The Greek grammarian A.T. Robertson wrote, “All language was originally pictographic. The picture was first seen and then the effort was made to describe it . . . . Prepositions are essentially words of location employed to help out the meaning of the oblique cases . . . . One cannot afford to slur over the prepositions in the sentence if he wishes to understand the Greek New Testament” (The Minister and His Greek New Testament, page 43).
1 Timothy 1:19 suggests an intriguing picture using a preposition translated in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) as in regard to (περί). Grammatically, this preposition used with the objective (accusative) case primarily has spatial reference and is translated around. Although historically it began to take on a more general reference notion (i.e., NASB), in the New Testament period the spatial concept was still the most prominent function with the accusative. See Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition, pages 797-98. Since usage determines function the question needs to be asked, “Is a spatial idea possible here?”
The NASB translation of 1 Timothy 1:19 reads, “keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.” The interpretation takes a dramatic twist when the spatial concept is applied to the prepositional phrase and translated “around the faith” (περὶ τὴν πίστιν). In this instance the phrase expands the pictorial visualization of the maritime picture imbedded in the verb translated “shipwreck” (ἐναυάγησαν). “Faith” can represent a harbor into which the ship sails, but for safe passage the pilot must navigate around the obstacles that could sink the vessel. In the context of 1 Timothy, rejecting a good conscience is one of those obstacles.
The relative pronoun “which” (ἣν) grammatically identifies the conscience (συνείδησιν) as its antecedent. English translations frequently demonstrate difficulty in clearly defining the referent of pronouns. The New International Version is a case in point as Guthrie points out, “In the next clause, NIV has rejected these, but the Greek relative is singular and refers directly to conscience” (The Pastoral Epistles, 78, bold mine to point out the issue at hand).
Adding further data to strengthen this point, the chiastic development of the verse points to the same conclusion. Lund offers this definition, “Chiasmus (or chiasm) is a term based on the Greek letter chi (χ) which refers to an inverted parallelism or sequence of words or ideas in a phrase, sentence, or any larger literary unit” (Chiasmus in the New Testament, vii). Bullinger quotes Bengel who says that “its employment is never without some use: viz., in perceiving the ornament and in observing the force of the language; in understanding the true and full sense; in making clear the sound interpretation; in demonstrating the true and neat analysis of the sacred text” (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, page 374). In 1 Timothy 1:19 the chiastic arrangement of words are: A = faith, B = conscience, B' = which (conscience), A' = faith. The composition adds emphasis to the central position the conscience plays in regards to the faith.
The pictorial representation in this verse stands out in bold relief when the preposition is given a spatial translation/interpretation. Those who reject a good conscience may founder in the harbor of faith. Guthrie comments again, “Since a nautical image is introduced it is possible that Paul is thinking of conscience as a stabilizing factor which when rejected renders the ship unstable” (Ibid.).
In this instance, the spatial concept not only makes good sense but adds drama to the imagery suggested by Paul’s expressive term “shipwreck.” Not infrequently in the Bible there are “Big Ideas in Small Words.”
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
“Why Study Biblical Languages?” Redux!
A primary goal for studying the biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages is to demonstrate their necessity for understanding and appreciating the Bible in all of its original glory. For some, this will not be needed; for others, definitive proof will be required. These postings, that began on December 4, 2008, prove that a working knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek enhances one’s ability to “rightly divide the Word of truth.” Logic alone, however, can serve the same purpose. The following quotation is taken from The Expository Times:
One essential and often-ignored fact must begin this discussion: The Bible is Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek literature; English is the means whereby the English-speaking world accesses it, and is, thereby, a secondary source for the Bible. Another undeniable truth is that every translation of the Bible is interpretation, and interpretations may be good or bad. Furthermore, it is impossible for any translation to transmit all that the original languages say because languages do not communicate in the same manner. Consequently, in evaluating translations one can only speak of varying degrees of loss, and no translation consistently maintains its degree of loss. Some passages are excellent; others less so.
These postings, at the very least, show how a working knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek can: (1) reveal truths unrecoverable by any translation, (2) clarify obscure passages of the English Bible, (3) open up new interpretive possibilities for understanding the text beyond those that the English translations offer, and (4) aid in evaluating between competing English translations/interpretations. Welcome again to the educational and exciting world of Biblical Languages and Bible Translations!
“If the Bible is what we profess to believe it to be, it is worth the effort to read it in the original. One who made it his life’s work to interpret French literature, but who could only read it in English translation, would not be taken seriously; yet it is remarkable how many ministers of religion week by week expound a literature that they are unable to read save in translation!”
One essential and often-ignored fact must begin this discussion: The Bible is Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek literature; English is the means whereby the English-speaking world accesses it, and is, thereby, a secondary source for the Bible. Another undeniable truth is that every translation of the Bible is interpretation, and interpretations may be good or bad. Furthermore, it is impossible for any translation to transmit all that the original languages say because languages do not communicate in the same manner. Consequently, in evaluating translations one can only speak of varying degrees of loss, and no translation consistently maintains its degree of loss. Some passages are excellent; others less so.
These postings, at the very least, show how a working knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek can: (1) reveal truths unrecoverable by any translation, (2) clarify obscure passages of the English Bible, (3) open up new interpretive possibilities for understanding the text beyond those that the English translations offer, and (4) aid in evaluating between competing English translations/interpretations. Welcome again to the educational and exciting world of Biblical Languages and Bible Translations!
Thursday, March 18, 2010
“Why Should I Study Hebrew?” Answered!
The Scenario
Consider one example of why the study of Hebrew can save your image as a Bible teacher and possibly your Bible study group. Imagine yourself leading the home Bible study with members of your church and you ask someone to read Hosea 7:13:
All is well until someone else notes that instead of reading though I have redeemed them (KJV), his New International Version (NIV) reads I long to redeem them. Then another member adds to the developing confusion, “Why does my version say ‘I would redeem them’” (New American Standard Bible, NASB)? It becomes instantly clear that you, the study leader, are asked to arbitrate between these different readings since the interpretation of this verse affects (1) the temporal context for the passage, (2) the interpretations attached to the differing times communicated by the versions, and (3) a practical application of the passage to those present.
The Solution
If you have a working grasp of Hebrew grammar and syntax you realize that the first issue involves the grammatical form and the meaning of the imperfect aspect of the word translated “redeem” (אֶפְדֵּם). The English past tense reading of the KJV reflects a Hebrew preterite, the imperfect verb form with the conjunction attached (technically called the waw consecutive) that focuses the time on the past. However, The Hebrew text does not contain this conjunction and therefore a modal aspect expressing the mood of the verb agrees better with the grammar, whether a mood of a desire as seen in the NIV or of a condition as found in the NASB. (For a brief review of the syntax and other options see Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2nd edition, 33-34.)
The interpretation issue flows from the grammar and syntax analysis. The preterite reading of the text (KJV) refers the verse to the past salvation experience of Israel at the Red Sea. On the other hand, a modal translation reflects Israel’s present and future opportunity for God’s deliverance if they meet His requirements (NIV or NASB). In this latter sense, the verb פדה backs away from the soteriological (salvation-oriented) idea of “redeem” to the more general idea of “deliverance” (see Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 289).
Finally, a practical application you could present your group relates to the existing life situations instead of the past. God’s desire and ability to save from distressful circumstances should motivate one to be obedient to His requirements. You thus justify the NIV and NASB in this passage.
Of course, all of this depends upon your ability to read and interpret the Bible from the standpoint of the Hebrew text. Without this ability, you and your Bible study members float aimlessly on a sea of speculation and confusion. Unfortunately, you will not be alone!
Consider one example of why the study of Hebrew can save your image as a Bible teacher and possibly your Bible study group. Imagine yourself leading the home Bible study with members of your church and you ask someone to read Hosea 7:13:
“Woe unto them! for they have fled from me: destruction unto them! because they have transgressed against me: though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against me” (King James Version, KJV).
All is well until someone else notes that instead of reading though I have redeemed them (KJV), his New International Version (NIV) reads I long to redeem them. Then another member adds to the developing confusion, “Why does my version say ‘I would redeem them’” (New American Standard Bible, NASB)? It becomes instantly clear that you, the study leader, are asked to arbitrate between these different readings since the interpretation of this verse affects (1) the temporal context for the passage, (2) the interpretations attached to the differing times communicated by the versions, and (3) a practical application of the passage to those present.
The Solution
If you have a working grasp of Hebrew grammar and syntax you realize that the first issue involves the grammatical form and the meaning of the imperfect aspect of the word translated “redeem” (אֶפְדֵּם). The English past tense reading of the KJV reflects a Hebrew preterite, the imperfect verb form with the conjunction attached (technically called the waw consecutive) that focuses the time on the past. However, The Hebrew text does not contain this conjunction and therefore a modal aspect expressing the mood of the verb agrees better with the grammar, whether a mood of a desire as seen in the NIV or of a condition as found in the NASB. (For a brief review of the syntax and other options see Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2nd edition, 33-34.)
The interpretation issue flows from the grammar and syntax analysis. The preterite reading of the text (KJV) refers the verse to the past salvation experience of Israel at the Red Sea. On the other hand, a modal translation reflects Israel’s present and future opportunity for God’s deliverance if they meet His requirements (NIV or NASB). In this latter sense, the verb פדה backs away from the soteriological (salvation-oriented) idea of “redeem” to the more general idea of “deliverance” (see Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 289).
Finally, a practical application you could present your group relates to the existing life situations instead of the past. God’s desire and ability to save from distressful circumstances should motivate one to be obedient to His requirements. You thus justify the NIV and NASB in this passage.
Of course, all of this depends upon your ability to read and interpret the Bible from the standpoint of the Hebrew text. Without this ability, you and your Bible study members float aimlessly on a sea of speculation and confusion. Unfortunately, you will not be alone!
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Case of the “Hanging Nominative”
Designation defines the basic function of the nominative case in the Greek New Testament. It is most commonly thought of as the case of the subject. One rarely looks to the nominative to discover some important exegetical point. However, John 1:12 contains one such exegetical nuance discoverable in some translations but hidden in others.
John 1:12 in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.” The relative clause translated “as many as received Him” represents a nominative plural clause that should function as the subject of an independent clause. But another subject “He” is inserted in the following independent clause. The initial nominative clause is left hanging without a connection to the main clause.
The New International Version of this passage says, “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” It changes the initial subject nominative to an indirect object dative,” to all who received him.” This has the effect of eliminating the hanging nominative subject of the NASB and the Greek text.
Although it may be advantageous for readers of the English Bible not to encounter a hanging nominative, there are reasons why writers used them. One possible use is for emphasis or focus. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 86, writes
See also Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 52.
In John 1:12, the writer emphasizes that, although Jesus’ own people did not receive him, those who did could become children of God. The hanging nominative appears to have the rhetorical effect of focusing the readers on those who did believe. A translation that captures this is, “But as for those who did receive Him . . . .”
The interpreter must be careful when translating not to ignore or distort the emphasis in the original text since emphasis is a powerful medium of communication and interpretation. If it is possible to transfer such emphasis into the English translation, the translator is duty-bound to do so.
John 1:12 in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.” The relative clause translated “as many as received Him” represents a nominative plural clause that should function as the subject of an independent clause. But another subject “He” is inserted in the following independent clause. The initial nominative clause is left hanging without a connection to the main clause.
The New International Version of this passage says, “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” It changes the initial subject nominative to an indirect object dative,” to all who received him.” This has the effect of eliminating the hanging nominative subject of the NASB and the Greek text.
Although it may be advantageous for readers of the English Bible not to encounter a hanging nominative, there are reasons why writers used them. One possible use is for emphasis or focus. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 86, writes
Since the independent nominative [hanging nominative] is in sense, though not in grammar, linked to an element in another clause, this construction quite possibly is used to draw attention to an item in the main clause which would be otherwise overlooked. The independent nominative may also serve as a topic marker or shifter which does not become grammatically entangled in the main construction.
See also Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 52.
In John 1:12, the writer emphasizes that, although Jesus’ own people did not receive him, those who did could become children of God. The hanging nominative appears to have the rhetorical effect of focusing the readers on those who did believe. A translation that captures this is, “But as for those who did receive Him . . . .”
The interpreter must be careful when translating not to ignore or distort the emphasis in the original text since emphasis is a powerful medium of communication and interpretation. If it is possible to transfer such emphasis into the English translation, the translator is duty-bound to do so.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Job and His English Interpreters
Every now and then I come across a Bible verse where translations of English Bibles display remarkable and confusing contradictions. Job 13:15 represents a dramatic example. Notice the following:
“Behold, he will slay me; I have no hope” (Revised Standard Version, RSV)
“Though he slay me, I will hope in him.” (New American Standard Bible, NASB)
“God might kill me, but I cannot wait.” (New Living Translation, NLT)
“Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.” (New King James Version, NKJV)
Is Job’s statement a declaration of certain death, possible death, no hope, hope, impatience, unbelief? A variety of interpretation issues are involved in unraveling this apparently contradictory and confusing array of translation options. Syntax, word study, textual criticism, and context are necessary elements in deciphering Job’s exclamation.
The first issue to resolve is the textual problem to establish the most likely wording of the verse. The Hebrew text presents two options, one in the text itself and the other in the margin. The different choices create very different translations. The RSV and NLT translate the second clause in negative terms whereas the NASB and NKJV give positive readings. Obviously a textual decision needs to be made.
This textual problem involves similar sounds of the two readings, a common problem in the transmission of ancient manuscripts. The text contains the negative “not” (לא) while the margin substitutes a preposition with an appended personal pronoun (לוֹ). The Jewish editors of the Masoretic text, the preferred Old Testament manuscript used by scholars, placed in the margin what they considered to be the original reading. This reading is also found in the text of numerous other Old Testament manuscripts. The NASB and NKJV followed this ancient textual critical decision. The RSV and NLT chose to stay with the reading in the text. The present discussion accepts the marginal reading as original and the one that appears to accord best with the context.
Syntax refers to the relationships between words in a sentence and includes a variety of meanings for the different parts of speech (see Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, for a review). In the above translations the verb in the initial clause communicates either a simple future idea (RSV), a concession (NASB, NKJV), or a possibility (NLT). In the second clause, the verbal idea is viewed as either an ongoing but uncompleted mental activity (RSV, NLT) or a simple future declaration (NASB, NKJV). Each of these interpretations is possible, but each cannot be correct.
The first word study issues involved the initial particle seen in the Hebrew text (הן). This could be a demonstrative interjection, “behold” (RSV), or a conjunction used in combination with a Hebrew verb (יקטל) to communicate a concession or a condition (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 243; John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, 221). The NASB and NKJV translators apparently chose this latter option. In contrast Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, p. 497, says that “the meaning see is no doubt preferable” in apparent agreement with the RSV. Again, both possibilities cannot be right.
The second word study matter concerns the Hebrew verb יחל translated as waiting (NLT), hoping (RSV, NASB) and trusting (NKJV). When this verb is followed by the preposition ל, “for,” as in this verse, the resultant meanings are “to wait for” or “to hope for” (see William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 133, and Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 403-04). In this instance, since there is a close semantic connection between “waiting” and “hoping,” the choice will depend upon how the context affects the sentence. The “trusting” terminology of the NKJV, though close in meaning to waiting or hoping, has a different perspective. The major dictionaries do not include this sense for the word used (see also Harris, Archer, Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, I, 373-74).
As in any interpretation, the context of the passage in question plays a determinate role in sifting through various options. Often one enters the realm of probabilities instead of certainties. The interpreter must now examine the context of Job 13:15 as a guide through the maze of syntax and word study differences.
Does the context suggest that Job expects God to kill him? It does not appear so. Job wants an opportunity to present his case before God and is convinced that he will be vindicated (verses 15 and 18). He may lose his case and be killed, but he firmly believes that he will be exonerated. Therefore, the probability appears greater that the NASB and NKJV with their “concession” statements should be given priority in interpretation.
Regarding the second syntax issue, the ongoing mental state of waiting/hoping or a future expectation, the broader context of verse 15 would point to a future idea. Job wants to present his case and wait for the verdict from God. The verdict will follow his defense; therefore, the future idea is more probable and so translated in the NASB and NKJV. (See Hartley, The Book of Job, 221-23, for a different interpretation of the context.)
The difference between “waiting” and “hoping” relates to the above tentative conclusion. If the resolution of Job’s contention with God follows his defense, “waiting” for the condemnation or vindication becomes the point at hand with “hoping” coming in as a weak second. Therefore, the NLT seems to “carry the day” in this matter.
In an attempt to capture all of the interpretive conclusions, the following translation is tentatively offered: "Though He may kill me, I will wait for Him." The English translation that most closely approximates this rendering is the New American Bible, “Slay me though he might, I will wait for him.”
Here is my paraphrased interpretation of the verse: “Although God might find me guilty and kill me after I make my defense, I will wait for His verdict, but I am confident that He will find me not guilty.” Such an interpretation coordinates well with the preceding desire on Job’s part to argue his case before God (verses 3 and 13) and with the following context where he knows that he will be vindicated (verse 18).
“Behold, he will slay me; I have no hope” (Revised Standard Version, RSV)
“Though he slay me, I will hope in him.” (New American Standard Bible, NASB)
“God might kill me, but I cannot wait.” (New Living Translation, NLT)
“Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.” (New King James Version, NKJV)
Is Job’s statement a declaration of certain death, possible death, no hope, hope, impatience, unbelief? A variety of interpretation issues are involved in unraveling this apparently contradictory and confusing array of translation options. Syntax, word study, textual criticism, and context are necessary elements in deciphering Job’s exclamation.
The first issue to resolve is the textual problem to establish the most likely wording of the verse. The Hebrew text presents two options, one in the text itself and the other in the margin. The different choices create very different translations. The RSV and NLT translate the second clause in negative terms whereas the NASB and NKJV give positive readings. Obviously a textual decision needs to be made.
This textual problem involves similar sounds of the two readings, a common problem in the transmission of ancient manuscripts. The text contains the negative “not” (לא) while the margin substitutes a preposition with an appended personal pronoun (לוֹ). The Jewish editors of the Masoretic text, the preferred Old Testament manuscript used by scholars, placed in the margin what they considered to be the original reading. This reading is also found in the text of numerous other Old Testament manuscripts. The NASB and NKJV followed this ancient textual critical decision. The RSV and NLT chose to stay with the reading in the text. The present discussion accepts the marginal reading as original and the one that appears to accord best with the context.
Syntax refers to the relationships between words in a sentence and includes a variety of meanings for the different parts of speech (see Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, for a review). In the above translations the verb in the initial clause communicates either a simple future idea (RSV), a concession (NASB, NKJV), or a possibility (NLT). In the second clause, the verbal idea is viewed as either an ongoing but uncompleted mental activity (RSV, NLT) or a simple future declaration (NASB, NKJV). Each of these interpretations is possible, but each cannot be correct.
The first word study issues involved the initial particle seen in the Hebrew text (הן). This could be a demonstrative interjection, “behold” (RSV), or a conjunction used in combination with a Hebrew verb (יקטל) to communicate a concession or a condition (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 243; John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, 221). The NASB and NKJV translators apparently chose this latter option. In contrast Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, p. 497, says that “the meaning see is no doubt preferable” in apparent agreement with the RSV. Again, both possibilities cannot be right.
The second word study matter concerns the Hebrew verb יחל translated as waiting (NLT), hoping (RSV, NASB) and trusting (NKJV). When this verb is followed by the preposition ל, “for,” as in this verse, the resultant meanings are “to wait for” or “to hope for” (see William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 133, and Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 403-04). In this instance, since there is a close semantic connection between “waiting” and “hoping,” the choice will depend upon how the context affects the sentence. The “trusting” terminology of the NKJV, though close in meaning to waiting or hoping, has a different perspective. The major dictionaries do not include this sense for the word used (see also Harris, Archer, Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, I, 373-74).
As in any interpretation, the context of the passage in question plays a determinate role in sifting through various options. Often one enters the realm of probabilities instead of certainties. The interpreter must now examine the context of Job 13:15 as a guide through the maze of syntax and word study differences.
Does the context suggest that Job expects God to kill him? It does not appear so. Job wants an opportunity to present his case before God and is convinced that he will be vindicated (verses 15 and 18). He may lose his case and be killed, but he firmly believes that he will be exonerated. Therefore, the probability appears greater that the NASB and NKJV with their “concession” statements should be given priority in interpretation.
Regarding the second syntax issue, the ongoing mental state of waiting/hoping or a future expectation, the broader context of verse 15 would point to a future idea. Job wants to present his case and wait for the verdict from God. The verdict will follow his defense; therefore, the future idea is more probable and so translated in the NASB and NKJV. (See Hartley, The Book of Job, 221-23, for a different interpretation of the context.)
The difference between “waiting” and “hoping” relates to the above tentative conclusion. If the resolution of Job’s contention with God follows his defense, “waiting” for the condemnation or vindication becomes the point at hand with “hoping” coming in as a weak second. Therefore, the NLT seems to “carry the day” in this matter.
In an attempt to capture all of the interpretive conclusions, the following translation is tentatively offered: "Though He may kill me, I will wait for Him." The English translation that most closely approximates this rendering is the New American Bible, “Slay me though he might, I will wait for him.”
Here is my paraphrased interpretation of the verse: “Although God might find me guilty and kill me after I make my defense, I will wait for His verdict, but I am confident that He will find me not guilty.” Such an interpretation coordinates well with the preceding desire on Job’s part to argue his case before God (verses 3 and 13) and with the following context where he knows that he will be vindicated (verse 18).
Monday, January 18, 2010
Entering into Old Testament Theology
“For you first, God raised up His Servant, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways” (Acts 3:26, New American Standard Bible)
This segment of Peter’s sermon carries enormous historical importance. On the surface one could conclude that salvation is a product of right living with belief lurking somewhere in the background. However, from the perspective of early Judaism, Peter was not preaching to unbelievers but to believers, to Jews who live under the Mosaic Covenant and considered the people of God. Belief was assumed. The issue for the Jews was not encouragement to believe but exhortation to obey the divine mandates for righteous living.
For Jews as for Christians turning from one’s wicked ways is not a once-for-all decision but a regularly revisited response to God’s revealed will. The Greek text of Acts 3:26 clearly makes this assertion. The term translated “bless” (εὐλογοῦντα, “providing with benefits”) is a present active participle denoting a continuing activity of grace on the part of God. Also, the word “turning” (ἀποστρέφειν) is a present active infinitive with iterative force, “by periodically turning each of you from your wicked ways.” From the theological standpoint, this verse is a statement of sanctification not of initial salvation.
This interpretation can confuse those with a purely New Testament perspective on spiritual matters. The New Testament presents a highly individualistic theology. The Old Testament, on the other hand, revolves around “corporate solidarity,” the perspective that views corporate Israel largely as a saved entity (see H. Wheeler Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel for further discussion of this very important perspective). This means that most of the Old Testament speaks in terms consistent with how God deals with His redeemed people. Peter’s theological outlook in his Acts 3 sermon is essentially an Old Testament message and verse 26 is identified more with the Old Testament theology than the New.
From the viewpoint of grammatical/historical exegesis, Peter’s theology in Acts 3 must be interpreted in the clear light of 1st century Judaism before Christian preaching had distanced itself from its Jewish roots. As a practical application, both the Old and New Testament people of God lived and do live under the same mandate to “turn from [our] wicked ways” and live holy lives.
This segment of Peter’s sermon carries enormous historical importance. On the surface one could conclude that salvation is a product of right living with belief lurking somewhere in the background. However, from the perspective of early Judaism, Peter was not preaching to unbelievers but to believers, to Jews who live under the Mosaic Covenant and considered the people of God. Belief was assumed. The issue for the Jews was not encouragement to believe but exhortation to obey the divine mandates for righteous living.
For Jews as for Christians turning from one’s wicked ways is not a once-for-all decision but a regularly revisited response to God’s revealed will. The Greek text of Acts 3:26 clearly makes this assertion. The term translated “bless” (εὐλογοῦντα, “providing with benefits”) is a present active participle denoting a continuing activity of grace on the part of God. Also, the word “turning” (ἀποστρέφειν) is a present active infinitive with iterative force, “by periodically turning each of you from your wicked ways.” From the theological standpoint, this verse is a statement of sanctification not of initial salvation.
This interpretation can confuse those with a purely New Testament perspective on spiritual matters. The New Testament presents a highly individualistic theology. The Old Testament, on the other hand, revolves around “corporate solidarity,” the perspective that views corporate Israel largely as a saved entity (see H. Wheeler Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel for further discussion of this very important perspective). This means that most of the Old Testament speaks in terms consistent with how God deals with His redeemed people. Peter’s theological outlook in his Acts 3 sermon is essentially an Old Testament message and verse 26 is identified more with the Old Testament theology than the New.
From the viewpoint of grammatical/historical exegesis, Peter’s theology in Acts 3 must be interpreted in the clear light of 1st century Judaism before Christian preaching had distanced itself from its Jewish roots. As a practical application, both the Old and New Testament people of God lived and do live under the same mandate to “turn from [our] wicked ways” and live holy lives.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Goat’s Milk and the Christian
Occasionally I hear someone say that they belong to a “New Testament Church.” The speaker usually means that the New Testament and not the Old Testament is their standard for faith and practice. Such a statement has both true and false implications. True, the New Testament teaches the beginnings, theology and practice of the Church. False, the New Testament does not reject the Old Testament’s applications and meanings for the Church.
Most Christians, including “New Testament Christians,” agree that the Old Testament provides a basis for much theology—creation, original sin, prophecies of Christ, etc. But “New Testament Christians” find little use for the Old Testament law and much of the prophets in their preaching and teaching. This could be because (1) they genuinely dismiss much of the Old Testament as sub-Christian or (2) they simply do not know how to deal with the clearly non-Christian elements found in the Old Testament. This second issue furnishes the focus of this article.
First, a shock treatment—Every part of the Old Testament, in particular the Law, since that is the locus of concern for many, can be taught and preached in the church in a manner that neither violates the historical interpretation of the Old Testament nor imposes sub- or non-Christian beliefs and practices on the Christian.
John Bright (The Authority of the Old Testament, pages 112-14) provides the key for Christians to understand and use the Old Testament personally or in ministry. The key “is to be found in the theological structure of both Testaments in their mutual relationships—that is to say, through the study of biblical theology.” To put the issue on the lower shelf, every law has an underlying reason for its existence; the primary point that transfers across the dispensational boundaries between the Old and New Testaments is the underlying theological reason. The law itself may be historically or culturally determined, and therefore changeable, but the theology remains consistent. For further discussion refer to my book, Shekels, Dollars & Sense, chapter 3, “Two Testaments; One Theology.”
Now to “Goat’s Milk.” “You must not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21). How do we interpret and preach this Old Testament text? How can it be used as a text for a Christian sermon with an application that is hermeneutically proper, theologically legitimate and practically useful?
Hermeneutically, every passage of Scripture must be understood in its own contexts. So our question, what historical, cultural, or religious context made this Mosaic injunction so important that it was repeated three times?
Historically, we remain in semi-darkness. Perhaps someday archaeologists will turn over the shovel in the right place and bring into the light the situation in life that precipitated this law. What does appear sure to most scholars, however, is that it had something to do with the religious practices of Israel’s pagan neighbors. This was first suggested by the Jewish scholar Maimonides (1195 AD) and still considered plausible today. Craigie states (Ugarit and the Old Testament, 76), “. . . it remains highly likely that the biblical text prohibits something central to the religion of Canaan and Ugarit.” If true the “something central” would most likely include their celebrated idolatrous worship.
Theologically, the Laws of Moses teach something about God’s Person. Tithing, for instance, concerns itself primarily with the transference of the divine character traits of justice, mercy and faithfulness into the life of God’s people. The 10% requirements are secondary matters. (See my book Shekels, Dollars & Sense)
So how does “You must not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” reflect on God? If such an activity was indeed idolatrous as suggested above, it would have been a pagan custom in honor of a pagan deity. For Israel this would violate the 1st and 2nd commandments, “You shall have no other gods before Me . . . . You shall not worship them or serve them” (Deuteronomy 5:7 and 9). This lies at the heart of the monotheistic faith of Israel and therefore fitting for a three-times-repeated negative command.
Practically, granting for argument’s sake the validity of the cultural and religious function of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk, such an act by Israel would represent a violation of its covenant with God and place the nation in jeopardy of experiencing the curses of the Law instead of enjoying its blessings. In such a scenario, the practicality of the command is undeniable; fellowship with God is the vital issue.
But now we must relate this Old Testament command to the New Testament. Taking our lead from John Bright, we focus attention not so much on the details of the command itself that may be historically and culturally defined but on the theological understructure for the command—idolatry. The question then arises, “Was idolatry an issue in the New Testament, and if so, how did it display itself; what were its cultural or religious trappings?”
Numerous New Testament passages speak negatively about idolatry. 1 John 5:21, for example, states unequivocally, “Little children, guard yourselves from idols.” Or take the problem of eating meat offered to idols in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. Idolatry in the Christian era did not include boiling a kid in its mother’s milk; it took other forms. And since idolatry in any form “replaces” God, the Old Testament edict carries a clear New Testament parallel and must be avoided. As in the Old Testament, spiritual fellowship with God stands in the balance.
Both boiling a kid in its mother’s milk and eating meat offered to idols equate to idolatry. The further question cannot be ignored, “What are today’s idols? Money, sex, power, material possessions? If anything stands between the Christian and God, it must be classified as an idol and John’s command applies as much to the Christian Church of the 21st century as it did in the 1st century, “Little children, guard yourselves from idols.”
In conclusion, I suppose that someone will comment, “Why bother going through this whole interpretive scenario? Why not just use 1 John 5:21 as the text for the sermon? I could give a number of reasons to justify using the Old Testament, but allow me simply to suggest that a sermon titled “Goat’s Milk and the Christian” with the text being “You must not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” would undoubtedly create interest and alertness in the pews. What a novel idea!
Most Christians, including “New Testament Christians,” agree that the Old Testament provides a basis for much theology—creation, original sin, prophecies of Christ, etc. But “New Testament Christians” find little use for the Old Testament law and much of the prophets in their preaching and teaching. This could be because (1) they genuinely dismiss much of the Old Testament as sub-Christian or (2) they simply do not know how to deal with the clearly non-Christian elements found in the Old Testament. This second issue furnishes the focus of this article.
First, a shock treatment—Every part of the Old Testament, in particular the Law, since that is the locus of concern for many, can be taught and preached in the church in a manner that neither violates the historical interpretation of the Old Testament nor imposes sub- or non-Christian beliefs and practices on the Christian.
John Bright (The Authority of the Old Testament, pages 112-14) provides the key for Christians to understand and use the Old Testament personally or in ministry. The key “is to be found in the theological structure of both Testaments in their mutual relationships—that is to say, through the study of biblical theology.” To put the issue on the lower shelf, every law has an underlying reason for its existence; the primary point that transfers across the dispensational boundaries between the Old and New Testaments is the underlying theological reason. The law itself may be historically or culturally determined, and therefore changeable, but the theology remains consistent. For further discussion refer to my book, Shekels, Dollars & Sense, chapter 3, “Two Testaments; One Theology.”
Now to “Goat’s Milk.” “You must not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21). How do we interpret and preach this Old Testament text? How can it be used as a text for a Christian sermon with an application that is hermeneutically proper, theologically legitimate and practically useful?
Hermeneutically, every passage of Scripture must be understood in its own contexts. So our question, what historical, cultural, or religious context made this Mosaic injunction so important that it was repeated three times?
Historically, we remain in semi-darkness. Perhaps someday archaeologists will turn over the shovel in the right place and bring into the light the situation in life that precipitated this law. What does appear sure to most scholars, however, is that it had something to do with the religious practices of Israel’s pagan neighbors. This was first suggested by the Jewish scholar Maimonides (1195 AD) and still considered plausible today. Craigie states (Ugarit and the Old Testament, 76), “. . . it remains highly likely that the biblical text prohibits something central to the religion of Canaan and Ugarit.” If true the “something central” would most likely include their celebrated idolatrous worship.
Theologically, the Laws of Moses teach something about God’s Person. Tithing, for instance, concerns itself primarily with the transference of the divine character traits of justice, mercy and faithfulness into the life of God’s people. The 10% requirements are secondary matters. (See my book Shekels, Dollars & Sense)
So how does “You must not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” reflect on God? If such an activity was indeed idolatrous as suggested above, it would have been a pagan custom in honor of a pagan deity. For Israel this would violate the 1st and 2nd commandments, “You shall have no other gods before Me . . . . You shall not worship them or serve them” (Deuteronomy 5:7 and 9). This lies at the heart of the monotheistic faith of Israel and therefore fitting for a three-times-repeated negative command.
Practically, granting for argument’s sake the validity of the cultural and religious function of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk, such an act by Israel would represent a violation of its covenant with God and place the nation in jeopardy of experiencing the curses of the Law instead of enjoying its blessings. In such a scenario, the practicality of the command is undeniable; fellowship with God is the vital issue.
But now we must relate this Old Testament command to the New Testament. Taking our lead from John Bright, we focus attention not so much on the details of the command itself that may be historically and culturally defined but on the theological understructure for the command—idolatry. The question then arises, “Was idolatry an issue in the New Testament, and if so, how did it display itself; what were its cultural or religious trappings?”
Numerous New Testament passages speak negatively about idolatry. 1 John 5:21, for example, states unequivocally, “Little children, guard yourselves from idols.” Or take the problem of eating meat offered to idols in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. Idolatry in the Christian era did not include boiling a kid in its mother’s milk; it took other forms. And since idolatry in any form “replaces” God, the Old Testament edict carries a clear New Testament parallel and must be avoided. As in the Old Testament, spiritual fellowship with God stands in the balance.
Both boiling a kid in its mother’s milk and eating meat offered to idols equate to idolatry. The further question cannot be ignored, “What are today’s idols? Money, sex, power, material possessions? If anything stands between the Christian and God, it must be classified as an idol and John’s command applies as much to the Christian Church of the 21st century as it did in the 1st century, “Little children, guard yourselves from idols.”
In conclusion, I suppose that someone will comment, “Why bother going through this whole interpretive scenario? Why not just use 1 John 5:21 as the text for the sermon? I could give a number of reasons to justify using the Old Testament, but allow me simply to suggest that a sermon titled “Goat’s Milk and the Christian” with the text being “You must not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” would undoubtedly create interest and alertness in the pews. What a novel idea!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)