Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Passages

  • On Etymological and Anti-Etymological Fallacies

    Clayboy has an excellent post on preachers who say “What the Greek really means…” or words to that effect.  I was drawn to this one because of my own experience.

    My wife tells me that when we first got married she quickly got used to watching me during sermons.  I need to tell you that my wife is extraordinarily observant and will catch people–especially me–trying to conceal feelings and reactions.  She told me that I was very good at concealing my reaction, but she would see me get a certain fixed expression on my face whenever a preacher said “What the Greek really means …”  (They rarely do it with Hebrew, but for what it’s worth, the comments on Hebrew are generally less accurate than those on Greek.)

    Often the preacher is simply replacing he word in his English translation with one that is possible, though not necessarily probable, but which better supports his point.  Besides the inaccuracy, I dislike the implication that someone with a couple of years of Greek can correct the work of translation committees in such an authoritative fashion.

    I also, however, understand the reservations expressed by Bob MacDonald in the comments in reminding us that etymology has value.  It can be useful in studying the history of words or in suggesting meanings for derived forms for which we have too few examples in the literature.  Of course, the context of the word in actual used, studied as synchronically as possible, governs, but the etymology can be very useful.

    I’ve encountered a few people who have heard of the etymological fallacy, and some of the very careless uses of etymology, especially in ancient near eastern studies, and have therefore determined that any use of etymology must be a fallacy.  There are legitimate uses.

    My suggestion to preachers and teachers has always been to use whatever skills they have in the original languages for they’re worth in preparing to teach, but to avoid making the sermon into a language lesson.  There are, after all, many factors other than the structure of language in understanding a text.

    I recall one professor I had in graduate school who was incredibly good at the structure and vocabulary of a language.  I took readings in Biblical Aramaic from him and I value highly the time I spent in his classes.  But while he could analyze the nuts and bolts better than anyone I have encountered, before or after, I would not rely on him for the exegesis of a passage.  The only thing he cared about were those nuts and bolts.  Which is fine–I’d build on his foundation any day.

    The problem, as I see it, is that when we use the language to give a single word for “what the Greek really means” or provide a few synonyms, we imply that getting the right gloss for the word is what using Biblical languages is all about.  It’s much better to learn to express the result in good English–assuming that’s the language in which we’re preaching.

  • The Biblical Basis for Mission

    Eddie Arthur has a fascinating post on language development and mission, particularly relating this question to the language development work of Wycliffe Bible Translators.

    I was particularly struck by this paragraph:

    An alternative way to view mission is to start with the character and activity of God as revealed across the whole of the Scriptural narrative. The whole story of Scripture pictures a God who reaches out to humanity in creation, through his relationship with the people of Israel, through the incarnation of the Son, His death and resurrection, the sending of the Spirit and the eventual winding up of all things at the end of time. Our mission is a response to God reaching out to us: … [a quote follows in the source post]

    I think this is a wonderful way to think of the Biblical basis for any activity.  We can certainly use specific texts and commands, but we will get a much better idea of what God calls us to do if we set such commands in the full story of the Bible, i.e. of God’s interaction with humanity.

    Read the full post.  It’s really worthwhile.

  • Epiphany 3 in The Mosaic Bible

    While none of the Mosaic Bible texts [Holy Bible: Mosaic NLT (Meditations)] overlapped the lectionary texts for today, I think it was quite appropriate, if coincidental, that the texts chosen deal with dealing with the poor and outcasts.  The texts were Leviticus 19:1-18, Psalm 119:33-40, James 2:1-7, and Luke 6:27-42.  These passages emphasize that our care for others should not be an emergency response, but rather a way of life.

    In addition, all of the readings are excellent, focusing on our attitude and relationship and the things that make up who we are.

    I particularly liked the NLT rendering of a verse from one of my favorite chapters, Psalm 119:

    Give me an eagerness for your laws rather than a love for money! — Psalm 119:36

    Combined with the reading from Leviticus 19:1-18, ending with one of the two commands on which Jesus said all the law and the prophets hung, I found it quite powerful.

  • Introduction to Numbers – Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

    I’m trying to return to my pattern of posting short notes from my morning reading.  My schedule has been disrupted recently to the extent that my “morning” reading sometimes has taken place in the evening.  But today I moved from Leviticus to Numbers in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary), and I read the introduction.

    I have my standard complaint about most commentaries on books in which there are substantial critical issues, which certainly includes any book in the Pentateuch, which is that whatever the author’s approach, the introduction and notes rarely take the time to get to the nuts and bolts.  I have to assume that this is audience driven.  Not that many people will take the time to hear the arguments of why an author accepts or rejects sources; they just want to hear the view proclaimed in a scholarly tone.

    As a result, many non-specialists who nonetheless do considerable reading on biblical topics simply assume that whatever their community and church culture accepts is pretty much established.  This applies, in my experience, to both conservatives and liberals.  Any of these scholars could address these issues, I’m sure, but they don’t do it all that often.  This even reflects my experience in undergraduate Bible classes in which, for example, I learned what the two and four source hypotheses were for the gospels, but didn’t learn just how one would go about demonstrating the validity of those views.

    Thus Dale Brueggemann dismisses JEDP in the course of two paragraphs (admittedly substantial ones), while establishing a relatively moderate position that claims substantial rooting in historical sources and even eyewitness accounts, but allows for added material and redactional effort.  I can’t really call this a criticism of his work, however, because those two paragraphs are better done, in my opinion, than the average for such material in a commentary not addressed primarily to experts.

    He goes on with an excellent introduction to the structure of the book, literary style, and major themes, and provides a welcome presentation of the large numbers in the book, which covers a wide variety of arguments and solutions, occupying six pages overall.  It’s interesting to see the difference in the amount of space dedicated to this issue as opposed to source and redaction criticism, but again I would say this is audience driven.  In my experience people want a yes/no answer on Pentateuchal sources.  They want to hear more about those big numbers.

    While I like the discussion, I would object to one part of the solution.  On page 226, Brueggemann states:

    … Any solution shold work for the high numbers elsewhere in the Bible, especially analogous numbers (e.g. military counts), …

    The problem I have with this is that it is quite possible that words like ‘elep might be used differently at different periods in Israel’s history.  I think it would be foolish to assume that the language remained the same over the several hundred years between this census (if one assumes it derives from a source near the time of the exodus itself, as Brueggemann seems to do) and the census in the time of David, or various military reports during the divided kingdom.  I am nowhere near clear enough on this to assert that the solution must be different; I simply don’t see sufficient reason to require that the same solution fit all.

    I’m being fairly nitpicky here, as I enjoy interacting with commentaries as I read, but despite my picky comments, I regard this as an excellent introduction to Numbers, especially for the pastor or teacher at the popular level.  You’ll get the material that your congregation or class members are most likely to be looking for.

  • Leviticus – Two Commentaries Compared

    The first is by David W. Baker, one of three in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary), which is based on the NLT text.  The second is Samuel E. Balentine, Leviticus (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching).

    Yes, I have been reading both of these commentaries simultaneously, though in different portions of Leviticus. At the moment, I’ve completed David Baker’s commentary and am about to go on into Numbers by Dale A. Brueggemann in the same volume. I’m about half-way through Balentine’s commentary, but I think I have seen enough to make this comparison useful.

    Briefly, most of the comments I will make on the two commentaries are implied in the purpose of each series. There are really no surprises. First, let’s look at the total amount of commentary each provides. The portion of the Cornerstone volume on Leviticus is 208 pages excluding front and back matter. The Interpretation volume has 213 pages, but each page has about 25% less text. The total is changed, however, by the fact that the Interpretation volume does not include the Biblical text, whereas the Cornerstone volume does (NLT).

    It is rare that I read two books together that both exceed my expectations, but these did. Having started with Milgrom’s three volume commentary a few years back, I have been continually looking for commentaries that will help me express some of the things I found in this much neglected book of the Bible. While I still regard that study of Leviticus as a high point in my personal study of the Bible, I found that both of these commentaries helped me with thinking of ways to express what I have both learned and felt.

    It is not surprising, considering the breadth and high quality of Milgrom’s work, that both commentaries cite his views extensively and favorably, frequently choosing Milgrom’s interpretation in controversial cases.

    The critical difference between the two commentaries is one of focus.  I would say that if you want to get pointers toward specific doctrinal issues or ethical positions, Baker’s is more likely to satisfy you. If you’re more interested in theological themes and the broader sweep, then choose Balentine.  Both cover the basics and both are, not surprisingly, well referenced.

    One might even say that Balentine tends to get a bit more poetry out of Leviticus than does Baker, while Baker gets more prose.  If I were preparing a sermon, I think Balentine would get me to material I could use more quickly.  I would also note that you’ll probably be happier with Balentine if you are more concerned with liturgy.  Baker tends to learn non-liturgical things from the liturgy; Balentine tends to learn about liturgy and ritual.  Neither of them completely neglects other topics.  I’m speaking hear of emphasis, not exclusivity.

    That is one of the joys of using these two commentaries.  I can generally recommend them for a range of uses.  The only caveat would be that neither deals extensively with issues of source and redaction criticism that often take up space in a commentary on the Pentateuch.  If you want to study those areas, you’ll have to look elsewhere.  They are mentioned, but not dealt with extensively.

    I’m very glad to have read both of these commentaries.  For me their primary contribution was in application and in communication, but they would provide an excellent grounding for someone who was just beginning a study of the book of Leviticus.

  • Bob MacDonald on Psalm 119

    Psalm 119 is one of my favorite (at least top 10) passages in the Bible, especially since I had to memorize it (in the KJV) back when I was about 12 years old.  Bob MacDonald is writing a series on it in Hebrew that is well worthwhile following.  Start with his first post.

  • Jubilee and Care for the Poor

    I was struck by a comment made by David W. Baker in his commentary on Leviticus (Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy [Cornerstone Biblical Commentary]), p. 194-195:

    … Protection of life and dignity through a shared distribution of wealth was also known and practiced in the early church at Jerusalem (Acts 2:44-45), though not in relation to any actual Year of Jubilee.  This might sound radical and unheard of in much of today’s church, but its implementation in Acts seems to have been a catalyst for many becoming members of the church every day.  Could there be a causal link between the two, which the church today should take into consideration?  The church needs to give greater thought to its economic responsibilities in addition to, and as part of, its theological ones.

    Now for those who may think this is from a liberal commentary, it’s not; it’s from a solidly evangelical one.  The redistribution to which he refers is the return of land and the freeing of slaves at the Jubilee. Those who have done poorly during the preceding 49 years are suddenly blessed by a substantial redistribution of wealth in the form of land or even of their personal freedom.

    There are a number of principles that can be illustrated through Leviticus 25.  There is the basic idea of caring for those less fortunate, the particular command against enslaving one’s own people (though the extension to not enslaving anyone had to wait for a later time), and also the idea that such support was not a constant and unconditional thing.

    I suspect most of us have observed how people respond differently to certain sermons or passages of scripture.  When a pastor preaches on giving, for example, often people in the congregation who are already inclined to give feel the need to push themselves to do more, while others who give less on a regular basis are good at finding the loopholes.

    It’s difficult sometimes to find just how a scripture applies to me and not to all the other people I’d like it to apply for.  That underlines the importance of prayerful study of scripture.  Prayerful study does not merely involved praying before you study.  It is also the prayerful attitude, i.e. the attitude of listening to and depending on God throughout.

    Now look at how the early church implemented very similar principles, but in a much different way.  In their smaller community, which was not the equivalent of the nation, unlike that envisioned in Leviticus 25, they managed to keep everyone properly cared for by holding all things in common.  Latter, as discussed in 2 Corinthians 9 & 10 Paul implemented similar principles through taking a special collection.

    Our tendency is to read a passage like the description of the Jubilee, and if we’re inclined to support (or at least talk about supporting) the poor, we’ll emphasize that aspect.  One of my college professors constantly talked about the Jubilee in direct opposition to public welfare, even though wealthy Israelites would have been forced to give up wealth to others in a massive redistribution, because he noted that in the ordinary course of affairs people were expected to work.  That was his inclination, and that was what he heard in the text.

    Another professor whose inclination was toward communism found his warrant in Acts 2:44-45, and never seemed to notice that the early church was not a government, but rather a voluntary association, and indeed an association to which one really had to want to belong, nor did he notice the short duration of this particular practice.  Yet another person could hardly bring himself to fully describe the situation of Acts 2:44-45, because he was so anxious to point out how limited the circumstances were and how short the time!

    I think this passage should give pause for both Christian capitalists and Christian socialists.  I am fairly strongly inclined to the capitalist myself, but as a Christian I believe I should be deeply concerned about and positively active concerning those who are left out.  At the same time, I do have biblical warrant for good and careful stewardship.  Jubilee does not mean that I have to give without consideration or that redistribution is always a great idea.  It also does not give comfort to those who say “Never!”

    The particular way in which I implement God’s commands is left up to me and to the community of which I am a part, with the aid of examples of how God had these principles implemented over time.

    One further thought occurred to me here.  Frequently we read statements about caring for the orphan and the widow that are found frequently in the prophets and we use these in support of whatever program is on the front burner today.  Perhaps we should look a bit at the foundation document here in Leviticus to discover just what caring for the poor might have meant to those prophets.  I don’t mean that there cannot be tension between prophetic and priestly statements, but at the same time, my view of the world is doubtless more unlike that of Hosea or Jeremiah than either of their views was from their priestly contemporaries.

  • Looking the Part – on Worldprayr

    No, that’s not a misspelling. @worldprayr is an international prayer organization started on Twitter. Since many of us have been following this organization for some time on Twitter, we’re used to calling it by it’s twitter ID. I wrote a post for the World Prayer Blog which was published today. It is titled Looking the Part and draws heavily from the first 12 verses of 2 Corinthians 4.

    I didn’t mention it there, but I want to do so here–I have been really enjoying Frank J. Matera’s New Testament Library commentary on 2 Corinthians. I’ve been reading through that book rather slowly, and spending a good deal of time with the text of Corinthians. Matera does an exceptional job of both covering the critical issues quickly and providing theological reflection that is relevant to living, teaching, and preaching the message.

    Enjoy, and please comment there.

  • Quote of the Day – On Leviticus

    … Byu inculcating worship patterns that emphasize mind over body, word over deed, and rational thought over “merely” reflexive sacramental systems, all legacies of the Protestant Reformation, religious communities learn to be at home in the cognitive, typically abstract world of theological ideas.  Ritual invites something different:  the active participation in “embodied” theological reflection.  Both the knowing and the learning of theology come from performing the ritual act itself. …  (Samuel E. Balentine, Leviticus (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), page 5)

    I have only read the introduction and the commentary on the first chapter thus far, but I am extremely impressed by this commentary.  While I would agree that protestants tend to downplay ritual and emphasize belief as mental assent, I would note that the other commentary on Leviticus that’s on my plate right now, David W. Baker in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary), also points out the value of learning through ritual.

    I think, however, that our tendency is to look for concrete doctrine in the rituals, and thus to miss the way in which God chose to communicate those particular doctrines.  We may also learn from Leviticus both that there is a spiritual value in ritual, and also something about how that works, and how we can gain from it in our worship today.

    Liturgy is, I think, sadly neglected, and for most of my time teaching and writing, I’ve contributed to that neglect.  I started to see things differently after reading Jacob Milgrom’s three volume commentary on Leviticus in the Anchor Bible series.  As I study Leviticus and the rest of the Pentateuch further, I am convinced even further that this should change.

  • Rebuking in Community

    I get into more trouble with the word “rebuke” than with just about any other.  Perhaps I could find a bit less loaded of an English word to translate this concept, but it’s an important one.  I mentioned teaching about “the skills of rebuking and being rebuked.” This tends to disturb people.

    Why?  I think it is because we associate rebuking in the church with the high and might leaders getting up in their seats of judgment and telling all the lesser mortals in the pews how wrong they are.  But that concept of rebuking is neither the Biblical pattern for a church congregation, nor is it the sort of thing I’m trying to teach.  It’s expressed well in Proverbs 27:5 – “Open rebuke is better than secret love.”

    Let me illustrate this first gently based on my experience with marriage and business partnership.  My wife is also my business partner.  When we first got married, she was slow to criticize my writing.  She felt that being too negative when I gave her something to read would annoy me.  But when I give an unpublished paper to anyone to read, I like to get it back all marked up.  I may not agree with all the suggestions, but I like to have a chance to consider them and make the final product better.  It is very hard to convince me that a first draft is really good.  (Blog posts only get a couple of passes, and I usually find annoying errors in them if I read them again later.)

    So the first step was for Jody to realize that I didn’t mind having the page marked up.  The next step was for me to express properly my desire to discuss some of those points without criticizing her for making the corrections, but still discussing them in detail.  I remember one story I wrote in which she suggested a change in the name of one of the characters.  I didn’t get it at all.  Then she explained that I had painted an excellent picture via my use of names of a multi-ethnic group, and that this one name change rounded out the picture.  I changed the name, re-read the scene, and she was absolutely right.

    Now she is quite merciless on my writing, and totally unconcerned with what I accept or reject of her suggestions.  That combination is tremendously helpful.  It means she’ll make even marginal suggestions, things she isn’t sure are better, but are options I should consider.  This kind of iron sharpening iron is extremely valuable to both of us.

    Now when she’s writing and I’m checking, I have to reverse that.  I have to be willing to make suggestions while she makes the final decision on what she’s going to include in her own final work.  There’s no one sitting in the high judgment seat issuing edicts as to the right and wrong final result.  We check one another.

    We have a similar situation in science and scholarship when they are working well.  Scholars write papers and expect criticism.  They don’t expect never to have to revise a viewpoint.  Very few scholars I know will accept the word of one expert as the final answer on any particular topic.  If they disagree, they’re willing to do so.  Often this debate does get acrimonious, but at it’s best, it’s vigorous and direct, yet done without anger.  (Annoyance is natural, I think, when one finds one has been caught out on some point!)

    In my view, however, church rebuke has been formalized to the point of uselessness.  If we could go back to 1 Corinthians 14 on the conduct of the worship service, or the gathering of believers, we would see that the intention of that activity was not for the general body to gather and be instructed by the one knowledgeable person.  Rather, it was a time of exchange.  Multiple people would speak.

    Amongst the prophets, concerning whom I wrote yesterday, Paul said, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge” (1 Cor. 14:29).  If you or your congregation can’t do that I would first suggest that you have no business having prophecy in the congregation, because you will not be able to hear and discern the word of the Lord from amongst the noise.

    But even if your congregation does not allow prophecy as such, I don’t think a congregation can function effectively without this capability.  Even the pastor needs to be able to hear rebuke in this sense.

    Often it’s the fear of being wrong that makes rebuke so difficult.  At other times it’s the “high and mighty rebuke,” either formally or informally.  Don’t assume that just because your church doesn’t formally divide the leadership that such a thing is going on.  I have observed many, many supposedly free worship services, in which the activities were supposed to follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit rather than a prescribed order of service, and in almost all cases I can very quickly identify the human leaders of the group.  The Holy Spirit may be leading, but He had better talk only to the right people, or the instruction won’t get through.

    Rebuking in community involves both learning how to give rebuke and how to receive it.  Giving it requires an attitude that allows the person receiving to make their own choice.  Receiving rebuke requires not putting down the one giving it if you believe you should not make the change suggested.  It’s a matter of community, working together to build one another up.  “Edify” or “build up” is another key word from 1 Corinthians 14.