to establish firmly the idea that in his day, the word of God came in yet another way, by a son. Translators often say “by the son,” or “by the Son” but I leave out the article in English, a valid option based on the lack of the article in Greek. (Greek and English use of the article is not identical. Here I’m suggesting it refers to quality.) God is speaking now in a fundamentally different way, using Jesus, a son, albeit the only son. That is an important point. In later chapters, he will argue that the son has brought a new covenant, and a new law, and that his revelation is superior to the Torah. But the foundation is laid here by talking about the different portions and different ways in which the word is delivered.

    To our author there is not just Torah, with all else being secondary and commentary. Rather, the revelation of God’s word came through various prophets at various times. Indeed, he treats all Old Testament passages equally. Thus God is simply continuing a pattern he has already established when he now presents another portion (the perfect portion as far as our author is concerned) and does so in a different way.

    What are some of the ways God had already used to present his word?

    • Creation itself
    • Historical events, and God’s intervention in them
    • Messages given to prophets
    • Dreams
    • Visions
    • A talking donkey
    • Legislation
    • Common wisdom

    This list is not necessarily exhaustive. I like to consider some modern methods to put with those:

    • Artistic banners
    • Art
    • Movies
    • Scientific discoveries
    • Music

    Do you think these should be included as means that convey the word of God? How would they relate to the perfect revelation of Jesus? These are some questions to think about as we follow the argument of this book.

    The key here, however, is that the greatest “portion” as presented in these verses, is Jesus, the Son, a revelation that is different in nature from any before and has revolutionary importance to the world and especially to the group of Christians who are being addressed.

    For some more thoughts on the word of God, see What is the Word of God?.

    Who is Jesus?

    Having introduced Jesus as the culmination of a chain of revelations of God’s word, our author immediately moves to giving the characteristics of Jesus.

    • Heir of everyting
    • Agent of creation
    • Brightness of God’s glory
    • Exact representation of who God is
    • Upholds everything by his own word
    • Provided a means to deal with sin
    • Is now sovereign (sitting at the right hand of God)

    With all those characteristics, he is clearly much greater than the angels. Chapters 2 & 3 will continue the argument about Jesus and his superiority to the angels. It is interesting that our author first establishes that Jesus is greater than the angels, and then discusses his relationship to Moses. What he wants to do is establish superiority to Moses, and at the same time the superiority of Jesus to the Torah. Just as the Torah is the central revelation of Judaism, against which all else is tested, so Jesus is the central revelation of Christianity, against which all else is tested.

    The characteristics of Jesus can be divided into two parts: Creation and Redemption. For creation, let me reference another post of mine, Biblical Doctrine of Creation, and also one of my Participatory Study Series pamphlets, God the Creator. For the doctrine of redemption, let me reference What is the Good News?. These are just starting points, as the notion of redemption is going to be our topic in practically every chapter, but it is nice to get at least to the same starting point. I can’t help seeing a summary of Paul’s teaching in Philippians 2:5-11 here where the glorification comes from, and after, the activities of redemption.

    Before I go on to verse 5 I will be posting some other material on the word of God based on the suggested reading for lesson #1 of my study guide, and also from the thought questions there.

  • Does Integrity make you a Wuss?

    DaveScot over on Uncommon Descent thinks that having integrity and good judgment makes one a wuss. Of course, unless he also has the guts and integrity already displayed by the folks over on Telic Thoughts, he’ll have to come up with something to say, and I suppose this is as good, or as bad as anything. Let’s just say that one lie leads to another, and DaveScot is busily digging himself in deeper and deeper.

    And note that the folks over at Telic Thoughts are not endorsing Dr. Pianka’s ecological ideas. Like many other people they are simply noting that he did not call for release of a nasty virus or desire the killing of 90% of the world’s population. His other ideas remain to be discussed. In fact, most posters on this topic have distanced themselves from some of Dr. Pianka’s ideas, while still challenging the false accusations.

    DaveScot’s reaction to the decision by the folks at Telic Thoughts? “Gag me with a spoon.”

    Keep it up DaveScot. Your credibility can’t get any lower, but perhaps this additional confirmation will keep someone, somewhere, from forgetting about your behavior.

  • Kudos to Telic Thoughts

    Telic Thoughts has issued a very forthright statement and retraction regarding certain comments they made about Dr. Eric Pianka. Since I had linked to them as one of my sources in my entry Christians and Defamation, I think it is important that I take note of this retraction and the very good intentions (and may I call it good advice?) that they offer: “The next time the media circulates an accusation that has the potential to do serious real-world harm to a person’s reputation, we promise to treat such accounts with extreme skepticism and caution” (A Promise). Good work!

    Incidentally, I agree that Dr. Pianka’s actual comments are extreme, and themselves require serious scrutiny, something I’ll leave to those more qualified than I in the field. I would be pleased to see these ideas examined and discussed dispassionately. Perhaps that can happen once the furor over the original false accusations has died down.

  • Hebrews 1:1-4: Translation Issues

    In some passages, I may divide discussing translation issues into one section on how a passage is rendered into English, and another on the textual issues, but this passage has only one textual issue of any consequence.

    Textual Issues

    In verse three we have the following general options:

    • “when He had by Himself purged our sins” (NKJV), also the reading of the KJV, Darby, and YLT.
    • “After he had provided purification for sins” (NIV), also the reading of the remaining translations available to me.

    The issue is the presence of either Greek “di’ heautou” or “di’ autou” preceding the word “katharismon (cleansing).” The bulk of modern translators have chosen to follow those manuscripts that leave out those words. And there are some very good ones there–Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus, for starters, a very good trio of witnesses. But for the alternative text we do have P46, which is the oldest known manuscript to contain this passage, along with the bulk of the Byzantine tradition.

    In this case, however, internal evidence, combined with good external evidence, overwhelms even the testimony of P46. One of the principles of textual criticism is that you accept as oldest that reading that can best explain the others. In Greek we have three variants: “autou” alone, “autou, di’ heautou”, and “autou, di’ autou.” These do seem to involve explanatory additions, explaining how the cleansing was accomplished. In addition, I would note that this seems to break the very compact style of expression in the prologue.

    Translation Issues

    There are basically two categories of translation issues to consider: The structure of the passage and the translation of the two keywords describing Jesus and his relation to the Father in 1:3.

    Structure

    In Greek, this entire passage is one sentence. Various translations have dealt with this in different ways. English readers may miss the point of verse 4, which is pointing forward to the first element of the author’s argument that Jesus is greater than the angels, if that point is included in the same sentence or even in the same paragraph as verses 1-3. Many versions do divide this long sentence into multiple English sentences, but only a few, such as the NLT, which places verse 4 in the next section, and the CEV, which places part of verse 3 and verse 4 in a separate paragraph.

    The difficulty with including it in the first introductory paragraph is that this leaves the reader without a thesis sentence for the material in verse 5ff. Verse 4 tells us what our author is about to argue. First, he will argue that Jesus is greater than the angels (1:5ff), and then he will say he is greater than Moses and the Torah (3:1ff). This is a good example of a case in which a reader can be led astray by the divisions presented in a Bible edition. There were no such separations in the Greek manuscripts. These are features of modern Greek editions, and modern translations. Always be prepared to “think across the boundary.”

    I personally prefer the option of putting verse 4 into a separate paragraph which will allow us to see it as a transition point, but you’ll notice that in my outline of Hebrews, I don’t follow my own rule. In that case, however, I carry over the thought by labeling point II.A. “Jesus is Greater than the Angels.”

    Key Words

    There are a number of key words in this passage, and I will discuss them when dealing with interpretation of the passage. Two terms in the first part of verse 3, however, have evoked a broad range of translations. My own translation of this line follows:

    3This Son is the brightness of his glory and the exact representation of his real essence.

    The Greek word I translated “brightness” is “apaugasma” and the phrase I translated “exact representation of his real essence” is “charactEr tEs hupostaseos autou.” The first of these may mean either something shining on its own, or reflecting the light of another. This is why some translations will use the term “reflection” in their translation (“The Son reflects God’s own glory” NLT). A good parallel to this is Wisdom of Solomon 7:26:

    26For she is the radiance of the eternal light,
    and the spotless reflector of the activity of God,
    and the image of his goodness. (my translation)

    By putting “radiance” and “reflector” in parallel, the author suggests a more passive understanding. Nonetheless, Wisdom of Solomon is referring to wisdom, while Hebrews 1:3 is referring to Jesus. Those with a high Christology may well prefer “brightness” or “radiance.”

    My use of “exact representation” comes directly from the Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. This is the word from which we get the English “character,” but the meaning we normally find in the literature contemporary more or less to the book of Hebrews is something like “stamp” or “impression.” In combination, these terms state that Jesus presents God to us exactly, and I think this view will be supported by our later study of the book.

    There is some remarkable theology in these few verses, and I look forward to blogging about some of the things we can learn from it.

  • New Bible Study Blog

    I’m creating a separate blog as I start to post Bible studies online. Threads from Henry’s Web is a place for me to post general commentary and background information on religion functioning in the world. As I got ready to start blogging through the book of Hebrews, I started to believe that it would be better to separate that kind of posts from my general posting here. The audiences are very different. Those who read this blog especially for material on Christianity and the creation vs evolution controversy will rarely be all that concerned with my exegesis of a particular Biblical book. (Some may be interested when I blog on Revelation, as I expect to do in a few months. I’ll post a notice here.)

    So let me introduce Participatory Bible Study Blog on my domain hneufeld.com. I have already posted the first introductory entry there, and will start getting into the meat of the book this weekend.

    I expect to continue to blog here about as much as ever. I’m simply moving another piece of my offline work online. This material will be made available to my upcoming face-to-face class on the book of Hebrews, and indeed people who comment may expect that some of my students will read their notes.

  • Introduction to Hebrews

    Many introductions to Hebrews spend a great deal of time on the date, authorship, and audience of the book. I’m not so sure that these questions can be answered with any degree of certainty, so I tend to focus on what we can come to understand from the structure and content, and the theology we can picture clearly from them.

    To supplement this introduction with the kind of details one normally finds in an introduction, try one of the following introductions:

    There are many other fine Bibles with study notes and good introductions. These are just some suggestions. In addition, you might want to consider a couple of commentaries, such as the Anchor Bible volume on Hebrews by Craig R. Koester, or the New International Commentary on the New Testament volume Hebrews by F. F. Bruce. My study guide includes a translation with some notes, but it is intended to supplement the study guide, and does not replace any of these fine resources. My translation is, of course, a one person translation, and I strongly recommend committee translations for the best balance. (See What’s in a Version? (Pamphlet) or What’s in a Version? (Book), both from Energion Publications.)

    Also, please note that I’m going to try to keep these entries reasonably short, something I’m not really that good at, and so I will probably split them up to some extent. All scripture links are to my Totally Free Bible Version project, which is really simply me posting my ongoing translations online. I use this because of copyright considerations. I recommend you use your own favorite version, or access one of the online options linked from that site.

    Now let me highlight just three portions of the book that I think point us to the general theme. There are many individual arguments, but it is helpful to keep in mind just what the author is trying to get across to his readers. I believe that he has a single central point in mind, and that the book of Hebrews is unusually systematic and theological amongst the books of the New Testament. (You can find my translation and outline here.)

    1. Hebrews 1:1-4
      This passage really sets the theme; we are going to be talking about who Jesus is and the importance of his mission on earth and his position in heaven. We are not told in this passage precisely why the author is focussing in this way on the person of Jesus. We also see a part of the author’s method, which is use of and application of the scriptures of the Old Testament. This is lesson #1 in my study guide.
    2. Hebrews 5:11-6:12
      I believe that this is where we get to the key issue of the book in practical terms. The author wants to challenge his readers with the importance of following this greater revelation provided in and through Jesus, and this greater salvation, and to endure in it until the reward is reached. He is letting his audience know that they aren’t there yet, but they need to keep on moving, because the reward is sure for those who are faithful. This is lesson #7 in my study guide.
    3. Hebrews 12:1-12; 13:1-16
      The final message is on who we are and how we are to behave as recipients of the ministry of Jesus as described earlier in the book. How are Christians to behave? This is lesson #13 (of 13) in my study guide.

    This general structure makes me believe that the central issue is endurance, but an endurance that is filled with hope and backed by history.

    I will begin in my next entry with looking at Hebrews 1:1-4, and applying this structure to understanding the individual elements of each passage.