The Amazing Romans 16

Papyrus 46 - Romans 16:4-13

I bet people most people skim right through (or right over) Romans 16, thinking it's just a list of names.

DON'T DO IT!!!

Look at the list:

"I commend to you Phoebe" - a woman - probably the person Paul trusted to carry his letter to Rome - "a deacon(ess)" [the masculine term diakonos is used, hence it likely refers to an office she held, and not just a statement that she was a "servant"] - "she has been a prostatis to many and to myself, too" - i.e., a benefactor, perhaps a wealthy or powerful citizen who introduced Paul to the persons in her city, or even protected Paul and supplied his needs, etc.

"Greet Prisca and Aquila" - note that Prisca's (Priscilla's), a woman's name, comes first (as it does in most of the other New Testament mentions of this couple) - and she is a "fellow-worker" too, one who risked her own neck for Paul's life. And ... she has a church in her house.

"Greet Mary" - another woman.

"Greet Andronicus and Junia" - a woman - one who is "well known to the apostles" or "outstanding among the apostles" - i.e., possibly a woman apostle. John Chrysostum and the Early Church Fathers took the Greek to mean that she was an apostle.

Dan Wallace reports that a massive computer search of Greek literature shows that the construction of the phrase overwhelmingly favors the translation "well known to the apostles." See Innovations in the Text and Translation of the NET Bible, New Testament - II.B.2. Also see Junia Among the Apostles: The Double Identification Problem in Romans 16:7 and Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7.

A discussion (June 3, 2002ff.) on B-Greek cites Eldon Jay Epp, "Text-Critical, Exegetical, and Socio-cultural Factors affecting the Junia/Junias Variation in Romans 16,7," pp. 227-291 in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel, Edited by A. Denaux, BETL 161, Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2002, in opposition to Wallace's conclusions, however. (I can't find this discussion in the B-Greek archives now.) And Suzanne McCarthy has a seven-part rebuttal to the Wallace-Burer position: McCarthy vs Wallace (and Grudem)

Whether or not an apostle, the name is "Junia," i.e., a woman, and not a shortened version of the male "Junianus" - an apparent fiction invented by those who found the idea of a woman apostle hard to accept. "Junias" (the Greek form - accusative case) was considered to be a woman at least until the 13th century, as Douglas Moo writes in his acclaimed commentary on Romans. (Epp - see above - apparently argues for the name being masculine.)

"Greet Tryphaena and Tryphosa" - also women.

"Persis" is a woman, as the description of her as "the beloved" is in the feminine gender.

"Greet Rufus the chosen one in the Lord and his mother - and mine also." Now, if this is the same Rufus who was the son of Simon the Cyrene, who carried Jesus's cross, since Cyrene is in Africa, Simon and hence Rufus were likely Black - and Paul is claiming Rufus' mother as being like his own mother. So now we have another praiseworthy woman, and an African one at that.

"Greet Julia" - another woman ... "and Nerea's sister" (a woman).

Not to mention that, as Moo points out, Paul identifies three, and possibly five separate house churches (vv. 5,14,15; cf. also vv. 10,11).

(I originally wrote and/or last edited this June 23, 2002 when I used to have a Web page, though I have updated/added the links.)

Same-Sex Marriage: Church And State

Some of my thoughts on same-sex marriage:

1. CHURCH: I've discussed what I see as a problem for the church when it comes to same-sex marriage here: The Church And Same-Sex Unions.


2. MARRIAGE: I regard "marry" and "marriage" to mean pairing complements, not sames. Though a few definitions or examples of "marry" are about pairing "likes" (e.g., "marry" the strands of a rope), most meanings are about combining complements to form something new that still reflects the different natures or physical properties of the two "partners" - marry French and Asian cuisine; marry two different art or musical styles; etc. In perhaps a related way, you can say that you "marry" red + blue to make purple, whereas you would never refer to red + red or blue + blue as being a "marrying" of the two colors.
   
   Thus, it seems to me that whatever else gay couples have in their relationships and activities that are similar to what heterosexual couples have and do, to refer to their partnerships as "marriages" may be an oxymoron.
   
   A commenter responded to my draft version of this post that there are other ways two persons can be complementary besides biological sex, and that a definition of marriage based on complementarity thus need not preclude same-sex couples.


3. SEX: I'd also say, based on what "sexual reproduction" means, that two same-sex persons cannot have "sex," because one of the two types of genitals necessary to engage in the process of "sexual" reproduction is not present in same-sex erotic or physical activities or actions.
   
   The same commenter responded that infertile couples would, by this definition, not be considered to be "married." However, I am not discussing "marriage" in this point, only "sex." The additional comment they made that we would have to use words other than "sex" for non-coital erotic activities that cannot result in reproduction may be in line with what I am asserting here, so perhaps the word "sex" (as in "sex act") should be restricted to male-female genital congress.
   
   As the commenter pointed out, semantic arguments often require not only identical philosophical positions but also agreement on the definitions used in all their nuances, because if this isn't so, then as soon as people have any differences, the arguments either fail completely or leave both parties agreeing to disagree. It's thus probably impractical or non-productive to argue that "marriage" and "sex" by definition cannot apply to same-sex partnerships, because many parties to the debate would probably not accept my limited semantic definitions of "marry/marriage" and "sex."


4. GOVERNMENT: From a civil government point of view, I think some questions that need to be asked and discussed are:
   • Does the state have an interest in benefiting or protecting marriage? If "yes," what reasons does it have for doing so? Which of those reasons would apply to same-sex partnerships, and which would not?
   • Can or should "marriage" be allowed to be between more than two persons? Why or why not? If it can or should, should the state benefit or protect such partnerships? Why or why not?
   • Can "marriage" include same-sex partnerships? If not, and if the state benefits and protects marriage, do same-sex partnerships deserve the same benefits and protections as heterosexual marriages, but under something other than the term "marriage"? Why or why not?
   I think people on both sides have operated on assumed answers to these questions without actually asking and thinking through the questions.
   
   It seems to me that if the state wishes to continue to benefit and protect marriage and give committed same-sex couples the rights and benefits and protections they probably deserve as voting and tax-paying and property-owning citizens of our society, then the term "marriage" should probably be extended to include such relationships. Why have two identical sets of laws, or one set of laws that repeatedly uses two different terms, for two types of relationships that legally differ in name only? Wouldn't it make more sense to define "marriage" to include both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, and then go on to list the provisions of the law by saying "in the case of a married couple..." rather than having to say each time "in the case of a married couple or a legally-established same-sex partnership..."?
   
   » Arguments for the state's interest in benefiting and protecting marriage, and against defining "marriage" to include same-sex couples, are presented in this book: The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, and Morals, by Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain, Editors.

» This book argues against granting married partners special rights vis-a-vis non-married families, and also gives a good history and overview of marriage and gay-rights laws: Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law, by Nancy D. Polikoff. For an idea of Polikoff's thesis, read this article (adapted from her book) from Vol. 61 No. 3 of the Rutgers Law Review: "Equality and Justice for Lesbian and Gay Families and Relationships".


5. BIBLE: I have not been fully persuaded by those scholars and writers who argue that the Bible is not against loving and committed same-sex sexual partnerships and/or who argue that the Bible would put same-sex sexual partnerships on par with male-female marriages. I have read a lot of those books over the years (Boswell, Countryman, etc.), though I no longer have most of them.
   
   I also often hear or read the claim that Jesus never said anything against homosexuals or homosexuality, but as I was reading Mark's Gospel the other day, when I came to Chapter 10 and his teachings about marriage and divorce, it seemed to me that his affirmation and endorsement of combining Genesis 1:27, Genesis 5:2, and Genesis 2:24 re: what marriage is could be seen as a rejection of male-male or female-female marriages.
   
   Robert Gagnon (anti same-sex unions) has written much about what he believes the Scriptures teach on this, though I have not read his book that he is best known for, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics.
   
   However, classical philologist Jean-Fabrice Nardelli takes Gagnon to task here, and then replies to Gagnon's response.

"I Just Believe What The Bible Teaches"

From Zondervan:

• How Jewish Is Christianity?: 2 Views on the Messianic Movement
• Two Views on Women in Ministry
• Remarriage after Divorce in Today's Church: 3 Views
• Three Views on Creation and Evolution
• Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism
• Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond
• Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament
• Three Views on the Rapture: Pre; Mid; or Post-Tribulation
• Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation
• Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?: Four Views
• Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide
• Understanding Four Views on Baptism
• Understanding Four Views on the Lord's Supper
• Who Runs the Church?: Four Views on Church Government
• Four Views of Youth Ministry and the Church: Inclusive Congregational, Preparatory, Missional, Strategic
• Four Views on Christian Spirituality
• Four Views on Divine Providence
• Four Views on Eternal Security
• Four Views on Hell
• Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology
• Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World
• Four Views on the Apostle Paul
• Four Views on the Book of Revelation
• Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism
• Evaluating the Church Growth Movement: 5 Views
• Five Views on Apologetics
• Five Views on Law and Gospel
• Five Views on Sanctification
• Exploring the Worship Spectrum: Six Views

From InterVarsity Press:

• Two Views of Hell
• Baptism: Three Views
• What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized
• Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views
• Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views
• God & Morality: Four Views
• God & Time: Four Views
• Science & Christianity: Four Views
• The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views
• The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views
• Women in Ministry: Four Views
• Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views
• Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification
• Church, State and Public Justice: Five Views
• Justification: Five Views
• Psychology & Christianity: Five Views
• The Historical Jesus: Five Views
• The Lord's Supper: Five Views

From B&H Academic:

• Perspectives on Family Ministry: Three Views
• Perspectives on Our Struggle with Sin: Three Views
• Perspectives on Children's Spiritual Formation: Four Views
• Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views
• Perspectives on Election: Four Views
• Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views
• Perspectives on the Sabbath: Four Views
• Perspectives on Tithing: Four Views
• Perspectives on Your Child's Education: Four Views
• Perspectives on Christian Worship: Five Views
• Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views
• Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: Five Views

Added 12/20/12:

From Baker Academic:

• Understanding Spiritual Warfare: Four Views

What Is Wrong With Homosexuality?

So, what exactly is wrong with homosexuality or homosexual acts? Or more specifically, since this is a Biblical/Christian theology blog: Does the Bible or the church teach against homosexuality or homosexual activity? If so:

• Why does it do so?
• Is it right for it to do so? and
• Do or should such teachings apply to us today, and if so, how?

Before you answer these questions, please first consider and answer these additional questions (Note: I am using "homosexual" and "gay" to refer to either males or females):

I. Is simply being homosexual or having same-sex attractions wrong?

II. If not, then is it the sexual behavior between two persons of the same sex that is wrong? If so, why is that:

1. Is it because the only proper sexual activities between two persons are those that directly or indirectly include both one and only one penis and one and only one vagina? If so, what about sexual activities between two persons when one or both of them has had sex-reassignment surgery? 
2. Is it the inability or failure to consummate the actions with coitus (i.e., penis-vagina intercourse) that makes same-sex sexual activities wrong, since except for coitus two women or two men can together do just about everything sexually that a man and a woman can do? If so, what does that mean for deliberate non-coital sexual activity by heterosexual couples, or for heterosexual couples who do not or cannot (due to disability, etc.) consummate all their sexual activities with coitus?
3. Is it because the potential to produce children is what makes marriage and instances of sexual activity okay? If so:
   1. What does that mean for heterosexual couples who use natural or artificial methods to prevent unplanned or unwanted conceptions?
   2. What does that mean for sexual activities between heterosexual couples who cannot or who cannot any longer have children? Consider the following scenarios:
      • A couple discovers before they're married that they won't be able to have children. Should they be able to get married, and if so, should they be able to engage in sexual activities after marriage for the pleasure of it and the oneness and companionship and intimacy and love it engenders and enhances between them so they become more giving and fulfilled human beings, even though they know that no children can result from such activities?
      • A couple discovers after they're married that they physically can't have children, and despite many prayers and clinic visits, neither God nor doctors heal their infertility. Can they continue to engage in sexual relations for the pleasure of it and the oneness and companionship and intimacy and love it engenders and enhances between them so they become more giving and fulfilled human beings, even though they know that no children can result from such activities?
   If potential childbearing is not the reason for marriage and instances of sexual activity, can two gay persons who have not been changed from their homosexuality (whether they cared to change or tried to change or prayed to be changed, etc.) become a couple and engage in sexual relations for the pleasure of it and the oneness and companionship and intimacy and love it engenders and enhances between them so they become more giving and fulfilled human beings?
4. Is it because of a reason I haven't listed? If so, what is that reason?

I am not a philosopher or logician or rhetorician, so I do not pretend to have presented all the necessary and relevant questions for addressing the topic. However, the ones I have posed are those that I would want a person who is promulgating or defending a position to answer.

Thoughts On Communion

Τη αυτη ημερα θεασαμενος τινα εργαζομενον τω σαββατω ειπεν αυτω· ανθρωπε, ει μεν οιδας τι ποιεις, μακαριος ει· ει δε μη οιδας, επικαταρατος και παραβατης ει του νομου.

On the same day, seeing one working on the sabbath, [Jesus] said to him: "Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed: but if you don't know, you are cursed and a transgressor of the law." - Codex Bezae at Luke 6:4

See lines 16-20 (beginning in the middle of line 16) in the manuscript page:

Image 391 of 856 - Page 205v

Some background

First read these two older posts I wrote about communion:

"Single-Serving Jesus"

Last Supper, Eucharist, And The Didache

From reading them you can see that there are probably no definitive answers for the many questions one might have about communion. Rather, there are several traditions on which one may base one's view and practice, and in this post I'm going to give you my thoughts and address some of the questions and options.

Leavened or unleavened bread?

A friend who is an expert in Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek told me during lunch near Jerusalem where he lives that the New Testament use of ἄρτος (bread, loaf) for the communion loaf without the adjective for "unleavened" (ἄζυμος) doesn't prove anything, because (if I recall his comment correctly) a Hebrew or Aramaic speaker would have used the same word when taking and blessing either leavened or unleavened bread.

If one considers the Last Supper to have been a Passover meal and bases one's view and practice of communion on that, then one would likely want to use unleavened bread.

If, however, one sees the chronology in the Gospel of John as indicating that the Last Supper occurred before the Passover, then one might want to use leavened bread.

If one's view and practice of communion are based on things other than the Last Supper - e.g., Jesus' table meals or His feeding of the multitudes - then one is probably free to use whatever kind of bread one wishes.

Real wine or grape juice? 

I favor using wine in keeping with the Biblical tradition, but based on this informative article from the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible it appears that wine diluted 2:1 or 3:1 with water is probably most in keeping with what was used at the Last Supper and by the early church, though mixing today's wines with more water than a 1:1 ratio will greatly weaken the taste. Such mixed wine would still be strong enough to cause intoxication if too much was drunk (see Paul's comment at 1 Corinthians 11:21), yet weak enough for all to drink (preferably shared from a single cup) without negative effects. While some churches allow white wine, I think the blood symbolism is lost if anything other than red or purple-colored wine or grape juice is used.

A single loaf & cup or individual pieces/wafers/crackers & cups?

Paul's comment at 1 Corinthians 10:17, as well as Jesus' taking of a single loaf (ἄρτος) at the Last Supper, are reasons I favor using a single loaf - to be broken as it's distributed, either by each person or by the host after saying the blessing - so as to preserve and present the symbolism of the participating members being one body. Though The Didache preserves a tradition of broken bread pieces (which could have come from a single loaf), the word (κλάσμα - "fragment, piece, crumb") is singular in both its occurrences, rather than plural, which has led scholars to speculate that the original text read ἄρτος, as it's hard to see how a single fragment could be "scattered over the mountains" (unless the word meant "broken loaf").

I also favor all drinking from a single cup, as that seems to be tradition in the Last Supper accounts and 1 Corinthians 10:1-11:34 and The Didache, and also because of this comment from Thomas O'Loughlin:

One of the distinguishing features of the meals of Jesus was that he took a cup and, having blessed the Father, shared it with his disciples. This is a ritual without parallel in the ancient world: it is one thing to offer a thanksgiving over a cup—and by extension over all the cups of the participants of the meal—but quite another to pass a single cup from one to another. Yet here we find this practice: to share a cup is to assert an intimate unity and a common purpose. The disciples have to be prepared to drink from the cup of Jesus (> Mark 10:38–39) and thereby they share in his destiny. At the meal in the Didache one of the rituals is that the single cup of the Lord is shared by all those at the meal. One cup is unity, and it cuts across every human boundary and division—it is not accidental that Christians have always tried to find ways around sharing the cup in their celebrations! - (O’Loughlin, T. (2010). The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians (95). London; Grand Rapids, MI: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; Baker Academic.)

Separate ritual or meal component? 

I would prefer or at least suggest that communion be part of a shared meal, possibly opening with blessing and breaking the bread and closing with sharing the cup, though partaking of both together, either at the beginning or the end of the meal, might work well. However, it seems to me from 1 Corinthians 10:1-11:34 and The Didache that early on the bread and cup ritual had acquired or was beginning to acquire its own separate setting and significance.

Closed, semi-closed or open?

One's practice will be related to what one views communion as being.

• If one views communion as being similar to a covenant meal like the Passover, then one will likely restrict it to those who are in covenant with Jesus, however one so defines being a member of the household of faith. The tradition in The Didache has restricted communion in view. Also, Luke's account of the Last Supper seems to have Jesus making His covenant only with and for those who are at table with Him. (But as noted in my other post, the original wording of Luke's account is difficult to determine.)
• Even if regarded as a covenant meal in which communion is restricted to those who have embraced Jesus and His New Covenant, thereby usually excluding non-believers and children who have not yet professed faith in Jesus and/or been baptized, Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 seem to me to allow for the participation of the unbelieving spouses and underage children of believers, should they wish to partake, and Jewish custom was to include children in the covenant feasts and holy days:

  ¹² I (not the Lord) say to the rest of you: If a brother has a wife who is an unbeliever and she is willing to live with him, he must not abandon (Or divorce) her. ¹³ And if a woman has a husband who is an unbeliever and he is willing to live with her, she must not abandon (Or divorce) him. ¹⁴ For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified because of her husband (Other mss. read (her/the) brother). Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. (ISV)

• Some may wish to restrict communion because of the warning in 1 Corinthians 11:29:

  ²⁹ because whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. ³⁰ That’s why so many of you are weak and sick and a considerable number are dying (Lit. are falling asleep). (ISV)

  However, commentators are divided (rightly so, in my opinion) on whether Paul is referring to their not recognizing that the bread and wine are really Christ's body and blood or at least some "special" kind of food and drink, or their not recognizing and treating all those assembled as fellow members of the one body of Christ, which was the basis of his harsh words to them in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 (as well other parts of 1 Corinthians).
• If one views communion as being an extension of Jesus' fellowship meals with followers, sinners, harlots, tax collectors, and any who wished to learn about or enter the Kingdom, or of His feeding of the multitudes, then it could be open to all who are present and wish to partake. Also, Matthew's and Mark's accounts of the Last Supper seem to differ from Luke's account in having Jesus making His covenant "for many."

Bread & wine/grape juice or not?

Must communion always be done with bread (whether leavened or unleavened) and wine or grape juice? What about crackers or pretzels or chips or tea or soda? What about people who live in countries where rice or another grain, or some kind of tuber or fruit, rather than wheat and grapes, is their "staple" food and source of fermented or juice beverage?

I don't know if I'll address this question in a future or amended post, or just leave it to you to answer it. :)

Who may officiate?

Must communion be officiated over by an ordained or appointed person - e.g., a priest, a pastor, an elder, a deacon, etc? Or may any person in the assembly bless and offer the bread and wine? How about women? Or children?

As with the previous question, I may address this in a future or amended post, or just leave it to you to answer it. :)

To Add, Or Not To Add--That Is The Question

It began with me asking on Facebook:

So, where was Mary Magdalene standing during Jesus' crucifixion?

because I had been reading this (Scripture quotes from International Standard Version):

Matthew 27:55 Now many women were also there, watching from a distance. They had accompanied Jesus from Galilee and had ministered to him. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.

Mark 15:40 Now there were women watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of young James and Joseph, and Salome. 41 They used to accompany him and care for him while he was in Galilee. Many other women who had come up to Jerusalem with him were there, too.

Luke 23:48 When all the crowds who had come together for this spectacle saw what had taken place, they beat their chests and left. 49 But all his acquaintances, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, were standing at a distance watching these things.

John 19:25 Meanwhile, standing near Jesus’ cross were his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he kept loving standing there, he told his mother, “Dear lady, here is your son.” 27 Then he told the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.

Because of the many differences between the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and the Gospel of John, some have supposed or concluded that John deliberately "changed" things (e.g., the day and time of the crucifixion) for theological reasons. If so, then what might have been his theological (or other) purpose in putting the women and Mary Magdalene at the cross, as opposed to the Synoptics having them view Jesus' crucifixion from a distance?

In response someone said: "People are actually movable objects. They can stand in different locations as time progresses."

Well, yes, people can move, and that may be what happened.

But is that how we are to read and understand the Gospels?

Are we to conflate the Gospel accounts so as to know "the rest of the story" in each instance where a Gospel might be "missing" something that one of the other Gospels "provides"? Thus here, for instance, are we to say that John's Gospel "adds the detail for us" that at some point Mary Magdalene and maybe a couple of the other women moved to stand by the cross while Jesus was dying on it?

Or should each Gospel be read and taken on its own?

How would Matthew and Mark and Luke and John have wanted us to read and understand their Gospels?

As a possibly poor analogy: Should one use the words and actions of two versions or remakes of a movie to "fill in the details of" (or possibly even "correct") a later or earlier version? In some instances, especially if the films are all based on the same novel or historical event and the director deliberately chose to omit or vary some things, it might be right to do so. But what if the director wanted us to view and understand his version of the story for what it is in its own right without our "adding to" it?

Back to the Gospels.

I’m sure I’m not the first one to see the following:

MATTHEW, MARK AND LUKE:

• Family, Followers, and Friends: These Gospels show Jesus abandoned by all of His family, followers, and friends, and surrounded only by strangers and mockers and enemies - Luke says that all His acquaintances, including the women, stood and watched the crucifixion from a distance. 
• Creation: Creation, too, seems to abandon Him, or perhaps mourn His dying, as darkness covers the whole land for three hours. (Matthew also mentions an earthquake at His death, but that may mean something else.)
• God:
  • At the end of that period of darkness, both Matthew and Mark seemingly have God abandon Him, too, and Jesus doesn't call God "Father."
  • Luke, though, while mentioning the darkness, has Jesus talking and praying to His "Father" (Luke 23:34,46) and nowhere has Him appearing to be abandoned by God or has Him saying, "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" 

JOHN:

• Family, Followers, and Friends: John not only has Jesus not totally abandoned by His family, followers, and friends, but has some of those who were closest to Him standing by Him at the cross, and His nearly last words are with them, not with those crucified with Him (or perhaps not even with God - i.e., to whom does He say: "It is finished"?).
• Creation: There is no mention of any darkness.
• God: There is no suggestion that God may have forsaken Him.

So... how did the Gospel writers and how does God want us to read and understand the Gospels, and how did or do they want us to relate or not relate them to each other?

Another person said that they have problems watching biblical movies because the directors take too much artistic license by "filling things in" for us. They considered their doing so to be presumptuous, as it can change what God wants us to know or what He doesn't want us to know, leading to erroneous concepts of God.

To which I responded: Are we or preachers then doing the right thing when we use the Synoptics to "fill in" for John, or vice-versa?

If Someone Is In Christ, It's A New Creation

Adapted from a comment I made at a blogpost where a church discussed how it had concluded that women could be in church leadership:

In the incarnation God became human, and at the crucifixion Jesus died for all humans' sins as the last Αδάμ/אדם, and through the resurrection Jesus became a life-giving Spirit, the New Creation, the New Human, in Whom all who believe in Him are, whether Jew or Gentile or slave or free or male or female, and with Whom they all are clothed.

Christ is the κεφαλή of the church, which is His body and His bride. All the members of the body, regardless of gender, are to grow up into Him Who is the κεφαλή, and to help all the other members do the same, using the gifts and grace Christ has given them. It's not about gendered or gender-restricted "roles," but about χαρίσματα and χάρις. There is not "male and female" here, but Christ, Who is over all, and through all, and in all.

If someone is in Christ, it's a New Creation.

There is one body, and all its members are priests. It is inconsistent to reject the sacerdotalism that would have male priests in persona Christi stand between believers and God the Father, as is the case in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but retain its vestige in the guise of "male-only" pastors and elders.

We should not judge by the flesh or by appearances and restrict how God's Spirit gifts and builds His church. There is no "male" human nature that Christ exclusively took on, or "male" sin nature that Christ separately nailed to the cross. Human is human, and sin is sin, whether the human is male or female. The Jesus Who lives in male believers is not a different Jesus from the one Who lives in female believers.

Which qualities or fruits or gifts of the Spirit are male? Which are female? Which aspects of the nature of Christ can only be exercised and expressed in the church by males, or can only be exercised and expressed in the church by females? Indeed, if nurturing and caring for and giving His life to and for the church, His body, are priorities of Christ's, then an argument could be made that females are better suited to lead and pastor churches than males.

But it's not about whether it should be "males" or "females" who lead Christ's church. CHRIST leads His church, and He gives and gifts and empowers and builds as He wills.

(Also see "A Quiz For Complementarians")

New Living Translation 1 Timothy 2:11-15 Fail

Mardel had this $140 (Yikes!) Cambridge New Living Translation (NLT) Bible in new condition on sale in their Special Purchase/Bargain Bibles rack for $25: NLT Pitt Minion Reference Bible, Goatskin Leather, Black

It feels great, it's eminently portable, the print is small but still easily readable by me, it has center-column references, it opens perfectly flat, it has two ribbon markers, etc.

I've recommended the NLT to others because of things Bible translators have said, as well as because of some of the passages I've read, so I ALMOST bought this as a briefcase Bible.

But two things stopped me:

1. Though I won a NLT Study Bible (2007) in a drawing from Logos Bible Software, I still mainly work from the Greek text for the New Testament and (as best as I can) my JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh and the Septuagint for the Old Testament.

2. For "fun" I turned to 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and saw that the NLT translates the passage this way:

¹¹Women should learn quietly and submissively. ¹²I do not let women teach men or have authority over them.^[b] Let them listen quietly. ¹³For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. ¹⁴And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result. ¹⁵But women will be saved through childbearing,^[c] assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.

b. 1 Timothy 2:12 Or teach men or usurp their authority.

c. 1 Timothy 2:15 Or will be saved by accepting their role as mothers, or will be saved by the birth of the Child.

The Greek for the passage is:

11 γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ: 12 διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ' εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ. 13 Ἀδὰμ γὰρ πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη, εἶτα Εὕα: 14 καὶ Ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν. 15 σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας, ἐὰν μείνωσιν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ καὶ ἁγιασμῷ μετὰ σωφροσύνης. (Boldface indicating emphasis is per The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament)

My rough and quick translation: "11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 But I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been [greatly?] deceived, has come to be in transgression. 15 But she will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holy living with self-control."

I don't see how the NLT's "The woman was deceived, and sin was the result" is a good translation choice. It

1. obscures the subordinate participial clause "having been deceived";
2. loses the emphasis in the Greek on "in transgression"; and
3. severs the connection between the woman's "fallen" state and her (their?) need to be delivered from it per 2:15 by making it appear that "sin" was what happened, not that the woman came to be in a state of (γέγονεν, a perfect verb) transgression.

The NLT also changes the singular "woman" in 2:11-12 to the plural "women," changes the singular verb "she will be saved" in 2:15a to the plural "women will be saved," and IMO overly interprets the Genesis Fall account by adding "by Satan." (When Paul alluded to this in 2 Corinthians 11:3, he wrote "the serpent," not "Satan.")

So I'm sticking with my original language Bibles and, for portability, my other (and cheaper) hand-sized Bibles. Someone else can get this $140 Bible for $25.

More discussion of questionable or curious translations in the NLT can be found in this thread where I first raised the subject of this post.

What Makes It "So"?

I was reading Genesis 1 and noticed that the "and it was so" statements didn't always occur where I would have expected them to.

So I created the following color-coded chart to show when things are "so" and when things are not so "so."

I'm not sure what, if anything, this all might mean, but it's fun to read the text closely like this.

NASB	BHS	When Was It "So"?
1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light (or: "and light was so"). 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.	בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ׃ וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵי תְהוֹם וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל־פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם׃ וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר וַיְהִי־אוֹר׃ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאוֹר כִּי־טוֹב וַיַּבְדֵּל אֱלֹהִים בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ׃ וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם אֶחָד׃	God spoke, "and it was so."
6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי רָקִיעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּיִם וִיהִי מַבְדִּיל בֵּין מַיִם לָמָיִם׃ וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָרָקִיעַ וַיַּבְדֵּל בֵּין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַ וּבֵין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מֵעַל לָרָקִיעַ וַיְהִי־כֵן׃ וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָרָקִיעַ שָׁמָיִם וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם שֵׁנִי׃	God spoke; and then God made it "so" before "it was so."
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יִקָּווּ הַמַּיִם מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמַיִם אֶל־מָקוֹם אֶחָד וְתֵרָאֶה הַיַּבָּשָׁה וַיְהִי־כֵן׃ וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לַיַּבָּשָׁה אֶרֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵה הַמַּיִם קָרָא יַמִּים וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב׃	God spoke, "and it was so."
11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 [And] There was evening and there was morning, a third day.	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים תַּדְשֵׁא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע עֵץ פְּרִי עֹשֶׂה פְּרִי לְמִינוֹ אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ־בוֹ עַל־הָאָרֶץ וַיְהִי־כֵן׃ וַתּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע לְמִינֵהוּ וְעֵץ עֹשֶׂה־פְּרִי אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ־בוֹ לְמִינֵהוּ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב׃ וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי׃	God spoke to the earth, "and it was so"; and then the earth made it "so."
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; [He made] the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 [And] There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים׃ וְהָיוּ לִמְאוֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם לְהָאִיר עַל־הָאָרֶץ וַיְהִי־כֵן׃ וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים אֶת־הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה וְאֵת הַכּוֹכָבִים׃ וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם לְהָאִיר עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃ וְלִמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה וּלֲהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב׃ וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם רְבִיעִי׃	God spoke, "and it was so"; and then God made it "so."
20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 [And] There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם שֶׁרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה וְעוֹף יְעוֹפֵף עַל־הָאָרֶץ עַל־פְּנֵי רְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם׃ וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הַתַּנִּינִם הַגְּדֹלִים וְאֵת כָּל־נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת אֲשֶׁר שָׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם לְמִינֵהֶם וְאֵת כָּל־עוֹף כָּנָף לְמִינֵהוּ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב׃ וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים לֵאמֹר פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת־הַמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים וְהָעוֹף יִרֶב בָּאָרֶץ׃ וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם חֲמִישִׁי׃	God spoke; and then God made it "so," but never said "it was so."
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים תּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה לְמִינָהּ בְּהֵמָה וָרֶמֶשׂ וְחַיְתוֹ־אֶרֶץ לְמִינָהּ וַיְהִי־כֵן׃ וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ לְמִינָהּ וְאֶת־הַבְּהֵמָה לְמִינָהּ וְאֵת כָּל־רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה לְמִינֵהוּ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב׃	God spoke to the earth, "and it was so"; and then God, not the earth, made it "so."
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל־הָאָרֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃ וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃ וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל־חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃ וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת־כָּל־עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל־פְּנֵי כָל־הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת־כָּל־הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ פְרִי־עֵץ זֹרֵעַ זָרַע לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה׃ וּלְכָל־חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וּלְכָל־עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה אֶת־כָּל־יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב לְאָכְלָה וַיְהִי־כֵן׃ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וְהִנֵּה־טוֹב מְאֹד וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי׃	God spoke; and then God made it "so" before "it was so."
2: 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.	וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ וְכָל־צְבָאָם׃ וַיְכַל אֱלֹהִים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וַיִּשְׁבֹּת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִכָּל־מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה׃ וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ כִּי בוֹ שָׁבַת מִכָּל־מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר־בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים לַעֲשׂוֹת׃
5: 1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them ("called their name") Man in the day when they were created.	זֶה סֵפֶר תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם בְּיוֹם בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה אֹתוֹ׃ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם וַיִּקְרָא אֶת־שְׁמָם אָדָם בְּיוֹם הִבָּרְאָם׃

"Single-Serving Jesus"

Narrator: Tyler, you are by far the most interesting single-serving friend I've ever met... see I have this thing: everything on a plane is single-serving...
Tyler Durden: Oh I get it, it's very clever.
Narrator: Thank you.
Tyler Durden: How's that working out for you?
Narrator: What?
Tyler Durden: Being clever.
Narrator: Great.
Tyler Durden: Keep it up then... Right up.

- Fight Club (movie version)

---

"Single-serving friend."

That is what this essentially turns the people at communion into, with everyone having their own personal "single-serving" Jesus. (Cue Depeche Mode.)

Is this right?

Is this wrong?

If John 6:22-59 is Eucharistic such that there is to be a reminder in the Lord's Supper of the manna in the wilderness (Exodus 16:11-36), then there is in fact an individualistic aspect to it, as each person was to gather enough manna for himself or herself - though per Paul's application of Exodus 16:18 in 2 Corinthians 8:13-15, there may also have been some sharing among the people so that each person got what they needed and were supposed to have.

And there may be reasons to use more than one loaf and more than one cup if, as in the tradition preserved in The Didachê, the Lord's Supper has elements of Jesus' feeding of the 5,000 (Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:32-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-13) and the 4,000 (Matthew 15:32-39; Mark 8:1-10) and there are many people involved, as there were then.

Yet 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 seems to prefer, and perhaps only allows for, a single shared loaf for the people when they come together in church (1 Corinthians 11:17-18,20,33), and probably a single shared cup as well.

If partaking of the bread as Christ's body is to be a reminder of the Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7) - which would undoubtedly be the case if the Last Supper was a Passover Seder as per Matthew 26:17-20, Mark 14:12-17 and Luke 22:7-16 - then this would be a further reason for using a single shared loaf at church for the Lord's Supper, as there was ideally to be only one lamb per gathered household (Exodus 12:3-4¹), and those who come together in church are family members, being all of the same household of the One God and Father. This understanding could likewise argue for a single shared cup, since the wine at the Passover Seder represented the blood of the one-per-household Passover lamb.

---

¹ בֵּית אָב, pl. בֵּית אָבוֹת "a father's house." Though indicating the paternal line, the term is synonymous with מִשְׁפָּחָה "family" according to Pentateuch & Haftorahs: Hebrew Text English Translation & Commentary, Soncino Press (Second Edition).

The Lord's Table As A "Happy Meal"

"OFFERING VERSATILITY
AND EFFICIENCY FOR THE
TIMELESS TRADITIONS
OF COMMUNION"
D. H. Williams describes his visit to a megachurch at Christianity Today. The part that struck me was this:

Immediately after the singing, without any announcement, much less Paul's words of institution (1 Cor. 11:23-26), the elements of the Lord's Supper were hurriedly handed around. Again, I was amazed at the blandly efficient nature of this activity. We could have been passing pretzels and soda pop. No one offered any guidance whatsoever on the sharing of this critical ordinance or sacrament. It seemed a strictly vertical encounter between each individual and God.

Chaplain Mike at Internet Monk said about the above: "I call it The Christian Happy Meal, with all the solemnity of going through the drive-up window."

Not too long ago I attended a service at what would probably be called a megachurch, and as I entered the auditorium (aka the sanctuary, I guess), persons with baskets (like the cigarette girls with their trays) were handing out these pre-packaged communion kits, similar to the ones in the picture above, to people as they entered.

It was a definite “What The Faith?!?!” moment for me, as I thought of the contrast between this and our small weekly home meetings where after we’ve shared and prayed together and we sense it’s time to remember and celebrate being one body with Him and with each other,

When we bless the cup at the Lord’s Table, aren’t we sharing in the blood of Christ?
And when we break the bread, aren’t we sharing in the body of Christ?
And though we are many, we all eat from one loaf of bread,
showing that we are one body. (1 Corinthians 10:16-17 NLT)
we pray and bless and thank God, and then pass around a single small loaf or matzah or slice of bread from which we each break off a piece and eat, followed by a single cup of wine or grape juice from which we each take a drink.

While I agree that taking and celebrating the Lord's Table should be a happy (as in "joyous") meal (and I'm all in favor of celebrating it in a meal setting), when it is packaged and delivered and taken as a "Happy Meal" à la McDonalds, it has been changed into something so foreign to, and estranged from, its origins and meaning and purpose that it almost makes me cringe to participate in such a ceremony.

On a related note, my friend Scott Stocking has written an interesting essay for Greek and grammar geeks on his blog today on Acts 2:42 and the difference a comma can make: The Nature of "the Fellowship" (κοινωνια koinōnia) in Acts 2:42. Even if you're not one of the aforementioned kinds of geeks, please give it a read, as it's interesting and thought-provoking.

The Woman Who Anointed Jesus - Comparing The Accounts

Before the prayer meeting Wednesday night (6/15/2011), we were discussing the incident where the woman anointed Jesus. The author of a book my friends had been reading identified this woman - described as "a sinner" in Luke's account - as the woman caught in adultery from John 7:53-8:11, even though the Gospels themselves never make that connection.

I mentioned that the accounts vary among themselves at points, which can be a cause of confusion for some. So here for my friends' - and your - reading and comparison are the Gospels' accounts of that incident, partly color-coded to help point out similarities and differences.

Matthew 26:6–13 (RSV)	Mark 14:3–9 (RSV)
6 Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head, as he sat at table. 8 But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this ointment might have been sold for a large sum, and given to the poor.” 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. 12 In pouring this ointment on my body she has done it to prepare me for burial. 13 Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”	3 And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head. 4 But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, “Why was the ointment thus wasted? 5 For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor.” And they reproached her. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me. 8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying. 9 And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”
Luke 7:36–50 (RSV)	John 12:1–8 (RSV)
36 One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house, and took his place at table. 37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, 38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.” 40 And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “What is it, Teacher?” 41 “A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 When they could not pay, he forgave them both. Now which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.” 44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” 48 And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” 50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”	1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at table with him. 3 Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it. 7 Jesus said, “Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial. 8 The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”

---

The painting is "St. Mary Magdalene" by Carlo (or Carlino) Dolci (May 25, 1616 – January 17, 1686). I chose it for illustrative purposes only, and because it doesn't show where the woman is or whether she is anointing Jesus' head or His feet. I am not suggesting that Mary Magdalene was the woman.

Was Eve Banished From Eden?

וַיִּקְרָ֧א הָֽאָדָ֛ם שֵׁ֥ם אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ חַוָּ֑ה כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כָּל־חָֽי׃

וַיַּעַשׂ֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים לְאָדָ֧ם וּלְאִשְׁתּ֛וֹ כָּתְנ֥וֹת ע֖וֹר וַיַּלְבִּשֵֽׁם׃

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֗ים הֵ֤ן הָֽאָדָם֙ הָיָה֙ כְּאַחַ֣ד מִמֶּ֔נּוּ לָדַ֖עַת ט֣וֹב וָרָ֑ע וְעַתָּ֣ה פֶּן־יִשְׁלַ֣ח יָד֗וֹ וְלָקַח֙ גַּ֚ם מֵעֵ֣ץ הַֽחַיִּ֔ים וְאָכַ֖ל וָחַ֥י לְעֹלָֽם׃

וַֽיְשַׁלְּחֵ֛הוּ יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים מִגַּן־עֵ֑דֶן לַֽעֲבֹד֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֻקַּ֖ח מִשָּֽׁם׃

וַיְגָ֖רֶשׁ אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֑ם וַיַּשְׁכֵּן֩ מִקֶּ֨דֶם לְגַן־עֵ֜דֶן אֶת־הַכְּרֻבִ֗ים וְאֵ֨ת לַ֤הַט הַחֶ֙רֶב֙ הַמִּתְהַפֶּ֔כֶת לִשְׁמֹ֕ר אֶת־דֶּ֖רֶךְ עֵ֥ץ הַֽחַיִּֽים׃

²⁰ Then the man—Adam—named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all who live. ²¹ And the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife.
²² Then the LORD God said, "Look, the human beings have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!" ²³ So the LORD God banished them from the Garden of Eden, and he sent Adam out to cultivate the ground from which he had been made. ²⁴ After sending them out, the LORD God stationed mighty cherubim to the east of the Garden of Eden. And he placed a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:20-24, NLT)

²⁰ The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living. ²¹ And the LORD God made garments of skins for the man and for his wife, and clothed them.
²² Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"— ²³ therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. ²⁴ He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:20-24, NRSV)

These two translations of Genesis 3:20-24 might seem pretty similar, but there is one striking difference that may be overlooked by many readers. Whereas the NLT reads:

²²..."Look, the human beings...What if they...Then they..." ²³ So the LORD God banished them...²⁴ After sending them out...

the NRSV reads:

²²..."See, the man...and now, he..." ²³ therefore the LORD God sent him forth....

The NRSV accurately represents the Hebrew in these verses, which uses the singular definite masculine noun הָאָדָם ha-adam ("the man/human being") with third-person singular masculine verbs ("he") and third-person singular masculine possessive suffixes ("his").

[NOTE: The NRSV should maybe translate לְאָדָם in 3:21 as "And the LORD God made garments of skins for Adam (not "for the man") and for his wife," since the Hebrew word is pointed as simply adam ("Adam") and not as ha-adam ("the man/human being").]

It's true that in Genesis 1:27 God speaks of the male and female human beings as the singular ha-adam, but there it's used with plural verbs ("you"(pl.)/"they") and plural pronominal suffixes ("them").

So... Who did God drive out from the Garden of Eden: Both Adam and Eve, or just Adam?

And if it was just Adam who was banished, then why and when did Eve apparently join him?

"Rabbis and Fathers and Teachers! Oh, My!"

I posted a link to this video clip on Facebook today with a note that said it relates to what would probably be my next blogpost here.


Chris Wright - Disciples 1st from Bill Kinnon on Vimeo.

Well, here is that blogpost.

I was going to write some related comments about servantship and church leaders in the Body of Christ, but decided to just let Chris Wright speak about it.

As for the Scripture passage from Matthew 23 that I was going to discuss, I also decided to just post Jesus' words, and my comments would only be about my translation:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, "...Don't let anyone call you 'Rabbi,' for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters. And don't address anyone here on earth as 'Father,' for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father. And don't let anyone call you 'Teacher,' for you have only one teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you must be a servant." (Mt 23:1,8–11, NLT)

Here is the original text:

Τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλάλησεν τοῖς ὄχλοις καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ λέγων·...ὑμεῖς δὲ μὴ κληθῆτε· Ῥαββί, εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ διδάσκαλος, πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε· καὶ πατέρα μὴ καλέσητε ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος· μηδὲ κληθῆτε καθηγηταί, ὅτι καθηγητὴς ὑμῶν ἐστιν εἷς ὁ χριστός· ὁ δὲ μείζων ὑμῶν ἔσται ὑμῶν διάκονος.

And here is my (improvable) translation:

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples and said: "...But as for you all: Don't have anyone¹ address² you as 'Rabbi,'³ for you all have One Teacher, and all of you are brothers and sisters.⁴ And don't call anyone¹ on earth your 'Father,'⁵ for you all have One Heavenly Father. Nor are you to be called 'Instructors,'⁶ because you all have One Instructor,⁶ The Christ.⁷ [Unlike these religious leaders⁸], the one who is the greatest among you must be⁹ as your servant."

¹ "anyone" is implied by the Greek.
² Or "call".
³ I.e., Master Teacher.
⁴ Translating the common-gender noun ἀδελφοί.
⁵ "Father" is emphasized in the Greek text, which is literally: "And 'Father' not you-should-call your on the earth...."
⁶ "Instructor(s)" is used to differentiate this word (καθηγητής) from the word that is translated in this passage as "teacher" (διδάσκαλος).
⁷ I.e., The Messiah.
⁸ See Matthew 23:2-7.
⁹ Translating the future as an imperative as the NLT does. See BDF §362. (Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (183). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.)

So You Want To Pastor A Large Church?

"You have heard that our ancestors were told, 'You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.' But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell. So if you are presenting a sacrifice at the altar in the Temple and you suddenly remember that someone has something against you, leave your sacrifice there at the altar. Go and be reconciled to that person. Then come and offer your sacrifice to God." Matthew 5:21-24 (NLT)

Whereas what Jesus first says here is about your responsibility not to get angry at other people or say derogatory things to them, the second part sets forth your obligation - yours, not theirs - to approach and seek reconciliation with or forgiveness from those who feel they've been wronged by you. And that before you proceed with your worship to God.

Did you get that?

If someone acts like or says (or you otherwise learn) that you've wronged them, or if they think that you've wronged them, you are to go to them and seek to be reconciled with them.

Before you do your God thing.

Before you preach your message.

Before you teach your Sunday school class or small group meeting.

Before you go to prayer or continue your prayer or lead others in prayer.

Can you guess how many people on a regular basis in a typical-sized church get offended by, or feel they've been wronged or offended by, the pastor(s) or others in leadership? Jesus doesn't say whether such people are right to feel that way, or whether you actually did anything, or whether if you did something, it was intentional or unintentional, or was done knowingly or unknowingly.

He says, "if...you suddenly remember that someone has something against you,..."

Past a certain size of church, I don't think a pastor or church leader would have any time to do anything but spend all her or his time making peace, or trying to make peace, with those who have been, or felt they've been, hurt or slighted or ignored or wronged by her or him.

Which is why, if one wants to do things Jesus' way, one would almost be constrained to keep one's list of possible offendees - and hence the size of one's congregation - fairly small.

Should We Call יהוה "(The) LORD"?

וַיֹּאמֶר עוֹד אֱלֹהִים אֶל־מֹשֶׁה

כֹּה־תֹאמַר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

יהוה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אֱלֹהֵי יִצְחָק

וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם

זֶה־שְּׁמִי לְעֹלָם וְזֶה זִכְרִי לְדֹר דֹּר׃

God, furthermore, said to Moses,
"Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel,
'יהוה, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.'
This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations."
- Exodus 3:15 (NASB 1995)

וַיְדַבֵּר יהוה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃

דַּבֵּר אֶל־אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל־בָּנָיו לֵאמֹר

כֹּה תְבָרֲכוּ אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אָמוֹר לָהֶם׃

יְבָרֶכְךָ יהוה וְיִשְׁמְרֶךָ׃

יָאֵר יהוה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וִיחֻנֶּךָּ׃

יִשָּׂא יהוה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם׃

וְשָׂמוּ אֶת־שְׁמִי עַל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲנִי אֲבָרֲכֵם׃

Then יהוה spoke to Moses, saying,
"Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying,
'Thus you shall bless the sons of Israel. You shall say to them:
"יהוה bless you, and keep you;
יהוה make His face shine on you, And be gracious to you;
יהוה lift up His countenance on you, And give (שׂים) you peace."'
"So they shall invoke (שׂים) My name on the sons of Israel, and I then will bless them."
- Numbers 6:22-27 (NASB 1995)

יהוה gave His people His name to know Him by, to remember Him by, and for them to be blessed by.

But instead of knowing and calling Him by His name, we often refer to Him by a title or a function: "(The) LORD."

While some people are insistent on using "Yahweh" or some other contrived or derived pronunciation of יהוה for God's name, it seems to me that we already pretty much use the word "God" as God's name.

And I wonder if we ought to be doing it more often.

For it seems to me that our frequent use or overuse of the term/title "(The) LORD" in conversation or prayer is probably mainly because we're so used to seeing and reading "The LORD" for the English translation of יהוה in our Bibles.

But when we say, "(The) LORD," we're not only not saying His name or even His title, but a translation of a title that was substituted for His name.

And that doesn't seem to be what יהוה wants His people to do.

---

There's also this from VanGemeren, W. (1998). Vol. 4: New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (NIDOTTE) (1296–1297). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House:

The “translation” LORD (capitalized in the RSV/NRSV/NIV) is something of a problem, from various perspectives. LORD obscures the fact that Yahweh is a name and not a title or an epithet. The use of LORD is based on the post-OT Jewish practice of reading אֲדֹנָי (Lord) for Yahweh, because of an increased sense of holiness associated with Yahweh, followed by the LXX’s κύριος (#3261). To facilitate this reading, the vowels for the Aram. word meaning “the Name” (which became synonymous with Yahweh in postbiblical Judaism) have been superimposed on the consonants for Yahweh in the Heb. text; or, these are the vowels for אֲדֹנָי, though the initial “a” vowel is not accounted for in this. With the phrase אֲדֹנָי יהוה (305×, Gen 15:2), the vowels of אֱלֹהִים are used with יהוה; in these cases, many translations (e.g., NRSV) use the phrase “Lord GOD” (implicitly recognizing that the meaning of יהוה is not Lord, otherwise the rendering would be “Lord LORD”). In view of this reality, it could be argued that, as with other personal names, we simply transliterate what the original Heb. was thought to be—Yahweh (this pronunciation is only an educated guess, constructed largely from early Christian references).

The transliteration of the present Heb. form, “Jehovah,” does not represent any known ancient pronunciation; such a form did emerge in the Middle Ages, however, and has had a hallowed usage in Christian hymnody (also in the ASV). An alternative would be to follow the NT practice of using “God.” This would also meet the concern of some that the word Lord brings into thousands of texts a masculine metaphor that is not present in the original Heb. (see “Yahweh,” ABD 6:1012).

3. What does the divine name-giving mean for Israel? Two extremes should be avoided. On the one hand, the import of a name is not a mere badge of identity; on the other hand, it does not belong to the sphere of magic, as if by knowing or pronouncing the name one has control over the deity. The oft-cited Gen 32:29, where Jacob’s request for the name of his assailant is not granted, is not pertinent here, for God had already given Jacob his name in 28:13.

Divine name-giving entails several dimensions. It entails distinctiveness; it sets God off from others who have names, incl. gods. Moreover, anyone whose name is known becomes a part of the community that has names; God thereby chooses to join the historical community. Even more, to give the name Yahweh with reference to the God of the fathers ties this God to a certain history. God’s own history is thus integrated with the history of this people, and in this text God makes a commitment to be a part of the history of Israel.

Furthermore, giving the name entails a certain kind of relationship; it opens up the possibility of, indeed admits a desire for, a certain intimacy in relationship. A relationship without a name inevitably means some distance; naming the name is necessary for closeness. Naming makes true communication and encounter possible. Naming entails availability. By giving the name, God becomes accessible. God and people can now meet and address each other. Yet, because name is not person or identity or character (an oft-repeated mistake), there remains an otherness, even a mystery about the one who is named.

Naming also entails vulnerability. In becoming so available to the world, God is to some degree at the disposal of those who can name the name. God’s name may be misused and abused as well as honored. For God to give the name is to open himself up to hurt. Naming entails the likelihood of divine suffering (cf. Exod 3:7). This is probably a factor that undergirds the giving of the commandment regarding the name of God (Exod 20:7). On the above, see T. Fretheim, Exodus, 63–65.

Some background from Alexander, T. D., & Baker, D. W. (2003). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (364–365). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.:

When fear of misusing God’s name, Yahweh (cf. Ex 20:7; Deut 5:11), arose at the end of the pre-Christian era, it was replaced by ʾădōnay, which became for all practical purposes a proper noun (cf. Mettinger, 15–19). Some suggest that the actual Masoretic Text (MT) was changed in light of this practice, substituting one for the other (Baudissin, 1.559, 2.81–96; Eichrodt, 1.204), but this does not appear likely, since both ʾădōnay and Yahweh remain in the numerous verses mentioned (cf. Jenni 1997b, 1.28). This phenomenon is evident in the MT, however, where the Tetragrammaton, which should not be pronounced lest it be profaned, is revocalized. Sometimes it is to be read as ʾădōnay, with this word’s vowels appended to the consonants yhwh (i.e., yĕh[ō]wāh, from which we get “Jehovah” through the more archaic English pronunciation of the letters; e.g., Gen 2:4; Yeivin, 58–59). At times it revocalized as yĕh[ō]wih with the vowels from ʾĕlōhîm (e.g., Gen 15:2, 8). This practice of substitution carries over into the Septuagint, where yhwh is routinely rendered by kyrios (“lord”), a practice carried on in the NT (e.g., Mt 4:7, quoting Deut 6:16). This continues in most contemporary English translations (except for the Jerusalem Bible), where yhwh is rendered LORD.

Εγω ειμι ο ων (Exodus 3:14) And יהוה

See my earlier posts on this subject for the background to this post, as well as for the Scripture texts (Hebrew, Greek and Latin):

• Εγω ειμι ο ων (Exodus 3:14)
• Εγω ειμι ο ων (Exodus 3:14) - Part II

I raised this question before, and I'm raising it again:

Did the Septuagint's (LXX), and then the Vulgate's, translation of Exodus 3:14, as well as the change from saying God's name (יהוה) to referring to Him by a title ("(the) Lord"), affect the concept of God, distancing Him in the minds of the people and their theologians - a distancing that we may unconsciously still think and experience?

Did the Septuagint's "I Am He Who Is" (more literally "I Am The Being [One]") and the Vulgate's "I Am Who I Am" and "Who Is" move the church away from the covenanting and actively-with-His-people God of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Psalms, and towards an impassible and apophatic "Eternally Existing One," a God who may have more in common with Platonic philosophical concepts than with יהוה, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Father of Jesus Christ?

My speculation about the philosophical impact of the LXX's translation seems to find support in Toorn, K. v. d., Becking, B., & Horst, P. W. v. d. (1999). Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible DDD (2nd extensively rev. ed.) (913–914). Leiden; Boston; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brill; Eerdmans:

The interpretation of the theonym as a finite verb is already found in Exod 3:14. In reply to Moses’ question of what he is to say to the Israelites when they ask him which god sent him, God says: “I AM WHO I AM”, and he adds: “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you’”. The explanation here offered is a sophisticated play based on association: the root HWH is understood as a by-form of HYH, ‘to be’ and the prefix of the third person is understood as a secondary objectivation of a first person: yhwh is thus interpreted as ʾhyh, ‘I am’. Since the significance of such a name is elusive, the reconstructed name is itself the subject of a further interpretation in the phrase ʾehyeh ʾăšer ʾehyeh, ‘I am who I am’. Its meaning is debated. Should one understand it as a promise (‘I will certainly be there’) or as an allusion to the incomparability of Yahweh (‘I am who I am’, i.e. without peer)? Even in the revelation of his name, Yahweh does not surrender himself: He cannot be captured by means of either an image or a name. The Greek translation ὁ ὤν (LXX) has philosophical overtones: it is at the basis of a profound speculation on the eternity and immutability of God—both of them ideas originally unconnected with the name Yahweh.

My intuition about the meaning of the Hebrew and how it should probably be translated finds support in VanGemeren, W. (1998). Vol. 4: New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (NIDOTTE) (1295–1296). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House:

2. Exod 3:14 is one of the most puzzling verses in the OT. The name given at Moses’ request, אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, consists of the repeated form of the vb. to be (הָיָה [#2118], earlier form הוי) in the first person sing. plus the relative particle (Yahweh itself may be a third person impf. form; the a vowel suggests a hi. form, but that aspect is not attested in the OT or northwest Sem.). The most common translation is that given in the NIV, “I AM WHO I AM.” Some scholars suggest that this response is a refusal to give the divine name, out of a belief that knowing the name gives some control over the one named: in effect, “I am who I am, and it is not your business to know my name.” This, however, is a counsel of despair and stands at odds with God’s regularly giving a name when appearing to Israel’s ancestors (Gen 35:11; Exod 3:6). Moreover, the fact that Yahweh is immediately used in apposition to the God of your fathers in vv. 15–16 suggests a more positive meaning. It is difficult to believe that the 6800 uses of Yahweh in the OT are only testimony to God’s refusal. There is, of course, a lack of final definition in the name Yahweh. But, as with all names, this is simply to recognize the limits of drawing inferences from the name regarding the nature of the one whose name it is.

Other translations include “I will be what (who) I will be”; “I will cause to be what I will cause to be”; “I will be who I am/I am who I will be.” The last-noted may well be the best option, in essence: “I will be God for you.” The force of the name is not simply that God is or that God is present, but that God will be faithfully God for them in the history that is to follow (see vv. 16–17). The use of the same verbal form in 3:12 and 4:12, 15 (cf. 6:7; 29:45) also suggests this. God will be God with and for this people at all times and places; the formula suggests a divine faithfulness to self. Israel need not be concerned about divine arbitrariness or capriciousness. God can be counted on to be who God is. Israel understands its history from this name and this name from its history. This name will shape Israel’s story, but the story will also give greater texture to the name. This means that there are stakes in this for God; God now has to live up to the name given.

Here again, from my earlier posts, is the verse under discussion (Exodus 3:14):

ויאמר אלהים אל משה אהיה אשר אהיה ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם׃

And God said unto Moses, אהיה אשר אהיה (I will be who/what I will be; I am who/what I am): and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, אהיה (I will be; I am) hath sent me unto you.

Greek Septuagint:
και ειπεν ο θεος προς Μωυσην Εγω ειμι ο ων (I am the being [one]/I am he who is)· και ειπεν Ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ Ο ων (the being [one]/he who is) απεσταλκεν με προς υμας.

Latin Vulgate:
dixit Deus ad Mosen ego sum qui sum (I am who (I) am) ait sic dices filiis Israhel qui est (who is) misit me ad vos

To see how the Hebrew Bible uses אֶהְיֶה with reference to יהוה, I've listed and marked in blue all the occurrences of the verb אֶהְיֶה (usually translated "I will be"). Verses are marked with an asterisk (*) when אֶהְיֶה does not refer to God. Where the English "I" translates the pronoun אָנֹכִי or אֲנִי, rather than the verb אֶהְיֶה, I do not indicate it with blue.

Verse	BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia)	NASB 1995 (New American Standard Bible 1995 Update)
Genesis 26:3	גּוּר בָּאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת וְאֶהְיֶה עִמְּךָ וַאֲבָרְכֶךָּ כִּי־לְךָ וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת־כָּל־הָאֲרָצֹת הָאֵל וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת־הַשְּׁבֻעָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לְאַבְרָהָם אָבִיךָ׃	“Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham.
Genesis 31:3	וַיֹּאמֶר יהוה אֶל־יַעֲקֹב שׁוּב אֶל־אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ וּלְמוֹלַדְתֶּךָ וְאֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ׃	Then the LORD said to Jacob, “Return to the land of your fathers and to your relatives, and I will be with you.”
Exodus 3:12	וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי־אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ וְזֶה־לְּךָ הָאוֹת כִּי אָנֹכִי שְׁלַחְתִּיךָ בְּהוֹצִיאֲךָ אֶת־הָעָם מִמִּצְרַיִם תַּעַבְדוּן אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים עַל הָהָר הַזֶּה׃	And He said, “Certainly I will be with you, and this shall be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain.”
Exodus 3:14	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם׃	God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
Exodus 4:12	וְעַתָּה לֵךְ וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה עִם־פִּיךָ וְהוֹרֵיתִיךָ אֲשֶׁר תְּדַבֵּר׃	“Now then go, and I, even I, will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say.”
Exodus 4:15	וְדִבַּרְתָּ אֵלָיו וְשַׂמְתָּ אֶת־הַדְּבָרִים בְּפִיו וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה עִם־פִּיךָ וְעִם־פִּיהוּ וְהוֹרֵיתִי אֶתְכֶם אֵת אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּן׃	“You are to speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I, even I, will be with your mouth and his mouth, and I will teach you what you are to do.
Deuteronomy 31:23	וַיְצַו אֶת־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן וַיֹּאמֶר חֲזַק וֶאֱמָץ כִּי אַתָּה תָּבִיא אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לָהֶם וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ׃	Then He commissioned Joshua the son of Nun, and said, “Be strong and courageous, for you shall bring the sons of Israel into the land which I swore to them, and I will be with you.”
Joshua 1:5	לֹא־יִתְיַצֵּב אִישׁ לְפָנֶיךָ כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר הָיִיתִי עִם־מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ לֹא אַרְפְּךָ וְלֹא אֶעֶזְבֶךָּ׃	“No man will be able to stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I have been with Moses, I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you.
Joshua 3:7	וַיֹּאמֶר יהוה אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה אָחֵל גַּדֶּלְךָ בְּעֵינֵי כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יֵדְעוּן כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר הָיִיתִי עִם־מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ׃	Now the LORD said to Joshua, “This day I will begin to exalt you in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that just as I have been with Moses, I will be with you.
Judges 6:16	וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו יהוה כִּי אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ וְהִכִּיתָ אֶת־מִדְיָן כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד׃	But the LORD said to him, “Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat Midian as one man.”
* Judges 11:9	וַיֹּאמֶר יִפְתָּח אֶל־זִקְנֵי גִלְעָד אִם־מְשִׁיבִים אַתֶּם אוֹתִי לְהִלָּחֵם בִּבְנֵי עַמּוֹן וְנָתַן יהוה אוֹתָם לְפָנָי אָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם לְרֹאשׁ׃	So Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “If you take me back to fight against the sons of Ammon and the LORD gives them up to me, will I become your head?”
* Ruth 2:13	וַתֹּאמֶר אֶמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ אֲדֹנִי כִּי נִחַמְתָּנִי וְכִי דִבַּרְתָּ עַל־לֵב שִׁפְחָתֶךָ וְאָנֹכִי לֹא אֶהְיֶה כְּאַחַת שִׁפְחֹתֶיךָ׃	Then she said, “I have found favor in your sight, my lord, for you have comforted me and indeed have spoken kindly to your maidservant, though I am not like one of your maidservants.”
* 1 Samuel 18:18	וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶל־שָׁאוּל מִי אָנֹכִי וּמִי חַיַּי מִשְׁפַּחַת אָבִי בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי־אֶהְיֶה חָתָן לַמֶּלֶךְ׃	But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my life or my father’s family in Israel, that I should be the king’s son-in-law?”
* 1 Samuel 23:17	וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אַל־תִּירָא כִּי לֹא תִמְצָאֲךָ יַד שָׁאוּל אָבִי וְאַתָּה תִּמְלֹךְ עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה־לְּךָ לְמִשְׁנֶה וְגַם־שָׁאוּל אָבִי יֹדֵעַ כֵּן׃	Thus he said to him, “Do not be afraid, because the hand of Saul my father will not find you, and you will be king over Israel and I will be next to you; and Saul my father knows that also.”
2 Samuel 7:14	אֲנִי אֶהְיֶה־לּוֹ לְאָב וְהוּא יִהְיֶה־לִּי לְבֵן אֲשֶׁר בְּהַעֲוֹתוֹ וְהֹכַחְתִּיו בְּשֵׁבֶט אֲנָשִׁים וּבְנִגְעֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם׃	“I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men,
* 2 Samuel 15:34	וְאִם־הָעִיר תָּשׁוּב וְאָמַרְתָּ לְאַבְשָׁלוֹם עַבְדְּךָ אֲנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶהְיֶה עֶבֶד אָבִיךָ וַאֲנִי מֵאָז וְעַתָּה וַאֲנִי עַבְדֶּךָ וְהֵפַרְתָּה לִי אֵת עֲצַת אֲחִיתֹפֶל׃	“But if you return to the city, and say to Absalom, ‘I will be your servant, O king; as I have been your father’s servant in time past, so I will now be your servant,’ then you can thwart the counsel of Ahithophel for me.
* 2 Samuel 16:18	וַיֹּאמֶר חוּשַׁי אֶל־אַבְשָׁלֹם לֹא כִּי אֲשֶׁר בָּחַר יהוה וְהָעָם הַזֶּה וְכָל־אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא אֶהְיֶה וְאִתּוֹ אֵשֵׁב׃	Then Hushai said to Absalom, “No! For whom the LORD, this people, and all the men of Israel have chosen, his I will be, and with him I will remain.
* 2 Samuel 16:19	וְהַשֵּׁנִית לְמִי אֲנִי אֶעֱבֹד הֲלוֹא לִפְנֵי בְנוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָבַדְתִּי לִפְנֵי אָבִיךָ כֵּן אֶהְיֶה לְפָנֶיךָ׃	“Besides, whom should I serve? Should I not serve in the presence of his son? As I have served in your father’s presence, so I will be in your presence.”
1 Chronicles 17:13	אֲנִי אֶהְיֶה־לּוֹ לְאָב וְהוּא יִהְיֶה־לִּי לְבֵן וְחַסְדִּי לֹא־אָסִיר מֵעִמּוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר הֲסִירוֹתִי מֵאֲשֶׁר הָיָה לְפָנֶיךָ׃	“I will be his father and he shall be My son; and I will not take My lovingkindness away from him, as I took it from him who was before you.
1 Chronicles 28:6	וַיֹּאמֶר לִי שְׁלֹמֹה בִנְךָ הוּא־יִבְנֶה בֵיתִי וַחֲצֵרוֹתָי כִּי־בָחַרְתִּי בוֹ לִי לְבֵן וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה־לּוֹ לְאָב׃	“He said to me, ‘Your son Solomon is the one who shall build My house and My courts; for I have chosen him to be a son to Me, and I will be a father to him.
* Job 3:16	אוֹ כְנֵפֶל טָמוּן לֹא אֶהְיֶה כְּעֹלְלִים לֹא־רָאוּ אוֹר׃	“Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, As infants that never saw light.
* Job 10:19	כַּאֲשֶׁר לֹא־הָיִיתִי אֶהְיֶה מִבֶּטֶן לַקֶּבֶר אוּבָל׃	‘I should have been as though I had not been, Carried from womb to tomb.’
* Job 12:4	שְׂחֹק לְרֵעֵהוּ אֶהְיֶה קֹרֵא לֶאֱלוֹהַּ וַיַּעֲנֵהוּ שְׂחוֹק צַדִּיק תָּמִים׃	“I am a joke to my friends, The one who called on God and He answered him; The just and blameless man is a joke.
* Job 17:6	וְהִצִּגַנִי לִמְשֹׁל עַמִּים וְתֹפֶת לְפָנִים אֶהְיֶה׃	“But He has made me a byword of the people, And I am one at whom men spit.
Psalm 50:21	אֵלֶּה עָשִׂיתָ וְהֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי דִּמִּיתָ הֱיוֹת־אֶהְיֶה כָמוֹךָ אוֹכִיחֲךָ וְאֶעֶרְכָה לְעֵינֶיךָ׃	“These things you have done and I kept silence; You thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes.
* Song of Solomon 1:7	הַגִּידָה לִּי שֶׁאָהֲבָה נַפְשִׁי אֵיכָה תִרְעֶה אֵיכָה תַּרְבִּיץ בַּצָּהֳרָיִם שַׁלָּמָה אֶהְיֶה כְּעֹטְיָה עַל עֶדְרֵי חֲבֵרֶיךָ׃	“Tell me, O you whom my soul loves, Where do you pasture your flock, Where do you make it lie down at noon? For why should I be like one who veils herself Beside the flocks of your companions?”
* Isaiah 3:7	יִשָּׂא בַיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר לֹא־אֶהְיֶה חֹבֵשׁ וּבְבֵיתִי אֵין לֶחֶם וְאֵין שִׂמְלָה לֹא תְשִׂימֻנִי קְצִין עָם׃	He will protest on that day, saying, “I will not be your healer, For in my house there is neither bread nor cloak; You should not appoint me ruler of the people.”
* Isaiah 47:7	וַתֹּאמְרִי לְעוֹלָם אֶהְיֶה גְבָרֶת עַד לֹא־שַׂמְתְּ אֵלֶּה עַל־לִבֵּךְ לֹא זָכַרְתְּ אַחֲרִיתָהּ׃	“Yet you said, ‘I will be a queen forever.’ These things you did not consider Nor remember the outcome of them.
Jeremiah 11:4	אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אֶת־אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם בְּיוֹם הוֹצִיאִי־אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ־מִצְרַיִם מִכּוּר הַבַּרְזֶל לֵאמֹר שִׁמְעוּ בְקוֹלִי וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אוֹתָם כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־אֲצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם וִהְיִיתֶם לִי לְעָם וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים׃	which I commanded your forefathers in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, ‘Listen to My voice, and do according to all which I command you; so you shall be My people, and I will be your God,’
Jeremiah 24:7	וְנָתַתִּי לָהֶם לֵב לָדַעַת אֹתִי כִּי אֲנִי יהוה וְהָיוּ־לִי לְעָם וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים כִּי־יָשֻׁבוּ אֵלַי בְּכָל־לִבָּם׃	‘I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.
Jeremiah 30:22	וִהְיִיתֶם לִי לְעָם וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים׃	‘You shall be My people, And I will be your God.’ ”
Jeremiah 31:1	בָּעֵת הַהִיא נְאֻם־יהוה אֶהְיֶה לֵאלֹהִים לְכֹל מִשְׁפְּחוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהֵמָּה יִהְיוּ־לִי לְעָם׃	“At that time,” declares the LORD, “I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people.”
Jeremiah 32:38	וְהָיוּ לִי לְעָם וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים׃	“They shall be My people, and I will be their God;
Ezekiel 11:20	לְמַעַן בְּחֻקֹּתַי יֵלֵכוּ וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַי יִשְׁמְרוּ וְעָשׂוּ אֹתָם וְהָיוּ־לִי לְעָם וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים׃	that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God.
Ezekiel 14:11	לְמַעַן לֹא־יִתְעוּ עוֹד בֵּית־יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאַחֲרַי וְלֹא־יִטַּמְּאוּ עוֹד בְּכָל־פִּשְׁעֵיהֶם וְהָיוּ לִי לְעָם וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יהוה׃	in order that the house of Israel may no longer stray from Me and no longer defile themselves with all their transgressions. Thus they will be My people, and I shall be their God,” ’ declares the Lord GOD.”
Ezekiel 34:24	וַאֲנִי יהוה אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים וְעַבְדִּי דָוִד נָשִׂיא בְתוֹכָם אֲנִי יהוה דִּבַּרְתִּי׃	“And I, the LORD, will be their God, and My servant David will be prince among them; I the LORD have spoken.
Ezekiel 36:28	וִישַׁבְתֶּם בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לַאֲבֹתֵיכֶם וִהְיִיתֶם לִי לְעָם וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים׃	“You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.
Ezekiel 37:23	וְלֹא יִטַּמְּאוּ עוֹד בְּגִלּוּלֵיהֶם וּבְשִׁקּוּצֵיהֶם וּבְכֹל פִּשְׁעֵיהֶם וְהוֹשַׁעְתִּי אֹתָם מִכֹּל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר חָטְאוּ בָהֶם וְטִהַרְתִּי אוֹתָם וְהָיוּ־לִי לְעָם וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים׃	“They will no longer defile themselves with their idols, or with their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. And they will be My people, and I will be their God.
Hosea 1:9	וַיֹּאמֶר קְרָא שְׁמוֹ לֹא עַמִּי כִּי אַתֶּם לֹא עַמִּי וְאָנֹכִי לֹא־אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם׃	And the LORD said, “Name him Lo-ammi, for you are not My people and I am not your God.”
Hosea 14:6	אֶהְיֶה כַטַּל לְיִשְׂרָאֵל יִפְרַח כַּשּׁוֹשַׁנָּה וְיַךְ שָׁרָשָׁיו כַּלְּבָנוֹן׃	NASB Hosea 14:5 I will be like the dew to Israel; He will blossom like the lily, And he will take root like the cedars of Lebanon.
Zechariah 2:9	וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה־לָּהּ נְאֻם־יהוה חוֹמַת אֵשׁ סָבִיב וּלְכָבוֹד אֶהְיֶה בְתוֹכָהּ׃	NASB Zechariah 2:5 ‘For I,’ declares the LORD, ‘will be a wall of fire around her, and I will be the glory in her midst.’ ”
Zechariah 8:8	וְהֵבֵאתִי אֹתָם וְשָׁכְנוּ בְּתוֹךְ יְרוּשָׁלָםִ וְהָיוּ־לִי לְעָם וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים בֶּאֱמֶת וּבִצְדָקָה׃	and I will bring them back and they will live in the midst of Jerusalem; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God in truth and righteousness.’