Category Archives: Biblical Interpretation

The Life Wars (part V): Exodus 21:22 – 23, An English Translation of this Text Supports Abortion?

04 Monday Jul 2022

Posted by in Abortion, Biblical Interpretation, Difficult Texts, Inerrancy, Infallibility, Scripture

≈ Comments Off on The Life Wars (part V): Exodus 21:22 – 23, An English Translation of this Text Supports Abortion?

Tags

, , , , ,

Exodus 21:22 – 23 bears on the abortion discussion. What happens when an unclear version of an Old Testament text is used in preference to clear versions? In a word, bias happens. Being biased of course is an inescapable part of being human; the contention here is that using a hugely unclear version represents abject bias. That bias comes through any translation from Greek into English by the translators is unsurprising and simply a necessary part of a translator’s task. Some might even argue that the incorporation of certain human ‘bias elements’ is part of the Spirit of God’s good intent, similar to how the humanity of Jesus was incorporated and united to divinity. In this Exodus text, there is abject bias that directly influences the abortion debate born out of the New Revised Standard Version’s translation. Framing this is the first task; the second task is to investigate the organization responsible for this translation. Can it be the case that abject bias is driven by modern issues, using those issues to decide how to translate an OT text?

The ancient Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text, comes through this way in English. The translation is mine, but I have been careful to let the text be overly wooded with little interpretive liberty taken:

“If men are fighting and they smite a pregnant woman and her child(ren) come out and no harm is, he {the man who struck the woman} will be fined a fine as what the husband of the woman sets, and he will give it according to the judges. If, however, harm occurred to the child(ren) then you shall give life in place of life . . ..”

Here is how the New Revised Standard Version translates this text:

“When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life . . .”

There is blatant logical incoherence in the NRSV’s translation. The miscarriage is harmful and yet a fine should be punishment for causing the miscarriage while at the same time the text calls for “life for life” as punishment. Which is it? Someone might protest that the harm considered here is concerning the mother and not the child — starting to be framed strikingly like a modern abortion discussion.  The first line of the NRSV deals with maximum harm to the child (= miscarriage, death), but the Hebrew Masoretic text’s first line tells us the opposite, that “no harm is” to the child.

 . . . so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows . . . (NRSV)

. . . and her child comes out and no harm is . . . (MT)

The difference in meaning is a canyon sized gap. The NRSV instructs that a monetary fine suffices as punishment, for covering the death of the child. The MT teaches that only if the child is born prematurely with no harm to him does a monetary fine suffice as punishment. How do other modern English translations render this text?

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life . . . (ESV)

If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life . . . (NASB)

If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman’s husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides. But if there is serious injury, then you will given a life for a life . . . (NET)

When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment. If there is an injury, then you must give life for life . . . (CSB)

If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman’s husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges. But if the woman herself is injured, the punishment shall be life for life . . . (GNB)

And if men fight and they injure a pregnant woman, and her children go out and there is not serious injury, he will surely be fined as the woman’s husband demands concerning him and as the judges determine. And if there is serious injury, you will give life in place of life . . . (LEB)

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life . . . (NIV)

And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges; and if there is mischief, then thou hast given life for life . . . (Young’s Literal Interpretation)

More differences prevail than this between these two texts, but is there another ancient version of this text that the NRSV might be using for its translation? Yes, there is, and it is the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (most scholars date it to around 200 B.C. to 0 A.D.).

“Now if to men fight and strike a woman being pregnant, and her child might come out not having been fully formed, he will be punished with a fine according to whatever the husband of the woman might set: he will give in accord with what is decided, but if the child has been fully formed, he will give life for in place of life . . .”

The italics show a verb, ἐξεικονίζομαι (exeikonizomai), used twice in this passage but never used anywhere else ever in Greek literature. This is known as a hapax legomena, a word only used in one context. Because of its lack of use, determining its meaning is notoriously difficult — I put in a meaning for the word pulled from Lexicon on the Septuagint. I will offer a bit of insight but preface this by saying I am engaging in conjecture: the word is a compound word, likely the combination of ek and eikon potentially having the meaning of “resembling a deviated semblance.” Neither I nor anyone else knows what this word means: that is the larger point. The meanings of words are built out of contexts and situations; if we do not have enough contexts or situations for the word’s usage, locking down a determinate meaning is impossible. If my suggested meaning for the verb is used, we come out with a translation very similar in meaning to the ancient Hebrew (MT) text.

“Now if two men fight and strike a woman being pregnant, and her child might come out not resembling a deviated semblance, he will be punished with a fine according to whatever the husband of the woman might set: he will give in accord with what is decided, but if the child resembles a deviated semblance, he will give life in place of life . . . (trans. mine, from LXX)”

The contention here is that the NRSV’s translation is evidence of abject bias. Two major supports demonstrate this: (1) the ancient Hebrew text is considered more ancient and thus more authentic than the Septuagint, and (2) why bother using the Septuagint text (LXX for short) when it has a hapax legomena in it, whose meaning is impossible to decide? The LXX could very well have the meaning I have crafted for it, but why would I bother dealing with a meaning of a verb I have to guess about when I could just use an abundantly clear text like the MT? The answer is that a person would do so because they have an agenda.

The NRSV’s abject bias is on display, translating Exodus 21:22 – 23 to support that a monetary fine is all that is needed to cover the death of a child still in the womb. As a translator myself, I am baffled why the NRSV translators would use an unclear text (the LXX) when they have the clarity of the MT. The MT clearly equates a human life in the womb as to that of one out of the womb. They are equally valuable. This resoundingly puts this Old Testament text on the side of the pro-life movement. The NRSV’s manner of translation this text diminishes the value of human life in the womb by making the penalty for the child’s death so light. God said earlier in the OT that “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image (Gen. 9:6).” Although it is fitting to allege that the NRSV’s version of the text advances the idea that a “fetus in the womb is not yet fully human,” it would be going too far to say that the NRSV’s version solidly supports abortion. The text is about the inadvertent death of a child caused by the violence of men. The child’s death is accidental. Still, suspicion is appropriate about the NRSV’s agenda given the abject bias of the translation.

In closing, there are broader scriptural themes that the NRSV’s version breaks away from: the lex talionis (law of retribution) of the Old Testament Law would require “life for life,” blood requires blood as retribution (Gen. 9:6), and God’s knowledge of a person predates or accompanies his or her time being formed in the womb (Ps. 139). That abject bias can make its way into translation of the Bible is clear. Modern issues may just cloud the judgment of translators, and that include me too. The influence of bias can only be managed well by an admission of one’s own biases, and that biases are inescapably a part of every person. Much of the translator’s work is unambiguous; we can be certain about what God has said. For those situations like Exod. 21:22 – 23, God instituted the professions of pastors and teaching, or elders and theologians.

Dr. Scalise

Interpreting my Wife’s Pregnancy Theologically: Part 1

14 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by in Biblical Application, Biblical Interpretation, Pregnancy and Theology

≈ Comments Off on Interpreting my Wife’s Pregnancy Theologically: Part 1

Tags

, ,

Something that has utterly fascinated me in my wife’s pregnancy is the healing effect it has had on her. She was both lactose and gluten intolerant before she became pregnant, but she can now eat things that have both dairy and gluten in them! Some of you, if you’ve spoken with me about this, know that one biblical text came to my mind. 1 Timothy 2:15 is instruction on how women are to act in the church who Timothy oversaw. It deals with how women are to have quiet spirits, kindly learning and asking their questions in a non-disputive way; many of these women were no doubt influenced by the Temple cult of Diana (Artemis), which was in Ephesus and functioned with women priests as overseers of the cult’s activities. Paul then points out the circumstances that led to the fall included divisiveness between the man and woman (vv. 13 – 14), which leads him to say, “But [woman] will be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” Unless you’ve studied NT Greek for some time, it is unlikely that you’d be aware of the fact that the Greek word for “saved” (σωζω) can and is translated into English in a number of ways. The most prominent among them are saved, preserve, deliver, and healed. The authors of the Gospels use σωζω frequently with the meaning of “healed” (Mt. 9:21, 22, Mk. 5:23, 28, 34, 6:56, 10:52).  This list of verses is not exhaustive, so we are well within our interpretive rights to question whether or not σωζω in 1 Tim. 2:15 might have the meaning of “healed.” 1 Tim. 4:16, just two chapters after 1 Tim. 2:15, does not use σωζω with the meaning of “saved” either. It reads, “Give attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in practicing them. For by doing this you preserve yourself and those listening to you” (trans. mine from Greek NA 27 ed.). Now, if the part of the text with σωζω in it read, “For by doing this you save yourself and those listening to you,” we’d have a real problem on our hands since Paul would essentially be saying that we can save ourselves, which is clearly contradicting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am the first to admit that my opting for “healed” is derived from my experience of my wife’s healing, but I hasten to add that every interpreter is influenced by his experience. The one who thinks he or she is not influence in this way is deceived and in danger of thinking s/he has an objectivity that could only be true of God — who we most certainly are not. It is not unimportant that the translation of “saved” doesn’t make much sense in 1 Tim. 2:15. What does it mean, after all, to say that women will be “saved through childbearing?” Women are most certainly “healed” through childbearing in psychological ways as are men. I am already starting to experience the opening of my own spirit to warmer expressions as I think about this little girl on the way. I’ve watched the transformation of many women when children are coming; it’s staggering! I want to understand σωζω as referring to biological healing — as in my wife’s case and other women with similar stories during their pregnancies — and psychological healing, drawing out that inherent tenderness of women so clearly manifest when children are on the way. I think the meaning of “preserved” for σωζω might be a helpful understanding too in 1 Tim. 2:15. The innocence of children is truly a marvel in this world of sorrow and pain, a glowing gem in murky woods. This beauty has a way of drawing out what is beautiful in us, both women and men — as Jesus said, parents know how to do good to their children (Lk. 11:11 – 13). Thus, the procreation process, from sex to pregnancy to birth and thereafter, all seem to “preserve” humanity both in its biological continuation and in “healing” the many damages we experience while journeying through the darkness of this world, whether biological issues (like my wife’s intolerances) or psychological issues.

My wife’s pregnancy has made me rethink this text: “But [women] will be healed through childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” I contend that the healing refers to biological healing and psychological healing as well as having a preservational effect on family and, through family, on the rest of humanity.

Dr. Scalise

What is the Blaspheming of the Holy Spirit?

02 Tuesday Dec 2014

Posted by in Biblical Interpretation, Blaspheme, Holy Spirit

≈ Comments Off on What is the Blaspheming of the Holy Spirit?

Tags

, , ,

There are three ways I’ve heard this can be answered. First, the Blaspheming of the Spirit could be something only those witnessing Jesus’ earthly ministry are capable of committing. The incarnation is the unique presentation of God through Jesus, and, as such, is unrepeatable; further, the Holy Spirit led Jesus, worked in Jesus, and testified to men through and in Jesus’ earthly healing ministry. Those witnessing Jesus’ life during this time were in an incredible position of benefit because they could see the presentation of the Father in the Son and also see the work of the Spirit with Jesus while the Spirit Himself was trying to persuade those witnessing these mighty works. We are not in the same position as those who originally saw Jesus’ works while He was incarnated; they had immediate access with their very eyes, but we have mediate access through the testimony of the apostles.

Second, the Blaspheming of the Spirit could be disbelieving in Jesus, period, no matter when you live. There is a principle in theology that is based on Scripture: God is known only through God. Hence, only the Father is known through the Spirit, or only the Father is known through the Son in the Spirit. The point is that Scripture is united in the affirmation that it takes God to know God. Since the principle ministry of the Spirit is to testify to the divinity, message, and work of Jesus (the Son), to blaspheme the Spirit is to deny the only access one has to being restored to God. There is no other access to salvation but by one Man and in one Spirit. To blaspheme means to disrespect or to profane, that is, to discredit what is sacred of its sanctity; but it is the Spirit’s holiness/sanctity that makes Him capable of uniting humanity to God because only God is holy. Therefore, to blaspheme the Spirit is, to one’s own mind, to deny the Spirit the very dignity (being holy) that is central to the Spirit’s work of uniting someone to God. To blaspheme the Spirit is to rob Him of the very quality that could unite us to God: because God can only be known through God, that is, the Holy One can only be known through the Holy Spirit.

Lastly, the original blaspheming of the Spirit was the accusation that what the Spirit was doing in Jesus in terms of the miracles was actually being done by demons. Since the Spirit can do miracles today, if we attribute those miracles to demons, then we are in danger of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. This is perhaps the most frightening of the three because Scripture teaches that demons can do miracles and because the recent charismatic movement’s focus on miracles, which has been criticized by many non-charismatic Christians: John MacAuthur comes to mind immediately. This option is also one that many more could commit even if supposedly saved.

I have not quite landed on an option yet, but I have been giving serious thought about the third because of the threat it could pose my soul.

Dr. Scalise

The Holy Spirit’s regenerative work includes the formation of the Church

12 Wednesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Biblical Interpretation, Difficult Texts, Holy Spirit, Illumination

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Illumination is the Holy Spirit’s work of regenerating us. First, He speaks to us in various ways and through any number of avenues to guide us towards the light of Christ. When faith arises in us, we believe, and this illuminative work by the Spirit climaxes at a definitive point where He regenerates us, refashioning our hearts and making Jesus Christ shine wondrously in our eyes. Illumination, for the purposes here, is the activity of the Spirit in transforming persons into a new character, lifestyle, and goal that centers on magnifying, glorifying, and mimicking Jesus the Christ. Although theologians often speak of illumination as the Spirit’s work of making Jesus Christ and Scripture understandable, it might be better to say that the Spirit’s work makes Jesus Christ and Scripture acceptable. The Spirit’s illuminative work is always about a change of mind and heart, which is expressed in good-works. Illumination is about lifestyle change, not only a change in understanding. Let’s look at 1 Cor. 2:12 – 14: “Now we did not receive the spirit from the world, but the Spirit who is from God so that we should know [experientially] the things which were freely given to us by God, which things we are even speaking, not in words produced from human wisdom but taught from the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to spiritual persons. But the natural man does not welcome (or “accept”) things from the Spirit of God: For it is stupid to him and he is not able to know because they are spiritually evaluated” (1 Cor. 2:12 – 14; trans. mine). In brackets, I’ve placed  “experientially” because the Greek verb, “oida,” can focus on “knowing” something through practice, and, I contend, the context more than suggests that here. These verses do not support some strange mysticism, as though what God gives freely is not understandable. The point, from what I can tell from the Greek, is about where the knowledge comes from, not the mysteriousness of it. Knowledge can be merely human or it can be given from “above,” i.e., from God. St. Paul points out that it is not some strange mysterious knowledge, but is plainly communicable: “which things we are even speaking . . . ” The natural man, or unspiritual man, cannot accept or welcome so as to practice what God gives because the knowledge required to know whether it should be accepted or not is not derived from merely human life. The natural man will just find spiritual things dumb. To further complicate things, no one has a full knowledge of something until they experience or practice that knowledge. We might know things we have not experienced in part, but never to the same richness a person who has experienced it possesses. The unspiritual man cannot experientially know what he already thinks is stupid; it is the practice or the experience of the “yes” to the Spirit of God that opens the doors to “accept” and practice the knowledge formerly thought to be stupid. There is a change in understanding, but it is always tied to the acceptance and experience of that understanding. To merely understand with my mind is not enough to claim knowledge on that matter; just ask any snowboarder, skier, surfer, soccer player, football player, or anyone who has experiential knowledge of a game. I played soccer for two decades; experiential knowledge is radically different from watching soccer from the sidelines. Now that we have handles this, what does the Spirit’s illumination do to one’s attitude about the Church?

Illumination, then, always leads to people coming together around the life and character of the Lord Jesus Christ. When I use the word “Church,” I am not envisioning the local church per se while not denying that this may be a legitimate expression of the Church. The Church is a lifestyle. Its lifeblood is the illumination the Spirit does and continues to do. Each individual contributes to the Church (1 Cor. 12:12), and the illumination the Spirit does initiates a believer’s love for Jesus Christ, but it does not stop there. The phrase, “in the Spirit,” used frequently across the pages of Scripture is used to describe the existence of the saints (Rom. 8:9, 1 Cor. 12:3, Phil. 2:1, Col. 1:8, 1 Pet. 3:18). Being in the Spirit minimally means being attuned to the concerns of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16, 25). We want to practice what we are now accepting in our thinking and so trying to actualize it in our lives. The Spirit in indwelling individuals and the community, not one or the other. Illumination is about loving Jesus Christ, but to love Him is to love those in Him. We cannot say we love God but hate other believers. To say such is to deny one’s inclusion in the body of Christ, as 1 John argues in a number of places (1 John 2:9, 4:20). Illumination is about, therefore, coming to know Jesus Christ, that regenerative moment we say “yes” to God, and about growing in greater intimacy with other believers. We are illuminated all along the way when we are with God, for God is light.

Dr. Scalise

Joy in John 15:11

02 Sunday Nov 2014

Posted by in Biblical Interpretation, Discipleship, Jesus, Joy

≈ Comments Off on Joy in John 15:11

Tags

, ,

A running trend in certain Christian circles is understanding joy to be some supernatural gift that comes despite our circumstances. I would not deny such a meaning for joy in Scripture, using Psalm 16:11 and James 1:2 as examples. We would be quite amiss to limit our understanding of joy to merely this. Jesus discusses what it means to be His disciple in John 15:4 – 15. Jesus links joy in v. 11 to what He just discussed in the foregoing verses: (9) “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. (10) If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. (11) These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.” Jesus shows Himself to be the Model after whom we mimic (v. 10). What is abiding in the Lord Jesus’ love? To follow His commands is to experience practically Jesus’ love even as Jesus “kept my Father’s commandments and abides in His love.” Whether the Father’s commands or Jesus’ commands to Their follows, these commands are designed to demonstrate and express love. They tell us what is right and good for us, and, if we do them, we concretely weave that love into our very action and being. In such weaving comes joy: “These things [about producing fruit, following commands, and abiding in My love] I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.” To the extent that we do these commands based on our intimacy and love for Jesus, so likewise will our joy increase. Joy in John 15:11, therefore, can be occasioned by our affection and acting on that affection by keeping commands. Joy is not afar off or “too hard” or “unclear,” but it is near us in our hearts (love) and in our actions (command keeping). We can increase our joy beyond the joy at the moment by having ever greater love expressed in command keeping. Thus, greater joy than that now awaits you, and me, and all of us. Jesus has made it clear how to actualize it, by loving Him enacted in our keeping His commands, and all of this, in the light and in the Spirit.

Dr. Scalise

Explaining how Jesus’ Desire to avoid the Cross isn’t Evil and how That relates to His human and divine Will

29 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Biblical Interpretation, Christ, Christology, Difficult Questions

≈ Comments Off on Explaining how Jesus’ Desire to avoid the Cross isn’t Evil and how That relates to His human and divine Will

Tags

, , , , ,

I got a follow up question about Jesus’ prayer at Gethsemane: in short, Peter rebuked Jesus for intending to go to the cross, but isn’t Jesus desiring the same thing in His prayer in which He asks God to “let this cup pass?”

That Jesus was both fully man and fully divine answers this question. In distinction to Peter, who said that Jesus’ intention to suffer and die at the hand of others should never happen even rebuking Jesus in the process (Mt. 16:22), Jesus’ prayer for having the cup passed from Him is conditional (if – then) on God’s will, not his own (Mt. 26:39). The Markan account is stronger, however, with Jesus asserting that all things are possible for God, then Jesus gives a command (or strong request) to remove the cup from Him. Nevertheless, even in the Markan account, Jesus’ command/request depends on God’s will agreeing with Jesus (Mk. 14:36; Lk. 22:42), not an elevation of Jesus’ will over the Father’s will. Peter, rebuking Jesus, (Mt. 16:22; Mk. 8:33) asserts that Jesus should not suffer and die; Jesus asks the Father, “if it is possible,” to have the cup pass from Him, “nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” Peter’s assertion smacks of arrogance, Jesus’ petition of humility and manifest submission, no matter which Gospel account (Matthew, Mark, Luke) we look to. Remember, as the early church debated and later resolved in the 6th ecumenical council, monothelitism (that Jesus only had one will) is a heresy. Jesus’ nature is one with the Father and Spirit, and so His divine will is one with Their will; but Jesus was fully human, which means He had a human will as well. Thus the orthodox position is duothelitism, that Jesus had two wills, a divine one and a human one. Once we apprehend this, we are able to see the mystery of both functions in Jesus’ prayer at Gethsemane although the human will is certainly dominate. Jesus doesn’t want pain; as a human, who of us can blame Him. In Christianity, martyrdom is not to be sought because God is the author of life, but rather it is to be accepted if it is God’s will in our lives (Mt. 22:32). Thus, we want to do God’s will whether in life or death (Phil. 1:20 – 21); we do not want to override God’s will by dictating to Him that I must be a martyr. Certainly, great honor is accredited to us if we suffer according to God’s will (1 Peter 3:17), but we get nothing but sin and reenforce our pride if we seek martyrdom for the honor itself: “Even if I give my bodied to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing” (1 Cor. 13:3) Whether we come or go, whether we live or die, whether we offend or console, the Christian’s declaration should be, “Let your will be done, on earth as in heaven.”

Dr. Scalise

Reconciling Jesus’ human Nature with His divine Nature during His Incarnation

28 Tuesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Biblical Interpretation, Christ, Difficult Questions, Hypostatic Union, Incarnation, Jesus

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

“if Jesus is God, why would Satan bother to tempt him; how can God be tempted with food and power?

Furthermore, why did Jesus not want to take the “cup that was given” aka the crucifixion?

Jesus also said his followers would do greater works than his. How is that possible?

Jesus said not to call him good for only God is good. But isn’t he God?”

I got this cluster of questions from a very old friend of mine, from adolescence and younger. This is certainly more than just one question to be sure, but all of them, except for the question about “greater works than these,” can be answered in one sentence. Although I intend to give this short answer, I’ll elaborate a bit on that one sentence for the sake of interest. I have given the philosophy of science’s definitions for an absurdity in distinction to a mystery in another post. By way of review, an absurdity is something that is logically impossible, contradictory, or unintelligible. A mystery is something that has a logical base and hence is intelligible, but its full understanding extends beyond human capacity. To explain the mystery in full would be to deny it the status of a mystery. Therefore, I will give a simple answer, but this is not to say that this answer does not entail mystery or that “I’ve got it all figured out.” I do not want to give that impression. A long treatise could be written on these questions without exhausting the mysteries. I, however, want to note that the answer I give has been covered many times over the ages, maybe the best short treatise on the God-man issue in Jesus was done by Pope Leo the Great in 449 c.e. in his Tome of Leo. It is worth the read: https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/incac1.htm. The answer is that Jesus is both wholly God and wholly man — this is, in technical and historical theological lingo, the hypostatic union. We must be careful not to think that Jesus would just use his divine capacities whenever he willed (Phil. 2:6). The many prophecies, especially from Isaiah (11:1–5, 42:1–2, 48:16, 49:1–7, 59:20–21, & 61:1–3), show that this “servant,” Jesus, was to act in certain ways and was especially to be dependent upon the Holy Spirit’s leading like a human. This is not to say that Jesus never uses His divine capacities, but it is to say that he wouldn’t use them just as He wanted because such would be in violation of the very prophecies He came to fulfill. Hence, being human, Jesus could be tempted; it was the Spirit, who “drove” Jesus out to be tempted in the first place (Mark 1:12). The divine nature of Jesus cannot be tempted, but since the text presents the temptation as real, and Jesus handles it like a human would by quoting the truth of Scripture back at Satan, it is not an illicit inference to say that the Spirit led Jesus there to be tempted as a man, and, as such Jesus did not function at that time according to His divine nature, but according to His human nature. Remember, I am not saying that Jesus was not divine at that time; I am saying that the capacity to which Jesus functioned in his divine nature was determined by the Spirit, and Jesus followed. As an aside, if Jesus just used His divine capacity often or whenever He wanted He could not be an example to us since none of us have that capacity like Him to just use a divine nature. On a practical point, then, it is imperative to note that Jesus’ living mostly according to His human nature and being led by the Spirit sets the basis for understanding Him as an example that we should mimic: we too should live by the Spirit, relying on God to direct us in our human capacity. It is Jesus’ dual nature, wholly divine, wholly human, that answers all of the questions except for the one about “greater works.” What can be said of this? Although it is fashionable to think or speak of Jesus “raising Himself” to life, and Scripture certainly affirms this, it is perhaps more important to make plain that the Spirit was the Enlivener and God the Affirmer of the resurrection as Romans 1:4 makes plain: according to the Spirit God declared Jesus the Son of God in power . . . . Hence Jesus teaches His disciples that if they have the faith of a mustard seed they could say to the mountain, be picked up and planted in the sea, and the mountain would obey. It may be too obvious but “greater” can refer to either quality or quantity: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:12 – 13). Two comments are needed on this text: 1) if greater means quantity (Greek term for “greater” is megas), then we can stop because this sufficiently answers our question, and 2) even if megas (“greater”) means quality or degree — although it is hard to imagine a miracle greater than eschatological resurrection life entering the middle of history — then it is not to be missed that the performance of the disciple owes to Jesus anyhow. The text makes this plain as day: “and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” The greatness of the works of any disciple first depends on Jesus’ successful ministry and work of redemption; hence the vitality and capacity of the “greater works” owe to Jesus’ work, and they owe to Jesus’ blessing in the moment as well, as Jesus says above, “Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do.”

So it is rather obvious that Jesus is behind all the works, whether His or ours.

Dr. Scalise

Revisiting Foh’s View of Women vying for Dominance over Man in Genesis 3:16

27 Monday Oct 2014

Posted by in Adam and Eve, Biblical Interpretation, Christian Ministry, Exegesis and Interpretation, Gender Issues

≈ Comments Off on Revisiting Foh’s View of Women vying for Dominance over Man in Genesis 3:16

Tags

, , , , , , ,

“Is Foh’s view of Gen. 3:16 still the correct view to hold or are the more modern interpretations of the verse better fitting? Is man’s ruling over woman a result of the fall, or the fact that woman was made from man as a help mate mean man’s ruling over is part of God’s original design. I hope this isn’t too much of a curve ball question!”

A friend of mine asked the question above. Foh’s interpretation of Gen. 3:16 in 1975 was a break with the traditional understanding of “Your desire will be for your husband, but he will rule over you.” It seems that the majority view down through history was that the woman would desire her husband to an unhealthy extent, supplanting her desire for God with her desire for her husband. Since this sentence appears in the curse, whatever the desire is or how it manifests, it cannot be good or healthy. Foh looked at the only other two verses in the OT that used the same word for “desire,” which in Hebrew is teshokah: Gen. 4:7 and Song of Solomon 7:10. We may dispense with Song 7:10 because the supercharged sexual talk just before it all but guarantees a translation of the word to bring out this heated passion: “I am my beloved and his passion is for me.” The underlying meaning of the Hebrew word is “urge,” obviously denoting a certain “forcefulness” as illustrated in Song 7:10. This is not to say that the Beloved was domineering in his “urge,” but the potency of sexual desire with two willing partners (as in Song 7:10) is plainly an “inexorable drive.”

More important is the Septuagint’s (Greek OT) translation of the Hebrew term into Greek because obviously Hebrew scholars around 200 B. C., still speaking Hebrew and fluent in Greek, would know better than us — in most cases — what the meaning was. It is apostrofe, and roughly is the idea of turning aside, turning back, or turning against someone. I have to opt for a negative meaning for Gen. 3:16 since it is a curse, and so “turning against” fits nicely. Further, the same negative meaning fits the context of Gen. 4:7 as well, where God says that sin lies at Cain’s door. “It turns against you, but you must rule over it” (trans. mine from Greek).

Even if the Christian church has traditionally not understood Gen. 3:16 to have the meaning of “your desire (forceful urge) will be for/against your husband,” the earlier Hebrew translators and interpreters of the Septuagint’s Gen. 3:16 opted for a Greek term that, taken negatively, displays hostility and dominance. What cannot be missed is the contrastive and hostile aversion man has to woman and woman to man: “Her domineering urge will be against him, but he will rule over her” (Gen. 3:16, trans. mine from Hebrew). With this preface, I am ready to answer the above question.

What enters at the fall and is enforced by God’s curse is the manner of male and female relations. When God says that “he will rule over her,” the Hebrew term is the verbal form of king (Mashal), but it is neither of the terms God used in the original mandate to man and woman to “subdue” the earth and have “dominion over it” in Gen. 1:28. Something has changed; now woman wants to lead, taking the dominant role, and, it seems, that man is equally as hostile in return, reigning like a monarch over her. They have turned on one another. What was an original peace, that is, a co-rulership as both man and woman were given God’s command to subdue and have dominance (Gen. 1:28), has now become a perpetual vying for position. All this to say that Foh’s insights largely stand. The only nuance I am adding is the fact that man’s “ruling like a monarch,” which is to say, in an autocratic fashion, is the outcome of the fall and God’s spoken curse. Woman was created for man’s assistance, but there is little doubt, from a high view of God’s image in both man and woman alike in Gen. 1:27 – 28, that man and woman were to rule together, in harmony. There was a order to the rule, man then woman, but not a superiority or dominance just as there is an order to the Trinity, Father then Son, but not inequality among any of the Persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Spirit.

For my questioner, if you have a specific contemporary interpretation of the text you’d like me to take a look at, post it on my wall, and I will revisit this topic again.

Dr. Scalise

Why Matthew Vines’ Video on “God and the Gay Christian” is Applaudable but ultimately Unconvincing

27 Monday Oct 2014

Posted by in Biblical Interpretation, Christ and Culture, Christian Ministry, Difficult Questions, Gay marriage, Homosexuality, Homosexuals

≈ Comments Off on Why Matthew Vines’ Video on “God and the Gay Christian” is Applaudable but ultimately Unconvincing

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Matthew Vines’ video aims to persuade a revisitation to the biblical texts that deal with homosexuality. This, to my mind, is laudable precisely because it points us back to the biblical text itself. There are other ways Vines could argue to make his point; indeed, many postmodern theologians and interpreters of the Bible are content to make the community they represent the authoritative touchstone for judging the biblical text itself. They ask what ways the current situation today acts as a check on the Bible to bring its undesirable aspects into view and, then, to extract them so that what is left is God’s unpolluted message. Probably the best known example of this comes from the feminist theologians, who claim that the Bible upholds patriarchalism, and, by extension, male hegemony. These feminist theologians have offered a helpful renewal of interest on how the Bible presents women. I am persuaded by a number of their points, particularly on the interpretation of the woman at the well (John 4), who is often treated as little more than a immoral confuse woman, who Jesus enlightens and fixes. A close look at this text shows that such an interpretation likely owes more to male bias than to the logic of the text: Jn. 4:12 shows the woman is following Jesus’ discussion, discerning how powerful Jesus’ claim is about living water by comparing Him with Jacob, the namesake of Israel. Verse 15 shows the woman’s acceptance of Jesus’ claim and her openness to receiving it after only a few difficult to understand statements by Jesus. Then, she goes on to tell Jesus that He is a Prophet (v. 19), and a number of sophisticated religious issues in her culture (v. 20). After Jesus unpacks what she has stated, she gives a basic but correct statement about theology, that is, that the Messiah is coming to reveal all things (v. 25). All this to say that the woman at the well is a far more complex character than simply a immoral confused woman. Certainly, she was living immorally, but she is religiously and culturally astute, as seen from her comments. Now, why do I spend time on this point. I do so because some of these “alternative interpretative communities” offer valuable insight, so we ought to carefully consider their points before we “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Vines’ work with the biblical text in an attempt to reconcile the homosexual lifestyle with God’s word shows genuine humility. It would be much easier for him to just dismiss those parts of the Bible as outright wrong, judged so by the contemporary situation. Ultimately, though, his discussion is unconvincing. There are a number of ways to show how it is unpersuasive, but I want to offer a novel way of putting an old point, indeed it is the point Jesus Himself makes when dealing with a question about male-female relationship and what the husbands were doing to their wives (Matt. 19:1 – 9). Vines’ presentation — and let me offer the segment from 2:55 – 3:05 as an example — shifts the focus from the “what of love” to the “manner of love.” The three words he uses, “faithfulness, commitment, love,” from what I can tell, all focus on the manner in which we are to related.  Few, I suppose, would object to this definition of a “good manner of relating.” This, however, is only part of the issue because it has long been known, especially since St. Augustine’s point in Enchiridion, that goodness and love have both ontological aspects and modal aspects (Augustine comments on Gen. 1:31). Ontological refers to the “nature of things” and modal refers to the “manner of things.” Vines’ focus on the “manner of good relating” is praiseworthy, but goodness and love cannot be reduced to just the manner, dismissing the “nature of things.” The Genesis text Jesus cites, Gen. 2:24, is richly focused on the “nature of things” as is Genesis 1:31: Jesus states, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” Love, as I’ve pinned to my twitter account, is always as much about form (manner) as about content (what). What God made was male and female; what man and woman became was one flesh. God’s declaration that all was “very good” in Gen. 1:31, including what God has fashioned in Adam and Eve, is an overarching statement that is as much ontological (nature of things) as modal (manner of things). Arguing that homosexual relations are good based on the manner of relating misses the issue of what. Vines’ idea of a good or loving relationship is on the mark, but the manner of relating argument cannot answer the what of relation issue. Both what a relationship is and how it is to transpire cannot be reduced into one or the other without a severe diminution of what it means to be human in relationships. It is, to my mind, somewhat shocking that Vines doesn’t consider the creation account as relevant to the question he was seeking to answer. For a good debate on the matter, see 

Dr. Scalise

Why do biblical Persons contradict biblical Qualifications: Deborah in Judges 4 in Light of 1 Tim. 3 & Titus 1

24 Friday Oct 2014

Posted by in Apologetics, Biblical Interpretation, Christ and Culture, Church Leadership, Difficult Questions, Difficult Texts

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Introduction

Why are there specific qualifications for Elders and Deacons (1 Tim. 3, Titus 1) yet most of the men and women God used to lead His People OT and in the early church didn’t meet many of these standards? My first mentor asked the question above, and I confess, it is a doozy. I think that the contradiction may be nigh near impossible to deal with if we approach it through an inductive approach. We cannot simply find all the verses in the Bible that speak to the matter, and then tally up what the result is. If we did this, we would see that the “man after God’s own heart,” King David, had multiple wives and even concubines, but the qualifications listed in 1 Tim. and Titus clearly state that leaders of the people of God should have only one wife. I want to eliminate a few options right at the front for dealing with the text. I do not want to revise the biblical text by picking and chooses some verses while eliminating others or debate the dating of books: we can call this the revisionist option. Like Kevin Vanhoozer and Bernard Childs, I think we ought to work with a full canon of Scripture rather than thinking our methods can lead us to the “truth behind the text,” as though the truth isn’t in the text of the Bible. I think that the old dispensational explanation that God works differently during different ages hits on an important truth, but I do not want to package it the way a dispensationalist would. It is too simple to considerably explain the complexity of the biblical text. Let’s look at what 1 Tim 3:2–4 states: “Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive . . . .” I don’t think we can just say, “Well, the church is a different organization at a different time than the theocracy of Israel and so they have different rules for different communities and times.” In what follows, I want to use Judges 4 (Deborah:female leadership) as a test case that contradicts 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 (male leadership) so as to illustrate one way to handle this. I am going to avoid what I call the “dominating other biblical texts into silence approach” often used that is undergirded with the logic that the last word on the matter is what stands for us today (1 Tim. and Titus are both near the end of the Bible). After this — and this is the main body of the discussion — I offer some philosophical answers to the problem along with observations about the entirety of the Bible. I believe I could answer the question with only this last section, but I want to give lots to think about in order to push both our understanding of the Bible and how to apply it today.

Vanhoozer’s Linguistic-Canonical Approach to the Bible

Kevin Vanhoozer’s development in Evangelical Futures, which is his own summarization of The Drama of Doctrine, offers what he terms the “canonical-linguistic approach.” I want to explain it before I use it for this issue because it is a thematic approach to the Bible, tracing certain ideas across its pages to observe where the text “points” or “directs.” The Bible acts as a kind of mentor, and we are its apprentices. It is not enough to just know what the Bible says; we need to observe the method by which the Bible addresses an issue in its various contexts. As we bring all of these observations together, we have a collection of both what the Bible says and how the Bible handles certain issues in specific contexts. The crux of Vanhoozer’s approach is that the whole canon, that is, the whole Bible, must be consulted so that we can become an “apprentice” to its wisdom, not merely parrots of verses (Evangelical Futures, 80 – 82). While it remains that using the canonical-linguistic approach requires knowing all or many of the verses dealing with a difficult biblical question about living the Christian life, about theology, or other practical day-to-day issues, it seeks to form a summarization of this content for the purpose of living rightly. We need to know what the Bible says, how it goes about saying it, and how to bring not just the “what” to bear, but the “how” as well, in our situations. In short, the Bible’s wisdom on a matter must be performed by us. Some may assume this suspect, but it is only following what we think the Apostle Matthew did in his Gospel when he said that Jesus will “be called a Nazarene.” St. Matthew introduces this as spoken by the Prophets, as though it is coming from the OT, but no text like this exists in the OT. Many scholars think that St. Matthew is summarizing the OT teaching, so that what St. Matthews says is the collective wisdom and teaching on this coming Messiah although no Prophet specifically states what Matthew says.

Judges 4 in the Light of 1 Tim. 3 & Titus 1

We all know the story of Deborah, the woman Judge and Prophetess who led Israel to victory over Sisera and Jabin (Judges 4). Barak, in my opinion, is not to be credited with the victory because he risked being disobedient to God by refusing to obey Him by going to battle unless Deborah would go with Him (4:6, 8). A Judge, it is to be remembered, was a civil and legal leader of the nation of Israel, so Deborah acts as a kind of “governor” over the diverse tribes of Israel. Further, as a Prophetess in the role of Judge, she no doubt had powerful influence over the spiritual climate of Israel, greater than many of the mega church pastors’ influence combined today. It is not a misnomer, then, to call her both a spiritual and civl leader. I’ve heard a number of persons claim that the narrative about Deborah teaches the principle that God will use a woman rather than a man when strong men cannot be found to lead. I am not sure how such an understanding is possible because the text makes no bones about Deborah’s status as a Prophetess and Judge: “Then the people of Israel cried out to the Lord for help, for he had 900 chariots of iron and he oppressed the people of Israel cruelly for twenty years.  Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment. She sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam . . . .” (Esv). The text is not about God “raising a woman up” because Barak wouldn’t rise to the occasion or any other “strong men” for that matter. Rather, the text, in typical Hebrew narrative just presents Deborah as the Judge and Prophetess — the “Now Deborah . . .” is introduced with the Hebrew term for continuing a narrative, waw ו. There is no indication either from the Hebrew text or the English that Deborah’s role is unusual or that she is appointed because of some dire situation. Instead, what we find is a woman in power who deals decisively with the problem: “She sent and summoned Barak . . . .” Barak is not cast as the leader in this text. Deborah is clearly the one with the authority to summon him and, with her spiritual authority, she delivers the word of the Lord to Barak for how to handle this oppressive situation: “Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded you, ‘Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun. 7 And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin’s army, to meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops, and I will give him into your hand’?”” Deborah orchestrates both Barak’s involvement and how to go about the battle. Barak promptly refuses to listen unless Deborah comes along: “Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.”” There is no indication from this text that Deborah is at odds with God; indeed, Deborah was so intimate with God that she knew what God had told Barak. Now, what are we to do with this glaring contradiction to 1 Tim. and Titus. At this point, I could launch into a long, although no doubt profitable, discussion of cultural norms and cultural change. I will say a bit on this shortly in the final section, but let’s apply Vanhoozer’s linguistic-canonical approach to the present tension between Judges 4 and 1 Tim. 3/Titus 1. If we inductively tallied up the texts, we would be left with a major contradiction: God says only men are to lead in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1, but God shows that a woman can lead both as a spiritual and civic leader in Judges 4. If we looked at the rest of Judges, we would observe that the rest of the leaders/Judges were men. From this we would conclude that woman leadership is not contrary to God either in principle or in fact. Woman leadership, however, looking at the “method” or “models of leadership” offered in Judges, suggests that it is irregular. Judges 4 does not teach that woman can only lead when strong men are lacking; this is not what the text conveys. From this point, we need to look all across the Bible, at all models of leadership, to see what else we can conclude about leadership: I don’t have space to do this: it would be a book. We would surely find many “men only” models: kings of Israel, Priests of Israel, Jesus’ inner 12 disciples, some church leaders. Although I’ve listed Jesus’ inner 12, it is not to be missed that women were also part of Jesus’ discipleship group that traveled around with him (Mt. 27:55, Mk 15:41, Lk. 23:49, esp. Lk. 24:22, Acts 1:14). Also, in Romans, St. Paul mentions two women in his farewell remarks in chapter 16: Phoebe (v. 1) the deaconess and Junias the apostle (v. 7). There are other women we could mention as well. This suffices to “point-out” in a linguistic canonical approach that the canon of Scripture, in its fulness, is not opposed to woman leadership in principle or in fact. What I want to avoid at this point is opting for a universalizing or totalitarian use of one Scripture or set of Scriptures to silence the others. Cast in the light of the linguistic-canonical approach, 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 are eminently consistent with the majority of male-model-leadership found across the pages of Scripture. If I had more time, I would want to look at the cultural situations of the locations where Timothy and Titus were Pastors. The linguistic-canonical approach will not allow us to leave it at that because we are interested in the entirety of the biblical witness and how that “directs” us to live-out that wisdom, not in silencing the rest of the biblical witness or reinterpreting it in the image or model of 1 Tim. and Titus. Some will find this “iffy.” I would point out that there are many texts with women in prominent roles just above, and more could be added to that. I find silencing many texts in Scripture’s teaching on a matter more “iffy” than finding a way to let it all stand. Male-leadership, therefore, is the general guideline for church leadership, but woman leadership is not excluded in principle (de jure) or in fact (de facto). In 1 Tim and Titus there may have been cultural issues that had created women in that town who were domineering — more than one commentator has claimed this in Timothy’s situation. I hope all of this has gone to show that looking across the whole canon of the Bible leads to the conclusion that certain imperatives in a text or two cannot dominant the rest of the biblical witness into silence in cases where they disagree, even if it is the “last word” God spoke on a matter. The entire biblical text must direct our thinking and consequent living on a matter. Thus, 1 Tim. and Titus no doubt apply directly to those churches, but St. Paul, the same author of 1 Tim. and Titus, can also call Phoebe a deaconess of the Church of Cenchreae, and Romans is dated not long before 1 Tim. and Titus.

Philosophical Answers and Observations on the Whole Bible

Why does God deal with specific situations sometimes differently? It seems because situations always differ, and sometimes call for more specific direction than in other places. For instance, why was it enough that Abraham just “trust” God and keep the few commands God gave to him whereas the Israelites at Sinai were delivered 613 commands? Was did Noah only get a few commands? God’s commands can also be inconsistent across the whole of Scripture because God sometimes condescends to meet humanity where they are (as Jesus taught, Mt. 19:8), while other times His commands are utterly high (Deut. 6:1 – 10) and consistent with His nature. Moreover, after the fall, God is interested in refashioning man into useful vessels for God’s purposes (Jer. 18:5 – 11) according to man’s cooperation with God; echoing John Hick, God is interested in “soul-making.” Thus, some commands come sooner or later in God’s economy of guiding man back towards Christ and, through Him and in the Spirit, to heaven. This thought follows the narrative flow of Genesis 6 – 12:1 – 3 because man falls (Gen. 3), and they are heavily influenced into evil so much so that God kills all but Noah and his family. From this point, God’s task of reclaiming humanity from the Devil is ongoing, particularly and powerfully advanced in Gen. 12:1 – 3 with the call and promise to Abraham (see NT Wright’s Climax of the Covenant). God’s role in developing both the biblical narrative and Israel as a people is transformative across the pages of history. God doesn’t only deliver a rote set of laws to be woodenly followed but never advanced as Deuteronomy makes clear: Deut. 17:8 – 11. This text already assumes the the Laws God gave would not be enough to handle every situation, but gives the leaders power to direct them. Moreover, Deut. 29:1 already makes mention of the coming new “covenant,” the one “besides the covenant God man with them at Horeb.” This leads into my final point, that God’s revelation across time is a “spiral” leading to a telos, or certain end and goal. It is not a cycle. God’s directives can show greater or lesser consistency with earlier or later commands because Scripture is ever unpacking and elaborating, not just restating what has already been said. As a spiral, we expect God to set up certain administrative policies for how He governs His people that we will see again and again, but that also advance (this is actually what typology, what the Catholics call allegory, is all about). In 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1, we are on part of the spiral that coincides with God’s former preference for male leadership, but this does not demand that we universalize it so that just that part of the spiral becomes the whole spiral. In fact, Scripture would caution us against such a “silencing” of other parts of the biblical text. Dr. Scalise