Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Author Related

Posts that relate in some way to my books. Excludes administrative posts and most reviews of other people’s books.

  • Not Through the Law: Romans 4:13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Some CJB Terminology in Romans

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

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

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

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

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

    Greek pistis (faith) translated “trust”

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

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

  • CJB Detail Entry Updated

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

  • Review of Evidence for the Bible

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

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

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

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

  • The Myth of the Absent Husband

    The story of the temptation and fall (Genesis 3:1-7) is one of the stories that sustains some complentarians and advocates of male leadership and authority. I use “myth” here in the partial technical sense of a story that explains and reinforces a cultural norm.

    In particular, people point out that Eve was taken in by the snake because she didn’t as her husband or because he wasn’t with her. I’ve heard sermons based on these points. Don’t leave you husband! Follow his leadership! Look what happened to Eve! The same sorts of things can be said about consultation. But these views are not supported by the text itself. They are, I believe, examples of reading the white spaces.

    The problem is that nowhere in the story is it specified that Adam was not present, nor is it stated that Adam did not discuss the matter with Eve. The story itself is typical of Hebrew narrative, especially in the Pentateuch. It is short and to the point, with no unneeded words.

    When Eve does share the food with her husband, it says that she gave it to him “with her.” Now it’s interesting that when I was taught this very early, I remember being told that Eve went to look for her husband and then passed him the fruit, thus reinforcing her aloneness and leaving open the option that male leadership principles have been violated. In case you think I’m making this up, and since I grew up Seventh-day Adventist, let me quote Ellen White on the matter:

    The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden; with him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. On perceiving that she was alone, she felt an apprehension of danger, but dismissed her fears, deciding that she had sufficient wisdom and strength to discern evil and to withstand it. . . . (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 53)

    And again:

    . . . And now, having herself transgressed, she became the agent of Satan in working the ruin of her husband. In a state of strange, unnatural excitement, with her hands filled with the forbidden fruit, she sought his presence, and related all that had occurred. (ibid, p. 56)

    That is, of course, entirely gleaned from the white spaces. The text actually suggests that the two of them were together, and gives no indication that Adam objected, or was any more concerned than his wife. The idea that Adam was tempted by Eve comes not from the story of the actual temptation, but from Adam’s excuse.

  • Reasons -> Intentions -> Actions

    When I was near the end of my first four year enlistment in the United States Air Force, I had already made a firm decision to separate at four years, which I proclaimed quite vigorously. But during the last few weeks I read some things about decision making–I can’t recall where–and I decided to rationally examine my decision. I regarded this as a fairly safe thing to do, because I was quite certain that I was separating from the Air Force for highly rational reasons in pursuit of my goals.

    I sat down with pad and paper, and began listing goals, what I needed to do in order to accomplish them, and then I put these under headings as to whether another four or six years in the Air Force would advance my goals or hinder them. I even included my dislike of military structure and formality into the list as a reason against. I did my best not to weight these in favor of one conclusion or another. I then weighted the various factors to the best of my ability and totaled the scores. I don’t recall the numbers, but it was a substantial balance in favor of another term of service. By my best factoring of the decision, I would be much further along toward my personal goals in six years were I to re-enlist than I would be if I separated and used educational benefits immediately.

    There were two really hard things in this for me. First, I had to admit that I had been terribly wrong in a decision I thought I had made quite rationally. Second, I had to admit that and go sign papers. But could a reasonably rational person do otherwise? Well, I did all that, severed the additional six, and then separated, and I have never regretted it, nor have I regretted separating at the ten year mark. (At that point it was either plan for 20+ or get out.)

    A few years after this a psychologist told me that people do not generally make decisions for the reasons they profess. Rather, they make decisions emotionally and then rationalize them. He said this isn’t universal, that there are varying amounts of rationality that are pre-decision, but that it is very common. I don’t know how right he is, but I was immediately reminded of my reenlistment, and while I have rarely put a decision to that kind of testing, I know there are other times when I feel very strongly that I want to do X while I know that rationally the best choice is Y. I have also observed many friends who will express one decision, but based on every expression they have made themselves, it appears that they would make a different choice if they thought the decision through in terms of their goals. (Neither of these have the faintest bit of scientific pretensions–they are absolutely personal and anecdotal and should be taken as such.)

    Of course, the follow up to making a decision or forming an intention is action. I’ll illustrate with myself again. I frequently forget things. Just about anything I am doing becomes my current total focus, and I’ll forget anything else. For example, had I promised my wife to be at lunch in five minutes just before I started writing this post, it is unlikely that I would remember that promise until I finished the post. Do note here that having thought about that issue, I know that my wife is at her work, and I’m here in my home office, thus while I may have forgotten many things, that is not one of them!

    Several people have informed me that the things I forget must not have very much priority to me, otherwise I wouldn’t forget them. I have put that to the test recently since at the persuasion of wife and many friends, when I recently replaced my cell phone I replaced it with a PDA. This thing lets me easily enter lists, and it rings alarms when things are due. It’s easy enough for me to enter data so that I generally don’t forget to put stuff in the phone. (My previous phone had a simple scheduler, but it was clumsy to use.) The other evening I had completely forgotten about a meeting I wanted to attend. It was Monday night. In church on Sunday the pastor mentioned a meeting at the church. It was something I would want to be at. I wrote a note on a slip of paper and put it in the PDA after church. The PDA dinged Monday night giving me about a half an hour to get to the meeting. Using my memory, I would have missed that meeting and I would have regretted it. Despite my dislike for sudden shifts of direction, I attended. The PDA helped me carry out my actual intentions based on what I hope was a rational assessment of where I should be.

    My point here is that intentions, even quite firm intentions are not always easy to put into action. It’s not that I want to miss lunch or dinner when I tell my wife I’ll be back in 10 minutes and wind up engrossed in some piece of writing an hour later. I do recognize that the human body must eat. But other factors intervene.

    My overall point is that between our perceiving reasons for action and the action we actually carry out there can be a considerable gap, so much so that we might not even recognize the connections if they didn’t happen right in our own brains, and sometimes not even then.

    Politically, this apparently extends to opinion polls and voting. CQ Politics has an interesting article, Polls: Can’t Always Trust Them, But Can’t Live Without Them, that discusses something very similar in voting. How well do voters know their own intentions? Do they know for sure whether they are going to vote? Do they really know how likely it is that they will change their minds? I would add that the less each decision is based on conscious, rational factors, the more likely the voter might either be wrong, or might be swayed by similar non-rational or irrational factors.

    Of course this doesn’t aim at any particular group of voters. We’re all capable of such rationalization or failure to carry through both in politics and in the rest of our lives. I just think it is both interesting and valuable to think about how we think.

  • Genesis 2:15-17: Nature and Duration of Evil

    This is a short note on some implications of evil based on a reading of Genesis 2:15-17, which is the first mention of anything even potentially out of order with God’s wonderful new world.

    I’ve heard hundreds of arguments in church, including the question of why God would put just one tree in the garden and then tell the first couple not to eat. Why put such temptation in front of inexperienced people? These extend even to asking what type of fruit it was that the tree bore. Those seem to me to miss the point. There was a possibility to do wrong. When one combines the concepts “choice” and “good” the possibility of a choice that is not-good, or bad, is implied.

    Here are a few quick points:

    1. Potential evil was clearly part of the creation plan.
      The presence of the tree indicates options, and it is the tree of the knowledge (perhaps experiential knowledge) of that evil, so it suggests that there were many options, or at least more than one, for making wrong choices. This also argues in favor of a completely symbolic understanding of the tree. Whatever it is that Adam and Eve did, it was not a matter of eating fruit arbitrarily forbidden to them.
    2. Death was already either known or theoretically knowable.
      If nobody has died, or the nature of death is not known, what is the value of a death sentence. If physical death already existed, then it is not by nature evil. Either some spiritual death, or a specific hold of death (Hebrews 2:14-15) such as fear, is meant by the threat.
    3. A broad range of possible good choices exist/existed.
      There are many trees, but only one forbidden. Good may be more diverse than we have often thought.

    It seems to me that some of the most literalistic interpretations of Genesis may result from not reading the text all that carefully, and passing over the difficulties of one’s point of view.

  • Inerrancy: Nuance or Discard?

    Through a Glass Darkly has a good note titled Nuancing Inerrancy as a follow-up to this post on Ancient Hebrew Poetry. I’m not sure what order to read them in; just read them. (There are more links to follow!)

    I would add only that I have a hard time using the term “inerrancy” in this way, because it only means what these gentlemen say it does to a relatively small group of people. Now the small group includes generally those most expert on the topic, but if you go to just about any church and say “inerrancy” this is not what the people will understand you to be saying.

    That’s the problem with words–people use them, and they change. Thus while I applaud the definition, and will jump on the bandwagon if any signs of movement occur, that doesn’t seem likely at least where I work.

  • Myth of Galileo

    Joe Carter is debunking the Galileo myth. And a pretty reasonable debunking it is. I’ve read quite a few debunkings of the myth before, and such things are rather important, considering some versions of the story. I’m pretty sure someone in elementary school told me that Galileo was condemned for saying that the earth was round. That surely came from someone who misunderstood Columbus (who’s real issue was the circumference of the earth) and then confused him with Galileo. What stays in place through all these versions is that Galileo was discovering something new, and the church wasn’t anxious for him to do that.

    Now Carter’s debunking, while quite good, and while drawing some very appropriate lessons, reminded me of an incident in my freshman year of college. A sociology professor who professed communism challenged me in class when I quoted 66,000,000 people killed in the process of bringing communism to the Soviet Union. I forget who calculated the number of the details, but Solzhenitsyn cites a statistician who calculated that number in The Gulag Archipelago. My teacher, every mindful of defending good communists everywhere said, “Oh, that’s greatly exaggerated. More likely there were only 40,000,000.”

    The comparison here is not views of the cosmos versus killing people, but rather the idea that diminishing the damage tends to make people forget the essence of the claim. If one’s claim is exaggerated (or wrong), then even if a great wrong was done, people will start to ignore it. They remember that it was exaggerated. In the case of Galileo, I often see the result of debunking. “Oh,” says someone, “he was not treated as badly as the story indicates.” And they decide to give the Catholic hierarchy of the time a free pass.

    But when exaggeration is removed, Galileo’s lack of additional evidence is considered, and any amount of obnoxious behavior on his part is factored in, we still have a scientist who was told by the church to shut up. That’s not good. Now we need to keep in mind the times as well. Comparing the behavior of the church of the time with modern standards of academic freedom is an injustice to some extent as well.

    But as a Christian, I still have to ask if we shouldn’t be better than that. After all, we claim divine guidance. We claim great hope. I would not demand that reformation come instantly, or that the church be wonderfully far ahead of the world around it. I’d just ask that it be a little bit ahead, or more accurately a little bit better. (“Ahead” begs the question of whether we’re going the right way!) The same challenge faces the church today. Are we really doing anything but following cultural trends? In many cases, I think we are not.

    There is a further problem with views of Galileo, and that is the unfortunate idea that the Bible should be used to provide or to test scientific answers. I will repeat what I have said before–there is nothing in the Bible that cannot be adequately understood with the cosmology of the ancient near east. There is no advance of physical science provided by divine revelation. I would ask anyone who disagrees to point to such a thing in scripture. Testing cosmology by scripture is a colossal waste of time. We should no by now that theology is not the best approach to knowledge of the physical world.

    So that leaves me with two elements of the Galileo incident. First, there is a church (and state) that believes it can put someone on trial because they either believe what is false or are obnoxious. Second, that church is testing such ideas by a standard and using methods that are not capable of producing accurate results. Both of those things are terribly bad. They’re not friendly to science.

    Let’s not replace the myth of Galileo the pure and righteous punished by the church with a myth of a church behaving in a fully reasonable fashion. There was still an inquisition, the decision was still wrong, the place and the method was inappropriate to their purpose, and the decision made turned out, not surprisingly to be on the wrong side of history.

    Why does the myth persist? Simple. The victors write the history, and Galileo happened to be right, and the pope was wrong. He should have just sucked it up and let Galileo insult him. It would have provided a better legacy.

  • Repentance and Rejoicing

    I’ve written a pamphlet, which I provide free on my Participatory Study Series site, titled Repentance and Rejoicing. With the current lectionary including Psalm 32, I thought I’d reprint it. It is outlined around Psalm 51, but much the same material can be taught using Psalm 32.

    But if we confess our sins to God, he can always be trusted to forgive us and take our sins away.
    – 1 John 1:9

    How can I confess my sins and receive forgiveness?

    Psalm 51 provides an example of repentance.

    1.  Acknowledge – verse 3

    I know about my sins, and I cannot forget my terrible guilt.

    Completely admit to what you have done wrong, without excuses.

    2.  Cleanse – verse 7

    Wash me with hyssop until I am clean and whiter than snow.

    Ask God to cleanse you and make you whole.

    3.  Restore – verse 12

    Make me as happy as you did when you saved me; make me want to obey!

    Ask to be restored to God’s favor.

    4.  Teach – verse 13

    I will teach sinners your Law, and they will return to you.

    You teach others by sharing your testimony about what God has done in your life.

    5.  Praise God – verse 15

    Help me to speak, and I will praise you, Lord.

    Praise God for what He has done. This has the additional effect of reminding you of what He has done and keeping you humble before Him.

    6.  Worship – verses 18, 19

    Then you will be pleased with the proper sacrifices, and we will offer bulls on your altar once again.

    Worship is the natural consequence of a relationship with God.

    I asked for forgiveness and still I feel guilty. What is wrong?

    There are several ways in which repentance can fail.

    • Making excuses instead of fully acknowledging guilt

    See the story of Saul in 1 Samuel 15, especially verses 20 and 21. Instead of acknowledging his guilt, he denies it and adds an excuse. Contrast David’s action in 2 Samuel 11.

    David vs. Saul
    2 Samuel 11-12 1 Samuel 13-15
    Murder and Adultery Disobedience
    Prophet sent Prophet sent
    Admits guilt Denies guilt and makes excuses
    Accepts punishment as just Complains about punishment
    Is accepted by God Is rejected by God

    Before I confessed my sins, my bones felt limp, and I groaned all day long. . . . So I confessed my sins and told them all to you. . . . Then you forgave me and took away my guilt.

    – Psalm 32:3-5

    • Not fully changing your mind about your actions

    To repent means to change your mind. If you are not determined to change, you have not really repented.

    • No desire for cleansing

    Forgiveness is followed by cleansing. If we don’t want the cleansing, we won’t receive the forgiveness.

    • Refusing joy

    Sometimes being sorrowful makes us feel important, so we refuse the joy of restoration.

    Repentance puts us back in line with the heavenly attitude. Refusing joy takes us back off the heavenly attitude.

    Jesus said, "In the same way there is more happiness in heaven because of one sinner who turns to God than over ninety-nine good people who don’t need to."

    – Luke 15:7

    • Unworthiness

    Feeling that you cannot possibly be cleansed or be fit for God’s kingdom. But God has made us fit for his kingdom.

    All of this shows that God judges fairly and that he is making you fit to share in his kingdom for which you are suffering.
    – 2 Thessalonians 1:5

    • Unbelief

    Either you don’t believe that God can forgive you or will forgive you. (See 1 John 1:9)

    If you forgive others for the wrongs they do to you, your Father in heaven will forgive you. But if you don’t forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins.
    – Matthew 6:14, 15

    • Unforgiveness

    Unforgiveness includes holding onto our resentments and grudges. We can fail to forgive because we have been hurt to much. We can also fail to forgive because we refuse to admit that we have been hurt.

    You know that you have been taught, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I tell you not to try to get even with a person who has done something to you.” – Matthew 5:38, 39a

    What is the unpardonable sin?

    One of the tasks of the Holy Spirit is to convict of sin. If we turn away the Holy Spirit so much that we no longer hear His voice, we will no longer ask for pardon and it will, in fact, be too late.

    I’m still having a hard time. Do I have to rejoice?

    One of the rewards of an ongoing relationship with God is a trust in what God is doing. When we trust God for the final result, we can have peace and joy even in trouble. (Romans 5:3-5)

    We gladly suffer, because we know that suffering helps us to endure. And endurance builds character, which gives us a hope that will never disappoint us.
    – Romans 5:3b-5a

    Scriptures marked “adapted” were translated and adapted by Henry E. Neufeld for this pamphlet.

    All other scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 buy the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission. All rights reserved.

    (This material is available in the form of a pamphlet in PDF or Word format here.)