Theology for the Masses

Honzo April 13th, 2008

With the new style we somehow lost the ability to comment on pages. The following was a conversation I have consequently moved from our Greek New Testament Page.

Nice. I was just browsing for Luke 11:2. It is too bad that you can’t copy and paste from here. Since I’m here - how is it that we translate hmwn as “our father”? was is there in the sentence that makes us “our father” instead of just “abba” or pater? Is the “our” just part of the context? The Vulgate translation doesn’t say “nostro” or anything that looks like “our father”… Thanks in advance, and remember I don’t know greek so I”m just wondering.

E. I. Sanchez

EI,
I am a novice, but this is how I would translate this verse on its own:
And [Jesus] said to them: “Every time you [all] pray, say: ”Father, may the name of yours [your name] be holy; may the kingdom of yours [your kingdom] appear;’”
When it comes to the word pater (πάτερ) , or father, it is in the vocative, indicating that it is the thing being addressed. The feeling is that if you are addressing someone as father, it is perfectly fine to say “our father.” The NLT, ESV, and NRSV all leave out the word “our.”
For our resident Greek experts, Cheapham and Hank, if I am wrong about any of this, please let me know.

Honzo

I would agree that saying “Our Father” even though is not in the text because this is a model prayer and we can adapt it for a community setting. I am wondering if the imperative mood could come out more in the translation than what Honzo suggested. I’m not sure. When I pray, I also address Him as “My Father” or even “my Daddy.”

Hank

Hank, Which imperative? Aren’t there three imperatives here: say, be holy, and arrive? The last two are third person singular imperatives - I know to translate those as “lets” or “mays”.
How else can you do them? With that 2 person plural imperative “say” I thought about saying “[you all are to] say…” to capture the imperative flavor a little more. However, Jesus telling us to say something is technically just as imperative.

Honzo

• in translation
• Comments(2)

Honzo April 2nd, 2008

In the Roman world, within the household, the position of child is the lowest in terms of power and hierarchy.  Taking this into account, consider Mark 10:15:

I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.

Rather than assuming our standard in pouring of innocence and naiveté into the phrase “like a child,” perhaps we are better served with assuming a Roman view of children, of powerlessness over others into this phrase.

Also consider Luke 22:25-27

Jesus told them, “In this world the kings and great men lord it over their people, yet they are called ‘friends of the people.’  But among you it will be different. Those who are the greatest among you should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant. Who is more important, the one who sits at the table or the one who serves? The one who sits at the table, of course. But not here! For I am among you as one who serves.

Here again we see the same theme - the relinquishment of dominance as a command of Jesus to his followers, to the members of the Kingdom of God.

If we do not relinquish culturally inherited claims of dominance over others and see them as true equals then ours is not the Kingdom of God.

Seeing people as the imago deis involves the complete removal of claims of dominance and superiority.  This must be applied in terms of race and gender.  It is a command to give up our claims of dominance over others.

• Imagio Dei , Women in Christianity
• Comments(6)

Honzo March 19th, 2008

The latest Christian Carnival (CCXVI) is up over at Crossroads: Where Faith and Inquiry Meet. Check it out.

Christian Carnival CCXVI–At Crossroads Today

Here are some of the highlights:
John 18:1-4 - Getting Christological Perspective - A good post on the dangers of looking through scripture with a singular, forced perspective from Deep Bible Study. (Hint: the danger is heresy)

Why This Friday is so Good - As Good Friday approches, Brain Cramps for God looks 50 fifty reasons the Bible gives for Jesus’ coming to die. (We’ll forgive the use of Piper! )

A different view of Scripture by Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength - A “||” reading of scripture.

• Links
• Comments(4)

Hank February 25th, 2008

The ESV Blog posted on Duncan Forbes’ new way of doing devotions: he uses his Greek New Testament. He is currently blogging about this idea and I must admit, I am very much drawn to it. I think When I come to a break in my devotion plan, I am going to do this. I think this applies equally as well with Hebrew and reading the BHS (or the LXX if you can only read Greek). Here are Duncan’s posts so far.

Part 1: Introduction/Encouragement

Part 2: The Slowdown Factor

Part 3: Seeing the Perfect Tense (seeing all the tenses I would say).

Part 4: Spotting Word Plays

Part 5: Spotting Jesus’ Nuances

• The Bible
• Comments(2)

Honzo February 23rd, 2008

A while ago Hank did a five part post series on his translation process of John 3:16. I was translating the verse again tonight and came across some questions while I was trying to knock the participle in the side to give it legs.¹ I thought I would give ole Hank’s translation another look over for some help in this department.

Here is the verse:

οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον (link to zhubert version)

Do you think the ὁ before the participle πιστεύων is indicating that the participle is in the attributive position relative to πᾶς and means that we need to translate the present active participle as a relative clause for πᾶς, clarifying everyone of what group we are talking about (Smyth 2050A) (i.e. everyone who is believing in him)?

Also, the participle is timeless, it either will denote the stage of action (here continuous because it is present) or action relative to the main verb (here at the same time as God giving and loving, because they are both in the aorist) when used in indirect discourse (Smyth 2043). I am thinking it is not in indirect discourse, but I really don’t know what indirect discourse means for Smyth. So, I think that the participle here is only indicating aspect, not time. Therefore, the participle here is indicating that everyone that is continually trusting in Jesus are the members of the world which are being given everlasting life.

I wonder how that impacts the H/C/A/O debate?

What do you all think? I am one week into the Greek participle, so I am pretty green here.

1. Sorry to everyone that is not being taught Greek by Dr. DesRosiers for the inside joke. [↩]

• Calvinism vs Arminianism , translation issues
• Comments(11)

Hank February 9th, 2008

The audio from the Theology Weekend is up at the Karis Blog. Dr. Tom Schreiner from Souther Baptist Theological Seminary spoke on the person and work of Jesus. I ended up only going to the Friday event with Honzo and JR. We had good times of fellowship before, during, and after. Check it out here.

• Creeds , Theology
• Comments(4)

Honzo January 17th, 2008

The following is an excerpt from chapters one and two of the Acts of Thomas.

And when the Apostles had been for a time in Jerusalem… they divided the countries among them… And India fell by lot and division to Judas Thomas the Apostle. And he was not willing to go… And whilst Judas was reasoning thus, our Lord appeared to him… [Thomas said to Jesus] “Whithersoever you will, our Lord, send me; only to India I will not go.”

And as Judas was reasoning thus… Habban [and Indian merchant] [was in town and out looking for a slave skilled in carpentry to buy]. And our Lord saw him walking in the street and said to him, “You wish to buy a carpenter? He says to him, “Yes.” Our Lord says to him: “I have a slave, a carpenter, whom I will sell to you… And when he they had completed his bill of sale, Jesus took Judas, and went to Habban the merchant… Habban… said to him: “He has sold you to me outright.” And Judas was silent.

That is some slick maneuvering on ole JC’s part, no? “Oh, whats that Thomas? You don’t wanna go to India like I told you? Well, don’t worry, I won’t make you go to India… I’ll just sell your butt to this Indian merchant! Now you are free to go wherever your master wants to go. Oh, whats that Thomas? He wants to go to India? Who woudda guessed?”

I just love that last part - “And Judas [Thomas] was silent.” I can just see all of the other Apostles snickering in the background with their little toothpicks in hand, saying, “Dude, thouest should have just gone the first time.”

• Humor
• Comments(2)

Honzo November 15th, 2007

In our Gospels as Literature class last year we came up with various Jesus’ for each Gospel. I am talking about all the Gospels, mate, from the Canonical ones to the less popular but wildly fantastic noncanonical Gospels, such as the crazy docetic Gospel of Peter, which was the most popular Gospel for a long while, and the E! expose of Jesus’ childhood that is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

The Gospel of Mark was dubbed Comic Book Jesus because of its “and then” narrative style. Just about ever paragraph opens with και. Jesus doesn’t say much in the Gospel of Mark - he is just constantly going and doing things. Poof! he is over there; poof!, he is over here - look at Him go. If you have ever read a comic book - kinda the way the narrative is told there as well.

Given this, imagine my surprise coupled with delight when I came across Manga Messiah sitting at the bookstore this evening. Lets just say I had to change my pants. (Because I spilled my drink on them - what?) I actually found Comic Booked Jesus. I was to become the envy of all my friends - both of them were going to think this was seriously cool.

Anyway, I have only browsed through it quickly since I brought it, but I gotta say that I love it. It is definitely done in manga style, with Peter’s purple hair and overly obvious spelling out of facial expressions. Maybe I will give it a real review later - right now I am too pumped up.

• Culture
• Comments(4)

E. I. Sanchez November 13th, 2007

One of my recent purchases from iTunes was How great is our God by Chris Tomlin. The song has a great little melody and simple lyrics but the end product is an addictive anthem.

The song is one of my favorites because it projects the truth of our days. People are confused. They are lonely. They are tired. They want meaning. They want better lives. They want happiness. They really want assurance of the things not seen. Yet, they reject the good news of Jesus. They mock him. They cheapen his gospel. They ridicule him in their arts, their comedies, and their books.

Yet - how great is our God that - in the midst of all this hatred - that he still abides by his promise - that no one should perish.

Consider this YouTube video in which a Jesus character is paraded on Hollywood Boulevard. Should we laugh along? Should we boycott? Or should we sing together: How Great is Our God?

[youtube:http://youtube.com/watch?v=WLKk00OYKhU]

• Culture , Nature of God , Postmodernity
• Comments(13)

tom November 6th, 2007

Violence is the default reality of our society. We assume violence. We consume violence. We trust violence. It is our default reality because we can see no other alternative to defeating evil in many circumstances. We run to it before considering other possibilities. We flee to violence because it offers us protection and preservation. Indeed, violence offers the very same things the unseen God does.

For us violence often has a salvific quality to it. It is seen as that which can ultimately save us, preserve us, and justify us. We call upon it to protect our American way of life. We utilize it in the effort to preserve our lives, which Christ said we could not save anyway. We employ violence to justify things we already wanted to do.

Long before our willing submission to soteriology of violence, however, we have bought into what others have called the ‘Soteriology of the State.’ That is, what we once trusted the church for (salvation, preservation, justification) we have handed over to the state. The state preserves our way of life, it saves us from evil (terrorism), it justifies our desires and actions (consumerism and exploitation). In fact, it tells us what we should live and die for. We’ve fallen in a Soteriology of the State – Caesar has become our Lord.¹

If you doubt this, just look at the war rhetoric of our nation – it is rhetoric taken from the church: The spreading of democracy coincides with the spreading of the gospel (GW – “Democracy is God’s gift to the world.”). The war was needed to ‘preserve the American way of life,’ just as Christians are supposed to preserve society by being ‘salt.’

In our co-opted Soteriology, we have blindly bought into the ideology and agenda of the state. The goals of the state have become our agenda and Jesus has become nothing more than a bumper sticker politician.

Because we have given Lordship to the state, we’ve also given away any possibility of seeing an alternative reality – especially an alternative reality where violence doesn’t win. If violence is used to stop evil – violence, not the cross, wins. This is, in effect, eliminating evil with evil – the very thing Paul commanded us not to do. Indeed, he tells us to over come evil with good. Then, in the very same context, tells us to submit to government. Government = evil, submission to government = overcoming evil with good.²

Is this impossibility of seeing an alternative reality to the Soteriology of the State, the Soteriology of Violence, the reason we so quickly jump to violence as justifiable? I think so. Even Just War Theory says violence is the last alternative after all others have been exhausted. But because we assume violence we cannot see any alternative to exhaust. Maybe this is part of our problem.

Christians as part of the kingdom of God cannot continue to conform their lives to the kingdoms of this world. In the kingdoms of this world violence wins - violence saves. In Christ’s kingdom the denial of self, the laying down of one’s life, and the taking up of one’s cross wins.

All I know is that I’ve seen us (as American Evangelicals) jump to violence without biblical support.³ In the rules of logic the one who says something exists must offer evidence. Is there NT justification for violance? I’ve found nothing compelling.

I don’t like this non-violent streak in the NT. But I also know that we must be faithful to the witness of Scripture which says, ‘pray for your enemies, love those who hate you, bless those who curse you, go the extra mile, turn the other cheek.’ You will simply not find an example of Jesus or any other NT writer saying, ‘protect your way of life, spread democracy, or slug your enemy.’

Peace (no, really) in Christ.

1. This, I think, is why we are so adamant about getting a Republican in office. We think politics (the state) is the way to save America. Unfortunately, politics never saved anyone and Jesus wasn’t a Republican. [↩]
2. It’s not even funny to me how many times I’ve heard Christians justifying the war in Iraq by saying that we should submit to our government and its decisions. Yeah, apply that logic to abortion and see what you get. [↩]
3. And I understand why. I wish I could allow myself to do the same. I’d much rather someone prove to me that I’m wrong though - it would be a lot easier on my conscience. [↩]

• Culture , Politics
• Comments(27)