Theology for the Masses

The following is written by Jon Zens, a prolific Reformed writer and authority on New Covenant Theology:

First, 1 Cor.7:1-5 is the only place in the NT where the word “authority” (Greek, exousia) is used with reference to marriage. But it is not the authority of the husband over the wife, or vice versa, that is in view, but rather a mutual authority over each other’s body. 1 Corinthians 7:4 states that the wife has authority over her husband’s body. One would think that this would be a hard pill to swallow for those who see “authority” as resting only in the husband’s headship.

Second, Paul states that a couple cannot separate from one another physically unless there is mutual consent (Greek, symphonou). Both parties must agree to the separation or it doesn’t happen. The husband cannot override the wife’s differing viewpoint.

John Piper suggests that “mature masculinity accepts the burden of the final say in disagreements between husband and wife, but does not presume to use it in every instance” (p.32). The problem with a dogmatic statement like this is that it will allow for no exceptions. But 1 Corinthians 7:5 contradicts Piper’s maxim. If the wife disagrees with a physical separation, the husband cannot overrule his wife with the “final choice” (p.33). Such separation can occur only if both husband and wife are in “symphony” (unity) about such an action.

Now if mutual consent applies in an important issue like physical separation from one another for a period of time, wouldn’t it seem proper that coming to one-mindedness would be the broad model for decision-making in a healthy marriage? Piper feels that “in a good marriage decision-making is focused on the husband, but is not unilateral” (p.32). In light of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 I would suggest that decision-making should focus on finding the Lord’s mind together. Over the years the good ideas, solutions to problems and answers to dilemmas will flow from both husband and the wife as they seek the Lord as a couple for “symphony.”

1 Corinthians 7:5 throws a wrench into the works for those who would include the husband’s “final say” in male headship. Paul teaches that unless the couple can agree on a course of action, it cannot be executed. I suggest that this revelation invites us to re-examine what the husband’s headship really entails (cf. Gordon D. Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1-7 Revisited,” Paul & the Corinthians: Studies On A Community in Conflict, Trevor J. Burke/J. Keith Elliott, eds., Brill, 2003, pp.197-213).

As a aspiring seminary student, I need to be able to read in German, English, Latin, Greek (Koine), Hebrew and French. [1]   I can read Greek at an intermediate level; German and Latin at a basic level; and have no idea how to read anything in Hebrew or French.

The Four Knights of Theology: Latin, Greek, German, and English.  I haven’t unlocked the French or Hebrew Knights yet.

To help my fluency in the three I do know, I am going to start translating New Testament texts without using and English translation at all.  I’ll have the Latin, Greek, and German versions out and use my translations of those to correct myself.

As far as vocabulary goes, I figure I will just make chapter vocab lists and work off of those.

1. And if I really want to be competent, I should pick up several others [↩]

A while ago Tom wrote about the connection between the bizarre dictums [1] found within the Pauline letter to the Ephesians and the Artemis cult in Ephesos.  While I remain unconvinced about the genuine Pauline authorship of the letter [2] and therefore am more open to early Christian patriarchal forms seeping into the canon than Tom is, his posts on the topic are very good and the counter-point I hold when thinking through issues of authorship and gender relations in the Pauline corpus. [3]

ProTip: Read his posts on the topic!

Part of a frieze from the temple of Artemis, Ephesos.  Greeks under Herakles (marked by his club and lion’s cape) scare off hour Amazons, who seek Sanctuary with Artemis (on block to right, not preserved). Found inn and described by Price in Religions of the Ancient Greeks. 

With that said, I came across an interesting passage in Religions of the Ancient Greeks by Simon Price on this very topic.  After discussing the merits of talking about Panhellenism [4] , Price opens a discussion concerning local versions of myths.  In doing so, he contrasts the Athenian myths of Theseus fighting the Amazons [5] with the Ephesian myth of the town harboring Amazons. 

Not only was Ephesos guardian of a unique image of Artemis, which has supposedly fallen from heaven, but Ephesos also claimed that Artemis had been born there (and not as it was often claimed on the Aegean island of Delos).  The Ephesians also sometimes claimed that her cult had been established by the Amazons, who thus sometimes had a much more positive significance at Ephesos than at Athens.  The benevolence of Artemis towards the Amazons is also illustrated in the local story of how the Amazons successfully sought the sanctuary of Artemis, both from Herakles and from Dionysos.  Artemis remained the protector of both the Amazons and the city right through antiquity.

The city’s connection with something as repulsive to the average Greek [6] as the Amazons, one of the ultimate threats to the Greek way of life, can only lend further support to Tom’s thesis. [7]   It further demonstrates the pull that Artemis had in the city and demonstrates that there was a substantial mythic will in the city to invert the male/female domination scheme, which was a product of the fall.

1. saved through childbirth??? [↩]
2. I am textually liberal, theologically conservative, politically indifferent, and socially… something [↩]
3. could that be a longer sentence? [↩]
4. it is a problematic, but useful term [↩]
5. the fabled feminist threat to the male/Greek way of life [↩]
6. well, often this hypothetical “Average Greek” is constructed from the particular Greek of Athens and then abstracted over all of the Greek cities, a topic for another post [↩]
7. Even though it is circumstantial evidence at best, which I might add, is the best kind of evidence you are going to get either way here.  We simply don’t have the sources to demonstratively demonstrate anything on this topic! [↩]

So I was going to post on Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15. Before I begon to think about Matthew’s use I wanted to compare the Hebrew and LXX of Hosea 11, trying to see how similar the two are and which one Matthew was using. When I get to that post I will try to argue for which one I think Matthew is using but what caught my eye is how little of the Hebrew I see in the LXX of Hosea 11. Here is my rendering of Hosea 11:1-11 LXX and tell me if that seems like what you read in the Hebrew (English translations follow the Hebrew so I am not going to reproduce a Hebrew translation this post)?

1 Since Israel was an infant and I loved him and out of Egypt I recalled his children. 2 Just as I recalled them so they left me. They sacrificed to the Baalim and offered incense to the carved idols. 3 I bound the feet of Ephraim and took him upon my arm and they didn’t know that I had healed them. 4 In the destruction of people I strecthed them in the bonds of my love and I will be to them as a person who strikes his cheeks and I will watch over him closely and I will be capable with him. 5 Ephraim settled in Egypt and Assour himself was his king because he didn’t want to return. 6 The sword was weak in his cities and put to rest in his hand. They will eat the fruit of their schemes. 7 The people hang in his residence and God will be angered at his precious possessions and will not raise him up. 8 “Ephraim, what will I do you? Will I shield you? Will I do with you like I did with Adama and Seboim? My heart was changed and my sense of regret was disturbed. 9 I will not do according to the wrath of my anger. I will not leave Ephraim to be wiped away because I am deity and not a man, holy among you. I will not go into a city.” 10 I will go after the Lord; as the lion roars he will roar and even the children of the waters will stand still. 11 They will stand like a bird from Egypt and as a dove from the land of Assyria. I will make them stand in their homes, says the Lord.

It starts out okay but man it kinda goes a weird direction for a little while until the very end when it comes back to more of what the Hebrew says. Ya know, there are dynamic translations and man then there is the LXX, sometimes. The general point is there but I have a hard time figuring out what they were doing with the Hebrew here.

I was checking out Romans 3:9 today for a school project, and I noticed that most of the translations speak of “being under the power of sin.”  However, all I see is “ὑφ’ ἁμαρτίαν εἶαι” or “being under sin.”  Does anyone know the justification of NRSV, ESV, NLT and others adding “power”?  [1]

1. note: the NASV and the NET leave it out – yeah for them! [↩]