Skip navigation

Sign up | Lost password? | Help

TheologyThoughts

What one Christian Thinks...

A New Commandment?

Thursday, 9. July 2009, 13:23:09

A response on one of the lists, slightly edited:

1. My first comment, that it was simply the first time that Jesus gives the
commandment in his own teaching, is certainly true in the overall context of
John, but I think the specific text gives us some additional clues:

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just
as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Joh 13:35 By this
all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one
another."

2. It is obviously not literally the first time the commandment has been
given in the canonical context, cf. Lev 19:18). The actual word for "new" is
interesting, καινός, KAINOS. This word can mean "new" as in "absolutely
new," but it can also mean new in the sense of "renewed, made better" (cf. 2
Cor 5:17). I think it is the latter sense which better fits the context
here, for two reasons:

a) Note the standard that Jesus sets, something which was not part of the OT
version of this commandment, that they were to love one another "just as I
have loved you." Want context? Look to the foot washing for a picture of
this type of love, and to the passion narrative for the supreme example.

b) As you noted, the context of the Farewell Discourse is that Jesus is
going away. He is returning to the Father, and sending the Spirit, the
Comforter, in his place. Now, I don't have time to go into detail (and
maybe you don't want me to do so!), but this passage is rife with
eschatological completion (the idea that the work of God is completed in
Christ and the victory over the forces of darkness won). This enriches our
understanding of the concept of "new" here, that the command to love one
another has an added dimension of power and possibility that did not exist
before Christ's coming.

No comments

1 Cor 8:6: Gnosticism?

Monday, 6. July 2009, 14:08:44

This was part of a post on one of the lists, slightly edited:

Now, that having been said, for Paul, the Father is not distant or
unknowable, but is known through the work of Jesus Christ. There are
numerous proof texts for this, since it is a cornerstone of Paul's theology.
Here is one [translation is ESV]

2Co 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old
has passed away; behold, the new has come. 2Co 5:18 All this is from God,
who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of
reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not
counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of
reconciliation. 2Co 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God
making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be
reconciled to God. 2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no
sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.


Now, this is the same author (practically all scholars agree that the same
author, Paul, wrote Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians). In Paul's
viewpoint, we can be reconciled to God, and God to us. We can know God.
Paul's God is hardly the unknowable supreme force of the Gnostics, so why do
you want to impute that meaning to 1 Cor 8:6? Do you have any other
passages you can cite to support your contention?

Also, note in the passage above that it's not about gnosis, but about
redemption. Sin is practically a foreign concept to the Gnostics, but it
plays a huge part in Paul's theology. Now, consider the following passage.
Can you imagine any of the Gnostics writing something like this?

Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. Rom 8:15
For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but
you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba!
Father! Rom 8:16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are
children of God, Rom 8:17 and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and
fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may
also be glorified with him. Rom 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of
this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed
to us. Rom 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but
because of him who subjected it, in hope Rom 8:21 that the creation itself
will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of
the glory of the children of God. Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole
creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the
firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as
sons, the redemption of our bodies.


What should be clear about this text, as I've been arguing about with another
correspondent, is that it's not about gnosis and ontology, but eschatology, the
fulfillment of God's redemptive purposes in Christ. The Spirit (and this
Spirit is wholly unlike the Gnostic conception) enables believers to know
God as their Father, and to be his children and heirs, and to look forwarad
to the complete redemption of all creation. Now, if you know anything about
Gnosticism, the general idea was that creation itself is bad, and the idea
is to lose the material and gain the spiritual. In a fascinating turnaround
on that subject, Paul talks about the redemption of creation, groaning under
the curse, and τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν, the redemption of our
bodies, Grk., σῶμα, about as un-gnostic an idea as you can find...

No comments

Where are the Nazis?

Sunday, 5. July 2009, 15:43:16

I found these comments by Pastor Bob excellent:

The thing that frightens me the most about the Nazi Era is that it involved
people like me. It isn't the concentration camp victims that I'm talking
about; it's the Nazis themselves.

We don't like to think of ourselves that way; we like to imagine that the
insanity of the Third Reich was an aberration, an odd exception in human
history. Because the Nazis did monstrous things, we tend to think of them
all as monsters and distance them from the rest of humankind. But they were
people like me.

By and large, they loved their children; they worked hard, were brave and
patriotic. Many went to church. The society that gave birth to Nazism was
not a medieval throwback. No country was more scientifically advanced; no
people better educated. They were patrons of the arts. The German
Protestant Church was the most liberal church in Europe. That's what
frightens me: the people that did these barbaric things were not
barbarians. They were cultured and enlightened. They were people like me.

What's so frightening about that is that it can happen again, that in spite
of multiplied Holocaust Memorials, in spite of people crying, "Never Again,"
it can happen again. Indeed, it probably will happen again. That's the
lesson of history. Our species is notorious for singling out scapegoats to
purge from our ranks, whether it's the Jews of Warsaw, the Palestinians of
Hebron, or the Muslims of Sarajevo. It can always be justified by the
mesmerizing demagogue.

I am a descendant of slaveholders. As far as I can tell from my family
history, they were decent, loving people. How did such people justify so
brutal an institution as slavery? I do not know. I only know that I, too,
am capable of blindly rationalizing great evil. What amazes me about
history is not all the bad things that bad people did; it's the bad things
that "good" people did, people like me.

That's why I fear Nazism -- because it's not so far away. It's always
lurking, not just out there, but inside me, too. To believe that those who
are different from me are less than human is not a thought that is foreign
to our species. It is a thought that embraced in desperate times leads to
death camps and ovens. It is a thought that can be embraced by people like
me.

Robert Benn Vincent, Sr.
Comments at the Grace Presbyterian Church
Hosting the Annual
Holocaust Memorial Service
Under the sponsorship of Congregation Gemiluth Chassodim and
The Central Louisiana Ministerial Association
Alexandria, Louisiana



No comments

Learning Greek, etc.

Saturday, 4. July 2009, 12:32:46


Thanks to Carl Conrad who called attention to this on the b-Greek list (who in turn got it from Rodney Decker):

http://tinyurl.com/ksj5h5

The students I encounter at seminary admire the skills of their few
classmates who are able to utilize the biblical languages (especially
Hebrew). Sometimes the student who acquires the needed tools is
looked upon by his fellows as a special someone, especially gifted in
language acquisition. Language teachers on the other hand know that
there are few, truly gifted students. Those who are successful (i.e.
actually use the biblical languages) are those who diligently labor at
building those skills. While these students are not more gifted in
learning the language, they are more willing to work through the
frustrations that come with studying any non-native tongue."

This reminds me of an admonition that I read when I first started grad
school in the "Confy Guide for New Grad Students at Harvard." It went
something like this: "You may have imagined that most graduate
students at Harvard are geniuses. In fact only a tiny percentage are
geniuses; most are students of somewhat better than average
intelligence who work hard and maximize the opportunities which they
encounter.


Good advice for the study of any ancient language. I think I might resume my study of Sahidic Coptic!

No comments

Even the Mighty...

Friday, 26. June 2009, 14:46:01

Ed McMahon dies, only to be eclipsed by Farrah Fawcett, only to be eclipsed by Michael Jackson. Now, I'm not going to discuss the relative merits of these entertainers, but to have three such big stars die within a few days of each other is certainly unusual. These are people who had it all, riches and fame, though their personal lives indicate that riches and fame are not the essential qualities to happiness. I am put in mind of the following from Scripture:

Psa 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. Psa 146:4 When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.


Nice example of Hebrew parallelism here. In the context, it is God only, and not princes, not nobles, not celebrities in whom we place our trust. Why? Because their end is like everything else -- they perish. Their concerns, their relationships, their agenda, all come to a screeching halt, and all that is left is the naked spirit who comes before the throne of judgment. In whom should we trust? In what should we invest? The answer is quite obvious to any true Christian.


No comments

Is the Phrase ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος (hUDATOS KAI PNEUMATOS) in John 3:5 a Hendiadys?

Wednesday, 24. June 2009, 23:04:22

1. Technically, the phrase fits the usual description nicely. Smyth
defines the term as follows: "The use of two words connected by a
copulative conjunction to express a single complex idea; especially two
substantives..." We certainly have two words joined by a copulative, both
words substantives, so that structurally it could easily be taken as a
hendiadys.

2. There is certainly a precedent in the history of interpretation. Of modern exegetes,
Keener's recent commentary (2003) argues for hendiadys. Keener also notes
that water is used symbolically of the Spirit consistently in John, cf.
7:39. Note also that both nouns are anarthuous, and governed by a single
preposition, which allows the possibility that they are being used as
synonymous terms. Calvin (who, even if you disagree with some of his
theology, was an excellent exegete), translates as aquae spirituales, but
doesn't see the terms as having the identical referent, that water
emphasizes the cleansing of the Spirit, much as "fire" at Matt 3:11 and Luke
3:16. Both Keener and Calvin want to read καὶ (KAI), "and," as epexegetical
(explanatory, = "that is"), a force it may certainly bear. F.F. Bruce
argues similarly, although he too does not use the term hendiadys. All of
the commentators point out that Jesus seems to be "midrashing" Ezekiel
36:26f, which they feel strengthens the identification of the water as the
Spirit or an aspect of the Spirit's work.

3. What makes me hesitate in calling it a hendiadys is:

a) Long practice in translating these things. A hendiadys as a literary
construction normally has a translation which clearly "makes sense" in the
context, usually translating one of the nouns as a modifier in English.
Smyth's first example, CRONWi KAI POLIORKIAi, "by length of time and seige, a
long siege, is very clear. In the context of John, however, "watery spirit"
or "spiritual water" both jar with what Jesus seems to be saying the
context. Admittedly, that is a subjective criterion, but it should not be
dismissed out of hand.

b) Overall Johannine usage. Allow me to put it this way: John is very
literary in this document, but he is not literary using the accepted canons
of Greek literature. He is fond of parallelism (more of a semitic category
than Greek), and the use of deliberate or studied ambiguity, but he rarely
employ's features that fit neatly into the literary figures and devices
employed by classical Greek authors. I simply find it doubtful that John
wrote this saying to himself "aha, a hendiadys would fit nicely here..."

At the same time, I think that the close identification of water and the
Spirit in John is extremely significant, and needs to control our
understanding of the usage here. Speaking of parallelism, it is clear from
the context that being born of water and spirit is parallel to being born
"again/from above" (Grk, ἄνωθεν, ANWQEN). Taken in this light, I think KAI
as epexegetical makes good sense. Therefore I conclude that water
understood as at least an aspect of the Spirit or his work makes good sense.

No comments

Eternal Security

Monday, 22. June 2009, 14:41:48

On another list, one of the posters claimed that he could list multiple Scriptures proving that Christians can "lose their salvation." I have often found that when such individuals actually make the attempt, a reasoned exegetical approach, examining the passage in context (and in the light of the whole teaching of Scripture), nearly always solves the difficulty, unless one has a strong theological bias already invested.

Paul knew he could lose salvation:

1 Corinthians 9:27 - But I discipline my body and bring it into
subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become
disqualified. ~ Note: Paul was talking about being disqualified to receive
the prize of the imperishable crown (received in eternal life) as the 2
previous verses in the Bible explain. Instead of disqualified in the NKJV,
the KJV has castaway. It also means reprobate, rejected, not standing the
test, not approved, that which does not prove itself such as it ought.
Other times the word (the Greek word adokimos) is used in the NT, it's
talking about the lost (2 Cor. 13:5-7 , 2 Tim. 3:8 , Titus 1:16). So since
Paul was aware of the danger of not being approved and becoming lost, we
also should be careful. Paul was being careful by when he disciplined
himself and brought his body into subjection. That means he made himself
to be a slave subject to stern and rigid discipline.



Really? First the text:

1Co 9:25 Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to
receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 1Co 9:26 So I do not
run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. 1Co 9:27 But I
discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others
I myself should be disqualified. (ESV)

Now, especially read the entire chapter. The passage has nothing to do with
winning or gaining eternal life -- it's all about Paul's ministry, and his
responsibility in preaching the Gospel as an apostle. The reference is not
to Paul's salvation in the personal sense, but the reward he receives as a
result of faithfully discharging his appointed task as an apostle. He is
therefore qualified or disqualified for that particular reward, but we are
not talking about his personal salvation. Nor are we talking about personal
morality, but of the kind of discipline necessary to obtain the goal of
Paul's apostolic ministry (hence the athletics metaphor).

So, what you have done is taken the passage out of its context, and
misapplied it.

2 Comments

Is the Light at the End of the Tunnel...

Monday, 22. June 2009, 14:19:30

An oncoming train? :no:

Recently on one of the lists a JW's (actually, he might be a former JW), asked if any studies had been done by Evangelical's on after death experience, and how would evangelical pastors counsel someone who had such an experience. I believe that behind his question was the presupposition that Christians could use such information as evidence for the intermediate state, and that the lack of "evidence" would indicate that the JW position on soul sleep was a better option. I responded:

Ok, just to make my position a little more clear, I would simply tell the
person that his experience may or may not be true, but that as a Christian,
he must trust first and foremost in God's word for his beliefs. We have, in
the words of Peter, the "prophetic word" which is "more sure" than our actual
experience.


Scripture makes it very clear that attempts to contact the dead, mediums,
spiritists, that sort of thing, is forbidden. While it is not wrong for a
Christian to have a "light at the end of the tunnel" experience, it is wrong
to assume that the experience is valid and make it a component of one's
faith.

I should probably have mentioned Saul and the Witch of Endor here...

No comments

The Real Heroes...

Monday, 8. June 2009, 12:38:59

With the 65th anniversary of D-Day, I am reminded that the WWII generation, "the greatest generation," has become few and far between. When I was a kid, you just had to point stick in any direction and chances were several of the adults would be WWII vets. They were, the majority of them, the true heroes, willing to lay down their lives for what they believed. I miss having them around -- they always seemed older and wiser, with a depth of experience difficult to match. That, of course, is my subjective evaluation, but this country could never have been called "great" in the latter half of the 20th century had it not been for them. "Greater love hath no man..."

No comments

Islam, Religion of Peace?

Wednesday, 3. June 2009, 10:29:01

I have recently seen a Muslim apologist claim this very thing on one of the lists. Now, I do not doubt the sincerity of the individual, and that there are other Muslim's who denounce terrorism, but it seems to me that the overall response of Islam to terrorism has been either public support or silence. I asked the person (actually I made it as a statement), "Is the god of Islam so weak, and the faith of Muslims so shallow, that you are willing to allow criminals to usurp your religion and do nothing about it?" Why did the United States have to go to war to find Al Quaeda? Why wasn't it Muslim armies and Muslim police hunting him down for so violating the principles of the Qur'an? My point was that throughout its history Islam seems to breed violent sorts. Christianity has its own awkward history, of course, but as I may have said earlier, Christian fundamentalists tend to say awkward things in certain social situations, not blow themselves and others up, and other terroristic activities...

No comments

1 2 3 4 5 ... 33 Next »

Showing posts 1 - 10 of 324.

July 2009
S M T W T F S
June 2009August 2009
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31

I do or have taught at these...

Reformed, Biblical Studies, etc.