This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary, Year 4, Lenten cycle, most recently Feb 9, 2014.
Summary: Did the faith produce the healing? Well, the Greek suggests that belief in Jesus' word only comes after the boy has been healed. In this way, the word produced both the healing and the faith. On the otherhand, the father demonstrates his faith by going to Jesus in the first place. I don't think this story solves this age old conundrum. I don't think it is meant to be solved. What I find more interesting is that Jesus never proclaims the son healed; rather he says the son is alive. I think there are many cases where are ministry isn't about offering people the healing they want, but giving them life, amid grief and illness.
Lastly, I cannot figure out why "go down" appears three times in this passage.
Key words:
βασιλικος ("royal", 4.46) This adjective is related to the word for king. The NET Bible claims this official must have been related to or working for King Herod. The suggests that the person going to Jesus is willing to engage in risky business. While Herod has not set out against Jesus, Jesus has already upset the temple in Jerusalem and shortly will have people coming after him to kill him.
ζη ("live", 4:50, 51, 53, present tense for of ζαω) I don't know how the translators mess this one up. Every single time the verb is in the present tense: You son is alive. There is nothing future about it. Jesus says and it is so. This is really important because it shows that the healing is not based on the faith of the person. When is the healing accomplished. When Jesus says so. Why? This question is not answered here.
ηρωτα ("ask" imperfect form of ερωταω, 4:47) The man continually is asking for Jesus help here; a sign of faith or despiration?
ιασηται ("heal" aorist form of ιαομαι, 4:47) This verb is not as common as I expected in the Gospels, a few times here and there, mostly in Luke and only once in Mark. It comes into English as psychiatry. I think it is a deep question: Is it our mission, or Jesus' mission, to offer healing? Healing is almost always thrust upon Jesus, the only exception being his command that the disciples go and heal (Luke 9.2). Even here it comes after the proclamation of the Word. To put it another way, healing (and the sick) will come with the proclamation of the Word. The words intnetion is not healing as we see it, but life. I think this opens up more doors -- what is living? How can be sick still have life? In fact, the text next says he was healed of all his problems, just that the fever left him, he was better and he was living.
πιστευω ("believe", throughout this section, including 4:50) This verb means trusting. In this case, trust doesn't produce following Jesus, it creates a situation in which someone can walk away from Jesus. Again, most times we think of trust as creating a situation of moving closer to Jesus, but in this case, the faith creates a situation of letting go, letting go of his anxiety about his son, letting go of his need to be next to Jesus.
καταβαινω ("come down," 4:47,49, 51) Okay, I cannot figure it out. This word appears three times in this story. It appears big time in John 6 (the true bread from heaven). And then it stops. It is as if the incarnation reaches its high point in John's Holy Communion story (chapter 6) and then he is done going down. I'd like some more thoughts on this.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Reconversion of Britain
A Post-Christendom model for mission:
They exist!
While the efforts of the early Church, especially those recorded in Scripture, will always serve as the primary inspiration for all missionary efforts of the Christian church, their example has certain limits. Most saliently, the first Christian missionaries encountered a pre-Christian world; this is a very different context than the post-Christendom world in which many American churches operate. The people we seek to reach with the Gospel know about Christianity know at least something, good or bad, about the faith. My hope is to identify, examine and learn from successful missionary efforts in post-Christendom contexts. In this post I will focus on the reconversion of Britain in the early middle ages.
Basic Historical Background: Pagans, popes and monks
Like much of the Roman Empire, the island of Britain was converted to Christianity in the first centuries after Christ's death and resurrection. As the Roman Empire fell and contact with the Britain isles greatly abated during the 5th century AD, much of Britain reverted back to paganism. Various factors caused this, but chief among them was the invasion and migration of pagan German tribes into Britain who took over the country (the name England is from the "Angles", one of these German/Anglo-Saxon tribes). By the time Pope Gregory sent St. Augustine to England in 596 to do missionary work, Augustine found an incredibly weakened to non-existent church, especially in the south and eastern parts of Britain. Yet over the next century, Roman and Celtic missionaries would initiate the reconversion of England.
Cultural Adaptation and Leadership
Every missionary in ancient Britain, Celtic or Roman, was involved in the very complex struggle of confronting and employing culture in their efforts to spread the Gospel. Two examples of this show the uneven terrain of this evangelical endeavor:
These are but two small examples that show the rich dialogue between Gospel and culture during the re-Christianization years.
What stands out in the example of Britain’s reconversion is not simply the adaptation of Gospel to culture but the leadership of the church within the culture. The cultural artifacts and learning of the Christians, from their books to their architecture, truly impressed the pagan kings. The Christian missionaries during this time, often monks, were on the forefront of architecture and book creation. What Bach would be to music one millennia later, these monks were to book creation and ornamentation in their day.
Ironically, the monastic movement away from the world provided time for learning that propelled the church to the foreground of the culture. Is it possible for the church to use some sort of neo-monasticism for the purposes of art? The St. John's Bible seems like a modern example of effective use of arts for evangelism. If we are not going to re-create monasteries, a greater willingness to engage the arts, broadly defined, seems like a helpful, if not necessary strategy for missionary work. These missionaries took risks to engage and lead the creative side of their culture; we need to as well.
Necessity of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
It is striking to observe that the re-conversion of Britain was not done by the British church. In the Eastern part of Britain, where paganism had taken root, the church was far too weak for mission work. In the West where the church still had strength, one must wonder if a certain degree of prejudice and fear existed about mission work into the Anglo-Saxon territory in the East; after all, these were the cruel conquerors! Regardless of the reasons, Britain on its own would not have converted back to Christianity.
The strong evidence from the British experience during this time is that, yes, foreign missionaries are necessary for the re-Christianization of a population. Given that we cannot create foreign missionaries who will re-Christianize America (although we can pray for them), we can increase our contact with churches from around the globe.
Economic Security
Monasteries were founded with a spiritual purpose: the pursuit of discipleship through rigorous and often communal living. They ultimately ended up becoming centers of culture, learning and apostleship. I suggest this was not simply a spiritual fruit, but a by-product of economic realities. Monasteries afforded a huge economic benefit to the Christian church.
Monasteries afforded the church the resources necessary for its thriving, especially in relationship to its clergy. First, monasteries provided a way to circumvent the lack of bishops (that needed cities!) and still recruit, train and ordain clergy. Second, absent an urban upper or middle class, the church could now fund itself and allow for the resources for the flourishing of the arts and learning (a pax monachica of sorts). While their economic clout would only grow over time, in the first decades monasteries were already giving the church the money, time and stability it needed. Lastly, the economics of monasteries were not only conducive to generating learning, faith and culture, but the unit proved it could be duplicated. Missionary work was done, in large part, first by the spreading of monasteries, not churches. Monasteries were a winning economic model in a post-Roman Empire world, where churches no longer had state support.
As we lose our privileges in a post-Christendom world, we need to consider ways to reconfigure ourselves for greater economic stability. Only a church that can figure out a way to afford its buildings and clergy will be able have the resources necessary for mission. This may come about through the cooperative models that share clergy across buildings; models that do not require buildings; or more radical changes in how clergy are trained; or even most radically, models that do not require significant, if any clergy altogether. Regardless, we should be prepared, if we are to thrive for mission, to engage in stewardship, not just of people in the pews, but the very way we organize for ministry.
To sum it all up
To conclude, Britain was reconverted in the early middle ages. This reconversion was led by monks and monasteries. I suggest their witness challenges us to:
I should stop here, but…
A few other points, unrelated to my previous points, that I want to put out there: · Christians in the mission field did not always cooperate with each other.
Works Consulted
St Augustine and the Conversion of England, an anthology edited by Richard Gameson. Great Britain: Sutton Publishing, 1999.
Augustine of Canterbury. Deanesly, Margaret. London: Nelson Publishing, 1964.
How the Irish Saved Civilization. Cahill, Thomas. New York: Doubleday, 1995.
The world of King Arthur. Snyder, Christopher A. New York : Thames & Hudson, 2000.
http://www.wikipedia.org/ for Patrick, Gildas, Aiden and Columba
While the efforts of the early Church, especially those recorded in Scripture, will always serve as the primary inspiration for all missionary efforts of the Christian church, their example has certain limits. Most saliently, the first Christian missionaries encountered a pre-Christian world; this is a very different context than the post-Christendom world in which many American churches operate. The people we seek to reach with the Gospel know about Christianity know at least something, good or bad, about the faith. My hope is to identify, examine and learn from successful missionary efforts in post-Christendom contexts. In this post I will focus on the reconversion of Britain in the early middle ages.
Basic Historical Background: Pagans, popes and monks
Like much of the Roman Empire, the island of Britain was converted to Christianity in the first centuries after Christ's death and resurrection. As the Roman Empire fell and contact with the Britain isles greatly abated during the 5th century AD, much of Britain reverted back to paganism. Various factors caused this, but chief among them was the invasion and migration of pagan German tribes into Britain who took over the country (the name England is from the "Angles", one of these German/Anglo-Saxon tribes). By the time Pope Gregory sent St. Augustine to England in 596 to do missionary work, Augustine found an incredibly weakened to non-existent church, especially in the south and eastern parts of Britain. Yet over the next century, Roman and Celtic missionaries would initiate the reconversion of England.
I will focus on what we can learn today from the
efforts of these missionaries. It is
especially worth considering the roles of monasteries in this reconversion
effort since nearly all of the missionaries were monks. These communities of spiritual ‘escape’
became centers of outreach. This causes
us to ask a question: Should we be founding
monasteries today? I am not convinced of
this, but I am convinced that our congregations today can learn a great deal
from these monastic efforts.
Every missionary in ancient Britain, Celtic or Roman, was involved in the very complex struggle of confronting and employing culture in their efforts to spread the Gospel. Two examples of this show the uneven terrain of this evangelical endeavor:
·
The Celtic monks were able
to make huge strides in terms of limiting slavery. But they themselves engaged in armed combat,
supporting their local chieftain and monastery benefactor against his
adversaries.
·
Anglo-Saxon kings believed
themselves descendents of Woden (Odin).
A conversion to pure Christianity meant a loss of their family’s divine
status; thus they sent their children to enter royal monasteries and became
saints, restoring the family's divine lineage.
Often Christian scribes left Woden in the family genealogies, even years
later.
These are but two small examples that show the rich dialogue between Gospel and culture during the re-Christianization years.
What stands out in the example of Britain’s reconversion is not simply the adaptation of Gospel to culture but the leadership of the church within the culture. The cultural artifacts and learning of the Christians, from their books to their architecture, truly impressed the pagan kings. The Christian missionaries during this time, often monks, were on the forefront of architecture and book creation. What Bach would be to music one millennia later, these monks were to book creation and ornamentation in their day.
Ironically, the monastic movement away from the world provided time for learning that propelled the church to the foreground of the culture. Is it possible for the church to use some sort of neo-monasticism for the purposes of art? The St. John's Bible seems like a modern example of effective use of arts for evangelism. If we are not going to re-create monasteries, a greater willingness to engage the arts, broadly defined, seems like a helpful, if not necessary strategy for missionary work. These missionaries took risks to engage and lead the creative side of their culture; we need to as well.
It is striking to observe that the re-conversion of Britain was not done by the British church. In the Eastern part of Britain, where paganism had taken root, the church was far too weak for mission work. In the West where the church still had strength, one must wonder if a certain degree of prejudice and fear existed about mission work into the Anglo-Saxon territory in the East; after all, these were the cruel conquerors! Regardless of the reasons, Britain on its own would not have converted back to Christianity.
Irish monasteries and the children (Aidan, Columba,
to name a few) would begin to make inroads into the Britain, Scotland and Wales,
especially in the West. Furthermore, Pope
Gregory the Great sent the Italian monk Augustine to England to begin the
process of conversion of the Eastern part of the Island. Moreover, the main Christian contact of
Augustine in England was the King’s recently arrived wife, who was from France.
To put it simply, Britain was
reconverted by people from outside of Britain.
This was also true of Ireland, as Saint Patrick was British (who grew up
in the Western part of the Island where Christianity and Roman culture remained
stronger).
This forces us to ask ourselves a few hard
questions:
·
Will the reconversion of
America require missionaries from other countries?
·
What kind of prejudices
might we have that inhibit us from trying to reconvert our neighbors, or more
likely, those who are different than us?
The American church is notorious for being homogeneous within
congregations.
·
Does the difficulty of
cross-cultural apostolic work require a non-native who paradoxically
understands something less yet more about a new culture?
The strong evidence from the British experience during this time is that, yes, foreign missionaries are necessary for the re-Christianization of a population. Given that we cannot create foreign missionaries who will re-Christianize America (although we can pray for them), we can increase our contact with churches from around the globe.
Economic Security
Monasteries were founded with a spiritual purpose: the pursuit of discipleship through rigorous and often communal living. They ultimately ended up becoming centers of culture, learning and apostleship. I suggest this was not simply a spiritual fruit, but a by-product of economic realities. Monasteries afforded a huge economic benefit to the Christian church.
Britain’s 5th century church broke down in large
part because of clergy shortage. As state
support of Christianity stopped, as cities fell, the whole system of training,
ordaining and funding clergy stopped working.
No rulers, no money; no cities, no cathedrals; no bishops, no priests. The opposite proves the point: those areas where the church continued to
flourish in the British Isles were those which saw the rise of house churches,
located in the villas of local aristocrats.
Monasteries afforded the church the resources necessary for its thriving, especially in relationship to its clergy. First, monasteries provided a way to circumvent the lack of bishops (that needed cities!) and still recruit, train and ordain clergy. Second, absent an urban upper or middle class, the church could now fund itself and allow for the resources for the flourishing of the arts and learning (a pax monachica of sorts). While their economic clout would only grow over time, in the first decades monasteries were already giving the church the money, time and stability it needed. Lastly, the economics of monasteries were not only conducive to generating learning, faith and culture, but the unit proved it could be duplicated. Missionary work was done, in large part, first by the spreading of monasteries, not churches. Monasteries were a winning economic model in a post-Roman Empire world, where churches no longer had state support.
As we lose our privileges in a post-Christendom world, we need to consider ways to reconfigure ourselves for greater economic stability. Only a church that can figure out a way to afford its buildings and clergy will be able have the resources necessary for mission. This may come about through the cooperative models that share clergy across buildings; models that do not require buildings; or more radical changes in how clergy are trained; or even most radically, models that do not require significant, if any clergy altogether. Regardless, we should be prepared, if we are to thrive for mission, to engage in stewardship, not just of people in the pews, but the very way we organize for ministry.
To sum it all up
To conclude, Britain was reconverted in the early middle ages. This reconversion was led by monks and monasteries. I suggest their witness challenges us to:
·
Engage, even lead, in the
culture, learning and arts
·
Connect with other churches
around the world
·
Find sustainable models of
ministry
I should stop here, but…
A few other points, unrelated to my previous points, that I want to put out there: · Christians in the mission field did not always cooperate with each other.
·
Homebase and missionaries
in the field didn’t always agree
·
The way from Paganism back
to Christianity was a long and uneven road
Works Consulted
St Augustine and the Conversion of England, an anthology edited by Richard Gameson. Great Britain: Sutton Publishing, 1999.
Augustine of Canterbury. Deanesly, Margaret. London: Nelson Publishing, 1964.
How the Irish Saved Civilization. Cahill, Thomas. New York: Doubleday, 1995.
The world of King Arthur. Snyder, Christopher A. New York : Thames & Hudson, 2000.
http://www.wikipedia.org/ for Patrick, Gildas, Aiden and Columba
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Isaiah 55:1-11
This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary Year 4, Advent cycle. It also appears in the Easter Vigil and at other points in the RCL.
Summary: This passage picks up with a number of great Advent themes: Hope, repentance, waiting for God's fulfillment. For those who still remember the days of Advent III being about joy, there is much joy in this passage, including God's delight, even pleasure, in his word being fulfilled.
To make it really simple: Part of the joy of Christmas, part of why it gives us such peace, joy and hope is because it is so sensory! Light a candle and sing a song!
Key Words:
חסד (kased, "loving-kindness," Isaiah 55:3) This word is a tough one to translate. The idea is steadfast and undeserved love. I think those who have been walking through the narrative lectionary may be able to communicate finally what is going on: God is faithful through every step and every level of human disobedience. This is not simply a God who hangs in there, but hangs in there four centuries finally only to hang himself for the sake of humanity.
נפש (nephish, "soul", Isaiah 55:2-3) For those of us living in a world formed by Greek ideas, we hear soul and we think the wispy part of our lives that floats up to heaven. But actually, the word "soul" here in Hebrew means living being. This is clearly identified by the context here that includes eating, drinking and listening. The soul, even if one wants to move into Greek territory of a distinct soul from body, is not separate but intimately connected.
נתנ (nathan, "give", 55:4) The prince is not made, but the prince is given. I think this is an important reminder about the nature of leadership. Leaders aren't made, they are given by God.
מצוה (mitzvah, "command", 55:4) In this case, the leader is given with a particular purpose, to command them. He is not a commander in the grammar here; he will command the people. But this word command is related to God's command for the people. This seems to harken back to Isaiah 2, then when all the nations of the Lord stream to God and learn his law.
תפצ (kephitz, "delight", 55:11) God does not simply intend for his word to be fulfilled but to delight him. I think this is a great way to end the passage, with God having great joy, even pleasure and delight in his word.
Key word we had two weeks back (in Jeremiah 37)
מחשבה ("makhashaba"; "thoughts, devices, or plans"; 29:11): I am always worried about the word plan in the Bible. It can quickly make both humans and God into a fatalistic machine. The word translated plan here can be mean plan, but it can also mean thought or device/plot:
NRS Psalm 92:5 How great are your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep!
NRS Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
NRS Proverbs 16:3 Commit your work to the LORD, and your plans will be established.
NRS Lamentations 3:61 You have heard their taunts, O LORD, all their plots against me.
As the TWOT indicates: "The basic idea of the word is the employment of the mind in thinking activity. Reference is not so much to "understanding" (cf. bi^n), but to the creating of new ideas." What further attests to this is that the LXX translates this as λογισμος, which means thought or reason. I do not disgree that God has plans for the people. In this case, Jeremiah has very clear prophecies about 70 years. But the OT word for plan in many cases means something softer than "calculated plan" and more like "creative and reasoned thoughts" that have as their end peace and hope.
Summary: This passage picks up with a number of great Advent themes: Hope, repentance, waiting for God's fulfillment. For those who still remember the days of Advent III being about joy, there is much joy in this passage, including God's delight, even pleasure, in his word being fulfilled.
To make it really simple: Part of the joy of Christmas, part of why it gives us such peace, joy and hope is because it is so sensory! Light a candle and sing a song!
Key Words:
חסד (kased, "loving-kindness," Isaiah 55:3) This word is a tough one to translate. The idea is steadfast and undeserved love. I think those who have been walking through the narrative lectionary may be able to communicate finally what is going on: God is faithful through every step and every level of human disobedience. This is not simply a God who hangs in there, but hangs in there four centuries finally only to hang himself for the sake of humanity.
נפש (nephish, "soul", Isaiah 55:2-3) For those of us living in a world formed by Greek ideas, we hear soul and we think the wispy part of our lives that floats up to heaven. But actually, the word "soul" here in Hebrew means living being. This is clearly identified by the context here that includes eating, drinking and listening. The soul, even if one wants to move into Greek territory of a distinct soul from body, is not separate but intimately connected.
נתנ (nathan, "give", 55:4) The prince is not made, but the prince is given. I think this is an important reminder about the nature of leadership. Leaders aren't made, they are given by God.
מצוה (mitzvah, "command", 55:4) In this case, the leader is given with a particular purpose, to command them. He is not a commander in the grammar here; he will command the people. But this word command is related to God's command for the people. This seems to harken back to Isaiah 2, then when all the nations of the Lord stream to God and learn his law.
תפצ (kephitz, "delight", 55:11) God does not simply intend for his word to be fulfilled but to delight him. I think this is a great way to end the passage, with God having great joy, even pleasure and delight in his word.
Key word we had two weeks back (in Jeremiah 37)
מחשבה ("makhashaba"; "thoughts, devices, or plans"; 29:11): I am always worried about the word plan in the Bible. It can quickly make both humans and God into a fatalistic machine. The word translated plan here can be mean plan, but it can also mean thought or device/plot:
NRS Psalm 92:5 How great are your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep!
NRS Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
NRS Proverbs 16:3 Commit your work to the LORD, and your plans will be established.
NRS Lamentations 3:61 You have heard their taunts, O LORD, all their plots against me.
As the TWOT indicates: "The basic idea of the word is the employment of the mind in thinking activity. Reference is not so much to "understanding" (cf. bi^n), but to the creating of new ideas." What further attests to this is that the LXX translates this as λογισμος, which means thought or reason. I do not disgree that God has plans for the people. In this case, Jeremiah has very clear prophecies about 70 years. But the OT word for plan in many cases means something softer than "calculated plan" and more like "creative and reasoned thoughts" that have as their end peace and hope.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Daniel 3:8-29 (Fiery furance)
This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary Year 4, Advent Cycle.
This is a great Advent 1 text. We all feel that our culture is pulling us away from the real meaning of Christmas toward worship of countless idols. Those who hold fast discover the power of God to overcome even the hottest fires and cruelest leaders.
A few quick points:
1) Aramaic. This part of Daniel is written in Aramaic. While similar to Hebrew, I am really skeptical about doing linguistic work in this langauge.
http://danielinthebible.com/hebrew-and-aramaic/ seems an interesting website on the distinction between Aramaic and Hebrew in the OT.
2) "son of gods." Some translations and art will focus on Jesus in the fire. This is not altogether abiblical, as the text literally says, "son of the gods." The NET Bible doesn't want to translate this as son of God because they believe it is a pagan speaking. But how could a pagan say anything remotely close to "the son of the living God, YHWH"? I don't think its entirely unfair to conceive of Christ, in some capacity, as the one who saves them.
3) The story has a lyrical, nearly epic quality about it. I am not sure what this means for preaching, but there is something otherworldly and even charming about the story.
This is a great Advent 1 text. We all feel that our culture is pulling us away from the real meaning of Christmas toward worship of countless idols. Those who hold fast discover the power of God to overcome even the hottest fires and cruelest leaders.
A few quick points:
1) Aramaic. This part of Daniel is written in Aramaic. While similar to Hebrew, I am really skeptical about doing linguistic work in this langauge.
http://danielinthebible.com/hebrew-and-aramaic/ seems an interesting website on the distinction between Aramaic and Hebrew in the OT.
2) "son of gods." Some translations and art will focus on Jesus in the fire. This is not altogether abiblical, as the text literally says, "son of the gods." The NET Bible doesn't want to translate this as son of God because they believe it is a pagan speaking. But how could a pagan say anything remotely close to "the son of the living God, YHWH"? I don't think its entirely unfair to conceive of Christ, in some capacity, as the one who saves them.
3) The story has a lyrical, nearly epic quality about it. I am not sure what this means for preaching, but there is something otherworldly and even charming about the story.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Jeremiah 29:1;4-14
This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary, Year 4 (Most recently Nov 2013). A portion of it also occurs in the RCL, Year C (Proper 23).
Summary: The Hebrew here definitely accentuates and expands the meaning of Jeremiah's words. Maybe because it is Christ the King Sunday, I am thinking a fair amount about God's sovereign title (Lord Sabbaoth) as well as the meaning of "plans" when it comes to God. The Hebrew reveals that God is sovereign but in some more terrifying yet amazing ways than we thought possible.
Key Words:
צבאות ("Sabbaoth"; "Armies", "Hosts"; 29.4): The NET translates this, "God of Israel...who rules over all." While such a title does justice to the Hebrew's designation of God as all powerful, I think taking out the clearly militaristic language at that juncture is unhelpful. The purpose of this title here is a reminder that it is God who has sent them into exile for God is the ruler of armies. This is a horribly uncomfortable reality for us, that somehow, through all the violence of human warfare, God reigns supreme, working not just against but even through war. I struggle with this greatly.
הגליתי ("higlaytee"; "send into exile" in hiphel; 29:4) First point here: Jeremiah uses the first person here in his speech for God: God says he did this. The second point here: The root of this verb means to uncover. In a strange way, to sent into exile is to be uncovered. Removed of our previous religious moorings and culture, we discover who we are in profound ways. Yes, we ultimately discover ourselves in relationship, but a certain learning also comes from separation.
שלום("shalom"; "peace"; 29:7) Last week we read that Isaiah prophecies of a prince of peace (Jesus). This week we hear that God intends to make people prosper, but it is actually the same word. Again, peace in Hebrew is a much broader word than simply a truce!
מחשבה ("makhashaba"; "thoughts, devices, or plans"; 29:11): I am always worried about the word plan in the Bible. It can quickly make both humans and God into a fatalistic machine. The word translated plan here can be mean plan, but it can also mean thought or device/plot:
NRS Psalm 92:5 How great are your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep!
NRS Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
NRS Proverbs 16:3 Commit your work to the LORD, and your plans will be established.
NRS Lamentations 3:61 You have heard their taunts, O LORD, all their plots against me.
As the TWOT indicates: "The basic idea of the word is the employment of the mind in thinking activity. Reference is not so much to "understanding" (cf. bi^n), but to the creating of new ideas." What further attests to this is that the LXX translates this as λογισμος, which means thought or reason. I do not disgree that God has plans for the people. In this case, Jeremiah has very clear prophecies about 70 years. But the OT word for plan in many cases means something softer than "calculated plan" and more like "creative and reasoned thoughts" that have as their end peace and hope.
Summary: The Hebrew here definitely accentuates and expands the meaning of Jeremiah's words. Maybe because it is Christ the King Sunday, I am thinking a fair amount about God's sovereign title (Lord Sabbaoth) as well as the meaning of "plans" when it comes to God. The Hebrew reveals that God is sovereign but in some more terrifying yet amazing ways than we thought possible.
Key Words:
צבאות ("Sabbaoth"; "Armies", "Hosts"; 29.4): The NET translates this, "God of Israel...who rules over all." While such a title does justice to the Hebrew's designation of God as all powerful, I think taking out the clearly militaristic language at that juncture is unhelpful. The purpose of this title here is a reminder that it is God who has sent them into exile for God is the ruler of armies. This is a horribly uncomfortable reality for us, that somehow, through all the violence of human warfare, God reigns supreme, working not just against but even through war. I struggle with this greatly.
הגליתי ("higlaytee"; "send into exile" in hiphel; 29:4) First point here: Jeremiah uses the first person here in his speech for God: God says he did this. The second point here: The root of this verb means to uncover. In a strange way, to sent into exile is to be uncovered. Removed of our previous religious moorings and culture, we discover who we are in profound ways. Yes, we ultimately discover ourselves in relationship, but a certain learning also comes from separation.
שלום("shalom"; "peace"; 29:7) Last week we read that Isaiah prophecies of a prince of peace (Jesus). This week we hear that God intends to make people prosper, but it is actually the same word. Again, peace in Hebrew is a much broader word than simply a truce!
מחשבה ("makhashaba"; "thoughts, devices, or plans"; 29:11): I am always worried about the word plan in the Bible. It can quickly make both humans and God into a fatalistic machine. The word translated plan here can be mean plan, but it can also mean thought or device/plot:
NRS Psalm 92:5 How great are your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep!
NRS Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
NRS Proverbs 16:3 Commit your work to the LORD, and your plans will be established.
NRS Lamentations 3:61 You have heard their taunts, O LORD, all their plots against me.
As the TWOT indicates: "The basic idea of the word is the employment of the mind in thinking activity. Reference is not so much to "understanding" (cf. bi^n), but to the creating of new ideas." What further attests to this is that the LXX translates this as λογισμος, which means thought or reason. I do not disgree that God has plans for the people. In this case, Jeremiah has very clear prophecies about 70 years. But the OT word for plan in many cases means something softer than "calculated plan" and more like "creative and reasoned thoughts" that have as their end peace and hope.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Isaiah 9:1-7
This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary, Year 4, most recently Nov 2013. It is also the Old Testament passage for Christmas in the RCL.
Summary: The inclusion of this passage at this particular juncture, it seems, is designed to have us read Isaiah within its historical context. (Which probably means reading Isaiah 8, yuck). Ultimately, I think reading within the broadest narrative is the only way to intepret it. Matthew sees this passage as prophetic about Jesus; therefore, even if Isaiah didn't have this fully in mind (a debatable point) we don't have to debate whether it ultimately referred to Jesus. Matthew said so. QED. The historical context us, reminds us that God, even in the midst of his wrath, still is a God of mercy, whose proper and ultimate aims are life and joy, not death and destruction. In terms of the Hebrew, I have focused on vs. 1 and 2 and the names given to Jesus.
Note: I am actually preaching this week on Isaiah 6, so I apologize for the shorter blog post.
Key Words focusing on Isaiah 9:1-2:
צלמות ("tsalmwet", "deep death like darkness") This word shows up in Psalm 23:4. I wonder if this is a good word to describe what we saw in the recent Typhoon in the Philippines. The people walking in the land of shadowy death. We know from Scripture that Christ is present in this suffering to.
פהא ("pele", "wonder") In the English language, wonderful is a word used by grandmothers to describe the artwork of their grandchildren. Wonder in the Bible means God is doing something, like 7 wonders of the world, or like God making barren Sarah pregnant or the 10 plagues.
יועצ (yo-atz, "counselor", technically a verbal noun) The NET couragously and creatively translates this as "strategist." While I think the captures the military nature of the passage, but doesn't seem completely fair to the word, which means more simply advisor. I think it also becomes highly probelmatic for us to see Jesus as our strategist rather than our advisor. A strategist figures out how we can achieve our aims; a counselor or advisor directs us. Nothing in this section describes this baby as one who is part of our agenda and not the other way around.
אביעד ("aveeyad", "eternal father") This is quite a title for a baby. This is and the title of mighty God make me really wonder how Isaiah could actually not be imputing divinity to the baby. I also wonder how we reconcile the idea of Jesus being father.
שלומ(shalom, "peace") Peace here means something far more than truce. It means wholeness and restored relationship. In Hebrew, peace entails righteousness, something that Christ brings about. This is the last name, the last word, peace, really, wholeness.
Summary: The inclusion of this passage at this particular juncture, it seems, is designed to have us read Isaiah within its historical context. (Which probably means reading Isaiah 8, yuck). Ultimately, I think reading within the broadest narrative is the only way to intepret it. Matthew sees this passage as prophetic about Jesus; therefore, even if Isaiah didn't have this fully in mind (a debatable point) we don't have to debate whether it ultimately referred to Jesus. Matthew said so. QED. The historical context us, reminds us that God, even in the midst of his wrath, still is a God of mercy, whose proper and ultimate aims are life and joy, not death and destruction. In terms of the Hebrew, I have focused on vs. 1 and 2 and the names given to Jesus.
Note: I am actually preaching this week on Isaiah 6, so I apologize for the shorter blog post.
Key Words focusing on Isaiah 9:1-2:
צלמות ("tsalmwet", "deep death like darkness") This word shows up in Psalm 23:4. I wonder if this is a good word to describe what we saw in the recent Typhoon in the Philippines. The people walking in the land of shadowy death. We know from Scripture that Christ is present in this suffering to.
פהא ("pele", "wonder") In the English language, wonderful is a word used by grandmothers to describe the artwork of their grandchildren. Wonder in the Bible means God is doing something, like 7 wonders of the world, or like God making barren Sarah pregnant or the 10 plagues.
יועצ (yo-atz, "counselor", technically a verbal noun) The NET couragously and creatively translates this as "strategist." While I think the captures the military nature of the passage, but doesn't seem completely fair to the word, which means more simply advisor. I think it also becomes highly probelmatic for us to see Jesus as our strategist rather than our advisor. A strategist figures out how we can achieve our aims; a counselor or advisor directs us. Nothing in this section describes this baby as one who is part of our agenda and not the other way around.
אביעד ("aveeyad", "eternal father") This is quite a title for a baby. This is and the title of mighty God make me really wonder how Isaiah could actually not be imputing divinity to the baby. I also wonder how we reconcile the idea of Jesus being father.
שלומ(shalom, "peace") Peace here means something far more than truce. It means wholeness and restored relationship. In Hebrew, peace entails righteousness, something that Christ brings about. This is the last name, the last word, peace, really, wholeness.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Amos 5
The narrative lectionary, year 4, includes: Amos 1:1-2; 5:14-15, 21-24. In this post I focus on Amos 5.
Summary:
I find the Hebrew beautiful in this section. Is presents three couplets of rejection, each with a different image and sense (God will not smell, look or hear the people). Yet it leaves me curious as to how to translate the imagery of vs 24. Are the waters of justice a raging river or simply waters? Is the stream of righteousness a torrent, gorging flood or a cool stream to refresh all life? Of course, its both. While this particular passage (and the balance of the book) speak of God's alien work of judgment, it also promises God's redemption (see the last few verses of the book!)
Key words:
דרש ("seek" (darash); Amos 5:4, 5, 6, 14)): This word only appears once in this week's narrative lectionary snippet. But it is a reminder that at its heart, prophets are always calling for repentance more than announcing judgment.
סבאות ("army"/"hosts" (sabboth); Amos 5:14, 15, 16, 27) I always thought this was Lord of the Sabbath as a kid. I had no idea this meant Yahwah of the Army. What to do with this term? Two interesting things about this term. First, it is found in its full fury in Amos 3:13, where God is announcing his militaristic judgment against the nation. Yet, 4:13 also makes it clear that this word doesn't simply mean military might, but also his providence in creation.
In fact, the word in Greek (LXX) is not "army" or "military" but παντοκρατωρ, which means, almighty or literally "all holding." The power of God's hand is not simply to kill but to make alive. I think that ultimately a comparison of 4:13 and 3:13 reveals that even in this military image of God, even in this book of judgment, we find the two hands of God at work:
The alien work - to destroy
The proper hand - to make life
Restoring creation requires both
Sense words in vs 21-24:
ריח (Smell-21; Technically it means to open wide, as in the nostrils open wide)
-I will not smell your religious assemblies
נבת (Look-22);
-I will not look at your peace offerings
שמע(Hear-23);
-I will not hear the music of your stringed instruments
Most translations cover this up, but is a beautiful, crescendoing three pronged couplet of images. (In Hebrew, rhymes are not based on sound, but on meaning; each vs 21, 22 and 23 is therefore a rhyme).
מימ ("waters" (mayim), 5:24) The only thing modifying water is "of justice." In short, there are waters of justice. But what kind of waters?
נחל
("wadi; torrent" (nahal); 5:24). While TWOT indicates: "This noun usually refers to a dry river bed or ravine which in the rainy season becomes a raging torrent, and/or the resulting torrent," there are many examples in the Bible where it simply means a stream. Most importantly for us, Elijah (the narrative lectionary star last week), drank water from a Nahal; it nourished him.
I think within this particular context of Amos, a more violent translation makes sense, but I think one cannot deny the canonical understanding of what kind of waters God pictures of justice and righteousness. I think finally the flood will give way to waters of life around the tree of life, the cross.
Technical note: The verb in 23 switches to the singular second person (you instead of all of you). The NET Bible notes this might mean that the prophet is attacking one individual. I think a better understanding is simply that as the prophet levels the accusations, it becomes clear that ultimately, all the nation is guilty as one.
Summary:
I find the Hebrew beautiful in this section. Is presents three couplets of rejection, each with a different image and sense (God will not smell, look or hear the people). Yet it leaves me curious as to how to translate the imagery of vs 24. Are the waters of justice a raging river or simply waters? Is the stream of righteousness a torrent, gorging flood or a cool stream to refresh all life? Of course, its both. While this particular passage (and the balance of the book) speak of God's alien work of judgment, it also promises God's redemption (see the last few verses of the book!)
Key words:
דרש ("seek" (darash); Amos 5:4, 5, 6, 14)): This word only appears once in this week's narrative lectionary snippet. But it is a reminder that at its heart, prophets are always calling for repentance more than announcing judgment.
סבאות ("army"/"hosts" (sabboth); Amos 5:14, 15, 16, 27) I always thought this was Lord of the Sabbath as a kid. I had no idea this meant Yahwah of the Army. What to do with this term? Two interesting things about this term. First, it is found in its full fury in Amos 3:13, where God is announcing his militaristic judgment against the nation. Yet, 4:13 also makes it clear that this word doesn't simply mean military might, but also his providence in creation.
"For lo, the one who forms the mountains, creates the wind, reveals his thoughts to mortals, makes the morning darkness, and treads on the heights of the earth -- the LORD, the God of hosts, is his name!" (NRSV)
In fact, the word in Greek (LXX) is not "army" or "military" but παντοκρατωρ, which means, almighty or literally "all holding." The power of God's hand is not simply to kill but to make alive. I think that ultimately a comparison of 4:13 and 3:13 reveals that even in this military image of God, even in this book of judgment, we find the two hands of God at work:
The alien work - to destroy
The proper hand - to make life
Restoring creation requires both
Sense words in vs 21-24:
ריח (Smell-21; Technically it means to open wide, as in the nostrils open wide)
-I will not smell your religious assemblies
נבת (Look-22);
-I will not look at your peace offerings
שמע(Hear-23);
-I will not hear the music of your stringed instruments
Most translations cover this up, but is a beautiful, crescendoing three pronged couplet of images. (In Hebrew, rhymes are not based on sound, but on meaning; each vs 21, 22 and 23 is therefore a rhyme).
מימ ("waters" (mayim), 5:24) The only thing modifying water is "of justice." In short, there are waters of justice. But what kind of waters?
נחל
("wadi; torrent" (nahal); 5:24). While TWOT indicates: "This noun usually refers to a dry river bed or ravine which in the rainy season becomes a raging torrent, and/or the resulting torrent," there are many examples in the Bible where it simply means a stream. Most importantly for us, Elijah (the narrative lectionary star last week), drank water from a Nahal; it nourished him.
I think within this particular context of Amos, a more violent translation makes sense, but I think one cannot deny the canonical understanding of what kind of waters God pictures of justice and righteousness. I think finally the flood will give way to waters of life around the tree of life, the cross.
Technical note: The verb in 23 switches to the singular second person (you instead of all of you). The NET Bible notes this might mean that the prophet is attacking one individual. I think a better understanding is simply that as the prophet levels the accusations, it becomes clear that ultimately, all the nation is guilty as one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
