The Intention of Jesus

This is a paper that I submitted for my Gospels class at Covenant Seminary.  It was one of the most helpful papers that has been assigned to me in my first two years of seminary.  The assignment was straight forward: 2 pages, 10 point font, 1.5 line spacing: "What did Jesus intend to accomplish in his first-century earthly ministry?":

When Christ came to earth in the first century He intended to inaugurate the eschatological kingdom of God in his life, death, and resurrection.  His goal was to further God’s mission of reversing the effects of the fall and restoring creation.  He accomplished this in a variety of ways.  He sought to fulfill the will of the Father.  He revealed God’s kingdom in his ministry.  He created disciples to carry on His mission after His ascension into heaven.  Ultimately, He fulfilled his intentions by accomplishing the salvation of His people.

            Jesus’ earthly mission was the mission of His Father.  He came to earth to fulfill the plan of redemption and restoration first hinted at in Genesis 3:15.  That Jesus came to earth to do the Father’s will is undeniable in the pages of John’s Gospel (cf. e.g. 7.17; 8.16; 8.29; 9.4; 14.10, etc.).  This is not evident in John’s Gospel alone.  Indeed, the boy Jesus says as much in Luke 2.49.  As God revealed Himself and His mission to His people in the Old Testament, so Jesus did in His day.  Repeatedly in the Pentateuch we read “the Lord said to Moses” (Exodus 7.1; Numbers 1:1, etc.).  In the Gospels, this declaration is replaced by Jesus authoritative declaration “I say to you” (Matthew 5.26, Mark 8.12, etc.).  Jesus takes up the mission of God in the very language that He uses.  Jesus’ will mirrors the will of the Father for they are one God united in purpose: to bring redemption via the kingdom of God.

            This unity of purpose is seen in how Jesus understood His ministry.  Jesus sought not only to fulfill the will of the Father and accomplish God’s mission on earth, He was Himself the revelation of this mission (see e.g John 1.1-18).  Indeed, he announces His ministry in Mark 1.15 by saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”  Similarly in Matthew, as Jesus begins His ministry, Matthew 4.17 tells us that “From that time Jesus began to preach, saying ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”   He announces that in Him a new epoch has arrived and that it requires a response.  He further understands His ministry as the fulfillment of the Scriptures of the Old Testament.  Most famously, in Matthew 5.17 he declares “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”  In Luke 24.26-27 He shows that His teaching, including His teaching about His death and subsequent resurrection, are proclaimed in the pages of the Old Testament (see also John 18.9, 32; 19.24, 28). 

            The inauguration of the kingdom marks the primary aspect of Jesus’ ministry in the Gospels.  It was His intention to establish this Kingdom in the first century, and Jesus powerfully demonstrates that the kingdom of God has truly come.  This can be seen clearly in His miracles.  In Matthew 12.28, when he casts out a demon, he says “if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”  In Luke 7, when John the Baptist sends messengers to see if Jesus is “the one who is to come” (v.19), Jesus tells them “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.  And blessed is the one who is not offended by me” (v. 22-23).   Here he quotes Isaiah 29 and 35 to show that He is indeed the one for whom John prepared the way.  The miracles he performs show that the kingdom has come in His person.

            Just like His miracles, Jesus’ teaching underscores the present nature of the Kingdom.  Earlier, in Luke 4, Jesus declares that the Jubilee year of Isaiah 61 has come in His person (v.21).    He explains what this means for His followers in His teaching of the “kingdom ethic” in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain.  It is a kingdom that displays the goodness, graciousness, love, kindness, holiness, and righteousness that God intended His creation to have.  Jesus could teach about this kingdom as “one who had authority” (Mark 1.22) for it is His kingdom.

            This manifestation of the kingdom of God in His person led Jesus to make disciples.  In His great teaching in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew He highlights the need for disciples in 5.13-16.  He makes disciples to preserve the earth and show forth the goodness of God’s Kingdom.  At the end of Matthew’s Gospel he commands the apostles to “make disciples” (Matthew 28.19).  Yet, His intention was not just to commission messengers to send into the world, but to sustain them as well.  Much of His prayer in John 17 is focused on these ends (see especially vv. 9-24).  He promises His disciples that he will give them another “Helper” in John 14:16, and he makes good on that promise in John 20.22 (cf. Acts 2.2-4).  From the fearful (Mark 16.8) to the doubting (John 20.24-25), Jesus makes disciples who will carry on His message of the kingdom.

Jesus further inaugurated this Kingdom by ushering in the New Covenant.  In Matthew 10.1 Jesus calls twelve disciples to usher in this New Covenant, just as the twelve sons of Jacob were preeminent in the Old Covenant.  He thus constitutes a New Israel (cf. John 15.1-17).  This is made explicit in the words of institution in the Last Supper.  As Jesus takes the cup he says in Luke 22.20 “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

            This act of inaugurating God’s Kingdom in His blood leads to the culmination of His first century ministry:  His death and resurrection.  As Matthew highlighted the beginning phase of Jesus ministry (“Jesus began to preach…”), so he highlights the end in Matthew 16.21 “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”  Indeed, each Gospel climaxes in the events of His passion and resurrection.  In Mark, after Peter’s confession (8.30), Jesus “began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer…and be killed, and after three days rise again” (8.31).  Mark records two more passion predictions in the coming chapters (9.30-32; 10.32-34).  At the beginning of John’s Gospel, Jesus repeatedly says that his hour has not come (2.4; 7.30; 8.20), but later, in 12.23-26 he says that his hour has come, and that His death will result in “the Son of Man being glorified” (cf. John 13.1; 17.1).  In Luke, Jesus foretells his death in Luke 9.21-22, 43-45.   The destination of the cross is highlighted by Luke beginning the journey narrative in Luke 9.51 by saying, “When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.”  His intention was to go to the cross and drink the cup of divine judgment (Mark 10.38), and to overcome that death in his resurrection.

            All of this results in the salvation of God’s people.  Jesus’ intention to inaugurate the kingdom of God by fulfilling the Father’s will, His teaching, forming disciples, and through his death and resurrection was to provide salvation to a fallen world in need of a Savior.  The Gospels each build to a climax in which Jesus atones for sin in his death and is vindicated as the righteous One of God in His resurrection.  Jesus came to provide salvation, and thus our response to His work, what we believe about His intentions, determines our destiny.  As is made clear in John’s Gospel, “the Son of Man [must] be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (3.15b-16).  What was the intention of Jesus?  Luke boils it down concisely, “to seek and to save the lost” (19.10).  

"Cor meum tibi offero, Domine, prompte et sincere."

Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig Blomberg

This is a useful resource for the pastor or lay reader.  While expansive in its breadth, it is suggestive in its depth.  Blomberg does not (or better, could not have in a single volume) delve deeply into any of the topics covered in "Jesus and the Gospels", but his bibliographies at the end of each chapter and the excellent footnotes give the curious reader a very firm direction to head in for further study.

The book is divided into five parts.  The first two are largely historical in nature covering the world of the first century (political, social, and religious climate), and the historical/critical approach to the Gospels themselves.  Part three is an overview of each of the Gospels highlighting their themes and structure.  Part four reads like a cross between the notes one would find in a study Bible and popular level commentary, but arranged more or less chronologically across all the Gospels (almost like a commentary on the Diatessaron?).  This is an excellent section, to be sure, and he well highlights (or reminds the reader) of the distinct approach of each Gospel writer.  The book concludes with two shorter chapters addressing the historical reliability of the Gospels and the Theology of Jesus.

This is really an excellent book, and I'm sure I will be pulling it off of my shelf as a reference tool.  Perhaps only the serious student or most voracious of lay leaders will plow through it cover to cover, but it is a great starting place for almost any topic related to the Gospels.  Again, the bibliography and foot notes give solid direction for further study from a wide range of scholars in the field.  All of the information in the book can be found in other places, but Blomberg has done anyone interested in Jesus, Christian or not, a great service by pulling it all together into a coherent, (relatively) concise (it is a 500 page book), readable volume.  For anyone interested in the study of Jesus, I say "tolle lege."

"Cor meum tibi offero, Domine, prompte et sincere."

"Woman" in Luke 13.12 and God's Long Nose

This morning as I was eating breakfast, I read an article about the use of "woman" in Luke 13:12: "When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said to her, 'Woman, you are freed from your disability.'" The article was written in response to a blog post by Bill Mounce (author of Basics of Biblical Greek) who claimed that "woman" was essentially untranslatable into English in this case.  The response claimed that it should just be translated "literally" and the reader should be left to her own means (study Bibles, commentaries, sermons, etc.) to determine the meaning of γύναι (gunai) in its original context.  While "woman" as a vocative in English seems, at best, an unkind form of address today, is it so far culturally removed that translating it as such does more harm than good?


This discussion, I'm sure, may make some nervous.  If it says "woman" why not translate it "woman?"  To do otherwise would seem to conceal what the Bible actually says.  But that is not how translation works.  Take, for example, Exodus 34:6.  Here are a few translations:


NIV: And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness


ESV: The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,


NASB: Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth;


KJV: And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,


NET: The LORD passed by before him and proclaimed: "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness,


I doubt that anyone would claim that these translations are being unfaithful by translating the highlighted phrase as "slow to anger" or "longsuffering," but that is not what the Hebrew says.  In Hebrew we learn that God has a long nose.  Translated in a woodenly literal fashion, these versions would say that God is "long of nose."  In Hebrew, one is angry when they are "red of face," so if one has a long nose it takes a long time for that redness to travel to ones face.  Thus, it is used to indicate that one is patient. 

I don't think that we have been done a disservice when the translators have taken this Hebrew idiom and translated it in a way that we can easily understand on a surface reading.  Of course, it could be left as is and we could see the footnotes, study Bibles, commentaries or so forth, but the above translations are actually more faithful as they translate the meaning, not the words, of this phrase.  To do otherwise would make this famous and important passage unintelligible for the English reader.


There are many similar examples.  One of my personal favorites is the storm in the book of Jonah which was "walking and storming" (Jon 1.11, 13- most translations render it as "growing worse" or other similar phrases).  The question that Mounce asks, then, is not a worrisome or strange question.  He simply asks if translating  γύναι (gunai) as "woman" places unnecessary barriers to understanding in our culture.  If translators are not asking these questions, it would be cause for concern.


I'm not convinced that Mounce is correct, and I'm not sure leaving it untranslated or translating it as "friend" is helpful (Mounce says as much himself).  Nor is this passage and the possible misunderstanding as critical as that in Exodus 34.6.  What it does show, though, is that pastors and vocational students of the Bible should be making an effort to study and use the original languages.  If we don't change the way we render "woman" our pastors must be able to answer the questions that arise from it's use.  Secondly, it should also give us some appreciation for the difficult task of translating.  We must appreciate that it is neither straightforward nor easy.  It's not an exact science in which each word has a precise corollary in the target language.  Our translators are not just translating from one language to another, but from one culture to another as well.  This takes outstanding sensitivity, care, and erudition.  Praise God for the many faithful students of His Word who have the skill and ability to make the Bible accessible in many different languages.

"Cor meum tibi offero, Domine, prompte et sincere."

Reading the Old Testament: Method In Biblical Study by John Barton

This book is a useful and beneficial read, but for a relatively specialized audience. I would not recommend this book to anyone who does not have a solid background in hermeneutics. I certainly would not recommend it for a lay reader. It will make little sense without some background in Biblical interpretation. Taken straight and without a context, it will prove ponderous at best, and damaging to one's faith at worst. Without a background in some of the issues and history, it can feel as if reading the Bible to gain any insight is a hopeless pursuit.

I would definitely recommend it for the seminary student who is looking for a solid introduction to the various methods of Biblical, and specifically, Old Testament, criticism. The book is, to be generous, uninterested in what we might call a conservative hermeneutic. While Barton does not land on a specific method and seeks to demonstrate the options, a conservative view of, say, Mosaic authorship is, for Barton, not possible. Where Barton is helpful is in taking us through the development of various methods of reading the Bible. For each, he suggests some background reading on the subject. After a discussion of each method, he applies these methods to a specific text (Ecclesiastes) to show how each works in practice. The methods he works with include Form, Redaction, Canonical, Structuralists, "New," and Reader Response Criticism.

What, you may ask, is the benefit for the conservative pastor or seminary student to be gained from reading a book that is somewhat antagonistic to the way we read the Scriptures while being agnostic on the rest? First, it helps one to see how the various methods of reading the Scripture developed. Secondly, it helps prevent a straw-man view of the various approaches. Given the presuppositions and what each movement is reacting against, one can see why and how they developed. Third, it makes one think about how the various methods can be appropriated in positive ways while rejecting the negative outcomes. This, of course, will take some serious engagement and thought, but if conservative Christians are to have a voice in the Scholarly world of Biblical Studies (which, I submit, we must), it is incumbent on us to understand the discussion and the methods applied to the Bible. This is hard work, and there will be much temptation to compromise, but we must be involved in these discussions, even if our voice largely falls on deaf ears. Fourth, it helps in engaging commentaries from a wide variety of perspectives. One could, of course, only read conservative commentaries, but there are excellent exegetes and linguists outside of Evangelical realm. This book gives one categories with which to engage such works and better helps the Evangelical pastor or student sift through the chaff to find the wheat. Finally, knowing the ways of reading the Bible that are current in scholarship will help us to engage those in our congregations who come from outside of Evangelicalism, and our children who engage these issues in university settings.

For some, Barton's book will be frustrating, but if the purpose of the book is kept in mind, I think it will prove beneficial. This is not meant to propose a method of biblical study, but to provide a survey of current opinion. For the student or pastor familiar with the issues and who would like to get a feel for the development, method, and application of the various approaches, Barton's book will prove beneficial and helpful.

Cor meum tibi offero, Domine, prompte et sincere.

Tolle Lege

At the outset I want to be quite clear.  This blog post is not intended to be normative.  This is not a prescription  nor is it some sort of magical key to one's devotional life.  My intention is to relate my own experience in the hopes that those who have personality similar to mine might benefit.

 There are many excellent Bible reading plans available to the Christian.  If one were to read 3 chapters of the Bible each day, and 5 on Sundays, one could read through the entire Bible in a year.  Most Bible reading plans are meant to accomplish this goal.  Many are designed to allow the reader to read through the Psalms, Proverbs, and Gospel's twice, and the rest of the Scriptures once.  One of the better plans is the reading plan by Robert Murray McCheyne which has you read through various types and genres of Scripture simultaneously.

These sorts of reading plans work for many people, and many people derive great benefit from them.  I, however, am not one of them.  For me, these plans make the goal of reading through the Bible more important than reading the Bible.  When I follow one of these plans, I tend to read to finish the section, rather than for understanding.  I recognize that the problem is not with the plans themselves, but with me.  However, I also think that the way I read does not lend itself well to using these methods.  Put simply, it is too fast for me to dig into the text, and too slow for me to synthesize my reading.  Recently, I've found a method that works much better for me, and which has made Bible reading a joy.

Get the Big Picture:
I stumbled across this quite by accident.  For class here at Covenant Seminary (which has a fancy new website) we are required to read the Bible (a more obvious sentence may never have been written!).  Due to the pace of the schedule, this often requires reading large sections of the Bible in one sitting.  Recently, I read Genesis over the course of two days, and Matthew's Gospel in one.  Last semester, I read the majority of Paul's letters in a few days.  I learned two things from this:

1.  "Books" in the Bible are much shorter than we think them to be.  When I opened Genesis in the past I would see the "book" as containing 50 "chapters."  Just the terminology that we use caused me to think of Bible reading as a daunting task.  The 66 books of the Bible are described with terminology similar to a novel.  It gives the perception that they are longer than they really are.  Likewise, "chapter" sounds similar to what you would find inside of a book that you would pick up at Barnes and Noble (...or download on your eReader).   I recognize that this sounds obvious, but reading a "book" or three "chapters" sounds like a difficult task.  In reality, though, reading a whole book of the Bible is not unlike reading a chapter in a "normal" book.  Matthew was, I think, about 35 pages.  Not insurmountable in a single sitting by any means, and it is a fairly "long" book, especially by New Testament standards.

2.  When reading a whole book of the Bible in one or two sittings, you see things that you would have otherwise missed.  At the end of Matthew, the authority and magnificence of Christ are poignant having read the Gospel from start to finish.  One finishes the book and cannot help but to worship, such is the rhetorical force of the book read cover to cover.  This is something that I did not "get" when reading a few chapters a day.

I should mention that I do not read a book of the Bible every day or even every week.  I might do something like this every other week or so.  In the intervening time I think about the book that I read, and reflect on the major themes that it put forth.

Dig Deep:
This likely looks quite different for me than it might for other people.  This daily aspect of my devotional reading was also discovered by accident.  After I finished Greek in exegesis last year, I purchased a Reader's Bible and decided to try to read from it everyday.  Recently, having just finished Hebrew II, I read a Hebrew's reader Bible as well.  Basically, I choose a book (John in the NT and passages from Numbers in the OT), and I read anywhere from a few verses to paragraph (depending on how complicated the section or vocabulary is).  While my "big picture  reading helps me grasp the flow and argument of the book, this allows me to dig deeply into the text and notice minutia that I too easily skip when reading more quickly in English.

As an example, the other night I was reading in Numbers.  I was reading about Caleb encouraging Israel to enter the land despite the presence of mighty people occupying the land because God had promised it to them. The very next verse says that the Israelites picked up stones to stone him. Surely I read that wrong, I thought. But no, that's what it said. When I read that passage in English I read so quickly that I blow right by the enormity of the situation. "Yeah I know," I think, "they don't go into the land." But slowing down and reading the Hebrew, it struck me in a new way. The slavery, the plagues, the Red Sea, the promise to Abraham... The goal is right there, and when Caleb says as much, they pick up stones to stone him.  Wow.

Now, many of you who read this might not be able to read the original languages, but that does not mean you can't intentionally slow down and focus on a few verses.  A good book or two on hermeneutics (how to read) might not be a bad investment of your time.  Learning to read the Bible well is not a skill that we are born with, it is something that we learn.

As I said at the outset, there is no "right" way to read the Bible, but we must read it.  We must be a people of the Book who hear the voice of God and allow it shape, change, and mold us.  I have found a method which allows my Bible reading to be refreshing and exciting, but it might not work for you.  That is okay, but you must, as was famously said to Augustine, "Take up an read." Tolle lege.

"Cor meum tibi offero, Domine, prompte et sincere."

The Internet and Books

On a recent broadcast, the White Horse Inn radio program facilitated a discussion of  Nicolas Carr's "The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains."  While I've not read this book, the discussion did cause me to think about the internet, how we use it, and what that means for us.

If you were to ask my wife what my favorite webpage is there is little doubt that she would roll her eyes and respond "Wikipedia."  I am aware that there is a good bit of consternation about the rise in popularity of a non-peer reviewed encyclopedia written by non-experts.  I know that Wikipedia is not a worthy tool for real research (though it can point you to such resources), but I also know that if I want a quick and usually reliable answer to a question that pops into my brain, Wikipedia is the place to go.

It usally goes something like this: my wife and I are watching a movie and I think that I recognize an actor from another movie.  I go to Wikipedia, and find out if I'm right.  Recently, it has come up during the Olympics.  "How many people live in the Republic of the Seychelles?"  Wikipedia.  "Are there any rules in water polo?" Wikipedia.  "Where were the Olympics in 1964?" Wikipedia.  The internet is a powerful tool.

As wonderful as the internet is, though, I still love books.  I even still love books made out of paper.  In fact, one of my summer projects has been tagging and arranging my books with Library of Congress call numbers.  I'm a book geek.  I buy used books.  I look for books at yard sales.  Whenever a graduating student has books to give away, I'm there to take a look.  My parents in my childhood and teachers at my school cultivated a love of books that has remained strong.

Yet, and this may sound obvious, books and the internet are not the same.  They do not facilitate the same type of knowledge acquisition.  As I thought about my love of Wikipedia and how it easy it is to find answers to one's questions I was struck by the difference in the approach to "knowledge" that I take with the internet and with a book.

When I use the internet, it is almost always to find an answer to a question that I thought of.  I search and scour looking for an answer to that question.  When I find that answer, I'm satisified.  I tend to read the internet in a fleeting, skimming manner.  Anything more than a few paragraphs long can tend towards tedium and function as an impediment to my quest.  It is a distraction that must be thrust aside so that my inquisition ends in success.

A book is an entirely different experience.  Instead of just looking for answers to my questions, I read a book to really learn.  I read to be challenged.  I hope to find ways of thinking and looking at this world that are different from my own. Instead of quickly finding a fact, I read a book as a different kind of quest.  Instead of a quick-strike mission, reading a book is an epic journey which follows a path that I do not plan.  My destination is not my own, but it lies in the will of the author and my conversation with the author.  My duty as I read a book is to question and wrestle with the author.  In the end, at least at the end of good book, my horizons have been expanded.

You see, the internet, as vast as it is, is stifled by my own imagination.  I ask it what I want to know, and it promptly and usually accurately answers that question.  However, at least as I tend to use it, it does not expand my horizons.  The increase of my knowledge is limited by my own imagination.  It only answers questions that I come up with.  A book, on the other hand, is not so easily swayed to my agenda.  If I am to read a book and read it well I must read it on the author's terms and wrestle with the ideas that she wants me to wrestle with.

In Adler and VanDoran's "How to Read a Book" they say it like this:

There is the book; and here is your mind.  As you go through the pages, either you understand perfectly everything the author has to say or you do not.  If you do, you may have gained information, but you could not have increased your understanding.  If the book is completely intelligible to you from start to finish, then the author and you are as two minds in the same mold.  The symbols on the page merely express the common understanding you had before you met.

In some sense, this type of reading is perfectly acceptable.   It is fine to "gain information," but, as they say, it does not mean that you have "gained understanding."  This is, in fact, how most people read the internet.  Yet there is another alternative.  Truly reading well is reading in which "you gradually lift yourself from a state of understanding less to one of understanding more" (ibid.).  Here is the place at which my reading of the internet differs from my reading of a book.  Instead of just increasing the amount of information that I have, I seek to increase my understanding.  Surely there are some who can do the later using the internet.  However, by and large as a culture, this is no longer the way that we read anything (even books) due to the influence of the easy answers that the internet provides.

I consider myself fortunate that those who taught me how to read, my parents and teachers, did not grow up with computers.  It will be much more difficult for me to teach my children to read well.  It will be even more difficult for their children.  Technology is a wonderful thing.  Books, after all, were at one point a new technology.  But whenever a new technology that obviously and pervasively improves our lives comes about, we must still ask ourselves what we could lose in its adaptation and strive to prevent that from happening.  Technology is designed to make our lives easier, yet as our lives get easier our will to work decreases.  Reading a book well is hard work.  It is extremely enjoyable, but it is hard work.

Reading is a skill that all Christians must be willing to cultivate.  We come to know God through His Word, through a book.  Losing the ability to read is dangerous for Christians.  God communicates to us in a story, and if we are to know His will and His plan, we must read that story, and read it well.  So please, pull up your Bible on your iPhone, kindle, tablet, or, if quite convenient, a paper copy, and learn to read it.  It is a book worth reading well, for it aims to change you.

"Cor meum tibi offero, Domine, prompte et sincere."

A Worthy Investment?

Eighteen of the 103 credits in the M.Div program at Covenant Seminary are language courses.  This number increases to Thirty-nine credits when you count the exegetical coursework.  That means a full 38% of the time and money spent on seminary is time spent either learning or using Greek and Hebrew.

That sort of expense of resources and time has lead some to question the value of spending so many credits learning the Bible's original languages.  Seminaries could get people out into the work of doing ministry much more quickly if the workload in Greek and Hebrew were lightened.  Some argue that the time invested in dead languages would be better spent in counseling or other church ministry courses.  After all, our English Bibles are outstanding, and programs like Bibleworks and Logos make research in the original languages much simpler.

To be straightforward with my position, I do think it is worth the time and effort.  I also know that it is not fun, especially in the beginning.  What follows is my assessment of the benefit that learning the original languages holds for pastors.   I am in no way seeking to condemn any pastor who does not know Greek.  I am also aware that, down the road, I too may be one of the majority that loses the languages after seminary.  Please do not think this is condemnatory.  I am merely explaining why I think it is a beneficial endeavor, and why those of us who are non-ordained members of the church should encourage our elders to make sure that our pastors have the time and means to study their Bibles in as much depth as they are able.

For those of us in Presbyterian churches, there is a confessional basis for these classes.  "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."  Thus begins Chapter 1 section 8 of the Westminster Confession (the second half of which was quoted in my previous post).  What the Confession is explaining is that in theological disagreements it is the Greek* text to which we must appeal.  Some would say that with the lexica and software programs available one needn't know Greek in order to appeal it.  But in Greek, as with all languages, meaning is found context.  If our pastors do not know Greek syntax and structure (those issues that the advanced Greek classes deal with), then our church councils are at the mercy of theologians and academics instead of elders and pastors.


Tied closely to this is the idea of what a pastor should do, or rather, should be.  He should be an expert in his field.  I doubt anyone would want to go to a medical doctor who did not attend medical school, even if he appealed to the wide and useful knowledge base available.  "Look, I didn't go to med. school, but between wikipedia and web m.d., I'm pretty sure we can fix your tendinitis."  That would not be confidence inspiring. I don't mean to say that pastors who do not use Greek every week aren't experts, but I know that these men did learn the languages at some point.  Medical doctors won't remember everything they learned in med. school.  Needless to say, they learned enough to allow them to practice medicine well.  We should expect no less of our pastors, and part of that process is learning the original languages.

A third reason that Greek and Hebrew are important is exegesis.  Our English Bibles sometimes make exegetical decisions for us.  Take something like "the love of God" (ἡ αγαπη του θεου).  This phrase shows up often in 1 John.  Usually, the ESV translates this phrase as "the love of God."  The NIV sometimes translates it as "God's love."  The question in these texts, though, is whether John means our love for God or God's love for us (an objective or subjective genitive, to be precise).  The NIV editors believe it to be subjective, and so they translate it that way, but the Greek is ambiguous at this point leaving us to use the larger context to figure it out.

Another good example is 2 John 6.  In the ESV, "And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it."  The NIV translates it this way, "And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love."  Notice the difference?  The NIV defines "it."  In Greek, it is a feminine singluar pronoun, which in this passage can refer to "love," "commandment," or "truth."  If a pastor were to forgo learning and using Greek, he would likely assume that John is referring to love, but this may not be the case.  Knowing Greek does not give you all the answers, but it does lead you to ask the right questions.  If a pastor doesn't know Greek, he will always have to rely on the work of others as a primary, not secondary, source.

Another aspect in which an education in the original languages is valuable is that it makes us slow down.  This was a point that Dr. Agan made in class.  We are too good at English.  We can breeze through a text rather quickly and not see the little things.  In reading a second language we tend to read more carefully and precisely.  Another thing that happens in our first language is that we fail to stop and think about the tiny details.  For instance, sometimes there is one English word for a few Greek words, or vice versa.  In Greek if we are reading and see two different words for the verb "to see" in one paragraph, we might just slow down and ask why.

Yet one more reason that learning Greek, and learning it well, is a worthwhile undertaking is that it helps pastors understand the text in such a way that they need not appeal to their knowledge of Greek to make their point.  This may sound odd at first, but I think it is true.  If you know and understand the language, you can probably find a translation that emphasizes whatever nuance you are hoping to draw out.  If you don't have a good grasp of what is happening in a text in it's original language, you are more likely to quote a lexicon to make your point.  This can make your sermon sound too "heady" or, worse, cause people to think that they need to know Greek to understand the Bible.  To put it another way, I have heard it said that if you know something really well, you will be able to explain it in a simple way that a child can understand.  With a good understanding of what is happening in the Greek, a simple explanation in English will be sufficient and transparent in a sermon while concurrently delivering the nuance of the Greek text.

Finally, the more a pastor uses the Greek, the better he will be at it.  If our pastors don't learn Greek (and Hebrew) they won't use it.  If they do not receive a good background for it in seminary, they will rarely gain this on their own later.  A foreign language is a lot of work, and if one doesn't consistently use and practice it, it will continue to be hard.  When it remains hard it won't be used.  Software programs don't make the work easier.  It is much easier to know the language and use the tools as a help in answering exegetical questions or looking up similar grammatical constructions.  Using these tools to look up every tense and all of the uses of the dative is a task that will be far to burdensome for any pastor to bear.  Only in learning the language well enough to read it on one's own (or with the use of a good reader's Bible) will allow a pastor to keep his language skills in the midst of all of his other responsibilities.

In short, I think it is imperative that those of us who are training for the pastoral ministry should at least learn the languages well, even if, as pastors (myself likely included down the road), we don't use it on a daily basis.  While all of a pastor's duties are important, none are more so than knowing his Bible.  The best way to know any written work is knowing it in its original language.  It is hard.  I know it is hard.  My Greek grammar that has found itself tossed on the floor at times knows it is hard, but it is oh so rewarding.  The effort, the time, the expense that is spent learning these languages in seminary will be rewarded, over and over, down the road.  We must trust the wisdom of our father's in the faith who taught these languages before our time.  We must take it upon ourselves to teach and be taught them in the future, for God's glory and the church's good.

*and Hebrew.  In this post I will mostly be writing about Greek, since I have yet to learn Hebrew

"Cor meum tibi offero, Domine, prompte et sincere."

The UBS Greek New Testament: A Reader's Edition

I know full well that this book will be irrelevant to many who read this blog, but it is so helpful that I felt compelled to include it in my list of book reviews.  This is a very valuable tool, and one that, in the short week I have owned it, has helped me greatly.


So what, exactly, is it?  It as an edition of the New Testament based on the idea that reading a language is one of the best ways to learn it.  This edition uses the standard UBS4/NA27 text of the New Testament.  What makes this a reader's edition is what is below the text.  Any word occuring 30 times or fewer in the New Testament is defined.  Instead of giving the full range of meaning the UBSRE gives a gloss of what the editors feel is the most likely reading.  You would not want to do any exegetical with these definitions, but for reading the text this works rather well.  All odd verb forms (like strong aorists) are parsed with voice, tense, mood, person, number and lexical form.  Thus, a typical page looks something like this:  

This picture is of the bottom 2/3 of a page.  On a full page it is generally about 2/3 text, 1/3 tools.

What this edition lacks is any critical apparatus or cross-references, but there are other Greek New Testaments that give you that (NA27 probably the best).  This book's aim is not critical exegesis, it is extensive reading (ER).  I took a linguistics class at West Chester University and did a lot of work on ER.  The theory says that a reader in a second language that knows or has access to 90% of the vocabulary in a fairly long, continuous, and cohesive text will see great improvement in his language skills.  That is what makes the UBSRE such a great resource.


I have started using this little book on a daily basis, and I have already gotten a better feel for the language of the New Testament and how it works.  The tedium of switching from text to lexicon has disappeared and been replaced by the ability to read the text at length with little interruption.  This Greek New Testament does not suddenly make Greek easy, by any stretch of the imagination, but it does make the Greek text readable.  That is, after all, the goal.  Anyone who has worked through a beginning Greek grammar and wants to stay in the language should get this book.*

*The United Bible Society will be coming out with a 2nd edition of this book in the near future.  It will contain some cross-reference (most likely to direct quotations and allusions to the Old Testament) as well as limited apparatus.  This means that you can probably get this for a very cheap price (like I did).


"Cor meum tibi offero, Domine, prompte et sincere." 

Translating the Bible

It was not that long ago that I would joke about the abbreviation of the New International Version of the Bible (NIV) standing for "Nearly Inspired Version."  Funny, that, but I was certainly speaking from ignorance (and arrogance?).  The theory behind the joke is that the NIV's dynamic equivalent translation philosophy was by default inferior to the English Standard Version's (ESV)- aka "English Superior Version"- formal equivalence translation philosophy.  The first tries to capture idea for idea what the text says, while the latter tries to capture the meaning word for word.  What I've discovered in the last two weeks of translating 1 John is that these categories, while helpful, are not absolute, and the idea that the formally equivalent versions are always and in toto superior for every purpose is a fallacy.  (As an aside, I've not yet read any of the 2011 NIV, but that is somewhat beside the point).

During our two week class Dr. Agan tried to drill into our heads that the question, "What is the best version of the Bible?" should be met with the answer, "For what purpose?"  Are you hoping to look into the sentence structure of the Greek, but don't know Greek?  The NASB might be a good bet. Are you hoping to read the Bible publicly, but leave some exegetical questions ambiguous (perhaps ones you plan to address in Sunday School or a Bible study)?  Give the ESV a turn.  Do you want to have some insight into the differences in different Greek manuscripts, but don't know how to use the apparatus in a Greek text?  Try one of the two just mentioned and a NKJV.  Do you want to read large passages of Scripture and have more of the interpretive issues answered for you?  The NIV is great for that.

There are many other variables as well.  The sorts of questions that I just reviewed would likely be issues that a person who is a fairly serious student of the Bible might ask.  But different versions work well for different types of people.  The best version for Jr. High student is probably (though not necessarily) different from the version a college student would use.  A child will use a different version from her parents.  An older person, especially in the South, will likely prefer a KJV.

Jorge Luis Borges once quipped, "The original is unfaithful to the translation."  George Borrow said, "Translation is at best an echo."  The author Umberto Eco said of translation that "Translation is the art of failure."  What these men are getting at is that you always loose something in the translation.  If you a capture a verbs aspect well, you may loose its tense.  If you get its tense, you may loose mood.  When writing a simple translation (non-annotated) it is difficult to convey every single thing that the original says in every instance.  It just cannot be done.

But what is lost in translation?  Without getting into modern language theory, the simple answer is nuance.  It is like a piece of music.  Whoever can read music is able to play a song if they have a notes on a page.  Think of a hymnal.  It's just a key signature, notes, and words.  If you can read music, your in good shape.  But in truly excellent music played by competent musicians there will be more on the page than just notes.  The music contains something called dynamic marks.  These tell the musician or conductor how loudly to play, how quickly to play, and the style in which to play.  It is the nuance of the music.  This last bit is what is lost in translation.

Obviously, you can understand a piece of music without the dynamics.  Our English Bible's capture the meaning of the Bible, and capture it rather brilliantly.  In fact, this was one of the major themes of the Protestant Reformation.  In my own church's confession this is made explicit.  In Chapter 1 section 8 the Assembly at Westminster wrote, "...because these original tongues [languages] are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar [common] language of every nation unto which they come that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope."

We are fortunate to speak one of the world's most used languages.  The number and quality of our English language translations is enviable.  There have been many faithful and careful translators who have made the Bible accessible.  But if we do not understand how difficult it is to translate anything from one language to another, we will fail to be generous to these outstanding translations.  Some people fall into the arrogant, ignorant attitude that I embraced all too recently.  We as Christians should never give someone reason to doubt that the Bible they hold is the Word of God.  If they are using a faithful translation (which would exclude things like the New World Translation) we should encourage others to read it and receive the Spirit through it.

May we all take the advice of the childlike voice that lead to Augustine's conversion, "take up and read" in whichever version you prefer.

(In the next few days or so, I plan to look into this topic again, namely to evaluate the question, "should pastors take the time and money to learn the original languages if our English translations are so good?"  In that post I will write a few more details about how some of these Bibles translate the same Greek passage in different ways).

Some of the Bibles laying around the house: ESV, NEB, Living Bible, NASB, KJV, NKJV, NIV,  USB4, NA27

"Cor meum tibi offero, Domine, prompte et sincere."

Greek

It seems appropriate, in light of the exam that I took yesterday, to write about the experience of taking first year Greek in seminary.  It is a right of passage for all first year seminary students.  A crucible to refine and soften us.  I have no military background, but I think the analogy of boot camp for your brain would be appropriate.  


It is a frustrating process.  The majority of the task is relentless memorization.  Memorization of vocabulary.  Memorization of noun declensions.  Memorization of verb inflection.  Memorization of rules.  Memorization of when to break the rules.  And worst of all, memorization of principal parts.

On the surface, this seems like a mere academic endeavor.  Sure, you get to know the feel and meaning of the New Testament more fully, but you don't need it to understand the Bible, especially with the many language tools available.  In fact, I imagine at some seminaries and graduate schools, Greek is mere academic exercise.  Here, though, things are different.

Two weeks ago I met with Dr. Bayer to discuss preparing for the exam.  While we talked about learning the language I mentioned how much I appreciated his exegetical insights and his wonderfully devotional prayers.  He responded by sharing the motivation that he and his colleagues share in the language classes.  Greek, he said, is not just about learning a language, but about building community as we study and struggle together.  It is about learning humility.  It is about managing stress and time.  It is about relying on God.  It is about our sanctification.

As much as I enjoy being able to read a Greek New Testament, and as valuable as that will prove in my ministry, the process of sanctification that I am going through and the peers who share that experience with me are the real benefits of learning the language.  I have made some very good friends as we study, struggle, and learn together.  These are relationships that will be with me long after the fourth principle part of ἐρκομαι has been lost somewhere in my memory.

I am truly blessed to have professors who see their task of getting facts into our heads as secondary to growing Jesus in our hearts.  I am blessed to have classmates and friends who encourage me when I'm down, motivate me when I'm tired, commiserate with me when I'm frustrated, and celebrate with me when I manage to pass a quiz or test.  Most of all, I'm thankful for a God who is my Father.  A Father who has graciously put people in my life who can help me see the spiritual benefit of a seemingly "academic" task.

"Cor meum tibi offero, Domine, prompte et sincere."

Words of Life by Timothy Ward

Timothy Ward's "Words of Life" is an excellent orientation to Bibliology.  Instead of jumping straight into a discussion of the traditional labels for the Bible in Systematic Theology, Ward works from the ground up.  He discusses the Bible's view of itself, then looks at this view in light of modern speech-act theory.  Next he develops a doctrine of Scripture from a Trinitarian and theological perspective.  Only after developing a Biblical and Theological view of the Bible does he begin to discuss it doctrinally, using the traditional categories of the Bible's necessity, sufficiency, clarity, and authority.  This is an extremely helpful method.  When we begin with the doctrine first, we miss the depth and breadth of these affirmations.  Working from the ground up makes these doctrines much more visceral and causes them to land with a greater impact.


Another helpful aspect of this work is Ward's decision to place the discussion of inerrancy as a subcategory in his discussion of the Bible's authority.  Evangelicals (myself included) often miss the point of the doctrine of inerrancy because we are quick to affirm it, but do not take the time to understand it.  Ward shows us that while inerrancy is important, it is an outworking of what the Bible is and does, and not vice versa.  As I heard it explained once, we hold that the Bible is inerrant because it is true, not that it is true because it is inerrant.


This is a very good, clear summary of the doctrine of the Bible.  It places the discussion in the modern linguistic discussion without loosing any of the historic orthodox doctrine of the Scripture.  Because of its contemporary voice, we will see if it has legs to last down through the years, but now, it is an excellent and helpful work.

"Cor meum tibi offero, Domine, prompte et sincere."