The Expanded Bible

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

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.

---

Scripture taken from The Expanded Bible. Copyright © 2009 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

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

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 Schultz July 19, 2009 11:26 PM

Ben Witherington July 8, 2009 8:40 PM Hi 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, CC July 9, 2009 8:58 PM You [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, CC July 27, 2009 9:04 PM I'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 Palm Heõs Hou and the Protestant Polemic http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/heoshou.html The Non-Rule of Mr. Svendsen http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/heoserrors11.html

---

Your Name July 28, 2009 10:07 AM Fr. 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"?

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.

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?

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

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

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 at least twice and am giving copies to several people. It's GOOD!

Julie Lyons was the Editor-in-Chief for the Dallas Observer before she left her job in order to write this book. You can search for her old columns at the Dallas Observer web site. She continued to write for the Dallas Observer after her book was published. She now blogs at https://julielyons.com/ and you can email her at julie@julielyons.com.

Prologue

Working the Crime Beat

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 them in 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 is an interview with Julie Lyons (click for the link) about her 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. My signed copy (click to enlarge and read the note):

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 [Facebook page], 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 on August 2, 2009, and took these photos (as well as got my book signed!).

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.

Blog post and links updated December 20, 2023.

How Stan Gundry Became An Egalitarian

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

Read the comments, too.

Manga Messiah

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

Wear your testimony:

The Holy Spirit As "It"?

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:

1. 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.)
2. 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 to refer to the Holy Spirit as "She" might be 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

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"?

(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!

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

[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?)

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 those things.
• We'd know what he said on the cross, and how the thieves treated him.
• 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' 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 if his ministry lasted just one year, or two to three.
• We'd know how many times he cleansed the Temple.
• We'd know if the centurion actually came and spoke with him, or if he only started going to the centurion's house.
• 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"

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

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-à-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:

1. 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
2. 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 via the blessed Eucharistic elements,
   and
3. 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 (or she) believes that he (or she) 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

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)

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 (no longer at this link).

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.