Sunday Morning Greek Blog

January 23, 2012

Take Heart! (θαρσέω tharseō, Matthew 9:2, 22)

Filed under: 1 Samuel,Courage,Faith, Faithfulness,Greek,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Old Testament — Scott Stocking @ 8:50 pm

(Note: All Greek words are linked to www.blueletterbible.com.)

As I begin my fiftieth trip around the sun this year, I’ve determined to make several difficult choices that quite frankly have me scared and stressed. I took our congregation’s “401” class last week on spiritual maturity, which emphasizes acting out of love and faith, only to be confronted with the fact that the first major decision I made in 2012 was one out of sheer desperation, fear, and resignation. I started taking Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University this week at our church, which means I’m committed on Sunday afternoons for the next 12 weeks, but the opening session gave me a little hope. Personal relationships are looking up as well, and things at work are on a more or less even keel. In addition, I hope to be able to go see my kids a little more often this year. Still, that first difficult decision overshadows the positives I am anticipating.

Courage!

So when I saw Jesus’s encouragement Θάρσει (“Take heart!”) twice in Matthew 9 the other day, I had to sit up and take notice. Matthew 9 comes in the heart of Jesus dealing with many who come to him or are brought to him for healing. Jesus, of course, meets their physical needs, but he is ever mindful of their spiritual needs as well. In Matthew 9:2, Jesus declares that the paralyzed man’s sins are forgiven, which incites the teachers of the law to accuse him of blasphemy. Unfazed, Jesus proceeds to demonstrate he has the power to forgive sins by healing the paralyzed man. After the woman who suffered from a bleeding disease for 12 years touched Jesus’s garment, she was healed and greeted with the same word of encouragement.

The word is found five other times in the New Testament. Six occurrences are in the Gospels, and one is in Acts. Two of the occurrences are found in story of Jesus walking on the sea (Matthew 14:27, Mark 6:50) when the disciples are so terrified in the storm that they think Jesus is a ghost. John begins a major section of his Gospel with the phrase: “Do no let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me” (14:1 NIV). John teaches in chapters 14–16 on the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the troubles that his followers would face in the world. He ends that section with the word of encouragement: “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (16:33 NIV). The two other occurrences of the word are found in Mark 10:49 and Acts 23:11.

Compassion

But that word by itself was only the tip of the iceberg that day as I was reading Matthew 9. When I got to the end of the chapter, verse 36 really hit home, because I felt like part of the crowd: “When he saw the crowds, he had compassion [σπλαγχνίζομαι] on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (NIV). The words for “have compassion” and “compassion” are two of my favorite Greek words, not only because you have to expel about a pint of spit to say them, but because they are so descriptive of the literal meaning: “bowels.” Yes, that is where the phrase “bowels of compassion” originates. Compassion comes from the gut in the Hebrew worldview, much deeper than the heart.

But leaving that word aside, the thing that really struck me was the condition of the people who came to Jesus: “harassed,” “helpless,” “shepherdless.” I’ve not forgotten I have a shepherd, even when I may wander off at times, but I’ve certainly felt the first two in the last few years. The shepherd has guided me through those times, but I often have to wonder what I’m supposed to be learning in the school of hard knocks.

The fact that I have a shepherd was reinforced even more when I came across an OT passage last week as a friend and I were reading through Six Battles Every Man Must Win by Bill Perkins, where he reminds us of the story of another shepherd, David. Before David secured his place on Israel’s throne, he was a fugitive running from Saul. During that time, however, he was not alone. Those who would become David’s “mighty men” gathered around him early in his fugitive life: “All those who were in distress or in debt or discontented gathered around him, and he became their commander. About four hundred men were with him” (1 Samuel 22:2). That sounds very much like the people who were gathering around Jesus in Matthew 9. And it sounds very much like my life currently. My life-résumé is a pretty good match for the “qualifications” of a mighty man.

Contentment

I know I don’t have the strength to dig myself out of my own problems. Some days, I wear my weakness on my sleeve, but only because I know that it is only through my weakness that Christ can perfect his power (2 Corinthians 12:9). I need my shepherd, Jesus, to guide me through. The path is mountainous and treacherous at times, but I know he’s got my back.

I remember going on a horseback ride as a teen through Chadron State Park in NW Nebraska. We had about 15 people riding single file along the trail, and we were going along a high ridge with a 45 degree slope that dropped about a thousand feet to my right (at least, it seemed that steep and deep). My horse decided to take his own route, and instead of staying on the main path, he moved to the right a bit and went between a tree and the slope. The path between the tree and the slope was no wider than the horse, but when I started to panic a bit, my dad reassured me that the horse knew what he was doing. It was only a short little detour, only ten feet or so, but I had to duck a bit to avoid the lower branches of the tree. The horse was sure footed though and got me safely back on the path.

That detour is a microcosm of what I’ve experienced in the past few years, poised precariously on the brink of disaster. But God has seen me through it, and for that, I am grateful. The road ahead still has its challenges, but I can be content knowing that my Savior holds me in the palm of his hand and will put me on the straight path in his own timing.

Conclusion

So my word to you is the same as Christ’s to the paralytic and the bleeding woman: Take heart! Know that his promise that he would never leave us nor forsake us holds true, even when we have trouble seeing the end result.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

January 21, 2012

Jehovah’s Witnesses: Guide for Explaining John 1:1 Correctly

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,John Gospel of — Scott Stocking @ 1:50 pm
Tags: , , ,

Reposting this because I’m teaching a class on Jehovah’s Witnesses Sunday, January 22, at church.

Scott Stocking's avatarSunday Morning Greek Blog

qrcode
Download the link to this post for your smart phone or smart pad so you can have a ready reference for Jehovah’s Witness encounters.

I have sensed the anticipation of the masses (in my mind, the 15–20 of you who read this blog each week are the masses; humor me pleaseJ): “The Jehovah’s Witnesses have been beating down my door. I’m tired of debating John 1:1 with them. I never get anywhere. When will I get some help from the Sunday Morning Greek Blog?” (Again, humor me please.) Well help has finally arrived!

Before I begin, I want to give credit where credit is due. Daniel Wallace is the “go-to guy” for us Greek scholars when it comes to issues of Greek grammar. Some of what I will write today comes from his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, published by Zondervan and also available for the Logos…

View original post 1,418 more words

January 13, 2012

Who Is, Who Was, and Who Is Coming (Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8; 16:15; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11)

Filed under: 1 Thessalonians,2 Peter,Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Eschatology,Greek,New Testament,Revelation — Scott Stocking @ 7:41 pm

I’m feeling kind of rusty. It’s been over three weeks since I’ve posted anything, but then, in those three weeks, I had my kids for the holidays, the holidays themselves, three repairs on the car, two round trips to Illinois, my dad and step mom both in the hospital at different times, and a partridge in a pear tree. Life has been pretty hectic. Things are getting back to normal, though, and after getting reacquainted with my Civilization IV game, I’m ready to get back in the blogosphere.

For those of you who aren’t on my Facebook friends’ list, I did in fact accomplish my 2011 resolution: I read through the entire Greek New Testament. I realized I haven’t written anything about Revelation yet, so I think I’ll take the next few posts to do that. In the meantime, I’ve started reading through the Greek NT again, so I will continue to post on other topics as well in the coming year.

There’s No Future Like the Present

One of the things that struck me almost right off the bat in Revelation was the Greek version of the phrase “Who is, who was, and who is to come” (NIV; ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος). At first glance in the English translation, this looks like a present tense verb (“Who is”), a past tense verb (“Who was”; 4:8 switches the order of the first two), and a future tense verb (“Who is to come”). But ὁ ἐρχόμενος is not future tense! It is actually a present tense participle, so it should imply the continuous aspect, that is, the action is currently underway. While “who is to come” does signal Jesus is coming, it doesn’t reflect the emphasis of the present tense in Greek. A better translation might be “Who is already coming.” Yes, he’s on his way, and he’ll be here soon.

But this isn’t the only place the NIV and many other versions imply a future tense that isn’t there in the Greek. We find the same thing in 1 Thessalonians 5:2, where Paul says, “You know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.” The verb there is ἔρχεται., present tense. So the early church didn’t look at as Jesus’s second coming as something in the distant future. They thought of it as something under way even as they wrote and read the New Testament.

When Is He Coming?

Now I can hear the anticipation out there: What is Scott’s millennial view? Well, I won’t beat around the bush. I lean toward being a post-tribulation amillennialist. (I hope WordPress’s server is ready for the barrage of comments I’ll receive on that little revelation!) When Jesus died and rose again, he established his kingdom, the body of Christ, on earth through the preaching of Peter and subsequent missionary activity of his disciples and other followers. The church represents the “millennial” (I take the term to be figurative for “a long time”) reign of Christ. I also believe we are in the time when Satan has been let loose to deceive the nations and the elect, so I think we’re beyond the millennial period now and waiting for the final consummation of history in Jesus’s triumphant return.

I can hear some of you shouting at your computers and iPhones: “But what about the rapture? Isn’t that supposed to happen before Satan is let loose?” First of all, let me say that the word “rapture” (or any Greek equivalent) is never found in the New Testament. The events described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11 are commonly referred to as the “rapture.” But these events I think could more appropriately be called a resurrection. After all, the dead bodies are raised first in that passage. Those of us who are alive will be “snatched up” (ἁρπάζω) as a resurrection from our mortal flesh. This is the same word John uses to describe what happens to the child born of the woman in Revelation 12:5. It’s also the word used in Matthew 12:29 (NIV): “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.”

This makes a nice segue to when I think Jesus’s second coming will happen. The watershed verse in my mind that tells me when Jesus is returning is Revelation 16:15: “Look, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake and remains clothed, so as not to walk around naked and have others see his shame.” First of all, we have another present tense form of the word for “come,” so that aspect is reemphasized. Second, and more convincing in my mind, is the language of coming like a thief. I think this ties directly in with passages like Matthew 24:43, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Peter 3:10, and Revelation 3:3. No less than four different New Testament authors (Matthew, Paul, Peter, John) use this imagery of Christ’s return. But also notice when Jesus says he is coming: just before the final bowl of wrath is poured out. Since Paul connects the “coming” with the “snatching” in 1 Thessalonians 4–5, I have to believe that the body of Christ will remain on the earth during the entire tribulation of scrolls, trumpets, and bowls.

If You’ve Got Ears, Listen Up!

Don’t think you’re going to avoid the tribulation just because you’re a Christ follower. I don’t think God has ever let believers off that easily. Noah had to endure a flood; Abraham nearly sacrificed his own son; Moses spent 80 years in the wilderness; David spent years running from Saul. We Christ followers are going to experience (and may already be experiencing) the tribulation. Otherwise, why would Paul and Peter put such emphasis on being found holy, spotless, and blameless (Ephesians 1:4; 2 Peter 3:11–14)? Why the emphasis on “being ready” if we’re not going to live through it (or die in it!)?

Conclusion

Christ is on his way. We don’t know when: no one does. It may be 2012; it may not be until 2512. But we know he is true to his word, patient with the lost, and that he will come at the appointed time to win the final battle over sin and evil. Eternity with him will be glorious to say the least. I’m looking forward to it. I hope you are too.

Peace

Scott Stocking

January 1, 2012

2011 in review

Filed under: Greek — Scott Stocking @ 10:54 pm

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

A San Francisco cable car holds 60 people. This blog was viewed about 1,600 times in 2011. If it were a cable car, it would take about 27 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

December 14, 2011

The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7–8) and the Reliability of Modern Greek Texts

Filed under: 1 John,Authorship,Biblical Studies,Greek,New Testament,Textual Criticism — Scott Stocking @ 7:29 pm

Note: Some of the information herein is taken from Bruce Manning Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (2nd ed., New York: Oxford, 1968) pp. 95–106, 209–10.

Introduction

One of the most fascinating things to me about the history of the transmission of the New Testament is the diligent scientific method developed by scholars to judge not only the quality of a particular manuscript (MS, plural MSS), but also to trace the historical influences on and predecessors to a MS. With over 5000 MSS of the Greek NT (in whole or in part), it was inevitable that scholars would develop a system for classifying and dating them. The process is called textual criticism, but don’t be turned off by the word criticism. Don’t think of this as negative assessment (e.g. “Her criticism was insulting”), but as scholarly judgment (e.g., “Her initial critique provided valuable insight”).

The modern Greek texts like the United Bible Society’s 4th edition and the Nestle-Aland 27th edition are sometimes called critical texts, because they weigh the value and quality of all MSS and make a judgment when MSS conflict about what the original text was. When MSS have different text in the same chapter and verse, these differences are called variants, or variant readings, (sometimes abbreviated v.l. for Latin varia lectio), or spurious. The science is not exact (there are four levels of certainty with which they weigh variants), but we can be fairly certain that modern critical texts are extremely accurate descendants of the autographs, the versions originally penned by the biblical authors.

The Johannine Comma

One familiar passage that exemplifies the importance of textual criticism is 1 John 5:7–8, known also as the Johannine Comma or Comma Johanneum. If you grew up reading the King James Version (or its various successors), you may know the passage as:

7 For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one (1769 Authorized Version, italics mine).

Stephens 1551 version of the Greek text, the primary text of the 1611 King James and a predecessor to the Elzevir (official) textus
receptus of 1633 (more about that later), has the following Greek text (italics mine):

7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες [εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν

8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη]
το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν

But most modern English translation reject the outright statement of the trinity here, because there are no early Greek MSS (sometimes called witnesses) that have the phrase represented in brackets and italics. In fact, the earliest witness to the spurious passage is not even a biblical text. It is found in a fourth-century treatise, and it is believed to have been a commentary on the shorter passage, by way of analogy, that somehow made its way into the text. The earliest biblical text inclusion of the passage is an eighth-century copy of the Latin Vulgate, that is, it’s not even Greek.

When Erasmus was preparing his Greek text in the early sixteenth century, which would eventually lay the foundation for the Stephens text, he was not going to include the variant reading in 1 John 5:7–8 (and didn’t in his first two editions), because he could find no Greek texts that had the reading. However, according to the history Metzger relates, Erasmus promised to include the passage if a Greek text could be found that had the variant reading. Sure enough, one was “produced” for him, but Erasmus suspected it was a forged copy. (In fact, no Greek text prior to the fourteenth century has the variant.) True to his word, he included the variant passage, but with numerous footnotes and disclaimers questioning the authenticity of the passage. Nonetheless, it survived into the Stephens text and the textus receptus, and it was included in most Greek texts up to the late 19th century until modern-day critical texts began to gain prominence. Even though the stewards of the King James tradition know the passage is not original, they still to this day include the words in the main text in the New King James Version.

How Do Scholars Decide which Variant Reading Is the Best?

I may have mentioned the premises for textual criticism before in my blog, but they bear repeating, especially for my new blog readers. Scholars look at two types of evidence when examining the quality and accuracy of a MS—external and internal.

External Evidence

One piece of external evidence includes the date of the MS and the style of writing it uses. MSS that use lower case letters (minuscules) are thought to be more reliable than those that use all capital letters (uncials), even if the latter is older. MSS are also classified by geographical distribution. Without going into too much detail, there are three main “families” of MSS based on this distribution: Byzantine, Western, and Alexandrian. The Alexandrian family of MSS is generally considered to be the most reliable, and includes the fourth-century Aleph (א) text discovered at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai and the fourth-century Vaticanus (B) text.

One final piece of external evidence is that the relationships of the MSS to one another can often be traced as well. Some scholars count the number of variant readings and simply select the reading with the most “votes” among the witnesses. This results in what some call the “Majority Text.” The problem with this is that later MSS tend to be more common, and they are copies of copies. Consider the following analogy. Which would you consider more accurate: a handwritten reproduction of the Declaration of Independence by someone for whom English is a first language, or twenty copies made by those for whom English is not their first language who only hear the Declaration of Independence and write down what they hear? That is essentially the difference between how ancient scrolls were copied. Some were reproduced by careful editors, while others were mass produced by those who only knew the correspondence of sounds to letters. In the latter case, often only one copy of the text was available to read, so there was not much double-checking of the scribes’ work.

With respect to the Johannine Comma, the external evidence is pretty clear that the passage was never part of the original text penned by the apostle. But internal evidence is also weighed in deciding on the authenticity of a variant, so I turn now to that.

Internal Evidence

The evaluation of internal evidence takes two forms, that which relates to the words on the page (transcriptional) and that which relates to the broader contexts in which the text is found (intrinsic). The latter concern, context, is something that every Bible college student learns early on. Those of us who teach hermeneutics often joke with our students that if we call on them in their lifestyle-induced, classroom slumber to answer a question, they have a 50 percent chance of being right if they answer “Context!” In addition to the immediate context of the passage and the larger context of the book or the author’s collection of writings, historical considerations such as the Aramaic background of Jesus’ teaching and the influence of the Christian community on the transmission of the text play a role in the decision to accept or reject a variant.

Transcriptional considerations can be just as tricky, especially when some seem on the surface to contradict each other. Scribes had a tendency to simplify difficult passages by adding or changing words, so on the one hand, the most difficult reading of a passage is preferred as the original, while on the other hand, the shorter passage is preferred on the assumption that the longer passage contains more explanation. Especially relevant to the Gospels is another tendency of the scribe to consciously or unconsciously bring parallel passages into harmony. The scribe may be familiar with Luke’s version of a parable, so when he comes to that parable in Matthew, he assumes it needs to be corrected, so he “fixes” the text. But this involves much speculation, so the passage that has a greater verbal difference with parallels is preferred. Occasionally, a scribe may have inadvertently skipped a line based on seeing similar words or endings in successive lines of a Greek text. If you’re a wordsmith, this phenomenon is called homoioteleuton (also homeoteleuton, lit. “similar ending”) or parablepsis (lit. “see alongside”). Homoioarchton happens when text is skipped because of words with similar beginnings. We’ve all done those things when reading, so it shouldn’t surprise us that it happened with ancient texts.

Again, returning to the Johannine Comma, we see that the shorter passage is indeed preferred, and there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the longer variant was indeed an attempt by a scribe to explain or allegorize a passage that was, perhaps, a little more difficult to comprehend. One final note: if you look at a copy of a United Bible Society Greek NT, you will see that the critical apparatus (essentially the catalog of where all the variants are found) weighs the certainty with which the Greek NT committee felt they had restored the original text. The shorter reading of 1 John 5:7–8 gets an A, because the committee was certain the original text had been restored. By contrast, the choice between “weigh anchor” (περιελόντες) and “circle around” (περιελθόντες) in Acts 28:13, a difference of one letter, gets the worst grade, D.

Conclusion

And so concludes my brief foray into the world of textual criticism. I hope you found it fascinating to discover that scholars have taken great care throughout history to maintain the integrity of God’s word, especially the New Testament. Talking about how the Jews preserved the Hebrew text is another blog post of its own.

I started in Revelation this week, so I’m in the home stretch of finishing up my read-through of the Greek NT. I’m toying with reading through the Hebrew Bible, but I may have to give myself three years to do that, and I’m not sure that would be the most profitable for me. I have been boning up on my Hebrew vocabulary, so it’s still a possibility, but I might return to my first-year Hebrew textbook and read through Esther to refresh and sharpen my Hebrew before tackling the whole OT. My other idea is to read through the Greek NT again, focusing a little more on vocabulary development personally and writing on topics I didn’t cover this year.

As always, if you have a topic you’d like to see me cover, don’t hesitate to ask. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you. Peace on earth and good will to all humanity.

Scott Stocking

December 4, 2011

Immersion (Baptism) that Saves: 1 Peter 3:18–22

Filed under: 1 Peter,Biblical Studies,Diagrams,Greek,Immersion/Baptism,New Testament,Old Testament,Romans,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 8:15 am

I have a couple notes for blog readers before I get into the main post today.

  1. For all readers: Instead of customizing the hyperlinks or providing transliterations and pronunciations, I am going to start hyperlinking the first occurrence of each Greek and Hebrew word in my blog to the entry in http://www.blueletterbible.org. That Bible study site has numerous resources available, including a link to hear the Greek or Hebrew word pronounced and the option to get a complete concordance listing of all occurrences of the Greek or Hebrew word. If you’re not already familiar with the site, I trust you will find it useful and engaging. (I am not being compensated for promoting BlueLetterBible at this time.)
  2. For those readers who use the sentence diagrams: At least once a week, it seems like the search engine feature in WordPress lets me know that someone hit on my site by looking for a diagram of a particular verse. I am pleasantly surprised to find I’m not the only one who has an interest in diagramming, in spite of how much I griped about it in junior high. For those of you who use the diagrams, I would appreciate knowing what your interest is in them so that I can get a sense if I need to do anything different with them or provide a different kind of diagram. Are you just curious? Are you a student looking for help on an assignment? (If the latter, I trust you aren’t passing off my work as yours!) Are you a preacher looking to better explain the passage? Whatever your interest, please drop me a short note in the comments. There’s obviously some interest in them, and I’m happy to share the fruit of my labor with you.

Introduction

Growing up as a sprinkled Presbyterian, I was understandably intrigued when I came to understand my need for a personal relationship with Christ and discovered the concept of “believer’s baptism.” It was a completely new concept to me, as I had never been exposed to it before my high school years. In college, when I got involved with the restoration movement, I still had many questions about the practice when I went to that first meeting at 1633 Q Street (now a parking lot) just off the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus. That night, just a little over 30 years ago, I got shuffled off to the pastor’s office, where I met Terry & Kris Christlieb. I had several questions about baptism, and they answered them to my satisfaction that night, so much so that we invaded Capitol City Christian Church at 9 p.m., where I got immersed. I was sold from that point on.

I’ve had my ups and downs on immersion theology through the years. Is it an absolute necessity? Is it just a “work of the flesh”? When is the right time? Just what is the “effectiveness” of immersion when it comes to salvation? But when I ran across such passages as Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3:18–22, it was hard for me to diminish the importance of immersion in the life of a Christ-follower. And when I discovered the connection between Acts 2:38 and Matthew’s Last Supper account, I was convinced of the efficacy of immersion as part of the salvation and maturing experience of the Christ-follower.

1 Peter 3:18–22

Of all the passages on immersion, or baptism as many call it (βάπτισμα, βαπτίζω), 1 Peter 3:21 is the only one that comes out and says directly that immersion saves. Yet this gets overlooked so much, because those who are not convinced of the efficacy of immersion seem to think it means something other than what is plainly written on the page. But what is the author trying to communicate by connecting it to the Noahic flood? Is the flood what saves us, or the ark? The verse diagram in Figure 1 below places 1 Peter 3:21 in its larger context so that you can see what the connections are.

I want to jump down to 20b, where Peter says (my translation): “In the ark, a few, that is, eight people, were saved through water.” In this case, the water was destructive (see 2 Peter 2:5), but it had the power to save Noah by supporting the ark on its year-and-a-half voyage. The flood destroyed all living creatures except those on the ark and those that could already live in water, but the ark was the vessel that protected Noah, his family, and the other living creatures “through the water.”

Now for verse 21: The word for ark (κιβωτός) is feminine, but the relative pronoun that begins verse 21 is neuter, so it can’t refer to the ark. The most immediate antecedent to the relative pronoun is “water” (ὕδωρ; genitive is ὕδατος), which is neuter, so Peter is referring to the waters of the flood with this pronoun. So in verse 21, Peter says, “This water corresponds to immersion.” The word “corresponds to” (ἀντίτυπος) is actually an adjective in Greek that modifies βάπτισμα, so the phrase might be more accurately rendered, “This water is functional baptism” or more literally, “This water is typical baptism.”

Peter goes on to say that this baptismal water “now also saves you.” The “now also” is relative to the previous verse. Not only does the ark, then, typify salvation, but water does as well. Water is what destroyed sinful humanity, which is exactly what happens when someone is immersed into Christ. Romans 6:3–4 says, “Or don’t you know that all of us who were immersed into Christ Jesus were immersed into his death? We were therefore buried with him through immersion into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”

What I found interesting is that the part that follows “now also saves you” has two nominative case nouns. “Removal” (ἀπόθεσις) and “appeal” (ἐπερώτημα) are both nominative case, agreeing with the nominative case of βάπτισμα, so they are essentially appositives to βάπτισμα. Here’s how a literal translation might look: “This immersion now saves you, not the body-dirt removal immersion, but the clear-conscience-pledge to God immersion.” But this rendition is missing the most important part of the verse, the final phrase.

The last phrase of verse 21 parallels the “through water” at the end of verse 20. “Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” is the qualifier that gives the water its power to save. Just as the ark saved Noah and his family through the flood waters, the resurrection is what carries us through the act of immersion. Again, I refer you back to Romans 6:3–4, where this is made abundantly clear. So if I complete my literal translation with that phrase, it would look something like this: “This immersion now saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not the body-dirt removal immersion, but the clear-conscience-pledge to God immersion” (emphasis mine).

So immersion is really a two-way street to God. If we just get immersed for show (the “body-dirt removal immersion”), immersion is ineffective. God is not into rituals without substance. But if we come to the waters of immersion pledging ourselves to live for him with a clear conscience, he effects the power of the resurrection in immersion and destroys the old self. He renews us and rescues us from the wages of sin.

A quick note on βαπτίζω

Some have tried to argue that βαπτίζω does not mean “completely immerse,” because that is what the related word βάπτω means. But the –ίζω ending on βαπτίζω is an intensifier. It is quite similar, in sound and function, to the difference between the musical directions forte (loud) and fortissimo (very loud). So βαπτίζω is an intense form of dipping, or immersion. I don’t have to time to list the many verbs in Greek that indicate a similar pattern, but I assure you, they are quite common in the NT.

Conclusion

So immersion is certainly not just a work of the flesh. Just as the ark supported and sustained Noah and his family through the flood, so too the resurrection sustains us through the act of immersion. But beware of the “dunk ’em and ditch ’em” philosophy. Noah and his family certainly did not sit idly by on the ark for a year and a half. They worked hard daily to keep the animals and themselves fed and healthy. Immersion is not a terminal point in the life of a Christ-follower. On the contrary, it is a watershed moment (pun intended) where we tell God, “I’m sold out for you.”

Peace,

Scott Stocking

Figure 1: Diagram for 1 Peter 3:18–22 (Greek and English)

November 27, 2011

Adulteresses (μοιχαλίδες) in James 4:4; Excursus on Authorship of Hebrews and James

Filed under: Authorship,Biblical Studies,Greek,Hebrews,Hosea,James,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 9:15 pm

James is my next-favorite NT book/epistle, second only to Ephesians. James is often dubbed “The Proverbs of the New Testament,” and after having read through the first four chapters this week, it is easy to see why. Although it lacks the strict parallelism of most of the text of Proverbs in the OT, I have noticed a substantial number of word pairings in James. Some of them happen in the same verse or within one or two verses (e.g. 2:2–3), while others serve as inclusios for certain sections (e.g., 2:14–16). James is probably best known for its practical wisdom on controlling the tongue.

Adulteresses

What caught my attention while reading this morning was James’s use of the feminine plural noun for “adulteresses,” μοιχαλίδες, in James 4:4. Throughout the letter, James addresses his readers as “my brothers,” which is intended to be a generic reference to all believers regardless of gender, as was customary in those days. So when he addresses his readers with a feminine noun, he is undoubtedly trying to get their attention. What may escape some here, though, is the implied Old Testament connection. (See Table 1 for the way this is translated in different versions.)

Table 1: Translations of μοιχαλίδες in Several Logos Versions, with Footnotes and Cross References

Version

Translation of μοιχαλίδες

Footnotes and X-refs

KJV 1769

Ye adulterers and adulteresses (!)

Note that the translators didn’t exclude males in 1769!

ASV 1901

Ye adulteresses

  

RSV 1971

Unfaithful creatures!

  

NIV 1984

You adulterous people

  

NRSV 1989

Adulterers!

  

NASB 1995

You adulteresses

Jer 2:2; Ezek 16:32

ESV 2001

You adulterous people!

Isa. 54:5; Jer. 2:2; Greek: “You adulteresses!”

TNIV 2005

You adulterous people

Isa 54:5; Jer 3:20; Hos 2:2–5; 3:1; 9:1

NLT 2007

You adulterers!

Greek: “You adulteresses!”

NIV 2011

You adulterous people

Isa 54:5; Jer 3:20; Hos 2:2–5; 3:1; 9:1; An allusion to covenant unfaithfulness; see Hosea 3:1.

Of course, if you have a good study Bible at hand, you may have seen some of these verses in the cross-reference apparatus (whatever study Bibles I have are still buried in my boxes). The imagery of Israel as an unfaithful wife or adulterous woman in the OT is certainly prominent. Ezekiel 23 has a graphic (dare I say X-rated) description of Oholah and Oholibah, the two adulterous sisters, who respectively were symbols for Samaria’s (northern kingdom) and Jerusalem’s (southern kingdom) religious promiscuity with other gods. Hosea lived the parable, so to speak, by marrying a woman whom he knew was a prostitute, and God told him to do it! (See specifically Hosea 3:1, which is the only time this word is used in the LXX text of Hosea.) By calling his readers “adulteresses,” James minces no words and makes no friends. He cuts to the chase and puts the fear of God into his hearers by comparing them to their faithless ancestors who were exiled.

Did James Write Hebrews?

Several years ago, I heard Larry Pechawer (at least, I recollect it was Pechawer) do a somewhat tongue-in-cheek paper on the authorship of Hebrews. Pechawer postulated that Hebrews had been written by Paul, because three of the first four words in Hebrews begin with a Paul-like sound (Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι). That’s not exactly an exegetically sound method of determining authorship, but to his credit, he did offer some other substantive evidence for Paul’s authorship, although it was admittedly weak.

The reason I mention this is that James, in 1:2, has three successive π-words: πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις. Now as with Pechawer’s theory on Hebrews, such alliteration may be just that: alliteration. In my college days, I had argued that Hebrews had been written by Luke, because the Greek is high quality, and the author claims to have written a short (βραχύς) letter, which is true when Hebrews is compared to Luke and Acts.

But perhaps there is something to the theory of James’s authorship of Hebrews. James, after all, was the half-brother of Jesus, so he certainly has the knowledge of the Jewish sacrificial system inherent in Hebrews in his favor. James also held a leadership position in the Jerusalem church, so he certainly would have known the individuals mentioned in the final greetings in Hebrews, including Timothy. “Those who come from Italy” could refer to visitors from Italy to Jerusalem, as opposed to the letter originating from Italy, as one might expect if it had been written by Luke or Paul. As the church father Origen said, only God knows who really wrote Hebrews, so my musings here won’t solve that eternal question, but it is an interesting conjecture to me nonetheless.

Hebrews 13:17–18: A Less-Authoritarian Translation

If you followed the posts when I was teaching the How to Understand the Bible class at the beginning of the fall, you may have seen the link to the word study on πείθω. Most translations render the word “obey” with respect to the leaders, but that is not a common translation for the word in the NT. More often than not, the word has the idea of “confidence.” That’s why I like the TNIV and NIV (2011) translation of the verse: “Have confidence in your leaders.” I believe this translation puts more responsibility on the leaders to be men and women of high character. This doesn’t mean that Christ-followers shouldn’t be obedient to leaders, but that obedience should come from a relationship based on trust, not just obligation. You want to follow leaders who have impeccable, reliable character.

The same word is used in vs. 18 and is usually translated “we are sure”, so translating it as “confidence” in vs. 17 is completely consistent with the context. For other occurrences of the word, click the link at the beginning of this section to open the PowerPoint presentation on the word study.

Peace to all this Christmas (with a capital C) season.

Scott Stocking

By the way, the new NIV (2011) Study Bibles are available now. If you are shopping for a study Bible and prefer the updated translation of the NIV (essentially the TNIV repackaged), make sure you look for the cover you see here. There are many study Bibles based on the NIV, but not all have adapted to the updated translation. If you’re in doubt, check the “front matter” and look for the copyright date of the Bible text (as opposed to the copyright date of the study Bible itself). If the study Bible uses the new NIV, it will show a copyright date of 2011 for the Bible text, and no earlier than 2011 for copyright date of the study Bible itself. The older NIV was copyrighted in 1984, so that would be the latest copyright date for the biblical text found on that page.

November 23, 2011

Hebrews 6:4–6 Sentence Diagram

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Hebrews,New Testament,Repentance,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 5:31 pm
Tags: ,

Did I mention how much I like doing sentence diagrams?

November 22, 2011

Hebrews 6:4–6: Wrapping It Up

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Hebrews,New Testament,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 9:40 pm

For those of you who didn’t follow the comment thread on the latest SMGB post, I wanted to sum things up. My friend Eric Weiss and I tossed around a few ideas on the passage, and my cousin-in-law Micheal added some comments about context and audience.

I had always looked at that passage as primarily having to do with the threat of losing your salvation. I have never held to a “once-saved-always-saved” theology, and I still don’t. But after diving into this passage and some fruitful discussion, I see that the passage isn’t about the danger of losing your salvation, but about the futility of trying to be a mature Christian when all you ever dine on is milk and baby food. The author (the “I” of 13:22–23; I think it is Luke, but no one knows for sure) has a steady argument building from the opening chapter of the epistle, but it takes on a full head of steam beginning in 5:11. It is the flow of that argument that is key to understanding the author’s intention in the broader context of Hebrews 5–10.

The immediate passage of 5:11 through 6:12 is bracketed by the author’s warning about laziness. In vs. 11, he says (my translations) “You have become lazy listeners”, but in 6:11–12, he exhorts them to diligence, “in order that you do not become lazy.” He says in 5:12 that instead of the Hebrews being teachers, “you are needing someone to teach you continually the word of God all over again” (note verb tense is present continuous). Then he switches to the perfect tense: “You have become needful of milk.”

In 6:1, the author says that “repentance from acts that lead to death” (TNIV), among other things, is milk. He wants them to move on. But here is where the present tense infinitive of 6:4 becomes significant: “If you want to move onto maturity, don’t repeatedly go back to repentance thinking that that is all you need. You moved past that, because you were enlightened and you tasted the heavenly gift, the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit. But then you fell away. So repentance won’t cut it now. It’s time for you to get back to a meat-and-potatoes diet by diligently persevering in the faith” (see 5:14 “constant use” and 6:11 “show this same diligence”).

So the “falling away” is not an irrevocable apostasy. It suggests in this context that the readers have backslidden and need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get down to the business of being sold out for Christ. The author goes on in the rest of Hebrews 6 to assure the believers of God’s promise, “this hope as an anchor for the soul” (6:19).

Peace,

Scott Stocking

November 18, 2011

“Falling Away” (παραπίπτω parapiptō) in Hebrews 6:6

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Faith, Faithfulness,Hebrews,New Testament,Repentance,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 11:46 pm
Tags: ,

Hebrews 6 is a scary passage to me. I don’t think those who believe in the doctrine of eternal security (i.e., “once saved, always saved”) have ever taken the warnings in this passage seriously. I will address the full context shortly, but the heart of the passage is found in vv. 4–6: “It is impossible… for those who have fallen away (παραπίπτω parapiptō \pah-rah-PEE-ptoh\) to be renewed to repentance.” The question that has always occupied my mind about this passage is, “How far do you have to fall before you can’t be restored to repentance?”

Context and Contrast

The broader context, Hebrews 5:11–6:12, informs in part the understanding of the warning in verse 6. Verse six also has four words that are only found in that verse in the New Testament, I will break those down later. But first, let me address the context. The author of Hebrews begins this section by chiding the readers for not having obtained a level of maturity they ought to have obtained. In fact, “maturity” is a prominent theme in Hebrews 5–7, which has nine words from the τελειόω (teleioō, \teh-lay-AW-oh\ “I make perfect,” “I complete,” “I become maturity”) family scattered throughout. Hebrews 5:11–6:12 is also bracketed by an inclusio of νωθροὶ γεγόνατε/νωθροὶ γένησθε (nōthroi gegonate/nōthroi genēsthe, \noh-THROI geh-GAW-nah-teh/ noh-THROI GEH-nay-stheh\ “have become lazy”) making the contrast between maturity and laziness even starker.

If that contrast isn’t enough, the author goes on to speak of the need for the Hebrews to go back to baby food (γάλα gala, \GAH-lah\; gen. γάλακτος galaktos, \GAH-lah-ktawss\ “milk”) instead of eating solid food. What I find interesting is what the author of Hebrews considers “elementary” teaching: repentance from dead works, faith in God, teachings about baptism (TNIV: “cleansing rites”), laying on of hands, resurrection from the dead, and eternal judgment. These strike me as pretty important doctrines, but do you notice what is missing? Think 1 Corinthians 13 here, especially where Paul makes the connection between maturity (τελείος) and love. Faithfulness (i.e., acting consistently on faith) and hope are included in the closing verse of 1 Corinthians 13 as well.

The (Neglected) Meat of the Passage

The imagery of “eating” is carried through into the stern warning of 6:4–6. Here is the meat, I believe, the author of Hebrews is talking about: being enlightened, tasting the heavenly gift, sharing in the Holy Spirit, and tasting the goodness of God’s word and the powers/miracles of the coming age. I’m not sure if the structure and syntax here is significant: two different words are used for “and” here, one indicating a strong connection (καὶ kai) and the other (τε te) a weak connection. I present a modified diagram below:

4 It is impossible

    for those who were once enlightened, also (τε) having tasted of the heavenly gift

    and (καὶ) who have been sharers in the Holy Spirit

5    and (καὶ) who have tasted the goodness of the word of God along with (τε) the miracles/power of the coming age

6    and (καὶ) yet have fallen away (παραπίπτω)

for [these people] to renew continually (ἀνακαινίζω anakainizō, \ah-nah-keye-NEE-zoh\) in repentance

because they recrucify (ἀνασταυρόω anastauroō, \ah-nah-stow-RAW-oh\ [\ow\ as in “how”]) the son of God to themselves

and (καὶ) hold him up to public shame (παραδειγματίζω paradeigmatizō \pah-rah-dayg-mah-TEE-zō\).

Allow me to give a brief treatment of each of the four hapax legomena (literally, “once spoken,” referring to words only used once in a text) to better understand what is meant by “falling away” and the other terms.

παραπίπτω

The word παραπίπτω is found six times in the OT, five of which are found in Ezekiel 14–22, referring exclusively to Israel’s unfaithfulness and defilement, from worshipping other gods to just simply living like God couldn’t do anything for them. The other occurrence is in Esther 6:10, where Haman is instructed not to be unfaithful to the words and actions of praise he unwittingly bestowed upon Mordecai. Given that the word is primarily used of the exiled Jews in the OT, I would hazard a guess that the NT usage of the word has a parallel meaning. In other words, this passage isn’t talking about the normal ups and downs of the life of a Christian, but a steady pattern of unfruitfulness, a lack of faith in God, and even idolatry. (We still have idolatry today, lest we think we’re off the hook.) Judah had to fall pretty far to be removed from the Promised Land and exiled to Babylon. I hope that none of you reading this have fallen that far yet, but if you have, hang on, because all hope is not yet lost.

ἀνακαινίζω

The ἀνα- prefix of this word and the next word below means “again,” and often times will simply be translated as “re-” plus the base word meaning. The NT doesn’t have a verb for “newing” something, but the -καινίζω part comes from the adjective καινός (kainos, \keye-NAWSS\ “new”). The word is found three times in the LXX, twice in the Psalms (103:5, 104:30) and once at the end of Lamentations (5:21). In the Lamentations passage, Jeremiah says something that is particularly relevant to the Hebrews passage:

21 Restore us to yourself, Lord, that we may return;

renew our days as of old

22 unless you have utterly rejected us

and are angry with us beyond measure.

We know that Israel was eventually restored to the Promised Land, so even the Exile was not enough for God to utterly forsake his people for all time. We are, after all, in a covenant relationship with God. Paul tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:13, “If we are faithless, God remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself.” Just as we can’t enter heaven by good works alone, so too we cannot lose our salvation simply on the basis of evil works alone. We would pretty much have to tell God ourselves that we want nothing to do with him any more for him to grant that desire and remove the blessing of salvation.

A question from my friend Eric Weiss in the comments after I originally posted this prompted me to expand on this particular word. I had originally translated the word in the passive voice, “to be renewed,” admittedly because I wasn’t paying attention to the parsing of the verb. It is a present tense active infinitive. As an infinitive, the subject is “those who have fallen away.” As an active voice, it should be translated “to renew” (many translations have “brought back,” but I think “renew” is a better translation). As present tense, the focus of the action is not on the time of action so much as it is on the aspect of the action, that is, it is continuous action. The implication of this goes back to the author’s statement in 6:1 about not returning to repentance. In other words, if you want to advance in the Christian life, repenting over and over again is not the way to go. At some point, you have to decide to grow up and move on to maturity.

Since I’m on the subject of tense, the other two verbs I deal with below are also in the present tense, so the focus there is also on continuous action. If you’re continually repenting, it’s like you’re continually crucifying Christ and continually holding him up to public shame.

ἀνασταυρόω

Protestants often give Catholics a bad rap about their view of the Eucharist, that the elements actually turn into the body and blood of Christ (the fancy word for that is transubstantiationism). Christ is recrucified in the Mass each week, so the Protestants complain. I don’t want to debate that point, because I don’t think it is profitable, and I don’t know that it is a completely accurate characterization. My point is, the only time “recrucify” is mentioned in Scripture is here in this passage, and it has nothing to do with Eucharistic theology. Those who have fallen so far so as to warrant exile (if we borrow the OT meaning of the word) after having known the enlightenment and blessings of God, must recrucify Christ to restore their salvation. But Christ, let alone anyone else, can only be crucified once. It’s impossible for him to be crucified again. But is that the author’s point here? I’ll come back to that in a moment.

παραδειγματίζω

The final hapax legomenon refers to holding Christ up to public shame. If you think about it, though, this is exactly what the original crucifixion was. Hebrews 12:2b (NIV) says, “For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” The word for “shame” in Hebrews 12:2 is the more common word (a noun) for “shame” (αἰσχύνη aischynē \eye-SCHOO-nay\), but the idea is the same. In the LXX, παραδειγματίζω is found in Numbers 25:4 in reference to the capital punishment delivered to the men seduced by Moabite women, in Jeremiah 13:22 in reference to those destined for exile, and in Ezekiel 28:17 in the prophecy against the king of Tyre (which some mistakenly take to imply Satan). A related word (δειγματίζω) is found in Matthew 1:19, where Joseph decides he wants to hide Mary so as not to expose her to public shame.

The Author’s Intent

I think the author of Hebrews here uses the hapax legomena because he is using a literary device known as hyperbole. We all know that in spite of the Jews’ idolatry and apostasy (falling away) that got them exiled, God led them back into the Promised Land to rebuild their nation, their religious traditions, and their faith. They never had a problem with idolatry again after the exile, so they learned their lesson. The author is saying it’s a pretty serious thing to trash Christ or trash your faith. In fact, he repeats this warning in even sterner language at the end of chapter 10, which forms an inclusio with this Hebrews 6 passage. The author realizes it is an impossibility to recrucify Christ. His purpose here is to say that Christ’s crucifixion the first time around should have been enough, and they need to get back to living out the implications of that. They could lose their salvation, but it would seem that they had not reached that point yet.

But the author doesn’t think the Hebrews have fallen that far yet. He (they?) says, “We are convinced (πείθω peithō \PAY-thoh\) of better things in your case.” This same confidence is repeated in Hebrews 10 (note the connection to that chapter again) when he reminds them how they endured persecution and exposure to shame and insult, and in Hebrews 13:17–18 with respect to the leaders (NIV: “Have confidence in your leaders” is a better translation in my opinion than “Obey your leaders”).

Faith

The author’s remedy for the danger of falling away is to continue meeting together (Hebrews 10:25). The word ἐγκαταλείπω (enkataleipō \en-kah-tah-LAY-poh\; if you’ve been picking up on the Greek, the gamma-kappa γκ is pronounced \nk\) is translated “giving up” (NIV), “forsaking” (NASB), or “neglect” (NLT). This is the same word Jesus quotes from Psalm 22:1 on the cross when he cries out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” That is how important the author views “meeting together” (ἐπισυναγωγή episynagōgē \eh-pee-soo-nah-goh-GAY\; see a familiar word?) as the body of Christ on a regular basis. Don’t give up. Don’t make excuses. Make it a priority, because it’s for your own strengthening and encouragement as well as for those who attend with you.

Hebrews 11 provides the encouragement for Christ-followers to remain faithful and endure hardships. This is what the author is building to in Hebrews 6–10, especially since he praises them twice for their character, in 6:9–12 and 10:32–39. The patriarchs endured similar struggles, and although they were not perfect, they persevered faithfully even though they never saw the ultimate promise of the Savior.

Conclusion

The bottom line here is the author of Hebrews is puts it in the strongest words he can muster to emphasize it is possible to “lose” your salvation. But he also seems to use language that suggests his readers have not progressed to that point yet. Indeed, it seems to take a pretty serious act of apostasy to lose your salvation (e.g., Matthew 10:32–33; 1 John 2:23). But I think the real message in Hebrews 6–10 is not the author’s warning, but the author’s call to perseverance and faithfulness in the face hardship and persecution. The Jews, after all, spent 70 years in exile, but they eventually returned to their Promised Land. In the last part of Hebrews 9, the author lifts up the blood of Christ, which purifies us from all uncleanness and prepared the way for us to live with our Savior eternally.

Peace,

Scott Stocking

This post was revised from the original on 11/19/11, adding additional material to the ἀνακαινίζω section and additional material on Hebrews 11.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Website Powered by WordPress.com.