Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Passages

  • Sacrificing for Joy

    The Old Testament Lectionary passage for the first Sunday in Lent, cycle C is Deuteronomy 26:1-11.  It’s kind of an odd text for this season.  You might almost use it as a text for Fat Tuesday.

    I’m going to comment more on the lectionary texts this week, if for no other reason than because I’ve been asked to teach the weekly Lectionary at Lunch group at First United Methodist Church of Pensacola for my friend Rev. Geoffrey Lentz.  I plan to provide another set of comparisons between various study Bibles and what they contribute to the study.  But first I want to note two things from this passage.

    First, Christians often assume that grace is our contribution to religion and that the Israelite religion was one of works and rituals.  But in the confession of faith in this passage, Israel’s faith and worship is clearly rooted in God’s gracious acts to Israel.  God reaches out first and people respond.

    Second, the people bring a sacrifice of first fruits, and it’s not just given in thanks, it’s given for the purpose of having a celebration together.

    It’s easy for us to look down on rituals and ceremonies or on good works in general.  Often this reflects a lack of such works on our own part.  But the real issue is not whether one worships in high or low liturgy, or whether one engages in good works.  Rather, it’s where those acts of worship and good deeds are rooted.  When we are expressing God’s grace through our deeds, and responding to God’s grace in worship, our worship will tend to be filled with God’s presence, and truly be good.

    Without being rooted in God’s grace, we will engage in empty rituals and deeds done for the purpose of earning God’s favor.  Such acts are dead and do not lead to joy.

    Note that the confession comes before the party, just as God’s salvation comes prior to the response.  That is a pattern that is repeated in both the Old Testament and the New.

  • Lent with Lectionary and the Mosaic Bible

    It’s been some time since I posted on the Mosaic Bible in connection with lectionary reading, but we’re entering an excellent season for using these tools together.  (For what it’s worth, I use The Text this Week for the lectionary passages.)

    While the passages don’t match for the first week of Lent, the Mosaic Bible reading does include Psalm 51 which is one of the Ash Wednesday passages.  But this isn’t the most important issue.  The readings are valuable and will provide an additional resource, including the scriptures (Gen. 2:15-17 3:1-7, Psalm 51, 1 Peter 3:13-22, and Matthew 4:1-11, which parallels Luke 4:1-13 from Lectionary year C).  There is a good reading from John Charles Ryle, a discussion of sacrifice and how it runs counter to our culture by Eileen Button, along with a couple of meditations that could be useful in your worship service.

    Again, I find the Mosaic Bible an exceptional devotional resource and frequently an aid to study following the lectionary as well.

  • 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.