Custom is king

“Those who defend the regular sermon have no choice but to acknowledge the silence of the New Testament, to which they nevertheless appeal as supposed evidence of what they suggest might have been 'taken for granted'. What they build on this fragile foundation, however, is an habitual use of the sermon of which the New Testament knows nothing. In support of their present practice they cite a less than unanimous scholarly consensus, popular church opinion, and the 'tradition of the elders'. These are formidable allies and might be worthy of respect, provide only that one remembers one's church history. For it is precisely these forces which have always been mustered to oppose any new thought or (which has often amounted to the same thing) any return to the New Testament. Tertullian recognized the danger when he warned that 'Christ is truth, not custom' (De Virg Vel 1:1).”—To Preach or Not to Preach?, pages 104-105

<idle musing>
I find that observation sobering, if only because it is so accurate. As one church history book put it: “A reformer came along and, in the finest tradition, they killed him.”
</idle musing>

Salt of the Earth, or...

“As sociologist Jacques Ellul observes, far from being a model of freedom, most Christians are models of mediocre bondage, simultaneously the slave of the latest fad and the ecclesiastical and humanistic traditions in which they were reared. The disastrous consequence is that the non-Christian world experiences little Christian influence in any area of thought and has little, if any, understanding of the essence of biblical Christianity.”—To Preach or Not to Preach?, page 83

<idle musing>
Sadly, I think he is correct. Just look at what the media think Christianity is. Now look at the New Testament. Finally, look at your own life. Which one is it closer to, the New Testament, or the other one?
</idle musing>

Evangelism, or community?

“...if a Christian group is lacking in love, justice, a sense of community and richness of life, then its evangelistic programmes are unlikely to succeed because either the unattractiveness of the community will dissuade potential converts from joining or, where there are conversions, these converts will be unlikely to grow to maturity. Little more will be achieved than fostering the illusion of community growth.”—To Preach or Not to Preach?, page 74

<idle musing>
Wow! That's not what most sermons and exhortations I've heard say! But, it sure does ring true. Why would anyone want to become a Christian if they only see superficial changes and cold love?
</idle musing>

The Sermon

“The regular sermon, as used today, is one of a series of sermons which takes place at most of the major meetings of the whole local church. The regular sermon cannot be detected in the Judaism of the Old Testament, the ministry of Jesus, the life of the primitive church or the church of the apostolic fathers. We shall discover evidence for it only as the church came increasingly under the influence of a variety of non-Christian ideas from the surrounding culture, frequently ideas which, like the sermon, were inimical to New Testament practice. The regular sermon was common by the third century and became the norm by the fourth, taking its place among a wide variety of ecclesiastical practices which owed little to the teaching, patterns and principles of the New Testament.”—To Preach or Not to Preach?, page 69

<idle musing>
Too bad this book is out of print. It is definitely a scholarly work—the notes are about a quarter of the book—that thoroughly examines the history of the sermon. I'm about half done with it; this is the interim conclusion which he comes to after reciting the history of the origin of the sermon. The rest of the book will evaluate its effectiveness, as he says, “we may possibly conclude that the Holy Spirit is using an old method of questionable origin in a new and effective way.” Stay tuned, and we'll see :)
</idle musing>

Rules!

This is the final snippet from The Shack

Mackenzie is in a boat, having a conversation with the Holy Spirit, portrayed as a woman:

“It feels like living out of relationship—you know, trusting and talking to you—is a bit more complicatd than just following rules”

“What rules are those, Mackenzie?”

“You know, all the things the Scriptures tell us we should do.”

“Okay...” she said with some hesitation. “And what might those be?”

“You know,” he answered sarcastically. “About doing good things and avoiding evil, being kind to the poor, reading your Bible, praying, and going to church. Things like that.”

“I see. And how is that working for you?”

He laughed. “Well. I've never done it very well. I have moments that aren't too bad, but there's always something I'm struggling with, or feeling guilty about. I just figured I needed to try harder, but I find it difficult to sustain that motivation.”

“Mackenzie!” she chided, her words flowing with affection. “The Bible doesn't teach you to follow rules. It is a picture of Jesus. While words may tell you what God is like and even what he may want from you, you cannot do any of it on your own. Life and living is in him and in no other. My goodness, you didn't think you could live the righteousness of God on you own, did you?”

“Well, I thought so, sorta...” he said sheepishly. “But you gotta admit, rules and priciples are simpler than relationships.”

“It is true that relationships are a whole lot messier than rules, but rules will never give you answers to the deep questions of the heart and they will never love you.”—The Shack, pages 199-200

<idle musing>
So true. How many times have you been told that to be a good christian you have to do this and that. Did it ever work?

We try to live the righteousness of God on our own strength—and then we wonder why we fail? What else could we do? Only God can live the righteousness of God. And the best part is that he has promised that he will live it out in our lives! Now that is good news!
</idle musing>

Got a poem?

Eisenbrauns is having a contest again this year. I guess we didn't learn from last year :) Here are all the details:

Love is in the air! We're looking for a few good scholars to display both eros and erudition in our second Ancient Near Eastern Valentine's contest.

We want no more than three of your original* compositions, in any ancient Near Eastern language (yes, we'll take Greek, too), accompanied by an English translation. Artwork is similarly welcome (please make sure your submissions are workplace friendly). All entries should be sent via e-mail to akerr at eisenbrauns dot com before noon on Wednesday, February 11.

The decisions of the judges will be final and, most likely, extremely arbitrary. Prizes will be Eisenbrauns gift certificates: $75.00 for first place, $50.00 for second, and $25.00 for third place. Winners will be announced on February 13, 2009, and winning entries will be showcased on the Eisenbrauns website. Submitting an entry constitutes permission to reproduce your work.

* We have memorized the entire corpus of Near Eastern poetry, and will be watching for cheating. OK, we haven't — but someone out there will catch you at it if your words are not your own, and that wouldn't be good. So don't.

You can also read the fine print on our official page

Knowing is loving

“So many believe that it is love that grows, but it is the knowing that grows and love simply expands to contain it. Love is just the skin of knowing.”— The Shack, page 156

Who is God?

This is the second snippet from The Shack. God is having a discussion with Mackenzie about who/what God is:

“I am what some would say 'holy and wholly other than you.' The problem is that many folks try to grasp some sense of who I am by taking the best version of themselves, projecting that to the nth degree, factoring in all the goodness they can perceive, which often isn't much, and then call that God. And while it may seem like a noble effort, the truth is that if falls pitifully short of who I really am. I'm not merely the best version of you that you can think of. I am far more than that, above and beyond all that you can ask or think”— The Shack, page 97

The Shack

I finally decided to read The Shack last week. I had heard many condemning it, while others sang its praises, so I decided to find out for myself. I suspected I would like it. Many of the ones condemning it had also condemned some other books I really liked. Well, I liked it—anybody surprised? :)

There are many memorable lines in the book, but I am only going to share a few over the next 4 days. I encourage you to read it; you might like it. But, I must warn you, it will mess with your concept of God, church, and what it means to be a Christian. If you think you already have all three of those figured out and are 100% sure of your concepts, then you will hate this book. You have been warned!

Anyway, the first quote:

“In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God's voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners' access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?” — The Shack, page 63

Narnia and the biblical book of Kings

Our kids grew up with me reading The Chronicles of Narnia to them. I'm sure they have read them many times by themselves, too. I have probably read them more than 20 times myself over the years. Lewis' way with words, and his ability to express a theological truth in fiction have always amazed me and I find myself quoting from Narnia and the Space Trilogy every now and then to explain a theological concept. So, it surprised me that I hadn't thought of this earlier, but The Silver Chair has a passage that basically describes my feelings about the historicity of the books of Joshua-Kings (the Former Prophets in the Hebrew Bible).

Our heroes, Scrubb, Jill, and Puddleglum have freed Prince Rilian from his prison chair and they are getting ready to figure out how to escape. Suddenly, the witch returns and proceeds to enchant them, getting them to forget that there is any other world but hers. They cease to believe in any world but her dark one; all seems lost. That sets the scene, so, without further ado, here's Puddleglum:

“One word, Ma'am,” he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. “One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.

<idle musing>
Well said, Puddleglum. Even if there is no proof that David or Solomon existed, even if the first temple hasn't been discovered in an excavation, even if the is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus, I am still going to believe in the “made-up world” of the Bible where there is a God who intervenes, who takes an active interest in his people's welfare, who rescued me from sin and darkness, who has made me a new creature. As Luther once (might have) said: “Here I stand; I can take no other.”
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

“Too often commentators resort to the “emphasis” explanation when confronted with atypical or strange structures or forms in passages of the Hebrew Bible.”— Bridging the Gap pages 152-153

A ritual leads to a ritual leads to a...

After discussing the idea that a perceived problem can lead to a ritual, which solves the problem, Klingbeil notes:

Interestingly, some ritual action may resolve the initial problem, but may require a further ritual cycle at a later stage to provide a more complete solution. The Israelite sacrificial system and its culmination in the Day of Atonement as an elimination rite is a good example for this category of rituals. The final outcome of these “problem-solving” rituals was the rebalancing of life threatening circumstances that led to a reintegration of those involved into community with Yhwh and the larger community of Israel. During the Day of Atonement ritual, this experience of a new beginning and the re-creation of new relationships are publicly shown by means of the particular subrite. The second male goat, over whose head all the sins and all the transgressions of the Israelites have been confessed (Lev 16:21), is taken after the cleansing of the sanctuary (Lev 16:20) and is led into the desert never to return. He is not a sacrificial animal but the carrier of all the sins of Israel, for whom no return is possible. Yhwh’s forgiveness is practically illustrated, and thus the holiness of the sanctuary is reestablished.—Bridging the Gap, page 142

<idle musing>
I'm going to have to chew on that one for a while. I'm sure there is some profound thought there, but it just barely is escaping me at the moment. Anybody care to comment?
</idle musing>

Why the original languages are important

“A basic familiarity with both Hebrew and Greek seems to be necessary if the results of the component analysis [of ritual texts] are to be meaningful. Too often, translation techniques or strategies of modern translations gloss over distinct terminology, especially when one is looking at the technical language of ritual texts found in the Hebrew Bible.”—Bridging the Gap, page 133

<idle musing>
Very true! There are many things that you need to check the original to fully understand. And, in this case especially, you can't understand it without recourse to the original.
</idle musing>

Quote for the day

“The office of cleansing is imposed on the priest; yet he is at the same time forbidden to cleanse any except those who are already pure and clean. In this, on the one hand, God claims for Himself the honour of the cure, lest men should assume it; and also establishes the discipline which He would have to reign in His Church. To make the matter clearer, it belongs to God only to forgive sins; what, then, remains to man, except to be the witness and herald of the grace which He confers? God’s minister can, therefore, absolve none whom God has not before absolved.”—John Calvin, Commentary on Leviticus, cited in Bridging the Gap, page 114

Perfect Weather

It is a beautiful day here, zero, clear, with 6 inches of new snow—perfect for snowshoeing, cross-country skiing...and bicycling to work!

What! I know you think I've lost it, but stop and think about it for a minute. When it is this cold the salt doesn't work, so you don't have a sloppy mess on the roads. Plus, the snow isn't as slippery, so you can go faster without worrying about wiping out.

What about the cold? Actually, once you get riding, it isn't bad. I usually just wear a rain jacket (to block the wind) over my regular work clothes, unless the temperature is above 25, then I just wear a t-shirt. Once it gets below zero, I put on a warm-up jacket and wear biking leggings under my pants. Anytime it is below freezing, I wear mittens to keep my fingers warm.

I am really enjoying being able to ride to work all winter. I used to not be able to ride once it got below 50; I would always get bronchitis. I had bronchitis very badly a couple of years in a row; once you have had it you are more susceptible to it. But, I haven't had bronchitis for about 8 years now, and my body seems to have recovered to the point I'm not getting it anymore.

I do take the precaution of keeping my chest protected from the wind by wearing either a scarf or one of those hoods that comes down over your shoulders. And, when it gets around zero you need to keep your forehead and ears warm. Simple, right?

Anyway, you might think I'm crazy, but when I was looking at the weather for later today I saw this:



Top 10 campground???? Whom do you know that would be camping in -3 weather? They are crazier than I am! Oh, I didn't get a screen shot of this one, but they also had a link to check the mosquito forecast! I can help you with that one—there aren't any at zero :)

Augustine on the Sabbath Rest

“The sabbath was given to the Jews to be observed literally, like the other things, as rites symbolically signifying something deeper. A particular kind of vacation, you see, was enjoined on them; mind you, carry out what that vacation signifies. A spiritual vacation, I mean, is tranquility of heart; but tranquility of heart issues from the serenity of a good conscience. So the person who really observes the sabbath is the one who doesn’t sin. This, after all, is the way the command was given to those who were commanded to observe the sabbath.” Sermones 270.5, cited in Bridging the Gap, page 102

<idle musing>
So, it looks like Augustine understood the sabbath rest in Hebrews to be relevant to life in the present, not in heaven after we die. It also seems he believed in the ability of the power of God to keep someone safe from sin (see this post for verification of that claim). Remember though, it is always and only by the power of God; never, ever, ever is it anything inherent in a person. It is imparted righteousness, as well as imputed, but the impartation is only as long as a person abides/rests/remains (μένειν) in Christ.
</idle musing>

Ritual and the Prophets

“Jeremiah’s critique [in Jeremiah 7] is not inherently against ritual space or the temple in particular. Rather, it (as was already done by earlier prophets) connects a responsible and consecrated life-style to the consecrated space, which suggests divine presence. “A place”—suggests the prophet—“even if it has been divinely chosen (Ps 132:13–14, 2 Sam 7:12–13) will not automatically protect you from the coming doom. You need to turn around and change your life-style.” This is followed by precise indications of how this lifestyle reform is to be undertaken, involving acting justly; not oppressing the foreigner, the orphan, or the widow; not shedding innocent blood; and not running after other gods ( Jer 7:6). This has been interpreted as part of a major reformulation of the theology of the Hebrew Bible. Keep in mind, however, that earlier prophets had already voiced similar reprimands. The changed historical situation and the impending doom of Judah seem to have required an even stronger message, including the very foundations of sacred ritual space.”—Bridging the Gap, page 77

The role of ritual

“Ritual simply cannot substitute for the basic moral and ethical actions of humans. Justice and righteousness need to characterize the proper human-human relationship before ritual can truly impact the adequate human-divine relationship. Ritual may rely on tradition but lacks divine approval as expressed by the constant contrasts contained in Amos’s texts. Amos was criticizing the conceptual “automatisms” apparently connected to the ritual actions. He argued against a sacramental use of ritual, where the mere performance guarantees favorable results.”—Bridging the Gap, page 76

<idle musing>
Sound familiar? How many people go through the motions of Bible reading, prayer, church attendance, but never let Christ transform them? If that is how we view the Christian life, we are the objects of Amos' criticism and missing the true power of God—the Holy Spirit's empowering and transforming presence in our lives
</idle musing>

Prayer request

Joel & Renee just found out late last week that Rachel has Celiac Disease.

Huh? That's what I said, too. Here's Renee's explanation:

That sounds terrible and awful, but really, it's just an allergy to gluten. We are relieved that it's nothing terminal, cancerous, or some unknown disease. This is fixable and doesn't involve medications. It does, however, require a major adjustment in diet. Gluten is in just about everything except rice, corn, potato, fruit, veggies, meat, dairy and eggs.

Please pray for them as they adjust their diets accordingly.

Photo tag

I've been tagged by Andy
The rules:

Go to the 4th folder in your computer where you store your pictures.
Pick the 4th picture in that folder.
Explain the picture.
Tag 4 people to do the same.



Nice, isn't it? The picture is from February, 2007. I was out snowshoeing in Boys' City, along Cherry Creek, which is also the south border of our property, although we didn't own it then.

Tag 4 people:
Jim West, just because I know he hates being tagged :)
Jon Erdman
Joel at Grace Roots
Alan Knox
And anybody else that wants to share a good photo or two...

Eisenbrauns website is UP

Yes, service was restored. They had told us that service would be back by 7:00 PM on Thursday. It wasn't :( I have no idea when it finally came back, but it was restored by this AM—I just forgot to post letting everybody know.

Now you know, so hurry on over and take advantage of all our great deals :)

Why study ANE stuff?

I just finished reading Bridging the Gap (and someday I'll even update the side bar!). I'll be excerpting and musing on it for the next week or so on this blog. I hope you enjoy it and are challenged at the same time.

Here's the first excerpt:
“I would also venture to suggest that many biblical scholars find more joy in trying to understand one cuneiform tablet (with five or six variant tablets) detailing a complex ritual than in first having to delve into more than 200 years of text-layer-oriented research that is not concerned with the meaning and communicative function of the ritual.”—Bridging the Gap, page 51

<idle musing>
What do you think? Is he right? Has biblical studies become so top-heavy with scholarship that it isn't fun anymore?

The fact that one is expected to know what everyone in the last 250 years said about a particular text is somewhat daunting. It also tends to take the freshness off the text.
</idle musing>

Eisenbrauns web site is down

Well, not really; our web site is functioning fine, it's just that Embarq has experienced a "minor" outage—just about the entire state! And, they don't know when service will be restored :(

How am I accessing the web, you ask? We use Embarq for our webserver, but we use cable for our e-mail and web access. We don't want to have all our Internet in one basket, so to speak :)

Final thoughts...

This is the final excerpt from The Elements of Biblical Exegesis.

“A superior exegesis sheds unique light on a biblical text because the exegesis is the result of one’s own personal engagement with the text. Such an exegesis is really an expression of the unique intersection of contexts—those of the author, the original readers, and the interpreter. If you apply yourself to the study of the Bible, always keeping an eye on its various contexts—as well as your own—you may well be surprised at what you discover.”— The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 179.

<idle musing>
I think this paragraph summarizes the whole book quite nicely. I hope you have enjoyed the ride with me through the book. I want to thank Bobby from Hendrickson for the book—and for being more than just a sales rep; I consider him a friend and brother in Christ.
</idle musing>

Eisenbrauns January sale

It's January already, and I forgot to announce the January sale on this blog. I'll fix that right now :)

For the month of January, we chose 35 titles from the Harvard Semitic Monographs, Harvard Semitic Studies, and Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant series and slashed their prices by 50%. Seems like a good way to welcome the new year in.

You can see the whole list here

A long train of witnesses

“Believing that we are addressed by God in Scripture means that we perceive ourselves to be part of the same people of God addressed by the prophets and the apostles many years ago. In other words, we acknowledge the similarities as well as the differences between their ancient situations and our own. (In fact, some contemporary theological interpreters of Scripture have suggested that modern interpretation of the Bible has overemphasized the differences.) The notion of “two horizons” is built on the theory of interpretation that holds that we cannot truly read, interpret, or understand a text until we engage it, until we somehow fuse its “horizon” with our own.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 160

<idle musing>
God is still speaking, we just need to listen—and I mean listen in the sense of the Hebrew שמע (Shema`), which has the implication of obedience, not just passive hearing.
</idle musing>

Now THAT is church!

There is a very good post on one person's journey from institutional Christianity into the house church version here. Mind you, he isn't an anabaptist, or charismatic, or anything like that—he's Baptist! Here's a short excerpt, but do read the whole post, it is short enough:

As I sat with these brothers and sisters, sharing, eating and worshiping with them, words cannot express the emotions going on inside of my soul. It was all so spontaneous, yet felt so right! Even though I was the invited guest speaker, I was the one who was blessed beyond measure. In those few minutes shared with a handful of Cuban brothers, my life was forever changed. I saw in that gathering of believers something I had longed for my whole life. I now understood better than ever before, what the church was supposed to be. Wasn't this what the church looked like in the Book of Acts? Finally, I was able to see in living color what the writings I had been reading looked like! I knew in my heart this was what we must strive to recapture in our own church planting in Ecuador.

<idle musing>
Yep! As I've said before, once you've experienced real church, it is hard to go back to the pew and watch performances by the few up front.
</idle musing>

Scripture as we live it #36

Alan Knox has a series called “Scripture as we live it” where he takes a common verse and edits it to reflect how we really live it out; the last one was today, and numbered 35. Sunday I was reading in I John and ran across this set of verses, as we live them:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not because you will sin. But if And when anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous as long as we read our Bibles, pray, and go to church regularly; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of and we are free to judge the whole world because they don't conform to our doctrine. (I John 2:1-2 re-mix)

And we are called:

“This new approach is grounded in the theological principle of the missio Dei, or mission of God. This term summarizes the conviction that the Scriptures of both Testaments bear witness to a God who, as creator and redeemer of the world, is already on a mission. Indeed, God is by nature a missional God, who is seeking not just to save “souls” to take to heaven some day, but to restore and save the created order: individuals, communities, nations, the environment, the world, the cosmos. This God calls the people of God assembled in the name of Christ—who was the incarnation of the divine mission—to participate in this missio Dei, to discern what God is up to in the world, and to join in.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 155

Quote for today

“Responsible Bible students and teachers never take a shortcut by using inap[p]ropriate evidence to get to the desired conclusion, even if the conclusion is correct.—Hebrew for the Rest of Us, page 105

Don't sell God short...

“Theological interpretation has a much more ambitious, constructive goal than simply analysis of the text; it is to form communities of Christian disciples who can perform the Scriptures faithfully and creatively, and to inform the theological reflection of such disciples individually and ecclesially.

“We may describe this principle of theological interpretation in terms of its function: scriptural interpretation is the primary means by which God effects (in traditional Catholic terms) the church’s ongoing conversion, that is (in traditional Protestant terms), the church’s continuous reformation, or (in Orthodox language) the church’s increasing participation in the life of the Triune God—its divinization, or theosis.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 154

<idle musing>
There's that word again, theosis. It just keeps popping up all over the place on this blog :)

And, always remember, it is only by the power of God (grace) that any of this can happen. We can study all we want, learn all the languages we want, but ultimately it all depends 100% on God's abiding presence in our lives.
</idle musing>

A good thought to begin the new year with:

“The principle of coherence follows from the canonical principle and is the theological conviction that, in spite of all its diversity, Scripture is one divinely given book that essentially tells one coherent story of the creator-God’s salvation of the world, culminating in Jesus Christ. It is not a collection of mutually competing or contradicting accounts of God and of humanity’s experience of God. This principle also has a corollary: that because of the guiding work of the Spirit throughout the history of God’s people (see the next principle), those who read Scripture theologically can and should be guided by the basic theological convictions of their reading communities (e.g., the Christian church), which are themselves derived from the Scriptures. These convictions have been set forth in the various Christian creeds, especially those from the earliest centuries of the church—to which most Christians give assent...

“The sixth principle asserts that theological interpretation is a work of the Spirit of God, the same Spirit who gives the church gifts of grace (Greek charismata). The word charismatic is not intended, however, to suggest that all interpretation is spontaneous, lacking in control or reason. Indeed, if the gifts of the Spirit include wisdom
and understanding, then careful, rational exegetical skill is a charism. But the principle does assert that such exegetical skill needs the grace and guidance of the Spirit to achieve its intended end of greater communion with God and with one another...”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 152, 153

That's nice, but what IS it?

“Despite the rapid and widespread rise in interest in theological interpretation, its theoreticians and practitioners (among whom the present author should be counted) sometimes quip that no one knows exactly what it is. That is not quite true, but there is in fact great diversity of opinion about what constitutes theological interpretation or exegesis. One thing that seems to be generally agreed upon, however, is that theological interpretation is not primarily about exegetical methods but about exegetical goals. What is the goal, or telos, of biblical exegesis? If the exegete is seeking only to understand a biblical text as an ancient text, as a purely human text—whether using diachronic or synchronic methods—that exegete is not doing theological interpretation. On the other hand, if the exegete seeks to understand a biblical text in order to appropriate its message as a guide for contemporary belief and behavior within a community of faith (either Christian or Jewish)—whether that goal is achieved with historical-critical, social-scientific, narrative, or other methods—that exegete is doing theological interpretation.

"...Christian theological interpretation is interpretation in, with, and for the church so that the church may in fact be the kind of church in the world that is appropriate to the Christian gospel."—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, pages 145-146, 148

<idle musing>
I can get behind that description and goal very easily.
</idle musing>

Why study the Bible as scripture?

“Christians read the Bible as Scripture because they seek to find in it the mind of Christ, and thus they do so prayerfully, no matter how academic the task is at the moment. A hermeneutic of trust guides exegetical practice that acknowledges God as the ultimate source of good interpretation and acknowledges faithful living before God as the ultimate goal of good interpretation. Such exegetical practice is one form of embodying the biblical injunction to love God with one’s mind as well as one’s heart.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 143

<idle musing>
Yep.
</idle musing>

I didn't know that...

the word hermeneutic is derived from the Greek god Hermes, the messenger/interpreter of the gods. At least, that is what Gorman in The Elements of Biblical Exegesis says on page 140...

Quote for today

Search the Scriptures, not as though thou wouldst make a concordance but an application.—John Donne [ in The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 139]

The via media

“Although the notion that meaning is created exclusively by the recipient of a communication is a misguided overreaction to the claim that meaning is limited to authorial intent, this kind of reaction does rightly acknowledge the fact that various people receive various messages from a single communication. Human communication is polyvalent.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 136

<idle musing>
Yes, the via media, or middle way. Avoid both extremes, because human communication has many voices; we all bring our presuppositions with us, as well as our previous interactions with individuals and texts. These will exert a profound influence on our exegesis.
</idle musing>

Quote for the day

“Bible study is never complete until it results in worship.”— Hebrew for the Rest of Us, page xiii

Review of "Hebrew for the Rest of Us"

Thanks to Jesse at Zondervan for the copy of Hebrew for the Rest of Us, which is meant to be a companion volume to Greek for the Rest of Us, also from Zondervan. Both of these volumes are intended to teach people how to use the tools of the languages without actually knowing the languages, or as this book puts it, you are learning “pre-Hebrew.”

The whole concept of pre-Hebrew raises questions in the mind of a language junkie like myself, or, as a commenter recently called me on another blog, a snob. The big danger is that a little knowledge can be more dangerous than no knowledge. At least when you don't know anything about the language, you know you don't know. If you have the beginnings of knowledge, you might think you know more than you do. I still find that a danger for myself after 30 years of reading Greek and Hebrew; we need to be humble about how much we do and don't know, and about how much we even can know.

With that in mind, I must admit I approached the book with a bias against it, but I was delighted to see on pages x-xi of the introduction a list of what to expect, and far more importantly, what not to expect:

Here are two things you should not expect. (1) After you finish this course, you should never tell anyone that you know Hebrew. You will not know Hebrew, unless you take a full-fledged Hebrew course. (By the way, my ulterior motive in writing HRU is to inspire students to study full Hebrew.) (2) You will not be able to dispute scholars on the basis of your knowledge of Hebrew, but you can ask questions and better follow the arguments of various scholars with different views, helping you make informed choices. As Mounce says in GRU[Greek for the Rest of Us] (p. x), it's not a little bit of knowledge that is a dangerous thing, “it is a little bit of arrogance that is dangerous.” Knowing everything is this book will not make you an expert.—Hebrew for the Rest of Us, page x

I must admit that this disarmed many of my fears and allowed me to look at the book from a more nearly neutral starting point. That this same caveat is repeated at page 158 in different words was also reassuring. In fact, page 162 has a wonderful warning: ...you must not forget that this is not a full Hebrew course. Even a student who completes a two-year course in biblical Hebrew is not knowledgeable enough to engage in exegesis completely independent from the work of professionals. However, you are in a position to make more detailed observations of the text and better understand commentators and translations.” This phrase should be emblazoned on the forearms, chests, foreheads, etc., of everyone who ever says, “What the Hebrew/Greek really says is...,” as if 2000+ years of translation history missed it, and you suddenly discovered it with Strong's dictionary and the Internet!

But, I digress. the layout of the book is very student-friendly. The tables and charts are helpful and assist greatly in the understanding of concepts. He goes into enough detail to give the pre-Hebrew student a basis to understand the basic problems and challenges of the Hebrew verbal system. This is reinforced in the exercises, which frequently have you compare several translations, with an eye to understanding why they differ.

After laying out all the basics of Hebrew grammar with a good deal of syntax along the way, the book turns to putting it all together in exegesis. The list of word study pitfalls to avoid on pages 229-230 is excellent. If you get nothing else from the book, this is worth the price of admission. He includes a chapter on resources, and how to choose them. The book concludes with a chapter on Hebrew prose, and another on Hebrew poetry.

Still, I am left wondering at the end of it, why not learn Hebrew? If all I knew were the things in the book, I would be left wishing I had more knowledge. You are left totally dependent on analytical tools for parsing, concordances for roots, or, if you prefer, the electronic texts that are tagged. I would find that endlessly frustrating. In the end, it seems that you would save more time over the long-haul investing your time in actually learning the language. It would be like trying to read Tolstoy in Russian with only a grammar and dictionary; you could do it, but the time required...

What about the self-learner? I would say, forget it. This book is designed to have a teacher who knows Hebrew supplement the materials (although he does have a website which I did not check). If you really want to learn enough Hebrew to get through the materials, you are better off learning first year Hebrew from one of the traditional (modern!) grammars, such as Futato, Seow, Ross, Pratico, Kelley, etc., which either contain an answer key, or have an annotated answer key available.

<idle musing>
Now for the shocker: Not everybody should learn Hebrew (or Greek—double shocker!). Contrary to what you might gather from language snobs/elitists, such as myself, the translations available are quite good! Sure, there are nuances, and the depth of meaning is greater in the original, but will that make you a “better Christian?” Chances are pretty good that it won't! In fact, if you are prone to pride, unless God calls you to learn the language (and even then), you will be on a very dangerous slope with a thin lifeline!

When you get to the “pearly gates,” God won't ask you to parse a verb or decline a noun. He won't ask about the concords or word order. He isn't concerned about your head knowledge except as it causes you to fall in worship at his feet. And you don't need Greek or Hebrew to do that. In fact, throughout most of history, most people couldn't even read, yet they managed to know God quite well...

So, Jesse, are you sorry you gave me the book to review? :)
</idle musing>

Would that it were so...

“The process of “educated guessing” should result in your formulation of a working thesis about the meaning of the text. This working thesis will be constantly revised and reformulated as your exegetical work continues. Scholars and good exegetes willingly seek out facts and details that might disconfirm their hypotheses. In fact, therefore, your final interpretation of a text may be quite contrary to your preliminary educated guess.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 65

<idle musing>
Would that it were true! Too often we get wed to our initial thesis and only let go of it with kicking and screaming. Perhaps a little (or, more likely, a lot) of humility would go a long ways here...
</idle musing>

Interlinears

An appropriate post for Christmas? I think so :)

One popular middle ground between an English translation and a Hebrew Bible or Greek Testament is the “interlinear Bible,” in which a very wooden translation of each word is placed above or below the line of Hebrew or Greek text. For readers who have some familiarity with the original language and use this tool as a way to refresh their memories, it may have a useful function if employed cautiously. However, a little bit of knowledge of Hebrew or Greek can be dangerous, and combining such knowledge with the peculiar English renderings found in an interlinear Bible can be disastrous. People who do not read the original languages with some degree of competence should stay clear of interlinear Bibles and rely on good translations and solid research for their exegesis.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, pages 38-39

<idle musing>
Amen! In fact, I would go even further and outlaw the use of an interlinear...
</idle musing>

Quote for today

A real translation is in the main an interpretation.—James Moffatt, Bible translator (1870–1944) (from The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 35)

What can I contribute?

“because of each reader’s own unique experiences and “location,” he or she will have insight into the Bible that no one else will have. Each reader can learn to bring together literary and historical perspectives as well as personal experience to understand a written text in a way that is unique to that individual and that contributes to the ongoing conversation about the text.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, pages 24-25

<idle musing>
This insight is at the heart of why we need to listen to everyone—and why everyone can teach, although maybe not formally. God speaks to everyone, and everyone hears that voice in a unique way. As we share together what God is saying to each of us, we all grow.

Am I advocating relativism here? Absolutely not! The voice of God will not contradict scripture, but it will cause us to see things in a fresh way. This is one of the strengths of small group meetings, be they house churches, or informal bible studies.

Besides,...
</idle musing>

...as Rudolf Bultmann, the great German biblical scholar of the first half of the twentieth century, said, there is no exegesis without presuppositions[“Is Exegesis without Presuppositions Possible?” in Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann (trans. Schubert Ogden; New York: Meridian, 1960), 342–51]. We all come to the text with interests in it, maybe even an agenda. Biblical texts compel us to ask not only “What?” but “So what?” Historical and literary critics we may be, or wish to become, but we are also human beings seeking an encounter with truths and realities to
which sacred texts point.

Refusing to consider responsible reflection on and with the text as an aspect of exegesis is shortsighted and unnecessary. Most exegetes have their eyes on “two horizons”—the horizon, or world, of the biblical text itself, and the horizon, or world, of their own personal and corporate experience.—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 27

But, how far do we go?

“It should be noted that some contemporary theological exegetes zealously advocate the overthrow of most modern or critical, especially historical-critical, approaches to the Bible (those developed largely since the Enlightenment) in favor of premodern or precritical (pre- Enlightenment) exegesis. Such ancient methods (including, for example, allegorical reading of the text) had their appropriate pride of place in their day, and they still have much to teach us. It is unlikely, however, that we can or should simply return to premodern ways of reading and ignore the contributions of modern scholarship. Ironically, some advocates of precritical approaches employ very modern philosophical understandings of language and meaning to justify their rejection of modern critical methods.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 21

More ice pictures

These were taken Saturday.

The willow tree in the back yard:


The backyard looking toward the creek:


One of the bushes by the house, the others all look about the same:


The view from the front yard, right outside my study window:


The elm tree in our front yard. It lost 4 big limbs on one side:


The barn:


One of our lilac bushes didn't fare so well:

Elements of Biblical Exegesis

Bobby at Hendrickson recently (well, not so recently anymore!) gave me a copy of Gorman's The Elements of Biblical Exegesis to read. He thought I would enjoy the section on theological interpretation, since Eisenbrauns publishes JTI. He was correct, but I enjoyed more than that, so how about you join me in a ride through the book for the next 2 weeks or so?

Let's start with the introduction

...arguably the most important development in the field of biblical studies since the turn of the twenty-first century has been the turn (or, rather, return) to the theological interpretation of Scripture. This development expresses a deep desire on the part of many biblical scholars and theologians to explore and articulate ways of biblical interpretation that attend to the biblical text primarily as theological text, as vehicle of divine revelation and address. To many outside the theological guild but inside the church (and perhaps even outside it), such a focus is altogether self-evident and natural. To many inside the guild, however, years of exposure to nontheological interpretation have made reading the Bible as Scripture seem almost abnormal, and those of us who wish to change this bias are aware of the challenges before us as we attempt to move forward in the appropriately theological task of biblical interpretation...

...despite the location of the extended discussion of theological interpretation near the end of the book, readers should not conclude that theological interpretation is an afterthought,
or that it takes place only after all the “real work” of critical or scientific (historical and literary) exegesis is finished. Rather, theological interpretation involves an attitude, a modus operandi, and a goal (telos) that permeate the entire process. In sum, theological interpretation means reading the scriptural text as closely and carefully as possible, employing the best methodologies available, because theological interpreters believe that during and after that process they can hear God speak in and through the text.—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 1, 2

<idle musing>
I like the way he put that, theological interpretation is the telos of exegesis, with the ultimate goal of transformed hearts and lives. This can only come as we listen to the voice of God speaking to us as we wrestle with the text.

He adds an important caveat: “Exegesis, then, is investigation, conversation, and art. As conversation and art, exegesis requires an openness to others and to the text that method alone cannot provide.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 12.

This is vital! Openness, especially to those who disagree with us! It is boring reading only those who agree, there is no stimulus, no fresh thought, no new blood. We need someone who disagrees, or at least sees things differently, to shake us from our complacency and set way of reading the text. The Holy Spirit can, and does, do that, but frequently it is through using others.
</idle musing>

And then there were three...

Time for an update on the cats, so for those of you who don't care about cats, stop reading :)

For most of the summer we had 2 adult cats and 3 kittens that were hanging around our place. Toward the end of September, someone dropped off a young tiger-striped male. He seemed friendly enough, so we let him stay. So then there were six.

But, after about a week, he got mean and started driving the other cats away. We had to take him to the animal shelter. So then there were five again.

A few weeks later, one of the kittens disappeared. From what we gathered, he was adopted by someone on the other side of the creek. So then there were four.

As it started getting colder, one of the kittens got sick. We had called her “Puff” because she was just a little puff of fur. Once she got sick, she started losing weight fast, and one Saturday, about 2 weeks ago, she died. So, then there were three.

Right now, there are three cats, two living in the barn, and one in a shelter by the back porch. They are all healthy and it looks like that will be our cat population through the winter, although yesterday I saw a black and white striped male go into the barn, so maybe there will be four...

Ice!

We had an ice storm last night/this morning. It really is pretty, with all the trees coated with ice. But, some people are without electricity and more than a few tree limbs have fallen. In fact, about 11:00 this morning we heard a crack and thud which shook the front half of the office. The top of a tree had snapped off from the weight of the ice and landed on the roof—almost on top of my office! It didn't damage anything, just scared us half to death.

Here are few pictures from just outside the office:
Looking to the south


The front of the office, you can see part of the Eisenbrauns sign:


This is a small flower right by the front door.

Soloviev and Theosis

“Divinization for Soloviev does not mean monastic self-cultivation, but human participation in the divine project of transforming persons, institutions, society, and even the physical world.”—Theosis, page 171

<idle musing>
That seems to be a recurrent theme in this book. Divinization/theosis/deification is intended to be something that is lived out as part of life. It is not something just for the secluded monk in a monastery somewhere, but it is something God does in the life of every believer. A good thought to take with us throughout life!
</idle musing>

Theosis and the Trinity

“Theosis is the work of the Triune God in making human persons participate in or partake of the divine nature, a participation in the Triune communion or perichoresis. Through being united to Jesus Christ the God-man, we are united to his divinized humanity and through that relationship we enjoy fellowship with God.”—Theosis, page 167

Torrance, again

“Through the appeal to justification as involving both declaration and deification Torrance anticipates the move within Lutheran scholarship to see Luther's doctrine of justification as more than a declaratory 'legal fiction,' but as actually involving the making righteous of the sinner through deification. Like Torrance, Luther does not separate the person of Christ from his work. Rather, Christ himself, both his person and his work, is the ground of Christian righteousness as the believer participates in the divine nature through Christ. As we have already noted, this became a hallmark of Luther's own theology: Christ is really present in the faith of the Christian (in ipsa fide Christus adest).”—Theosis, page 165

<idle musing>
Too bad that aspect of Luther's theology has not gotten more attention. Until I read this book, I had not heard this, but then, I don't read a lot of Luther.
</idle musing>

Eisenbrauns' Christmas party

Last Thursday night we had our annual Christmas party. You would expect something a bit different at an Eisenbrauns party, wouldn't you? Well, we had a limerick contest. The object was to come up with a limerick that was either about Christmas or Eisenbrauns. In case you don't remember, a limerick is five lines, the 1, 2, and 5 lines rhyme and are 8 syllables. The 3 & 4 line rhyme with each other and are 5 syllables long. We had five teams, and I managed to snag some of the results:

Each morning we know Mike's around
When we hear that bean grinding sound
His java he brews
His fresh fruit he chews
and soon our IT woes are drowned

Michael is our IT guy, and he makes freshly ground coffee each morning. He drinks that along with eating a huge plate of fresh fruit, hence the limerick.

There once was a worker named Dave
Who cut corners in order to save
Then along came Big Jim
Who gave kudos to him
And the whole office crowd did “the wave”

Dave is our business manager, and he has recently been coming up with some money saving ideas.

There once was a Merna and Jim
packed with books in a trailer so slim
a logos' appeal
drawn from cylinder seal
and so Rex the Ibex begins

Merna and Jim started Eisenbrauns in their trailer while Jim was a graduate student at the University of Michigan. The Eisenbrauns logo, the ibex, was chosen from a book of cylinder seal impressions. He didn't have a name until about 3 years ago, when Robin decided to name him Rex. It stuck, so now we have Rex the Ibex.

There once was a bookman named Jim
Eisenbrauns was the brainchild of him
He publishes in Greek,
Hebrew, German, and geek
While growing a beard needing trim

The funniest part of this one is that the person who composed it has a beard longer than Jim's :)

Can you come up with a limerick about Eisenbrauns?

Torrance on Theosis

“'...union with Christ lies at the heart of our righteousness in him, for it is through that union that we actually participate in his holy life' [Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction, page 151]. It is this participation or union with God which makes us truly holy, not just legally so. 'Justification is not only the forgiveness of sins, but the bestowal of a positive righteousness that derives from beyond us, and which we have through union with Christ.'[ibid., pages 151-152]”—Theosis, page 164

<idle musing>
Truly righteous, not just imputed, but imparted! It is all by God's grace, but it is truly imparted, not just some legal fiction! This is true salvation! This is what makes life in Christ victorious! Christ in us, the hope of glory, as the scripture says.
</idle musing>

Angry people

This is a link to a link, something I rarely do, but it is too good not to link to...

So what are we producing, if not disciples? Judging from many things I have seen and read over the past couple years, it seems like we a producing angry people. Angry because they feel like they've been deceived. Some of them have been promised a changed life, but instead were taught Christian doctrines and precepts. We've produced Apathetic people. Apathetic to the gospel, to the Church, and even to Jesus. We've produced people with false-security. These people went to all the classes, they attended all the services, and followed all the rules, little do they know that these actions won’t save them. There are probably other types of people that we have produced but I think Jesus had a phrase that best sums up these false-disciples, "White Washed Tombs". On the outside, they look brilliant, pure, and white… but on the inside, they are filled with death.

Who are our disciples? Our disciples are the people who truly follow us… and hopefully watch us truly follow Jesus. Jesus did not force people to follow him, he did not even try to prevent people from leaving him, his disciples were those who recognized him as savior and could do nothing but follow. Basically, Jesus shared his life with everyone, those who shared it back were his disciples.

This goes along with a post that Jon at The Theos Project put up over the weekend.

My struggle is that I see all of Christianity as a fad, commercialized, consumer- and market-driven. To say "I am a Christian" is not to say that one identifies with Christ, but that one identifies with some form of a hyper-commercialized movement.

This explains, in part, the fact that the church has such a difficult time retaining those who are passionate about changing the world, have a heart for joining believers in open/authentic community, and have intelligent minds that desire to challenge status quo thinking. These are three key types of people that seem to be lacking in most church institutions. Most institutions tend to prefer organizing around static beliefs/practices rather than letting dynamic people loose to affect genuine change.

<idle musing>
Not much I can add to either of them...but then I ran across this post over at Out of Ur:
</idle musing>

Economists are asking what would happen if we built our economy on production, savings, and manufacturing rather than spending and debt. Pastors should be asking what would happen if we built our mission on people’s core time rather than leisure time. What if we could tap into the 80+ hours people spend every week on the job, with their families, and engaging in life’s ordinary responsibilities? Of course, this would require a fundamental shift in the way we think about mission and institution. Here are a few implications:

1.It would mean helping people see the missional dignity of ordinary work; communicating that their jobs matter to Christ and his kingdom, not just what happens within the walls of the church.

2.It would mean elevating the role of family and household relationships as vehicles for spiritual growth and missional engagement. Yes, raising children and caring for aging parents honors God and advances his kingdom just as, if not more, than institutional church programs.

3.It would mean not extracting people from their lives and communities to engage in church programming or committees unless absolutely necessary, but equipping them to live in communion with Christ within the context he has placed them.

4.It would shift the focus of Sunday worship away from mission and outreach to a time of celebration and encouragement for Christians who are engaged in mission the other six days of the week.

5.It would mean deploying church leaders outside the institution to engage members in their native contexts; mentoring and coaching on their turf rather than ours.

6.It would mean a radical adjustment in what the church celebrates-not institutional expansion or programmatic growth, but stories of ordinary people incarnating Christ at home, at work, at school…everywhere life happens.

<idle musing>
Wow! You mean having the church function as a church? Too radical! Maybe this recession/depression is from God? Nah! Can't be, after all, God exists only to satisfy my selfish wants and desires, right? Right? What is that noise I hear? Oh, just the sound of 2000 years of saints who gave their life to God and let HIM set the agenda and live through them. Maybe american christianity isn't as Christian as we think?
<idle musing>

The Reformation and Theosis

“The West has historically given far more attention to moral holiness and so has focused on the elimination of sin as culpa rather than on salvation as liberation from moral corruption. While the them of theosis is not a dominant one in the West, it is not without its supporters.”—Theosis, page 146

<idle musing>
And that focus has caused us to miss the heart of salvation, in my opinion. We are so focused on eliminating culpa (blame) that we miss the heart of God, which is conforming us into His likeness. I think this alone is reason enough to hold to multiple views of the atonement. To say that the only acceptable view of the atonement is penal substitution is the cut off the possibility of deification/theosis.
</idle musing>

Spectacular failure

I enjoy cooking and baking, as you have probably gathered. Usually things turn out pretty well, and get eaten quite quickly, but every now and then I turn out something that isn't quite edible :)

I have been making a low-fat mayonnaise now for about 6 months. I like it, but I wanted the texture to be a bit less granular (it uses cornstarch), so I decided to try tapioca flour as the thickener. After all, tapioca pudding isn't granular, but smooth. The package said to use twice as much tapioca flour as corn starch, but I thought that might be a bit much. Good thing I didn't double it! As it was, it turned out like glue. It was just one big gooey mess. You certainly couldn't spread it on anything!

I waited for it to cool, and then took a rubber scraper to it. It all came out in one big gooey ball into the garbage. So much for tapioca flour as a thickener! Back to the cornstarch...

Maximus the Confessor (588-620) on Theosis

“...in Maximus's view, God will recognize and divinize His own, that is, those who willfully employ their true nature. An intense yearning for relationship with the Creator, as well as an ability to fulfill it, was bestowed on the human race by God Himself, who ever moves His creation toward its end in Himself: 'He sets in movement in us an insatiable desire for himself who is the Bread of Life, wisdom, knowledge, and justice.” Unceasingly, God transposes willing humanity 'from the lower to the greater,' 'from glory to glory,' to divinization.”—Theosis, page 135-136

More Augustine

“Deification does not occur in the isolated peace of the quiet, contemplative life, or in the seclusion of retreat, but rather it beings in the 'craftsman's furnace' (fornax artificis), in this 'world full of scandals, iniquities, corruption, oppression' (Dolbeau 6:12). He tells his flock that they find themselves in the age of the 'oil press' and the screws are being tightened so as to separate the oil from the dregs (6.15). He speaks not to the spiritual elite who have chosen Mary's 'better part,' but instead to many Martha's who cannot but help find themselves engaged in worldly toil.”—Theosis, page 128

<idle musing>
I like that word picture. Very appropriate for today. And the same Holy Spirit presence that empowered people back then is still available to us today.
</idle musing>

Augustine on Theosis

Yep; Augustine wrote on theosis. Surprised? So was I.

Augustine “believed his teaching on deification was based on Scripture” [Bonner in “Augustine's Conception of Deification,” JTS n.s. 37 (1986) 369-386] and he rejected the Plotinian idea that deification could be achieved by the independent efforts of a philosopher, unaided by grace; deification was possible only “from a participation in God made possible by divine initiative.” [Bonner, ibid.]

The “christocentricity” of Augustine's thought was integrated into his understanding of deification; Augustine says clearly that “adoption by grace” is impossible without the mediation of the God-man. Augustine, like the Greek Fathers, us the language of “participation” in God, and he was in agreement with the theologies of both Irenaeus and Athanasius (Bonner cites Serm. 192.1: “To make gods those who were men, He was made man who is God”).—Theosis, page 124

Sing and Learn NT Greek

Thanks to Jesse at Zondervan, I received a copy of Sing and Learn New Testament Greek while at SBL. He had been trying to send me a copy for a while, but it never got here. Seems there is a black hole between Michigan and Indiana that sucked it in each time :(

Anyway, I have been listening to it off and on for the last 2 weeks. I have to say, it is catchy. The singer, Kenneth Berding, has a good voice for it. The songs are done in Erasmian Greek, but without the omicron being pronounced as "ah" which happens too often in Koine. Huh? you say. OK, how do you pronounce λόγος? Is it LOGOS with long oh sound, or is it LAGAS with an ah sound? Most Koine in the U.S. is with the short ah sound, which is wrong even in Erasmian pronunciation.

The booklet that comes with the CD is definitely important to look at before you listen, or at least while listening, the first time. Without it, you won't understand about 75% of the songs. The songs are generally just the endings without any lemmas. That's fine, as long as you read the booklet and understand what is going on, otherwise you will wonder what 313 or 212 mean in the participle song (it's the declension, by the way).

I put the CD on I-tunes™ here at Eisenbrauns and at least one other person listens to it—and will probably buy a copy. Even the people who don't know/care about Greek think it is interesting. After all, who ever thought of Greek set to nursery rhyme tunes?

What's my favorite? That's a tough one. I like the preposition song, but the ειμί song is nice, too. Of course, the alphabet song is fun, too. I guess whatever is playing at the moment is good. What I thought would be nothing but a novelty has turned into something I will periodically play for the fun of it. I might even find myself singing it...

Here's all the bibliographic information (we are out of stock right now, but I have more on order):

Sing and Learn New Testament Greek
Includes 1 Audio CD and a 36-Page Guide

by Kenneth Berding
Zondervan Publishing Company, 2008
Greek
Compact Disc (audio)
ISBN: 9780310280996
List Price: $14.99
Your Price: $12.74
www.eisenbrauns.com/wconnect/wc.dll?ebGate~EIS~~I~CDSINGAN

Please pray

We have a contract programmer who just had a baby, named Lia. Lia is not doing well. In fact, she is in the neo-natal intensive care unit on life support. Her white blood cell count is zero—yes, zero. I don't know if this link will work for everyone, but I'll try it anyway. Here it is.

Athanasius on theosis

Athanasius exhorts his flock to 'imitate the deeds of the saints,' but warns immediately thereafter that 'when we render a recompense to the Lord to the utmost of our power...we give nothing of our own, but those things which we have before received (accepimus) from Him, this being especially of His grace, that He should require, as from us, His own gifts.' What we have received by grace is necessary for our salvatin, but not in such a way as to obviate the equally critical necessity of human response. Athanasius even views Christ's exhortations to the imitation of God as acts of grace themselves...Far from being incorporated into the Logos automatically or mechanically, then believers must be vigilant over the conduct of their lives by cooperating with this didactic grace of Christ if they hope to have a divinizing share in Him.”&mdashTheosis, pages 112-113

<idle musing>
All grace, all the time! Never by human effort! Self-help christianity never was an option for the Patristic theologians; it was always by the empowering presence of God.

How far we have strayed. Look at the top sellers on the Christian Booksellers Association list. Whatever isn't entertaining fiction, is almost without exception self-help spirituality. You don't need the blood of Jesus or the power of the Holy Spirit to accomplish that stuff. Of course, it is all a facade that is shown to be such by the first passing storm.
</idle musing>

Irenaeus on theosis

“...long before Arius appeared on the scene to propose a created savior, it is evident that Irenaeus has already seen and identified the exigency which both Athanasius and the Cappadocians will exploit in developing their cases against Arius and Eunomius respectively, to wit, that for the final beatitude of human salvation to be secure eternally (unlike Adam's 'infantile' and capricious possession of the same), it must involve a participation in or union with the immutable, eternal God.”—Theosis, page 99

Death as a divine remedy?

"Death by itself was not the final divine judgment against Adam, but reather a divine remedy so that Adam would not stay in a sinful state forever; and at the appointed time, through resurrection, he would become new and perfect, righteous and immortal. God 'gave him an occasion for repentance and confession.' [Theophilus of Antioch]”—Theosis, page 78

Divine-human covenant

“Divine-human covenants are unattested in human religious history except in Israel. McCarthy's reconstruction [in Treaty and Covenant] not only legitimates the traditional understanding of the centrality of the Israelite covenantal idea but illuminates significant corollaries, such as salvation history being essentially a narrative explaining that history is the arena of God's recurrent attempts to restore humankind—that is, Adam, created in His image and likeness as His son—to family unity. The reason for the divine institution of successive covenants is the failure of preceding ones to realize God's purposes.”—Theosis, page 23

The Old Testament and Theosis

“Utilizing the threads of the Old Testament to present itself as its fulfillment, the New Testament can hardly be understood without the Old. The New is the fruit growing from the ground of the Old. By His incarnation and Resurrection, the Christ reminds us (against certain Greek instincts) that it is eminently good to be incarnate, in this world and the next, thus grounding St. Irenaeus's famous saying that 'God's glory is man fully alive.' Without the penultimate word of the Old, the proclamation and reception of Jesus as the Christ is meaningless and the Eucharist, implemented by him in the context of a Jewish Pasch, identified by him with the priestly 'blood of the covenant' and the prophetic 'new covenant,' is incomprehensible. If the Christ is incomprehensible without the Old Testament, this must also be the case with theosis.”—Theosis, pages 17-18

The goal of salvation

“Doctrines about baptism and the Eucharist, the resurrection of the dead, eternal life, the image of God in human beings, redemption, and sanctification contain themes that relate to theosis. But simply replacing theosis with sanctification is an attempt to supplant Patristic theology with standard Reformation language. Deification [the Latin version of theosis (θέωσις)] was often seen as the telos (goal) of human existance and of salvation”—Theosis, page 5

<idle musing>
This last sentence is very important. As Protestants/Roman Catholics, we tend to view sanctification as the goal of salvation, but that sells God far short of what the Patristic and Apostolic Fathers had in mind. The book will flesh this out as we go on.
</idle musing>

Eisenbrauns December sale

It is always tough to chose a December sale. Usually it is anti-climactic after the deep discounts at SBL. This year is no different, but I think I managed to come up with a winner. We'll see as the month progresses :)

Here's the copy from BookNews:

During the month of December, Eisenbrauns is offering a selection of Greek and Hebrew references from the United Bible Societies, both texts and reference works, at great savings. Pick up the incomparable Tübinger Bibelatlas for an unprecedented 50% off, your choice of UBS or N-A texts for 50% off, Lust's LXX lexicon for 40% off, and a number of other amazing deals.

Here's a selection:

"Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Small format"
Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart, 1987. Cloth. Hebrew.
ISBN: 3438052199
List Price: $69.95 Your Price: $41.97

"Septuaginta"
Edited by Alfred Rahlfs
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart, 1979. Cloth. Greek.
ISBN: 3438051214
List Price: $71.99 Your Price: $36.00

"Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint"
Edited by J. Lust, Erik Eynikel, and K. Hauspie
American Bible Society, 2004. hard cover. English and Greek.
ISBN: 3438051249
List Price: $119.99 Your Price: $71.99

"Biblia Sacra Utriusque Testamenti: Editio Hebraica et Graeca"
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart, 1994. Cloth. Greek and Hebrew.
ISBN: 3438052504
List Price: $139.99 Your Price: $70.00

"Tubinger Bibelatlas / Tubingen Bible Atlas"
Edited by Siegfried Mittmann and Gotz Schmitt
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart, 2001. Cloth. German and English.
ISBN: 3438060221
List Price: $150.00 Your Price: $75.00

"UBS Greek New Testament: A Reader's Edition"
Edited by Barbara Aland and Barclay M., Jr. Newman
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart, 2008. Cloth. English and Greek.
ISBN: 9783438051509
List Price: $69.95 Your Price: $34.98

Check out all the great prices here.

Theosis

I just finished Theosis the other day and will be extracting bits and pieces of it over the next week or so. Theosis (Greek θέωσις) is truly an amazing idea. This book looks at its history throughout the ages, beginning with the apostolic fathers and right up into the early 20th century. The first few quotes are from the introduction.

“All of this [θέωσις] depends upon, and revolves around, Christianity's central and unique idea: the incarnation—in Christ, God lived a human life. The incarnation is the definitive and unique doctrine of Christianity. Further, without the incarnation, there would be no theosis. Christians are meant not only to learn from the life of the divine Son, but to reproduce the pattern of spiritual progress that he revealed, even to the point of taking on the character of God!”—Theosis, page 4