Archive for the 'scripture study' Category

Pondering Peleg and the partions of the earth

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on October 5, 2008
in scripture study
. 2 Comments

Opening my Bible to First Chronicles, I began perusing the listing of the generations of mankind. Mostly my eyes glaze over when confronted with these tables, but there are narrative fragments in there like Nimrod (1.10), Archar (2.7) and the infamous Jabez (3.9-10) that hint at broader stories not more explicitly told to us in the Bible. One of these is the “story” of Peleg, descendant of Shem, son of Noah:

The sons of Shem: Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram. The sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether and Meshek. Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, and Shelah the father of Eber. Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan. Joktan was the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan. (1.17-27, TNIV)

Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah and Abram (that is, Abraham).

So Peleg falls nearly halfway between Shem, the son of Noah, and Abram. Footnotes indicate his name means “division”, as suggested in the text. But what exactly was divided about the earth? The vast majority of translations I looked at have no more than what’s been provided above.

However, the New Jerusalem Bible contains the added information that “it was in his time that the earth was divided into districts.” Okay, so we have some sense of regions of influence or common characteristics being established. The NLT goes even further: “The first was named Peleg (which means “division”), for during his lifetime the people of the world were divided into different language groups.”

There’s a definite echo of Genesis 11 (the story of Babel) and, looking back at the texts, in fact, Peleg and his brother, Joktan, are the last generation of Shem’s descendants listed in Gen. 10, immediately before Babel. Certainly the division of the world by language was the primary outcome of Babel - families were divided and countries were formed with new language relationships (that’s one way for God to assure genetic diversity!).

That would probably be enough to confirm the NLT’s expansion of the Chronicler’s text; however, I was also reading in the Book of Judith (Apocrypha) and came across the following summary of Abram’s family history:

Then Achior, the leader of all the Ammonites, said to [Holophernes, the Assyrian commander-in-chief], ‘My lord, if you will allow your servant to speak, I will tell you the truth about this nation [Israel] that lives in the hill-country near here; and no lie shall pass my lips. They are descended from the Chaldaeans; and at one time they settled in Mesopotamia, because they refused to worship the gods their fathers had worshipped in Chaldaea. They abandoned the ways of their ancestors and worshipped the God of Heaven, the god whom they now acknowledged. When the Chaldaeans drove them out from the presence of their gods, they fled to Mesopotamia, where they lived for a long time. Then their god told them to leave their new home and go on to Canaan. They settled there and acquired great wealth in gold, silver and livestock. (5.5-9, NEB)

We know that the Chaldaeans were the dominant tribe of Babylonia and existed with a number of other tribes (source). Presumably “Mesopotamia” means Harran, where Abram first settled after leaving Ur. According to the genealogy recorded in Genesis 11, there were approximately 400 years from the birth of Shem to the birth of Abraham, a time period during which all of the ancestral family (Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah) were still alive. Shem lived for 600 years, 502 years after the flood - that means that Shem was still living when Abram was born! (This, of course, assumes that we read the genealogy literally and not as a stylized history of many more generations that populated the earth.)

The text in Judith is explicit that the fathers worshiped other gods in Chaldaea - this is after the flood (again, reading the text literally in terms of global flood), so “their fathers” has to refer to the ancestral line quoted above. The question is whether the “abandonment of the gods of their fathers” as recorded in Judith refers to God’s calling of Abram or instead perhaps to the Babel episode and Peleg’s “division” from the rest of the world.

That is, could a remnant of Babel, led by Peleg, have chosen to worship the God who “scattered men all over the face of the earth” (Gen 11.9)? And was this the division that his name refers to? Keeping in mind that Peleg’s father’s name, Eber, is the traditional root of the word, “Hebrew”, is it possible that Eber named his son after a split in the family? How likely is it that the predominant worship of other gods would have been established in 100 years after the flood (Arphaxad to Peleg)? Are there implications of Abram already having known the “God of Heaven” at the time of his call in Gen 11.12? Certainly the Bible text assumes some familiarity, as Abram’s first response isn’t “who are you?!” Or at least it’s not recorded as such…

Wisdom: craftsman, child or companion?

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on September 24, 2008
in bible translation, scripture study and wisdom
. 6 Comments

I’m continuing to look at the portrayal of Wisdom in Proverbs 8. Several Bibles have noted that the translation of 8.30 has significant theological importance in our understanding of who and how God created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1-2. There seem to be three main views: that (a) Wisdom was God’s companion, but not actively involved in creation; (b) Wisdom was the architect of creation, either emanating from God á la the Word, or joyfully working behind the scene; or (c) Wisdom was a child, playing with creation as it was made.

These three views of Proverbs 8.30-31 are represented by the following translations:

The Companion (NEB)
 The Craftsman (NRSV)
 The Child (NCV)
Then I was at his side each day,
his darling and delight,
playing in his presence continually,
playing on the earth, when he had finished it,
while my delight was in mankind.		 then I was beside him, like a master worker;
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the human race.		 I was like a child by his side.
I was delighted every day,
enjoying his presence all the time,
enjoying the whole world,
and delighted with all its people.
Also: REB, TNIV Also: NLT, NIV, NASB, ESV, CEV, KJV, NKJV, ASV, HCSB, NAB, NET, NETS Footnoted in several translations: NRSV, TNIV, NEB/REB, among others.

I’ve included a footnote with the other significant translations that follow each interpretative path. The NET Bible includes this lengthy footnote:

Critical to the interpretation of this line is the meaning of אָמוֹן (’amon). Several suggestions have been made: “master craftsman” (cf. ASV, NASB, NIV, NRSV), “nursing child” (cf. NCV), “foster father.” R. B. Y. Scott chooses “faithful” – a binding or living link (“Wisdom in Creation: The ‘Amon of Proverbs 8:30,” VT 10 [1960]: 213-23). The image of a child is consistent with the previous figure of being “given birth to” (vv. 24, 25). However, “craftsman” has the most support (LXX, Vulgate, Syriac, Tg. Prov 8:30, Song 7:1; Jer 52:15; also P. W. Skehan, “Structures in Poems on Wisdom: Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24,” CBQ 41 [1979]: 365-79).

Certainly both the Craftsman and the Child translations include the element of companionship (”I was beside him”, “… by his side”), though the Companion view seems to be lacking the critical ” אָמוֹן (’amon)” phrase - which I must assume is a textual issue. To be honest, I wouldn’t have been surprised if the NEB and REB had been the only representatives of this view, given their idiosyncratic approach to OT textual sources; however, the TNIV takes this approach as well, which seems to give it modern validity:

Then I was constantly at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in humankind.

NT use of the OT: Fuller Meaning, Single Goal

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on September 20, 2008
in blogging, prophecy and scripture study
. 4 Comments
NT Use of the OT — Test Your View!
Fuller Meaning, Single Goal view

You seem to be most closely aligned with the Fuller Meaning, Single Goal view, a view defended by Peter Enns in the book “Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” (edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, Nov. 2008). Since the NT writers held a single-minded conviction that the Scriptures point to and are fulfilled in Christ, this view suggests that the NT writers perceive this meaning in OT texts, even when their OT authors did not have that meaning in mind when they wrote. It should be noted, however, that advocates of this view are careful not to deny the importance of the grammatical-historical study of the OT text so as to understand the OT authors on their own terms. For more info, see the book, or attend a special session devoted to the topic at the ETS Annual Meeting in Providence, RI (Nov. 2008); Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Darrell L. Bock, and Peter Enns will all present their views.

Fun quizzes, surveys & blog quizzes by Quibblo

HT: Several, but I came across it first in Jeff’s Scripture Zealot blog.

The folks at Zondervan recently developed a short quiz that tests “your view of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” and ties the answer to their new book “Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” (edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, Nov. 2008). Disclaimer: I don’t know anything about this book and this post should not be read as an endorsement of such.

In any event, I was scored as having the “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal” view. As I noted in TC’s blog a few days ago, I believe that everything in the four gospels was recorded in the context of Jesus’ post-resurrection explanations of his fulfillment of scripture, cf. Luke 24:27, 44-47. We should not read through the gospels as if we were getting “daily dispatches from the front”; instead, these texts were crafted after Jesus’ physical resurrection and reflect careful thought and discernment in light of his entire ministry on earth.

For me, this aligns with the quiz result that “the NT writers held a single-minded conviction that the Scriptures point to and are fulfilled in Christ [...] even when their OT authors did not have that meaning in mind when they wrote.” Their single-minded conviction came from Jesus himself who “opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.” (Lk. 24:45)

I agree completely with the result summary that we should be “careful not to deny the importance of the grammatical-historical study of the OT text so as to understand the OT authors on their own terms.” Since the OT authors were not necessarily writing about Jesus, it’s important to understand their original context, to better see how Christ is the fuller fulfillment, in both word and deed.

Looking at Peter Enns’ published works on Amazon, his book “Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament” looks interesting - anyone want to recommend it?

The literary Bible: Feeding the flames of hell

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on September 3, 2008
in bible translation, church, creation, eschatology, literary bible and scripture study
. 15 Comments

This is a post in a continuing translation comparison series. Focused on “the literary Bible”, my intent is look at passages or phrases where translations that have been especially noted for their literary translation qualities seem to capture the meaning of the text with an extra dash of written flavor, at least in comparison with other standard English translations.

Previous posts: The winner’s wreath | A wilderness of words | Deeds of doom!

* * * * *

This summer I’ve been reading through some of the later letters of the New Testament, namely those of James and Peter. One of my recent book acquisitions was a Library Edition of the New English Bible NT, which proved to be an upgrade in binding only, as the footnotes and annotations are identical to those in my NEB Oxford Study Edition (unlike in the OT, where the Library Edition reportedly does contain additional reference material). Nonetheless, I’ve been reading the NT in the NEB and enjoying it quite a bit, as you might expect.

The passages on the depravity of the tongue in James 3 caught my attention with their florid language and imagery. What follows is a short look at several verses, comparing the NEB to multiple modern translations.

NEB: James 3:1-2
 REB
My brothers, not many of you should become teachers, for you may be certain that we who teach shall ourselves be judged with greater strictness. All of us often go wrong; the man who never says a wrong thing is a perfect character, able to bridle his whole being. My friends, not many of you should become teachers, for you may be certain that we who teach will ourselves face greater judgement. All of us go wrong again and again; a man who never says anything wrong is perfect and is capable of controlling every part of his body.
I want to focus on the change in the latter part of verse 2 where the NEB follows the traditional KJV rendering (cf. RSV/ESV, NASB, NRSV) in using “bridle” as a translation for the Greek chalinagōgeō, while the REB updates this to “controlling”.

Presumably the equestrian reference has been deemed too arcane for modern, idiomatic readers, as virtually every other functional translation includes a similar rendering as the REB. The bridle, of course, is the contraption that goes over the horse’s head, holding the bit in the horse’s mouth and attaching to the reins. Is this really too difficult for the modern reader to understand without it being painted over?

By doing so, the functional translations sever a delightful connection between this verse and the following one (see next), where James uses the illustration of the controlling power of a horse’s bit. This transition seems too logical and natural to ignore through a semantic equivalent.
NEB: James 3:3-5a
 NLTse
If we put bits into horses’ mouths to make them obey our will, we can direct their whole body. Or think of ships: large they may be, yet even when driven by strong gales they can be directed by a tiny rudder on whatever course the helmsman chooses. So with the tongue. It is a small member but it can make huge claims. We can make a large horse go wherever we want by means of a small bit in its mouth. And a small rudder makes a huge ship turn wherever the pilot chooses to go, even though the winds are strong. In the same way, the tongue is a small thing that makes grand speeches.
The NLT’s convention of breaking down the source texts into bite-size morsels conveys much the same general meaning as the NEB, but I can’t help but feel that the logic of the passage has been weakened. The NLT drops the “obey/will” in favor of “go wherever we want”, which feels somewhat more whimiscal or capricious than directed. The NEB admittedly is awkward here, especially in verse 4 - somewhat cleaned up in the REB revision:

Or think of a ship: large though it may be and driven by gales, it can be steered by a very small rudder on whatever course the helmsman chooses.

My preference for accurate nautical terminology has already been documented; needless to say, the use of “gales” and “helmsman” earns points in my book. The latter is perhaps a little more precise than “pilot” in that the helmsman is the one who actually steers the ship, while a pilot is more of a local guide with the authority of a ship’s captain, telling the helmsman where to go in order to navigate a particular passage of water. That said, often the roles are combined from a functional sense, especially where a local pilot is not required. But I suspect this is more than translators need to take into account - I simply prefer the traditional language and welcome it in the NEB.

Finally, by translating the Greek melos as “thing” instead “member” or “part of the body”, the NLT loses the comparative aspect of the size of the tongue to the overall body.
NEB: James 3:5b-6
 HCSB
What an immense stack of timber can be set ablaze by the tiniest spark! And the tongue is in effect a fire. It represents among our members the world with all its wickedness; it pollutes our whole being; it keeps the wheel of our existence red-hot, and its flames are fed by hell. Consider how large a forest a small fire ignites. And the tongue is a fire. The tongue, a world of unrighteousness, is placed among the parts of our [bodies]; it pollutes the whole body, sets the course of life on fire, and is set on fire by hell
Compare the use of adjectives between the NEB and HCSB: “immense/tiniest” and “large/small”. How drab is the latter, while the former immediately conjures a more active illustration of a fire, crackling into a blazing roar that echoes the “huge claims” and “grand speeches” of verse 5a. The NEB noted “What a huge forest…” as a textual variant to “stack of timber” - though that would have created an awkward repetition of the adjective “huge” in 5a/b. I might humbly suggest “swath” instead of “stack” as a mediating translation between the two approaches, with “timber” as a literary image of a forest.

The HCSB is one of the few translations to use “pollute” in verse 6 - most opt for a variant of “corrupt” or “defile”. The Greek is spiloō, which means “to make a stain or spot” in a moral sense.

The study notes to the NEB Oxford Study Edition state that the translation “wheel of our existence” in verse 6 is a reference to Greek mystery thought meaning the whole of our existence, from beginning to end. Some take this as support for the idea of reincarnation, but that clearly is beyond the pale of Christianity and presumably beyond what James had in mind.

Finally, the NEB’s literary quality shines through again with the alliterative “flames are fed”, drawing out the all-consuming quality of sin and wickedness, just as fire consumes every inch of a forest unless checked.
NEB: James 3:7-8
 TNIV
Beasts and birds of every kind, creatures that crawl on the ground or swim in the sea, can be subdued and have been subdued by mankind; but no man can subdue the tongue. It is an intractable evil, charged with deadly venom. All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by human beings, but no one can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison
First, I want to briefly comment on the rolling alliteration in the NEB: beasts/birds, creatures/crawl, swim/seas. This type of poetic prose, continued from the previous verse (”flames are fed”), elevates the English language beyond the pedestrian list of beasts illustrated by the TNIV. The literary characteristics of the word choices make them seem deliberate and my memory naturally finds in them an allusion to the Creation accounts in Genesis 1:

Genesis 1:26-28 (NEB) — Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness to rule the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all wild animals on earth, and all reptiles that crawl upon the earth.’ So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase, fill the earth and subdue it, rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, and every living thing that moves upon the earth.’

The question then begs: did the TNIV translations fail to underscore an allusion to Genesis 1 in James 3:7 or did the NEB translators take liberties with the Greek text to draw out this connection?

The two phrases that stick out in the NEB are “creatures that crawl on the ground” and “swim in the sea”, translated as “reptiles” and “sea creatures”, respectively, by the TNIV. The former is translated from the Greek herpeton, which generally describes “a creeping animal, reptile”; the equivalent Hebrew seems to be remes, which permeates the Genesis creation account as “creeping thing” in traditional translations. The latter is from the Greek adjective enalios, which means “that which is in the sea, marine”. In these cases, the NEB’s choice of verbose nouns and verbs to translate what can be more simply described does seem to be deliberately creating an echo of Genesis 1.

With that conclusion in mind, we look at the Greek damazō (NEB: “subdue”, TNIV: “tame”). The NEB’s rendering more definitely recalls the Creation language of Genesis 1 quoted above, while the TNIV (and many other translations) anticipate perhaps Shakespeare’s “Taming of the Shrew”. Strong’s defines damazō as “to tame” or “curb, restrain”, which certainly would seem to lean toward the TNIV as a more literal translation, though “subdue” as a synonym for “restrain” is well within the scope of possibility, and fits with a Creation motif.

Finally, the NEB’s translation of thanatephoros ios as “deadly venom” is a striking allusion to the serpent of Genesis 3, unifying a theme across these two verses that seemingly ties the evil of the tongue to the fall of Creation. And indeed, unifying this entire passage in James with the contrast of the serpent’s deadly venom with the perfect character of a man who never says a wrong thing (3:2).

Concluding thoughts

James’ descent from simply cautioning teachers regarding judgment to perhaps finding an image of the Fall in the deadly venom of the tongue is sudden and vicious. The images, metaphors and hyperbole are mixed together in a literary brew that demands language as artful and colorful as the jumble of images conjured up in our imaginations. The NEB navigates this passage with aplomb, weaving words together with suggestive allusions that revel in semantic meaning. The arc from the perfect teacher to the relentless evil of the tongue is captured in the images of the bridle, bit, rudder, blazing hellfire and fiery course of our lives, all set in relief against the glory of our God-given mandate to subdue creation as its sovereign masters.

A glory, of course, that we have all fallen short of. All, but Christ that is; He who now reigns over Creation as Lord and Master is the only one who has mastered the tongue and doused the flames of the curse with living water. Praise God!

Comparing Jonahs: ESV vs NLT Study Bibles

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on September 3, 2008
in bible translation, blogging, choosing a bible and scripture study
. 0 Comments

Jeff (Scripture Zealot) and Sean Harrison (NLT Study Bible) have been doing a fantastic job of centralizing many of the recent NLT Study Bible reviews and articles, but I wanted to call your attention to a recent review at Biblia Hebraica comparing the book of Jonah in both editions.

  1. Part 1 - introductory comments on the translations and the study Bible aesthetics, with the concluding comments focused on the relevancy of authorship.
  2. Part 2 - a brief look at the tone of the introductions and study notes, concluding that both study bibles reflect the essential character of their translations: “the NLTSB notes are more dynamic and written in a clear, natural style (giving the sense). The ESVSB notes are more formal with a more academic tone (essentially literal).“
  3. Part 3 - a look at the notes themselves, with the primary critiques being of the NLTSB’s speculative conclusions and the ESVSB’s tendency “to overly theologize the grammar of the original languages.”

I enjoyed reading the series and have added Biblia Hebraica as a “voice in the wilderness” to pay attention to - see my shortlist blogroll at right or click on the Links tab above for a more complete list of blogs I regularly read.

Pew Bible ponderings: 2 Peter 1:3-9

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on July 11, 2008
in bible translation, church and scripture study
. 19 Comments

I attempted once again to use my REB as my Sunday “church Bible” again this past week, with mixed results. For those coming new to this blog, my church uses the NIV as its pew and pastoral translation; however, for reasons I can’t fully explain, I’ve never warmed to the NIV and so have been searching for a modern translation to use that offers minimal distractions in reading along from the pew. My focus has been on minimizing the amount of time needed to correlate what I’m hearing from the pulpit (and seeing on the overheads) with what I’m reading in my own Bible so that I’m more actively engaged in listening and learning to the sermon.

I’m hoping that this will be a semi-regular translation comparison series, looking at alternatives to the NIV for use in the pews. For this post, I’ve presented the NIV, ESV, HCSB and REB translations, with the TNIV changes to the NIV noted with [brackets] following the NIV text (italicized). Red text highlights those areas where the different translations’ text differs from the NIV - note, however, that I have not highlighted strictly gender language changes. This is primarily because my pastor tends to inclusive-ize the NIV text from the pulpit, but also because I think we’re able to parse differences in pronouns a little more easily than nouns and verbs. Feel free to comment if you don’t agree.

I want to also say at the start that I am not making a value judgment on the accuracy or correctness of the NIV. I am only using it as my base text for comparison because that is what my church uses. In comparing other translations to the NIV, I am only trying to understand which ones offer the best opportunity for complementary reading in a live worship scenario.

Continue reading ‘Pew Bible ponderings: 2 Peter 1:3-9′

The northern Gentiles?

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on June 25, 2008
in scripture study and theology
. 9 Comments

For a fascinating comparison of Paul’s use of “Gentile” and “Israel” in Romans 11 with the OT language of the northern and southern tribes of Israel, be sure to check out Michael Barber’s new post: How “All” Israel Will Be Saved on his excellent Singing in the Reign blog.

The northern Israelites were sent into exile but they were not forgotten. Though they were dissolved into the nations through intermarriage God did not forget about them–he still knew where they were, much like God told Elijah he knew where the faithful remnant of his people was in his day (cf. Rom 11:2-6).

Paul thus sees his Gentile mission in terms of the pan-Israelite hope. The northern tribes must be restored to fulfill the promises made by the Lord through the prophets. Where are they? Among the Gentiles. To bring Israel home means to bring in the Gentiles. This is the mystery. God allowed Israel to be exiled so that he could use them to eventually bring the nations home as well–as their relatives.

Anyone familiar with the Epworth commentaries?

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on June 11, 2008
in bible publishing, books and scripture study
. 2 Comments

I’m frequently asked what resources are available for the Revised English Bible, especially if it’s available electronically (sadly, as far as I know, it is only available as an optional module for the Mac-only Accordance Bible software program; none of the Windows software titles appear to support it).

However, thanks to Andrew Dunning, my attention was brought to a commentary series from Epworth Press that bears the REB icon on the covers and uses the translation as its base text. The bulk of titles appear to have published in the decade or so after the REB’s release in 1989.

This series of biblical commentaries is the first to be based on the Revised English Bible, and incorporates the most recent research into both Old and New Testament books. Written by experienced scholars for the use of ministers, preachers, teachers, students and church leaders, they relate the texts in their ancient settings to the needs of Christians in a multi-racial and multi-faith society. [Methodist Publishing House]

This series appears to be a revision or an update to an Epworth Preacher’s Commentaries series published in the 1950s and ’60s. I’m hoping someone can shed some light on this set and/or the authors listed below:

  • Clare Amos [Genesis]
  • Charles R. Biggs [Ezekiel]
  • R. E. Clements [Deuteronomy]
  • Richard Coggins [Exodus]
  • Adrian H. W. Curtis [Psalms]
  • Margaret Davies [Timothy I/II/ Titus]
  • James D. G. Dunn [Acts]
  • Paul Ellingworth [Hebrews]
  • Kenneth Grayston [Romans, John]
  • David G. Horrell [Letters by Peter, Jude]
  • Mark Howcroft and Kenneth G. Howcroft [Mark]
  • Ivor H. Jones [Thessalonians I/II, Apocrypha, Matthew]
  • Larry Kreitzer [Ephesians]
  • Judith Lieu [Luke]
  • William Loader [Letters by John]
  • Howard Marshall [Philippians]
  • Henry McKeating [Jeremiah]
  • Harry Mowvley [Amos, Hosea]
  • Jack Partain and Richard Deutsch [Isaiah 1-39]
  • Roy Rayes [Colossians]
  • Cyril S. Rodd [Job]
  • Christopher Rowland [Revelation]
  • Michael E. W. Thompson [Isaiah 40-66]
  • Michael J. Townsend [James]
  • Nigel Watson [II Corinthians]
  • John Ziesler [Galatians]

Evidently some titles might have also been published in the United States by Trinity Press International under the “Narrative Bible Commentaries” label.

Is eschatology milk?

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on May 25, 2008
in eschatology and scripture study
. 4 Comments

The author of Hebrews has some biting words about the Christian maturity of his or her audience. In 5:12, the author writes, “By this time you ought to be teachers, but instead you need someone to teach you the ABCs of God’s oracles over again. It comes to this: you need milk instead of solid food.”¹ The author echoes Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor 3:2), adding that “anyone who lives on milk is still an infant, with no experience of what is right.” (5:13)

He or she then identifies what they consider to be the “rudiments of Christianity” (6:1), the basic building blocks that make up the foundation of faith:

  • repentance from former ways
  • faith in God
  • cleansing rites (baptism?)
  • the laying on of hands (commissioning?)
  • the resurrection of the dead
  • eternal judgment

The author apparently considered these topics to be so self-evident that those adults able “to discriminate between good and evil” (5:14b) did not need to fruitlessly discuss them.

So, in view of the latter two items in the list above, is eschatology, the study of the last things - the end times, considered milk by the author of Hebrews?

Or do we separate the common “what” (the resurrection of the dead, eternal judgment) from the different ways of explaining “how” (pre/a/post-milliennialism, futurism, historicism, preterism, idealism, etc.)?

* * * * *

¹All scripture quoted from the Revised English Bible (REB), unless otherwise indicated.

The 7th day: work and rest in Hebrews 4

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on April 28, 2008
in Uncategorized and scripture study
. 17 Comments

Last week I was reading a bit in Hebrews and paused for a while over chapter 4, where the author describes our future prize in the context of God’s Sabbath rest:

[1] Therefore, while the promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear so that none of you should miss it. [2] For we also have received the good news just as they did; but the message they heard did not benefit them, since they were not united with those who heard it in faith [3] (for we who have believed enter the rest), in keeping with what He has said:

So I swore in My anger,
they will not enter My rest. [Ps 95:11]

And yet His works have been finished since the foundation of the world, [4] for somewhere He has spoken about the seventh day in this way:

And on the seventh day
God rested from all His works. [Gn 2:2]

[5] Again, in that passage He says, “They will never enter My rest.” [Ps 95:11] [6] Since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news did not enter because of disobedience, [7] again, He specifies a certain day-today-speaking through David after such a long time, as previously stated:

Today if you hear His voice,
do not harden your hearts. [Ps 95:7-8]

[8] For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken later about another day. [9] A Sabbath rest remains, therefore, for God’s people. [10] For the person who has entered His rest has rested from his own works, just as God did from His. [11] Let us then make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall into the same pattern of disobedience.
- Hebrews 4:1-11 (HCSB)

The thought that struck me was that God rested on the seventh day from his work and He is still described as resting in the days of David (Psalms) and even in the days of the author of Hebrews and presumably even today. This spawned a flood of questions and tangential thoughts that I have no answer for:

Are we then living within the context of the seventh day of Genesis? How does that fit with a literal reading of Genesis 1? What does that mean in terms of how we view God having an active or passive role in the unfolding of our history? Does God resting mean that he has removed himself from interacting with His creation? Did he wind up Creation’s toy top motor and now watches as it winds down, wobbling across the pages of time?

According to the author of Hebrews, God the Creator’s work has been done “since the foundation of the world”. Jesus the Son’s work was accomplished on the Cross and He now sits (rests) at the right hand of the Father, with all his enemies under his feet. The Spirit of New Life’s work is being accomplished in/through the Church. If the Spirit is still working, can a triune God truly be said to be resting?

How does our view of God’s present rest affect our view of what life/work/rest on the future physical New Earth will be like? Will it be a celebration? an eternal nap? or tireless, joyful new work?

For us here and now, the Sabbath rest is a pause, a break in daily activities to stop and remember the blessings of God. The Sabbath was not eternal, it was always followed again by work. Will God’s 7th-day Sabbath end when Creation is redeemed? Is God’s Sabbath the millennium? Is the final judgment the end of God’s rest?

Just a few questions for a Monday morning…

* * * * *

HT: At about the same time that I was reading Hebrews 4, Greg Willson posted some thoughts on this same passage.