θεοβλογουμενα (theoblogoumena )

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

2011-10-24T08:53:00.010-05:00

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

2011-10-08T19:38:00.008-05:00

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

obscures the subordinate participial clause "having been deceived";
loses the emphasis in the Greek on "in transgression"; and
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"?

2011-06-30T00:26:00.022-05:00

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"

2011-06-27T21:54:00.020-05:00

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"

2011-06-26T09:57:00.043-05:00

"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

2011-06-16T22:32:00.003-05:00

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?

2011-06-16T00:56:00.000-05:00

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!"

2011-06-14T21:16:00.009-05:00

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 for himself.

As for the Scripture passage from Matthew 23 that I was going to discuss, I also decided to just let Jesus' words speak for themselves, 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 other 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?

2011-06-06T22:36:00.002-05:00

"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"?

2011-05-27T22:56:00.007-05:00

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

2011-05-25T21:55:00.026-05:00

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

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 in red when אֶהְיֶה refers 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.’

St. Peter On Why There Was No Judgment Day May 21, 2011, And Why Jesus May Not Be Returning Anytime Soon

2011-05-21T13:57:00.003-05:00

Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. (2 Peter 3:11-12a, NIV 2011)

A synopsis of 2 Peter:

Peter, expecting his imminent death and wanting to give his fellow Christians some parting words, exhorts his readers to be diligent in their faith so as to make sure their being called and chosen by God for His Kingdom.

He confirms his words by his authority and experience.

He warns them that false teachers will bring in destructive teachings, and will lead many to leave the truth to follow after their sensuality. Others will come and mock the promise of the Lord’s return and the destruction of the present order.

But God’s promise is sure, he says, and if God seems to be slow to bring about the end of the present age, it’s because He wants them to repent and not perish.

They should continue their efforts to live godly lives, pursuing these things with diligence so they may be found blameless by the Lord when He comes. If He delays, it’s for the benefit of their salvation.

Peter concludes with

Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (NIV 2011)

thus ending his Epistle with an exhortation to do what he told them to do at the beginning.

Many may be looking forward to, and even striving to hasten, the day of the Lord.

But God may be more interested in seeing His people increase in Christlikeness than in wrapping things up when many of them still have a long way to grow before they can live in the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells.

I.e., He may not be ready until we're ready.*

If so, I suspect we probably shouldn't expect Jesus' return for a long, long time.

* I know this creates some tension with the teaching elsewhere in Scripture, primarily by Paul, that we who believe in Christ have been clothed with His righteousness and will stand before God based on that, and not based on what we've done or been. But it's possible that a demeaning or dismissing of our efforts towards personal holiness may be what Peter is referring to in 3:15b-16 when he says that some destructively distort Paul's teachings.

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Β

1.1 Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ· 2 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.

3 Ὡς πάντα ἡμῖν τῆς θείας δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν καὶ εὐσέβειαν δεδωρημένης διὰ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ, 4 διʼ ὧν τὰ τίμια καὶ μέγιστα ἡμῖν ἐπαγγέλματα δεδώρηται, ἵνα διὰ τούτων γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, ἀποφυγόντες τῆς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ φθορᾶς. 5 καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δὲ σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρεισενέγκαντες ἐπιχορηγήσατε ἐν τῇ πίστει ὑμῶν τὴν ἀρετήν, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἀρετῇ τὴν γνῶσιν, 6 ἐν δὲ τῇ γνώσει τὴν ἐγκράτειαν, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐγκρατείᾳ τὴν ὑπομονήν, ἐν δὲ τῇ ὑπομονῇ τὴν εὐσέβειαν, 7 ἐν δὲ τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ τὴν φιλαδελφίαν, ἐν δὲ τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ τὴν ἀγάπην· 8 ταῦτα γὰρ ὑμῖν ὑπάρχοντα καὶ πλεονάζοντα οὐκ ἀργοὺς οὐδὲ ἀκάρπους καθίστησιν εἰς τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπίγνωσιν· 9 ᾧ γὰρ μὴ πάρεστιν ταῦτα, τυφλός ἐστιν μυωπάζων, λήθην λαβὼν τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ τῶν πάλαι αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτημάτων. 10 διὸ μᾶλλον, ἀδελφοί, σπουδάσατε βεβαίαν ὑμῶν τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογὴν ποιεῖσθαι· ταῦτα γὰρ ποιοῦντες οὐ μὴ πταίσητέ ποτε· 11 οὕτως γὰρ πλουσίως ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται ὑμῖν ἡ εἴσοδος εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον βασιλείαν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

12 Διὸ μελλήσω ἀεὶ ὑμᾶς ὑπομιμνῄσκειν περὶ τούτων, καίπερ εἰδότας καὶ ἐστηριγμένους ἐν τῇ παρούσῃ ἀληθείᾳ. 13 δίκαιον δὲ ἡγοῦμαι, ἐφʼ ὅσον εἰμὶ ἐν τούτῳ τῷ σκηνώματι, διεγείρειν ὑμᾶς ἐν ὑπομνήσει, 14 εἰδὼς ὅτι ταχινή ἐστιν ἡ ἀπόθεσις τοῦ σκηνώματός μου, καθὼς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐδήλωσέν μοι· 15 σπουδάσω δὲ καὶ ἑκάστοτε ἔχειν ὑμᾶς μετὰ τὴν ἐμὴν ἔξοδον τὴν τούτων μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι.

16 Οὐ γὰρ σεσοφισμένοις μύθοις ἐξακολουθήσαντες ἐγνωρίσαμεν ὑμῖν τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δύναμιν καὶ παρουσίαν, ἀλλʼ ἐπόπται γενηθέντες τῆς ἐκείνου μεγαλειότητος. 17 λαβὼν γὰρ παρὰ θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ τοιᾶσδε ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης· Ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός μου οὗτός ἐστιν, εἰς ὃν ἐγὼ εὐδόκησα— 18 καὶ ταύτην τὴν φωνὴν ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐνεχθεῖσαν σὺν αὐτῷ ὄντες ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ ὄρει. 19 καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ, ἕως οὗ ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν· 20 τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται, 21 οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου ἠνέχθη προφητεία ποτέ, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι.

2.1 Ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐν τῷ λαῷ, ὡς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσονται ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, οἵτινες παρεισάξουσιν αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας, καὶ τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι, ἐπάγοντες ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν ἀπώλειαν· 2 καὶ πολλοὶ ἐξακολουθήσουσιν αὐτῶν ταῖς ἀσελγείαις, διʼ οὓς ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας βλασφημηθήσεται· 3 καὶ ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ πλαστοῖς λόγοις ὑμᾶς ἐμπορεύσονται· οἷς τὸ κρίμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἀπώλεια αὐτῶν οὐ νυστάζει.

4 Εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλὰ σειραῖς ζόφου ταρταρώσας παρέδωκεν εἰς κρίσιν τηρουμένους, 5 καὶ ἀρχαίου κόσμου οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλὰ ὄγδοον Νῶε δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα ἐφύλαξεν, κατακλυσμὸν κόσμῳ ἀσεβῶν ἐπάξας, 6 καὶ πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Γομόρρας τεφρώσας καταστροφῇ κατέκρινεν, ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων ἀσεβέσιν τεθεικώς, 7 καὶ δίκαιον Λὼτ καταπονούμενον ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν ἀθέσμων ἐν ἀσελγείᾳ ἀναστροφῆς ἐρρύσατο— 8 βλέμματι γὰρ καὶ ἀκοῇ ὁ δίκαιος ἐγκατοικῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας ψυχὴν δικαίαν ἀνόμοις ἔργοις ἐβασάνιζεν— 9 οἶδεν κύριος εὐσεβεῖς ἐκ πειρασμοῦ ῥύεσθαι, ἀδίκους δὲ εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως κολαζομένους τηρεῖν, 10 μάλιστα δὲ τοὺς ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευομένους καὶ κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας.

Τολμηταὶ, αὐθάδεις, δόξας οὐ τρέμουσιν, βλασφημοῦντες, 11 ὅπου ἄγγελοι ἰσχύϊ καὶ δυνάμει μείζονες ὄντες οὐ φέρουσιν κατʼ αὐτῶν βλάσφημον κρίσιν. 12 οὗτοι δέ, ὡς ἄλογα ζῷα γεγεννημένα φυσικὰ εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ φθοράν, ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσιν βλασφημοῦντες, ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν καὶ φθαρήσονται, 13 ἀδικούμενοι μισθὸν ἀδικίας· ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι τὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τρυφήν, σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν συνευωχούμενοι ὑμῖν, 14 ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες μεστοὺς μοιχαλίδος καὶ ἀκαταπαύστους ἁμαρτίας, δελεάζοντες ψυχὰς ἀστηρίκτους, καρδίαν γεγυμνασμένην πλεονεξίας ἔχοντες, κατάρας τέκνα, 15 καταλιπόντες εὐθεῖαν ὁδὸν ἐπλανήθησαν, ἐξακολουθήσαντες τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ τοῦ Βοσὸρ ὃς μισθὸν ἀδικίας ἠγάπησεν 16 ἔλεγξιν δὲ ἔσχεν ἰδίας παρανομίας· ὑποζύγιον ἄφωνον ἐν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ φθεγξάμενον ἐκώλυσεν τὴν τοῦ προφήτου παραφρονίαν.

17 Οὗτοί εἰσιν πηγαὶ ἄνυδροι καὶ ὁμίχλαι ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμεναι, οἷς ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους τετήρηται. 18 ὑπέρογκα γὰρ ματαιότητος φθεγγόμενοι δελεάζουσιν ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις σαρκὸς ἀσελγείαις τοὺς ὀλίγως ἀποφεύγοντας τοὺς ἐν πλάνῃ ἀναστρεφομένους, 19 ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπαγγελλόμενοι, αὐτοὶ δοῦλοι ὑπάρχοντες τῆς φθορᾶς· ᾧ γάρ τις ἥττηται, τούτῳ καὶ δεδούλωται. 20 εἰ γὰρ ἀποφυγόντες τὰ μιάσματα τοῦ κόσμου ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τούτοις δὲ πάλιν ἐμπλακέντες ἡττῶνται, γέγονεν αὐτοῖς τὰ ἔσχατα χείρονα τῶν πρώτων. 21 κρεῖττον γὰρ ἦν αὐτοῖς μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἢ ἐπιγνοῦσιν ὑποστρέψαι ἐκ τῆς παραδοθείσης αὐτοῖς ἁγίας ἐντολῆς· 22 συμβέβηκεν αὐτοῖς τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς παροιμίας· Κύων ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα, καί· Ὗς λουσαμένη εἰς κυλισμὸν βορβόρου.

3.1 Ταύτην ἤδη, ἀγαπητοί, δευτέραν ὑμῖν γράφω ἐπιστολήν, ἐν αἷς διεγείρω ὑμῶν ἐν ὑπομνήσει τὴν εἰλικρινῆ διάνοιαν, 2 μνησθῆναι τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος, 3 τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες ὅτι ἐλεύσονται ἐπʼ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ ἐμπαῖκται κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι 4 καὶ λέγοντες· Ποῦ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ; ἀφʼ ἧς γὰρ οἱ πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν, πάντα οὕτως διαμένει ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως. 5 λανθάνει γὰρ αὐτοὺς τοῦτο θέλοντας ὅτι οὐρανοὶ ἦσαν ἔκπαλαι καὶ γῆ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ διʼ ὕδατος συνεστῶσα τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγῳ, 6 διʼ ὧν ὁ τότε κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶς ἀπώλετο· 7 οἱ δὲ νῦν οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ τεθησαυρισμένοι εἰσὶν πυρὶ τηρούμενοι εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως καὶ ἀπωλείας τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἀνθρώπων.

8 Ἓν δὲ τοῦτο μὴ λανθανέτω ὑμᾶς, ἀγαπητοί, ὅτι μία ἡμέρα παρὰ κυρίῳ ὡς χίλια ἔτη καὶ χίλια ἔτη ὡς ἡμέρα μία. 9 οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται, ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς, μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι. 10 ἥξει δὲ ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης, ἐν ᾗ οἱ οὐρανοὶ ῥοιζηδὸν παρελεύσονται, στοιχεῖα δὲ καυσούμενα λυθήσεται, καὶ γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα εὑρεθήσεται.

11 Τούτων οὕτως πάντων λυομένων ποταποὺς δεῖ ὑπάρχειν ὑμᾶς ἐν ἁγίαις ἀναστροφαῖς καὶ εὐσεβείαις, 12 προσδοκῶντας καὶ σπεύδοντας τὴν παρουσίαν τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμέρας, διʼ ἣν οὐρανοὶ πυρούμενοι λυθήσονται καὶ στοιχεῖα καυσούμενα τήκεται· 13 καινοὺς δὲ οὐρανοὺς καὶ γῆν καινὴν κατὰ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα αὐτοῦ προσδοκῶμεν, ἐν οἷς δικαιοσύνη κατοικεῖ.

14 Διό, ἀγαπητοί, ταῦτα προσδοκῶντες σπουδάσατε ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι αὐτῷ εὑρεθῆναι ἐν εἰρήνῃ, 15 καὶ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν μακροθυμίαν σωτηρίαν ἡγεῖσθε, καθὼς καὶ ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος κατὰ τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ σοφίαν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν, 16 ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς λαλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων, ἐν αἷς ἐστιν δυσνόητά τινα, ἃ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς γραφὰς πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν. 17 ὑμεῖς οὖν, ἀγαπητοί, προγινώσκοντες φυλάσσεσθε ἵνα μὴ τῇ τῶν ἀθέσμων πλάνῃ συναπαχθέντες ἐκπέσητε τοῦ ἰδίου στηριγμοῦ, 18 αὐξάνετε δὲ ἐν χάριτι καὶ γνώσει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς ἡμέραν αἰῶνος. ἀμήν.

Holmes, M. W. (2010; 2010). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition. Logos Bible Software.

Last Supper, Eucharist, And Didache

2011-05-08T03:06:00.003-05:00

Note: The Greek characters best display in Firefox or Safari, not Internet Explorer.

Most Christians are familiar with the traditional words for the Eucharist or the Lord's Table/Lord's Supper as stated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (which reflects some editing or development or standardization of the varying accounts of the Last Supper from the Gospels - see Jesus' actions and "words of institution" in Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke 22:14-20, compared with each other and with Paul's "tradition" in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 below):

23 Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον 24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν· Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 25 ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων· Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 26 ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν ἐσθίητε τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον πίνητε, τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε, ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ. (The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition)

23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. (The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. 1989. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

While many non-sacramental Protestant churches may simply read the above or the Gospel accounts for communion, liturgical and sacramental churches are more elaborate in what they say (and do). Here is the Eucharistic portion of The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as used by the Eastern Orthodox Church:

Priest (in a low voice): Together with these blessed powers, merciful Master, we also proclaim and say: You are holy and most holy, You and Your only-begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You are holy and most holy, and sublime is Your glory. You so loved Your world that You gave Your only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. He came and fulfilled the divine plan for us. On the night when He was betrayed, or rather when He gave Himself up for the life of the world, He took bread in His holy, pure, and blameless hands, gave thanks, blessed, sanctified, broke, and gave it to His holy disciples and apostles saying:

Priest: Take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins.

People: Amen.

Priest (in a low voice): Likewise, after supper, He took the cup, saying:

Priest: Drink of it all of you; this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

People: Amen.

Priest (in a low voice): Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming.

Priest: We offer to You these gifts from Your own gifts in all and for all.

People: We praise You, we bless You, we give thanks to You, and we pray to You, Lord our God.

Priest (in a low voice): Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented.

Priest: And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.

Deacon: Amen.

Priest: And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.

Deacon: Amen.

Priest: Changing them by Your Holy Spirit.

Deacon: Amen. Amen. Amen.

Priest: So that they may be to those who partake of them for vigilance of soul, forgiveness of sins, communion of Your Holy Spirit, fulfillment of the kingdom of heaven, confidence before You, and not in judgment or condemnation.

But there was apparently another Eucharistic tradition in the church, preserved for us in The Didache ("The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles") and possibly dating from as early as Paul's Epistle.

(Note: Information on The Didache and its history and importance can be found here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html.)

The text below is from Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (258–262). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

9.1 Περὶ δὲ τῆς εὐχαριστίας, οὕτω εὐχαριστήσατε.
(2) πρῶτον περὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου· Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἡμῶν,ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας ἀμπέλου Δαυὶδ τοῦ παιδός σου, ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖνδιὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου· σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
(3) περὶ δὲ τοῦ κλάσματος· Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως, ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου· σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
(4) Ὥσπερ ἦν τοῦτο [τὸ] κλάσμα διεσκορπισμένον ἐπάνω τῶν ὀρέων καὶ συναχθὲν ἐγένετο ἕν, οὕτω συναχθήτω σου ἡ ἐκκλησίαἀπὸ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς εἰς τὴν σὴν βασιλείαν· ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ δύναμις διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ¹⁸ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
(5) μηδεὶς δὲ φαγέτω μηδὲ πιέτω ἀπὸ τῆς εὐχαριστίας ὑμῶν, ἀλλʼ οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς ὄνομα κυρίου, καὶ γὰρ περὶ τούτου εἴρηκεν ὁ κύριος· Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί.

10.1 Μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἐμπλησθῆναι οὕτως εὐχαριστήσατε·
(2) Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἅγιε, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἁγίου ὀνόματός σου οὗ κατεσκήνωσας ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν, καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ πίστεως καὶ ἀθανασίας ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου· σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
(3) Σύ, δέσποτα παντοκράτορ, ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματός σου, τροφήν τε καὶ ποτὸν ἔδωκας τοῖς ἀνθρώποις¹⁹ εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν, ἵνα σοι εὐχαριστήσωσιν·²⁰ ἡμῖν δὲ ἐχαρίσω πνευματικὴν τροφὴν καὶ ποτὸν, καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον δια²¹ τοῦ παιδός σου.
(4) Πρὸ πάντων εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι ὅτι δυνατὸς εἶ σύ· σοὶ²² ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
(5) Μνήσθητι, κύριε, τῆς ἐκκλησίας σου, τοῦ ῥύσασθαι αὐτὴν ἀπὸ παντὸς πονηροῦ καὶ τελειῶσαι αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου, καὶ σύναξον αὐτὴν ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων, τὴν ἁγιασθεῖσαν,²³ εἰς τὴν σὴν βασιλείαν, ἣν ἡτοίμασας αὐτῇ· ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
(6) Ἐλθέτω χάρις καὶ παρελθέτω ὁ κόσμος οὗτος. Ὡσαννὰ τῷ θεῷ²⁴ Δαυίδ. Εἴ τις ἅγιός ἐστιν, ἐρχέσθω· εἴ τις οὐκ ἐστί, μετανοείτω· Μαραναθά. Ἀμήν.
(7) Τοῖς δὲ προφήταις ἐπιτρέπετε εὐχαριστεῖν ὅσα θέλουσιν.²⁵

The following section may also relate to the Eucharist:

14.1 Κατὰ κυριακὴν³² δὲ κυρίου συναχθέντες κλάσατε ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσατε, προεξομολογησάμενοι τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν, ὅπως καθαρὰ ἡ θυσία ὑμῶν³³ ᾖ.
(2) πᾶς δὲ ἔχων τὴν ἀμφιβολίαν μετὰ τοῦ ἑταίρου αὐτοῦ μὴ συνελθέτω ὑμῖν, ἕως οὗ διαλλαγῶσιν, ἵνα μὴ κοινωθῇ ἡ θυσία ὑμῶν.
(3) αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ῥηθεῖσα ὑπὸ κυρίου· Ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ καὶ χρόνῳ προσφέρειν μοι θυσίαν καθαράν· ὅτι βασιλεὺς μέγας εἰμί, λέγει κύριος, καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου θαυμαστὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι.

9. Now concerning the Eucharist,²⁹ give thanks as follows.
(2) First, concerning the cup: We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you have made known to us through Jesus, your servant (ὁ or ἡ παῖς, παιδός - see entry from BDAG Lexicon below); to you be the glory forever.
(3) And concerning the broken bread (τό κλάσμα, ατος - fragment, piece, crumb. In the New Testament only at Matthew 14:20, 15:37; Mark 6:43, 8:8,19-20; Luke 9:17; John 6:12-13, all having to do with the feeding of the 5,000 and the 4,000): We give you thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known to us through Jesus, your servant; to you be the glory forever.
(4) Just as this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and then was gathered together and became one, so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom; for yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.
(5) But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for the Lord has also spoken concerning this: “Do not give what is holy to dogs.”³⁰

10. And after you have had enough, give thanks as follows:
(2) We give you thanks, Holy Father, for your holy name which you have caused to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant; to you be the glory forever.
(3) You, almighty Master, created all things for your name’s sake, and gave food and drink to men to enjoy, that they might give you thanks; but to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink, and eternal life through your servant.³¹
(4) Above all we give thanks because you are mighty; to you be the glory forever.
(5) Remember your church, Lord, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in your love; and gather it, the one that has been sanctified, from the four winds into your kingdom, which you have prepared for it; for yours is the power and the glory forever.
(6) May grace come, and may this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David. If anyone is holy, let him come; if anyone is not, let him repent.³² Maranatha!³³ Amen.
(7) But permit the prophets to give thanks however they wish.³⁴

The following section may also relate to the Eucharist:

14. On the Lord’s own day gather together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.
(2) But let no one who has a quarrel with a companion join you until they have been reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be defiled.
(3) For this is the sacrifice concerning which the Lord said, “In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is marvelous among the nations.”³⁹

[Encloses emendations of the Greek text.

¹⁸ δια …Χριστου C Georg] - ApCon

¹⁹ ανθρωποις C] υιοις των ανθρωπων Co

²⁰ ινα …ευχαριστησωσιν C] - Co

²¹ δια C] + Ιησου Co

²² συ• σοι em Harnack] συ C; σοι Co Georg

²³ την αγιασθεισαν C Georg] - Co

²⁴ θεῳ C Georg] οικῳ Co; υιῳ ApCon

²⁵ θελουσιν C Georg] + περι δε του λογου (- τ. λ. ApCon) του μυρου ουτως ευχαριστησατε λεγοντες (- ApCon)• ευχαριστουμεν σοι πατερ (θεε δημιουργε των ολων και ApCon) υπερ (+ της ευωδιας ApCon) του μυρου (+ και υπερ του αθανατου αιωνος ApCon), ου εγνωρισας ημιν δια Ιησου του παιδος σου• σοι (οτι σου εστιν ApCon) η δοξα (+ και η δυναμις ApCon) εις τους αιωνας• αμην Co ApCon

³² κατα κυριακην C] καθʼ ημεραν Georg (ApCon?)

³³ υμων Georg ApCon] ημων C

²⁹ Eucharist: i.e., “the thanksgiving.” The word eucharistia, which in the New Testament is used in the general sense of “thankfulness” or “thanksgiving” (cf., e.g., Acts 24:3; Phil. 4:6; 1 Thess. 3:9), soon became a technical term for the primary act of “giving thanks,” namely the Lord’s Supper (cf. Ign. Smyrn 6.2; Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 65). Lightfoot, apparently in an effort to capture both the general and technical senses of the term, translates the word as “eucharistic thanksgiving.”

³⁰ Matt. 7:6.

³¹ servant: so C; Co adds Jesus.

³² repent: or possibly be converted.

³³ I.e., “Our Lord, come!”; cf. 1 Cor. 16:22.

³⁴ Both Co and ApCon add here a section, not found in C or Georg, which reads as follows: And concerning the ointment, give thanks as follows: We give you thanks, Father, for the fragrant ointment which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant; to you be the glory forever. Amen. See Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, 167–69, for a discussion.

³⁹ Mal. 1:11, 14.

παῖς, παιδός, ὁ or ἡ (Hom. et al.) child.
...
[3] one who is committed in total obedience to another, slave, servant
...
ⓑ of special relationships
...
γ. of Christ in his relation to God. In this connection it has the mng. servant because of the identification of the ‘servant of God’ of certain OT pass. w. the Messiah (Is 52:13 et al.; BJanowski/PStuhlmacher, edd., Der Leidende Gottesknecht ’96 [lit.]; DBS XII 1000–1016) Mt 12:18 (cp. Is 42:1); B 6:1; B 9:2 (on the last two cp. Is 50:10). So prob. also D 9:2b (because of the immediate proximity of Δαυὶδ ὁ παῖς σου 9:2a); 9:3; 10:2f.—In other places (cp. Ath. 10, 2; 12, 2 al.; Iren. 3, 12, 5 [Harv. II 58, 8]) the mng. son is certainly to be preferred (παῖς was so understood in the Gk. world, when it expressed a relationship to a divinity: Il. 2, 205 Κρόνου παῖς; Sappho 1, 2 Diehl; Alcaeus 1; Bacchylides 17, 70 Minos, a παῖς of Zeus; Hermocles [IV/III B.C.] p. 174 Coll. Alex.=Athen. 6, 63, 253d: Demetrius Poliorcetes as π. Ποσειδῶνος θεοῦ; Diod S 17, 51, 1 the god Ammon has his prophet address Alexander thus χαῖρε, ὦ παῖ; what follows makes it clear that procreation is meant; Plut., Mor. 180d; Maximus Tyr. 14, 1d; Paus. 2, 10, 3 Ἄρατος Ἀσκληπιοῦ π.; Diogenes, Ep. 36, 1; Philostrat., Vi. Apoll. 7, 24 p. 279, 4; Porphyr., Vi. Plot. 23; Iambl., Vi. Pyth. 2, 10; IG IV2, 128, 50 [280 B.C.] and oft.; Sb 8314, 9 Hermes conducts the dead man to the Elysian fields ἅμα παισὶ θεῶν. S. above bα the παῖδες θεῶν. Cp. also Herm. Wr. 13, 2 ὁ γεννώμενος θεοῦ θεὸς παῖς; 13, 4; 14; Rtzst., Poim. 223f.—Celsus 7, 9) παῖς αὐτοῦ ὁ μονογενὴς Ἰησοῦς Χρ. MPol 20:2. God as ὁ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ κ. εὐλογητοῦ παιδὸς Ἰησοῦ Χρ. πατήρ 14:1. Corresp. Christ as God’s ἀγαπητὸς παῖς 14:3; Dg 8:11. The same is true of the other pass. in Dg: 8:9; 9:1.—In the case of the rest of the pass. it is hardly poss. to decide which mng. is better: Ac 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30 (unless the παῖς σου your servant of 4:25 should demand the same transl. for the other pass. as well; JMénard, CBQ 19, ’57, 83–92 [Acts]); 1 Cl 59:2–4 (in wordplay w. παιδεύω; but here the word ἠγαπημένος repeated in vss. 2 and 3 [cp. the magical pap of c. 300 A.D. in TSchermann, TU 34, 2b, 1909, 3: Christ as ἠγαπημένος παῖς] could suggest the transl. son). - Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (750–751). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jesus' actions and "words of institution" in Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke 22:14-20, compared with each other and with Paul's "tradition" in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

blue = Common to Matthew, Mark, Luke
red = Common to Matthew, Mark
purple = Common to Matthew, Luke (ἀπʼ/ἀπὸ only)
green = Common to Mark, Luke (ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς and θεοῦ only)

Matthew 26:
26 Ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον καὶ εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ δοὺς τοῖς μαθηταῖς εἶπεν· Λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. 27 καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· Πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες, 28 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν· 29 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπʼ ἄρτι ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω μεθʼ ὑμῶν καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου.

Mark 14:
22 Καὶ ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ εἶπεν· Λάβετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. 23 καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες. 24 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν. 25 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ.

Luke 22:
14 Καὶ ὅτε ἐγένετο ἡ ὥρα, ἀνέπεσεν καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι σὺν αὐτῷ. 15 καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς· Ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθʼ ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν· 16 λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ φάγω αὐτὸ ἕως ὅτου πληρωθῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ. 17 καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν· Λάβετε τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς· 18 λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. 19 καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου [τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 20 καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων· Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον].

Matthew 26:
26 while-eating but them having-taken the Jesus a-loaf and having-blessed he-broke and having-given to-the disciples he-said: Take eat, this is the body my. 27 and having-taken a-cup and having-thanked he-gave to-them saying: Drink out-of it all, 28 this for is the blood my of-the covenant the concerning many poured-out unto forgiveness of-sins. 29 I-say but to-you, no not I-will-drink from this-time out-of this of-the yield of-the vine until the day that whenever it I-drink with you new in the kingdom of-the father my.

Mark 14:
22 And while-eating them having-taken a-loaf having-blessed he-broke and he-gave to-them and he-said: Take, this is the body my. 23 And having-taken a-cup having-thanked he-gave to-them, and they-drank out-of it all. 24 And he-said to-them: This is the blood my of-the covenant the poured-out for many. 25 Truly I-say to-you that no-longer no not I-will-drink out-of of-the yield of-the vine until the day that whenever it I-drink new in the kingdom of-the God.

Luke 22:
14 And when happened the hour, he-reclined and the apostles with him. 15 and he-said to them: With-desire I-desired this the Passover to-eat with you before the me to-suffer. 16 I-say for to-you that no not I-will-eat it until whatever it-should-be-fulfilled in the kingdom of-the God. 17 And having-welcomed a-cup having-thanked he-said: Take this and divide unto yourselves; 18 I-say for to-you, no not I-will-drink from the now from of-the yield of-the vine until where the kingdom of-the God should-come. 19 And having-taken a-loaf having-thanked he-broke and he-gave to-them saying: This is the body my [the for you being-given; this do unto the mine remembrance. 20 And the cup likewise after the to-sup, saying: This the cup the new covenant in the blood my, the for you poured-out].

Underlining shows that Paul's words are largely taken from Luke's account (the longer form - see the Textual Commentary notes below):

1 Corinthians 11:
23 Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον 24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν· Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 25 ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων· Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 26 ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν ἐσθίητε τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον πίνητε, τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε, ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ.

23 I for received from the Lord, which and I-delivered-up to-you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in-which he-was-being-delivered-up took a-loaf 24 and having-thanked he-broke and he-said: This my is the body the for you; this do unto the mine remembrance. 25 Likewise and the cup after the to-sup, saying: This the cup the new covenant is in the mine blood; this do, as-often-as should you-should-drink, unto the mine remembrance. 26 As-often-as for should you-should-eat the loaf this and the cup you-should-drink, the death of-the Lord you-proclaim, until-the-time where he-should-come.

Textual Commentary on Luke 22:17–20 {B}*

The Lukan account of the Last Supper has been transmitted in two principal forms: (1) the longer, or traditional, text of cup-bread-cup is read by all Greek manuscripts except D and by most of the ancient versions and Fathers; (2) the shorter, or Western, text (read by D it^{a, d, ff2, i, l}) omits verses 19b and 20 (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν … ἐκχυννόμενον), thereby presenting the sequence of cup-bread.¹ Four intermediate forms of text, which appear to be compromises between the two principal forms, are the following: (a) two Old Latin manuscripts (it^{b, e}) modify the shorter text by placing ver. 19a before ver. 17, thus securing the customary order of bread-cup; (b) the Curetonian Syriac reads the same, but is enlarged with the wording of 1 Cor 11:24 added to ver. 19a; (c) the Sinaitic Syriac is still further expanded, chiefly by the insertion of “after they had supped” at the beginning of ver. 17 and “this is my blood, the new covenant” (ver. 20b) between verses 17 and 18; and (d) the Peshitta Syriac lacks (perhaps due to homoeoteleuton) verses 17 and 18, as do also l³², two Sahidic manuscripts, and one Bohairic manuscript. For convenience of comparison the six forms of the text are set forth in parallel columns on p. 149.

It is obvious that the chief problem is concerned with the merits of the two principal forms of text, since each of the others can be accounted for more or less satisfactorily as modifications of either the shorter or the longer form.

Majority Text 17. καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς. 18. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, [ὅτι] οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. 19. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 20. καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.	D it^{a, d, ff2, i, l} 17. καὶ δεξάμενος τὸ ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε τοῦτο, διαμερίσατε ἑαυτοῖς. 18. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἔλθῃ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. 19. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου.	it^{b, e} 19. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. 17. καὶ δεξάμενος τὸ ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε (τοῦτο. om. e) διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς. 18. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν (ὅτι, om. e) ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος (+ τούτου b) τῆς ἀμπέλου (+ ταύτης b) ἕως οὗ ἔλθῃ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.
syr^c 19. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔλεγεν, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 17. καὶ δεξάμενος τὸ ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε τοῦτο, διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς. 18. λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τούτου τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἔλθῃ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.	syr^s 19. καὶ λαβῶν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔλεγεν, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 20a. καὶ μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι. 17. δεξάμενος τὸ ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε τοῦτο, διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς. 20b. τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου ἡ διαθήκη ἡ καινή. 18. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τούτου ἕως οὗ ἔλθῃ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.	syr^p 19. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔλεγεν, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 20. καὶ ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.

Table of six forms of the text of Lk 22:17–20, reproduced (with a few minor modifications) from the chapter, “The Textual Data,” by Sir Frederick G. Kenyon and S. C. E. Legg, in The Ministry and the Sacraments, ed. by Roderic Dunkerley (London, 1937), pp. 284 f. By “Majority Text” at the head of the first column is meant the consensus of P⁷⁵ א A B C K L T^vid W X Δ ΘΠ Ψ 063 f ¹ f ¹³ apparently all minuscules it^{c, q, r1} vg syr^pal cop^{sa, bo} arm geo. It will be understood that the Greek form given to the versions is in some details uncertain.

Considerations in favor of the originality of the longer text include the following: (a) The external evidence supporting the shorter reading represents only part of the Western type of text, whereas the other representatives of the Western text join with witnesses belonging to all the other ancient text-types in support of the longer reading. (b) It is easier to suppose that the Bezan editor, puzzled by the sequence of cup-bread-cup, eliminated the second mention of the cup without being concerned about the inverted order of institution thus produced, than that the editor of the longer version, to rectify the inverted order, brought in from Paul the second mention of the cup, while letting the first mention stand. (c) The rise of the shorter version can be accounted for in terms of the theory of disciplina arcana, i. e. in order to protect the Eucharist from profanation, one or more copies of the Gospel according to Luke, prepared for circulation among non-Christian readers, omitted the sacramental formula after the beginning words.

Considerations in favor of the originality of the shorter text include the following: (a) Generally in New Testament textual criticism the shorter reading is to be preferred. (b) Since the words in verses 19b and 20 are suspiciously similar to Paul’s words in 1 Cor 11:24b–25, it appears that the latter passage was the source of their interpolation into the longer text. (c) Verses 19b–20 contain several linguistic features that are non-Lukan.

The weight of these considerations was estimated differently by different members of the Committee. A minority preferred the shorter text as a Western non-interpolation (see the Note following 24.53). The majority, on the other hand, impressed by the overwhelming preponderance of external evidence supporting the longer form, explained the origin of the shorter form as due to some scribal accident or misunderstanding.² The similarity between verses 19b–20 and 1 Cor 11:24b–25 arises from the familiarity of the evangelist with the liturgical practice among Pauline churches, a circumstance that accounts also for the presence of non-Lukan expressions in verses 19b–20.

* The letter {B} indicates that the text is almost certain.

¹ The same sequence also occurs in the Didache, ix, 2–3; cf. also 1 Cor 10:16.

² Kenyon and Legg, who prefer the longer form of text, explain the origin of the other readings as follows: “The whole difficulty arose, in our opinion, from a misunderstanding of the longer version. The first cup given to the disciples to divide among themselves should be taken in connection with the previous verse (ver. 16) as referring to the eating of the Passover with them at the reunion in Heaven. This is followed by the institution of the Sacrament, to be repeated continually on earth in memory of Him. This gives an intelligible meaning to the whole, while at the same time it is easy to see that it would occasion difficulties of interpretation, which would give rise to the attempts at revision that appear in various forms of the shorter version” (Sir Frederick G. Kenyon and S. C. E. Legg in The Ministry and the Sacraments, ed. by Roderic Dunkerley [London, 1937], pp. 285 f.).

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

Matthew 1:25 - What Does "Until" Mean?

2011-04-26T21:05:00.130-05:00

Matt 1:25 καὶ ^[Iοὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν^I] αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν· καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν. (GNT:SBL)

Matt 1:25: but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. (NRSV)

(Note: ^[I ^I] in the GNT:SBL text encloses a word or phrase that's rendered idiomatically in the accompanying interlinear translation.)

Does this verse mean that after Mary had borne Jesus, Joseph then began having marital relations with her?

Or does this verse mean that after Mary had borne Jesus, Joseph continued to abstain from having marital relations with her?

Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians argue, in support of the perpetual virginity of Mary, that "until" in this verse does not mean that after Mary had borne Jesus, Joseph and she had marital relations. I.e., they assert that "until" (ἕως οὗ in the Greek) does not automatically or always imply that there is a change of condition after the "until" event occurs.

They are correct in this. The context of the "until" phrase, the nature and setting of the action or activity - i.e., what's being done or not being done "until" - has to be considered in order to determine if the "until" event marks or causes a change in the prior action or non-action.

So having agreed with their point, how is ἕως οὗ in Matthew 1:25 most likely supposed to be understood by the reader?

A search for all occurrences of ἕως οὗ in the New Testament yields the following results:

Greek New Testament: SBL Edition

The New Revised Standard Version

Matt 1:25

καὶ ^[Iοὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν^I] αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν· καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.

but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.

Matt 13:33

Ἄλλην παραβολὴν ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς· Ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ζύμῃ, ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἐνέκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον.

He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.”

Matt 14:22

Καὶ εὐθέως ἠνάγκασεν τοὺς μαθητὰς ἐμβῆναι εἰς πλοῖον καὶ προάγειν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πέραν, ἕως οὗ ἀπολύσῃ τοὺς ὄχλους.

Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds.

Matt 17:9

Καὶ καταβαινόντων αὐτῶν ἐκ τοῦ ὄρους ἐνετείλατο αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· Μηδενὶ εἴπητε τὸ ὅραμα ἕως οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθῇ.

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus ordered them, “Tell no one about the vision until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

Matt 18:30

ὁ δὲ οὐκ ἤθελεν, ἀλλὰ ἀπελθὼν ἔβαλεν αὐτὸν εἰς φυλακὴν ἕως οὗ ἀποδῷ τὸ ὀφειλόμενον.

But he refused; then he went and threw him into prison until he would pay the debt.

Matt 18:34

καὶ ὀργισθεὶς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν τοῖς βασανισταῖς ἕως οὗ ἀποδῷ πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλόμενον.

And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt.

Matt 26:36

Τότε ἔρχεται μετʼ αὐτῶν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς χωρίον λεγόμενον Γεθσημανὶ, καὶ λέγει τοῖς μαθηταῖς· Καθίσατε αὐτοῦ ἕως οὗ ἀπελθὼν ἐκεῖ προσεύξωμαι.

Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.”

Luke 13:21

ὁμοία ἐστὶν ζύμῃ, ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἔκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον.

It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.”

Luke 15:8

Ἢ τίς γυνὴ δραχμὰς ἔχουσα δέκα, ἐὰν ἀπολέσῃ δραχμὴν μίαν, οὐχὶ ἅπτει λύχνον καὶ σαροῖ τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ ζητεῖ ἐπιμελῶς ἕως οὗ εὕρῃ;

“Or what woman having ten silver coins, if she loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it?

Luke 22:18

λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ.

for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

Luke 24:49

καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πατρός μου ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς· ὑμεῖς δὲ καθίσατε ἐν τῇ πόλει ἕως οὗ ἐνδύσησθε ἐξ ὕψους δύναμιν.

And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

John 13:38

ἀποκρίνεται Ἰησοῦς· Τὴν ψυχήν σου ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ θήσεις; ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ ἀλέκτωρ φωνήσῃ ἕως οὗ ἀρνήσῃ με τρίς.

Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? Very truly, I tell you, before the cock crows, you will have denied me three times. (more literally: a cock will certainly not crow until)

Acts 23:12

Γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας ποιήσαντες συστροφὴν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀνεθεμάτισαν ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντες μήτε φαγεῖν μήτε πιεῖν ἕως οὗ ἀποκτείνωσιν τὸν Παῦλον.

In the morning the Jews joined in a conspiracy and bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink until they had killed Paul.

Acts 23:14

οἵτινες προσελθόντες τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις εἶπαν· Ἀναθέματι ἀνεθεματίσαμεν ἑαυτοὺς μηδενὸς γεύσασθαι ἕως οὗ ἀποκτείνωμεν τὸν Παῦλον.

They went to the chief priests and elders and said, “We have strictly bound ourselves by an oath to taste no food until we have killed Paul.

Acts 23:21

σὺ οὖν μὴ πεισθῇς αὐτοῖς, ἐνεδρεύουσιν γὰρ αὐτὸν ἐξ ^[Iαὐτῶν^I] ἄνδρες πλείους τεσσεράκοντα, οἵτινες ἀνεθεμάτισαν ἑαυτοὺς μήτε φαγεῖν μήτε πιεῖν ἕως οὗ ἀνέλωσιν αὐτόν, καὶ νῦν εἰσιν ἕτοιμοι προσδεχόμενοι ^[Iτὴν ἀπὸ σοῦ ἐπαγγελίαν^I].

But do not be persuaded by them, for more than forty of their men are lying in ambush for him. They have bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink until they kill him. They are ready now and are waiting for your consent.”

Acts 25:21

τοῦ δὲ Παύλου ἐπικαλεσαμένου τηρηθῆναι αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ διάγνωσιν, ἐκέλευσα τηρεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἕως οὗ ἀναπέμψω αὐτὸν πρὸς Καίσαρα.

But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of his Imperial Majesty, I ordered him to be held until I could send him to the emperor.”

2 Pet 1:19

καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ, ἕως οὗ ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν·

So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

From examining the above, I would suggest that in almost all the occurrences of ἕως οὗ in the New Testament, the "until" event marked the time at which a change in the (non-)action or (non-)activity occurred or could occur. I'd categorize and annotate these New Testament verses as follows:

A CHANGE IN THE PRIOR ACTION:

Matt 13:33 He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.”
After it was leavened, she no longer needed to mix in any yeast.

Matt 17:9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus ordered them, “Tell no one about the vision until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”
After the Son of Man has been raised from the dead, they can tell about the vision.

Matt 18:30 But he refused; then he went and threw him into prison until he would pay the debt.
After he paid the debt, he would be released from prison.

Matt 18:34 And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt.
After he paid the debt, his torture would end.

Matt 26:36 Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.”
After Jesus finished praying, they would no longer be under this request to sit there.

Luke 13:21 It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.”
After it was leavened, she no longer needed to mix in any yeast.

Luke 15:8 “Or what woman having ten silver coins, if she loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it?
After she finds the coin, she no longer searches for it.

Luke 22:18 for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
After the kingdom of God comes, Jesus will not be under his restriction against drinking of the fruit of the vine.

Luke 24:49 And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
After they have been clothed with power, they would no longer be under this command to stay in the city.

John 13:38 Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? Very truly, I tell you, before the cock crows, you will have denied me three times.” (more literally: a cock will certainly not crow until)
After Peter has denied Jesus three times, a cock will (or can) crow.

Acts 23:12 In the morning the Jews joined in a conspiracy and bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink until they had killed Paul.
After they had killed Paul, they could again eat or drink.

Acts 23:14 They went to the chief priests and elders and said, “We have strictly bound ourselves by an oath to taste no food until we have killed Paul.
After they have killed Paul, they could again taste (eat) food.

Acts 23:21 But do not be persuaded by them, for more than forty of their men are lying in ambush for him. They have bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink until they kill him. They are ready now and are waiting for your consent.”
After they kill him, they can again eat or drink.

Acts 25:21 But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of his Imperial Majesty, I ordered him to be held until I could send him to the emperor.”
After he could send Paul to the emperor, Paul would no longer be held by him.

NOT NECESSARILY A CHANGE IN THE PRIOR ACTION:

2 Pet 1:19 So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
After the day dawns and the morning star rises in their hearts, they might still do well to be attentive to the prophetic word.

MEANS "WHILE" OR "DURING WHICH TIME":

Matt 14:22 Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds.
The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition used above, as well as most other critical Greek texts, reads "go on ahead of him (αὐτὸν); the NRSV apparently prefers a reading that omits the "him." So this could perhaps fit under A CHANGE IN THE PRIOR ACTION, i.e., While he would stay behind for now, after he had dismissed the crowds he would join them on the other side. The Greek reads Καὶ εὐθέως ἠνάγκασεν (aorist indicative) τοὺς μαθητὰς ἐμβῆναι (aorist infinitive) εἰς πλοῖον καὶ προάγειν (present infinitive) αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πέραν, ἕως οὗ ἀπολύσῃ (aorist subjunctive) τοὺς ὄχλους. Jesus could have been telling them to be preceding him to the other side, rather than saying that they would indeed get there before he'd join them. This, too, could fit under A CHANGE IN THE PRIOR ACTION, i.e., While they would be preceding him to the other side for now, after he had dismissed the crowds he would join them or go ahead of them.

So this brings us to the verse under discussion:

Matt 1:25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.

Does this mean that after Mary had borne Jesus, Joseph then began having marital relations with her?

Or does this mean that after Mary had borne Jesus, Joseph continued to abstain from having marital relations with her?

What do you think?

Something that's not apparent in the translation is that the verb in question in Matthew 1:25 - "had...marital relations with" (literally "was knowing") - is an imperfect active indicative verb, and rather than being translated as a simple past as the NRSV here does (which is a proper way of translating the imperfect tense), it could instead mean:

"and he was not having marital relations with her" (progressive)
"and he was not beginning to have marital relations with her" (inceptive)
"and he did not keep on having marital relations with her" (iterative)
"and he was not attempting to have marital relations with her" (conative)

If Matthew had simply wanted to say that they did not have marital relations before Jesus' birth, with no comment one way or the other re: their subsequent (in)activity, one might have expected him to have used the aorist tense (i.e., "he had no marital relations with her"). The use of the imperfect tense here might favor understanding the phrase as implying that after Jesus' birth, Joseph and Mary did begin having marital relations. However, since this is the only instance in the New Testament where γινώσκω is in the imperfect tense and means "to have marital relations," and none of the three instances in the Logos Septuagint (with Logos Greek Morphology) where it occurs in the imperfect tense (Psalm 34:11, 100:4; Jeremiah 9:15) means "to have marital relations," the Biblical data may not be of much use for determining the meaning of Matthew's use of the imperfect tense here.

Exported from Logos Bible Software 4, 6:35 PM April 26, 2011.

What Does 1 Corinthians 11:26-32 Mean For Us Today?

2011-04-06T21:06:00.004-05:00

1 Corinthians 11:26-32:
26 ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν ἐσθίητε τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον πίνητε, τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε, ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ.
27 Ὥστε ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ κυρίου ἀναξίως, ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου.
28 δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτόν, καὶ οὕτως ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ἐσθιέτω καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου πινέτω:
29 ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα.
30 διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὑμῖν πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι καὶ κοιμῶνται ἱκανοί.
31 εἰ δὲ ἑαυτοὺς διεκρίνομεν, οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα:
32 κρινόμενοι δὲ ὑπὸ [τοῦ] κυρίου παιδευόμεθα, ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατακριθῶμεν.

‎1 Corinthians 11:26-32:
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of (subject to, answerable for) the body and the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a person examine (test) (δοκιμάζω) himself, and in this way let him eat from the bread and let him drink from the cup.
29 For the one who eats and drinks, if (because, when) he does not recognize (distinguish, evaluate, judge) (διακρίνω) the body, eats and drinks judgment against himself.
30 Because of this, many are weak and sick among you, and quite a few have died.
31 But if we were evaluating (judging, recognizing, distinguishing) (διακρίνω) ourselves, we would not be judged.
32 But if (when) we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined, in order that we will not be condemned with the world. - Lexham English Bible, with some alternate translations given ( )

I have the following questions about this passage:

1. Does the passage mean that in the author's (i.e., Paul's) time people became weak or sick, or died, because they took the Lord's Table in an unworthy manner or without recognizing the body or while not properly evaluating themselves?

- If "No," then what does the passage mean?

- If "Yes," does the passage mean that people today can become weak or sick, or can die, if they take the Lord's Table in an unworthy manner or without recognizing the body or while not properly evaluating themselves? If you say this can happen today, do or did you personally know people who became weak or sick, or died, because they did or didn't do these things? If so, please elaborate.

2. If this passage is about people becoming weak or sick, or dying, for taking the Lord's Table while wrongly doing or not doing these things, should we give a warning about this today when we have communion? Why or why not?

3. What does it mean to "not recognize / distinguish / evaluate / judge the body" (verse 29)?

4. Does changing the one loaf and the one cup to tiny individual preformed crackers and thimbles of grape juice impact this passage or its applicability to us in any way?

Christ And The Church - Husbands And Wives

2011-02-22T23:24:00.008-06:00

(Note: The Greek characters are best viewed in Firefox or Safari, not Internet Explorer.)

From Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 5:

25 Οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς, 26 ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι, 27 ἵνα παραστήσῃ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, μὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλον ἢ ῥυτίδα ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων, ἀλλʼ ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία καὶ ἄμωμος. 28 οὕτως ὀφείλουσιν [καὶ] οἱ ἄνδρες ἀγαπᾶν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα. ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἑαυτὸν ἀγαπᾷ. 29 Οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα ἐμίσησεν ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφει καὶ θάλπει αὐτήν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, 30 ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ. 31 ἀντὶ τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος [τὸν] πατέρα καὶ [τὴν] μητέρα καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν. 32 τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν· ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. 33 πλὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς οἱ καθʼ ἕνα, ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. 33 Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.

Aland, B., Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., & Wikgren, A. (1993). The Greek New Testament (4th ed.) (512–513). Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies.

The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Eph 5:25–33). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

What does this say about the relationship between Christ and the church, and what is the corresponding application to husbands and wives?

I think a summary statement of 5:25-27 would be that:

"Christ loved the church and gave up Himself for her in order to (purpose) make her holy so (result) He could present the church to Himself holy and unblemished."

So what do we do with 5:28?

If we take καθὼς ("just as") in 5:25b as a correlative to the οὕτως ("in the same way") that begins 5:28, we would have:

"So in the same way also husbands should love their own wives as they love their own bodies."

But can husbands do to and for their wives, or are husbands to do to and for their wives, what Christ did to and for the church, and for the same purpose or with the same result?

Maybe we shouldn't take καθὼς as a correlative to οὕτως, and we should instead translate 5:28 as:

"So also husbands should love their own wives as they love their own bodies."

As Paul first stated in Ephesians 1:22-23, it's implied or understood in 5:25-27 that the church is Christ's body. Thus, the applicable point(s) from 5:25-27, and also from 5:29-32, would not necessarily be how and why Christ gave Himself up for the church, but that He loved the church as being His own body, for which reason He nourishes it and cherishes it, being one flesh with her.

Since Christ gave Himself up for the church in order to make her holy, Paul might not be saying that husbands are to give themselves up for their wives. After all, it wasn't until after He had given Himself up for her that Christ presented the church to Himself to be one flesh with her as His body, whereas husbands and wives are already present to each other as one flesh. Ignoring the "giving up" part doesn't mean that husbands aren't to love their wives, but that husbands are to regard their wives as their own bodies, and are therefore to love them by nourishing and cherishing them (without necessarily giving themselves up for them).

Questions For Complementarians And Egalitarians

2011-02-15T01:53:00.002-06:00

How would Complementarians (i.e., Patriarchalists) and Egalitarians answer these questions?

1. MARRIAGE:
a) What things must a wife first get her husband's permission to be or do that a husband does not first need to get his wife's permission to be or do?
b) What things must a husband first get his wife's permission to be or do that a wife does not first need to get her husband's permission to be or do?
c) What things is a husband allowed to be or do that a wife is not allowed to be or do?
d) What things is a wife allowed to be or do that a husband is not allowed to be or do?

2. CHURCH:
a) What things in church must a woman first get permission to be or do that a man does not first need to get permission to be or do?
b) What things in church must a man first get permission to be or do that a woman does not first need to get permission to be or do?
c) What things in church is a man allowed to be or do that a woman is not allowed to be or do?
d) What things in church is a woman allowed to be or do that a man is not allowed to be or do?

For each answer, also explain "why."

Communion Questions

2011-02-12T07:37:00.005-06:00

Tony Jones on "How To Take Communion."

In the comments I concur with reading John Mark Hicks' book Come to the Table: Revisioning the Lord's Supper (as I've mentioned before), and also propose asking these questions:

1. Is the body (σωμα - sôma) that is not discerned (διακρινω - diakrinô) by the careless or callous communicant the bread that is being eaten, or the assembled fellow believers?

2. Is the "remembrance/memorial" (αναμνησις - anamnêsis), as well as the "proclaiming" (καταγγελλω - kataggellô) of the Lord's death, something the assembled are to do with respect to themselves and each other, or to God on Jesus' behalf?

3. Is the Lord's Table a covenant meal between the Lord and those who are His, or a continuation of Jesus' table meals with sinners and tax collectors and whosoever will come?

The Word According To Eve

2010-10-28T08:19:00.010-05:00

The Word According To Eve: Women and the Bible in Ancient Times and Our Own by Cullen Murphy

Put this book on your "must read" list. If you need convincing, read the editorial and reader reviews at Amazon.com via the above link. Every good thing they say about this book is absolutely true.

A Quiz For Complementarians

2010-10-12T21:40:00.013-05:00

Where "the rubber meets the road" when it comes to "Egalitarianism" and "Patriarchalism/Complementarianism" is what females (versus males) can and cannot do in the church as members of the Body of Christ.

So I would ask re: the following "roles" or operations in the church ("gifts" in this list are from Ephesians 4, Romans 12, and 1 Corinthians 12):

Overseer/Bishop
Elder
Deacon
Apostle
Prophet
Evangelist
Pastor
Teacher
Giver of Word of Wisdom
Giver of Supernatural Knowledge
Exerciser of Faith
Gifted Healer
Worker of Miracles
Prophesier
Discerner of Spirits
Glossolalist
Interpreter of Glossolalia
Helper (αντιλημψις - antilêmpsis)
Administrator (κυβερνησις - kubernêsis)
Exhorter
Giver
Leader (προιστημι - proistêmi)
Mercy-doer

Which of the above can be filled/held/done by either sex, and why?
1. For those that can be filled/held/done by females, also list any required or necessary restriction(s) for females in those roles/operations (versus no such restriction(s) for males in that same role/operation), and why.
2. For those that can be filled/held/done by males, also list any required or necessary restriction(s) for males in those roles/operations (versus no such restriction(s) for females in that same role/operation), and why.
Which of the above can be filled/held/done only by males, and why?
Which of the above can be filled/held/done only by females, and why?

Please be sure to give the "why" for any answer.

Complementarian Genetics

2010-09-13T08:40:00.016-05:00

I’ve heard or read complementarians argue based on 1 Timothy 2:9-15 that the reason (or "a" reason) that women cannot teach men or have or exercise authority over them is because "the woman" (Eve), and not Adam, was (completely) deceived, which shows that women are more deceivable than men.* (Plus, they've come to be "in transgression" as well.)

So, would this be Complementarian Genetics 101:

The "x chromosome" carries the "deception gene."

The "y chromosome," however, carries the "anti-deception gene."

So if a person has two x chromosomes, and is therefore a female, they are by nature "completely deceivable" - which is one way you can translate the compound εξαπαταω (exapataô) in 1 Timothy 2:14 in contrast to the plain απαταω (apataô) in the same verse.

However, if a person has one x and one y chromosome, and is therefore a male, they have a genetic defense against being completely deceived. It is for this reason that only those with both an x and a y chromosome are to be entrusted with positions of authority in the church, and only they can teach both men and women.

If this is not Complementarian Genetics, why isn’t it?

* Or sometimes, perhaps because they realize how ridiculous it would sound, they just skip explaining that part of this passage. See, e.g., Silent in the Church: Why Can’t Women Preach? 1 Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Corinthians 14 by J. Ligon Duncan III where he writes:

...That is what Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2:11.

And then in verses 12-15, he reiterates it. "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." And then he gives his rationale for it. I won't go into the specifics of that rationale, except to say this. Isn't it interesting that when Paul gives his rationale for this, he doesn't say, "Because this is something that I thought up." He doesn't even say, "Because this is what Jesus says." He goes all the way back to the first book of the Bible, all the way back to the Torah written by Moses, and he goes all the way back to the beginning and to the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall. And he says, the reason that this is to be this way in Ephesus is not because of some ad hoc problem that you have, but because this is the way that God made men and women to relate. When that way is not followed, let me tell you a little story from Genesis 3. In other words, Paul says that the reversal of roles that is contemplated when the all male qualified teaching office is violated in the church is precisely the same circumstance that we see played out in the Fall of man where Adam abdicated his responsibility as the covenant keeper and Eve started a chain that led to the fall of man. So, this is his rationale for women not teaching or exercising authority in the public assembly.

How Soon Is "Soon"?

2010-08-29T22:17:00.007-05:00

Revelation 1:1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon (εν ταχει - from τάχος¹). He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John,

Revelation 2:16
Therefore, repent! If not, I will come against you quickly (ταχυ - from ταχύς²) and make war against those people with the sword of my mouth.

Revelation 3:11
I am coming soon (ταχυ). Hold on to what you have so that no one can take away your crown.

Revelation 11:14
The second woe has come and gone; the third is coming quickly (ταχυ).

Revelation 22:6
Then the angel said to me, “These words are reliable and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must happen soon (εν ταχει).”

Revelation 22:7
(Look! I am coming soon (ταχυ)! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy expressed in this book.)

Revelation 22:12
(Look! I am coming soon (ταχυ), and my reward is with me to pay each one according to what he has done!)

Revelation 22:20
The one who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon (ταχυ)!” Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!

1 τάχος, ους, τό
2 pert. to a relatively brief time subsequent to another point of time, εν ταχει as adverbial unit soon, in a short time...Rv 1:1; 22:6....

2 ταχύς, εια, ύ
1 ⓑ β. without delay, quickly, at once (though it is not always poss. to make a clear distinction betw. this mng. and the one in 2).... This is prob. the place for the ερχεσθαι ταχύ of Rv: 2:5 v.l. (many cursives and printed texts), 16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 12, 20 (P-ÉLangevin, Jésus Seigneur, ’67, 209–35).
2 pert. to a relatively brief time subsequent to another point of time, neut. sg. as adv. in a short time, soon (cp. 1bβ above and τάχος 2).

- Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.
- Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.). (992-993) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Logos Bible Software Now For Both Windows and Macintosh!

2010-08-28T18:34:00.000-05:00

Logos Bible Software is giving away thousands of dollars of prizes to celebrate the launch of Logos Bible Software 4 Mac on October 1. Prizes include an iMac, a MacBook Pro, an iPad, an iPod Touch, and more than 100 other prizes!
They’re also having a special limited-time sale on their Mac and PC base packages and upgrades. Check it out!

Survey: 72% of Millennials 'more spiritual than religious'

2010-04-27T07:49:00.006-05:00

Survey: 72% of Millennials 'more spiritual than religious'

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY

Most young adults today don't pray, don't worship and don't read the Bible, a major survey by a Christian research firm shows.

If the trends continue, "the Millennial generation will see churches closing as quickly as GM dealerships," says Thom Rainer, president of LifeWay Christian Resources. In the group's survey of 1,200 18- to 29-year-olds, 72% say they're "really more spiritual than religious."

Among the 65% who call themselves Christian, "many are either mushy Christians or Christians in name only," Rainer says. "Most are just indifferent. The more precisely you try to measure their Christianity, the fewer you find committed to the faith."

Key findings in the phone survey, conducted in August and released today:

• 65% rarely or never pray with others, and 38% almost never pray by themselves either.

• 65% rarely or never attend worship services.

• 67% don't read the Bible or sacred texts.

Many are unsure Jesus is the only path to heaven: Half say yes, half no.

"We have dumbed down what it means to be part of the church so much that it means almost nothing, even to people who already say they are part of the church," Rainer says.

The findings, which document a steady drift away from church life, dovetail with a LifeWay survey of teenagers in 2007 who drop out of church and a study in February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, which compared the beliefs of Millennials with those of earlier generations of young people.

The new survey has a margin of error of +/-2.8 percentage points.

Even among those in the survey who "believe they will go to heaven because they have accepted Jesus Christ as savior":

• 68% did not mention faith, religion or spirituality when asked what was "really important in life."

• 50% do not attend church at least weekly.

• 36% rarely or never read the Bible.

Neither are these young Christians evangelical in the original meaning of the term — eager to share the Gospel. Just 40% say this is their responsibility.

Even so, Rainer is encouraged by the roughly 15% who, he says, appear to be "deeply committed" Christians in study, prayer, worship and action.

Collin Hansen, 29, author of Young, Restless, Reformed, about a thriving minority of traditionalist Christians, agrees. "I'm not going to say these numbers aren't true and aren't grim, but they also drive people like me to build new, passionately Christian dynamic churches," says Hansen, who is studying for the ministry. He sees many in his generation veering to "moralistic therapeutic deism — 'God wants you to be happy and do good things.' ... I would not call that Christianity, however."

The 2007 LifeWay study found seven in 10 Protestants ages 18 to 30, both evangelical and mainline, who went to church regularly in high school said they quit attending by age 23. And 34% of those had not returned, even sporadically, by age 30.

The Pew survey found young people today were significantly more likely than those in earlier generations to say they didn't identify with any religious group. Neither are Millennials any more likely than earlier generations to turn toward a faith affiliation as they grow older.

How Islam Allows Its Men To Treat Its Women

2010-04-12T10:21:00.007-05:00

This will sicken and appall you, as well as anyone you share it with.

Why don’t women’s groups and our government and leaders raise holy hell about Islam and how it allows the men to regard and treat the women?

Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times op-ed columnist who traveled to Pakistan last year to write about acid attacks, put it this way in an essay at the time:

"I’ve been investigating such acid attacks, which are commonly used to terrorize and subjugate women and girls in a swath of Asia from Afghanistan through Cambodia (men are almost never attacked with acid). Because women usually don’t matter in this part of the world, their attackers are rarely prosecuted and acid sales are usually not controlled. It’s a kind of terrorism that becomes accepted as part of the background noise in the region....

"Bangladesh has imposed controls on acid sales to curb such attacks, but otherwise it is fairly easy in Asia to walk into a shop and buy sulfuric or hydrochloric acid suitable for destroying a human face. Acid attacks and wife burnings are common in parts of Asia because the victims are the most voiceless in these societies: They are poor and female. The first step is simply for the world to take note, to give voice to these women."

Since 1994, a Pakistani activist who founded the Progressive Women’s Association to help such women "has documented 7,800 cases of women who were deliberately burned, scalded or subjected to acid attacks, just in the Islamabad area. In only 2 percent of those cases was anyone convicted."

Warning – horrific graphic images:

http://blogs.tampabay.com/photo/2009/11/terrorism-thats-personal.html

How To Worship

2009-11-17T22:19:00.000-06:00

The Curé of Ars (St. John Vianney) On The Priesthood

2009-11-16T09:24:00.005-06:00

Catechism on the Priesthood
by St. John Vianney (A.D. 1786-1859)

My children, we have come to the Sacrament of Orders. It is a Sacrament which seems to relate to no one among you, and which yet relates to everyone. This Sacrament raises man up to God. What is a priest! A man who holds the place of God -- a man who is invested with all the powers of God. "Go," said Our Lord to the priest; "as My Father sent Me, I send you. All power has been given Me in Heaven and on earth. Go then, teach all nations.... He who listens to you, listens to Me; he who despises you despises Me." When the priest remits sins, he does not say, "God pardons you"; he says, "I absolve you." At the Consecration, he does not say, "This is the Body of Our Lord;" he says, "This is My Body."

Saint Bernard tells us that everything has come to us through Mary; and we may also say that everything has come to us through the priest; yes, all happiness, all graces, all heavenly gifts. If we had not the Sacrament of Orders, we should not have Our Lord. Who placed Him there, in that tabernacle? It was the priest. Who was it that received your soul, on its entrance into life? The priest. Who nourishes it, to give it strength to make its pilgrimage? The priest. Who will prepare it to appear before God, by washing that soul, for the last time, in the blood of Jesus Christ? The priest -- always the priest. And if that soul comes to the point of death, who will raise it up, who will restore it to calmness and peace? Again the priest. You cannot recall one single blessing from God without finding, side by side with this recollection, the image of the priest.

Go to confession to the Blessed Virgin, or to an angel; will they absolve you? No. Will they give you the Body and Blood of Our Lord? No. The Holy Virgin cannot make her Divine Son descend into the Host. You might have two hundred angels there, but they could not absolve you. A priest, however simple he may be, can do it; he can say to you, "Go in peace; I pardon you." Oh, how great is a priest! The priest will not understand the greatness of his office till he is in Heaven. If he understood it on earth, he would die, not of fear, but of love. The other benefits of God would be of no avail to us without the priest. What would be the use of a house full of gold, if you had nobody to open you the door! The priest has the key of the heavenly treasures; it is he who opens the door; he is the steward of the good God, the distributor of His wealth. Without the priest, the Death and Passion of Our Lord would be of no avail. Look at the heathens: what has it availed them that Our Lord has died? Alas! they can have no share in the blessings of Redemption, while they have no priests to apply His Blood to their souls!

The priest is not a priest for himself; he does not give himself absolution; he does not administer the Sacraments to himself. He is not for himself, he is for you. After God, the priest is everything. Leave a parish twenty years without priests; they will worship beasts. If the missionary Father and I were to go away, you would say, "What can we do in this church? there is no Mass; Our Lord is no longer there: we may as well pray at home." When people wish to destroy religion, they begin by attacking the priest, because where there is no longer any priest there is no sacrifice, and where there is no longer any sacrifice there is no religion.

When the bell calls you to church, if you were asked, "Where are you going?" you might answer, "I am going to feed my soul." If someone were to ask you, pointing to the tabernacle, "What is that golden door?" "That is our storehouse, where the true Food of our souls is kept." "Who has the key? Who lays in the provisions? Who makes ready the feast, and who serves the table?" "The priest." "And what is the Food?" "The precious Body and Blood of Our Lord." O God! O God! how Thou hast loved us! See the power of the priest; out of a piece of bread the word of a priest makes a God. It is more than creating the world.... Someone said, "Does St. Philomena, then, obey the Curé of Ars?" Indeed, she may well obey him, since God obeys him.

If I were to meet a priest and an angel, I should salute the priest before I saluted the angel. The latter is the friend of God; but the priest holds His place. St. Teresa kissed the ground where a priest had passed. When you see a priest, you should say, "There is he who made me a child of God, and opened Heaven to me by holy Baptism; he who purified me after I had sinned; who gives nourishment to my soul." At the sight of a church tower, you may say, "What is there in that place?" "The Body of Our Lord." "Why is He there?" "Because a priest has been there, and has said holy Mass."

What joy did the Apostles feel after the Resurrection of Our Lord, at seeing the Master whom they had loved so much! The priest must feel the same joy, at seeing Our Lord whom he holds in his hands. Great value is attached to objects which have been laid in the drinking cup of the Blessed Virgin and of the Child Jesus, at Loretto. But the fingers of the priest, that have touched the adorable Flesh of Jesus Christ, that have been plunged into the chalice which contained His Blood, into the pyx where His Body has lain, are they not still more precious? The priesthood is the love of the Heart of Jesus. When you see the priest, think of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Why Arguments Against Women In Ministry Aren't Biblical

2009-10-29T07:54:00.019-05:00

Biblical scholar and author Ben Witheringon III has written a column on his Beliefnet blog entitled: Why Arguments against Women in Ministry Aren't Biblical (Sunday October 25, 2009). As he explains:

[I]n this post I am going to deal with the usual objections to women in ministry, one by one. Some of these objections come out of a high church tradition, some tend to come from low church traditions, some are Catholic/Orthodox some are Protestant, but we will take on a sampling of them all without trying to be exhaustive or exhausting.

Agree or disagree with Dr. Witherington, you should read his post and the comments.

FWIW, I contributed the comment "EricW October 28, 2009 10:53 AM," which I have revised and expanded for this posting in order to ask the following question:

What is the status or relationship of man vis-a-vis woman in Christ? I.e., to what state has Christ restored the sexes?

I see at least four main possible understandings or viewpoints (with some subpoints) of this:

I. Christ has restored man and woman to where they were just after the Fall - i.e., with the woman desiring her husband and him ruling over her, and the woman being in (having fallen into) transgression (1 Timothy 2:14).

A. This may also include seeing the woman as still having a greater propensity to being deceived. See comments below at II.B.1. re: 1 Timothy 2:13-14.

II. Christ has restored man and woman to where they were in Genesis 2 before the Fall in one of the following two ways:

A. Man and woman are essentially equals in all respects (other than physical/sexual), with no hierarchy of superordination/subordination between them.
Note: There is no essential difference between this and viewpoint III. II.A. relates the status of the man and the woman to the Genesis 2 creation account, whereas III. relates it to the Genesis 1 creation account.
B. The woman is subordinate to the man because the man was created first and the woman was created from him as a helper corresponding to him and for his sake.
1. Viewpoint B. may also include seeing the woman as still having a greater weakness or propensity when it comes to sin or deception (or enticement), per 1 Timothy 2:13-14:
13 Aδαμ γαρ πρωτος επλασθη, ειτα Eυα: 14 και Aδαμ ουκ ηπατηθη, η δε γυνη εξαπατηθεισα εν παραβασει γεγονεν.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived*, but the woman, having been deceived*, has fallen (lit. "has become") into transgression.
* or "enticed"

III. Christ has restored man and woman to where they were in Genesis 1 - i.e., both created equally and equal in the image and likeness of God (or perhaps "male and female" together being the image and likeness of God), with no sense of one being subordinate to the other.

IV. Christ has done away with the Genesis 1 "male and female" as Paul may be saying in Galatians 3:28 where he changes the conjunction joining his pairs from ουδε ("nor"; lit. "and not") to και ("and") when he says that there is not "male and female" (i.e., the LXX phrasing of Genesis 1:27) - unless it's normal Greek practice to make the last in a string of ουδε's a και instead). I.e., in Christ there is not simply a restoration of the original creation, but a New Creation, One New Man, whose Head is Christ and whose Body is the church in which there is no "male and female," but all the members, male and female, are also the Bride of Christ.

When it comes to the topic of women in ministry, I think questions that need to be asked and answered include:

What did Christ accomplish and inaugurate?
What did He restore and/or establish?
What of His work is to be evident and put in place now, and what must await the eschaton and/or the restoration of all things?

I think how one answers these questions and the one question that these derive from - i.e., "What is Man and Woman in Christ?" - both affects and effects one's beliefs and assumptions about women in the church and in ministry.

What do you think of my list and questions? Which viewpoint I. - IV. (or another one you might propose) reflects how you see Christ's work and women's consequent position in the church, and why? Please indicate if you are a man or a woman, and your approximate age or stage in life.

Thoughts On 1 Corinthians 11:17-34: The Lord's Supper

2009-10-22T22:12:00.076-05:00

The following notes about the Lord's Supper are from my sermon/teaching on 1 Corinthians 8-14 and the Church: Unity, Edification and Love I gave October 11 & 18 at the Sunday morning fellowship meeting at The Hydrant Cafe in Denton. A future teaching or post on my understanding of the meaning and practice of the Lord's Supper will examinine all the relevant texts, not just 1 Corinthians 11.

To recap from October 11, read Ephesians 4 and also Romans 14:1-15:13.

The principles:

Christ is the fullness. The church is to mature and grow up into Him in all aspects.
The body is one, but it has many members.
Christ has measured out gifts to each and all.
Each member contributes to the body's growing up and building (up) of itself in love.
Christ as the Head supplies what the body needs for its growth Christ-ward as each member, according to the proper operation and working of each member by the grace which Christ has given it, works together with all the other members (with whom it is joined) to build up the body in love.
One's liberty is to be balanced by one's obligation to the welfare and well-being of the other.

With respect to the specific example of eating meat sacrificed to idols, Paul warns the church members not to let their freedom and behavior be or become a stumbling block or cause of offense to others, nor should they rest assured that they themselves are immune to stumbling – in fact, one's own stumbling can be a result of a misguided sense of spiritual superiority and independence and freedom that causes one to treat others in the body wrongly. Paul explains that even though ALL the Israelites ate THE SAME spiritual food and ALL the Israelites drank THE SAME spiritual drink, not ALL of them were protected or prevented from falling. Paul might even be saying that the spiritual food and drink the Israelites partook of was THE SAME thing that Christians partake of at the Lord's Table, for he says that the Israelites were drinking from Christ, and that they tested/tempted the Christ in the wilderness. So, how does the Lord's Supper fit into this? Here is a possible translation of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34:

Note the repetition in this passage of "coming together [in/as a church]." Paul uses similar wording in 1 Corinthians 14:23,26, which suggests a close relationship between assembling for the Lord's Supper and assembling for worship in terms of when these occasions occur and the proper behavior of the members toward each other during such gatherings.
Also note the interplay of -κρίνω (to judge)/κρίμα (judgment) words in 11:29-34.

<><><><>

17 Τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶ ὅτι οὐκ εἰς τὸ κρεῖσσον ἀλλὰ εἰς τὸ ἧσσον συνέρχεσθε.	17 Now in commanding this, I don't praise you, because your coming together isn't for the better, but for the worse.
18 πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ συνερχομένων ὑμῶν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀκούω σχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν καὶ μέρος τι πιστεύω.	18 For I hear that when you come together in church, there are divisions among you, and I partly believe it.
19 δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι, ἵνα [καὶ] οἱ δόκιμοι φανεροὶ γένωνται ἐν ὑμῖν.	19 For there must be factions among you, so that those who are proven (or tested) may be seen among you.
20 Συνερχομένων οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν·	20 So when you come together [in one place], it's not to eat a "Lord's" supper;
21 ἕκαστος γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον προλαμβάνει ἐν τῷ φαγεῖν, καὶ ὃς μὲν πεινᾷ ὃς δὲ μεθύει.	21 For each person grabs and eats his own supper first, and some end up hungry and others get drunk.
22 μὴ γὰρ οἰκίας οὐκ ἔχετε εἰς τὸ ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν; ἢ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ καταφρονεῖτε, καὶ καταισχύνετε τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας; τί εἴπω ὑμῖν; ἐπαινέσω ὑμᾶς; ἐν τούτῳ οὐκ ἐπαινῶ.	22 It's not like you don't have your own houses to eat and drink in! Or do you look down on the assembly of God's people, and shame those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? I will not praise you in this.
23 Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον	23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed over to you, that: the Lord Jesus, in the night in which He was being handed over, took the loaf of bread
24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν· τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.	24 and, giving thanks to God, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you. Do this for My remembrance."
25 ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι λέγων· τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.	25 And He likewise also took the cup after the supper, saying, "This cup is the New Agreement made and sealed by My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, for My remembrance."
26 ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν ἐσθίητε τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον πίνητε, τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ.	26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes.
27 Ὥστε ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ κυρίου ἀναξίως, ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου.	27 Thus, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way will be liable for (ἔνοχος)* the body and the blood of the Lord (i.e., as if responsible for the death of the Lord, or the penalty thereof?).
28 δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτὸν καὶ οὕτως ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ἐσθιέτω καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου πινέτω·	28 So a person should prove (test, examine) (δοκιμάζω)** himself, and after that eat from the bread and drink from the cup.
29 ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα.	29 For he who eats and drinks without discerning (διακρίνω)* the body eats and drinks judgment (κρίμα**) to himself.
30 διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὑμῖν πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι καὶ κοιμῶνται ἱκανοί.	30 For this reason there are among you many who are weak and sick, and some have fallen asleep (i.e., died).
31 εἰ δὲ ἑαυτοὺς διεκρίνομεν, οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα·	31 But if we were discerning (διακρίνω) ourselves, we would not be being judged (κρίνω).
32 κρινόμενοι δὲ ὑπὸ [τοῦ] κυρίου παιδευόμεθα, ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατακριθῶμεν.	32 But when we are judged (κρίνω) by the Lord, we are being disciplined (or: educated, corrected, given guidance) so that we will not be condemned (κατακρίνω) with the world.
33 Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου, συνερχόμενοι εἰς τὸ φαγεῖν ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε.	33 Thus, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for each other before you begin.
34 εἴ τις πεινᾷ, ἐν οἴκῳ ἐσθιέτω, ἵνα μὴ εἰς κρίμα συνέρχησθε. τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ ὡς ἂν ἔλθω διατάξομαι.	34 If someone is hungry, he should eat in his own house, so that your coming together doesn't result in judgment (κρίμα). And I will arrange the remaining things when I come.

* See the list of ἔνοχος in the Bible and the list of its translations in Josephus, Philo and The Apostolic Fathers (below).

** See the list of translations of δοκιμάζω in Josephus, Philo and The Apostolic Fathers (below).

*** See the list of translations of διακρίνω in Josephus, Philo and The Apostolic Fathers (below).

* ἔνοχος in the Bible

ἔνοχος, ον literally held fast in, caught in; (1) of spiritual bondage subject to, held in, under the control of (HE 2.15); (2) as a legal technical term, with the genitive denoting the guilt or punishment guilty of (MK 3.29); liable to, answerable to (MT 5.22a, b); deserving of (MT 5.22c; 26.66); (3) with the genitive denoting what one has transgressed against guilty of doing wrong against (1C 11.27); of law guilty of violating or disobeying (JA 2.10) Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. (2000). Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker's Greek New Testament library (152). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

New Testament
<><>

Matthew 5:21 Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις• οὐ φονεύσεις• ὃς δʼ ἂν φονεύσῃ, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει.	21 "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not murder'; and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.'
Matthew 5:22 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει• ὃς δʼ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ• ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ• ὃς δʼ ἂν εἴπῃ• μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός.	22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire.
Matthew 26:66 τί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; οἱ δὲ ἀποκριθέντες εἶπαν• ἔνοχος θανάτου ἐστίν.	66 What is your verdict?" They answered, "He deserves death."
Mark 3:29 ὃς δʼ ἂν βλασφημήσῃ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, οὐκ ἔχει ἄφεσιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ ἔνοχός ἐστιν αἰωνίου ἁμαρτήματος.	29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"—
Mark 14:64 ἠκούσατε τῆς βλασφημίας• τί ὑμῖν φαίνεται; οἱ δὲ πάντες κατέκριναν αὐτὸν ἔνοχον εἶναι θανάτου.	64 You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?" All of them condemned him as deserving death.
1 Corinthians 11:27 Ὥστε ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ κυρίου ἀναξίως, ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου.	27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.
James 2:10 ὅστις γὰρ ὅλον τὸν νόμον τηρήσῃ πταίσῃ δὲ ἐν ἑνί, γέγονεν πάντων ἔνοχος.	10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.
Hebrews 2:15 καὶ ἀπαλλάξῃ τούτους, ὅσοι φόβῳ θανάτου διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ζῆν ἔνοχοι ἦσαν δουλείας.	15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death.

Septuagint (LXX) – OT & Apocrypha. Lancelot Brenton's translation of the LXX is used except where I reference the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS).
<><>

Genesis 26:11 συνέταξεν δὲ Αβιμελεχ παντὶ τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ λέγων Πᾶς ὁ ἁπτόμενος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τούτου ἢ τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ θανάτου ἔνοχος ἔσται.	11 And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, Every man that touches this man and his wife shall be liable to death.
Exodus 22:3 ἐὰν δὲ ἀνατείλῃ ὁ ἥλιος ἐπʼ αὐτῷ, ἔνοχός ἐστιν, ἀνταποθανεῖται. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ὑπάρχῃ αὐτῷ, πραθήτω ἀντὶ τοῦ κλέμματος.	3 But if the sun be risen upon him, he is guilty, he shall die instead; and if a thief have nothing, let him be sold in compensation for what he has stolen.
Exodus 34:7 καὶ δικαιοσύνην διατηρῶν καὶ ποιῶν ἔλεος εἰς χιλιάδας, ἀφαιρῶν ἀνομίας καὶ ἀδικίας καὶ ἁμαρτίας, καὶ οὐ καθαριεῖ τὸν ἔνοχον ἐπάγων ἀνομίας πατέρων ἐπὶ τέκνα καὶ ἐπὶ τέκνα τέκνων ἐπὶ τρίτην καὶ τετάρτην γενεάν.	7 and keeping justice and mercy for thousands, taking away iniquity, and unrighteousness, and sins; and he will not clear the guilty; bringing the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and to the children's children, to the third and fourth generation.
Leviticus 20:9 ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἂν κακῶς εἴπῃ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ ἢ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ, θανάτῳ θανατούσθω, πατέρα αὐτοῦ ἢ μητέρα αὐτοῦ κακῶς εἶπεν, ἔνοχος ἔσται.	9 Every man who shall speak evil of his father or of his mother, let him die the death; has he spoken evil of his father or his mother? he shall be guilty.
Leviticus 20:11 ἐάν τις κοιμηθῇ μετὰ γυναικὸς τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, ἀσχημοσύνην τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἀπεκάλυψεν, θανάτῳ θανατούσθωσαν ἀμφότεροι, ἔνοχοί εἰσιν.	11 And if any one should lie with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness: let them both die the death, they are guilty.
Leviticus 20:12 καὶ ἐάν τις κοιμηθῇ μετὰ νύμφης αὐτοῦ, θανάτῳ θανατούσθωσαν ἀμφότεροι, ἠσεβήκασιν γάρ, ἔνοχοί εἰσιν.	12 And if any one should lie with his daughter-in-law, let them both be put to death; for they have wrought impiety, they are guilty.
Leviticus 20:13 καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός, βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι, θανατούσθωσαν, ἔνοχοί εἰσιν.	13 And whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both wrought abomination; let them die the death, they are guilty.
Leviticus 20:16 καὶ γυνή, ἥτις προσελεύσεται πρὸς πᾶν κτῆνος βιβασθῆναι αὐτὴν ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ, ἀποκτενεῖτε τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ τὸ κτῆνος, θανάτῳ θανατούσθωσαν, ἔνοχοί εἰσιν.	16 And whatever woman shall approach any beast, so as to have connexion with it, ye shall kill the woman and the beast: let them die the death, they are guilty.
Leviticus 20:27 Καὶ ἀνὴρ ἢ γυνή, ὃς ἂν γένηται αὐτῶν ἐγγαστρίμυθος ἢ ἐπαοιδός, θανάτῳ θανατούσθωσαν ἀμφότεροι, λίθοις λιθοβολήσατε αὐτούς, ἔνοχοί εἰσιν.	27 And as for a man or woman whosoever of them shall have in them a divining spirit, or be an enchanter, let them both die the death: ye shall stone them with stones, they are guilty.
Numbers 14:18 Κύριος μακρόθυμος καὶ πολυέλεος καὶ ἀληθινός, ἀφαιρῶν ἀνομίας καὶ ἀδικίας καὶ ἁμαρτίας, καὶ καθαρισμῷ οὐ καθαριεῖ τὸν ἔνοχον ἀποδιδοὺς ἁμαρτίας πατέρων ἐπὶ τέκνα ἕως τρίτης καὶ τετάρτης.	18 The Lord is long-suffering and merciful, and true, removing transgressions and iniquities and sins, and he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation.
Numbers 35:27 καὶ εὕρῃ αὐτὸν ὁ ἀγχιστεύων τὸ αἷμα ἔξω τῶν ὁρίων τῆς πόλεως καταφυγῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ φονεύσῃ ὁ ἀγχιστεύων τὸ αἷμα τὸν φονεύσαντα, οὐκ ἔνοχός ἐστιν,	27 and the avenger of blood should find him without the bounds of the city of his refuge, and the avenger of blood should kill the slayer, he is not guilty.
Numbers 35:31 καὶ οὐ λήμψεσθε λύτρα περὶ ψυχῆς παρὰ τοῦ φονεύσαντος τοῦ ἐνόχου ὄντος ἀναιρεθῆναι, θανάτῳ γὰρ θανατωθήσεται.	31 And ye shall not accept ransoms for life from a murderer who is worthy of death, for he shall be surely put to death.
Deuteronomy 19:10 καὶ οὐκ ἐκχυθήσεται αἷμα ἀναίτιον ἐν τῇ γῇ σου, ἧ κύριος ὁ θεός σου δίδωσίν σοι ἐν κλήρῳ, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἐν σοὶ αἵματι ἔνοχος.	10 So innocent blood shall not be spilt in the land, which the Lord thy God gives thee to inherit, and there shall not be in thee one guilty of blood.
Joshua 2:19 καὶ ἔσται πᾶς, ὃς ἂν ἐξέλθῃ τὴν θύραν τῆς οἰκίας σου ἔξω, ἔνοχος ἑαυτῷ ἔσται, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀθῷοι τῷ ὅρκῳ σου τούτῳ, καὶ ὅσοι ἐὰν γένωνται μετὰ σοῦ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ σου, ἡμεῖς ἔνοχοι ἐσόμεθα.	19 And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall go outside the door of thy house, his guilt shall be upon him, and we shall be quit of this thine oath; and we will be responsible for all that shall be found with thee in thy house.
1 Maccabees 14:45 ὃς δ̓ ἂν παρὰ ταῦτα ποιήσῃ ἢ ἀθετήσῃ τι τούτων, ἔνοχος ἔσται.	45 And whosoever should do otherwise, or break any of these things, he should be punished.
2 Maccabees 13:6 ἐνταῦθα τὸν ἱεροσυλίας ἔνοχον ἢ καί τινων ἄλλων κακῶν ὑπεροχὴν πεποιημένον ἅπαντες προσωθοῦσιν εἰς ὄλεθρον.	6 And whosoever was condemned of sacrilege, or had committed any other grievous crime, there did all men thrust him unto death.
Job 15:5 ἔνοχος εἶ ῥήμασιν στόματός σου οὐδὲ διέκρινας ῥήματα δυναστῶν,	5 Thou art guilty by the words of thy mouth, neither hast thou discerned the words of the mighty.
Sirach Prologue: 13 ὅπως οἱ φιλομαθεῖς καὶ τούτων ἔνοχοι γενόμενοι 14 πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐπιπροσθῶσιν διὰ τῆς ἐννόμου βιώσεως.	13 to the intent that those which are desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things, 14 might profit much more in living according to the law.
Psalms of Solomon 4:3 καὶ ἡ χεὶρ αὐτοῦ ἐν πρώτοις ἐπʼ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐν ζήλει, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔνοχος ἐν ποικιλίᾳ ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ ἐν ἀκρασίαις.	3 (NETS) And his hand is first upon him as if in zeal, and he himself is guilty of various sins and self-indulgence.
Isaiah 54:17 πᾶν σκεῦος φθαρτόν. ἐπὶ σὲ οὐκ εὐοδώσω, καὶ πᾶσα φωνὴ ἀναστήσεται ἐπὶ σὲ εἰς κρίσιν, πάντας αὐτοὺς ἡττήσεις, οἱ δὲ ἔνοχοί σου ἔσονται ἐν αὐτῇ. ἔστιν κληρονομία τοῖς θεραπεύουσιν κύριον, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθέ μοι δίκαιοι, λέγει κύριος.	17 I will not suffer any weapon formed against thee to prosper; (NETS: every perishable vessel. I will not make it prosper against you) – and every voice that shall rise up against thee for judgment, thou shalt vanquish them all; and thine adversaries shall be condemned thereby (NETS: and those who are held by you shall be in sorrow [lit. "it"]). There is an inheritance to them that serve the Lord, and ye shall be righteous before me, saith the Lord.
Susanna 1:53 (OLD GREEK) πιστευθεὶς ἀκούειν καὶ κρίνειν κρίσεις θάνατον ἐπιφερούσας καὶ τὸν μὲν ἀθῷον κατέκρινας, τοὺς δὲ ἐνόχους ἠφίεις, τοῦ κυρίου λέγοντος Ἀθῷον καὶ δίκαιον οὐκ ἀποκτενεῖς,	53 (NETS) when you were entrusted to hear and to judge cases carrying a death sentence and you condemned the innocent while you were acquitting the guilty, though the Lord says, "You shall not kill an innocent and righteous person."

* ἔνοχος, ** δοκιμάζω, and *** διακρίνω as translated in:

Josephus

ἔνοχος guilty
δοκιμάζω approve, esteem, judge, like best, recommend, suppose, think best/fit/proper, test/try
διακρίνω determine, discern, dispute, distinguish, select, separate, solve

Philo

ἔνοχος blamable, bound by, condemned, guilty, liable, worthy of death (lit. "worthy")
δοκιμάζω account, approve, come to a proper understanding, comprehend, consider, determine ("arrive at a knowledge of its true nature"), estimate, examine, judge, look upon, pronounce (declare), prove, rightly account, see/show, select, test, test and approve, think fit
διακρίνω decide, differ, discriminate, disjoin, distinguish, divide, interpret, judge, part, select, separate, well-judge

The Apostolic Fathers

ἔνοχος (none)
δοκιμάζω approve (Hermas, Didache, Ignatius, 1 Clement), challenge (Papias), determine (Hermas), examine (Didache), judge (Hermas), prove (Hermas, 1 Clement), test/try (Hermas, Didache, 1 Clement, Papias)
διακρίνω arrange (Diognetus), compare (Hermas), consider (Hermas), discern (Didache), discuss (Hermas), distinguish (Diognetus, Hermas), doubt (Hermas), evaluate (Didache), examine (Didache), separate (Ignatius), worry about (Hermas)

More Manga

2009-10-09T08:09:00.006-05:00

Following Manga Messiah and Manga Metamorphosis, we now have Manga Mutiny, covering Genesis - Exodus 15. Get a copy!

What Does Paul Teach About Head Coverings? Thoughts On 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.

2009-10-07T08:08:00.059-05:00

Someone has suggested in his Google docs-posted notes and comments on Biblical Headship that what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11 about headwear for men and women when they are praying or prophesying relates to the kind of glory their head displays.

Here is how I might translate 1 Cor 11:2-16 per his comments about κεφαλη (kephalê - "head") and δοξα (doxa - "glory") and head coverings:

2 επαινω δε υμας οτι παντα μου μεμνησθε και καθως παρεδωκα υμιν τας παραδοσεις κατεχετε

Now, I praise you because you remember all the things I told you and, just as I passed the traditions on to you, you are keeping them.

3 θελω δε υμας ειδεναι οτι παντος ανδρος η κεφαλη ο χριστος εστιν κεφαλη δε γυναικος ο ανηρ κεφαλη δε του χριστου ο θεος

So I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of a woman is her man, and the head of Christ is God.

4 πας ανηρ προσευχομενος η προφητευων κατα κεφαλης εχων καταισχυνει την κεφαλην αυτου

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered shames his head, [God].

5 πασα δε γυνη προσευχομενη η προφητευουσα ακατακαλυπτω τη κεφαλη καταισχυνει την κεφαλην αυτης

And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head, [her man].

εν γαρ εστιν και το αυτο τη εξυρημενη

For she is one and the same as a woman who's head is shaved.

6 ει γαρ ου κατακαλυπτεται γυνη και κειρασθω

So if a woman does not cover her head, then let her hair be shorn.

ει δε αισχρον γυναικι το κειρασθαι η ξυρασθαι κατακαλυπτεσθω

But if it's shameful for a woman to have her hair shorn or to have her head shaved, then let her cover her head.

7 ανηρ μεν γαρ ουκ οφειλει κατακαλυπτεσθαι την κεφαλην εικων και δοξα θεου υπαρχων

A man should not cover his head since he is the image and glory of God [, who is his head].

η γυνη δε δοξα ανδρος εστιν

But a woman is the glory of [her] man.

8 ου γαρ εστιν ανηρ εκ γυναικος αλλα γυνη εξ ανδρος

For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man.

9 και γαρ ουκ εκτισθη ανηρ δια την γυναικα αλλα γυνη δια τον ανδρα

Indeed, man was not created for the woman, but woman was created for the man.

10 δια τουτο οφειλει η γυνη εξουσιαν εχειν επι της κεφαλης δια τους αγγελους

For this reason the woman should have [a sign of]* authority on her head, because of the angels.

* While many (including myself at one time) argue that because "a sign (or symbol) of" isn't present in the Greek text it is therefore an incorrect interpolation for a translation to add it here (as many do), BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed.) on εξουσια says:
7...It is abstract for concrete, as βασιλεια [1] [i.e., kingship, royal power] in Diod[orus] S[iculus] [1st Century BC] 1., 47, 5: a stone figure εχουσα τρεις βασιλειας επι της κεφαλης = that wears three symbols of royal power [diadems] on its head.
So just as the diadems on the statue are referred to by the abstract term "royal power," and they are said to be on the statue's head, I think the argument can indeed be made that the veil or covering the woman in 1 Corinthians 11 is to wear "on her head" is very possibly being referred to in 11:10 as "a sign or symbol of" authority that she is to wear. Thus, the phrase εξουσιαν...επι της κεφαλης does not necessarily mean that the woman has "authority...over her [own] head." Rather, επι της κεφαλης can (per this statue description) simply mean the place she is to display such a sign or symbol of authority (i.e., "on her head"), and not that over which she has authority.

Knowing nothing more about the statue than what BDAG quotes about it (e.g., I don't know who or what the statue represents), the statue figure might be wearing a sign of its own royal power on its head. Thus, while a woman might be being told here in 1 Corinthians to wear "a sign of" authority on her head, it could be a sign or symbol of HER OWN authority that she possesses for and over herself.

11 πλην ουτε γυνη χωρις ανδρος ουτε ανηρ χωρις γυναικος εν κυριω

However, woman is not apart from man, nor is man apart from woman in the Lord.

12 ωσπερ γαρ η γυνη εκ του ανδρος ουτως και ο ανηρ δια της γυναικος

For just as the woman came from the man, so also man comes from woman.

τα δε παντα εκ του θεου

And all things come from God.

13 εν υμιν αυτοις κρινατε πρεπον εστιν γυναικα ακατακαλυπτον τω θεω προσευχεσθαι

You judge for yourselves: Is it fitting for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

14 ουδε η φυσις αυτη διδασκει υμας οτι ανηρ μεν εαν κομα ατιμια αυτω εστιν

Doesn't the nature of things itself show you that if a man has long hair, it is dishonorable to him?

15 γυνη δε εαν κομα δοξα αυτη εστιν οτι η κομη αντι περιβολαιου δεδοται αυτη

But if a woman has long hair, it is related to her glory – because she has been given long hair as a covering for her head?

16 ει δε τις δοκει φιλονεικος ειναι ημεις τοιαυτην συνηθειαν ουκ εχομεν ουδε αι εκκλησιαι του θεου

Now, if someone wants to be contentious about this, I want them to know that we do not have a custom like this, nor do the churches of God.

Some Final Comments

As I stated, one reason I interpreted and translated εξουσιαν εχειν επι της κεφαλης in 1 Corinthians 11:10 the way I did – i.e., "should have [a sign of] authority on her head" – was because my translation of the passage was based on how I would do it in light of the statements made in the writer's notes and comments about κεφαλη and δοξα and head coverings. Per the example in BDAG, I concluded that this translation of εξουσιαν εχειν επι της κεφαλης, in line with the writer's thoughts on this matter, can probably be supported. What I cannot determine, though, is whether such a sign of authority represents someone else's authority over the woman or the woman's own authority over her own head. Furthermore, if εξουσιαν εχειν επι της κεφαλης simply means to have one's own authority over one's own head or self, then the translation of this phrase as "[a sign of] authority" is incorrect.

As a side note, some argue that κατα κεφαλης εχων (lit. "downward-from head having") in 11:4 is referring to (long) hair, and not to an additional head covering, and that the adjective in 11:5,13 from ακατακαλυπτος (its component parts can literally mean "not-downward-covered/hidden") is referring to the absence of long hair. The verbs in 11:6-7 from κατακαλυπτω have the literal component parts meaning "to downward-from cover/hide," and also don't specifically refer to a covering other than one's own hair. Such an interpretation perhaps explains the comments about κομαω ("to wear-long-hair/let-hair-grow") in 11:14-15. If this understanding is correct (though it is not without its problems, and no version I know of translates the passage this way), then the debate on whether or not women should cover their heads in church is based on a misunderstanding and mistranslation of this passage.

Conclusions (?)

I can't clearly tell which parts of what Paul wrote here are from himself, or are his quoting of what someone else said or wrote to him, or are his response(s) to what someone else said or asked.
When Paul says in 11:16 that neither his group nor the churches of God have such a custom as this, I can't tell if he's referring to the custom of women not being covered when praying or prophesying, or the custom of women being covered when praying or prophesying.
If, as Paul writes in 11:15, nature has given woman long hair in place of a "covering," and if a woman is to cover her head when she is in God’s presence, wouldn't that support a long-haired woman NOT having to cover her head when praying or prophesying? I'm not sure that one can assume or conclude that γυνη δε εαν κομα δοξα αυτη εστιν in 11:15 means that a woman's long hair "displays" her glory and hence argue that her uncovered head competes with God's glory, for Paul seems to be saying that the long hair acts as a covering for the woman - and hence "covers" her glory. The meaning of this verse is unclear.
As explained above, I can find support for translating 1 Corinthians 11:10 as "[a sign of] authority on her head." But it could be a sign of her own authority over her own head, and not a sign of someone else's authority over her.
I still am unable to determine what Paul is finally concluding or affirming or rejecting here, or what he is telling them to do or not do.
I think #5 would also be the case for just about everyone else who wrestles with this passage.
The confusing nature of the passage and the different cultural assumptions and practices (along with a nearly two-millennia time gap) that separate us from the writer and his audience make it nearly impossible for me to conclude, as some do, that this passage teaches that men today are to pray or prophesy with their heads uncovered and women today are to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, or that a woman is to have a man (father, husband, pastor) as her spiritual "covering."
And as I note in my Final Comments, this passage may not even be about head coverings, but about long hair.

Seeing The Spirit

2009-09-29T23:09:00.020-05:00

Sunday Morning, September 13, 2009, church meeting upstairs at The Hydrant Cafe off the square in Denton:

Reed Parsons, who was giving the sermon, was talking about receiving the Holy Spirit, and the necessity and consequences of that for our Christian life. I was reading along with him when he came to this from John's Gospel:

16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you."

16 κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν ἵνα μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ᾖ, 17 τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει: ὑμεῖς γινώσκετε αὐτό, ὅτι παρ' ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται. (John 14:16-17)

Reed continued talking about receiving the Holy Spirit, but I stayed stuck there on the phrase "because it does not see Him." I.e., Jesus seemed to be saying that the Spirit was apparently something or Someone that one could see.

So I wondered if this meant things like at Jesus' baptism when John saw the Spirit coming down like a dove upon Jesus, and how God told John that:

"He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit."

Ἐφ' ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ' αὐτόν, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. (John 1:33b)

Then John goes on to say:

34 "I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God."

34 κἀγὼ ἑώρακα, καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ.

(I wouldn't make a big deal about Jesus using one Greek word when talking about seeing the Spirit in John 14, and John the Baptist using a different Greek word about seeing the Spirit at Jesus' baptism. John's style in his Gospel seems to include interchanging synonymous or semantically-overlapping, and he uses the gamut of words meaning "to see." In fact, it makes an interesting study to "see" how often John uses the words for "to see" in his Gospel. Another interesting study is to see how often δύναμαι (dunamai - "be able" "be capable of" "can" "have power to") is used in the Gospel of John – you'll need to use a Greek concordance to find all of them, because the word isn't consistently translated in English - but that's another subject.)

The appearance of tongues of fire on the heads of those who were filled with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost might also be another instance of the Holy Spirit being "seen."

In John 5:37b Jesus says to His opponents that they have neither heard the voice of Jesus' Father nor seen His form (eidos):

37...οὔτε φωνὴν αὐτοῦ πώποτε ἀκηκόατε οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε

This is the same word used in Luke 3:22 where the Spirit was said to have come down in bodily form as a dove. Does that describe the manner in which the Spirit came down (i.e., fluttering like a bird), or His appearance (i.e., in the form of a dove), or both? Either way, John (and possibly the other people there) saw the Spirit coming down as or in some form, not simply in some fashion or manner.

Though I have only seen physical manifestations of people reacting to the Holy Spirit, and not the Holy Spirit Himself (whether in the form of a dove or as some light or radiant or supernatural being), some have said that they can see whether the Spirit is upon a person. Usually, though, they, too, are also just describing physical things – e.g., the person beginning to shake, their skin shining or starting to perspire, their lips moving as if speaking in tongues, etc. They'll say "The Spirit is all over that person!" but they still are not saying that they are seeing the Spirit Himself, only His effects or manifestations.

Jesus describes to Nicodemus the movements or actions of the Spirit as being like those of the wind (the same word – πνεῦμα (pneuma) – is used for both, as well as for breath, in Greek; the same is true in Hebrew, too, for ruach), which again would refer to physical effects without actually seeing the Spirit Himself.

But I wonder if there is a seeing of the Spirit Himself (either as He is, or in some form in which He chooses to manifest Himself) that is to be expected or at least to be open to?

The Expanded Bible

2009-08-14T10:15:00.014-05:00

I received a free promotional copy of The Expanded Bible New Testament the other day (hardback, too, and not paperback as the offer stated - Thanks, Thomas Nelson!) for posting my "review" here and getting it publicized on another blog. The print edition looks identical to the online PDF document.

I find that reading it in book form is not as cumbersome as I thought it might be. One can easily learn to read just the bold-faced type (i.e., the modified New Century Version (NCV) text) while ignoring the inserted bracketed [ ] comments, only stopping to read them when one wants to.

If the NCV translation as supplemented by the L (Literal) comments and alternate (or) translations is a faithful rendering of the Greek (and I like what I've read so far), this will be a helpful study Bible for those who do not know NT Greek, and I'll likely be recommending it as such to people. (Note: The comments don't just expand on the Greek and provide translation options; they also give other useful study and background information.)

Wayne Hastings of Thomas Nelson confirmed for me that the Old Testament should be out in about two years. That, to me, is a massive undertaking, but it will be a welcome and useful one, judging by this New Testament effort.

E-X-P-A-N-D Your Bible Study

2009-07-28T13:36:00.055-05:00

From http://waynehastings.blogs.com/offtheshelf/2009/04/new-expanded-bible-coming-soon.html:

On August 11, 2009, Thomas Nelson will release a new product especially designed for our customer. Developed by a trusted team of Bible scholars The Expanded Bible New Testament, like the three titles I mentioned above, gives the reader help to reach their goal of hearing God’s message to them directly from the Scriptures.

Why is it different?
It meets the needs of the contemporary student of the Bible by combining devotional reading and in-depth study in a completely new way. Users can now study the Bible while they read with study aids and resources placed in-line with the text of the Bible.
It joins Bible text with traditional wordings, explanatory comments, additional wordings, literal meanings and expanded word definitions, all integrated within the text of the Scripture.
It offers readers a unique Bible study experience by making them a part of the process and decisions made by scholars while developing a translation
The end result is a Bible that is highly readable for devotions or study purposes that includes a richer in-text explanation of the Scripture. The experience will help customers grasp all that God is saying and give them a complete meaning of words and their alternative wordings. It’s like having a robust Bible reference library at your fingertips without having to flip a page or grab another book.

You can try this exceptional new product now. Simply go to this site and download a free PDF file and enjoy the experience first-hand.

Here's what it looks like (from the above link to the PDF file copy). The base text (in bold) is a modified version of the New Century Version. See the Introduction of The Expanded Bible for an explanation of the symbols and formatting (·, L, T, C, brackets, etc.):

John

1·In the beginning [Gen. 1:1] ·there was the Word [the Word already existed; Cthe Word refers to Christ, God’s revelation of himself]. The Word was ·with [in the presence of; in intimate relationship with] God [Cthe Father], and the Word was [fully] God. 2He was ·with [in the presence of; in intimate relationship with] God in the beginning. 3All things ·were made [were created; came to be] ·by [through] him, and nothing ·was made [came to be] without him [Prov. 8:22–31]. 4·In him there was life [or What was made through him was life], and that life was the light of all people. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not ·overpowered [defeated; or understood; comprehended] it.

6There was a man named John [Cthe Baptist; Matt. 3; Luke 3] who was sent by God. 7He came to ·tell people the truth [testify; bear witness] about the Light so that ·through him all people could hear about the Light and believe [Leveryone might believe through him]. 8John was not the Light, but he came to ·tell people the truth [testify; bear witness] about the Light. 9The true Light that ·gives light to [shines on; illuminates; enlightens] all [people] was coming into the world! [or 9The true Light gives light to all who have come into the world.]

10·The Word [LHe] was in the world, and the world ·was made [was created; came into being] ·by [through] him, but the world did not ·know [recognize] him. 11He came to ·the world that was his own [or his own country; Lthat which was his own], but his own people did not ·accept [receive] him. 12But to all who did ·accept [receive] him and believe ·in him [Lin his name; Cthe name indicating the character of the person] he gave the ·right [power; authority] to become children of God. 13They did not become his children ·in any human way [by natural descent; by physical birth; Lby blood]—by ·any human parents [human passion/decision; Ldesire/will of the flesh] or ·human desire [a husband’s decision; Ldesire/will of a man/husband]. They were born of God.

My thoughts from a quick look at it:

You'll have to decide if having all the translation notes and comments in the text is better than having them in footnotes or sidenotes, and if this in-the-text format hinders or helps one's ability to read and study the text.
If you are at least somewhat proficient in Koinê Greek, you'll be able to judge if the expansions and alternate translations or clarifications are beneficial to the non-Greek reader, or can be confusing or a matter of TMI ("Too Much Information").
An interesting experiment for those who can read the original Greek is see how The Expanded Bible translates and expands Ephesians 1:3-14 (which is a single sentence in the Greek, though Nestle-Aland 27 punctuates it so each Εν ω starts a new sentence - i.e., 1:7, 1:11, and 1:13):
3·Praise be to [or Blessed is] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. In Christ, God has given us every spiritual blessing in the heavenly ·world [realms; places]. 4·That is [or Just as; or For; Because], in Christ, he chose us before the ·world was made [Lfoundation of the world] so that we would be his holy people—people ·without blame [or unblemished; Cas are sacrificial animals] before him. 5Because of his love [Cthis phrase may go with the previous sentence], God ·had already decided to make us his own children [Lpredestined us for adoption] through Jesus Christ. That was what he wanted and what pleased him, 6and it brings praise to God because of his ·wonderful [glorious] grace. God gave that grace to us freely, in ·Christ, the One he loves [Lthe Beloved]. 7In ·Christ [Lhim] we ·are set free [have been redeemed/purchased] by ·the blood of his death [Lhis blood; Cblood signifies his sacrificial death], and so we have forgiveness of sins. ·How rich is [or This redemption reveals the wealth of; L...according to the riches of] God’s grace, 8which he has ·given to us so fully and freely [lavished on us]. With ·full [all] wisdom and understanding [Cthis phrase may go with the previous sentence], 9God let us know ·his secret purpose [or the mystery of his will; Ca “mystery” in Scripture is something God had not previously disclosed]. This was what ·God wanted [pleased him], and he ·planned to do it [or set it forth;publicly revealed it] through Christ. 10His goal was to carry out his plan, ·when the right time came [or at the time of fulfillment; Lin the fullness of the times], that all things in heaven and on earth would be ·joined together [unified; or summed up; or renewed] in Christ as the head.

11In Christ we ·were chosen to be God’s people [have received/were given our part of an inheritance], ·because from the very beginning God had decided this [Lhaving been predestined] in keeping with his plan. And he is the One who ·makes everything agree [or accomplishes everything in accord] with what he decides and wants. 12We are the first people who hoped in ·Christ [the Messiah], and we were chosen so that we would bring praise to God’s glory. 13So it is with you. When you heard the ·true teaching [message/word of truth]—the ·Good News about [Gospel of] your salvation—you believed in Christ. ·And in Christ, God put his special mark of ownership on you by giving you [L...having been sealed with] the Holy Spirit that he had promised. 14That Holy Spirit is the ·guarantee [down payment; deposit] ·that we will receive what God promised for his people [Lof our inheritance] until ·God gives full freedom to those who are his [or we acquire possession of it; Lthe redemption of the possession; v. 7]—to bring praise to God’s glory.
Doing this might help you evaluate if The Expanded Bible is a translation you would use or recommend to non-Greek readers as an aid to better understanding the original text.

I made the following comment to the publisher via the blogsite:

Just a quick comment, as I just found out about this forthcoming translation today.

I looked at a passage I was reading, Luke 1:34, and The Expanded Translation reads:
34 Mary said to the angel, “How •will [can] this happen since I •am a virgin [L have known (sexually) no man]?”
The Introduction says about [L]:
L LITERAL: A more literal rendering of the original language, allowing the reader to see why translations make varying choices. These are signaled by a superscript L within a bracket: [L ].
The Expanded Translation says the "more literal rendering" is:
[L have known (sexually) no man].
However, the "literal" Greek is "a-man not I-know" ανδρα ου γινωσκω (andra ou ginôskô).

Why does The Expanded Translation suggest that the "literal" Greek has a perfect tense verb ("have known"), rather than a present tense verb?

Also, why does the "literal" rendering suggest that ου (ou) modifies "man" as an adjective (i.e., "no man"), rather than that it modifies "know" as an adverb (i.e., "I do not know")?

IIRC, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (I. Howard Marshall) notes this use of the present tense when discussing the possible meanings of the verse (a verse often used to support the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox belief in Mary's perpetual virginity).

I received the following informative response:

We appreciate your comment on Wayne Hastings’ blog, which has been referred to me for response.

First, you will be seeing many “literal” renderings in The Expanded Bible that are not as literal as they can possibly be, but are relatively literal while still being worded in natural English so as to be understandable. This is one of those.

With regard to the tense, this is a present tense verb being used to communicate the perfective sense of the action. (In fact, Daniel B. Wallace uses this very passage as an example in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 533, under “special uses of the present tense, perfective present.”)

The negation bears the same sense either way it is applied.

We appreciate your interest in The Expanded Bible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

IHOPUrself

2009-07-22T14:36:00.002-05:00

Training, Preparing, and Equipping God's End-Time Forerunners and Worship Leaders for the Imminent Return of the Lord:

Click for Website

Helvidian, Epiphanian, Hieronymian - Who Were Jesus' Brothers?

2009-07-15T11:12:00.027-05:00

A discussion on Ben Witherington's Beliefnet blog (The Bible and Culture) about the James Ossuary generated some good comments and responses re: Mary's perpetual virginity, a belief held by Catholic and Orthodox Christians (and also believed by Luther and Calvin). Here is an interesting and informative part of the exchange:

Douglas Bilodeau
July 12, 2009 6:32 PM

I'm curious that no one has brought up the possibility that James could have been an older brother of Jesus by another mother who died before Joseph and Mary were betrothed. This must have been considered before. It might even (for all I know) be compatible with Catholic and/or Orthodox belief. I haven't heard of a doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Joseph, but perhaps it exists, or is simply taken for granted if the possibility of a previous wife is disallowed.

E
July 12, 2009 7:07 PM

Douglas Bilodeau:

There is an ancient tradition/option/explanation that Jesus' brothers were Joseph's children from a prior marriage. Read, e.g., The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission, by Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner. It's called the Epiphanian position, and advocacy of this view can be found in the Gospel of Peter. (Chilton, Neusner pp. 12ff.)

Kevin P. Edgecomb
July 13, 2009 2:40 PM
http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/

Douglas Bilodeau and E are quite right. In fact, the Epiphanian understanding is the canonical position of the Orthodox Church, that James, Joses, Simon, and three or more sisters were the naturally born children of Joseph and a wife prior to Mary. One will find exactly the same position in the Protevangelium Jacobi, which predates any other stated opinion on the matter, and is explicit on the subject concerning numerous beliefs of the earliest Christians in this regard. It supports precisely that position of St Epiphanios and the Orthodox Church.

The Roman Catholic position is that of seeing the brothers and sisters as cousins; this is the Hieronymian position, championed by St Jerome. Whether this can be stated to be an "official" position or not is beyond my competence.

It is the heretic Helvidius who posited that the brothers and sisters are the children of Joseph and Mary, born after Jesus. It is this Helvidian position which is common amongst Protestants and others. That doesn't make its origins any less heretical.

Phil W
July 14, 2009 12:57 PM

Kevin,

There is, of course, a different perspective on the origins of the various theories. The "Helvidian" position has roots in the New Testament itself.

The "Epiphanian" position is based on the apocryphal and heretical (Docetic) work, the Protevangelium of James.

The "Hieronymian" position is based on Jerome's imagination. He could find no precedent for his theory in the writings of the earlier Church fathers.

The "Helvidian" position appears to be the position of the writers of the New Testament (Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John). Roman Catholic authors, such as Raymond E. Brown and Mary Ann Getty-Sullivan, agree. Getty-Sullivan writes:

"If we only had the New Testament, one could assume that these are children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus. This was the opinion of Tertullian and most Protestants today. Yet already in the second century these 'brothers and sisters' were identified as children of Joseph from a former marriage (see the Protoevangelium of James 9:2)." [Mary Ann Getty-Sullivan, Women in the New Testament (Liturgical Press, 2001), 173-174. A very similar statement was made by Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor Bible Reference Library; Doubleday, 1997), 725-726.]

It seems that those who hold to the "Epiphanian" position believe that a late second-century Docetic writing trumps the New Testament. Even Jerome said that those who considered the Lord's brothers to be the sons of Joseph by a former wife were "following the ravings of the apocryphal writings." [Jerome, Commentary on St Matthew 12.49.]

The "Epiphanian" position was supported by Origen. Commenting on Matthew 13:55-56, he wrote: "They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or 'The Book of James,' that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary." [Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17.] Note that, according to Origen, only "some" believed in the "Epiphanian" theory; it was not a universal belief of the Church. Note also that Origen did not know of it as an Apostolic tradition; rather, he only knew it to be based on apocryphal gospels.

J. N. D. Kelly writes: "not only the Antidicomarianites attacked by Epiphanius and the Arian Eunomius openly taught that the 'brethren of the Lord' were Mary's sons by Joseph, but Basil of Caesarea, when criticizing the latter, implied that such a view was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy." [J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (5th ed.; HarperCollins, 1978), 494-495. Citing Basil, Hom. in sanctam Christi gen. (PG 31, 1468 f.).] So, even in the fourth century it was possible for an orthodox person to hold the "Helvidian" view.

Regarding the "Hieronymian" theory, named for Jerome its inventor, scholars are virtually unanimous that it is incorrect.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer writes: "Jerome thought that adelphos could mean 'cousin,' but this is almost certainly to be ruled out as the NT meaning, since there was a good word for 'cousin,' anepsios, found in Col 4:10." [Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Luke (Anchor Bible; Doubleday, 1981), 1:724.]

Similarly, Patrick J. Hartin notes: "One thing, however, is sure, and that is that this term [adelphos] does not designate a cousin, as Jerome understood this term. Greek has a specific word for cousin (anepsios). If a cousin were intended, the New Testament writers would surely have used the Greek word anepsios. See, for example, Col 4:10 …" [Patrick J. Hartin, James of Jerusalem (Liturgical Press, 2004), 32.]

Again, an ecumenical task force reached the same conclusion: "Today most who deny the blood-brother relationship make no attempt to specify the relationship and suspect that all that was remembered in antiquity was that they were relatives or kin. If a specific relationship were remembered, e.g., cousin, some Greek speaker should have begun to use the available specific Greek term, e.g., anepsios, which appears in the NT at Col 4:10." [Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer & John Reumann (eds.), Mary in the New Testament (Fortress Press, 1978), 67.]

Here is a summary of the evidence:

The authors of the New Testament, including Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, each tell us that Jesus had brothers. None of these five authors hints that what they mean by adelphoi is anything other than the most natural meaning, i.e., that the brothers are the children of Mary and Joseph, and are therefore biologically the half-brothers of Jesus but legally his full brothers.
Writing independently of the New Testament, Josephus also calls James "the brother of Jesus," without qualification.
Hegesippus also refers to "the Lord's brother according to the flesh," which indicates in the strongest terms that Jesus and his brothers were related by blood. Also, he distinguishes between brothers and cousins. Tertullian certainly taught that the brothers were the children of Mary and Joseph.
Getting their cues from the Docetic Protevangelium of James, Clement of Alexandria and Origen believed that the brothers were the stepbrothers of Jesus, the children of Joseph by a previous marriage.

That is all of the evidence that we possess on this topic from before the fourth century. The view that the brothers were the children of Mary and Joseph survived well into the fourth century.When one actually considers the evidence, the "Helvidian" theory appears to not have heretical origins.

Matthew SchultzJuly 19, 2009 11:26 PM

Ben WitheringtonJuly 8, 2009 8:40 PMHi Esteban:I understand your point but of course the problem is the perpetual virginity of Mary is not attested in Scripture, indeed the opposite is attested as Matthew's Gospel says--- "Joseph was not knowing her until" means clearly enough in Greek that after the specified period of time he was knowing her....
Fr. Terry Donahue, CCJuly 9, 2009 8:58 PMYou [Ben Witherington] wrote: "...as Matthew's Gospel says--- 'Joseph was not knowing her until' means clearly enough in Greek that after the specified period of time he was knowing her."It doesn’t seem completely clear to me that "until" (Gk. "heos") implies that the opposite occurs after the specified time period....

Fr. Terry Donahue,Dr. Svendsen has conducted a survey of "heos hou" [εως ου - E] (which is what needs to be looked at, not just "heos" by itself) throughout the New Testament and contemporary ANE literature:"This construction [heos hou] is used in Matt. 1:25 and so is of special interest here. It occurs only seventeen times in the NT, and all are temporal. Two of these have the meaning 'while' (Matt. 14:22; 26:36), whereas the other fifteen occurrences are instances in which the action of the main clause is limited by the action of the subordinate clause and require the meaning 'until a specified time (but not after)'" (Who Is My Mother? [Calvary Press, 2001] p. 52).His survey is extensive, covering many pages, and lists examples such as Matthew 17:9, Luke 22:18, Acts 21:26 and 2 Peter 1:19. The evidence strongly suggests that Matthew did not view Mary as a perpetual virgin.

Fr. Terry Donahue, CCJuly 27, 2009 9:04 PMI'm familiar with Dr. Svensen's survey and his claim "that heõs hou in all the literature of the two centuries surrounding the birth of Christ, when it means 'until,' always terminates the action of the main clause. That is an irrefutable fact".This claim is demonstrably false. I'd suggest the following rebuttals by John Pacheco and David PalmHeõs Hou and the Protestant Polemic http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/heoshou.htmlThe Non-Rule of Mr. Svendsen http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/heoserrors11.html

Your NameJuly 28, 2009 10:07 AMFr. Terry Donahue, CC:Thanks for the links.While the articles you linked to seem to demonstrate that some of what Dr. Svensen claims about the meaning of heôs hou may be incorrect (since I have not read his paper(s), I don't know exactly what he says or claims other than the short quotes the articles excerpted), I don't think they prove that the meaning of Matthew 1:25 is that Joseph kept Mary a virgin after Jesus' birth.

Note that I'm not saying that's what the critics of Dr. Svensen were attempting to do. Rather, it seems to me that debunking Dr. Svensen's claim leaves us with Matthew 1:25 not clearly saying anything one way or the other re: Mary's postpartum virginity. (And I think that's what the authors of the linked articles say, too.)

I think, though, that if Matthew had wanted to make the point that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth, he would have written something other than (or more than) what he did.

"Just As It Is Written"?

2009-07-08T13:19:00.045-05:00

Just as it is written,
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,
And he who believes in him will not be disappointed."
- Romans 9:33 (New American Standard Bible/NASB)

But that's not "just as it is written."

In Romans 9:33, the Apostle Paul combines two Scripture verses, Isaiah 28:16 and Isaiah 8:14, to come up with his quote. Here is how those verses read:

Isaiah 28:16:
Therefore thus says the Lord GOD,
"Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone,
A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed.
He who believes in it will not be disturbed." (Hebrew: NASB)

therefore thus says the Lord,
See, I will lay for the foundations of Sion
a precious, choice stone,
a highly valued cornerstone for its foundations,
and the one who believes in him will not be put to shame. (Greek: New English Translation of the Septuagint/NETS)
Isaiah 8:14:
"Then He shall become a sanctuary;
But to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over,
And a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem." (Hebrew: NASB)

If you trust in him, he will become your holy precinct, and you will not encounter him as a stumbling caused by a stone nor as a fall caused by a rock, but the house of Iakob is in a trap, and those who sit in Ierousalem are in a pit. (Greek: NETS)

While one can see from the English translations that Paul did not seem to exclusively follow either the Hebrew text or the Greek (Septuagint) version, the following shows the relationship between the Septuagint translation of these verses and Romans 9:33: blue from Isaiah 28:16, red from Isaiah 8:14, and green the part of one word that may have come from either verse:

Isaiah 28:16: δια τουτο ουτως λεγει Κυριος Ιδου εγω εμβαλω εις τα θεμελια Σιων λιθον πολυτελη εκλεκτον ακρογωνιαιον εντιμον εις τα θεμελια αυτης και ο πιστευων επ' αυτω ου μη καταισχυνθη

Isaiah 8:14: και εαν επ' αυτω πεποιθως ης εσται σοι εις αγιασμα και ουχ ως λιθου προσκομματι συναντησεσθε αυτω ουδε ως πετρας πτωματι ο δε οικος Ιακωβ εν παγιδι και εν κοιλασματι εγκαθημενοι εν Ιερουσαλημ

Romans 9:33: καθως γεγραπται, Ιδου τιθημι εν Σιων λιθον προσκομματος και πετραν σκανδαλου, και ο πιστευων επ' αυτω ου καταισχυνθησεται.

Here are the verses in table form for comparison:

Isaiah 28:16 Isaiah 8:14 Romans 9:33
δια τουτο ουτως λεγει Κυριος και εαν επ' αυτω πεποιθως ης καθως γεγραπται,
Ιδου εγω εμβαλω εις τα θεμελια Σιων Ιδου τιθημι εν Σιων
εσται σοι εις αγιασμα και ουχ ως
λιθον λιθου προσκομματι συναντησεσθε αυτω ουδε ως πετρας πτωματι λιθον προσκομματος και πετραν σκανδαλου,
πολυτελη εκλεκτον ακρογωνιαιον εντιμον εις τα θεμελια αυτης ο δε οικος Ιακωβ εν παγιδι και εν κοιλασματι εγκαθημενοι εν Ιερουσαλημ
και ο πιστευων επ' αυτω ου μη καταισχυνθη και ο πιστευων επ' αυτω ου καταισχυνθησεται.

Isaiah 28:16	Isaiah 8:14	Romans 9:33
δια τουτο ουτως λεγει Κυριος	και εαν επ' αυτω πεποιθως ης	καθως γεγραπται,
Ιδου εγω εμβαλω εις τα θεμελια Σιων		Ιδου τιθημι εν Σιων
	εσται σοι εις αγιασμα και ουχ ως
λιθον	λιθου προσκομματι συναντησεσθε αυτω ουδε ως πετρας πτωματι	λιθον προσκομματος και πετραν σκανδαλου,
πολυτελη εκλεκτον ακρογωνιαιον εντιμον εις τα θεμελια αυτης	ο δε οικος Ιακωβ εν παγιδι και εν κοιλασματι εγκαθημενοι εν Ιερουσαλημ
και ο πιστευων επ' αυτω ου μη καταισχυνθη		και ο πιστευων επ' αυτω ου καταισχυνθησεται.

As you can see, Paul sandwiches part of the middle of Isaiah 8:14 between some of the beginning and most of the end of Isaiah 28:16.

Thus, as opposed to quoting Isaiah "just as it is written," what Paul wrote does not seem to fully agree with either the Greek text or the Hebrew text of these verses, and his wording also has some morphological differences with what was "written."

How Many Adams?

2009-06-19T13:17:00.028-05:00

The creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are usually said to complement each other, with Genesis 2 being considered a "more detailed" or "close-up" recounting of what is stated more generally about the creation of plants, animals and men in Genesis 1.

But is the Genesis 2 account of the creation of the male adam/ish and the forming of the female ishshah indeed a retelling of the Genesis 1 creation of the male and female adam?

When reading Genesis 1, one sees that singular nouns are used to refer to plurals - e.g., "tree," "bird," "beast," "cattle," refer to the creation of "trees," "birds," "beasts," "cattle," etc. A natural reading of Genesis 1:26-30 (apart from Genesis 2 and 3) would be that God here created the human kind just like he had created the kinds of water creatures and flying creatures and land creatures – i.e., several or many male and female humans. The subsequent blessing and command to the adams to take over and fill the earth and rule all its creatures makes more sense if given to a large group of people. Note that just before this, God had given a similar blessing and command to all the water creatures and flying creatures, not just to a single pair.

(The verbs re: the blessing and command are plurals, as is the expression of what God intended for the adam before he made them. While the plurals could refer to or be directed to a single male and female pair, in the context it makes more sense to see them as referring to or being directed to many humans.)

Also, a Genesis 1 creation of many adams helps solve the problem of where Cain got his wife, if she was not a sibling, and possibly renders moot the need to suggest (as some do in an effort to reconcile the two accounts of man's creation) that the single Genesis 1 adam might have been a hermaphrodite, being both male and female, before YHWH God took the female out of the male's side as described in Genesis 2.

Genesis 5:1-3 seems to conflate the two creation accounts into the creation of a single adam, and as our text of Genesis now stands, I suspect it's impossible to cleanly separate what might have been two separate accounts (though scholars have tried to do this - see, e.g., The Bible with Sources Revealed by Richard Elliott Friedman). But does the fact that they are read and taught as being a unified whole mean that they actually do complement each other or were originally meant to, or that they can be perfectly harmonized?

Holy Roller

2009-06-13T22:17:00.067-05:00

Holy Roller: Finding Redemption and the Holy Ghost in a Forgotten Texas Church by Julie Lyons (Buy from Amazon.com)

My Review ***** (out of 5)

Put this book on your must-read list, especially if you live in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. I've now read it twice, and am giving copies to several people. It's G-O-O-D!

(Mrs. Lyons was the Editor-in-Chief for the Dallas Observer before she left her job in order to write this book. The writing and storytelling style of Holy Roller remind me of some of the cover stories I've read over the years in the Observer, but that could be coincidental.)

Excerpt:

I was driving on the wild frontier of gangsta-land, a place I'd learn to navigate by the sites where people got murdered. South Dallas always stayed crazy, and I was just getting used to the experience--the occasional kak-kak-kak of semiautomatic-weapon fire, the graffiti tags of the Trey-Five-Seven (.357) Crips, the distinctive choreography of drug dealing, with crack rocks passing invisibly from hand to hand in furtive motions that I came to recognize from afar.

I was twenty-seven years old, white, and quite conspicuous in black South Dallas the evening in late April 1990 when I set out to find a different kind of story for the Dallas Times Herald. Since starting a job two months earlier as a crime reporter, I'd been getting to know the roughest parts of the city, places like this. It was nothing like the small Wisconsin town where I grew up.

I'd tell myself I wasn't scared, but I think I was driving too fast to know for sure. This time I wasn't chasing flashing lights toward Bexar Street, hoping to get there before the witnesses and walking wounded had melted away in the dark. Instead, I was looking for the scene of a miracle.

There would be no crime-scene tape marking the spot. It was just me in my little car, prowling the streets and looking for a spiritual outpost. I had no idea what it would look like; all I knew was there had to be a church in this part of the inner city where people came searching for a supernatural breakthrough. I had decided it would be impossible to live in this crumbling, seemingly godforsaken territory without clinging to some shred of hope that things could get better. I was determined to find the place people go when despair drives them to seek a miracle.

I turned a corner and entered a neighborhood with all the familiar signs: slender boys with darting eyes, standing like pickets on the corner, beckoning to people in cars that were slowly passing through. I steered around potholes and broken glass in the street and looked past the drug sentries for evidence of light and life in the neighborhood's churches. You'd find Baptists on one corner and Holy Sanctifieds on the other, with a House of Prayer for All People wedged in between. They stood as silent witnesses while hell swarmed all around them. The truth is, I really didn't know what I was looking for. I just knew I couldn't leave South Dallas until I found it.

All this began with a lie, a made-up story idea that I pitched to my editors at the newspaper. See, there are these preachers in the ghetto who pray for crack-cocaine addicts, and people are supposedly getting miraculously "healed." And oh, I know a bunch of these preachers. The best you could say in my defense is that I thought about the story so much that it became real to me. Before moving to Dallas, I had lived in Belfast, Northern Ireland, where the Troubles erupted regularly into fire bombings, shootings, and retaliatory acts between working-class Catholics and Protestants. I had gone to the province of Ulster to write the story of a terrorist who found God and was now trying to lead his former enemies to reconciliation. I learned while living in Belfast that among certain types of Christians, unexplainable things were almost commonplace. You just had to know where to look.

My previous work as a crime reporter at the Seattle Times had led me to believe that miracle-working preachers could be found in any major city. In Dallas in 1990, the crack epidemic was leaving a trail of wreckage--of neighborhoods gone to hell in a swath of murder and ruin. Thanks to my experiences in Belfast and Seattle, I had come up with a simple theorem: where desperation multiplied, there you would find God.

At the Dallas Times Herald we were always looking for new angles to pursue in reporting the crack-cocaine story. I needed something bigger than yet another shooting, drug raid, or body found in the street. Why not make my mark at the paper by uncovering the miraculous? Here, then, was the problem: I didn't know any preachers who fit this description. There is a game that newspaper reporters play: you invest as little work as possible before pitching a story to your editor. That way, if your editor rejects the idea, you haven't wasted too much effort. I mentioned my story idea of supernatural healing, and to my surprise and secret horror, the editors seized on it immediately. They scheduled the story for Sunday A-1. I had just a few days to find my mythical ministers and write a lengthy feature story about themin time for the early edition, the "bulldog."

That's why I was cruising aimlessly through South Dallas. As evening moved quickly toward night, I was way more scared of my editors than I was of the ghetto. I passed dozens of churches without stopping. If the lights weren't on, I kept rolling. I eventually turned onto a one-block street, Brigham Lane, and saw two churches, one on each corner.The first seemed inconsequential, with a sagging roof and handmade sign. But at the other end of the block stood a tidy, brick-walled structure. I noted the affiliation: Church of God in Christ. Black Pentecostals. Holy rollers. I aimed for the far corner.

I had my music cranked, a soca artist from Tobago named Shadow, who had an insidiously hummable tune, "Tabanka." It has something to do with the sickness you feel when you're hopelessly attracted to someone. I craved the melody and syncopation of my beloved Caribbean music. All the plastic parts of my little Honda were rattling with the heavy bass line, and the noise helped to bury my nervousness.

I was driving past the scruffy-looking church when something intensely spiritual happened. I don't know how else to say this: God was in the car with me. I could feel his presence, a palpable thing that made my senses light up, even amid the dissonance of blaring soca. I might have been a tough-minded crime reporter, but I had recently reconnected with the faith of my childhood, and I was engaged to be married to a man who was a devout Christian. I was far from figuring things out but eager to investigate anything that might shed more light on questions about God's work on earth.

Is that really you, God? I thought. What else could I think? I turned the music down and pulled my car to the curb.

You want me to stop here, don't you? I said to myself and, I suppose, to God as well. Just then a girl popped out the front door of the dilapidated church. As the girl skipped down the sidewalk, I got out of my car, reporter's notebook in hand, and stopped her just short of the house that stood next-door.

"Do you believe in healing prayer?" I asked without introduction.

"Yes!" she said enthusiastically. She was brown-skinned, with pigtails, or so I recall. I don't remember very clearly anymore. I guessed she was about ten, but back then I wasn't good at estimating children's ages.

"Does your minister pray for drug addicts?" I asked.

"Yes!" she answered again.

"Are any getting healed?"

"Yes!"

I asked her to point out her pastor to me. At that moment a black man wearing a suit jacket and tie stepped outside the church's front door. Several church members were visible in the dim yellow light of the tiny foyer behind him. A thought flashed in my brain: Oh God, don't let him be one of those overbearing egotistical preachers. I'm not even sure where that objection came from--probably from a bad experience I'd had in my years as a reporter.

I walked over and introduced myself as a journalist. The pastor was Fredrick L. Eddington Sr. He was tall and I am not, and I remember he bent down slightly as he listened to me.

"Do you pray for crack addicts?" I asked. Might as well get right to the point.

"Yes," the pastor said.

"Are they getting healed?"

The pastor paused for a moment. "Some of them are," he said. We chatted some more, and I got the impression he was choosing his words carefully. Still, our conversation was casual. To listen to Pastor Eddington, you'd have thought we were discussing the weather or the Dallas Cowboys. But we were talking about miracles. This wasn't at all what I'd expected. The pastor came across as humble, gentle, plainspoken. And he didn't seem the least bit surprised that a young white woman--a stranger who clearly didn't belong in this neighborhood--had suddenly materialized out of the darkness.

I was looking for a feature story to run in the Sunday paper. What I was about to discover was a passionate, self-taught man who would introduce me to a world of spirits, healing, prophecy, and warfare waged to the death between invisible forces of good and evil. To Pastor Eddington these things were not superstition, legend, or overwrought emotion. This was reality, and over the next few months I would see it for myself.

Months later, talking with Diane Eddington, the pastor's wife, I inquired about the little girl who had come skipping down the walk in front of the church, telling me that healings took place there. I asked the First Lady to point out the little girl so I could thank her, and Diane told me there was no such girl. I thought back to the night I had found this church. The sun had just set, it was a neighborhood where the crackle of gunfire was often heard, and a young girl was the only person on the sidewalk. I realized that no parent would dream of allowing her child to be out alone at night. Not only that, but no one who attended the service that evening had seen a girl matching the description I gave.

So who was the girl I talked to? Diane had an answer.

"Oh," she said, "you was just seeing an angel."

- - -

Here's an interview with Julie Lyons about the book from KERA Public Radio. The interviewer chose to spend more than 25% of the show (i.e., 11+ minutes at 15:16-26:43 of the less-than-48-minute interview, plus some of the callers' questions) on Julie's biblical views of (and personal struggles with) same-sex attraction and homosexuality, but there is so much more to the book than that, and so much more Julie could have discussed.

Which is all the more reason for you to GET THE BOOK AND READ IT ALL. :^D

** You can email Julie Lyons at: therealbiblegirl@gmail.com **

From Amazon.com:

Product Description
Julie Lyons was working as a crime reporter when she followed a hunch into the South Dallas ghetto. She wasn’t hunting drug dealers, but drug addicts who had been supernaturally healed of their addictions. Was there a church in the most violent part of the city that prayed for addicts and got results?

At The Body of Christ Assembly, a rundown church on an out-of-the-way street, Lyons found the story she was looking for. The minister welcomed criminals, prostitutes, and street people–anyone who needed God. He prayed for the sick, the addicted, and the demon-possessed, and people were supernaturally healed.

The Body of Christ Assembly (new building) - I visited the church 8/2/09, from whence came these photos

Lyons’s story landed on the front page of the Dallas Times Herald. But she got much more than just a great story, she found an unlikely spiritual home. Though the parishioners at The Body of Christ Assembly are black and Pentecostal, and Lyons is white and from a traditional church background, she embraced their spirituality–that of “the Holy Ghost and fire.”

It’s all here in Holy Roller–the stories of people desperate for God’s help. And the actions of a God who doesn’t forget the people who need His power.

About the Author
Julie Lyons is an award-winning writer, editor, and investigative reporter who for more than eleven years was editor-in-chief of the Dallas Observer, an alternative weekly newspaper owned by Village Voice Media. She holds a master’s degree in journalism from Northwestern University and a B.A. in English from Seattle Pacific University. She and her husband, Larry Lyons Jr., live in Dallas with their son.

How Stan Gundry Became An Egalitarian

2009-04-27T10:53:00.002-05:00

From Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers to Woman Be Free

Read the comments, too.

Manga Messiah

2009-03-26T14:30:00.000-05:00

This is a great telling of the story of Jesus. Manga Messiah is faithful to the Gospels, weaving the accounts into one story. Highly Recommended.

A couple comments:

The Jewish leaders tend to be drawn a little too evil, in my opinion - i.e., darker skin, uglier features - while the other characters, their fellow Jews, have the typical manga Caucasian child-like look.
Jesus says to the thief on the cross: "I TELL YOU TODAY...YOU'LL JOIN ME IN PARADISE...," the punctuation reflecting the view of some churches/sects that we don't immediately go to be with the Lord at death. The NA-26/27 Greek text punctuates it as most translations do: "Truly I tell you, today you'll be with me in paradise."

I followed that by reading the sequel, Manga Metamorphosis (the Book of Acts):

It's equally good.

Get them both!

P4CM

2009-02-13T13:35:00.000-06:00

Wear your testimony:

The Holy Spirit As "It"?

2009-01-11T18:33:00.029-06:00

In some of my writings I refer to the Holy Spirit as "It," rather than as "He," though in the future I'll probably defer to the common practice of using "He/Him/His" rather than "It/It/Its."

Before explaining why, I want to make it clear that I do not regard the Holy Spirit as an "impersonal force." Nor am I denying the orthodox Christian understanding and expression of the Trinity.

My reasons for at times referring to the Holy Spirit as "It" are basically the following:

The most-developed Biblical concept of the Holy Spirit is found in the New Testament, and the Greek word pneuma (πνευμα) is a neuter noun.¹ Thus, referring to the Holy Spirit as "It" is kind of an artificial conformity to its "gender" in the New Testament. (I realize that the genders of Greek nouns don't necessarily correspond to or indicate the "sex" of the noun.)
The New Testament passages that commonly translate the Holy Spirit as "He" - i.e., Jesus's statements in the Gospel According to John 14-16² - mislead many readers to think or assume that Jesus is deliberately breaking Greek grammar rules (i.e., a pronoun must agree with the gender of its antecedent) to emphasize the Holy Spirit's personhood by using masculine pronouns for a neuter word (and I've heard preachers and teachers say this very thing). But it can be shown that the word that is translated as "He" in those passages - i.e., the "far" (or "distant") demonstrative pronoun ekeinos (εκεινος) - has as its antecedent the masculine noun paraklêtos (παρακλητος) and not the neuter noun pneuma (πνευμα). In fact, it would be perfectly acceptable, and possibly more proper, to translate ekeinos (εκεινος) in these instances as "that one," since a "paraclete" (i.e., an advocate or someone called alongside to one's aid) need not necessarily be a male.

Actually, a case could probably be made for referring to the Holy Spirit as "She," since in the early church the Holy Spirit was at times equated with the "Wisdom" of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha, and both the Greek word for wisdom (sophia - σοφια) and the Hebrew word for "Spirit" (ruach - רוח) are feminine. But for me to refer to the Holy Spirit as "She" would be in my mind even more problematic and lead to greater misunderstanding than using "It."

¹ In the Hebrew Old Testament, the corresponding word, ruach (רוח), is feminine, but Hebrew has no neuter gender. English, of course, has no genders for nouns at all.

² Here are the relevant verses in the Gospel According to John 14-16. I've marked in bold all the instances of paraklêtos (παρακλητος) and ekeinos (εκεινος), as well as any masculine pronouns that refer to paraklêtos (παρακλητος). I've also indicated where the New American Standard Bible used here translates verbs where the pronoun subject is included in the verb ending with "He" and neuter pronouns referring to the (neuter) Spirit with "Him" or "who(m)."

John 14
16 καγω ερωτησω τον πατερα και αλλον παρακλητον δωσει υμιν ινα μεθ υμων εις τον αιωνα η, 17 το πνευμα της αληθειας, ο ο κοσμος ου δυναται λαβειν, οτι ου θεωρει αυτο ουδε γινωσκει: υμεις γινωσκετε αυτο, οτι παρ υμιν μενει και εν υμιν εσται.... 26 ο δε παρακλητος, το πνευμα το αγιον ο πεμψει ο πατηρ εν τω ονοματι μου, εκεινος υμας διδαξει παντα και υπομνησει υμας παντα α ειπον υμιν [εγω].
16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.... 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

John 15
26 οταν ελθη ο παρακλητος ον εγω πεμψω υμιν παρα του πατρος, το πνευμα της αληθειας ο παρα του πατρος εκπορευεται, εκεινος μαρτυρησει περι εμου:
26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,"

John 16
7 αλλ εγω την αληθειαν λεγω υμιν, συμφερει υμιν ινα εγω απελθω. εαν γαρ μη απελθω, ο παρακλητος ουκ ελευσεται προς υμας: εαν δε πορευθω, πεμψω αυτον προς υμας. 8 και ελθων εκεινος ελεγξει τον κοσμον περι αμαρτιας και περι δικαιοσυνης και περι κρισεως:... 13 οταν δε ελθη εκεινος, το πνευμα της αληθειας, οδηγησει υμας εν τη αληθεια παση: ου γαρ λαλησει αφ εαυτου, αλλ οσα ακουσει λαλησει, και τα ερχομενα αναγγελει υμιν. 14 εκεινος εμε δοξασει, οτι εκ του εμου λημψεται και αναγγελει υμιν.
7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8 And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;... 13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative ("from Himself"), but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you."

Κεφαλη and Αυθεντειν

2009-01-08T08:14:00.006-06:00

Κεφαλη and Αυθεντειν.

Two words that have probably caused more ruckus in the last couple decades than any other words in the Greek New Testament!

(For non-Greek readers: One reason I do not give the definitions of these words is that the disageement about what they mean is a large reason for the ruckus.)

Whence "Complementarianism"?

2009-01-07T09:36:00.044-06:00

(Warning: The following may be "fightin' words" to some people.)

I've recently waded into the "Complementarian - Egalitarian" battle that's being waged in Evangelical Protestantism. (See, e.g., the Complegalitarian blog site.) Though I am not well read in the area,¹ I do not lack thoughts or opinions on the subject! And, per an earlier post, I've been to a church that is on the front lines of this battle.

Anyway, here's a salvo from me:

Note: Had I first read the introduction to Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy (Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Editors), I might not have written this post, since in it the editors discuss the subject I address here, though not exactly as I have done. And as the subtitle of the book indicates, egalitarians regard themselves as complementarians, but without the hierarchy that restricts church and home leadership to men.

Why is the "only men can be church leaders and teach other men in church" position called "Complementarianism"?

While there are certain biological roles and functions for which men and women have complementary functions, Christian "Complementarianism" also uses these biological differences to restrict certain church roles and functions to men, even though men are allowed to do in church everything that women can do (including the women-assigned things in Titus 2:4-5 - i..e, men can so instruct these young women as well). Such a "Complementarianism" seems to be saying: "All Christians are equal, but some are more equal than others." (Cf. the commandment in Animal Farm being changed from "All animals are equal" to "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."²) This, despite what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Galatians 3:26-28 and Colossians 3:10-11 about such former distinctions being done away with in Christ and all believers being one in Christ.

Hence, I would suggest an alternative term for such a position. Here are some candidates:

"Subordinationism." But since "lay" men are just as "subordinated" to male pastors, elders, and deacons as "lay" women are, this is probably not a good alternative.
"Restrictionism." This might be a valid alternative, since whereas "lay" men can become "clergy" and hold "church offices" and teach others, both male and female, it's not similarly open to women to enter or achieve the same rank or position or place of authority.
"Patriarchalism." This formerly-used term most literally means a society headed by a "father." But since it also means a system or organization whereby power is held by and transferred through males, it might be the best and most accurate alternative term for so-called "Complementarianism."

To critique "Complementarianism" directly, and not just the term, if one distinguishes home and married life from church life, I think it shows that "Complementarianism" may be somewhat improperly importing the husband-wife relationship of men and women into the church realm or imposing it on the church. This seems contrary to one of the major Biblical images of the church as being the Bride of Christ, regardless of the genders of its members. It also seems contrary to the image of the church as the body of Christ in which God has placed the members as He decided, and to whom His Spirit gives gifts and giftings as It wills (1 Corinthians 12:11,18) - with no mention made of restrictions or distinctions based on gender, or some positions or giftings being more appropriate for men than for women, or vice-versa.

(Note: When I talk about importing the husband-wife relationship into the church realm, I am not thereby saying or assuming that the husband-wife relationship has to be patriarchal, though there does seem to me to be Scriptural support for that, with the husbands' mutual respect and love and self-giving reciprocating the wives' and children's non-leadership or lesser-leadership roles. What I'm saying is that "Complementarians" seem to be imposing that model onto church roles and offices and tasks when they give men authority over women while denying a woman an equal right to be in authority or a pastor or a teacher of men.)

Maybe "Complementarians" would be offended if "Egalitarians" insisted on using "Patriarchalism" again, a term that more accurately describes the negative aspects of "Complementarianism." Is it the desire to dialogue without offending the other party that causes "Egalitarians" to acquiesce and accept the "Complementarians'" somewhat-euphemistic self-designation?

¹ I haven't read many of the latest articles written about this, but I have in the past owned and read several books on the subject, though I've subsequently sold or given away most of them. I have yet to read much of the largish (500+ pages) Discovering Biblical Equality, but have read most of the second edition of Two Views on Women in Ministry, as well as the first edition of Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (and own the second edition as well). I've also read several responses and rebuttals to and from the opposing sides.

² George Orwell, Animal Farm, Chapter X

"Happy Holidays!" - Bah, humbug!

2008-12-25T07:48:00.007-06:00

Call me a Scrooge, but in my opinionated opinion, "Happy Hanukkah!" or "Happy Kwanzaa," let alone, "Happy Holidays!", shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as "Merry Christmas!" or used as a substitute.

Christmas is a true Holy Day, a commemoration of Christ's birth, the day God's Son became a human and began dwelling among us, an act(ion) He continues to do through His Holy Spirit.

Hanukkah, on the other hand, is a myth, a fable - or at least the "miracle" associated with it is. Unwilling and undesiring to make a popular military victory a holiday worthy of commemoration alongside the Biblical feasts and festivals, the rabbis invested the tale of the Maccabees' recapture of the Temple with a "miracle story" - in fact, several miracle stories, IIRC, the one about the flask of oil burning for eight days being the one that has survived. See, e.g., Bloch, Abraham P., The Biblical and Historical Background of the Jewish Holy Days (Ktav Publishing House, Inc., New York, 1978).

As for the true reason Hanukkah is celebrated for eight days, you can read about it in the 10th chapter of 2 Maccabees, an apocryphal intercanonical work:

1 Now Maccabeus and his followers, the Lord leading them on, recovered the temple and the city; 2 and they tore down the altars which had been built in the public square by the foreigners, and also destroyed the sacred precincts. 3 They purified the sanctuary, and made another altar of sacrifice; then, striking fire out of flint, they offered sacrifices, after a lapse of two years, and they burned incense and lighted lamps and set out the bread of the Presence. 4 And when they had done this, they fell prostrate and besought the Lord that they might never again fall into such misfortunes, but that, if they should ever sin, they might be disciplined by Him with forbearance and not be handed over to blasphemous and barbarous nations.

5 It happened that on the same day on which the sanctuary had been profaned by the foreigners, the purification of the sanctuary took place, that is, on the twenty-fifth day of the same month, which was Kislev. 6 And they celebrated it for eight days with rejoicing, in the manner of the feast of booths, remembering how not long before, during the feast of booths, they had been wandering in the mountains and caves like wild animals. 7 Therefore bearing ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and also fronds of palm, they offered hymns of thanksgiving to him who had given success to the purifying of his own holy place. 8 They decreed by public ordinance and vote that the whole nation of the Jews should observe these days every year.

The account in 1 Maccabees Chapter 4 (considered to be more historically accurate than 2 Maccabees, and giving no explanation for the eight days) is as follows:

36 Then said Judas [Maccabeus] and his brothers, "Behold, our enemies are crushed; let us go up to cleanse the sanctuary and dedicate it." 37 So all the army assembled and they went up to Mount Zion. 38 And they saw the sanctuary desolate, the altar profaned, and the gates burned. In the courts they saw bushes sprung up as in a thicket, or as on one of the mountains. They saw also the chambers of the priests in ruins. 39 Then they rent their clothes, and mourned with great lamentation, and sprinkled themselves with ashes. 40 They fell face down on the ground, and sounded the signal on the trumpets, and cried out to Heaven.

41 Then Judas detailed men to fight against those in the citadel until he had cleansed the sanctuary. 42 He chose blameless priests devoted to the law, 43 and they cleansed the sanctuary and removed the defiled stones to an unclean place.

44 They deliberated what to do about the altar of burnt offering, which had been profaned. 45 And they thought it best to tear it down, lest it bring reproach upon them, for the Gentiles had defiled it. So they tore down the altar, 46 and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until there should come a prophet to tell what to do with them. 47 Then they took unhewn stones, as the law directs, and built a new altar like the former one.

48 They also rebuilt the sanctuary and the interior of the temple, and consecrated the courts. 49 They made new holy vessels, and brought the lampstand, the altar of incense, and the table into the temple. 50 Then they burned incense on the altar and lighted the lamps on the lampstand, and these gave light in the temple.

51 They placed the bread on the table and hung up the curtains. Thus they finished all the work they had undertaken. 52 Early in the morning on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month, which is the month of Kislev, in the one hundred and forty-eighth year [Seleucid Era; 15 December 164], 53 they rose and offered sacrifice, as the law directs, on the new altar of burnt offering which they had built. 54 At the very season and on the very day that the Gentiles had profaned it, it was dedicated with songs and harps and lutes and cymbals.

55 All the people fell on their faces and worshiped and blessed Heaven, who had prospered them. 56 So they celebrated the dedication of the altar for eight days, and offered burnt offerings with gladness; they offered a sacrifice of deliverance and praise. 57 They decorated the front of the temple with golden crowns and small shields; they restored the gates and the chambers for the priests, and furnished them with doors. 58 There was very great gladness among the people, and the reproach of the Gentiles was removed.

59 Then Judas and his brothers and all the assembly of Israel determined that every year at that season the days of dedication of the altar should be observed with gladness and joy for eight days, beginning with the twenty-fifth day of the month of Kislev.

As for "Kwanzaa," it is a total fabrication, the 1966 creation of a former Black Nationalist. I would almost consider wishing someone a "Happy Kwanzaa!" to be an insult to their intelligence, akin to wishing an adult a "Happy Great Pumpkin Day!" Yet even Halloween has more validity than Kwanzaa.

The fact that Christmas, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa occur around the same time of the year is no reason to dilute or diminish the absolute uniqueness of Christmas by lumping it in with these other celebrations.

"Happy Holidays"?

No way!

"Merry Christmas!"

A Nightmare On El(ohi)m Street

2008-12-02T22:04:00.011-06:00

[Note: I have never seen A Nightmare on Elm Street (except for a few minutes), nor the sequels. I really don't care for "slasher" flicks, or see their point (no pun intended). But I sort of know the plot, I think - i.e., this guy keeps coming after people (in their dreams?) and tracking or chasing them down and killing them, and there is no way to stop him or escape from him.]

I just finished reading the Torah in English and Hebrew (mostly English, but occasionally checking the Hebrew), using Richard Elliott Friedman's Commentary on the Torah.

In response to something on the Internet about keeping kosher, I said that it seems to me that just about all the commandments that are in the covenant that YHWH makes with the Israelites at Sinai, and again later as part of Moses's last address to them, are connected to dwelling in the land. This isn't restricted to just the priestly/Temple commandments (impossible even for Israeli Jews to keep in the absence of the Tabernacle/Temple), but includes all or most or at least many of the other ones as well. And failure to keep the commandments and the covenant results in God driving the Israelites out of the land, as well as sending upon them all the plagues and diseases of Egypt, and doing a whole bunch of other things that would make being Jewish a lifelong Nightmare on Elm Street - with YHWH playing the part of Freddie Krueger!

Call me a Jewish apostate (which I am), but it seems to me that Jews who don't live in Israel have no Torah requirement to keep the food laws or a myriad of other laws as well.

What think ye?

WDJD (What Did Jesus Do?)

2008-11-18T18:45:00.028-06:00

As someone has said:

It's not that we don't know enough about Jesus.

It's that we know too much!

If we had only one Gospel instead of four:

We'd know what Jesus did during the last week of His life, and the order in which He did them.
We'd know what He said on the cross, how the thieves treated Him, and if He took the drink.
We'd know who was at the tomb.
We'd know if the Last Supper was a Passover meal.
We'd know when He gave the various parts that make up the Sermon on the Mount (or was it on the plain?)
We'd know if He healed Malchus's ear.
We'd know the right version of the Lord's Prayer.
We'd know what the words of institution were (maybe; there's still 1 Corinthians).
We'd know what He said in His Olivet Discourse, and where He said it.
We'd know if he had a long conversation with Pilate.
We'd know how many blind men he healed.
We'd know His genealogy.
We'd know how many times He cleansed the Temple.
We'd know the names of His twelve disciples.
We'd know how Judas died (unless that one Gospel was Matthew's).
We'd know who washed His feet with her hair, and whether she anointed His feet or His head, and whose house it happened in.

Or would we?

A New "Voice"

2008-11-11T12:43:00.043-06:00

Thomas Nelson, Inc., has released The Voice New Testament, a new translation that has a unique style and format. Here is the promo info about the translation from the Voice blog:

Any literary project reflects the age in which it is written. The Voice is created for and by a church in great transition. Throughout the body of Christ, extensive discussions are ongoing about a variety of issues including style of worship, how we separate culture from our theology, and what is essential truth. At the center of this discussion is the role of Scripture. Instead of furthering the division over culture and theology, it is time to bring the body of Christ together again around the Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers and Ecclesia Bible Society together are developing Scripture products that foster spiritual growth and theological exploration out of a heart for worship and mission. We have dedicated ourselves to hearing and proclaiming God’s voice through this project.

Previously most Bibles and biblical reference works were produced by professional scholars writing in academic settings. The Voice uniquely represents collaboration among scholars, pastors, writers, musicians, poets, and other artists. The goal is to create the finest Bible products to help believers experience the joy and wonder of God’s revelation. This is the first-ever complete New Testament in The Voice translation. Writers include Chris Seay, Lauren Winner, Brian McLaren, Greg Garrett, David B. Capes, and others.

Four key words describe the vision of this project:
Holistic: considers heart, soul, and mind
Beautiful: achieves literary and artistic excellence
Sensitive: respects cultural shifts and the need for accuracy
Balanced: includes theologically diverse writers and scholars

We have taken care that The Voice is faithful and that it avoids prejudice. As we partnered biblical scholars and theologians with our writers, we intentionally built teams that did not share any single theological tradition. Their diversity has helped each of them not to be trapped within his or her own individual preconceptions, resulting in a faithful and fresh rendering of the Bible.

Features include: bronze, highlighted text; screenplay-like format, ideal for public readings and group studies; devotional commentary; and book introductions.

I saw a copy at Borders Books Monday, November 10, and again at Barnes & Noble on Tuesday, November 11. For some reason, neither of the two chain Christian bookstores (Mardel and Lifeway) have it; maybe Thomas Nelson is marketing it to the non-Christian bookstores and markets first. I didn't see it at Wal-Mart, Target, Sam's Club or Costco, either.

I was prepared to be skeptical of it after first reading about it at the Better Bibles Blog, and it didn’t help when the footnote to John 3:3 said (in reference to "birth for a second time"):

* 3:3 Other manuscripts read "from above."

According to Nestle-Aland 27, there are no textual variants for ανωθεν (anôthen = "from above," "again," "anew"), so the footnote should instead have read something like:

* 3:3 The Greek can also mean "from above." or * 3:3 Or "from above."

Interestingly, the footnote for John 3:3 in the downloadable PDF file of The Voice: The Book of John does in fact read: * 3:3 Or "from above." I wondered why the proofs that went to the publisher incorrectly changed this, so I emailed Thomas Nelson on November 12. They responded the next day:

Thank you for your note. We have done some checking and you are right. It seems that late in one of our last proofing passes a freelance editor made a change, I believe to bring the wording in line with other footnotes, and it was not caught by those of us that are responsible for the content of the footnotes. It is an error and we are going to correct it in the next printing. I am sure the error was inadvertently introduced, but the end result is the same.... Actually your note is the first about an error. We had many extra proofings and feel that the text is in very good shape. There are always errors, because we are only human. My understanding is that a second printing is being order (sic) now.

As a side note, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians, who believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, aren’t going to be happy with the translation of Matthew 1:25a: "(though he did not consummate their marriage until after her son was born)." While I believe that this is probably what Matthew 1:25 means or suggests, in my opinion The Voice overinterprets the verse.

Another side note: Repeatedly reading "The Liberating King" for "Christ" gets as old and repetitious as hearing Henry Ian Cusick say, "I tell you the truth" (for "Truly, truly" - i.e., "Amen, amen") over and over again in the movie The Gospel of John. (And...The Voice also uses "I tell you the truth" to translate "Amen, amen.")

The Preface says:

The Voice is based on the earliest and best manuscripts from the original languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). When significant variations influence a reading, we follow the publishing standard by bracketing the passage and placing a note at the bottom of the page while maintaining the traditional chapter and verse divisions.

Examples include Mark 16:9-20 (they also include the addition to Mark 16:8) and John 7:53-8:11. The introduction identifies the authors and commentators for the Gospels and the other books that have previously been published (e.g., Acts and Hebrews). For the entirety of The Voice, though, there is simply a list at the front of all the contributors and scholars, but their names are not connected to the books they worked on.

Despite my skepticism, I found The Voice to be quite captivating during my quick perusal, and I will likely purchase a copy. (I was disappointed, though, to see that the pages in the "leather bound" edition - more accurately the "1/3 leather + 2/3 fabric bound" edition - are glued, not sewn, so it may not be worth the extra buck$$.) I tend to agree with these positive comments from this reviewer:

1) The Voice is the most thoroughly readable translation I've ever experienced, more readable, even, than The Message. I'm not even kidding; I sat down and read fifteen chapters of Matthew's Gospel in one sitting, without stopping or realizing that I had read and digested that much material. It reads like a story, and the authors/translators have done a masterful job in capturing the narrative quality of Scripture. Before I knew it, I had been reading Scripture for an hour straight, and I didn't want to stop. I can't remember the last time I had such a powerful experience with Bible reading.

(In the second part of his review, he lists what he dislikes about The Voice.)

You can download The Book of John as a PDF file here.

So...Will The Voice become the Bible of choice for Emerging/Emergent Christians?

- - -

12-3-08: I ordered (and received) some leather bound copies of The Voice from Amazon.com, since the second printing is a few months off (per Thomas Nelson) and I wanted to read it, as well as give it at Christmas to some family members for whom the thought of reading the Bible (or even reading the Bible) might seem boring.

Church And Eucharist

2008-10-28T08:40:00.045-05:00

Unlike Non-Sacramental Protestant (NSP) churches, the Eucharist (i.e., "communion") is of supreme importance to the Roman Catholic (RC) and Eastern Orthodox (EO) Churches, being central to the RC Mass and the EO Divine Liturgy. Regardless of what beliefs and practices about God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, salvation, the Bible, prayer, Christian behavior, etc., that NSP churches have in common with the RC and EO Churches, their respective Eucharistic beliefs and practices separate and will continue to separate them.

In the RC and EO Churches, partaking of the Eucharist is as much an act or expression of one's union with the Church as it is an act or expression of being a member of Christ's body (and these churches may in fact view the two as being pretty much the same thing). RCs and EOs affirm, both in doctrine and in practice, that those who do not belong to these churches do not have the right or permission or ability to take the Eucharist in these churches, for such persons are not properly united to Christ such that they can partake of His body and blood. RCs and EOs are likewise not allowed to take communion with those who are not RC or EO, respectively. (And even though the RC Church and the EO Church have very similar Eucharistic beliefs and practices, RCs are not allowed to share communion with EOs, and vice-versa.)

Thus, in terms of their Eucharistic beliefs and practices, RCs and EOs do not treat or regard "other Christians" as full and equal members of Christ's body – i.e., as those who can share in their respective Church's and members' communion (κοινωνια) with the Lord (1 Corinthians 10:16). While this can probably also be said of some Protestant churches that have closed communion, in this post I'm primarily addressing the RC and EO Churches' Eucharistic practices and beliefs vis-a-vis the large majority of Protestant churches that simply require basic belief in Jesus in order to take communion.

In saying this I am not thereby saying that the RC and the EO Churches are wrong, but am only pointing out that their Eucharistic practices and beliefs are tied not simply (as is the case in many NSP churches) to the communicants' response to the question: "Who is Jesus?", but also to the questions: "What is the Eucharist?" and "What is the church?" Because of this, I think a person's view of the Eucharist should be an important factor in their decision to become or remain RC, EO or NSP. For example, if a person believes that:

the bread and wine do or must become the Real body and blood of Christ (i.e., there is a change in the bread and wine),
and
one's growth in salvation and/or reception or increase of grace includes the regular preparation for and act of eating and drinking the Real flesh/body and blood of Christ,
and
an apostolically-traceable ordained priesthood is a required component in authorizing and overseeing and effecting the sacramental change in the bread and the wine, whether by the priest's pronouncing the words of institution (RC Church) or by the priest's calling upon the Holy Spirit to effect the change (EO Church),

then he (or she) will have to be in either the RC Church or the EO Church, for he believes that he needs the above to be saved and to be in the Body of Christ. (Or if not the RC Church or the EO Church, one of the so-called "Oriental" Orthodox churches, if one accepts or doesn’t have a problem with their non-Chalcedonian Christology.) While I think it's possible to believe in points 1. and 2. without believing in point 3., to be RC or EO one must also believe and accept and affirm point 3., for in these churches the mystery (sacrament) of the Eucharist is not separable from the mystery of the priesthood.

A Question: If Christianity from the beginning (i.e., from the time of Jesus and the Apostles) has clearly and unarguably always believed and taught and practiced points 1. and 2. above as a central doctrine and practice of the faith, can or should Non-Sacramental Protestantism be called "Christian"? I.e., can a "Christian" group which ignores or rejects something the earliest Christians (including Jesus and the Apostles) believed and taught as a central doctrine and practice of the faith really be said to be "Christian"? (I don't include point 3. because I don't think it is a requirement for believing points 1. and 2., or automatically follows from them, though history shows that this is how the church's Eucharistic practices and beliefs developed for the majority of Christians.)

Note that I am not saying that this is in fact what Jesus and the Apostles believed and taught, but only asking a question about what to do if this is in fact the case.

(I suspect that the RC Church and the EO Church teach either that this is in fact the case or that the church was led by the Holy Spirit to come to understand that this is what Jesus and the Apostles meant - and hence believe that their Church's teaching is the True Teaching of the Eucharist.)

For a book that says much of what I currently believe about the Lord's Supper, see Come To The Table: Revisioning the Lord's Supper by John Mark Hicks © 2002 Leafwood Publishers, ISBN 0-9714289-7-2. Though I find the book unnecessarily repetitive, Hicks confirms some of the main ideas I had concluded after much study of the relevant Biblical texts and the history of the Liturgy and the Eucharist. For more on Hicks and this book, see Thursday, December 01, 2005 Reflections on Come to the Table -- No. 1 (December 2005 archives) and Monday, August 08, 2005 Eschatological Table (August 2005 archives) at his old blog http://professingprofessor.blogspot.com/. FWIW, I had arrived at my thoughts and conclusions before I came across Hicks' book, which I serendipitously found during a visit to Half Price Books 10/21/08.

President Bill Clinton On The "Real Presence" In The Eucharist

2008-08-25T01:07:00.002-05:00

Mark 14: 22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many."

A Woman In The Pulpit (Part 2)

2008-08-24T13:46:00.032-05:00

I went this morning to see and hear Jackie Roese give her first sermon at Irving Bible Church.

(See my previous post: A Woman In The Pulpit: "Lions And Tigers And Bears! Oh, My!")

You can listen to it here.

It was part of the church's current series in which the various leaders are sharing their dreams and visions for IBC - i.e., what it can and should be.

Jackie's text was John 4:7-37, and she used it to discuss how the church, like Jesus with the Samaritan woman, should not regard people, no matter how sinful or ritually or physically unclean they are, as those we are to avoid or protect ourselves from. (The woman had five husbands - which meant she presumably had experienced the rejection and devastation of five divorces - and was now living with a sixth man, plus Jews considered Samaritans to be unclean half-breeds.) Rather, we should fight for the heart for our King, and take Him and the Gospel to the poor and wounded and ravaged and outcast of the world.

She said that Evangelicals hadn't always been so withdrawn from culture, and that in the 19th century they had been instrumental in ending forced prostitution and child labor. However, during the 20th century Christians and the church decided to retreat from engagement with the world to "protect" themselves.

She shared about her own abusive childhood and how she came to faith in Christ due to the love and efforts of a person who was not afraid to get close to her, despite her profligate and sinful lifestyle. She also shared a bit about the results of the decision she and her husband made to let the world into their home - both the negative effects on their own children and home (their kids are more worldly than she would like them to be, and her house is always dirty and smelly and in need of cleaning and lots of febreze), and the positive effects on the kids they reach (protecting and feeding kids who have abusive parents and no food at home, and seeing some of them come to Christ).

All in all a good message. I'm not sure that its delivery by a woman made any difference in its effectiveness, either positive or negative.

And... lightning did not strike the church.

Speaking of which: It is a BIG church. The worship center/sanctuary is a large auditorium with a balcony, a large stage, and two screens for video. The music, though loud, was not uncomfortably so. They have a hamster-tube (McDonalds-style) play area for little children. The entire structure is like a fancy airport terminal or upscale mall - they even have a lounge in back with a Starbucks coffee bar, complete with a huge espresso machine, and nearby on the walls they have these giant Magritte and Dali paintings:

It seems to have lots of "emerging church" touches, both in its decor and in the language used in its magazine.