Page 121 of 126

Posted on

Apple Pie

In The Story of The Voice (Thomas Nelson, 2013) I discuss certain features of the translation philosophy behind The Voice Bible.  In chapter 4 I deal with the claim that some translations are “word-for-word” while others are “thought-for-thought.”  This seems to be a straightforward and clear way of classifying translations, but there are many difficulties in attempting to draw any kind of strict line between a word and a thought.  After all, a word is a merely a thought that has been expressed.  I won’t go into the full argument here, but there is a side of it I’d like to talk about.Apple_pie

A word, as you know, has a meaning or a range of meanings, what linguists call “the semantic field.”  A word like “run” provides a good case in point.  In American English you can run a race, run a program, run for office, run a fever, run behind (be late), run amuck (go wild), and be run over.  In the long run or the short run, you can run afoul of the law.  After you run an errand, you can build a dog run in your backyard.  If you wish to run up to New York, make sure your ship doesn’t run aground. If you do, you will likely run into debt. Your favorite team may score the winning run in the last inning. In any case, time is running out for me to make my point. 

Here’s the point; every word has a dictionary meaning, often referred to as a denotation.  But every word or phrase also has a connotation, that is, associations that come along with that word.  Everyone who grew up speaking English knows the difference, for example, between a house and a home. No one has ever seen a sign saying “house sweet house.”  Any serious attempt to translate from one language to another must take into account not only the denotation of the word or phrase; it must also come to grips with its connotation.

I was talking about this recently at Nazarene Theological Seminary in Kansas City with students and faculty.  As we were discussing this issue, one of the people mentioned “apple pie.”  I immediately thought: “Brilliant!” Here is why.  Apple pie may be one of many tasty options on the desert menu, but it is the only desert item so closely associated with America.  The phrase “as American as apple pie” says it all.  The denotation of apple pie is clear. Apple pie is a baked food filled with sweetened apples and cinnamon surrounded by a crust.  But the connotation of apple pie goes far beyond a tasty desert.  Apple pie suggests America, family traditions, good times, everything good and decent about our country.  

As we worked to translate The Voice Bible, we tried to understand not only the meanings of words (denotations) but their associations (connotations) as well.  This is challenging because it means taking into account not only modern, cultural meanings but ancient ones as well.  Let me give a brief example, but there are many more described in The Story of The Voice. 

Take the word “love.”  It is an important word in the Bible.  In the modern world “love” is primarily associated with feelings. Love expresses what we like or whom we are attracted to.  We use the word “love” in many contexts like: “I love my wife”; “I love my job”; “I love my laptop”; “I love my car.” What we mean by all these loves is quite different.  At least I hope it is.

When we come to the Bible, however, the word “love” is not feelings-oriented but action-oriented.  Love expresses what a person does out of care and concern for another.  Consider John 3:16.  Most translations render it: “For God so loved the world, . . .”  Now this is a perfectly good translation of the meaning of the word, but does it capture the connotation. A modern person might tend to think that God had a warm, fuzzy feeling toward the world and that is why he sent His Son.  I’ve even heard sermons which said this.  But that reading seems to miss John’s point.  John 3:16 is about the action God took to express that love not the feeling that led to the action.  Again, love in the biblical period is action- not feeling-oriented.  This is why we chose to translate John 3:16 this way: 

For God expressed His love for the world in this way: He gave His only Son so that whoever believes in Him will not face everlasting destruction, but will have everlasting life.

John’s point—and it is not controversial—is that God has chosen in history to act in the best interests of those He has created by sending His Son.  In a covenant sense, God’s action constitutes God’s love.  Because love is action-oriented and not a feeling, love must be expressed.  Had God not acted, we would not know whether or not He loved. In fact, it would not be wrong to say, had God not acted, He would not have loved. 

As long as we read the word “love” in the Bible in some modern, sentimental way, we will be hard-pressed to capture much of what Scripture is trying to tell us.  If we will stop and consider not only the denotation (what a word means) but also its connotation (all of its relevant associations) we have a good chance of reading the Bible for all its worth.  A translation can go far in helping us draw these subtle but important distinctions, but there is no substitute for good, old fashioned study.

I think I’ll have a piece of apple pie.     

Posted on

The Curse of the Law

There is a phrase in Galatians 3.13 which is often misunderstood:

 “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree– . . . “ (RSV)

The phrase I’d like to consider is “the curse of the law.”  What did Paul mean by it?  How did/does Christ redeem us from it?  All this talk of blessing and curses probably strikes you as kind of strange.Torah scroll

Well, let’s back up to consider the broader context of the letter. 

Not long after Paul left the churches he founded in Galatia false teachers moved in and started teaching a form of the gospel which was not good news at all. These false brothers were insisting that non-Jews live like Jews in order to get in on the benefits of Christ.  What does it mean to live like a Jew?  Well, several things.  They would have to observe Sabbath as a day of rest, keep certain dietary rules and regulations, celebrate Jewish holidays, promise to uphold all of God’s law, which included men being circumcised.  Paul referred to these as “the works of the law.”

When Paul heard his churches had been infiltrated by these Judaizers (as we call them), he fired off the letter we call “Galatians.”  His essential argument is this: no one—Jew or Gentile—is put into a right and proper relationship with God by doing “the works of the law.” Instead, the faithfulness of Jesus has made it possible for those who put faith in Jesus to be made right with God.

In Galatians 3 Paul argues that faith all along has been what made rightness with God a reality.  It started with Abraham and his covenant.  It’s evident in the message of the prophets as well.  Those who trust in “the works of the law”—remember, dietary rules, Sabbath observance, circumcision—soon find they are living contrary to the law.  For Paul, it is clear the law is not the means of salvation. To try to make the law into something it was never intended is foolish.  The law does not justify.  It never did.  It was never meant to. 

So here is where our phrase “the curse of the law” comes in.  Jesus, God’s Anointed, has redeemed us from the curse of the law.  What did Paul mean?  To some degree it depends on what “of” means? You need to know that the word “of” is not found in Greek.  It is commonly supplied in English to express the relationship between two words (e.g., the love of God, the friend of sinners, the rock of ages).  In Galatians 3 the words are “curse” and “law.” So what is their relationship? In large measure it has to do with how the Greek genitive case—now I’m getting really technical—is interpreted.  Let’s start with what Paul did not mean.  Paul did not mean that the entire law is a curse.  That would be what is known as an epexegetical use of the genitive.  So: “Christ redeemed us from the curse, namely, the law, . . . “ Some have taken this approach and unfortunately missed Paul’s point altogether.  No Pharisee like Paul would have ever thought of the law as a curse.  If you want to know what Jews like Paul thought of the law, read Psalm 119.  The longest chapter in the Bible is a celebration of the law, its goodness and its benefits.  After that, notice that even before he came to Christ Paul felt confident before God precisely because he was  blameless before the law (Philippians 3:4-6). I think we can safely rule out the epexegetical genitive.  Well the best candidate for understanding what “of” is may be found in the partitive genitive.  The partitive genitive expresses the relationship between a part and a whole.  For example, in the phrase “one of my friends”.  The set is “my friends.” The subset is “one.”  The “one” is part of a whole, “my friends.”  This is probably the best way to read the phrase “the curse of the law.”  The set is “the law.” The subset is “curse.”  The phrase “the curse of the law” could be rendered “the part of the law that pronounces curses.”

“OK,” I can hear you saying, “now in English.”  If you haven’t noticed, there are places in the law—especially Deuteronomy 27-28 (part of the law)—where curses are pronounced against those who violate the terms of the covenant.  Ancient treaties and covenants always included a list of blessings and curses, announcing what would happen if one party kept or broke their promises.  It’s much the same today in modern contracts when a lawyer spells out the trouble you’ll be in if you violate the agreement you made.  In those days the penalties for breaking a promise were called “curses.” I suggest the best way to read Galatians 3:13 is this way: Now Jesus the Anointed, the Liberating King, has redeemed us from that curse-part of the law. How? He did it by becoming a curse for us, that is, becoming subject to the law that said “everyone who hangs on a tree is under the curse of God” (Deuteronomy 21:23).  Since Jesus hung on the cross, he fell under the curse. Now how did the cursed one—Jesus—liberate us from the part of the law that pronounces curses?  In a word, resurrection.  When God raised Jesus from the dead, he vindicated him as His Messiah and effectively reversed the curse, not just the single curse which affected Jesus but the entire system of curses which affected all of humanity.  In the resurrection Jesus became the curse-buster. As a result, the curses associated with the first covenant have been rendered null and void through Christ’s faithfulness. This apparently had been God’s purpose all along.GhostbustersLogoLarge

I’ve met Christians who question why we read the Old Testament.  “The New Testament has all we need,” they say.  “Jesus did away with ‘the curse of the law.’”  Well, yes and no.  He did away with that part of the law that pronounces curses, but he didn’t do away with honor your father and mother, or do not steal, or do not murder.  He didn’t do away with love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.  In fact, Jesus repeats these directives, affirms them, and makes them central to his own teaching.  Yes, Jesus reversed the curse so that blessing might extend to all people who put faith in Him.  But the law in all its beauty and goodness remains.

Posted on

Ben Witherington’s review of “The Voice Bible”

Ben WitheringtonAs the lead scholar on the The Voice Bible project, I try to keep up with what others have said or are saying about it.  For some reason, however, I missed Dr. Ben Witherington’s review in February 2013 on “Patheos.”  Professor Witherington is one of the top New Testament scholars in the world so I was anxious to see what sort of marks he would give it.   Overall, I think he had a positive take on it.  He took time to understand the missional mind and heart that was behind the project.  He did, however, have some constructive criticism on how we handled Hebrews 12.  After reading his thoughts, I’m inclined to agree and think I may suggest to Frank Couch at Thomas Nelson that we make a slight revision to that text.  I’ve included a link below. His blog is certainly worth following. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2013/02/07/the-voice-yet-another-way-to-read-scripture/

Posted on

Relational Wreckage

This past Lenten season Jack Wisdom and I hosted a session on “Repentance” at our church.  For six weeks  we covered a variety of scriptural passages which talked about the damage done to ourselves and others by sin and the constant need we have for turning to God.  We touched on a variety of scriptural themes and books such as Jonah, Joel, Psalms, and 1 John in order to reflect on what it truly means to change our ways and turn to God.Stock Image

One evening we tackled a particularly difficult saying of Jesus from Matthew 5:23-24:

Therefore, if you are bringing an offering to God and you remember that your brother is angry with you or holds a grudge against you, then leave you gift before the altar, go to your brother, repent and forgive one another, be reconciled, and then return to the altar to offer your gift to God.

Jesus is illustrating what “deeper righteousness” means. Some might look at those who attend church often as being righteous (that is, in a right and proper relationship to God).  Others might look at how much people give to the church as a measure of how right they are. But notice what Jesus says.  Deeper righteousness means—among other things—that when we recall a broken or injured relationship, we leave the altar and our gifts, go to our offended brother or sister, and make it right.  Then when things are right between you, come back to the altar and present your best to God. Regrettably, many continue to attend church, give their gifts, with the pain of broken relationships not far away.

Here is my concern.  I have seen many Christians, some of whom are church leaders, with a series of relational disasters in their pasts. They have broken with friends, broken with family, and broken with co-workers.  In other words they have left relational wreckage in their wakes all while pursuing their lives and ministry.  They blame others and justify themselves.  They were in the right; the other was in the wrong.  They were reasonable; the other unreasonable.  They may well celebrate God’s reconcilation of the world through Christ and yet, for reasons only they know, they refuse to pursue reconcilation in their own lives. My major concern here is not with the person who has an occasional break with someone—though that must be addressed–but with those who have bodies stacked deep and wide in their pasts. 

Deeper righteousness means that we pursue reconciliation before we give a dime or attend worship. The way Jesus puts it and the priority he gives it, it is clear that we must do everything in our power to be reconciled.  Notice.  It doesn’t matter whether you are the offender or the offendee.  It is not appropriate for you to wait until the other person makes the first move.  You must be one to humble ourselves and seek forgiveness.  It is hard to swallow your pride and “get low” in humility—as my friend Jack Wisdom puts it—especially if you are a leader. But it is important, especially for leaders, to be the example and show others how it must be done. If the other person fails to respond or rejects our repeated attempts to make things right, then we must mourn the loss and look forward to a day when God reconciles all things.

Posted on

“Adoption” in the New Testament

 For Paul the salvation he experienced in Christ was greater than words could describe.  That is why the apostle to the Gentiles used so many different kinds of images and metaphors to express the blessings of knowing Christ.  Under the Spirit’s guidance he mined the OT and the culture around him to find ways to articulate an experience and reality that lay beyond words.  With terms like “reconciliation,” “redemption,” “justification,” and “forgiveness,” he attempted to parse the blessing of salvation and create a new type of theological grammar for the young church.St__Paul_the_Apostle

One of those metaphors, “adoption” (Greek huiothesia), was a common part of family life in the Mediterranean world.  It means literally “to make [someone] a son”.  Paul used it to describe a change of status from an existence marked by slavery and Father-lessness to a new family or community characterized by freedom and Spirit.[i] 

Human societies have practiced adoption in one form of another since the beginning of recorded history.  Broadly speaking adoption refers to the creation of kinship relationships between two or more people through legal and/or ritualistic means.  Archaeologists have unearthed adoption contracts and law codes that provide us with some information regarding its practice in ancient Babylon.  While most adoptions were of a son or daughter, it was also possible to adopt a brother, sister or father.  Slaves were typically manumitted by adoption.  In the Jewish community identified today as Elephantine, an Aramaic papyrus dated to 416 BC describes the manumission and adoption of a slave.[ii]  The same practice is referred to in Gen 15:2-3 when Abraham suggests that his slave Eliezer will likely become his heir unless God acts.  First Chronicles 2:34-35 indicates that a son-in-law could become an heir when there was no male descendent.[iii]  

When Pharoah’s daughter drew baby Moses out of the water, we are told: “he became her son” (Exod 2:10).[iv]  Although this account appears to reflect Egyptian customs, the fact that Moses continued in Pharoah’s household indicates a change of family, a new kinship relationship had been formed.  In Acts 7:21 Stephen retold these foundational stories and said: “Pharoah’s daughter took him away [adopted him] and nurtured him as her own son”.  Since Egypt and slavery had become synonymous, Hebr 11:24 indicates that Moses refused to be called the son of the Pharoah’s daughter, chosing instead to identify with his own people.  This statement makes sense only if Moses’ family status was indeed “the son of Pharoah’s daughter.” 

Still adoption does not seem to have been a common practice in Israel since no biblical or post-biblical laws legislate for it.  We can cite four reasons: (1) the importance of natural or blood lineage; (2) the practice of polygyny (having multiple wives); (3) the custom of levirate marriage; and (4) the belief that barrenness reflected God’s will and displeasure, a situation which adoption could remedy.[v]   In other words, if it is God’s will for a woman not to have children, adoption could set aside God’s will.  There may well have been other reasons, but these seem sufficient to account for the fact that adoption appears rare among the people of Israel.

Paul used the term “adoption” (huiothesia) fives times in his letters (Gal 4:5; Rom 8:14, 23; Rom 9:4; Eph 1:5).  In each case it refers to God’s adoption, not of an individual, but of his covenant people.  In one instance Paul described his “kinsmen according to the flesh” as “Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons (huiothesia), and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law . . . “ (Rom 9:4). His usage clearly reflects the language of Scripture.  Hosea 11:1 says famously: “When Israel was a youth I loved him,/ And out of Egypt I called My son”.  Moses is to say to Pharoah: “Thus says the LORD, Israel is My son, My firstborn . . . “ (Exod 4:22).  So when Paul referred to Israel as having “the adoption as sons” (Rom 9:4), he is echoing a long standing tradition codified in the Bible.

The majority of Paul’s references to adoption, however, refer to God’s people of the new covenant.  The apostle wrote: “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons (huiothesia)” (Gal 4:5).  In Rom 8:15 he said: “For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons (huiothesia) by which we cry out, `Abba! Father!’”  Later he continued (8:23): “And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons (huiothesia), the redemption of our body.”  Among the many spiritual blessings in heavenly places Paul included adoption when he wrote: “He predestined us to adoption as sons (huiothesia) through Jesus to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, . . . “ (Eph 1:5).  These passages indicate that “adoption” was an important metaphor for Paul in describing the glories and blessings of salvation.  In fact, Paul is the first Christian theologian to use “adoption” as a way to talk about the affects of Christ’s redeeming work upon His people.  So where does this come from?Paul the apostle

Many interpreters of the Bible think Paul took “adoption” as a legal category from contemporary Greco-Roman family life.  That makes sense for two reasons.  First, in the Roman world adoption (adoptio) was commonplace.  So both Paul and his audiences would have been familiar with the practice even if it were unusual among the minority population of Jews in the empire.  Second, inheritance rights were an essential component of adoption in Roman society in terms of both property and power.  Likewise, Paul connected the believers’ adoption with their spiritual inheritance obtained through faith in Jesus.  In Rom 8:17 the apostle claimed that God’s adopted children are “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ”; and in Gal 4:7 he affirmed that an adopted believer is “no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.”  So it may well be that adoption practices in the Greco-Roman world provided Paul and his audiences with a ready-made image to describe the baptized-believers’ inclusion into God’s eternal family.  But there may well be another place from which Paul adapted this image.

As we suggested above, the OT indicates that God looked upon His covenant people as “son” or “sons.”  This was one of the ways Scripture described God’s unique relationship with Israel that began with the exodus (e.g., Exod 4:22).  Paul, having a mind steeped in Scripture, reflected the same notion in Rom 9:4 writing that God had adopted Israel as His son (huiothesia).  But earlier in Romans the apostle used that exact term to refer to the new status of believers, both Jew and Gentile, in Messiah Jesus.  Fortunately, Jewish documents from the intertestamental period provide an appropriate analogy.  Although they are not “Scripture,” they do provide evidence of a robust belief in God’s salvation during the time when Christianity is born.  They promise that God will free his people from exile in a second exodus, restore the covenant and adopt them as sons based upon 2 Sam 7:12-14: “I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to me” (e.g., Jub 1:24; T.Judah 24:3; 4QFlor 1.11).[vi]  This means that at least some Jews during Paul’s day expected God to end the exile and establish them as sons.  Paul seems to have shared this conviction but found its fulfillment in what God had already accomplished in Jesus’ incarnation, death and resurrection.  Scripture then and its later interpretation appears to have been Paul’s main reason for choosing “adoption” as one of his major soteriological motifs. 

It is important to note that Paul never used the word “adoption” (huiothesia) to refer to Jesus’ Sonship.  He referred to Jesus as “the Son of God,” “His Son,” or simply “the Son” (e.g., Rom 1:3-4; Gal 4:4).  This indicates two truths: (1) Jesus’ Sonship is unique and of a different order than ours and (2) our “adoption as sons” derives from Jesus’ life and work.  We cannot be adopted into God’s eternal family without relying on Jesus.  Furthermore, Paul explained our sonship in two stages, present and future.  In Rom 8:15 the apostle contrasted our prior condition of slavery (to sin, death and malevolent spiritual forces), animated by fear, with our present experience of “adoption as sons,” animated by the Spirit of God.[vii]  It is the Spirit who brings about this adoption by uniting people with Christ through the gift of faith.  Indeed it is only by the Spirit that we can cry out, “Abba! Father!” (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6).  Still there is a “not-yet” component to our salvation, including our adoption.  That is why Paul wrote that those who have the first fruits of the Spirit groan along with the rest of the created order as we wait for “our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (Rom 8:23).  This is another example of the already/not-yet feature of Paul’s Christian hope.  As James Scott notes: the “present and future aspects of huiothesia [adoption] in Romans 8 reflect successive stages of participation in the Son by the Spirit . . . “[viii]  In other words, God adopts all who believe in Christ into his forever family; but the fullness of our inheritance awaits us when Christ returns.  It is then that the living and the dead will be raised, that the new creation will be complete and that all God’s family will be home again.

[i] C. F. D. Moule, s.v. “adoption,”  The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) 1:48-49.

[ii] Frederick Knobloch, s.v. “adoption,” Anchor Bible Dictionary (Doubleday) 1:76-77.

[iii] Moule, 1:48.  Other biblical examples may include Naomi’s adoption of the son of Boaz and Ruth (Ruth 4:16), but by the laws of levirate marriage the son is already her descendent.  Mordecai also adopted the orphaned Esther (Esther 2:7, 15). 

[iv] All Scripture is quoted from the New American Standard Version.

[v] Knobloch, 79.

[vi] James Scott, s.v. “Adoption, Sonship,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 15-18.

[vii] C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 186.

[viii] Scott, 17.