Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Passages

  • Approach the Throne of Grace with Confidence

    I like the term confidence; many prefer boldness. Boldness is an interesting concept in Christianity. I’m taking my title from Hebrews 4:16, and in fact most of my thoughts here are based on the book of Hebrews.

    I first encountered the claim of boldness when I was quite young, and I heard a taped sermon in which the speaker claimed that he had been in need of transportation. Upon discussion with his wife, they had determined that God desired that they own a Cadillac, so they prayed and claimed their Cadillac. According to the tape, they were, in fact, provided with, you guessed it, a Cadillac.

    I was living in southern Mexico at the time, where my parents were serving people who were too poor to own a car. Many were too poor to own a donkey or a mule. Often these people would walk through the jungle for two or three days in order to receive medical care at the clinic where my parents worked. We had a discussion as a family as to whether this demand for a Cadillac was faith or presumption.

    Since then, I’ve heard it called boldness. In fact, when I have heard people discuss “approaching the throne of grace boldly,” they’ve generally been referring to asking God for the things they (think they) need, or that they want. Sometimes boldness is represented as asking God for luxurious consumer goods, always, of course, destined to help one build the kingdom or carry out one’s mission. I have always found it hard to understand why people need such expensive things.

    But that isn’t my topic here. What is the author of Hebrews talking about here? Does he have Cadillacs (or luxury chariots, fine horses, or fine clothes) in mind? No, that’s not the topic. He has been developing his ideas of what God has done with us, how God has communicated with us, and the basis for our trust in God. He has just summarized in the previous couple of verses (14-15) that Jesus is like us, except without sin.

    He will move on in chapters 5 and 6 to discuss faithfulness and endurance. This is for our spiritual well-being. We need to understand the basis of our salvation and the faithfulness of God who saves us in order to receive endurance. The foundation is solid, so we can be confident as we build on it.

    This confidence is needed for:

    • Our salvation. It is through trust in God who is trustworthy that we are saved.
    • Our sanctification. It is in response to God’s faithfulness that we follow, learn, and grow. The conclusion to Hebrews 11 and its examples of faith is not what we can receive, but rather that we need to turn away from everything else and turn to the one who is faithful as we are surrounded by this great cloud of witnesses (12:1-3)
    • Our witness. Our witness is implied as we are called to witness the endurance of others and to encourage one another. Hebrews says little explicitly about evangelism, but witness is woven through it.
    • Our faithfulness. It’s not even really our faithfulness, it’s God’s faithfulness working in and through us. It’s interesting to read the stories of the examples of faith from the Old Testament and then compare them to the stories told in Hebrews 11. Many of them don’t look nearly as good in the original story. Is the author of Hebrews lying? Not at all! He’s telling the story of God’s faithfulness in and through them.
    • Our reward. Again, this comes only through God’s faithfulness. Our confidence grows out of what God has done for us.

    Because of this, our confidence should mirror God’s faithfulness. Our confidence is about God, not about the stuff that we can get, or what we can make God do by praying in the proper manner. Prayer is not magic. Prayer is talking to a faithful God in response to the faithfulness God has displayed.

    God may provide you with things that you wouldn’t otherwise have. But those things will be because you need them to be the person God wants you to be and to carry out the plan he has for you. God may even be generous with you, but you should never assume you’re better because of what God has given you. You should never take God’s gifts in the material realm for granted.

    God is indeed faithful and we can be bold. But the major result of God’s faithfulness in us is our endurance–right to the end.

  • Another Note on Hebrews Outlines

    Dave Black commented on my outline, linked in my previous post, thus:

    1:28 PM Henry Neufeld, who has published a work on the epistle to the Hebrews, enters the discussion about the book’s outline/discourse structure. You can check out his soon-to-be-revised outline here. I love it! The only comment I might make concerns the title given to Heb. 6:1: “Press on to maturity.” Here’s why.

    I think he is absolutely right and this change will find its way into my revised outline.

    One might justifiably ask me in what way I’m dissatisfied with the outline. My problem with my current outline is that I don’t think it provides adequate links between the various sections of Hebrews, nor does it adequately focus on the key passage at the core. In fact,  I believe the passage in question provides the focus for the book, however much we may try to avoid the verses that follow, particularly 4-6 or consider the verses immediately after that overly obscure.

    Hebrews does not follow a straight line in its structure. It’s more like a cord woven of threads of different colors, with different themes coming to the fore at different times. I’m hoping that by wording my outline properly, these connections will become more clear. With the outline display I use, one can choose how many levels to view, so one should be able to view the structure almost as though one was zooming in and out.

    Will I be successful? I have no idea. Hebrews is a special piece of scripture to me, and I find that no matter how many times I read it, or how many different ways I look at it, it keeps speaking. Maybe it’s inspired or something! 🙂

  • Hebrews 2:6 and Inspiration

    James McGrath brings up Hebrews 2:6, where the author introduces a quote by saying “somebody somewhere says.” Dr. McGrath uses this sort of as an argument against inerrancy, though primarily as an argument for human authorship.

    I have used the text in a similar way. It is not, in fact, a good argument against inerrancy, at least as generally defined by scholars who affirm it. It is not an error but rather a failure to state a fact. Is this rhetorical? One of the commenters on Dr. McGrath’s post seems to think so. I would suggest rather that the author either did not remember precisely or simply didn’t come up with a good way to introduce the passage.

    But the important thing about this, in my view, is that the verse sounds distinctly human. The problem with “distinctly human” is that we don’t really have a way of knowing how God might talk about such a thing should he choose to. But arguing about this particular issue and finding a way to make it more “god-like” in tone is not the issue.

    One key point I try to make in my book When People Speak for God is that we need to look at how Scripture actually was produced and how it functions in order to understand how it was produced and how it functions. Circular? Well, in a way. There’s nothing like looking at the actual object or mechanism to discover what it is and what it does.

    But the tendency in creating or producing a doctrine about Scripture is often to read texts in Scripture that say what the “Word of God” is, or texts that speak of what Scripture is (circular again, anyone?), then to imagine what this would mean in practice, and finally to force the texts to fit the definition.

    What does it mean for Scripture to be “god-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16)? The only way we have to really know that is to look at other things that are god-breathed, if we can find them. The difference between “All god-breathed Scripture” and “All Scripture is god-breathed” may be somewhat less substantial than people think. What we need to do is to fill in the definition of “god-breathed” by looking at Scripture, rather than concocting a definition and then imposing it on Scripture.

    Besides looking at how Scripture itself came to us, we have some interesting claims regarding what God’s breath might do, such as Genesis 2:7, when God breathes into the first human being. Interestingly enough, that first human became alive. He did not, perhaps unfortunately, become inerrant.

  • Poetry and Trinity

    … from Bob MacDonald at Dust. I like his way of talking about it!

  • Of Contexts, Communities, and Individuals

    Stop Taking Jeremiah 29:11 Out of Context is the headline in RELEVANT magazine. Thomas Turner is writing vigorously about the apparently shameful misuse of this passage of scripture. He points out that it’s used on graduation cards and often quoted in words of encouragement to individuals. He summarizes:

    Sure, it might make a person feel better, but this verse as we often prescribe it is being taken completely out of context. It doesn’t mean what people think it means. It’s time to back up and see what the author of Jeremiah is actually saying.

    Really? Totally out of context? Read his article first, and you may see just how much of what we say about the passage is very close to the same thing. Yet I’m coming to a different conclusion on the usage of the text on a graduation card or as a matter of encouragement.

    Jeremiah is not talking to each of us personally. Jeremiah is speaking to Israel. Quite true! Further, Jeremiah is talking about our high school graduations, or our difficulties in finding a job or a spouse. Just so. Jeremiah is not talking about those things. But the fact is that scripture does not generally talk to us quite that directly.

    I’m a great fan of context. One has to be in order to study scripture. But I’m not a fan of the excessive or indiscriminate application of rules. Almost any rule can be misapplied or stretched. A compact, memorable rule is very much like Jeremiah 29:11—when you use it, you will tend to bypass a great deal of logic and background.

    Take, for example, the etymological fallacy. This is a very real and quite pernicious fallacy. I encounter it regularly in reading. Someone lays out the root(s) of a word, and derives a meaning from them. “‘Church’ in Greek is ekklesia,” says the confident but careless preacher, “and that comes from ek, ‘out of’ and klesia which comes from the word for ‘called’, so the church is the ‘called out ones’.”

    But there are some uses for etymology. One is for fun, where a speaker might help us remember a point by pointing out etymology. Provided one doesn’t claim that the etymology has the last word about the meaning of the passage, there’s no problem with this. It’s fun. It helps one remember things. In addition, it can help one with spelling. And did I mention that it’s fun?

    The second is when studying obscure words which one has available in only a limited number of contexts. It’s easy to announce that a word’s meaning is determined by usage, and that we discover that meaning by observing it in various contexts. But some words might occur only once, or even just a very few times in the literature we have available. What then? Well, etymology can provide pointers. I observed this in studying Ugaritic. My knowledge of Hebrew regularly suggested possibilities for words I encountered in Ugaritic, then context would help narrow down my choices. As a student, of course, I had recourse to the available literature on the topic to check my work.

    Ugaritic, in turn, suggested some possible options for understanding rare words in Hebrew. At which point the etymological fallacy would often come into play again. Ugaritic could be helpful, but it could also send the unwary off into flights of fancy.

    I take that detour to point out that we can apply rules, even good rules, improperly. Rules themselves require context. That’s true of the use of context as well. I learned before I was in High School (most of which I skipped anyhow) that one should always take texts in context. But there was a fallacy hidden in there too. The type of context I learned about was the literary context, i.e. discovering what the author said before and after, and placing the text into that context.

    That’s good. We want to do that. We’ve already pointed out how Jeremiah isn’t talking about us personally. He’s looking at a community. Not only that, he’s looking at a specific community, Israel. He’s looking at that community at a specific time and in specific circumstances. What he says will be fulfilled in specific ways to those people.

    And with that last sentence I blast my way right out of literary context and start looking at historical context. (Jeremiah lays out the historical circumstances of his statement in the context. I’m talking about the broader history of the fulfilment of his statement.) Now we realize that there is much more to context than just the literary context. Notice here that we also get away from a “one meaning” fallacy, the idea that a text means only one, limited thing. (And that rule could be badly misapplied as well!)

    And this context can lead us to a canonical context. How do the words of Jeremiah tie in with scripture as a whole? (I will pass over the issue of whose scripture. I write as a Christian, reading as a Christian.) The exile, regarding which Jeremiah writes, becomes a historical watershed for Israel, and comes to define, along with the exodus, must of the Christian understanding of redemption. There’s a reason so many prophecies of 2nd Isaiah (40-55) are later applied to Jesus, even though in context, they have more immediate applicability. The entire event—exile and restoration—takes on new meaning in this theological context.

    We might argue that this is improper usage. If Jeremiah didn’t mean it or Isaiah didn’t mean it (an assumption on our part), then how can we use it in that way? First, if we don’t accept a theological context, we’re pretty much out of business as a community with a shared theology, i.e. a shared understanding of God. Second, we do this kind of reshaping of events and stories all the time with other literature. While I believe what the author intended needs to be an anchor, a guide, even a limitation, preventing flights of fancy with the text, words do take on a power of their own in a community. (I would suggest the example of how Melchizedek is used in Hebrews, but this post would grow to long if I discussed that further.)

    I’m not, however, suggested that we can just grab the text and do what we want with it because there are such things as canonical and even theological contexts. As with literary context, we have to look at what these contexts actually are and make sure that we haven’t just yelled “context” and declared victory, whichever side we’re on.

    How does the theological context apply?

    Well, first, we have the issue of individual versus community application. The church in America tends to be very individualistic. It’s fashionable in certain circles, to lay heavy emphasis on the community in order to counter that trend. I’m in those circles. I think we need to revive the idea of community in the church. It’s not about me, it’s about the body of Christ as a whole.

    But there’s a tension in scripture and in theology on this very point. The church is a community, but the community is made up of individuals. So you have things that apply to individuals somehow. As I study Hebrews with my Sunday School class right now it’s interesting to see the tension between remembering the leaders (13:7), and everyone having boldness going before God, between the examples of faith, all individuals (11), and the great cloud of witnesses (12:1ff).

    When someone today says to remember the leaders of my church, I can point out that I can move down the street and find other leaders. That’s actually a sad thing, that disunity in the church, yet it’s true, and unless you’re prepared to argue that every church’s leaders are truly following God, then there is room for me, as an individual to make a choice. In fact, I must make a choice.

    So there is a tension here as well. It’s good to realize that Jeremiah 29:11 was first spoken to a specific community and that there was a specific fulfilment of this text to that community. That is important. As Thomas Turner points out, it’s a promise of the kingdom of God as well, and that’s important too.

    But for the individual looking at a major life choice, the most important thing to get out of this verse may well be that God has a plan for him or her at that moment. The choice of the right college, the right job, or the right spouse may be the most important kingdom thing right then for that individual who is a member of the community of believers.

    And in that very community that we want to celebrate, for which God has great plans, this text has come to mean more than just the good of the big group in the by and by. It has come to mean that, as “Abraham’s seed” I can now hear God speaking to me (Galatians 3:29), and that this individual application may be precisely what I need to hear.

    We often act as though God has to pay more attention to the big things (like the triumph of the Kingdom at the end) than to the little things (where will I go to college?). But God doesn’t have limited attention so that he needs to prioritize. He can give full attention to both issues, along with billions more.

    Just like those boiled down, compact rules of hermeneutics, the community has boiled down Jeremiah 29:11 and presented it as a compact promise. It’s a usage I find entirely appropriate.

  • Daniel Wallace on Manuscripts of Q

    There’s a great moment in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (the book, not sure about the movie) when the truly incredible synthesizer on the ship is trying to produce tea. The results? Something almost, but not quite totally unlike tea.

    Daniel Wallace asks whether manuscripts of Q still exist, and prefaces his answer with:

    A favorite argument against the existence of Q is simply that no manuscripts of Q have ever been discovered. No more than this bare assertion is usually made. But a little probing shows that this argument has some serious weaknesses to it.

    He does make some good points regarding the likelihood that Q would continue to be copied if it was absorbed into Matthew and Luke as well as the scarcity of manuscripts dating from the first or even early second century. Thus, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. One always needs to qualify that little line by noting that if there is an event that would definitely leave evidence, and that evidence is absent, that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

    Having now tried to attain a record for the use of “evidence” and “absence” in a single paragraph, let me move on to the technical content. Dr. Wallace presents us with eight papyri containing just portions of the gospel of Luke and suggests it’s hypothetically possible that at least one or two of these are actually papyri of Q.

    He continues by presenting all the reasons one might reject that hypothesis with respect to a particular manuscript, and what happens next might be described as the case of the mysteriously vanishing evidence. One manuscript of these eight remains after the sifting, and Dr. Wallace’s conclusion hardly seems conclusive:

    Altogether, the evidence thus far presented can hardly be said to build confidence that any missing Q fragments have actually been discovered.

    You know, that’s what I thought before I read his post, so what’s this “has serious weaknesses” thing of which he speaks?

    I do not absolutely reject Q myself. I have simply become less and less confident that it existed. I started on this path reading the works of William R. Farmer, and most recently when my own company published Why Four Gospels? by David Alan Black.

    I still feel that the redaction theories for Mark that I’ve encountered are less than convincing. But my confidence in Markan priority and the existence of Q has still been seriously weakened.

     

  • Is the Virgin Birth a Mistranslation?

    Mark Goodacre has an excellent podcast on this question.

    What I’d want to get across in a brief answer to this question is:

    1) Greek parthenos is not necessarily a bad translation of Hebrew almah. The semantic ranges do overlap substantially, though (as Mark points out) parthenos tends more toward “virginity.”

    2) For reasons that do not involved the translation of almah (in my opinion), Isaiah 7:14 is not intended as a Messianic prophecy.

    3) I have heard people claim that Matthew was not asserting a virgin birth, but one has only to read the whole text to see that he clearly is doing so. Again, in my view, the correct translation in Matthew is “virgin” irrespective of one’s view of how almah should be translated in Isaiah 7:14. I would translate almah as young woman and also “is pregnant” rather than “shall conceive.”

    4) This provides an interesting case for discussing Matthew’s use of Hebrew scripture. Dr. Goodacre also mentions Matthew 2:15/Hosea 11:1 which is even more interesting.*

    Listen to the podcast!

    (In my notes here I’m speaking for myself, not attempting to summarize Goodacre’s arguments.)

    * While I find Matthew 2:15 / Hosea 11:1 interesting, it is not the one mentioned by Dr. Goodacre. He references Matthew 2:23. This was an error in my original post.

  • Biblical Studies Carnival Posted

    … at Dust. It’s quite a carnival. I’m pretty sure I won’t manage to read even decent percentage of the posts listed and classified. Great job!

     

  • Biblical Numerology and Texts without Context Gone Berserk

    … and that title may be too soft.

    Nonetheless those with a sense of humor should get a few good laughs from this. One keeps hoping it’s a spoof, but it doesn’t appear to be. This is so not what Revelation is about!

  • A Note on Hebrews 1:3 (Orthodox Study Bible)

    I’ve said enough negative things about the Orthodox Study Bible that I need to mention when I find it quite helpful as well. Generally, this is when it is either quoting or referring to various church fathers.

    In the note on Hebrew 1:3a, “who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person …”

    The first half of v. 3 is quoted verbatim in the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great. The brightness of His glory expresses the Son’s nature, His origin from and identity of nature with the Father. He is the Father’s brightness because He is begotten from the Father beyond time and without change. Thus, the Nicene Creed speaks of “Light of Light.” As the sun does not exist without radiating light, so the Father does not exist without the Son (p. 1653, on Hebrews 1:3).

    I particularly liked the last sentence. It’s hard to use analogies for the trinity without falling into one or another heresy, but this one does a great deal. The note goes on to state that the “express image” speaks of the Son as distinct from the Father, thus bringing together the two elements of the incarnation—one with the Father and yet with us, truly an icon of God.