Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Lectionary

  • Nelson Study Bible Note Problems

    I’m not going to link to a specific edition on this, because there is no ISBN in the edition from which I’m working. It appears to be a match for this item on Amazon.com, and to be essentially the same notes as this item, though I cannot be absolutely certain. If you have a similar version, you can simply check your notes to see if they say the same thing as mine.

    First, of course, I’m a bit prejudiced because I think the NKJV is one of the less useful translations. It is literal, but less readable than the ESV or the HCSB. I don’t call any of the major modern versions bad Bibles, but the NKJV is fairly low on my list.

    What I want to comment on today, however, is the notes, part of Nelson’s Complete Study System. I used this Bible today for my lectionary reading. Each morning I read both the current week’s lectionary passages and the next week’s, thus giving me 14 opportunities to meditate on them. I use different Bible versions and also read the notes if I’m using an edition that has notes.

    In my reading on Isaiah 42:1-9 today, I noticed this note in a “wordfocus” block:

    . . .While ‘ebed can mean slave (Gen. 43:18), slavery in Israel was different than in most places in the ancient Middle East. Slavery was regulated by the Law of Moses, which prohibited indefinite slavery and required that slaves be freed on the Sabbath (seventh) year (Ex. 21:2)–and the Year of Jubilee–the fiftieth year (Lev. 25:25-28). . . .

    Now there is certainly value in pointing out the slavery laws in Israel, and comparing them to those in the ancient near east. Notice, however, that if one reads on in Leviticus 25, there is something that is not mentioned in this little note, and it is significant.

    44But as for your male slave or your female slave who are yours, from among the nations who are around you you may acquire both male slave and female slave. 45And also from among those who are [foreigners] living in your land and from those who are sojourning among you you may acquire them and from their clan that is with them which they bring forth in your land, and they will be your possession, 46and you may leave them to your sons after you to possess; they may enslave them permanently. Only with your brethren, the children of Israel, each person must not make his brother labor harshly.

    The problem here is that the note implies that somehow Israel’s form of slavery was entirely benign, without mentioning the exception to the rule. Anyone from the nations around or from foreigners who were in their land could be bought and possessed permanently.

    This is important because there are two ways of handling slavery passages in the Bible. The first is to try to deny the similarity between the slavery practices in the Bible and that in other countries or in more recent times, such as slavery in the United States. The second is to view the rules of slavery as a cultural accommodation, i.e. slavery was not good, but was not yet forbidden.

    I take the second approach. My point about this note is that that the editors of these notes presumably take the opposite one, but that they gloss over a substantial element of the Israelite rules for slavery. This is one of the ways in which study notes can be deceptive, even unintentionally.

    The second note comes on Psalm 40:1, in which it discusses the words translated “waited patiently” in the NKJV:

    The Hebrew translated I waited patiently is literally “waiting I waited.” The emphasis of this phrase is not really on patience but on the fact that David waited solely on the Lord. . . .

    I have to wonder where they got this interpretation. The phrase “waiting I waited” is simply not good English. It is formally equivalent to the Hebrew, but this is one of those cases where the literal translation does not suggest the right set of options to English ears. It is a Hebrew idiom of intensification. I WAITED! Now you may think of a few options, such as the intensity of the expectation, or the length of the wait, but the verbal structure itself does not specify who is waited on, or anything about how this person is the sole person on whom the Psalmist waits.

    The context suggests that YHWH was the sole one in whom the Psalmist placed his hope, but the verb form suggests only the intensity of the experience. For modern American English, I don’t even like the word “waited” here, though the REB and the NRSV both use “waited patiently.” I would prefer the JPS Tanakh’s “I put my hope in the LORD.” They lose the intensification, but I think they catch the essence of the verb more clearly.

    What I would hope to show from these examples is the danger of depending on notes, along with the value of looking at more than one translation. Looking at more than one set of notes is also a valuable hedge against incomplete or misleading notes.

  • My Previous Looks at 2 Timothy 3:14-4:5

    Since the texts for Proper 24C / Ordinary 29C / Pentecost +21 (October 21, 2007) include 2 Timothy 3:14-4:5, which in turn includes 2 Timothy 3:16-17 on which I have written a considerable amount before I thought I’d simply provide links to some earlier material.

    First, there are two key articles on my Threads blog, T4G Article I: The Bible, which is a response to the Together for the Gospel statement articles on Biblical inspiration, and also The Impossibility of Verbal Plenary Translation which applies some ideas about Biblical inspiration to translation. Neither of these articles are direct exposition of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, but they respond to such exposition.

    Second, I have two articles here on this blog, Information or Conversation, which examines the major reason(s) we have to approach the Bible in the first place, and how that will impact what we get from our study, and Hebrews 4:12-13: God’s Word is Alive and Active which combines 2 Timothy with a look at Hebrews 4:12-13, another key passage.

    Briefly, I think there are two issues in reading this passage on the scripture. First, do we read 2 Timothy 3:16 alone, or in the context of the broader passage, especially verse 17? I would suggest that verse 17 is essential in understanding “God-breathed,” by pointing us to what the resulting text should accomplish for the believer. Second, just what does “God-breathed” mean? People quote this text to me all the time, and indeed I quote it quite frequently myself, but it’s easy to assume that “God-breathed” means whatever I want it to.

    If I believe in [tag]verbal plenary inspiration[/tag], I’m likely to believe that when God breathes scripture the result is a fully verbally inspired text. If I believe that inspiration occurs in the conversation between a person and God, then I will imagine that this constitutes “God-breathing.” If I believe that God’s breathing must produce [tag]inerrancy[/tag], then I am likely to assume that meaning in “God-breathed.”

    Yet the text actually says none of those things. In it, “God-breathed” points forward to the specific uses and usefulness of the text. Now I’m not saying that the text actually contradicts any of those views either.

  • Getting the Humor of the Story

    OK, this post discussing daily [tag]lectionary[/tag] readings and particularly the story of Peter being released from prison (Acts 12), is just too good not to link.

    This retelling just gets the feel of the story, I think, and the humor of the situation, and like Jenn says, the “lectionary dudes” had fun putting it all together.

  • Bread and Wine of Luke 17:5-10

    I know this is late for those preaching from the lectionary, but through my Technorati watch on the tag [tag]lectionary[/tag], I found this post on Bread and Wine. I think the post helps clarify the passage very well.

    With reference to God’s laws, I would add that in general what God has told us to do, God’s commands, provide a good way to live in the world. We have the reward of a life of integrity and of reaping what we sow. What part of that also provides us with a basis on which to demand that God give us eternal life? That is grace.

  • Psalm 137 around the Web

    I have a tendency to get caught up in an idea. When I started adding a lectionary tag to posts that I thought were relevant to upcoming lectionary readings my intention was to simply tag things I was going to write anyhow, and also to encourage myself to write a little bit more about my devotional reading. Then I thought I might round up some related posts.

    On Psalm 137, which I referenced yesterday on my Threads blog, Lingamish beat me to it by listing a number of excellent posts related to the Psalm in his post Psalm 137: A Dash of Theodicy.

    Besides the posts he links to, I’d like to call attention to this post by Chris Heard at Higgaion. It deals with much more than just Psalm 137, but the methods used in dealing with other materials may be helpful in responding to this Psalm. He also correctly points out how often attacks on the Bible due to issues such as violence result from poor hermeneutics. Much of the debate on the inspiration and value of the Bible is carried out at a very simplistic level.

    I should have read Chris Heard’s post earlier, but I simply never got to it. I found it via Bob’s Log, in which he is logging his work on the Psalms. He has a brief post on Psalm 137 here, and you can find his translation chart here. Bob goes a good deal deeper into the details of the Psalms than I normally do, and though I rarely comment, I find reading his material quite helpful.

    Randy Ridenour, a mobilized Army Reserve chaplain, gives a very special take on this passage from “the rivers of Babylon.” Relevant interpretation can come in many different ways.

    Keith McIlwain finds the passage very relevant:

    I love Psalm 137, which refers to the Babylonian Exile, because it gives me permission to be angry at times and sad at times. Few things annoy me more than a continually happy Christian. Life can sometimes stink; sometimes, life is painful and makes us angry; sometimes, life is so painful, we want to cry. Psalm 137 gives us permission to go through these moments of agony.

    Perhaps those who find this hard to preach from should consider the reality that is reflected by the Psalm. That won’t make it easy, but it may make it necessary.

  • The Human Face of Scripture

    Psalm 137 came up in the lectionary for this week. Now there was a time when we would get this Psalm at least with the final verse left out. That verse reads “Blessed is the one who seizes your little ones and dashes them against a rock.” One should understand, of course, that this was a Psalm about/by Jewish exiles in Babylon, and that the Babylonians had done precisely that sort of thing to them. One strong element of the Psalm is revenge.

    I was teaching a class on the Old Testament, drawn from the book Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God? once, and I asked people in the class whether they would feel the way the Psalm describes if someone had come into their community and killed their children. Would they want their attackers to suffer the same fate?

    Person after person in the audience expressed their desire to be forgiving, and their disapproval of the attitude expressed in the Psalm. Then one lady, a grandmother, interrupted the flow. “I think many of us are lying to ourselves,” she said. “I would feel bad that I wanted it, because I know what Jesus said, but I would want them to suffer the same fate.”

    Several people changed their minds. That one lady had given them some cover to be honest with themselves. The fact is that Psalm 137 is a very human Psalm, and a very real Psalm. It makes us uncomfortable, but I believe part of that discomfort is that we know that those feelings are not far from many of us.

    Does this justify a search for vengeance? That’s another matter. It is an expression of the true desires. Perhaps what we need to do when we have such feelings is express them and then seek the grace to forgive. That’s another subject. My point right now is that the Psalm expresses who we are.

    This Psalm makes me think about what the Bible actually is. I’m amazed at how frequently we decide what the Bible ought to be, and then try to force it to be whatever it is we think it ought to be. But we have the Bible itself and we can observe that it doesn’t fit these prescriptions we make for what it must be. People decide it must contain hard information sent from God by means of verbal dictation. Humanity should not have any real involvement. A little personality here and there, but no impact on the actual message.

    But in fact the Bible displays a range of human attitudes, emotions, cultural baggage, and even mental capacity. God’s commands are not merely God’s commands; they are what people heard God commanding them to do. And communication is limited to the capacities of the least capable end of the line. Scripture displays both a human and a divine face. (See The One-Ended Cord.)

    I also recently read a post titled Minimising mistakes in the Bible (or not). This is a good discussion of a minor Biblical error. The “error” a problem for inerrantists, who have to find a way to work around it. I would suggest, however, that it’s a natural part of the human face of scripture. The message comes through clearly, while there is a minor glossing over of fact.

    People often assume that I don’t believe in inerrancy because I have a long list of errors in the Bible. But that is not my problem with the doctrine at all. For those who want to ask me for my list, I don’t have one. I’ve encountered many things that I put down to “the human face of scripture,” but I don’t keep lists of them, because to me they are not very important. I suppose that if I did not reject inerrancy on other grounds, such a list might become important to me. But as it is, I think inerrancy simply misses the point of a communication between a perfect God and imperfect (or at least limited) human beings. Such a communication is simply much more dynamic than can be described in the phrase “error-free.”

    Scripture is divine, because it involves communication with God. It’s human because it is communicated through and to humans. Because it is what it is it requires careful and prayerful–Holy Spirit guided–interpretation and application, accomplished, of course, by humans, who are hopefully aware of their own limitations.

  • Lectionary Category

    I have added a category “Lectionary” to all the (relevant) blogs to which I contribute. That includes my big three (see the sidebar) along with a couple of group blogs, one merely shared with my wife.

    Some years ago before I had a blog I tried to keep up with creating a new page each week on the lectionary texts for a couple of weeks ahead. I didn’t keep up with it for very long. Since then, I have continued to use the lectionary texts in my devotional reading, and occasionally I write something about them. I notice that this has been increasing.

    So what I have done is modified my lectionary page on Energion.com to reflect an RSS feed of all these lectionary entries. I left the index to the older pages there in case someone wants to look at any of the old passages.

    There will be an explanation on the page soon of the type of entry to expect on each of the blogs in question.

    This doesn’t really reflect a change in blogging. It’s just a new tag and a new aggregator to present the material in a bit more organized of a fashion.

  • Censored Lectionary – Psalm 79

    I wrote a post today for my wife’s devotional list that refers to the boundary line between the [tag]lectionary[/tag] reading, Psalm 79:1-9 and the rest of the Psalm.

  • Marks of the Jesus Message

    This passage is from the lectionary selection for February 5, 2006, Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany.

    29And immediately as he came out of the synagogue he went into Simon’s house. 30Now Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and immediately they told him about her. 31And coming near he raised her up, taking her hand, and the fever left her, and she served them.

    32And it became evening, when the son went down they were bringing him everyone who was sick and those troubled by demons. 33And the whole city gathered near the door. 34And he healed many who were ill with various diseases, and he threw out many demons but he wouldn’t allow the demons to speak because they knew him.

    35And he rose up very early while it was still night and went out and went away into a deserted place where he could pray. 36And Simon and those with him pursued Jesus, 37and they found him and they said to him, “Everybody is looking for you!” 38And he said to them, “Let us go elsewhere into the nearby country towns, so that I might preach there as well. Because it was for this that I went forth.” 39And he went into all of Galilee preaching in their synagogues and casting out the demons.

    — Mark 1:29-39 (taken from my TFBV project)

    The gospel of Mark introduces Jesus in a whirlwind from his first appearance through his baptism and into ministry. In fact, the entire book of Mark runs at a very fast pace. It’s easy to miss the depth of what’s going on.

    I often hear pastors and evangelists wondering how they should test their ministry. What tells them that they are proclaiming the right message and doing the right things? Well, that can be a big question and the answer might differ greatly from person to person. After all, there is a lot of service that needs done to people, from education to emergency disaster assistance. A wide variety of things can be keys to good ministry.

    But consider our passage today. I see three elements to the activity of Jesus, and an interesting reaction on the part of the crowds. The three actions are:

    • Healing
      Wherever Jesus went he brought healing. It seemed to come naturally to him. I think the first question to ask when testing one’s own ministry to others is simply this: Is it bring healing, spiritual and/or physical? Sometimes we’ll find that in our attempts to help other people we’re actually leaving injured people behind us. I’m often told that the gospel offends, and indeed there are those who are offending by a free gift of salvation. But much, much more often people are offending because those who proclaim and carry out the ministry behave in an offensive way. If there is offense, make sure the offense is because of the good news, and not because of “bad news you!”
    • Demons cast out
      Now I’m not suggesting that everyone’s ministry needs to include exorcisms, at least in the traditional sense. But your ministry needs to push out evil, and allow good to grow. It should cast out ignorance, and let true knowledge increase. I notice that in Mark Jesus doesn’t seem to go out of his way to cast out demons. They just keep popping up and getting in his way, and he promptly chases them off. Are you doing so much good that evil is just naturally driven away?
    • Proclamation
      Yes, Jesus actively claimed that the kingdom of God was near. He proclaimed the message. It’s very easy to get an unbalanced ministry. On the one hand we can do good so quietly that nobody else has an opportunity to join in. On the other hand we can spend so much time proclaiming that we have little time to do. A balanced, Christ-like ministry proclaims enough to bring people on board and keep the ministry going, but not so much that one can’t help but be a hypocrite–so much has been claimed that nobody can possibly live up to it.

    And what was the result of this? When Jesus went away for some rest, the people were looking for him. How many of those of us in Christian ministry experience this particular problem? I know some who do, but not that many. Often we’re working hard to try to drag people in to listen to us. The example of Jesus was that when ministry was taking place the demons fled, but the people flocked in to hear. That is how attractive we should make our lives and activities.

  • 2nd Sunday of Easter, 2005

    Second Sunday of Easter

    April 3, 2005

    I didn’t manage to restart these notes before Lent as I had planned and stated on the web page, but they are restarted now. I am no longer including my working translation so I can focus more on the interpretive process. Where I have worked such translations over enough, they will be found on my Totally Free Bible Version page, a project to work on Bible translation in public with input from anybody and everybody and the result free to anybody. Whether there is an entry there or not, I will include a link to a translation of the passage on the Bible Gateway, normally from the Contemporary English Version (CEV). I apologize for the long break in posting these notes, and hope the new style will be helpful.

    At the bottom of the page is a form for posting response notes. This will allow readers to add their own comments and thoughts.

    (more…)