Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: New Testament

  • Hebrews 1:5-14

    I’m going back now to fill in some of the blanks in my blogging on the book of Hebrews. My series of classes is finished, and I’ll focus just a little bit more narrowly than I did in a series of thematic classes taken from the book.

    Following his introductory long sentence (1:1-4) our author immediately moves back to establishing the details of his broad claim. He wants to show that Jesus is greater than any previous revelation, and from that he will establish the better priesthood, the better sacrifice, the greater salvation, and the greater need to carry on to the end. We have already seen to some extent how he interleaves his goal–faithful endurance–with the reasons supporting it. So first we will hear about how Jesus is greater than the angels, then we will hear a little bit about the nature of the salvation that Jesus brings (2:1-4), and then again we hear about who Jesus is (2:5-18), and so forth through the book.

    In this section we will also see our author’s use of the Old Testament in his teaching. He’s quite willing to slice and dice it, phrase by phrase, and use what would seem to be minor points in their original context to make major points in his context. I’m going to blog later on his use of the Old Testament. For now, I will only make brief remarks as it applies to the way in which the passage is being used.

    5For to which of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son, today I have given birth to you” [Psalm 2:7] or again, “I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to me”? [2 Samuel 7:14]

    It’s useful here to read both of these verses in their Old Testament context, not because the author is using them in context–he’s not–but because he is aware of the context, and is drawing meaning into the passage. He can count on his readers having some knowledge of the passages from which he is drawing. The first, Psalm 2, is a royal Psalm and most likely would be used for coronation and/or confirmation of the king. The second, 2 Samuel 7, is God’s words to David about his successor, Solomon, and what his relationship would be to that king. Neither passage, in context, appears to be predictive.

    So what is going on here? First, let me note that New Testament writers are not afraid to make use of Old Testament language in just about any context, borrowing it, paraphrasing it, or alluding to it as it suits them. But second, we should be aware of typology, which understands a present event in the light of past events. As an example, let me cite Matthew 2:15, “out of Egypt I have called my son.” Matthew uses this citation as a prophecy, to be fulfilled in Jesus, specifically that Jesus went to Egypt as an infant, and came back to Judea and then Galilee.

    But if we read the citation, from Hosea 11:1, we will find that not only is this not a prophecy but rather a historical reference, there are a number of elements in the next few verses of Hosea 11 that we would certainly not want to apply to Jesus. But Matthew accomplishes something with this reference that we modern folks often miss. He’s letting us know that he interprets the mission of Jesus in the light of the exodus from Egypt, right down to the sacrifice of the passover lamb. How well that works is another matter. Our modern focus is on whether Hosea was predicting this particular event in the life of Jesus, and we must conclude that he is not, if we’re faithful to the context of Hosea. But while Matthew may think of this single sentence as a prediction, his greater concern with it is to tie the mission of Jesus with the a previous act of salvation history, the exodus from Egypt.

    So back to our text. The greatest point here is to establish that Jesus is greater than the angels. Like the kings of Israel, and especially Solomon, God calls Jesus “Son.” I believe that the royal element in the mission of Jesus is implicit throughout Hebrews even though it is not developed. It is likely that the author assumes an understanding of the royal metaphor for who Jesus is, and simply wants to establish the other elements–priest and sacrifice.

    6But again when he brought the firstborn into the world, he said: “And let all the angels of God worship him.” [Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX; Psalm 97:7]”

    We’re again working with a single phrase, and the worship referenced in context is worship of YHWH as God. For Jewish readers this would have been quite an astounding verse to quote. This verse would work very poorly to convince opponents. But if you combine it with 2:1-4, we get a verse to draw Jesus, already known to be divine in some sense, into the act of worship.

    7Rather he says concerning the angels:

    “He who makes his angels spirits {winds}
    and his servants flames of fire.” [Psalm 104:4 LXX]

    In this case the LXX quote is required. The Hebrew can be read in this way, but it is not the most likely translation. See my notes on Psalm 104.

    8But concerning the Son he says:

    “Your throne, God, is eternal,
    and the Scepter of your kingdom is a righteous one.
    9You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness,
    Therefore God, your God, has anointed you;
    With {olive} oil of rejoicing amongst your companions.” [Psalm 45:6-7]

    If I were translating this myself, I would translate Psalm 45:6 thus:

    “Your throne is a divine one, forever and ever,
    Your royal scepter is one of justice.”

    I suspect that the combination of royalty and divinity is precisely what was desired by our author again. Read Psalm 45 in context to get the flavor there.

    10And:

    “At the beginning you founded the earth;
    The heavens are the work of your hands.
    “11They will pass away, but you remain.
    They all become old like a piece of clothing,
    12and as a canvas you roll them up.

    Now we are dealing with pure divinity, in material written of YHWH himself.

    13To which of the angels has he ever said:

    “Sit at my right hand,
    Until I set your enemies as a footstool for your feet”? [Psalm 110:1]

    And again back to a royal Psalm, but one which we will hear about later. This is the Psalm that mediates the use of the story of Melchizedek, who becomes the type for the eternal priesthood.

    14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out for the sake of those who are about to inherit salvation?

    Essentially, angels are servants, and Jesus was more than that. He has really only hinted at this rather than proven it in these few verses, but he has snuck a rather large amount of typology, especially royal typology, into his argument.

  • Hebrews 11: Honor Roll of Faith

    Hebrews 11 is one of those chapters that tends to get treated apart from its context. Many people who are largely unacquainted with the basic themes of book of Hebrews are nonetheless acquainted with this one chapter. But this chapter fulfills a specific purpose in the argument of the book as a whole. Without any intention of denigrating the independent use of the faith chapter, I’d like to look at it’s place in the overall argument.

    To review the general outline, our author begins by establishing Jesus as a superior source of revelation to the Torah (1:1-4), and moving forward to discussing Jesus as our High Priest (chapters 2-4 passim). Prior to chapter 11 he focusses on the human aspects of the High Priesthood of Jesus (2:16-18), how he is one of our brethren (2:5-15) and able to sympathize with our weaknesses (4:15). He has pioneered our way into the presence of God, before the throne of grace (4:14-16).

    At the same time he has developed a foundation for the idea of something better to come, the “rest” that still waits for the people of God in the future (3:7-4:11). We have not attained it, he tells us, but it is coming. At the same time he notes that people in his audience are in danger of quitting the struggle before they attain the goal. This leads us into chapter 6, in which we have the famous passage about those who fall away, and are told that they can no longer repent (6:4-6). Nonetheless the author resumes his narrative with a statement of confidence that those to whom he is writing will not fall by the wayside (6:9).

    In chapters 7-10 he goes into more detail about the priesthood, developing the divine aspects, and the reasons why the priesthood of Jesus is better than the old priesthood. He ends chapter 10 with more admonitions to endure to the end. This endurance is based on the better promises and the faithful one who promised (10:19-25).

    But then he turns back the clock again and looks at this faith/faithfulness. There is a repetition in Hebrews 11 of the phrase “by faith,” and we need to broaden our conception of the word “faith” here to understand the full meaning. Faith is not merely a loose assent to a proposition; it is putting one’s confidence in that. Thus, “do not throw away your confidence (or boldness)” (10:35), this confidence being a result of putting one’s full trust in the way that has been provided. So we go all the way back to Abel (11:4), and we see that he worked also “by faith.” In the view of our author, Abel did not have what his readers have; he didn’t have any of the intervening revelation. He didn’t have the ultimate revelation that came through Jesus Christ. But he put his trust in God and was able to please him.

    This formula is repeated throughout the chapter. This is the cheerleader’s approach of pointing out all the prior victories and all the other people who have done what the readers are being called upon to do and saying, “Yes! You can do it! Just keep your confidence!” All these men and women of faith succeeded in pleasing God, even though they were much further from the reward and didn’t see even as much as the readers have seen themselves.

    But there is an additional element. Try looking at the stories of many of these individuals in their Old Testament context. Many of these folks do not look nearly so good in the first telling as they do on the honor roll. What’s going on? Is our author lying about them for effect?

    Let’s just take one example. If you compare the story of Moses in Exodus (Exodus 2:11-15), and then the report of the same incidents in Hebrews 11:24-27, the tone is completely different. In Exodus, Moses kind of falls into the situation, commits murder, thinks he has been caught, is in terror, and finally flees for his life. In Hebrews, he has a plan. He makes a choice: the right choice. He isn’t afraid of the king, but rather goes where he has to go and chooses who he’s going to be.

    I don’t know if that’s lying, but it’s certainly a different perspective. I would like to suggest it’s the “faith” perspective. The author of Hebrews looks back on Moses, and because Moses endured, completed his task, and died faithful to God, he is the person of decisive faith described in Hebrews 11. He may have done some stumbling along the way, but that’s not in the picture now. Moses endured. That’s really the point the author is trying to make. His point is strengthened by the fact that some of the people on the honor roll were not always perfect, were not always absolutely faithful at every moment of their life, but the testimony that can be given over their whole life when it was complete, is that they were faithful. They did it by faith.

    One can’t hope to have a better testimony than that. When I’m feeling that I’ve gone too far off the track to be regarded as a person of faith, I remember Hebrews 11. By faith all kinds of people made it to God’s honor roll. All they had to do was keep right on moving forward.

  • Jesus as Human and Divine Priest

    There are three passages in Hebrews that are critical to the concept of Jesus as a priest who combines divine and human attributes.

    17For this reason it was necessary for him to be like his brethren in all ways, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest concerning divine matters {matters dealing with God} in order to cleanse the sins of the people. 18Because he was tested by the things he suffered, he is able to sympathize with those who are tested. — Hebrews 2:17-18 (TFBV project)

    14Since we have such a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the son of God, let us grasp our confession. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, since he has been tested in all things in the same way we have, but without sin. 16Let us approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we might receive mercy and we might find grace in time of need. — Hebrews 4:14-16 (TFBV project)

    These two talk mostly about the human attributes, though they hint also at the divine. The next one purely describes the divine attributes:

    26We now have just such a suitable high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners and come to the highest places of the heavens. 27He has no need to offer sacrifices each day first for his own sins, like the other high priests and then for those of the people, because he has offered himself once and for all. 28For the law appointed high priests who had weaknesses, but the word confirmed with an oath, which came after the law, appointed a Son, perfected forever. — Hebrews 7:26-28 (TFBV project)

    Recall that this is all being written well before the formulation of the doctrinal creeds in which the Christian community declared Jesus fully God and yet fully human. Without such a doctrinal explanation, however, we have here both elements of that doctrine. In the first passage, Jesus is our brother, one of us, having suffered temptation and faced death as we must do so, but always with the emphasis on the fact that he did not sin. Our second passage (Hebrews 4:14-16) introduces the heavenly side of the priest, but is still primarily concerned with sympathy for our weaknesses. The emphasis is on what he shares with us.

    In Hebrews 7:26-28, the emphasis has shifted completely. Jesus is able to sacrifice properly for us because he does not need to sacrifice for himself, being without sin. He is set apart from us, holy, so he can approach God. But then there is that other aspect; because he is our brother, he can also invite us to approach God with equal boldness. The approach to the throne of grace is made possible by the divine-human combination in the new high priest.

    Let’s tie this in as well to the interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6. There we have a dire warning of destruction for anyone who falls away. But that warning can only be heard in the light of this encouragement. God, presented to us in the person of Jesus, is able to sympathize with our weaknesses, because he has seen them in action and suffered their testing. The intended message is one of great hope but yet serious warning. The author of Hebrews believes we will never get a better invitation than this.

  • First Reaction to ‘The Scriptures’ Bible Translation

    Someone kindly e-mailed me a question about this Bible version, so I decided to take a look for myself. This is just a preliminary look, but you can find my notes at The Scriptures, and you can compare my results on this version with others using my Bible Translation Selection Tool.

    I would say that this version is a specialty Bible, specifically aimed at the Messianic Jewish audience, and those gentile believers who have a strong interest in it. The extremely literal style, and the use of transliterated Hebrew names, as well as the tetragrammaton and the Hebrew version of the name of Jesus, printed in Hebrew characters, will probably drive away many other users.

    One very positive point is that the translators/publishers are very straightforward about just what they are trying to do. You can read their own preface to the translation at Institute for Scripture Research. If you read their list of features and think you will like it, very probably you will. I do hope to spend some more time with this version, as it has interesting characteristics. It would be nice to work through a few chapters and critique them in detail. I’ll try to do that as I have time.

  • Hebrews 6:4-6: Can Those who Fall Return?

    Again I’m addressing a very small portion of this chapter. To get the context in mind, please read my previous post Hebrews 6:1-3: Going On Toward Perfection. These three verses have generated a great deal of commentary, because they appear to be saying that if one falls away from the Christian walk he cannot return, that repentance is no longer possible. And certainly read in isolation, that is precisely what the passage says.

    I relate my own experience with these verses in my personal testimony, Drawn to the Cross. In that experience I was led to question this interpretation by broader considerations of scripture from outside the book of Hebrews. That testimony is repeated both in my study guide to Hebrews, and in my book Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic.

    Here, however, I want to look more directly at the context of this passage in the book of Hebrews, to see whether any other interpretation, including my own, is possible in the context of the book. To do that, let’s look first at the major elements of the context, and then at the elements of the doctrinal statement made in the three verses.

    This passage comes right after 1:1-3, which talks about laying the foundation, and the need to keep moving forward. In my previous post on that passage I suggested that the basics of faith listed in those three verses corresponded to conversion, to one’s joining the Christian community. Following verses 4-6, we have the expression of hope that follows in verses 13-20, in which our author expresses his confidence that verses 4-6 are not going to apply to his audience. If we broaden our view a bit, this comes immediately after establishing Jesus as a priest, greater than the angels and than Moses, but still understanding our situation and our weakness. Immediately following he begins to discuss the eternal and perfect priesthood of Jesus, the way to God that allows us to approach the throne of grace boldly.

    With those elements in mind, let’s go back to the verses themselves:

    4Now it is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gifts, become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and tasted the good word of God and the wonders of the coming age, 6and then fallen away to be renewed to repentance. It’s because they are crucifying the Son of God again for themselves, and putting him to open shame. — Hebrews 6:4-6 (from my TFBV project).

    What I see as the elements of this doctrine are:

    • A person may be enlightened, consisting of tasting the heavenly gifts, partaking of the Holy Spirit, tasting the good word of God, and the wonders of the coming age
    • From that state, a person may fall, and that fall is equated to crucifying the Son of God again, and putting him to shame.
    • Such a person cannot be renewed or brought to repentance.

    Since few commentators really want to just say outright that if you’ve left the faith, you can’t return, there have been numerous attempts to explain this. Indeed, there should be, because the idea that it is impossible to return after backsliding, for example, which is a possible interpretation, seems contradictory to quite a number of Biblical teachings. One would have to picture the prodigal son driven off by his father on his return, for example!

    Such interpretations have dealt with various elements:

    • Some interpreters look at the various requirements of enlightenment, and determine that very few, if any, people have actually attained that state, and thus it would only be someone who had truly been enlightened, and not merely converted to Christianity, who would be unable to come to repentance.
    • Some interpreters deal with the idea of falling away, claiming that the falling away is not just any simple departure, but rather a complete and utter stubborn rejection, complete with public renunciation of Jesus.
    • Some adjust the concept of impossible, pointing out that it might be humanly impossible, but that with God, all things are possible

    Can the context point the way through this? I think so. First, I do believe it is right to try to find a sense of hope in the passage, because while the author of Hebrews is handing out some fairly tough medicine, there is a strong element of hope in his presentation. As I have noted, he expresses confidence that his readers will not fall in the way described here. Because of both the immediate context and the broader context of the book, I think we need to understand a more hopeful message than that you can fall from grace and you’re finished if you do.

    Further, I think that the idea of saying that it may be impossible in human terms, but with God all things are possible does not fit well in the context. We are quite clearly presenting a divine opportunity of salvation throughout the book, and I suspect the readers would hear that here. In addition, if he’s saying it’s impossible, but it’s really possible, then these three verses don’t seem to move forward very much, and it’s a strange way of saying it.

    Further, though I think the question of just how enlightened a person is before they fall is quite appropriate, since this passage follows a description of conversion, I think it is likely to contain a warning that is applicable to people at the stage of their Christian life just described–immediately after they have acquired the basics.

    As for the fall, on the same basis I think it is right to inquire what was considered a fall by the author. There are those who believe this would only be a denial of Jesus in the face of martyrdom. When the persecution was over, some would desire to return to the community even though they had denied Jesus in the face of death. Some commentators suggest that this was forbidden by this text.

    Let me suggest a view that relies a little bit on each of these approaches to interpretation, that applies a warning, and yet also provides a basis for the message of hope that follows.

    First, the warning applies to everyone who has undertaken the Christian journey. That is the context and that is what is suggested. If you have taken that first step with Jesus, this warning applies.

    Second, there is a point to which you can fall from which repentance, turning back becomes impossible. More on that in a moment.

    Third, note that it is “impossible.” It does not say that God will reject you, but rather that the repentance itself is impossible.

    Now to support this, look back at Hebrews 3:7-4:11. Here we have the review of God’s offer of a “rest” for the people of God. One of the requirements to enter that rest is that we listen to God and do not harden our hearts. Consider further the discussion, Hebrew 2:3, of the quality of salvation offered–“how shall we escape” if we neglect it?

    What I am suggesting here is that if we reject the voice of God repeatedly, and thus harden our hearts, we will come to the point at which we will no longer desire to repent. This is a necessary warning no matter where you are in your experience, because you don’t want to get in the habit of hardening your heart and not listening. Whether you are very near such a problem or far enough away, you just don’t want to go there. If you follow the “hardening” path, there will come a time when repentance is impossible. That point can also be described as one at which you would not hesitate to crucify Jesus again. The more you have both heard and rejected, the more danger you are in.

    Note also that all of this refers not to non-Christians but to people already on the Christian journey, as our author sees it. It is a warning about moving forward, and continuing to listen to and be led by God.

  • Hebrews 6:1-3: Going On Toward Perfection

    1Therefore, leaving the beginning of the message of Christ, let us carry on to maturity, not re-laying the foundation of repentance from dead works, of faith in God, 2of the doctrine of baptism, of the laying on of hands, of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3This we will do if God pleases. — Hebrews 6:1-3 (from my TFBV project)

    This is too short of a passage to recommend for separate study, but it will make for a reasonable sized blog entry. Put this passage inside of the broader picture of Hebrews 5:11-6:20. To summarize this background, our author has established his idea of the priesthood, and given us the human attributes of Jesus as a priest, but now he begins to make a transition to discuss the essential nature of the new priesthood. All priests had the human characteristics of the priesthood. Why was Jesus different?

    As we move forward we are going to see that a perfect priesthood, in his view, is what will bring perfection or maturity and a clear conscience to believers. The two tie together. So in these few verses we have a study of our side of the problem. What is it that we need? First, in 5:11-14, he tells his readers that they are not mature enough to hear everything he has to say. I’ve already discussed what I see as the key text here, verse 14, being trained to distinguish good and evil.

    But at the beginning of chapter 6, he calls on the people to keep on moving, “moving on toward perfection.” As a United Methodist, with connections to the Wesleyan tradition, this phrase “going on toward perfect” is an important and central text. I’m going to suggest, however, that our author has a dual meaning in mind. First, he’s moving on toward perfection, or completion, in his argument about the priesthood. There is a parallel here between the divine work and the human work. The divine priesthood, or the divine effort on behalf of humanity, moves from the partial (the old priesthood) to the complete (the priesthood of Jesus). God doesn’t stop with the job partially completed. Second, he’s referring to the lives of the believers. Now at this point I listed these in what might be seen as reverse order of importance. What he is explicitly saying is that the believers need to keep moving forward.

    But what is his primary thought? I would suggest that he sees the moving forward of the heavenly and of the earthly as necessarily intertwined. He is calling on his readers to get on board and move on toward perfection, as God did through the ministry of Jesus. He says he’s not going to lay the foundation again. In this foundation are six elements:

    1. repentance from dead works
    2. faith in God
    3. baptism
    4. laying on of hands
    5. resurrection of the dead
    6. eternal judgment

    I have heard some interesting thoughts from this, including someone who thought that one of the foundational thoughts involved was how to raise the dead, thus raising people from the dead should be a regular, foundational part of ministry. But look at the list carefully. In many modern traditions we don’t have all the elements, laying on of hands especially, in accepting someone into the body of Christ, but those in churches with a any sort of high church flavor will recognize much from the baptismal ceremony and vows. These are the elements that go into bringing people to a basic relationship with Jesus and with his church in most of the Christian tradition. So what our author is telling us is that he is not going to talk again about the basics of salvation, rather, he is going to move on to matters of the Christian life after one’s conversion. Verses 4-6 especially refer to one’s continuing Christian life.

    With that, he places even the course of his argument in the hands of God and then proceeds to some of the most difficult text in the book, Hebrews 6:4-6.

  • Jesus as King and Priest

    With the reference to Melchizedek (chapter 7), the author of Hebrews ties Jesus as King to his argument, though he doesn’t dwell on that. There is a key thought here that I would like to look at briefly. Often we find people disagreeing over just what type of person Jesus is. Is he the gentle, forgiving Jesus, or the ruler who rules with a rod of iron?

    That answer is that he is both. I’d like to illustrate this briefly from Revelation 5, which combines the two sets of imagery in one short passage:

    5Then on eof the elders said to me, “Stop crying! Look here! The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has won the right to open the book and to break its seven seals.”

    6And I a lamb standing among the four creatures around the throne and among the elders, looking as though it had been sacrificed. It had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God who are sent out into all the earth. 7And he came and took the book out of the right hand of the one who was sitting on the throne.

    –Revelation 5:5-7 (from the TFBV project)

    The issue in this passage is the one who can open the seals, i.e. the one who has the sovereignty over history and who is able to open the seals and reveal what is to take place. One feels one is on the right track with the “lion of the tribe of Judah.” That sounds like a sovereign, one who can take charge. But when John turns to look, it’s a lamb, and it looks as though it has been sacrificed. It’s not even a healthy lamb!!

    But nonetheless, he is the one who has the sovereignty and proceeds to open the seals. This is the same theology as expressed by Philippians 2:1-11, only expressed symbolically. Consider this type of royal imagery “read into” Hebrews through the reference to Melchizedek, combined with the statement that Jesus, who must have something to offer as a priest, offers himself (Hebrews 8:3 and 9:12).

    The Lion is the Lamb.

  • Why a New Priest?

    The author of Hebrews is at some pains to make it clear to us that we need a new priest and indeed a new priesthood. As I’ve noted in previous entries, he has specific characteristics he expects in this new priest. The heart of his argument for a new priesthood is contained in chapter 7. Note that he builds the basis for this argument in chapters 1-6, and that he discusses the actual impact of the new priesthood in chapters 8-10, but the argument in favor of the new priesthood is in chapter 7.

    He has established to his satisfaction that Jesus is greater than the angels and greater than Moses. He has established that Jesus is able to empathize with us, because he is just like us. He is certain that Jesus is the new priest and that there is a new revelation now that is greater than the Torah. But he needs to find something there that points to a new order of priesthood. He finds that necessary “hook” in the story of Melchisedek in Genesis 14:18-20. A second reference to Melchizedek in Psalm 110 refers to an order of priesthood, and also helps relate the priesthood to royalty.

    Melchizedek has one wonderful feature that is helpful to the argument for a new priesthood: He arrives on the scene without geneology, and disappears without record of his dath. Thus our author can use him as the type of an eternal priesthood. He is clearly not happy with the idea of a set of rituals that go round and round year after year, and at least to his way of thinking don’t finally accomplish anything. Oh, they help people along the way, but doesn’t it have to end somewhere? So he wants a priesthood that will not end, that is eternal by nature, because only such a priesthood can accomplish an eternal redemption, once and for all, that doesn’t need to be repeated. I’m intentionally redundant. That’s precisely what our author sounds like in chapter 7.

    I’m going to discuss this some more in future entries. For now notice that the key to understanding how Melchizedek is used in Hebrews is the lack of genealogy along with no record of death. Combined with Psalm 110, “priest forever,” this makes the ideal type for his antitype of an eternal priesthood.

    I suggest reading Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, followed by Hebrews 7 to fix this picture in your mind.

  • Baptized Foolishness

    I often hear 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 applied to the issue of whether one needs to know Greek in order to comment on certain translation issues. It’s difficult to see how anyone could imagine that this passage applies to such a situation. Certainly there are spiritual things which a Christian will understand differently than others, but you either read Greek or you don’t.

    First, let’s look at the broader context of the passage. (I will quote portions, but I assume that everyone can look this up in their Bible.)

    The first epistle to the Corinthians is, as the word “epistle” denotes, a letter, written by the apostle Paul in response to problems in that church. It is often treated as a kind of random collection of advice to that church, but that is not really the case. There is a very important unifying theme. That’s why I won’t limit my discussion to the verses you specified. In particular, verses 10-17 set the scene for the entire book.

    Paul first says that the problem in Corinth is a division into factions (1:10-12) then he asks pointedly whether Christ has been divided (13). He continues by asking whether they were baptized into his (Paul’s) name. He then takes one of his famous detours to explain who he did, or did not baptize, on which his memory is not terribly clear (14-16) but verse 17 sets the state for his discussion of 18-31. He was not called to baptize but to preach. It is the proclamation of Jesus Christ that is the focus of Paul’s work.

    This is a thematic statement for the epistle. As we read through the entire letter, we see that Paul sees a central problem in the factions of the church. People are dividing themselves up over different evidences of how spiritual they are. Not only that, they are questioning Paul’s leadership, because he doesn’t fulfill their particular tests of spirituality. Some see the truly spiritual person as one who bears wisdom. Others see those who ignore deeds of the flesh as truly spiritual. Others test their spiritual state by their wealth, and even bring such wealth into the communion service. Yet others see the mark of their spirituality in the various gifts of the Spirit, and especially in the gift of tongues. Thus for them, the one who speaks most in tongues is, in fact, the most spiritual person.

    Paul challenges this view in chapters 12-14, and then in chapter 15, he returns to this initial point—the preaching of Jesus Christ, crucified, dead and also resurrected. He makes clear then that the only true completely spiritual state comes with the resurrection or transformation when this corruptible puts on incorruption and this mortal puts on immortality (15:54-55). Until that time, our spirituality, whether manifested in knowledge, prophecy or tongues is still partial and limited. I note here that any idea that the canon of scripture constitutes perfect knowledge is in direct contradiction to Paul’s message to the Corinthian church. We absolutely do not have perfect knowledge. That is reserved to the kingdom of God.

    Now having set this context, I return to 1:18-25 (with further reference to 26-31). It’s interesting to me that this passage is brought up frequently when someone is losing an argument. “My argument may look foolish,” is the cry, “but it’s really divine wisdom!” I have seen this used again and again in opposition to serious study, whether that is through study of the original languages, or simply a careful look at a passage in context. “If it isn’t simple, it must be false,” is the war cry of some.

    I will suggest that this attitude is actually one of the things Paul would oppose, based on the principles in this passage.

    18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

    1 Corinthians 1:18-19 (NRSV)

    We immediately see that Paul has a specific type of “foolishness” in mind—the foolishness of the cross. Paul’s argument here is that the world finds the idea of a savior who died on a cross to be foolishness, and the notion that such a savior rose from the dead impossible (see chapter 15), but that this is God’s wisdom and the core of Paul’s preaching.

    Paul’s intent here is to place the cross—and specifically the foolishness of the cross—at the center of the proclamation. When someone takes this point and then tries to apply it to just any form of human foolishness, that seems to me to border on blasphemy. It is not that God has taken all foolishness and made it wisdom; rather, through Jesus Christ, God has taken a specific thing—the incarnation—and cancelled the human wisdom of the world with that. Notice verse 19. It is the foolishness of the cross that destroys the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning. Was it all wisdom and all discernment? Hardly. Paul speaks of a spiritual gift of discernment. Paul speaks with respect of the Hebrew scriptures which place a great premium on wisdom.

    Verse 21 puts further emphasis on this. It is through the foolishness of the proclamation, which Paul has already alluded to in verse 17 as the focus of his ministry, that God has chosen in order to save people. For Paul, opening the good news of a relationship with God, one which he believed would culminate in a resurrection-transformation, to everyone was a very critical proclamation. And it was made possible, in his view, not through words of wisdom, but through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

    Now verse 25 is also critical. “For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength” (1:25 NRSV). It is not that human foolishness is greater than human wisdom, it is that God’s foolishness (relatively speaking) is greater than the greatest of human wisdom.

    Now does this say that any foolish thing someone can say about scripture is alright and that nobody should challenge it? No. Even Paul wished to use words of wisdom in speaking to the Corinthians. He wished they were mature enough to hear them (2:6-10). Did he say that someone who doesn’t know a language actually does? No, he simply elevated the foolishness of the cross above the wisdom of the world. I repeat that trying to carry all forms of human foolishness past logical objections by trying to ride them in on the “foolishness of the cross” at a minimum borders on blasphemy to Christian ears.

    Now let’s look at 26-31. Here Paul points out that many of the members of the Corinthian church were not terribly important, rich, or wise by the world’s standards when they were called. This is one of a number of places in this letter in which Paul makes the effort to put everyone on an even footing before God. Later, in chapter 12, Paul will point out that all gifts come from one and same Spirit who gives them out as he wills. Again, all stand on a level field before God. After discussing those gifts Paul switches again to the calling (12:12-13). Again, he speaks of equal footing.

    Chapter 13 makes this more explicit, and also gives us a key principle. What if I have various gifts, even all knowledge? If I don’t have love, I am nothing. That’s because the principles of love as expressed in 13:4-8a all tend to keep me from making a faction out of my particular talents or gifts. They take the pride out of those gifts.

    In chapter 8:1-2 (and following), we see a misapplication of knowledge. Someone who knows that an idol is nothing can use that knowledge to hurt another brother or sister. Knowledge puffs up. But does Paul suggest we need no knowledge? Not at all! He refers to knowledge as a gift. I love verse two and use it frequently. Anyone who thinks he already knows doesn’t know the way he should.

    I recall a youth pastor who had listened as I spoke about the scriptures and answered questions from his youth group. At the end he said he had a question. “I’ve been studying the Bible now for four or five years and I feel that I’ve pretty much got it. What do I do now?” he asked. I admit to being pretty close to speechless. When we quit looking for more knowledge, when we allow the idea that we have attained to stop us, we are truly in a pitiable state.

    So what does my knowledge of Greek do for me? It allows me to read Greek and to comment on Greek words. Does it give me special status before God? Absolutely not. Does it give me the inside track on salvation? On sanctification? Absolutely not. All it does is allow me to read and understand Greek. Can my understanding improve? Absolutely. I pray continually that it will improve.

    On the other hand, does Paul’s statement here suggest in any way that someone who doesn’t know Greek can read it anyways? Again, not at all. The one who reads and the one who doesn’t are not to judge one another spiritually because of that.

    There is the reverse error that I also see in the church. Because of this passage many Christians celebrate ignorance. They figure that God has chosen the simple things to confound the wise, so let’s be as simple as we can. That is precisely the same error—believing that the state of my knowledge gives me a special place with God. There is only *one* foolishness which is elevated here: the foolishness of the cross.

    I leave you with a text from Hebrew scriptures, in which wisdom personified is crying out in the street:

    22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
    How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
    and fools hate knowledge?
    Proverbs 1:22 (NRSV)

  • Are You a Priest?

    A key element of the participatory study method is getting up close and personal with the application. Since God indicated in Exodus 19:6 that his intention for Israel was that they should be a nation of priests, and that a similar goal was expressed for Christians in 2 Peter 2:9, the question I want to ask is how this applies to me.

    Let’s make a more extensive list of activities of a priest:

    1. Teaching to distinguish holy from unholy, clean and unclean, right and wrong (see my previous post on priesthood)
    2. Bearing sin (High Priest particularly)
    3. Presenting sacrifices
    4. Judging issues based on their knowledge and divine instruction
    5. Leading in worship

    This list isn’t exhaustive, but it gives us some idea.

    Many people have a hard time seeing themselves in this role, but God presents it as an ideal. I think if we clean out the theological terminology, there is nothing here that we can’t all do.

    First, though not all of us are teachers by office (James 3:1), all of us have something to teach. At a minimum, we can share our own testimony. (I wrote some notes on this for the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter blog.) We do not ourselves carry other peoples sins, but we can help them find forgiveness. We can all present sacrifices–in the modern Christian sense with our gifts, our service, and our praise of God. We do not all serve as judges, but we can all participate in the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:16-21). Finally, we may not all see ourselves as leaders in worship, but we all can be. It’s easy to lean on the worship leader to get us into the attitude of worship. How much better would it be if each person in a worship service was helping to lead their little corner of the church into worship?

    But there is one major difference when we are all part of the priesthood. While we are called to do all of these things as a member of Christ’s “royal priesthood” we are also called to receive from one another. Today you may be the leader, helping someone else get closer to God. Tomorrow it may be you who needs the help. The benefit of a nation of priests or a priestly kingdom is that we are all equipped to help one another.

    That is the call of the priesthood.