TheologyThoughts

Fewer things reveal how totally depraved we are better than the technology we use, cars and computers in particular.

The other day I was driving along at the speed limit or slightly higher (I really do try to obey those laws). Someone was tailgating me the entire way. I made my turn (signaling in plenty of time) and as he drove by, he leaned on the horn to express his displeasure at my old-folks style of driving.

Now, I could understand his displeasure if I was driving below the speed limit. But the speed limit or faster? What bothered me is that he assumed that he had some sort of entitlement to speed, and I was infringing on that right.

Computers also reveal something of our sinful nature. How many of us have lost our cool in an email exchange and written things we wouldn't have dared to say on the phone or in private conversation? How many people have been tempted to use their systems for less than wholesome pursuits? The common thread is that we feel a certain distance, a certain protection, through the use of the technology, that allows us to express how we really feel, and how we really feel is often not how we should really feel, not if we are Christians.

Jesus once taught that some demons need both prayer and fasting, and I wonder if that's not the case here?

Most of the time what people are looking for in the Greek is really some
kind of hidden insight, effectively gnosis. While there is great value in
knowing the original languages, here is a statement that might surprise some
of you: 100 % of what you need, doctrinally and spirtually, can be gotten
from your English Bibles. That's right: your trusty-rusty KJV or NIV or ESV
is what you need. You don't need study notes, you don't need concordances,
you just need your Bible in good old English translation.

Someone objects: "But what about all those study tools? And aren't you Mr.
Greek himself? How can you say such a thing?"

1. What people really need to know is not the Greek word this or the aorist
tense that, but what the text is actually saying. Believe it or not, our
standard translations normally do an excellent job of giving you exactly
that: it takes the original and puts it into a language that you can deal with.
It gives you access to what the Scripture is actually saying by capturing
the meaning of the text.

2. But isn't something always lost in translation? Maybe, but the English
translations we have are produced by highly qualified scholars who have
spent lifetimes, in many cases, studying the issues related to the text and
its meaning. We can look at the original Greek, but chances are extremely
high that the translator has chosen the best word in that context in English
to translate the Greek (and the same for the Hebrew). And all the hype
about grammatical insights is just that -- hype. If the translator has done
his job correctly, the grammatical nuances will be communicated through the
English text. Also, remember that many of the "preaching" insights that you
hear that are supposedly based on the grammar are often based on the
preacher's mistaken notions of what the Greek is really all about.

Think about it. How much time did you spend analyzing what I just wrote?
Did you think about my tenses and vocabulary selection? Did you worry about
hidden nuances? You didn't really have to do so, now did you? The same
with the original text when given -- people didn't worry about Paul's use of
the aorist tense, they simply read and attempted to understand the text, and
that's precisely what we should do.

3. What I've noticed is that most discussion about something in the
original languages centers around defending or attacking various theological
positions. What the English reader needs to do is prayerfully approach and
study the text, spending a lot of time in it, from the perspective of "What
do I need to DO." That's right -- do. Scripture was not written to
increase our knowledge, but to make us wise, to change our lives. Read the
text in order to understand it, and then seek to apply it. The Holy Spirit
will move mountains to enable you to do so, if you approach it with that
kind of humility.

4. If you take this approach, and spend a lot of time in Scripture, all
those high priced study tools suddenly become a whole lot less necessary.
You can save yourself some money. Nothing beats thorough familiarity with
the text, in any language. You can become your own concordance. Sure, it
takes time, but so what? Can you think of a better use of your time?
What's better -- three hours watching a baseball game, or three hours spent
in God's word?

With that, is there any value in knowledge of the original languages? To
quote Paul (in another context), "much in every way." Remember that I said
the English translations will give you all you need doctrinally and
spiritually. They cannot however, give you everything when it comes to in
depth exegesis of particular passages. Now, you can go far with exegesis
from a translation. One of the most marvelous teachers I ever had had
amazing insight into Aristotle's *Politics* and he didn't read a word of
Greek... However, you can't always go all the way with a translation.
Sometimes there are issues related to translation and interpretation which
need attention to the original. If you get good at it, you sometimes find
yourself picking up insights that you might miss if reading only the
English, or that it might take you a lot longer to find. Someone once
likened it to the difference between black and white and color television --
you just find yourself noticing more when it's color.

Another issue is that many times people will attack a translation or a point
of doctrine based on a passage by referring to the original languages. It
then becomes necessary for people with competence in those languages to
address those issues. No translation is perfect, and sometimes people will
take the English in a direction that is possible for the English
translation, but not really from the original. Once again it is helpful
then to address that issue from the original languages.

So there are times and places for those called and trained to do so to
engage the original languages. But don't give up on your English Bible --
it can take you a very long way indeed.

Psalm 72 is about the King of Israel, and it is also a messianic psalm (i.e., the answer to the prayers expressed are ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ). It occurred to me while reflecting on it, however, that it also provides a model as to how American Christians should be praying for their president, even a president pursuing policies with which they may disagree. We pray for his success, we pray for him to be the agent of true justice and prosperity, as biblically defined. God still has great things to do through the United States, and our prayers must be directed to that end.

It struck me today as I was reading my weekend quota of Psalms and Proverbs that they are just plain good poetry. You don't even have to be particularly good at Hebrew (thank goodness ) to see it. Exalted themes adorned with beautiful language...

Recently, on one of the lists, somebody claimed:

I'll stay with the message I get that baptism and discipling are
the same process.

For me, the passage of Matt. 28:18-20 defines what baptism is.
I don't expect anyone to believe it. That's just my observation.

If the first and third part of Matt. 28:18-20 are saying exactly
the same thing, what else could the second part be saying?

If the people who attend a church are not receiving an
experience (receiving baptism) that teaches them to trust only in
God's Word (synonymous with Christ) who are they being taught to
follow?

I responded:

You'll pardon my selective editing, but this is the aspect I wish to focus
on in my response.

It is much more accurate to say not that baptism and discipleship are the
same process (I'm really having trouble visualizing exactly what that would
mean), but that they are part of the same process on a continuum of events
in the life of the believer. That the component elements of Matt 28:18-20
"are saying the same thing" and "are the same process" is not supported by
the grammar of the text.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on
earth has been given to me. Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit, Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have
commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." [ESV]

In 28:19 the main verb is "make disciples" (μαθητεύσατε), an imperative
(command) form in the aorist aspect. The aorist in this context means that
the action is viewed as a whole, in this case, as something which has a
definite beginning point. There are then two explanatory or instrumental
participles, baptizing (βαπτίζοντες) and teaching (διδάσκοντες). The
instrumental participles here describe the actions by which the imperative
is to be carried out. These are structurally correlative, in that they
equally describe the action, but distinct as they communicate two different
semantic contents, the action of baptism and the action of teaching. Both
sets of actions are part of discipling, but they are not the same thing. If
we observe how the words are used elsewhere in Scripture, baptism either
describes literal water baptism or the baptism of the Spirit. Teaching
describes the use of words, spoken and written, which communicate truth to
the recipients necessary to live the Christian life. Neither the syntax of
the passage nor the semantic content of the words in any way suggests that
they are the same process in the direct sense that you seem to intend.

How would Matthew have clearly communicated that they were the same process,
if indeed they were? This can be dangerous speculation, since the living
speaker of a language, steeped in the full linguaculture, can always come up
with suprising ways to communicate, but one suggestion would be to make all
the verbs finite imperatives, linked by the epexegetical (explanatory) "and"
(καί), something like μαθητεύσατε καὶ βαπτίσατε καὶ διδάξατε, "Make
disiciples, that is baptize, that is teach." Even that would not be without
its ambiguity, however. What is clear is that the text does not support
the construction you are placing upon it.