Category Archives: Difficult Texts

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

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

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

Can questioning your faith be fulfilling God’s command?

14 Tuesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Difficult Texts, Exegesis and Interpretation, Human Experience and Theology

≈ Comments Off on Can questioning your faith be fulfilling God’s command?

Tags

, , , , ,

Since God speaks in His word, we believe that St. Paul was writing at the behest of the Spirit’s voice. Often people of faith feel that they have betrayed God or the Faith because they doubt or question what they believe. Certainly, there are good reasons for thinking this, but to feel this way without also knowing the good we do in our questioning is unfortunate. 2 Corinthians, one of Paul’s Epistles to the Christians in the Greek city of Corinth, was dealing with a body of believers who were growing in discord with St. Paul. There were false teachers and persons among them that were “poisoning the well,” creating doubt about St. Paul’s character, ability, and motivation. Paul then writes 2 Corinthians to this group with the hopes of reestablishing the rapport he once enjoyed so that these “untrue persons” causing trouble would not succeed in derailing the Corinthians from their faith in God. Near the close of this Epistle, St. Paul writes:

“Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test.”

Much could be said on these two verses, but I want to focus on the first two commands: “Examine yourselves . . .” and “Test yourselves.” To question yourself to see if you hold to the faith (. . . to see whether you are in the faith”) is fulfilling a biblical command or God’s command. The doubt we might feel or the questions we pose — which we could be shamed for in our communities of faith — should not be greeted by others as patently or clearly sinful or worrisome. Indeed, we may be fulfilling what God commands in 2 Corinthians 13:5 – 6 by this very questioning. It is a striking fact that failure to question one’s faith would be disobedience to this explicit biblical command. It is clear that someone’s doubt or questioning of the faith could evoke worry from us; and it is equally as clear that in some cases or in some ways it should. Nevertheless, it should evoke genuine joy in their fulfilling of God’s command. There is a careful balance that must be struck in communities of faith where persons are truly doubting and questioning. On the one hand, we must care for them in great concern to guide, help, and point to the “right” direction — assuming we have it ourselves. On the other hand, we should be inspired and glad for their questioning of their faith in accord with what God commands.

To question may be an indication of God’s activity in your life, not the absence of it.

Dr. Scalise

Hebrews 6:4

05 Tuesday Nov 2013

Posted by in Difficult Texts, Exegesis and Interpretation, Hebrews

≈ Comments Off on Hebrews 6:4

Tags

,

Regarding Hebrews 6:4 – 6 Here are some textual points with interpretive inlays.  My translation below is from the Greek and clarifies, in English, the relationship of the verbs (participles) in this long sentence.
1) those participating in the life of God (v.4 – 5) can fall away
2) whatever “restore them again to repentance” means–personally I like the points about jewish culture and the temple practices, specifically returning to blood sacrifices rather than trusting Jesus’ blood sacrifice of Himself, at the time as the historical cultural backdrop here because the book is written to Jews likely in Jerusalem–once a full fledged rejection of the life of repentance based on the crucifixion occurs, there is no way to return to God because this was the only way to get to Him in the first place.  Sure, if we are Jews living in Jerusalem at 65 A.D. then our attempt to  be “restored to repentance” might be the action of bringing a blood sacrifice to the temple. But if we are secular Americans today, our rejection of the faith might look like a return to the party life, perhaps thinking this is the way to “make the most of life.”
3) Additionally on this last point, the question remains whether the person cannot ever return once they fall away; a quick reading of the text might suggest this; however, I think the text is more fully pointing to that while in this “falling away status” they cannot return to repentance.  Take this translation for this point, paying attention especially to the tenses (time) I have in parenthesis next to each bolded verb below:
“For to restore (literally, “to be restoring”: present) to repentance again—those who, to their own eyes, are crucifying (present) again the Son of God and disgracing Him (present)—is impossible in regard to those who once were enlightened (past) and tasted (past) the gifts of the heavenly realm and became (past) sharers of the Holy Spirit and tasted (past) the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.”  
I hope it is clairvoyant that the crucifying and disgracing is happening presently and at the same time as the impossibility of the restoring. So when presently crucifying again and disgracing Jesus they cannot be restored.  There is a time line here; this person is someone who had tasted and was enlightened but presently is disgracing Jesus and so it is impossible for him/her to repent.
“to restore to repentance again”: I would point out here that it does not say “to restore to repentance ever again”
“who once were enlightened”: the word “once” here could equally mean “at one time” or “once for all.”  Either way, there would not have to be a “new enlightenment” for a fallen believer to take up and accept and trust the knowledge formerly imparted by the Holy Spirit.
“to their own eyes”: This shows us that those who abandon the faith after first accepting it are saying that Jesus got what He deserved.  It is not that somehow Jesus is out there (metaphysically) getting re-crucified every time someone loses his or her faith.  The “to their own eyes” means in their attitude or according to their understanding.  This person would have believed in Jesus at some point and learned of Jesus’ unjust crucifixion at the hands of those who did not believe in Jesus and these thought He deserved to die. Think of this person standing with John and Jesus’ mother during the crucifixion, watching in sorrow. But when this person falls away he or she joins the side of the crucifiers, saying effectively, “I once was with those sorry about Jesus’ death but now I do not believe in Him and so, hand me the spear and give me the nails, I’ll pound them in
 and stab Him because He is only getting what he deserves.”
4) Some people use their theology to decide what this passage should say; I am trying to avoid that.  For instance, I generally believe in eternal security (that you cannot lose your salvation) but I am not so arrogant as to silence this text by making it fit my theology.  The word “fall away” literally means “apotasize” or “to commit apostasy” and so, unless we want the author of hebrews describing something that could never happen, but making it seem like it could, we should accept its possibility, even if it does not fit with the rest of our theology.
I would point out that, in day to day interactions, we might readily feel deceived or misled if someone we trust presented something to us as though it were a real possibility when it was not. Imagine this: “If you speed and get caught, you are going to jail.”  Then imagine the anxiety you would have once pulled over only to find out that your “trusted friend” was just making up a worse case scenario to get your attention.  We might credit this “trusted friend” with true care but the trustworthiness of that friend will be in question if their trustworthiness is not already downgraded from this one situation.  Simply, the use of hyperbole will not wholly satisfy the notion that our “trusted friend’s” tactic was on the level.  But, then again, who ever said God was safe or “on the level?”
5) This is one of the most difficult passages in the Bible to interpret so we should not feel too much pressure to have to agree with anyone but, rather, measure and think through the reasons for ourselves.  But do not just pick whatever version you might like best (this is basically to play god with God’s word: dangerous) but weigh the interpretations according to their convincing reasons and arguments.
6) lastly, the book of Hebrews is packed with threats about the possibility of losing one’s salvation (e.g., Heb. 10, 4, etc.) and so the real possibility of it occurring and being described in Heb. 6 would fit the broader context well. I do not find categorizing the whole Book of Hebrews as “sermonic” or “homiletical” as solving the problems these threats pose.  This categorization is designed to explain why all of the threats are just “hypothetical” and so cannot happen.  This is not convincing to me because of the terrible seriousness the threats impose.  And let’s forget the human author of Hebrews for the moment.  So God the Spirit says, “As I swore in my wrath, they [the disobedient] shall not enter my rest” (Hb. 4:3) . . . Let us therefore strive to enter that rest so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience (4:11).”  But really, following the “hypothetical threat logic” above I find unconvincing, the Spirit is saying by way of this, “I am only saying this to make sure you make it and do not fall by the way side even though I swore an oath not to let the disobedient enter it.”  So now God can swear and oath and not mean it; this is more trouble them its worth to affirm eternal security because if I have to pick which one is more central to God’s character and is more consistent with the Scriptures, I am going with God’s goodness (and inability to deceive or do evil) over eternal security ever time.  There would be no such possibility for eternal security, after all, if God were not good in the first place.
And for those who might find my citation of Hebrews. 4:3 objectionable because you might think that that text only applies to those from the book of Numbers (14, 20), I would point out that the author of Hebrews is citing that passage in Numbers in the first, then citing Ps 95 (which is citing Num) which holds out the fact that people can still not enter God’s rest due to disobedience, and then the author of Hebrews, frighteningly, applies those OT texts to the church.
B. T. Scalise
Technical Greek stuff here (so ignore it if its a bore!):
1) And for those Greek scholars out there, the difference in the aspect (following aspect theory) between the present and the aorist tense would still indicate a similar conclusion.  The emphasis of the present tense following aspect theory would be on its continuous, and so current, nature: “For to be restoring (continuous/imperfective aspect) to repentance again—those who, to their own eyes, are crucifying again the Son of God and disgracing Him (both continuous/imperfective aspect) . . . .” Even if the objection is raised that the aorist tense itself is only indicating aoristic aspect (or undefined) the author of Hebrews begins his list of verbal ideas describing this person (enlightened, tasted, became, tasted) with hapax which establishes some former time (hapax = at one time, once, once and for all) via this adverb rather than the verbs (ptcs) at all.
2) And for those who might be suspicious of my translation which differs at the beginning from almost all other translations, my transition resists displacing the true referent (subject: anakainizein, to restore) with the ambiguous “it”: “it is impossible . . .” is the typical way 6:4 is rendered but the “it is” is implied.  I, of course, do not disagree that “it is” is a completely legitimate translation.  Implying only the “is” after bringing the infinitive up next to the adjective “impossible” as in my translation (For to restore again to repentance is impossible) follows typical predicate adjective construction.  The Greek, moving the infinitive up would look like this: ανακαινιζειν γαρ παλιν αδυνατον . . . .” By doing this, the nominative element (in this case, anakainizein) is brought to the front and, following my proposed translation above, all of the accusative elements are grouped together