Elijah Was a Human Being Like Us

Some authors have told me that a Christ-centered preacher shouldn't hold up Old Testament characters as examples for his hearers. 'That's moralistic,' they tell me. But does it have to be? I have gleaned much help from these authors, and will continue to do so. But I have come to believe that they have overreacted to the dangers of moralism. As a healthy balance, I heartily recommend Jason Hood's book Imitating God in Christ: Recapturing a Biblical Pattern. It demonstrates how Scripture sets forth God, Christ, and godly people as examples for us to imitate. 

"James refers to Old Testament characters five times in five chapters. Abraham, Rahab, Elijah, Job, and "the prophets" are all used as examples for New Testament-era believers (James 2:14-26; 5:10-18). All five characters responded to the work and promises of God. James notes that Elijah "was a human being like us" whose prayers worked powerfully (James 5:17). I suspect that many Christians today would not make such a connection as they read 1 Kings. Many leaders would never think to encourage their congregations to see themselves in Elijah's story so that they gain confidence in prayer. Only my charismatic friends seem to teach such things."
-Jason B. Hood, Imitating God in Christ: Recapturing a Biblical Pattern

http://www.amazon.com/Imitating-God-Christ-Recapturing-Biblical/dp/0830827102 

Intended Allegory in the Song of Solomon?

Good article by James Hamilton dealing with the issue of whether Solomon intended his Song to describe both human married love and divine married love.

http://jimhamilton.info/2013/04/01/intended-allegory-in-the-song-of-songs/

Liberal Scholarship and Making Oneself God

As a hardcore Protestant, I don't often quote the Pope on this blog, but love rejoices with the truth regardless of where that truth is found. So I will give the truth its due.

"The common practice today is to measure the Bible against the so-called modern worldview, whose fundamental dogma is that God cannot act in history--that everything to do with God is to  be relegated to the domain of subjectivity. And so the Bible no longer speaks of God, the living God; no, now we alone speak and decide what God can do and what we will and should do. And the Antichrist, with an air of scholarly excellence, tells us that any exegesis that reads the Bible from the perspective of faith in the living God, in order to listen to what God has to say, is fundamentalism. He wants to convince us that only his kind of exegesis the supposedly purely scientific kind, in which God says nothing and has nothing to say, is able to keep abreast of the times...The dispute about interpretation is ultimately a dispute about who God is...

We are dealing here with the vast question as to how we can and cannot know God, how we are related to God, and how we can lose him. The arrogance that would make God an object and impose our laboratory conditions upon him is incapable of finding him. For it already implies that we deny God as God by placing ourselves above him, by discarding the whole dimension of love, of interior listening, by no longer acknowledging as real anything but what we can experimentally test and grasp. To think like that is to make oneself God., And to do that is to abase not only God, but the world and oneself, too."

--Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth (2007 A.D.)

Should We Always Interpret Scripture Literally?

One way to answer that question would be to ask, did Jesus and the apostles always interpret Scripture literally. To find the answer, let's look at an Old Testament prophecy, the New Testament interpretation of it, and Dr. Robert Stein's comments on it.

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.” (Malachi 4:5-6) 

"And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what this rising from the dead might mean. And they asked him, “Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” And he said to them, “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.” [To which Matthew adds, "Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist." Matt. 17:13]

(Mark 9:9-13 ESV; see also Luke 1:13-18)

“It is evident that Jesus and the New Testament writers often interpreted Old Testament prophecy in a nonliteralistic way. They undersrtood the prophets as using metaphorical and impressionistic language to proclaim their prophetic message. They used the tools of a poet rather than the tools of a photographer to convey their divine message. They understood the ‘literal meaning’ of the prophets as involving what the prophets meant to convey by their words, not what a literalistic interpretation of the words (used figuratively by the biblical author) means. Thus Malachi 4:5 refers to one who would fulfill the role of the prophet Elijah, that is, John the Baptist (see Mark 1:4-6). The dress of John the Baptist indicates that he also saw himself as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi 4:5-6.”
--Robert Stein, Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary

"Nice Means Nice:" How Not to Use Greek in Bible Study

OK. Unoriginal thought number 2.

Have any of you ACE homeschool kids ever took the PACES called "Etymology"? I did. Etymology deals with the 'roots' of words--where a word originally came from way back in the foggy mists of time. Etymology is a valuable area to study, and nothing in the following excerpt is meant to suggest otherwise (i.e. your Etymology PACES were not a waste of time). 

Nevertheless, a problem arises when people mistakenly think that a word's etymology tells them "what it really means." We can see the fallacy of this notion clearly in our native English language. For example, the word "nice" comes from the Latin root 'nescius,' meaning 'ignorant.' But no one but a whacko would respond to your calling them 'nice' by saying 'Oh, I see what you really mean! You're saying I'm ignorant! I'm onto your veiled Latin insults! You can't call me 'nice,' maaaan!' No one does this in their native language, but many Christians do this very thing when studying the Bible. They look up Greek words in their Strong's Concordance, find the original Greek root of a word, and conclude that they have found the word's 'real' meaning.

Here's the point: roots and etymology are good. They can sometimes give you an interesting backstory on why a particular word came to be used to describe a particular thing. They can even help you out in the national spelling bee. But they don't tell you the 'real meaning' of a word. A word's meaning is not determined by its etymology, but by its usage. If you proposed to your girlfriend and she said "No," but you could somehow prove that "No" came from a Latin root meaning "Yes," it wouldn't do you much good. Sadly, meaning is determined by usage, not etymology. The reason no one today would take 'nice' as an insult is that no one today uses 'nice' as an insult. If you want to know what a word means today, you must find out how it's used today. That's what an up-to-date dictionary will tell you. Contrary to what is sometimes believed, dictionary writers do not determine word-meanings; they simply tell you how words are currently being used. Rather than prescribing they are simply describing. 

Incidentally, this is also why it is counterproductive to be an "1828 Noah Webster-Onlyist." Webster's 1828 Dictionary (which I, along with many homeschooling families, own) is a valuable resource for finding out how words were used in 1828, and as such can be used profitably to discover the meanings of unfamiliar words you might find in pre-19th century works like Robinson Crusoe, Gulliver's Travels, Shakespeare's plays, and the King James Version of the Bible. In fact, it contains thousands of definitions that are still accurate. But it can't serve as your only dictionary, because word usage has changed significantly in the last 200 years. Some words have lost old meanings ('let' is no longer used to mean 'hinder'), others have gained new ones ('cell' is now used to describe a phone), and others have simply come into existence (babysitter, internet, etc.). Living, spoken languages are not frozen in time, nor are they constrained by etymology.       

When it comes to Bible study, many Christians think that knowing Greek is like a magic bullet that will unlock all the secrets of biblical meaning. This is simply not the case. Come to find out, Greek scholars have disagreements, too. The truth is, the main thing I learned in the first couple of weeks of Greek class was that most of what I thought I knew about Greek was malarky. Turns out that 'agapao' and 'phileo' weren't really different kinds of love after all, and the gospel wasn't really the 'dynamite' of God. In many ways, Greek was much more mundane than I had thought. 

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from studying Greek. In fact, I would encourage more people to learn as much as they can. But the hard truth is that most people don't have time to learn it. The good news, however, is that God never intended all (or even most) of his people to have to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to understand his word. There is a happy division of labor in the body of Christ, just as there is in society in general. God is merciful--some people become experts in Greek and Hebrew so the rest of us don't have to. As my hermeneutics prof Rob Plummer has said, 

"Never before in the history of Christianity has there been less need for word studies than today. With the multiplicity of many excellent English Bible translations, readers of the Bible have the fruit of scholars' painstaking research."

And as 19th century Baptist theologian John Dagg put it:

"Translations, though made with uninspired human skill, are sufficient for those who have not access to the inspired original. Unlearned men will not be held accountable for a degree of light beyond what is granted to them; and the benevolence of God in making revelation has not endowed all with the gift of interpreting tongues...God has seen it wiser and better to leave the  members of Christ to feel the necessity of mutual sympathy and dependence, than to bestow every gift on every individual. He has bestowed the knowledge necessary for the translation of his word on a sufficient number of faithful men to answer the purpose of his benevolence. And the least accurate of the translations with which the common people are favored is full of divine truth and able to make wise to salvation."

If Dagg is right, and I think he is, then the impulse that says "I don't want to be dependent on scholars" may be a latent form of pride. It may be the hand saying to the foot 'I have no need of you.' I'm not trying to turn scholar-translators into an infallible high priestly class. I'm just saying that unless God expects us all to become experts in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, then he must have willed for there to be a division of labor in this area. We are dependent on experts whether we like it or not. Pride will chafe at this. Paranoia will invent conspiracy theories. But until we become self-sufficient and omniscient the way God is, nothing will change it. Even the King James Onlyist is dependent on experts (namely, the King James translators). 

But humility will see this as good news, and will be relieved at God's way of dividing the labor. The sad news is that many Christians spend too much time looking up Greek words and coming to misguided conclusions because they don't really understand how the language works (often they know just enough to be dangerous). But for those who think they can't understand the Bible unless they can understand Greek, the good news is that 9 times out of 10 you will gain a better understanding of what a word means simply by reading it in its context. 

Here's what I mean by 'reading it in its context:' don't just zero in on one word, read the entire sentence. Then read the entire paragraph. As Paul Baker once wisely told us in one of his parable messages, "Words shouldn't be read with blinders on." The reason for this is obvious when you think about it. There is a sense in which an individual word doesn't even have a meaning--rather, it has a range of possible meanings. That's why a dictionary will usually list several possible options. It's only when a word is used in a context that the more definite meaning becomes clear. Context usually narrows the possible meanings to one (an exception would be those wonderful things called "puns"). So for example, if you want to know what John means by the word "sin" in 1 John 3:4, instead of zeroing in on the word "sin" and doing a word study of 'hamartia' and trying to find out what 'hamarita' 'really' means based on its root, read the entire sentence: "Sin is lawlessness." Then read the surrounding context: "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin." It's not as flashy a study method, and it probably won't make you look as smart, but it'll save you a lot of time and give you much more accurate results. :-) 

If all this sounds new to you, I promise that this is indeed an unoriginal thought. Nothing radical. ;-)

Wanna Avoid Being a Job's Comforter? Study Hermeneutics!

The title of this blog is two-pronged: (1) "Excerpts" (2) "Unoriginal Thoughts." So far, I have posted only excerpts: ideas that come directly from other people. This post will serve as my first sharing of an unoriginal thought--ideas that come indirectly from other people after being filtered through my mind, personality, and experience (both first-hand and vicarious). The words of C.J. Mahaney also apply to me: "I've never had an original thought" (Tilly disagrees with me on this, but she's wrong. :-) )

This unoriginal thought comes from my final exam in Dr. Robert Plummer's hermeneutics class. Hermeneutics is the study of how to interpret the Bible. I took this class in the Fall of 2009. Since then, Dr. Plummer has published his own book on hermeneutics called 40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible (which I own if anyone wants to borrow it). This was apparently question number 7 on the exam. The question was:

(7) “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.”  I recently received an email from an old friend who told me to “claim the promise” of this verse.  Is this a correct way to think about this text? (10 points)

To which I responded:

I’m sure the friend meant well, and his or her trust in the truth of God’s word is admirable. However, before we go “claiming any promises,” we must first ask the question, “Is this a promise?”

We must keep in mind that the Bible contains many literary genres, such as historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, and apocalypse. Each genre has different rules for how we are to interpret it. So in order to interpret any passage properly, we must know what genre it belongs to and how to interpret that genre.

The answer to the question “Is this a promise?” is actually “No.” This verse belongs to the genre (and book) known as “proverbs.” Proverbs are not promises that hold true in every instance, but instead are short, pithy sayings that convey general truths. For example, when one proverb counsels us to “answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him,” it does not mean that we should never answer a fool, because the very next verse tells us to “answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” Neither proverb is an absolute statement that applies in every case. Both are appropriate at given times, just as both are inappropriate at given times. Deciding which proverb applies requires wisdom. As I said, proverbs are short, pithy sayings. In order to remain short and pithy, however, they can't go into the exceptions; they simply state the rule. In this case, as a rule, if you raise a child properly, he will turn out well. But this does not guarantee that that will happen in every case.

In a similar example, there are proverbs that talk about how prosperity comes from hard work and poverty comes from laziness. Again, this is generally true, but this does not mean that all poverty comes from laziness, or that if someone is poor he must be lazy. Scripture often speaks of poor people who are righteous. If we were to interpret these proverbs as promises, we would end up acting like Job’s miserable comforters toward all poor people, telling them that they must have sinned or been lazy, otherwise they wouldn’t be poor. In the same way, we can easily become Job’s comforters toward Christian parents with wayward children if we misconstrue this proverb as a promise, telling them that they must have failed in some way, since the Bible promises that if you train up a child in the way he should go then he will not turn from it."    

Why Twelve Apostles?

"Jesus called twelve men to be his disciples. The symbolical nature of their number was not accidental. Jesus' audience could not have helped but notice the number. "Twelve" conjured up in the mind of any Jew the twelve tribes of Israel. At the time of Jesus the common conception was that only two and a half tribes remained--the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and half the tribe of Levi. The other nine and a half tribes were lost in 722 B.C. when Samaria fell, and those tribes were scattered in exile among the Gentiles. The time would come, however, when God would visit his people and restore the twelves tribes of Israel. In that day, the day of Israel's salvation, the lost tribes would be reunited and God would establish his kingdom upon the earth (compare Isaiah 11:10-16; 49:6; 56:8, Micah 2:12; Sirach 48:10, and so on).

Jesus' calling of the twelve disciples was a symbolic act that demonstrated visually what he proclaimed verbally: 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near' (Mark 1:15). God was visiting the people of Israel. The restoration of the twelve tribes was taking place. For Jesus, however, this restoration did not involve a political revival of the nation of Israel. It involved, rather, the experience of the divine presence and the arrival of the kingdom of God in a unique way among his people."

Robert H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ

Avoiding Mistakes When Doing Word Studies

Robert Plummer teaches Hermeneutics and Greek at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, did missionary work in China, Israel, and Turkey (among other nations), and bears a striking resemblance to Luke Skywalker (as this photo link will demonstrate: http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/robert-plummer/ ). This excerpt is from his book 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible, which I would highly recommend with a few caveats.


"Word Study Tools

Never before in the history of Christianity has there been less need for word studies than today. With the multiplicity of many excellent English Bible translations, readers of the Bible have the fruit of scholars' painstaking research. At the same time, it is a healthy desire for Christians to want to suck the marrow from every word of Scripture. However, as noted above, an uninformed linguistic euphoria can result in distortions of the text, rather than greater understanding. The following represents two common dangers when it comes to word studies.

1. Illegitimate Totality Transfer. All words have a range of meaning, and the nuances of each particular use cannot be read into all other uses of the word. That is, if the reader takes the totality of what a word can mean and reads that potentiality as a reality in every word occurrence, he has illegitimately transferred the totality of the word means onto each instance (thus, the label 'illegitimate totality transfer'). People tolerate erroneous linguistic approaches to the Bible that they would never accept in ordinary speech. For example, imagine the howls one would encounter if he said "You just used the word cell to describe your phone. By that, I take it that your phone is a small room of incarceration, that your phone is a wireless device, and that your phone is a microscopic blob of protoplasm." Obviously, only one of the potential meanings of "cell"  is intended. Yet, how many times have we heard a similar litany of potential meanings from a preacher presented as the "real meaning" of a word in the Bible? One can see the danger of tools like The Amplified Bible, which provides several possible meanings of most words. Without further instruction, such tools lead one down the path of illegitimate totality transfer.

2. Etymological Fallacy. Etymology is the study of the ancestry of words. Thus, the etymological fallacy is to wrongly believe that knowing the history of a word gives us deeper insight into its current meaning. There have been periods in biblical scholarship when even well-trained scholars were taken in by the siren-song of etymology. More commonly, in popular preaching, one hears the etymology of a word sometimes given as "what this word really means." To illustrate the foolishness of the etymological fallacy to my classes, I give illustrations from the English language. For example:

• When you hear the word tuxedo, undoubtedly, you think of the Algonquin Indian word for "wolf," from which the word tuxedo was derived. Unconsciously, you almost hear yourself saying, "There goes that dapper wolf!" 
• When your neighbor speaks of spraying herbicide on dandelions in his yard, you think about the underlying French words dent de lion ("tooth of the lion"). You might ask, "Those roaring weeds are sinking their sharp incisors into your lawn again, eh?
• Your wife says she is cooking lasagna for supper. You can't help recalling that the word lasagna ultimately derives from the Greek term for "chamber potty" (lasonon). "Going to dish us up another one from the toilet?" you innocently ask.

The reality is that words mean what the writers intended them to mean in the historical context in which they were written. The ordinary use of language (a word's potential range of meaning) constrains the possible meaning unless the author clearly points out that he is using the word differently than the way it would normally be understood. Thus, in the early twenty-first century, to say that someone is wearing "gay clothing" (without further qualification) means something quite different from what it meant when the translators of the KJV chose that expression when translating James 2:3 in the early seventeenth century. 

In spite of all these warnings against the misuse of word studies, they can be helpful in clarifying the nuances of important words. IN the case of a very rare word where we have few or no other instances of the word in the same time period, it can be legitimate to appeal to etymology to help us determine its meaning. Also, proper names (the names of people and places) often are presented in Scripture as being informed by their etymology. The most reliable and accessible word study tool for those lacking knowledge of Greek and Hebrew may be Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.

Robert Plummer, 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible