I did get mentioned in this carnival. There were some intriguing posts in June. Check out the carnival and see if anything suits your fancy.
Showing posts with label Biblical Studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biblical Studies. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Biblical Studies Carnival XXXI is Here
Ketuvim posted the latest Biblical Studies Carnival, the 31st edition.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Biblical Studies Carnival XXX is Here
No, it isn't an adult website. It is a place where a month's worth of biblical studies blog posts is summarized and linked to. Check out the 30th edition here.
Sadly, I did not get a mention this month. That is two months in a row that I submitted my Ephesians Sentence by Sentence posts and did not get a mention. Two months ago I submitted it too late. But this month I submitted it early on to help make sure that it would get noted. Unfortunate.
Maybe if ev epheso does a Greek Roundup again I will be mentioned.
Biblical Studies Carnival XXXI is going to be coming out at Ketuvim here in the next week or so. Keep your eyes out for it!
Sadly, I did not get a mention this month. That is two months in a row that I submitted my Ephesians Sentence by Sentence posts and did not get a mention. Two months ago I submitted it too late. But this month I submitted it early on to help make sure that it would get noted. Unfortunate.
Maybe if ev epheso does a Greek Roundup again I will be mentioned.
Biblical Studies Carnival XXXI is going to be coming out at Ketuvim here in the next week or so. Keep your eyes out for it!
Monday, June 30, 2008
Ephesians Sentence by Sentence: 4:8
διὸ λέγει· ἀναβὰς εἰς ὕψος ᾐχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he took captive captivity, he gave gifts to men.".
Paul is here talking about what Christ has given as a gift, and he is using Scripture to support his statement. Paul is quoting from Psalm 68:19 in the Masoretic Text (MT) or Psalm 68:18 in the Septuagint (LXX). Paul did not quote either the MT or the LXX. There are significant changes between Paul's version and both the MT and the LXX. For example, Psalm 68:18 in the LXX has the second person, as does Psalm 68:19 in the MT, whereas Paul's version has the third person. Also, both the MT and the LXX have "receive gifts," not "gave gifts." The language is too similar, and yet the texts are not the same. What's going on?
There are several theories about what Paul was doing here in Ephesians 4:8. Two of the leading theories are as follows: one, Paul is quoting an Aramaic Targum that has its rendering different from the MT and the LXX; two, Paul is utilizing midrash pesher, a practice that allows the interpreter to quote a passage of Scripture and adapt it to one's argument while at the same time interpreting it. The first option contends that Paul was quoting an Aramaic Targum. These targums were translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic. These targums came rather late, so it is likely that Paul was familiar with them and he could have used them. Midrash pesher, the second option, was not uncommon. It was an acceptable practice and is found elsewhere in the New Testament. In regards to the first option, interestingly enough, the Aramaic Targum uses "gave gifts." It is possible that Paul was utilizing a targum. But what about the other differences? Midrash pesher seems to account for those differences. What we have here are a couple of viable possibilities. First, Paul was utilizing both targums and midrash pesher. If this is the case, then Paul was using a targum to quote from, but he adapted it to his own argument. Second, Paul was using midrash pesher alone. If this were the case, then all the differences are as a result to his adapting the text to his argument. In either case, Paul was following excepted practices and should not be considered as a poor writer who violated modern codes and ethics for quoting.
Paul introduces his quotation with a common introductory phrase: διὸ λέγει. Among others, this is one kind of phrase that Paul uses to introduce Scripture quotations. The use of the conjunction, διὸ, is to connect the gift of Christ from 4:7 to what he was about to quote. Paul is making an inference on the gift of Christ in light of Psalm 68:19.
The participle, ἀναβὰς, is temporal, but it is also contemporaneous to the verb, ᾐχμαλώτευσεν, and should be translated this way: "When he ascended on high, he took captive captivity." This phrase, "he took captive captivity." The greek is a fairly close rendering of the MT. The Hebrew phrase, שָׁבִיתָ שֶּׁבִי, literally, "you took captive captivity," is rendered, "you led away captives." Both the LXX and Paul follow this wording, so it seems best to render it here in Ephesians as "he led away captives."
The verb ἔδωκεν is contemporary with ᾐχμαλώτευσεν; Christ gave gifts as he led away captives. To whom did he give gifts to? To ἀνθρώποις. This word does not mean "men and not women." By "men" it means "human," which includes both men and women. Paul was writing according to the cultural customs of his time; women simply were not addressed, generally speaking. By using ἀνθρώποις, Paul was addressing both men and women while following First Century practices. We can translate it as "men," or, if we want to be gender inclusive, we can translate it as "humans," which is rather awkward, or we can say, "men and women," since this word does not exclude women.
Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led away captives, he gave gifts to both men and women."
Christ gave gifts to men and women. He led away captives. Christ is indeed victorious. Because of Christ, we are victorious. His ascension, when he sat down at the right hand of God and was placed in authority of all things, marked his supremacy over all things. We would do well to remember that Christ is supreme and is in authority over all things, which is why he can give us gifts, such as grace.
Paul is here talking about what Christ has given as a gift, and he is using Scripture to support his statement. Paul is quoting from Psalm 68:19 in the Masoretic Text (MT) or Psalm 68:18 in the Septuagint (LXX). Paul did not quote either the MT or the LXX. There are significant changes between Paul's version and both the MT and the LXX. For example, Psalm 68:18 in the LXX has the second person, as does Psalm 68:19 in the MT, whereas Paul's version has the third person. Also, both the MT and the LXX have "receive gifts," not "gave gifts." The language is too similar, and yet the texts are not the same. What's going on?
There are several theories about what Paul was doing here in Ephesians 4:8. Two of the leading theories are as follows: one, Paul is quoting an Aramaic Targum that has its rendering different from the MT and the LXX; two, Paul is utilizing midrash pesher, a practice that allows the interpreter to quote a passage of Scripture and adapt it to one's argument while at the same time interpreting it. The first option contends that Paul was quoting an Aramaic Targum. These targums were translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic. These targums came rather late, so it is likely that Paul was familiar with them and he could have used them. Midrash pesher, the second option, was not uncommon. It was an acceptable practice and is found elsewhere in the New Testament. In regards to the first option, interestingly enough, the Aramaic Targum uses "gave gifts." It is possible that Paul was utilizing a targum. But what about the other differences? Midrash pesher seems to account for those differences. What we have here are a couple of viable possibilities. First, Paul was utilizing both targums and midrash pesher. If this is the case, then Paul was using a targum to quote from, but he adapted it to his own argument. Second, Paul was using midrash pesher alone. If this were the case, then all the differences are as a result to his adapting the text to his argument. In either case, Paul was following excepted practices and should not be considered as a poor writer who violated modern codes and ethics for quoting.
Paul introduces his quotation with a common introductory phrase: διὸ λέγει. Among others, this is one kind of phrase that Paul uses to introduce Scripture quotations. The use of the conjunction, διὸ, is to connect the gift of Christ from 4:7 to what he was about to quote. Paul is making an inference on the gift of Christ in light of Psalm 68:19.
The participle, ἀναβὰς, is temporal, but it is also contemporaneous to the verb, ᾐχμαλώτευσεν, and should be translated this way: "When he ascended on high, he took captive captivity." This phrase, "he took captive captivity." The greek is a fairly close rendering of the MT. The Hebrew phrase, שָׁבִיתָ שֶּׁבִי, literally, "you took captive captivity," is rendered, "you led away captives." Both the LXX and Paul follow this wording, so it seems best to render it here in Ephesians as "he led away captives."
The verb ἔδωκεν is contemporary with ᾐχμαλώτευσεν; Christ gave gifts as he led away captives. To whom did he give gifts to? To ἀνθρώποις. This word does not mean "men and not women." By "men" it means "human," which includes both men and women. Paul was writing according to the cultural customs of his time; women simply were not addressed, generally speaking. By using ἀνθρώποις, Paul was addressing both men and women while following First Century practices. We can translate it as "men," or, if we want to be gender inclusive, we can translate it as "humans," which is rather awkward, or we can say, "men and women," since this word does not exclude women.
Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led away captives, he gave gifts to both men and women."
Christ gave gifts to men and women. He led away captives. Christ is indeed victorious. Because of Christ, we are victorious. His ascension, when he sat down at the right hand of God and was placed in authority of all things, marked his supremacy over all things. We would do well to remember that Christ is supreme and is in authority over all things, which is why he can give us gifts, such as grace.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Ephesians Sentence by Sentence: 4:7
Ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ. But to each one of us it was given the grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
In this sentence, Paul is continuing on with the idea of unity or sameness. In the previous sentence, Paul exhorted the readers to make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. He spelled out what is the unity and bond. Now he tells the readers why they are all equals. δὲ connects this sentence with what comes before it, but it is not contrasting anything, so "but" is not an appropriate translation. It would be best to leave it untranslated in english, so long as we note that this sentence is connected to the one before it.
To each and every one of them, including Paul the apostle, the grace of the Lord was given to them. They all had the gift, and therefore they were all equals. More than that, they all had the grace in accordance with the measurement. κατὰ marks the norm of similarity. What was similar in all of them was the fact that they all had the same measurement. μέτρον means "measure" or "measurement." In this case, it bears the idea of the result of measuring and is to be understood as a "measurement." But what was being measured?
The gift of Christ was being measured. What does this mean? Furthermore, how do we understand these genitives? First we have τῆς δωρεᾶς, and second we have τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The first genitive is attached to μέτρον. Is it in apposition (the measure, namely, the gift)? No, but rather it is a partitive genitive. The measurement is the part of the whole, δωρεᾶς. The second genitive is understood by many to be possessive (Christ's gift). Indeed, it is a possessive genitive. Who's gift is in view? Christ's. Christ's gift has been measured out and given to each and every one of the readers, including Paul.
Grace was given to each one of us in accordance with the normative measurement of Christ's gift.
In Christ, we are all equal. We are brought together in unity and peace. Let it not be mistaken: we are all on a level playing field. We all have the same gift. Christ's gift, grace, which was made possible by his own self-sacrifice, has been equally given to each and every one of us. Therefore, we are all equal. We should not think of any of us as being higher or superior to anyone else. The Apostle Paul put himself on the same playing field as his readers. Pastors, elders, and deacons are likewise on the same playing field as the rest of the congregation. Unity requires that we see each other on a level playing field. As a result, we should not think ourselves to be better than another.
It would be good to acknowledge that we are all equals in Christ, and that there is not a class or caste system in Christ. We do not enter into faith as though we are in a low ranking class and seek to move up in the system. We do not enter into faith as though we are placed into a single caste and can never get out of it. No, grace is equally given to all of us. There is no class and there is no caste. We are involved in a system of equality, for all have been given the same grace. If there ever is a time that we feel superior, we would do well to remember that in Christ we are equal. Feelings of superiority breed disunity and rancor. We must humble ourselves and in our equality maintain the unity of the spirit with the bond of peace.
In this sentence, Paul is continuing on with the idea of unity or sameness. In the previous sentence, Paul exhorted the readers to make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. He spelled out what is the unity and bond. Now he tells the readers why they are all equals. δὲ connects this sentence with what comes before it, but it is not contrasting anything, so "but" is not an appropriate translation. It would be best to leave it untranslated in english, so long as we note that this sentence is connected to the one before it.
To each and every one of them, including Paul the apostle, the grace of the Lord was given to them. They all had the gift, and therefore they were all equals. More than that, they all had the grace in accordance with the measurement. κατὰ marks the norm of similarity. What was similar in all of them was the fact that they all had the same measurement. μέτρον means "measure" or "measurement." In this case, it bears the idea of the result of measuring and is to be understood as a "measurement." But what was being measured?
The gift of Christ was being measured. What does this mean? Furthermore, how do we understand these genitives? First we have τῆς δωρεᾶς, and second we have τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The first genitive is attached to μέτρον. Is it in apposition (the measure, namely, the gift)? No, but rather it is a partitive genitive. The measurement is the part of the whole, δωρεᾶς. The second genitive is understood by many to be possessive (Christ's gift). Indeed, it is a possessive genitive. Who's gift is in view? Christ's. Christ's gift has been measured out and given to each and every one of the readers, including Paul.
Grace was given to each one of us in accordance with the normative measurement of Christ's gift.
In Christ, we are all equal. We are brought together in unity and peace. Let it not be mistaken: we are all on a level playing field. We all have the same gift. Christ's gift, grace, which was made possible by his own self-sacrifice, has been equally given to each and every one of us. Therefore, we are all equal. We should not think of any of us as being higher or superior to anyone else. The Apostle Paul put himself on the same playing field as his readers. Pastors, elders, and deacons are likewise on the same playing field as the rest of the congregation. Unity requires that we see each other on a level playing field. As a result, we should not think ourselves to be better than another.
It would be good to acknowledge that we are all equals in Christ, and that there is not a class or caste system in Christ. We do not enter into faith as though we are in a low ranking class and seek to move up in the system. We do not enter into faith as though we are placed into a single caste and can never get out of it. No, grace is equally given to all of us. There is no class and there is no caste. We are involved in a system of equality, for all have been given the same grace. If there ever is a time that we feel superior, we would do well to remember that in Christ we are equal. Feelings of superiority breed disunity and rancor. We must humble ourselves and in our equality maintain the unity of the spirit with the bond of peace.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
I follow Christ's Translations
No, I am not saying that I follow Jesus Christ's translations of the Bible. What I am doing is pointing out another blogger's translations.
I follow Christ--ἀκολουθῶ Χριστω--has translated 1, 2, and 3 John, and is currently in the process of translating Colossians.
Check out his translations. He is interested in feedback on his renderings (It might be too late to join in on the conversation concerning the letters of John, but at least the discussion on Colossians is still open.).
I follow Christ--ἀκολουθῶ Χριστω--has translated 1, 2, and 3 John, and is currently in the process of translating Colossians.
Check out his translations. He is interested in feedback on his renderings (It might be too late to join in on the conversation concerning the letters of John, but at least the discussion on Colossians is still open.).
Monday, May 26, 2008
David, Tyranny, Democracy
Was David a Tyrant Like Sudam Husein?
David was a warrior. He was kept from building the Temple because of the bloodshed he was involved in. In order to unify the people, was it necessary to have this kind of warrior-king? Was it necessary for a leader to come along and strong-arm the people? David used Joab as his hit-man, supposedly, for the "dirty work."
I ask if it was necessary because of who the people were. Clan based were the people of Israel, as are the people throughout the world we now refer to as Arab. They have never known democracy. It was only the likes of Nebachadnezzar, Senacherub, and, dare I say, Sudam Husein, that they can come under control. What do these people have in common? They were warrior-kings who strong-armed the people. The question is, was David any different? I think not.
This post is going to examine two things. First, was David tyrannical or was he the pleasant leader that fundamentalism portrays? Second, what does David's rule tell us about the people in that area in comparison with other leaders in that location, and what does that tell us about America's attempt to spread democracy to that region? To David's reign we now turn.
David was actually not a very nice king. He was more of a tyrant than we usually think. He killed or had killed disobedient people--people who threatened the well-being of his rule. The first person he killed as king (arguably) was the messenger who reported Saul's death. The messenger lied, saying, "I killed him." David had him killed but not for lying. He was killed for killing the king of Israel. Now that the king was dead, David had a situation to deal with. This messenger had apparently killed the king of Israel; if he has done it once, he can and may do it again. To keep that from happening, he has him killed. Although the text doesn't actually say that, I know some would want to see it and argue that this was the actual motive behind the messenger's death.
When David was made king, he had to face some opposition from Saul's descendants. His descendants were struggling to keep the throne. When there was a stand-off, David's men practically decapitated all of Saul's warriors to help secure the throne for David.
After those warriors were suppressed and it was clear that David was now in power, the commander of Saul's army joined David's side. All seemed to be well for the commander. But then, Joab, David's commander, took Saul's commander, Abner, out back and killed him. It seems as though David was further securing his position as ruler. If Abner once served Saul and opposed David, he can and may do it again. To keep this from happening, he had him killed. Again, the text doesn't say that, but I know some would argue that this is the real motive.
Then, the last few leaders of Saul's son's army became traitors and killed Saul's son. They took his head to David and tried to entreat David. But David had them killed. It seems as though they were traitors, so what was to keep them from betraying David too? So he had them killed to help secure his position as ruler. As before, the text doesn't say that, but some would argue this to be the real motive.
It seems that it wasn't until David had firmly secured his position as a proven warrior-king that Israel did not turn their allegiance over to him. When they did, he developed his own stronghold, Jerusalem, in the city of the Jebusites, which he took from them by force.
David also secured the boundaries by going to war with surrounding countries. But through those events David was responsible for the destruction and annihilation of those people. He used force to establish his position, both his kingly reign and his "capitol." It was also by force that he secured the nation. The Philistines he attacked and subdued. He killed thousands of Arameans at the Damascus border. Likewise, he killed thousands of Edomites. Others he destroyed in battle, such as the Ammonites.
But then came his famous mistake. He committed adultery (or was it rape, which is a forceful act?), lied, and then committed murder. He was likely securing his role as king by not allowing news that would corrupt his reign to be released to the public. He was keeping a hush on the matter. Not only that, but again, he seemed to have used Joab to do the "dirty work." He had Joab place the husband of Bathsheba, whom he had adulterous relations with, at the front lines and had him killed. But his relations with Bathsheba resulted in conception. The Lord, as a punishment, took the child from David. He seemed to mourn over it for a short period of time, but then suddenly dropped his weeping as if nothing happened. It seemed like the concealment was secure. With the baby dead, it could be that there was no illegitimate child to consider for bringing charge against the king, and therefore there was no reason to be alarmed. I realize this is conjecture, for the text does not say it, but I know some might say this was what was going on psychologically with David at this time.
Then he started to have to deal with some internal family issues. His eldest son raped one of his daughters. The brother of that daughter got upset with David for not making it an issue. Was David not making it an issue because he didn't want to draw attention to his poor family leadership, which could bring negative light on his kingly reign? So, Absolom, the brother of the daughter, Tamar, killed his half-brother, Amnon. David mourned over Amnon's death, but only for a short time, and then he moved on and mourned for Absolom. He seemed to have Joab do the "dirty work" yet again, for when in pursuit of Absolom, he speared him. This not only avenged the death of Amnon but also squashed Absolom's insurrection, thus securing David's position as king further still.
David also handed people over to others for appeasement. To the Gibeonites he handed over the remaining descendants of Saul, except for Jonathan's son, to be killed. In so doing, he won the favor of the Gibeonites and also removed more potential threats to the throne.
I would say that I do not agree with all of these points. David does talk about what Joab did to him when charging Solomon with the kingdom. He wanted Solomon to deal justly with Joab. It seems as though in David's mind Joab was not really his henchman. I would say that there are tyrannical elements in David's life, which is not clearly expressed in fundamental depictions of David as king.
So how much was David like a tyrant, and how similar was he to Sudam Hussein? I doubt he was torturous like Sudam, but he did allow for murder. He was a good king, but in what sense? He did allow for certain corrupt behavior. It seems like David did function as a warrior-king and did strong-arm the people at times in order start and maintain his reign.
If this sort of leadership was necessary for the people to be united then as it is now, what does that tell us about America's efforts to spread democracy to that region? I think it tells us that it won't work. That area has not known democracy in the last 5,000+ years. It is a region of clan-based cultures that are only "unified"--kept under control--through tyrannical leaders. David may have been a mild tyrannical king, but he was or exhibited tyrannical behavior. Sudam Hussein was similar. He used his tyrannical strong-arm to keep the Muslims under control. Yes, he was an extreme tyrant. Was what he did wrong? In our American idealism and ethnocentric minds, yes. But, when understood in light of that region, his tyranny was necessary. Now that he has been removed, the control is gone. Democracy has been substituted for Hussein and it is failing. Democracy is a foreign concept to them and it will not easily nor quickly have an effect. The clan-based system needs a tyrannical leader. I would say that someone more like David would be better than one like Sudam Hussein. But we are incorrect to think that democracy will work for that culture. Clearly it has not. Their way of life and their way of thinking is vastly different than ours.
What do you think? Was David a tyrannical king? Do you think as others do that David was an extremist and used Joab as a henchman, or are you more like me and you see David as being a warrior-king with some tyrannical behavior? Do you think democracy will work in that region? If so, why? Or do you think as I do, that democracy is not a compatible concept for their way of life and thought?
David was a warrior. He was kept from building the Temple because of the bloodshed he was involved in. In order to unify the people, was it necessary to have this kind of warrior-king? Was it necessary for a leader to come along and strong-arm the people? David used Joab as his hit-man, supposedly, for the "dirty work."
I ask if it was necessary because of who the people were. Clan based were the people of Israel, as are the people throughout the world we now refer to as Arab. They have never known democracy. It was only the likes of Nebachadnezzar, Senacherub, and, dare I say, Sudam Husein, that they can come under control. What do these people have in common? They were warrior-kings who strong-armed the people. The question is, was David any different? I think not.
This post is going to examine two things. First, was David tyrannical or was he the pleasant leader that fundamentalism portrays? Second, what does David's rule tell us about the people in that area in comparison with other leaders in that location, and what does that tell us about America's attempt to spread democracy to that region? To David's reign we now turn.
David was actually not a very nice king. He was more of a tyrant than we usually think. He killed or had killed disobedient people--people who threatened the well-being of his rule. The first person he killed as king (arguably) was the messenger who reported Saul's death. The messenger lied, saying, "I killed him." David had him killed but not for lying. He was killed for killing the king of Israel. Now that the king was dead, David had a situation to deal with. This messenger had apparently killed the king of Israel; if he has done it once, he can and may do it again. To keep that from happening, he has him killed. Although the text doesn't actually say that, I know some would want to see it and argue that this was the actual motive behind the messenger's death.
When David was made king, he had to face some opposition from Saul's descendants. His descendants were struggling to keep the throne. When there was a stand-off, David's men practically decapitated all of Saul's warriors to help secure the throne for David.
After those warriors were suppressed and it was clear that David was now in power, the commander of Saul's army joined David's side. All seemed to be well for the commander. But then, Joab, David's commander, took Saul's commander, Abner, out back and killed him. It seems as though David was further securing his position as ruler. If Abner once served Saul and opposed David, he can and may do it again. To keep this from happening, he had him killed. Again, the text doesn't say that, but I know some would argue that this is the real motive.
Then, the last few leaders of Saul's son's army became traitors and killed Saul's son. They took his head to David and tried to entreat David. But David had them killed. It seems as though they were traitors, so what was to keep them from betraying David too? So he had them killed to help secure his position as ruler. As before, the text doesn't say that, but some would argue this to be the real motive.
It seems that it wasn't until David had firmly secured his position as a proven warrior-king that Israel did not turn their allegiance over to him. When they did, he developed his own stronghold, Jerusalem, in the city of the Jebusites, which he took from them by force.
David also secured the boundaries by going to war with surrounding countries. But through those events David was responsible for the destruction and annihilation of those people. He used force to establish his position, both his kingly reign and his "capitol." It was also by force that he secured the nation. The Philistines he attacked and subdued. He killed thousands of Arameans at the Damascus border. Likewise, he killed thousands of Edomites. Others he destroyed in battle, such as the Ammonites.
But then came his famous mistake. He committed adultery (or was it rape, which is a forceful act?), lied, and then committed murder. He was likely securing his role as king by not allowing news that would corrupt his reign to be released to the public. He was keeping a hush on the matter. Not only that, but again, he seemed to have used Joab to do the "dirty work." He had Joab place the husband of Bathsheba, whom he had adulterous relations with, at the front lines and had him killed. But his relations with Bathsheba resulted in conception. The Lord, as a punishment, took the child from David. He seemed to mourn over it for a short period of time, but then suddenly dropped his weeping as if nothing happened. It seemed like the concealment was secure. With the baby dead, it could be that there was no illegitimate child to consider for bringing charge against the king, and therefore there was no reason to be alarmed. I realize this is conjecture, for the text does not say it, but I know some might say this was what was going on psychologically with David at this time.
Then he started to have to deal with some internal family issues. His eldest son raped one of his daughters. The brother of that daughter got upset with David for not making it an issue. Was David not making it an issue because he didn't want to draw attention to his poor family leadership, which could bring negative light on his kingly reign? So, Absolom, the brother of the daughter, Tamar, killed his half-brother, Amnon. David mourned over Amnon's death, but only for a short time, and then he moved on and mourned for Absolom. He seemed to have Joab do the "dirty work" yet again, for when in pursuit of Absolom, he speared him. This not only avenged the death of Amnon but also squashed Absolom's insurrection, thus securing David's position as king further still.
David also handed people over to others for appeasement. To the Gibeonites he handed over the remaining descendants of Saul, except for Jonathan's son, to be killed. In so doing, he won the favor of the Gibeonites and also removed more potential threats to the throne.
I would say that I do not agree with all of these points. David does talk about what Joab did to him when charging Solomon with the kingdom. He wanted Solomon to deal justly with Joab. It seems as though in David's mind Joab was not really his henchman. I would say that there are tyrannical elements in David's life, which is not clearly expressed in fundamental depictions of David as king.
So how much was David like a tyrant, and how similar was he to Sudam Hussein? I doubt he was torturous like Sudam, but he did allow for murder. He was a good king, but in what sense? He did allow for certain corrupt behavior. It seems like David did function as a warrior-king and did strong-arm the people at times in order start and maintain his reign.
If this sort of leadership was necessary for the people to be united then as it is now, what does that tell us about America's efforts to spread democracy to that region? I think it tells us that it won't work. That area has not known democracy in the last 5,000+ years. It is a region of clan-based cultures that are only "unified"--kept under control--through tyrannical leaders. David may have been a mild tyrannical king, but he was or exhibited tyrannical behavior. Sudam Hussein was similar. He used his tyrannical strong-arm to keep the Muslims under control. Yes, he was an extreme tyrant. Was what he did wrong? In our American idealism and ethnocentric minds, yes. But, when understood in light of that region, his tyranny was necessary. Now that he has been removed, the control is gone. Democracy has been substituted for Hussein and it is failing. Democracy is a foreign concept to them and it will not easily nor quickly have an effect. The clan-based system needs a tyrannical leader. I would say that someone more like David would be better than one like Sudam Hussein. But we are incorrect to think that democracy will work for that culture. Clearly it has not. Their way of life and their way of thinking is vastly different than ours.
What do you think? Was David a tyrannical king? Do you think as others do that David was an extremist and used Joab as a henchman, or are you more like me and you see David as being a warrior-king with some tyrannical behavior? Do you think democracy will work in that region? If so, why? Or do you think as I do, that democracy is not a compatible concept for their way of life and thought?
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Ephesians Sentence by Sentence: 4:1-6
Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι τῆς κλήσεως ἧς ἐκλήθητε μετὰ πάσης ταπεινοφροσύνης καὶ πραΰτητος μετὰ μακροθυμίας ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων ἐν ἀγάπῃ σπουδάζοντες τηρεῖν τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης ἓν σῶμα καὶ ἓν πνεῦμα καθὼς καὶ ἐκλήθητε ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι τῆς κλήσεως ὑμῶν εἷς κύριος μία πίστις ἓν βάπτισμα εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν. I urge you, therefore, I, the prisoner in the Lord, worthily to walk of the calling of which you were called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
In chapter 4, Paul begins his section of exhortation in this letter, although it is not without its own bits of theology. In this sentence, we see a mix of both exhortation and theology.
In light of all that he had talked about--such as the work God has done on our behalf through Jesus Christ, and the unifying of the Gentiles with the Jews in Christ--Paul has some exhortations to make. He appeals to his condition as being the prisoner of Christ. He exhorts his readers to walk worthily of the calling that they were called to. The infinitive περιπατῆσαι does mean to walk, but in this context it has bears the idea of living. Paul is exhorting his readers to live worthily of the calling. They were to live a life worthy of the calling with all humility and gentleness. They were to live with patience. How were they to live with these inner qualities? By bearing with one another in love, which is the counterpart to patience, and by making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit, which is the counterpart to humility and gentleness. Patience is required for bearing with others; humility and gentleness is necessary for keeping unity. But this unity that Paul mentions is quite extraordinary. It is the unity of the Spirit, which is bound together by a common peace. Paul goes on to explain what the unity is by identifying the contents of the unity of the Spirit.
The Greek is interesting here. The editors of Nesle-Aland's 27th edition place a semicolon at the end of verse 3 and begin a new sentence in verse 4. However, since there is no conjunction in verse 4 and because the content of verse 4 and following explain what is meant by the unity of the Spirit in verse 3, it makes sense not to think of vv. 4-6 as a separate sentence. What comes in vv. 4-6 are all part of the same thought as vv. 1-3. In terms of translation, it is possible to separate it into different sentences, but such practice will not be utilized here in order to preserve the connection between the unity of the Spirit and the essentials laid out in vv. 4-6.
According to vv. 4-6, the unity of the Spirit has some common ground. There is one body, the Church, and one Spirit. In the same way, there is only one hope in the calling that the readers were called. If there is only one hope in the calling, then there is similarly only one group of called out ones, and there is only one Spirit that tends to them. In the unity of the Spirit, there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, one faith, trust and belief both in God and his work on our behalf, one baptism, the common practice of water pouring, dipping, or sprinkling to signify a new life out of an old, and one God and Father of all, who is over all things, through all things, and in all things. God is identified as the one in authority over all things, the one who works through all things, and the one who is associated with all things. Together, the one body, the one Spirit, the one hope, the one Lord, the one faith, the one baptism, and the one God are all the bond of peace that make the unity of the Spirit.
Therefore, I, the prisoner in the Lord, urge you to live worthily of the calling, of which you were called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, by bearing with one another in love, by making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, one body and one Spirit, just as you were also called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all things, through all things, and in all things.
Unity is important. Unity is part of living right--to live worthily of the calling. How often do we divide and forsake unity over issues that fall outside the bond of peace? Brothers and sisters, we should not divide over issues that fall outside of the bond of peace. So long as we hold to the one Lord, the one faith, and the one baptism, to the one God and the one Spirit, we should not be dividing up amongst ourselves. It is heartbreaking to hear of schisms in churches on the basis of systematic theological issues, such as, "Are humans predestined and without a choice, or does God not know what choice they will make?" Such an issue falls outside the bond of peace. We need to preserve the unity of the Spirit by bearing with one another in love, patience, and gentleness in regards to such issues. Unity does not mean full agreement on every aspect of biblical interpretation. In such instances, we should agree to disagree, so long as the basics--those fundamentals of the unity--are not violated. Ask yourself, "Am I living in a way that is worthy of the calling? In what ways am I causing disunity in the Church and how can I correct it?"
In chapter 4, Paul begins his section of exhortation in this letter, although it is not without its own bits of theology. In this sentence, we see a mix of both exhortation and theology.
In light of all that he had talked about--such as the work God has done on our behalf through Jesus Christ, and the unifying of the Gentiles with the Jews in Christ--Paul has some exhortations to make. He appeals to his condition as being the prisoner of Christ. He exhorts his readers to walk worthily of the calling that they were called to. The infinitive περιπατῆσαι does mean to walk, but in this context it has bears the idea of living. Paul is exhorting his readers to live worthily of the calling. They were to live a life worthy of the calling with all humility and gentleness. They were to live with patience. How were they to live with these inner qualities? By bearing with one another in love, which is the counterpart to patience, and by making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit, which is the counterpart to humility and gentleness. Patience is required for bearing with others; humility and gentleness is necessary for keeping unity. But this unity that Paul mentions is quite extraordinary. It is the unity of the Spirit, which is bound together by a common peace. Paul goes on to explain what the unity is by identifying the contents of the unity of the Spirit.
The Greek is interesting here. The editors of Nesle-Aland's 27th edition place a semicolon at the end of verse 3 and begin a new sentence in verse 4. However, since there is no conjunction in verse 4 and because the content of verse 4 and following explain what is meant by the unity of the Spirit in verse 3, it makes sense not to think of vv. 4-6 as a separate sentence. What comes in vv. 4-6 are all part of the same thought as vv. 1-3. In terms of translation, it is possible to separate it into different sentences, but such practice will not be utilized here in order to preserve the connection between the unity of the Spirit and the essentials laid out in vv. 4-6.
According to vv. 4-6, the unity of the Spirit has some common ground. There is one body, the Church, and one Spirit. In the same way, there is only one hope in the calling that the readers were called. If there is only one hope in the calling, then there is similarly only one group of called out ones, and there is only one Spirit that tends to them. In the unity of the Spirit, there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, one faith, trust and belief both in God and his work on our behalf, one baptism, the common practice of water pouring, dipping, or sprinkling to signify a new life out of an old, and one God and Father of all, who is over all things, through all things, and in all things. God is identified as the one in authority over all things, the one who works through all things, and the one who is associated with all things. Together, the one body, the one Spirit, the one hope, the one Lord, the one faith, the one baptism, and the one God are all the bond of peace that make the unity of the Spirit.
Therefore, I, the prisoner in the Lord, urge you to live worthily of the calling, of which you were called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, by bearing with one another in love, by making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, one body and one Spirit, just as you were also called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all things, through all things, and in all things.
Unity is important. Unity is part of living right--to live worthily of the calling. How often do we divide and forsake unity over issues that fall outside the bond of peace? Brothers and sisters, we should not divide over issues that fall outside of the bond of peace. So long as we hold to the one Lord, the one faith, and the one baptism, to the one God and the one Spirit, we should not be dividing up amongst ourselves. It is heartbreaking to hear of schisms in churches on the basis of systematic theological issues, such as, "Are humans predestined and without a choice, or does God not know what choice they will make?" Such an issue falls outside the bond of peace. We need to preserve the unity of the Spirit by bearing with one another in love, patience, and gentleness in regards to such issues. Unity does not mean full agreement on every aspect of biblical interpretation. In such instances, we should agree to disagree, so long as the basics--those fundamentals of the unity--are not violated. Ask yourself, "Am I living in a way that is worthy of the calling? In what ways am I causing disunity in the Church and how can I correct it?"
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Biblical Studies Carnival XXIX is Up
Jim West put the new Biblical Studies Carnival together on his blog here. Sadly, my posts on Ephesians did not get referenced in the carnival. Perhaps it is because I did not submit them until yesterday. Considering the length of his post, I bet he has been working on it for a while and had it done before he received my posts. Oh well. Maybe next time.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Ephesians Sentence by Sentence: 3:20-21
τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ὧν αἰτούμεθα ἢ νοοῦμεν κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν, αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν. And to the one who is able to do infinitely more than all that we ask or think according to the power which works in us, to him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus for all the generations of eternity, amen.
Continuing on from his description of what he seeks the Father for on behalf of his readers, Paul gives a doxology. The Father is the recipient of this glory offering. The Father is the one who is able to do infinitely more than what we ask or think. However, there is a comparison being made. The Father is able above all others to exceed what we ask or think. No one else can do what the Father does. He surpasses everyone as he surpasses our preconceived notions. The phrase is repetitive to underscore how much God surpasses our expectations. Not only does he go beyond what we ask, but he goes infintely beyond our preconceived ideas.
But now we have to ask a question. Is the phrase κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν supposed to go with the infinitive to do or with the verbs to ask and to know? In order to answer this question, we need to determine how κατὰ functions in the phrase. The word κατὰ marks the standard of similarity. The object of κατὰ is power. The accusative δύναμιν is linked not to the two verbs but to the action of the Father. The phrase κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν ties in with the infinitive, not the two other verbs. The Father is able to do more than what we can imagine. How? In accordance with the power he works in us. This power is the norm between his doing and working. The Father accomplishes things by his power, and his power is at work in us.
Paul continues his praise offering to the Father. The Father is still the recipient. He calls for glory to be directed towards the Father. In what sphere should glory be given to the Father? Glory should be given in two spheres: one, in the Church; and two, in Christ Jesus. For how long should glory be given to the Father? Throughout all generations for eternity.
To the One who is able to accomplish infinitely more than all that we ask or think by the power which is working in us, glory to him in the Church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations for eternity.
The Father deserves to be praised for the great work that he has done in us. He is able to do far beyond what we can conceive of and imagine, and therefore he deserves to be praised. We would do well to praise the Father for the work that he has done and point all the glory to him. Glory does not belong to us, but to him. We would also do well to rely on the Father, for no one else is capable of doing what he is able to do. No one else compares to the Father. All glory belongs to him, and likewise, all faith, hope, and trust belong to him.
Continuing on from his description of what he seeks the Father for on behalf of his readers, Paul gives a doxology. The Father is the recipient of this glory offering. The Father is the one who is able to do infinitely more than what we ask or think. However, there is a comparison being made. The Father is able above all others to exceed what we ask or think. No one else can do what the Father does. He surpasses everyone as he surpasses our preconceived notions. The phrase is repetitive to underscore how much God surpasses our expectations. Not only does he go beyond what we ask, but he goes infintely beyond our preconceived ideas.
But now we have to ask a question. Is the phrase κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν supposed to go with the infinitive to do or with the verbs to ask and to know? In order to answer this question, we need to determine how κατὰ functions in the phrase. The word κατὰ marks the standard of similarity. The object of κατὰ is power. The accusative δύναμιν is linked not to the two verbs but to the action of the Father. The phrase κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν ties in with the infinitive, not the two other verbs. The Father is able to do more than what we can imagine. How? In accordance with the power he works in us. This power is the norm between his doing and working. The Father accomplishes things by his power, and his power is at work in us.
Paul continues his praise offering to the Father. The Father is still the recipient. He calls for glory to be directed towards the Father. In what sphere should glory be given to the Father? Glory should be given in two spheres: one, in the Church; and two, in Christ Jesus. For how long should glory be given to the Father? Throughout all generations for eternity.
To the One who is able to accomplish infinitely more than all that we ask or think by the power which is working in us, glory to him in the Church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations for eternity.
The Father deserves to be praised for the great work that he has done in us. He is able to do far beyond what we can conceive of and imagine, and therefore he deserves to be praised. We would do well to praise the Father for the work that he has done and point all the glory to him. Glory does not belong to us, but to him. We would also do well to rely on the Father, for no one else is capable of doing what he is able to do. No one else compares to the Father. All glory belongs to him, and likewise, all faith, hope, and trust belong to him.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Biblical Studies Carnival XXVIII
Chris Weimer was in charge of The Biblical Studies Carnival XXVIII, and it was released yesterday. There are a lot of links to translation topics, one of which, belongs to a blog called En Epheso (ἐν ἐφεσῷ). I think I will be taking some extra time to read through that blog and see how it might inform my Ephesians translations.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Ephesians Sentence by Sentence: 3:14-19
τούτου χάριν κάμπτω τὰ γόνατὰ μου πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται ἵνα δῷ ὐμῖν κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ δυνάμει κραταιωθῆναι διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον κατοικῆσαι τὸν Χριστὸν διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐρριζωμένοι καὶ τεθεμελιωμένοι ἵνα ἐξισχύσητε καταλαβέσθαι σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίαοις τί τὸ πλάτος καὶ μῆκος καὶ ὕψος καὶ βάθος γνῶναί τε τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπην τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἵνα πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ θεοῦ. For this reason I bend my knees toward the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, in order that he might give to you according to the richness of his glory in power to be strengthened through the Spirit of him in the inner person, Christ to dwell through faith in your hearts, in love having been rooted and established, in order that you might be fully capable to process with all the saints what is the width, length, height, and depth, and to know the love of Christ that is surpassing knowledge, in order that you might be filled in all the fullness of God.
As a result of his suffering on behalf of the readers, Paul said that he was bowing down to the Father. He says that the Father is the one who gives every family a name both in heaven and on earth. Paul was bowing down to the Father for the purpose that He would give to the readers according to his glorious riches. Paul followed this statement with two infinitives of purpose. The Father would give them according to his glorious wealth, with the purpose that they would be strengthened in power inwardly through his Spirit, and Christ would dwell in their hearts through faith. Following the first infinitive, κραταιωθῆναι, comes a genitive prepositional phrase expressing agency. It is through the Spirit, the agent that accomplishes the action, that the readers are strengthened in power. Following the second infinitive, κατοικῆσαι, is a genitive prepositional phrase expressing means. Faith is the means that for Christ to dwell in their hearts. Without faith, Christ could not dwell in their hearts.
Paul continues with two participles, ἐρριζωμένοι and τεθεμελιωμένοι. These participles are perfect passive, meaning that the action is done to the subject, rather than by the subject, and while the action did happen in the past, its effect are still felt through the present. The former participle means to be deeply rooted or firmly grounded; the second means to be established, and this by God. Paul is moving on from the idea of God giving and is focusing now on what God has done and continues to do in their lives. God has firmly grounded and established the readers in the foundation of love. But this grounding and establishing continues. God has not left the readers to their own demise. He continually tends to them. God has done and continues to work in their lives for the purpose that they should be fully capable of processing information, information regarding the width, length, height, and depth, and the love of Christ that is surpassing knowledge. The purpose of the two infinitives, καταλαβέσθαι and γνῶναί, to process and to know, is for the readers to be filled in all the fullness of God.
For this reason I bow down to the Father, from whom every family is named in heaven and on earth, with the purpose that he might give to you according to his glorious wealth, in order for you to be strengthened in power on the inside through his Spirit, in order for Christ to dwell in your hearts through means of faith, having been grounded and established in love (and continue to be), with the purpose that you might be fully capable to understand with all the saints what is the width, length, height, and depth, and to know the love of Christ that is surpassing knowledge, with the purpose that you might be filled into all the fullness of God.
Despite his suffering, Paul bowed down to the Father. We need to be equally devoted to the Father in our suffering. We need to recognize that God is in charge; he has given everyone their name. As we devote ourselves to the Father, God will be faithful to grow us in love, giving us deep roots that dig deep in the richness of love. Christ dwells in our hearts through faith, and we are strengthened inwardly with power by the Spirit of God. In light of this gracious blessing, we need to process in an effort to comprehend the vast love of Christ, which surpasses knowledge.
As a result of his suffering on behalf of the readers, Paul said that he was bowing down to the Father. He says that the Father is the one who gives every family a name both in heaven and on earth. Paul was bowing down to the Father for the purpose that He would give to the readers according to his glorious riches. Paul followed this statement with two infinitives of purpose. The Father would give them according to his glorious wealth, with the purpose that they would be strengthened in power inwardly through his Spirit, and Christ would dwell in their hearts through faith. Following the first infinitive, κραταιωθῆναι, comes a genitive prepositional phrase expressing agency. It is through the Spirit, the agent that accomplishes the action, that the readers are strengthened in power. Following the second infinitive, κατοικῆσαι, is a genitive prepositional phrase expressing means. Faith is the means that for Christ to dwell in their hearts. Without faith, Christ could not dwell in their hearts.
Paul continues with two participles, ἐρριζωμένοι and τεθεμελιωμένοι. These participles are perfect passive, meaning that the action is done to the subject, rather than by the subject, and while the action did happen in the past, its effect are still felt through the present. The former participle means to be deeply rooted or firmly grounded; the second means to be established, and this by God. Paul is moving on from the idea of God giving and is focusing now on what God has done and continues to do in their lives. God has firmly grounded and established the readers in the foundation of love. But this grounding and establishing continues. God has not left the readers to their own demise. He continually tends to them. God has done and continues to work in their lives for the purpose that they should be fully capable of processing information, information regarding the width, length, height, and depth, and the love of Christ that is surpassing knowledge. The purpose of the two infinitives, καταλαβέσθαι and γνῶναί, to process and to know, is for the readers to be filled in all the fullness of God.
For this reason I bow down to the Father, from whom every family is named in heaven and on earth, with the purpose that he might give to you according to his glorious wealth, in order for you to be strengthened in power on the inside through his Spirit, in order for Christ to dwell in your hearts through means of faith, having been grounded and established in love (and continue to be), with the purpose that you might be fully capable to understand with all the saints what is the width, length, height, and depth, and to know the love of Christ that is surpassing knowledge, with the purpose that you might be filled into all the fullness of God.
Despite his suffering, Paul bowed down to the Father. We need to be equally devoted to the Father in our suffering. We need to recognize that God is in charge; he has given everyone their name. As we devote ourselves to the Father, God will be faithful to grow us in love, giving us deep roots that dig deep in the richness of love. Christ dwells in our hearts through faith, and we are strengthened inwardly with power by the Spirit of God. In light of this gracious blessing, we need to process in an effort to comprehend the vast love of Christ, which surpasses knowledge.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Bible Blog Carnival?
When I first heard of a blog carnival, I instantly thought of a digital setting of popcorn, soda, cotton-candy, and unsafe but thrilling rides. Blog carnivals are not such. They are a collection of a specific genre of blogs for a specified amount of time. There are Bible blog carnivals, which collect into a post a reference to various Bible blogs and their activities over, say, a month's time.
Over at Blue Cord, the most recent Bible blog carnival is up (click here).
I just now discovered this Bible blog carnival today, and I expect to do some reading after lunch. Perhaps you will find it helpful yourself.
Over at Blue Cord, the most recent Bible blog carnival is up (click here).
I just now discovered this Bible blog carnival today, and I expect to do some reading after lunch. Perhaps you will find it helpful yourself.
Ephesians Sentence by Sentence: 3:13
διὸ αἰτοῦμαι μὴ ἐγκακεῖν ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσίν μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἥτις ἐστὶν δόξα ὑμῶν. Therefore, I ask not to be discouraged in my tribulations on behalf of you, which is your glory.
Since bold, confident access to God is given to those who are in Christ Jesus, Paul asks his readers to not be discouraged by the tribulations he was suffering. He stated that he was going through tribulations on their behalf. These tribulations were their glory. It is hard to determine how Paul's tribulations were his readers' glory. But perhaps it was due to the fact that through his tribulations he was able to write to them or to teach them. With the glory phrase aside, Paul asks his readers to not be discouraged. This request is linked with the fact that they all have bold and confident access to God. For those who have such a connection with the Father do not need to be discouraged by troubling tribulations.
Therefore, I am asking you not to be discouraged by my tribulations on your behalf, which is your glory.
Tribulations need not trouble us, for we have access to the Father, to the Creator of the universe. The God who created all things has made it possible to have access to him through those who are in Christ Jesus. In such access, believers do not need to be troubled by tribulations, for such situations are under God's control. He who created all things can certainly help us through troubling situations.
Since bold, confident access to God is given to those who are in Christ Jesus, Paul asks his readers to not be discouraged by the tribulations he was suffering. He stated that he was going through tribulations on their behalf. These tribulations were their glory. It is hard to determine how Paul's tribulations were his readers' glory. But perhaps it was due to the fact that through his tribulations he was able to write to them or to teach them. With the glory phrase aside, Paul asks his readers to not be discouraged. This request is linked with the fact that they all have bold and confident access to God. For those who have such a connection with the Father do not need to be discouraged by troubling tribulations.
Therefore, I am asking you not to be discouraged by my tribulations on your behalf, which is your glory.
Tribulations need not trouble us, for we have access to the Father, to the Creator of the universe. The God who created all things has made it possible to have access to him through those who are in Christ Jesus. In such access, believers do not need to be troubled by tribulations, for such situations are under God's control. He who created all things can certainly help us through troubling situations.
Ephesians Sentence by Sentence: 3:8-12
ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ πάντων ἀγίων ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις αὕτη τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εὐαγγελίσασθαι τὸ ἀνεξιχνίαστον πλοῦτος τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ φωτίσαι πάντας τίς ἡ οἰκονομία τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένου ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐν τῷ θεῷ τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι ἵνα γνωρισθῇ νῦν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ πολυποίκιλος σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ κατὰ πρόθεσιν τῶν αἰώνων ἣν ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ προσαγωγὴν ἐν πεποιθήσει διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ. To me, the least of all the saints, it was given this grace, to the Gentiles to preach the incomprehensible riches of Christ and to enlighten everyone what the plan of the mystery which was hidden from the ages in God, the One who created all things, in order that it now might be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms through the Church the diverse wisdom of God according to the purpose of the ages, which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access in confidence through the faith of him.
Paul said he was given this grace, meaning, a gift or task. It was a privilege to do what he was doing. This privilege is all the more poignant since Paul considered himself to be the least of all the saints. Paul was privileged to preach to the Gentiles and to enlighten everyone. What was he to preach and enlighten? He was to preach the incomprehensible riches of Christ to the Gentiles, and to enlighten everyone in what the plan of the mystery which was hidden from the ages, that is, for all time. The mysterious plan was hidden in God--the creator of all things.
Paul was given this grace with the purpose that it would now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. What would be made known? The diverse wisdom of God would be made known. By whom? The diverse wisdom of God would be made known through the called out one. The genitive phrase, διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, could be a reference to the church or to Christ. However, since the task was given to Paul for the purpose that the diverse wisdom of God would be made known, the reference is certainly to the church. As Paul preaches and enlightens believers, God used the Church to communicate his wisdom to the rulers and authorities.
The diverse wisdom of God would be made known according to the purpose of the ages. God accomplished or carried out this purpose in Christ Jesus. It is in Jesus Christ that God has designed purpose for all time, that is, an eternal purpose. But it is also in Jesus Christ that we have boldness and access in confidence through his faith. Because the church is in Christ, believers have boldness, and they also have confident access to God. This boldness and access is made possible through Christ's faith.
Many translations take the last genitive phrase, διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ, as an objective genitive. They translate it, through faith in him. However, we cannot translate it as an objective genitive. Instead, we must see it as a subjective genitive, and we need to translate it, through his faith. There are several pieces pointing to the subjective use rather than the objective use in Ephesians. The use of αὐτοῦ in Ephesians is always subjective or possessive. It is used a total of 33 times as one of these options, but never as an objective genitive. The use of διὰ plus the genitive article plus a genitive noun plus αὐτοῦ occurs in two other places in Ephesians, 1:7 and 3:16, and in both of those cases αὐτοῦ functions subjectively (first, through his blood, and second, through his Spirit). These reasons are enough to indicate at the least that an objective use of αὐτοῦ is not found in Ephesians, so it would be very strange for Paul to shift and use it in 3:12. Given the use of the genitive construction elsewhere and the use of αὐτοῦ throughout Ephesians, we conclude that this phrase is to be taken as a subjective genitive, translating it, through his faith.
What does it mean, then, for Christ to have faith? Some have attempted to say it was not faith, but rather, faithfulness that Christ had. They have said that Christ's faithfulness is what gives us boldness and access. However, to distinguish faith and faithfulness from πίστεως is impossible. Christ did have faith. It was evident in the Garden of Gethsemane. We have to remember that Christ prayed and was in relationship with the Father. He believed and trusted the plan of the Father, and although he asked for a different way, he carried out that plan. His faith was demonstrated in the cross, believing not only that the thief would be with him in paradise, but also that the Father was carrying out his salvation plan through Christ's death. Through this faith, believers, being in Christ, have boldness and access to God.
This grace was given to me, the least of all the saints, to preach the incomprehensible riches of Christ to the Gentiles and to enlighten everyone in what is the mysterious plan, which was hidden from eternity in God, the one who created all things, with the purpose that the diverse wisdom of God would now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places through the Church according to the eternal plan, which he carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confident access through his faith.
We need to rest assured in the faith of Christ. His faith paved the way for us to boldly enter into God's presence. Because of his faith, we can be bold and confident. We can be bold to preach and to enlighten. We can confidently enter into God's presence. But we must remember that it is through the Church that God's wisdom is passed on to the heavenly rulers and authorities. Through the Church God reveals his plan and his wisdom to the rulers and authorities of the heavenly realms.
Paul said he was given this grace, meaning, a gift or task. It was a privilege to do what he was doing. This privilege is all the more poignant since Paul considered himself to be the least of all the saints. Paul was privileged to preach to the Gentiles and to enlighten everyone. What was he to preach and enlighten? He was to preach the incomprehensible riches of Christ to the Gentiles, and to enlighten everyone in what the plan of the mystery which was hidden from the ages, that is, for all time. The mysterious plan was hidden in God--the creator of all things.
Paul was given this grace with the purpose that it would now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. What would be made known? The diverse wisdom of God would be made known. By whom? The diverse wisdom of God would be made known through the called out one. The genitive phrase, διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, could be a reference to the church or to Christ. However, since the task was given to Paul for the purpose that the diverse wisdom of God would be made known, the reference is certainly to the church. As Paul preaches and enlightens believers, God used the Church to communicate his wisdom to the rulers and authorities.
The diverse wisdom of God would be made known according to the purpose of the ages. God accomplished or carried out this purpose in Christ Jesus. It is in Jesus Christ that God has designed purpose for all time, that is, an eternal purpose. But it is also in Jesus Christ that we have boldness and access in confidence through his faith. Because the church is in Christ, believers have boldness, and they also have confident access to God. This boldness and access is made possible through Christ's faith.
Many translations take the last genitive phrase, διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ, as an objective genitive. They translate it, through faith in him. However, we cannot translate it as an objective genitive. Instead, we must see it as a subjective genitive, and we need to translate it, through his faith. There are several pieces pointing to the subjective use rather than the objective use in Ephesians. The use of αὐτοῦ in Ephesians is always subjective or possessive. It is used a total of 33 times as one of these options, but never as an objective genitive. The use of διὰ plus the genitive article plus a genitive noun plus αὐτοῦ occurs in two other places in Ephesians, 1:7 and 3:16, and in both of those cases αὐτοῦ functions subjectively (first, through his blood, and second, through his Spirit). These reasons are enough to indicate at the least that an objective use of αὐτοῦ is not found in Ephesians, so it would be very strange for Paul to shift and use it in 3:12. Given the use of the genitive construction elsewhere and the use of αὐτοῦ throughout Ephesians, we conclude that this phrase is to be taken as a subjective genitive, translating it, through his faith.
What does it mean, then, for Christ to have faith? Some have attempted to say it was not faith, but rather, faithfulness that Christ had. They have said that Christ's faithfulness is what gives us boldness and access. However, to distinguish faith and faithfulness from πίστεως is impossible. Christ did have faith. It was evident in the Garden of Gethsemane. We have to remember that Christ prayed and was in relationship with the Father. He believed and trusted the plan of the Father, and although he asked for a different way, he carried out that plan. His faith was demonstrated in the cross, believing not only that the thief would be with him in paradise, but also that the Father was carrying out his salvation plan through Christ's death. Through this faith, believers, being in Christ, have boldness and access to God.
This grace was given to me, the least of all the saints, to preach the incomprehensible riches of Christ to the Gentiles and to enlighten everyone in what is the mysterious plan, which was hidden from eternity in God, the one who created all things, with the purpose that the diverse wisdom of God would now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places through the Church according to the eternal plan, which he carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confident access through his faith.
We need to rest assured in the faith of Christ. His faith paved the way for us to boldly enter into God's presence. Because of his faith, we can be bold and confident. We can be bold to preach and to enlighten. We can confidently enter into God's presence. But we must remember that it is through the Church that God's wisdom is passed on to the heavenly rulers and authorities. Through the Church God reveals his plan and his wisdom to the rulers and authorities of the heavenly realms.
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Author of the Pastorals Was Someone Other Than Paul
The following is a paper I am submitting for my New Testament: Acts - Revelation final.
Does Paul in 1 Timothy 2 prohibit women from preaching at the pulpit? In answering this question, it is sometimes stated that Paul was not the author of the pastorals, which includes 1 Timothy, and as a result, the difficult statements therein have little or no binding authority. In the issue of authorship, Christians have split into opposing camps, sometimes declaring opponents to be uncommitted to the authority of Scripture. Indeed, there is a camp of scholars who do not believe that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. For the other camp Paul is certainly the author. What are the arguments for and against Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles? Although Paul is identified to be the author at the beginning of each of the Pastoral Epistles, some scholars look at other pieces of evidence from throughout the letters as a whole and determine that they are not genuinely from Paul but from someone else. Others find a way to explain how Paul is in fact the author of these epistles in keeping with the Pauline attribution at their beginnings. We will explore the various arguments against Pauline authorship and allow arguments in favor of Pauline authorship to interact with them. However, in the end we must ask ourselves what we can make of the situation by asking ourselves if the question of authorship is as important as we have made it out to be.
Someone Other Than Paul as the Author of the Pastoral Epistles
There are two kinds of arguments that maintain Paul was not the author or sole author of the Pastoral Epistles. The pseudonymous arguments maintain for various reasons that someone other than Paul wrote the pastorals using his name. The fragment theory argument maintains that there was a collection of personal correspondences of Paul that were used to create the pastorals. These fragments of the personal letters were augmented and adapted to a new letter to meet the needs of a particular situation. But Paul was not the direct author of the actual Pastoral Epistles as we know them today. Let us look at these two types of arguments that maintain someone other than Paul as the author of the Pastoral Epistles.
The Pseudonymous Arguments
As a whole, the pseudonymous hypothesis assumes several ideas dealing with accepted practices, stylistic differences, and historical features. First, pseudonymous hypotheses assume pseudonymity was an accepted practice during the late first and early second centuries. Second, it assumes stylistic differences can be attributed to different authors other than Paul. And third, it assumes historical features present in the pastorals are post-Pauline. These three ideas in general result in the argument that Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, but rather a pseudonymous writer who perhaps knew Paul wrote them instead.*1* We will look closely at some of the popular arguments from the pseudonymous vein, such as those that focus on post-Pauline Gnosticism, the Pauline school of theology and literary style, Paul’s activities as reported in Acts, and other details and considerations.
Gnosticism is thought very strongly by many scholars to be the heresy addressed in the Pastoral Epistles. Gnosticism was a post-Pauline development. Therefore, these scholars argue that the pastorals were post-Pauline. In other words, Paul did not write them, because the heresy addressed did not come until after Paul’s death. Someone else wrote the pastorals and put Paul’s name to them, a practice known as pseudonymous writing.*2* Many scholars who argue for this understanding suggest that the pastorals were written around the late first or early second centuries, in order to revive Pauline teaching and to provide the definitive method for denouncing Gnosticism.*3* However, Gnosticism as a systematic religion came after Paul’s death, but its thoughts and ideas as an informal structure were present during the latter half of the First Century A.D.; it is likely that Paul was familiar with these informal ideas and to have addressed them when writing the pastorals.*4* Furthermore, statements in the pastorals indicate the author was dealing with a prominent Jewish element of heresy. These statements refer to circumcision, Jewish myths, and law disputes, as in Titus 1:10, 14; 3:9. These require a broader understanding of Gnosticism as the heresy being addressed. There is plenty of evidence that indicates the heresy of the Pastoral Epistles was mixed. This Gnosticism apparently attached itself to some parts of Judaism, whereas the Gnosticism of the Second Century A.D. was opposed to the features of Judaism with one exception, the Jewish cosmology. If the Gnosticism addressed was an early one that was mixed with Judaism, much like what we find in Colossians, then an early date of authorship for the Pastoral Epistles is best. If the date was early, not only was it possible that Paul wrote the pastorals, but a pseudonymous author was very unlikely, since a different author would not have succeeded in writing them so close to Paul’s life and death.*5*
Some scholars arguing for the pseudonymity of the pastorals maintain that Paul had a theological school. Students at the schools of Pythagorus and Plato wrote letters in the names of their respective philosophers; with this fact in view, some scholars believe Paul could have had a school of his own and the students would have likely practiced writing in his name as did the students of Pythagorus and Plato.*6* Paul and his close coworkers over time assembled into a group that discussed his theology. Following his death, members from this school could have written in the name of Paul, containing his theology while expressing it in a different style. Vocabulary and grammar could be different, for example. This practice would have been considered authoritative, for the new writer would have been revealing Paul’s thoughts and ideas; since he was Paul’s pupil and Paul was his teacher, he had the ability to do so.*7* Therefore, the student from the school could write in the name of Paul, thus expressing Paul’s theology after Paul had died, and the writing would have been accepted as Paul’s own material. This practice would account for the stylistic differences evident in the pastorals and the accepted letters—those letters that are accepted to be genuinely Pauline. What are those differences?
There are many differences between the Pastoral Letters and the accepted letters, depending on the perspective from which the two categories are being examined. From a vocabulary perspective, word choice is quite different in the Pastoral Epistles compared to the accepted letters. The pastorals have a sum of 902 words. Of the 902 words, 54 of them are proper names. With the proper names aside, there are 848 words. Of the 848 words, 306 never occur in the accepted letters. About 36 percent of the vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles does not exist in the Pauline vocabulary of the accepted letters. Furthermore, 175 words in the pastorals exist nowhere else in the entire New Testament. Only 50 words out of the 858 words occur in the accepted letters but nowhere else in the New Testament. From a content perspective, the Pastoral Epistles express the same general ideas but with different words and phrases than the accepted letters. From the perspective of favorite words, words that are clearly Paul’s and are distinctively his, the Pastoral Epistles do not use any of these key words. Words like “cross” or “crucify” occur 27 times in the accepted letters, but never in the pastorals. Neither do the words “son” or “adoption” occur in the pastorals, whereas they occur 46 times in the accepted letters. From a grammar or syntax perspective, the Pauline characteristic of particles that link sentences together in the Greek language are over abundant in the accepted letters while non-existent in the Pastoral Epistles.*8* One other particularly convincing piece of evidence regarding literary style deals with the dating of particular vocabulary. There are a large number of words in the Pastoral Epistles that occur nowhere else in Paul but are characteristic of second century writings.*9* Indeed, there are a large number of stylistic differences between the pastorals and the accepted letters of Paul.
These differences do not necessarily indicate that the author was a student of Paul’s who was writing pseudonymously. In other words, the stylistic differences do not require that a different author other than Paul was responsible for the Pastoral Epistles. There are a number of other factors that must be considered when attempting to arrive at a conclusion concerning these differences. Paul used an amanuensis in composing other letters, such as Romans, so it could be possible that he used at least one when writing the pastorals. The use of an amanuensis would certainly account for the stylistic differences between the Pastoral Epistles and the accepted letters. It should also be considered that most of the accepted letters were co-authored between Paul and Timothy. If we consider that the pastorals were written only by Paul, then the letter is certainly going to be different from the letters where Paul was not the sole author.*10*
And what about other reasons for differences? The differences in vocabulary, grammar, or style could simply be attributed to the fact that Paul was addressing different subject matter, which required different vocabulary. He also had a different audience from the audiences of the accepted letters. How does that affect our understanding of the differences? What of the fact that age and time could have caused the differences? Could Paul have changed his style over time? And what do we do with some of the criteria in the conclusions of the differences? The letters within the accepted letters could be denied acceptance according to the same criteria. For example, Paul’s use of “examine” occurs 10 times in 1 Corinthians, but nowhere else in Paul’s letters. Should 1 Corinthians be considered pseudonymous because it contains a keyword that does not exist elsewhere in Paul’s letters?*11*
Finally, there is no evidence for a school of theology. No Pauline school seems to have existed during or after the life of Paul, for none of the post-apostolic writers reference or appeal to such a school, namely, Clement of Rome, Papias, Ignatius, or Polycarp. If there was a school of theology, none of these writers knew of it or felt the need to write about it.*12*
For many scholars, Paul’s activities in the Pastoral Epistles do not align with the activities mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles, leading them to conclude that it was not Paul who wrote them, since they are supposedly telltale signs of pseudonymity. These scholars point out the factual discrepancies between 1 Timothy 1:3 and Acts 20:4-6, for example, where in the pastoral epistle Paul urged Timothy to stay in Ephesus as he urged him while he was on his way to Macedonia, but in Acts Timothy went on ahead to Troas where Paul eventually met up with him.*13* Furthermore, the pastorals speak of missions and events that Acts do not report, such as a mission in Crete in Titus 1:5 and a winter in Nicopolis in Epirus in Titus 3:12.*14*
Those scholars wishing to harmonize these seemingly problematic facts argue that Paul was released from the imprisonment with which Acts closes. They argue that it seems possible that Paul thought release from prison was possible in Rome; it is possible even that Paul expected to be freed. They refer to Philippians 2:24, where Paul says that he trusts in the Lord he would come to see the Philippians, and Philemon 22, where Paul says that Philemon ought to prepare a lodging for him, since he would be coming soon. We do know that Paul wanted to go to Spain, which is clear from Romans 15:24, 28. The Muratorian Canon says that Luke omitted the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain. Both Chrysostom and Jerome in the fifth century were certain Paul reached Spain. Clement of Rome wrote about A.D. 90 that Paul preached both in the East and the West and instructed the whole world, starting in the East and having gone into the far reaches of the West. Although it is not certain that the far reaches of the West necessarily refer to Spain, it is at least a possibility. If it does, then it would indicate that Paul was set free as Eusebius reported in his history of the church and, for whatever reason, Acts is incomplete. If Acts did not give the full story, either because it was written before the rest of Paul’s story was completed or because the reason for writing did not require the full story, then there is no problem between Acts and the activities reported in the Pastoral Epistles. Acts could have been incomplete, selective, or both. The events in the pastorals do not necessarily contradict Acts.*15*
However, despite the words evidenced in the Muratorian Canon, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Clement of Rome, we still cannot be certain that Paul made a journey to Spain as he planned. There is no evidence in Spain itself that Paul made it there. Furthermore, no tradition regarding Paul’s journey to Spain originated from that location. We cannot know for certain that Paul made it to Spain, or if he was released from his imprisonment in Rome. As a result, the differences between the Pastoral Epistles and Acts are hard to reconcile.*16*
There are several other factors that lead scholars to maintain a pseudonymous argument, which include, but are not limited to, the following: Marcion’s omission in his own canon; ecclesiastical structure; and orthodoxy. These arguments suggest at the least Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles. To these various issues we now turn.
Marcion, a Gnostic heretic, omitted the Pastoral Epistles from his New Testament canon. He believed that Paul did not write them. However, it is likely that much of the content of the pastorals did not suit well with Marcion, and he likely rejected its authority and did not give it a place in his canon. Statements dealing with the good value of the law and the rejection of knowledge in 1 Timothy 1:8; 6:20 would likely have offended him.*17* He may have omitted it sure enough, but not necessarily because it was thought that Paul did not write the pastorals.
The Pastoral Epistles reflect a higher church structure than the rest of the accepted letters. The church structure contained in the pastorals comes from a much later development than was present during Paul’s time. However, the pastorals mention distinct classes in the Church, such as elders, deacons, and widows, but these classes were referred to quite early, including in the New Testament. The church structure mentioned in the pastorals does not indicate a post-Pauline date.*18* But it can be argued that although Paul does mention such classes of church members elsewhere, as in Philippians 1:1 where he mentions bishops and deacons, he is nowhere else concerned with their duties. It is the duties that seem uncharacteristic of Paul in the pastorals, which leads some scholars to believe that Paul did not write them. Since the duties of the church leaders were the concern of the Didache and Ignatius in his letters, which were late First Century A.D. documents, these scholars argue that the Pastoral Epistles came from that same time and were not written by Paul.*19*
The Pastoral Epistles seem to be largely concerned with orthodoxy, that is, right belief or teaching. This concern seems to imply a post-Pauline date for authorship. Orthodoxy was a stage of theological development when doctrine was finalized and needed to be protected from being corrupted. However, it Paul had a concern for defending orthodoxy from the very beginning, such as the whole of Galatians or 1 Corinthians 15.*20*
The Fragments Theory Argument
According to this view, a common practice would have been to take something that was in fact Paul’s, fragments of his writings, and adapt it in written form to something else. We cannot, according to this theory, go as far to say that a disciple of Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles because of the personal statements made regarding Paul in the letters. For example, a disciple of Paul would honor him and extol him, but would not claim Paul to be the foremost sinner as in 1 Timothy 1:15. Also, why would a disciple tell Timothy to drink a little wine for health reasons in 1 Timothy 5:23? Furthermore, the fourth chapter of 2 Timothy is so personal and intimate that it could not have been written by a disciple. As a result, Paul may not have written the Pastoral Epistles as we know them, but he did have his part in them.*21*
Instead, Paul would have likely had private correspondence with other people. Philemon is an example of private correspondence; it is unlikely that this letter is the only one of this nature. There very well could be fragments of Paul’s other correspondence letters in the hands of another Christian, who, seeing a particular need of the Church, applied them to a customized letter. Taking the fragments, the new author could have adapted and expounded on the fragments, making them ever relevant to the situation at hand. If this theory were correct, then it would account for the similarity in concepts between the Pastoral Epistles and the accepted letters, but also the differences in literary style.*22*
However, there is no unified agreement on which parts of the Pastoral Epistles are fragments of Paul’s personal correspondence letters. Additionally, it is not likely that any personal correspondence letters would have been preserved, since they would have not contained theological matters. And there are also questions. Why augment and adapt the letters? Why not simply copy the letters as they were and pass them around? Why did the new author write three letters? Why not one? This theory seems to produce too many unanswerable questions to be of any help.*23*
Conclusion
We have seen that there are two kinds of arguments against Paul as the author of the Pastoral Epistles. The first argument appeals to the practice of pseudonymous writing. Scholars who maintain that someone wrote the pastorals in Paul’s name to gain authority appeal to various factors, such as Gnosticism, a Pauline school of theology, literary or stylistic differences, historical discrepancies, Marcion’s omission in his canon, church structure, and orthodoxy. However, the opposing side has a rebuttal for each of these considerations. The Gnosticism present in the pastorals is of an early kind, so that the Gnosticism element itself does not necessarily require a late date. No post-apostolic writers make mention of any sort of school of theology. The use of an amanuensis would explain stylistic differences; Paul’s accepted letters were co-authored, but the pastorals were solely the work of Paul, which could also explain the differences in style. It is possible that Paul did make it to Spain and was freed from his Roman imprisonment, so that the pastorals pick up historically where Acts leaves off. Marcion could have purposefully omitted the pastorals due to their conflicting content with his theological agenda. The church structure terms were present early on for Paul and the other epistles in the New Testament and do not require understanding a later date for authorship. The concern for orthodoxy was also present early on and likewise does not require a later date.
The second argument appeals to a collection of personal letters that would have been used by a later writer to instruct the Church in a particular situation. However, this argument raises too many additional questions. Furthermore, there is no evidence for a collection of personal correspondences or the use of fragments from this collection.
Determining the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is difficult. But the decision or conclusion cannot be made with certainty. The question is, what do we make of this uncertainty? Do we displace the pastorals from the New Testament canon? Are they less authoritative? Do they bear any authority at all? Of course they do. They were accepted early on and have been used to instruct the church ever since. We need to be careful to not allow the uncertainty of authorship divide and conquer us. Instead, we should unite on the issues that matter most, agree to disagree, and uphold the authority of Scripture as a whole, even when we cannot be fully assured of the authorship of each book or letter.
--------------------------------
Bibliography
Achtemeier, Paul, Joel Green, and Marianne Thompson, eds. Introducing the New Testament: Its literature and theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001.
Barclay, William. The Epistles to Timothy and Titus. Daily Bible Readings. Glasgow: The Church of Scotland, 1956.
Ellis, E. E. “Pastoral Letters,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Gerald Hawthorne, Ralph Martin, and Daniel Reid, eds. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1993. 658-666.
Gundry, Robert. A Survey of the New Testament. 4th ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003.
Patzia, Arthur. The Making of the New Testament: Origin, collection, text & canon. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1995.
Towner, Philip. 1-2 Timothy & Titus. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Grant Osborne, D. Stuart Briscoe, and Haddon Robinson, eds. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
*1* Arthur Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, collection, text & canon (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1995), 77.
*2* William Barclay, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, Daily Bible Readings (Glasgow: The Church of Scotland, 1956), xxiii.
*3* Philip Towner, 1-2 Timothy & Titus, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, Grant Osborne, D. Stuart Briscoe, and Haddon Robinson, eds. (Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 15.
*4* Barclay, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, xxiii.
*5* Robert Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003), 442.
*6* E. E. Ellis, “Pastoral Letters,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Gerald Hawthorne, Ralph Martin, and Daniel Reid, eds. (Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 659.
*7* Patzia, The Making of the New Testament, 77-8.
*8* Barclay, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, xxiii-iv.
*9* Paul Achtemeier, Joel Green, and Marianne Thompson, eds., Introducing the New Testament: Its literature and theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 461.
*10* Towner, 1-2 Timothy & Titus, 34-5.
*11* Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 441.
*12* Ellis, “Pastoral Letters,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 659.
*13* Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 443.
*14* Barclay, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, xxiv.
*15* Ibid., xxv-vii.
*16* Ibid., xxvii.
*17* Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 442.
*18* Ibid., 442-43.
*19* Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson, Introducing the New Testament, 462-63.
*20* Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 443.
*21* Barclay, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, xxviii.
*22* Ibid., xxviii-ix.
*23* Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 440.
Does Paul in 1 Timothy 2 prohibit women from preaching at the pulpit? In answering this question, it is sometimes stated that Paul was not the author of the pastorals, which includes 1 Timothy, and as a result, the difficult statements therein have little or no binding authority. In the issue of authorship, Christians have split into opposing camps, sometimes declaring opponents to be uncommitted to the authority of Scripture. Indeed, there is a camp of scholars who do not believe that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. For the other camp Paul is certainly the author. What are the arguments for and against Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles? Although Paul is identified to be the author at the beginning of each of the Pastoral Epistles, some scholars look at other pieces of evidence from throughout the letters as a whole and determine that they are not genuinely from Paul but from someone else. Others find a way to explain how Paul is in fact the author of these epistles in keeping with the Pauline attribution at their beginnings. We will explore the various arguments against Pauline authorship and allow arguments in favor of Pauline authorship to interact with them. However, in the end we must ask ourselves what we can make of the situation by asking ourselves if the question of authorship is as important as we have made it out to be.
Someone Other Than Paul as the Author of the Pastoral Epistles
There are two kinds of arguments that maintain Paul was not the author or sole author of the Pastoral Epistles. The pseudonymous arguments maintain for various reasons that someone other than Paul wrote the pastorals using his name. The fragment theory argument maintains that there was a collection of personal correspondences of Paul that were used to create the pastorals. These fragments of the personal letters were augmented and adapted to a new letter to meet the needs of a particular situation. But Paul was not the direct author of the actual Pastoral Epistles as we know them today. Let us look at these two types of arguments that maintain someone other than Paul as the author of the Pastoral Epistles.
The Pseudonymous Arguments
As a whole, the pseudonymous hypothesis assumes several ideas dealing with accepted practices, stylistic differences, and historical features. First, pseudonymous hypotheses assume pseudonymity was an accepted practice during the late first and early second centuries. Second, it assumes stylistic differences can be attributed to different authors other than Paul. And third, it assumes historical features present in the pastorals are post-Pauline. These three ideas in general result in the argument that Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, but rather a pseudonymous writer who perhaps knew Paul wrote them instead.*1* We will look closely at some of the popular arguments from the pseudonymous vein, such as those that focus on post-Pauline Gnosticism, the Pauline school of theology and literary style, Paul’s activities as reported in Acts, and other details and considerations.
Gnosticism is thought very strongly by many scholars to be the heresy addressed in the Pastoral Epistles. Gnosticism was a post-Pauline development. Therefore, these scholars argue that the pastorals were post-Pauline. In other words, Paul did not write them, because the heresy addressed did not come until after Paul’s death. Someone else wrote the pastorals and put Paul’s name to them, a practice known as pseudonymous writing.*2* Many scholars who argue for this understanding suggest that the pastorals were written around the late first or early second centuries, in order to revive Pauline teaching and to provide the definitive method for denouncing Gnosticism.*3* However, Gnosticism as a systematic religion came after Paul’s death, but its thoughts and ideas as an informal structure were present during the latter half of the First Century A.D.; it is likely that Paul was familiar with these informal ideas and to have addressed them when writing the pastorals.*4* Furthermore, statements in the pastorals indicate the author was dealing with a prominent Jewish element of heresy. These statements refer to circumcision, Jewish myths, and law disputes, as in Titus 1:10, 14; 3:9. These require a broader understanding of Gnosticism as the heresy being addressed. There is plenty of evidence that indicates the heresy of the Pastoral Epistles was mixed. This Gnosticism apparently attached itself to some parts of Judaism, whereas the Gnosticism of the Second Century A.D. was opposed to the features of Judaism with one exception, the Jewish cosmology. If the Gnosticism addressed was an early one that was mixed with Judaism, much like what we find in Colossians, then an early date of authorship for the Pastoral Epistles is best. If the date was early, not only was it possible that Paul wrote the pastorals, but a pseudonymous author was very unlikely, since a different author would not have succeeded in writing them so close to Paul’s life and death.*5*
Some scholars arguing for the pseudonymity of the pastorals maintain that Paul had a theological school. Students at the schools of Pythagorus and Plato wrote letters in the names of their respective philosophers; with this fact in view, some scholars believe Paul could have had a school of his own and the students would have likely practiced writing in his name as did the students of Pythagorus and Plato.*6* Paul and his close coworkers over time assembled into a group that discussed his theology. Following his death, members from this school could have written in the name of Paul, containing his theology while expressing it in a different style. Vocabulary and grammar could be different, for example. This practice would have been considered authoritative, for the new writer would have been revealing Paul’s thoughts and ideas; since he was Paul’s pupil and Paul was his teacher, he had the ability to do so.*7* Therefore, the student from the school could write in the name of Paul, thus expressing Paul’s theology after Paul had died, and the writing would have been accepted as Paul’s own material. This practice would account for the stylistic differences evident in the pastorals and the accepted letters—those letters that are accepted to be genuinely Pauline. What are those differences?
There are many differences between the Pastoral Letters and the accepted letters, depending on the perspective from which the two categories are being examined. From a vocabulary perspective, word choice is quite different in the Pastoral Epistles compared to the accepted letters. The pastorals have a sum of 902 words. Of the 902 words, 54 of them are proper names. With the proper names aside, there are 848 words. Of the 848 words, 306 never occur in the accepted letters. About 36 percent of the vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles does not exist in the Pauline vocabulary of the accepted letters. Furthermore, 175 words in the pastorals exist nowhere else in the entire New Testament. Only 50 words out of the 858 words occur in the accepted letters but nowhere else in the New Testament. From a content perspective, the Pastoral Epistles express the same general ideas but with different words and phrases than the accepted letters. From the perspective of favorite words, words that are clearly Paul’s and are distinctively his, the Pastoral Epistles do not use any of these key words. Words like “cross” or “crucify” occur 27 times in the accepted letters, but never in the pastorals. Neither do the words “son” or “adoption” occur in the pastorals, whereas they occur 46 times in the accepted letters. From a grammar or syntax perspective, the Pauline characteristic of particles that link sentences together in the Greek language are over abundant in the accepted letters while non-existent in the Pastoral Epistles.*8* One other particularly convincing piece of evidence regarding literary style deals with the dating of particular vocabulary. There are a large number of words in the Pastoral Epistles that occur nowhere else in Paul but are characteristic of second century writings.*9* Indeed, there are a large number of stylistic differences between the pastorals and the accepted letters of Paul.
These differences do not necessarily indicate that the author was a student of Paul’s who was writing pseudonymously. In other words, the stylistic differences do not require that a different author other than Paul was responsible for the Pastoral Epistles. There are a number of other factors that must be considered when attempting to arrive at a conclusion concerning these differences. Paul used an amanuensis in composing other letters, such as Romans, so it could be possible that he used at least one when writing the pastorals. The use of an amanuensis would certainly account for the stylistic differences between the Pastoral Epistles and the accepted letters. It should also be considered that most of the accepted letters were co-authored between Paul and Timothy. If we consider that the pastorals were written only by Paul, then the letter is certainly going to be different from the letters where Paul was not the sole author.*10*
And what about other reasons for differences? The differences in vocabulary, grammar, or style could simply be attributed to the fact that Paul was addressing different subject matter, which required different vocabulary. He also had a different audience from the audiences of the accepted letters. How does that affect our understanding of the differences? What of the fact that age and time could have caused the differences? Could Paul have changed his style over time? And what do we do with some of the criteria in the conclusions of the differences? The letters within the accepted letters could be denied acceptance according to the same criteria. For example, Paul’s use of “examine” occurs 10 times in 1 Corinthians, but nowhere else in Paul’s letters. Should 1 Corinthians be considered pseudonymous because it contains a keyword that does not exist elsewhere in Paul’s letters?*11*
Finally, there is no evidence for a school of theology. No Pauline school seems to have existed during or after the life of Paul, for none of the post-apostolic writers reference or appeal to such a school, namely, Clement of Rome, Papias, Ignatius, or Polycarp. If there was a school of theology, none of these writers knew of it or felt the need to write about it.*12*
For many scholars, Paul’s activities in the Pastoral Epistles do not align with the activities mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles, leading them to conclude that it was not Paul who wrote them, since they are supposedly telltale signs of pseudonymity. These scholars point out the factual discrepancies between 1 Timothy 1:3 and Acts 20:4-6, for example, where in the pastoral epistle Paul urged Timothy to stay in Ephesus as he urged him while he was on his way to Macedonia, but in Acts Timothy went on ahead to Troas where Paul eventually met up with him.*13* Furthermore, the pastorals speak of missions and events that Acts do not report, such as a mission in Crete in Titus 1:5 and a winter in Nicopolis in Epirus in Titus 3:12.*14*
Those scholars wishing to harmonize these seemingly problematic facts argue that Paul was released from the imprisonment with which Acts closes. They argue that it seems possible that Paul thought release from prison was possible in Rome; it is possible even that Paul expected to be freed. They refer to Philippians 2:24, where Paul says that he trusts in the Lord he would come to see the Philippians, and Philemon 22, where Paul says that Philemon ought to prepare a lodging for him, since he would be coming soon. We do know that Paul wanted to go to Spain, which is clear from Romans 15:24, 28. The Muratorian Canon says that Luke omitted the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain. Both Chrysostom and Jerome in the fifth century were certain Paul reached Spain. Clement of Rome wrote about A.D. 90 that Paul preached both in the East and the West and instructed the whole world, starting in the East and having gone into the far reaches of the West. Although it is not certain that the far reaches of the West necessarily refer to Spain, it is at least a possibility. If it does, then it would indicate that Paul was set free as Eusebius reported in his history of the church and, for whatever reason, Acts is incomplete. If Acts did not give the full story, either because it was written before the rest of Paul’s story was completed or because the reason for writing did not require the full story, then there is no problem between Acts and the activities reported in the Pastoral Epistles. Acts could have been incomplete, selective, or both. The events in the pastorals do not necessarily contradict Acts.*15*
However, despite the words evidenced in the Muratorian Canon, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Clement of Rome, we still cannot be certain that Paul made a journey to Spain as he planned. There is no evidence in Spain itself that Paul made it there. Furthermore, no tradition regarding Paul’s journey to Spain originated from that location. We cannot know for certain that Paul made it to Spain, or if he was released from his imprisonment in Rome. As a result, the differences between the Pastoral Epistles and Acts are hard to reconcile.*16*
There are several other factors that lead scholars to maintain a pseudonymous argument, which include, but are not limited to, the following: Marcion’s omission in his own canon; ecclesiastical structure; and orthodoxy. These arguments suggest at the least Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles. To these various issues we now turn.
Marcion, a Gnostic heretic, omitted the Pastoral Epistles from his New Testament canon. He believed that Paul did not write them. However, it is likely that much of the content of the pastorals did not suit well with Marcion, and he likely rejected its authority and did not give it a place in his canon. Statements dealing with the good value of the law and the rejection of knowledge in 1 Timothy 1:8; 6:20 would likely have offended him.*17* He may have omitted it sure enough, but not necessarily because it was thought that Paul did not write the pastorals.
The Pastoral Epistles reflect a higher church structure than the rest of the accepted letters. The church structure contained in the pastorals comes from a much later development than was present during Paul’s time. However, the pastorals mention distinct classes in the Church, such as elders, deacons, and widows, but these classes were referred to quite early, including in the New Testament. The church structure mentioned in the pastorals does not indicate a post-Pauline date.*18* But it can be argued that although Paul does mention such classes of church members elsewhere, as in Philippians 1:1 where he mentions bishops and deacons, he is nowhere else concerned with their duties. It is the duties that seem uncharacteristic of Paul in the pastorals, which leads some scholars to believe that Paul did not write them. Since the duties of the church leaders were the concern of the Didache and Ignatius in his letters, which were late First Century A.D. documents, these scholars argue that the Pastoral Epistles came from that same time and were not written by Paul.*19*
The Pastoral Epistles seem to be largely concerned with orthodoxy, that is, right belief or teaching. This concern seems to imply a post-Pauline date for authorship. Orthodoxy was a stage of theological development when doctrine was finalized and needed to be protected from being corrupted. However, it Paul had a concern for defending orthodoxy from the very beginning, such as the whole of Galatians or 1 Corinthians 15.*20*
The Fragments Theory Argument
According to this view, a common practice would have been to take something that was in fact Paul’s, fragments of his writings, and adapt it in written form to something else. We cannot, according to this theory, go as far to say that a disciple of Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles because of the personal statements made regarding Paul in the letters. For example, a disciple of Paul would honor him and extol him, but would not claim Paul to be the foremost sinner as in 1 Timothy 1:15. Also, why would a disciple tell Timothy to drink a little wine for health reasons in 1 Timothy 5:23? Furthermore, the fourth chapter of 2 Timothy is so personal and intimate that it could not have been written by a disciple. As a result, Paul may not have written the Pastoral Epistles as we know them, but he did have his part in them.*21*
Instead, Paul would have likely had private correspondence with other people. Philemon is an example of private correspondence; it is unlikely that this letter is the only one of this nature. There very well could be fragments of Paul’s other correspondence letters in the hands of another Christian, who, seeing a particular need of the Church, applied them to a customized letter. Taking the fragments, the new author could have adapted and expounded on the fragments, making them ever relevant to the situation at hand. If this theory were correct, then it would account for the similarity in concepts between the Pastoral Epistles and the accepted letters, but also the differences in literary style.*22*
However, there is no unified agreement on which parts of the Pastoral Epistles are fragments of Paul’s personal correspondence letters. Additionally, it is not likely that any personal correspondence letters would have been preserved, since they would have not contained theological matters. And there are also questions. Why augment and adapt the letters? Why not simply copy the letters as they were and pass them around? Why did the new author write three letters? Why not one? This theory seems to produce too many unanswerable questions to be of any help.*23*
Conclusion
We have seen that there are two kinds of arguments against Paul as the author of the Pastoral Epistles. The first argument appeals to the practice of pseudonymous writing. Scholars who maintain that someone wrote the pastorals in Paul’s name to gain authority appeal to various factors, such as Gnosticism, a Pauline school of theology, literary or stylistic differences, historical discrepancies, Marcion’s omission in his canon, church structure, and orthodoxy. However, the opposing side has a rebuttal for each of these considerations. The Gnosticism present in the pastorals is of an early kind, so that the Gnosticism element itself does not necessarily require a late date. No post-apostolic writers make mention of any sort of school of theology. The use of an amanuensis would explain stylistic differences; Paul’s accepted letters were co-authored, but the pastorals were solely the work of Paul, which could also explain the differences in style. It is possible that Paul did make it to Spain and was freed from his Roman imprisonment, so that the pastorals pick up historically where Acts leaves off. Marcion could have purposefully omitted the pastorals due to their conflicting content with his theological agenda. The church structure terms were present early on for Paul and the other epistles in the New Testament and do not require understanding a later date for authorship. The concern for orthodoxy was also present early on and likewise does not require a later date.
The second argument appeals to a collection of personal letters that would have been used by a later writer to instruct the Church in a particular situation. However, this argument raises too many additional questions. Furthermore, there is no evidence for a collection of personal correspondences or the use of fragments from this collection.
Determining the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is difficult. But the decision or conclusion cannot be made with certainty. The question is, what do we make of this uncertainty? Do we displace the pastorals from the New Testament canon? Are they less authoritative? Do they bear any authority at all? Of course they do. They were accepted early on and have been used to instruct the church ever since. We need to be careful to not allow the uncertainty of authorship divide and conquer us. Instead, we should unite on the issues that matter most, agree to disagree, and uphold the authority of Scripture as a whole, even when we cannot be fully assured of the authorship of each book or letter.
--------------------------------
Bibliography
Achtemeier, Paul, Joel Green, and Marianne Thompson, eds. Introducing the New Testament: Its literature and theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001.
Barclay, William. The Epistles to Timothy and Titus. Daily Bible Readings. Glasgow: The Church of Scotland, 1956.
Ellis, E. E. “Pastoral Letters,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Gerald Hawthorne, Ralph Martin, and Daniel Reid, eds. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1993. 658-666.
Gundry, Robert. A Survey of the New Testament. 4th ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003.
Patzia, Arthur. The Making of the New Testament: Origin, collection, text & canon. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1995.
Towner, Philip. 1-2 Timothy & Titus. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Grant Osborne, D. Stuart Briscoe, and Haddon Robinson, eds. Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
*1* Arthur Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, collection, text & canon (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1995), 77.
*2* William Barclay, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, Daily Bible Readings (Glasgow: The Church of Scotland, 1956), xxiii.
*3* Philip Towner, 1-2 Timothy & Titus, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, Grant Osborne, D. Stuart Briscoe, and Haddon Robinson, eds. (Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 15.
*4* Barclay, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, xxiii.
*5* Robert Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003), 442.
*6* E. E. Ellis, “Pastoral Letters,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Gerald Hawthorne, Ralph Martin, and Daniel Reid, eds. (Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 659.
*7* Patzia, The Making of the New Testament, 77-8.
*8* Barclay, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, xxiii-iv.
*9* Paul Achtemeier, Joel Green, and Marianne Thompson, eds., Introducing the New Testament: Its literature and theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 461.
*10* Towner, 1-2 Timothy & Titus, 34-5.
*11* Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 441.
*12* Ellis, “Pastoral Letters,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 659.
*13* Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 443.
*14* Barclay, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, xxiv.
*15* Ibid., xxv-vii.
*16* Ibid., xxvii.
*17* Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 442.
*18* Ibid., 442-43.
*19* Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson, Introducing the New Testament, 462-63.
*20* Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 443.
*21* Barclay, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, xxviii.
*22* Ibid., xxviii-ix.
*23* Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 440.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Exegesis and Application of Ruth 4:1-4
The following is part of my Hebrew II final; it is a translation of Ruth 4:1-4 with an exegetical commentary using my own notes and several commentaries provided by the professor to use specifically for the final, and finally it is applied to our situation today.
Translation:
And Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there. Behold, the kinsman was passing by whom Boaz was speaking of. Boaz said, “Turn this way, sit here, So and so.” And he turned and sat down. And he took 10 men from the elders of the city and he said, “Sit down here.” And they sat down. And he said to the kinsman, “Naomi, the one who returned from the field of Moab, is selling a portion of the field belonging to our brother, Elimelech. “And I said, ‘I will reveal to you by saying, “Buy the land before the ones sitting and before the elders of my people. If you will redeem, redeem. But if he will not redeem, declare it to me and I may know that there is no other except you to redeem, and I am after you.”’” And he said, “I will act as kinsman.”
Ruth 4:1-4 describes the portion of Ruth where Boaz confronts the next-of-kin. In this text, Boaz publicly and officially declares to him to take charge of his responsibility, since he has not yet acted and fulfilled his duty. Let us examine the text in Hebrew, the original language with which the book of Ruth was written, starting with verse 1.
Boaz went to the city gate most likely during the conversation between Ruth and Naomi in Chapter 3 (these two events may in fact be simultaneous). Although it is not imperative to understanding the story, it might help in understanding the setting to know that the events may be happening at the same time. According to one commentator, Boaz was the head of the Sanhedrin; the Sanhedrin met at the city gate.*1* Regardless if this is true, for the text itself does not say Boaz was the head of the Sanhedrin, official matters were dealt with at the city gate. Boaz is seeking to officially settle the issue with the next-of-kin. What was the issue?
The next-of-kin, or גֹאֵל in Hebrew, had not performed his duty. As גֹאֵל, he was to buy the land from Naomi, thus keeping it in the family. But this גֹאֵל had not even so much as indicated that he was going to fulfill his role. As a result, Boaz went to the gate to resolve the issue. After Boaz arrived at the gate, the text literally says, “And behold, the kinsman was passing by whom Boaz was speaking of.” It is as though God orchestrated the event. Boaz was speaking of the גֹאֵל at the gate, and while he was speaking, not as coincidence, he came passing by.*2*
Boaz took charge at the moment the גֹאֵל was passing by. He commanded him to turn and sit down. But he did not call him by name. The NRSV rendering, “friend,” is misleading. The Hebrew reads פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי. The meaning of this phrase has been lost.*3* It is possible that it could be a name, but it is highly unlikely. It is possible that it could have an idea of concealment or secrecy behind it, but this is quite uncertain. It is probably best to take it to mean “So and so” (literally, “certain one--so and so”). Perhaps the reason for this convoluted phrase is the fact that in one copy of the Septuagint, one commentator says, the phrase is translated into Greek to mean “anonymous,” while in a different copy of the Septuagint, the phrase is translated to mean “secret.” It is plausible that this textual variant contributes to the obscure interpretation of the phrase for us today. Whatever the reason, the end result is we have lost the way the original audience heard, interpreted, and understood this phrase.*4* One commentator likes the translation “John Doe.”*5* However, this translation would lead a contemporary reader to believe that the person’s name is simply not known and so the anonymous name is applied to that person. However, we do not know if the situation merits this translation. Perhaps the real name was known to the original audience, and it was instead left out of the text and replaced with the anonymous phrase for dramatic effect (i.e., “unmentionable one”). In any case, it seems best to leave the translation as “So and so,” so that no confusion or incorrect interpretation might take place.
After commanding פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי to turn and sit, the text says he turned and sat down. In verse 2, Boaz then proceeded to get 10 elders to sit down at the gate. Ten men were necessary for a lawful assembly.*6* One commentator says that 10 sages were required to be present for marriage ceremonies, and thus links the situation here in Ruth with a wedding.*7* The text itself does not necessarily indicate that a wedding ceremony is occurring. To proclaim a wedding in this text is to interpret beyond the boundaries of the text. In other words, it makes more out of the story than is actually present. We need only to say that an official meeting is taking place, since the setting is at the city gate and ten elders of the city are present, which satisfy the requirements to have an official meeting.
After having assembled 10 elders at the gate, in verse 3 Boaz then speaks to פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי. He says that Naomi is selling the plot of land that belonged to Elimelech, their brother. What is difficult here is the Hebrew word מָכְרָה. It is Qal Perfect, which means it is rendered literally, “She sold.” Did Naomi already sell the land? Verse five prohibits a sale, since Boaz charges פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי to purchase the land, and there is no mention of a waiting period in accord with the law if it was previously sold.*8* As in this case, the Qal Perfect can have a present meaning. In this case, the verb ought to be translated, “She is selling,” or, “She is going to sell.” One commentator argues that since the land itself was not sold, only the right to use the land could be purchased, she in fact was not selling the land but was surrendering her rights to the use of the land.*9* This understanding seems logical enough, but the text does not strongly support it. Perhaps the text is literally, “She is going to sell,” but in the back of the minds of the audience it was understood that she was selling her rights to the land. In any case, a transaction is in view; it is the goods that are being purchased that are in dispute for this particular commentator. The Septuagint notes that the land was given to Naomi and does not have the idea of a purchase. This issue is not easily resolved. It seems as though the Septuagint translation wants to avoid Naomi selling land in any case, and so interprets it to mean that Naomi was given the plot of land Boaz was talking about. The Septuagint reading is very unlikely to be original, since it can be explained from the more difficult reading. It is somewhat problematic for a woman to be in charge of selling land. The Septuagint wants to avoid this problem and has strayed from the original reading. To sum up this situation, we can be certain that a transaction is in view, but all the specific details surrounding the transaction are uncertain.
Boaz continued speaking in verse 4. He literally said, “I said I will uncover your ears to say,” meaning, “I said I will reveal to you by saying.” Boaz is saying that he has set out to inform פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי of his duties. What were his duties? Boaz explicitly stated the duties, and he underscored the legal ramifications of his decisions, since they were at the gate with 10 elders. He said, “Buy the plot of land before the ones sitting down and before the elders of my people.” Boaz charges him to buy the land Naomi is selling, which is the responsibility of the next-of-kin. One commentator has argued that there are two groups present at the meeting, as indicated by the double use of נֶגֶב.*10* Another commentator argues that this double use is a reiteration. The second use is in apposition to the first to note the same group. In other words, there is only one group present.*11* Given the setting from verse 1, we should agree with the latter commentator and take the double use of נֶגֶב to be an appositional statement in reference to the same group. Boaz charges the גֹאֵל to purchase the land in the presence of the 10 elders he had assembled at the gate. He conditionally states, “If you will redeem, redeem.” In other words, “If you intend to act as kin, do it!” The second “redeem” is a command. He is firmly stating that if he intends to act as kin, he needs to do it promptly. But Boaz does not stop there. He continues his conditional statement, saying, “And if he will not redeem declare it to me.” Here we must stop to consider some important textual issues.
The text is written as “he will redeem.” However, many manuscript versions have “you will redeem.” It is odd to have the text in the third person while directly speaking to the גֹאֵל. It is problematic to have it in the third person. But it is precisely for this reason that we can say that “he will redeem” is the original text, for it explains the change in the other manuscripts into the second person (and not the other way around). If it was original, since it is difficult, later scribes would have changed it to the second person to make it easier and more in harmony with the context. Given this reason alongside of the fact that there are more manuscripts in support of the third person, the correct reading is “he will redeem.” It should also be noted that this verb is not passive, so any translation wishing to interpret it as “it will be redeemed” is not correct.*12*
If the גֹאֵל would not redeem the land, then Boaz requested that it be declared to him so that he would know, for there was no one else to redeem the land. But Boaz was next after the גֹאֵל he was confronting. The text reads, “and I will know,” but in the margins of the Hebrew Bible there is a marking indicating that the text should be audibly read as “and I may know.” The difference between the two is important. The former is incomplete, which is understood as an action to be done in the future. The imperfect makes the verb as a result of the declaration. The latter is causitive, which is understood to cause an action to be done. The cohortative makes the verb function as the purpose of the declaration. In this case, the text is written as imperfect, but it is understood by the scribes to be cohortative. In other words, although it is written as imperfect, and this is the original text, it is understood to be cohortative, so that it is not translated “and I will know,” but rather, “and I may know.”*13*
For the first time in the narrative, the גֹאֵל speaks. He said, “I will redeem.” However, he responds with the imperfect rather than the perfect. The perfect would be used if it were an official declaration, but since he responded with the imperfect, he was indicating that he was willing to perform the duty of the גֹאֵל, but at the same time he was leaving the option open for Boaz to take over.*14*
In the end, Boaz took the position of גֹאֵל and from his line came King David and eventually Jesus Christ. Boaz was not only a leader, but he was a valiant and noble leader. He helped, by the power and guidance of the Lord, to set things right for Naomi and Ruth, so that Naomi could override her previous declaration to be called Bitter (Mara) and instead be called Pleasant (Naomi). As for “So and so,” we do not know what became of him. We do know that Scripture has purposefully left as much as his name out.
In this text, we come to an important truth. We need to be led by God and to do what is right. Boaz was led by God to do what was right in relationship to his relatives. How often do we complain about having to go meet with relatives in our setting today? It should not be so. Family is important. The Bible places a strong emphasis on the importance of family, including relatives. God honors those who stand by the needs of their family. Boaz was honored by eventually having his lineage blessed with kingship; in addition, he was blessed when his lineage took on the Messiah, God’s chosen one. Therefore, we need to do what is right as God has instructed us to do, including with our family. If anyone has a relative in need, so long as it is possible, come to that relative’s aid. Lend them money without requiring a return. Loan them possessions. Tend to them when they are sick, or when they are near death. Do not forsake family; hold on to relatives.
A family had a grandmother who was a heavy smoker. She developed emphysema and needed an oxygen tank to help her breathe. Eventually, she developed lung cancer. She was in a terrible amount of pain. However, her family did not come to her aid. She was a bitter woman. For some reason or another, she treated her daughter-in-laws very terribly. Her grandchildren suffered psychologically from the verbal abuse that she shot at her sons’ wives. But her sons did not do what is honoring to the Lord. They did not aid their mother. She died bitterly. The story of Ruth demands that we do differently. If we ever find ourselves in that position, we should tend to our mothers even if they have dealt bitterly with us and with our wives. We need to spread the love of God to everyone, including those who hurt, and especially to our family. Just as Boaz acted, so also should we take leadership and honor God by coming to the aid of our family.
___________________________________
Bibliography
Gray, James. The Biblical Museum: A collection of notes, explanatory, homiletic, and illustrative, on the Holy Scriptures, especially designed for the use of ministers, bible-students, and Sunday school teachers. Vol. 3. New York: Anson D. F. Randolph & Company, year not found.
Broch, Yitzchak. Ruth: The book of Ruth in Hebrew and English with a Talmudic-Midrashic commentary. 2nd ed. Jerusalem and New York: Feldheim, 1983.
Bush, Frederic. Word Biblical Commentary: Ruth, Esther. David Hubbard, Glenn Barker, John Watts, eds. Vol. 9. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1996.
Campbell, Edward. Ruth: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1975.
Zlatowitz, Meir. The Book of Ruth. 2nd ed. Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1993.
*1*Yitzchak Broch, Ruth: The book of Ruth in Hebrew and English with a Talmudic-Midrashic commentary, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem and New York: Feldheim, 1983), 90. Cf. also Meir Zlatowitz, The Book of Ruth, 2nd ed. (New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1993), 120.
*2*Edward Campbell, Ruth: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 141. Cf. also Zlatowitz, The Book of Ruth, 120.
*3*Campbell, Ruth, 143.
*4*Ibid.
*5*Ibid., 141.
*6*James Gray, The Biblical Museum: A collection of notes, explanatory, homiletic, and illustrative, on the Holy Scriptures, especially designed for the use of ministers, bible-students, and Sunday school teachers, vol. 3 (New York: Anson D. F. Randolph & Company, year not found), 180.
*7*Broch, Ruth, 91.
*8*Zlatowitz, The Book of Ruth, 123.
*9*Frederic Bush, Ruth, Esther, Word Biblical Commentary, David Hubbard, Glenn Barker, John Watts, eds., vol. 9 (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1996), 200.
*10*Campbell, Ruth, 145.
*11*Bush, Ruth, Esther, 207.
*12*Bush and Zlotowitz are ones who take the verb to be passive.
*13*Bush, Ruth, Esther, 210.
*14*Bush, Ruth, Esther, 210.
Translation:
And Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there. Behold, the kinsman was passing by whom Boaz was speaking of. Boaz said, “Turn this way, sit here, So and so.” And he turned and sat down. And he took 10 men from the elders of the city and he said, “Sit down here.” And they sat down. And he said to the kinsman, “Naomi, the one who returned from the field of Moab, is selling a portion of the field belonging to our brother, Elimelech. “And I said, ‘I will reveal to you by saying, “Buy the land before the ones sitting and before the elders of my people. If you will redeem, redeem. But if he will not redeem, declare it to me and I may know that there is no other except you to redeem, and I am after you.”’” And he said, “I will act as kinsman.”
Ruth 4:1-4 describes the portion of Ruth where Boaz confronts the next-of-kin. In this text, Boaz publicly and officially declares to him to take charge of his responsibility, since he has not yet acted and fulfilled his duty. Let us examine the text in Hebrew, the original language with which the book of Ruth was written, starting with verse 1.
Boaz went to the city gate most likely during the conversation between Ruth and Naomi in Chapter 3 (these two events may in fact be simultaneous). Although it is not imperative to understanding the story, it might help in understanding the setting to know that the events may be happening at the same time. According to one commentator, Boaz was the head of the Sanhedrin; the Sanhedrin met at the city gate.*1* Regardless if this is true, for the text itself does not say Boaz was the head of the Sanhedrin, official matters were dealt with at the city gate. Boaz is seeking to officially settle the issue with the next-of-kin. What was the issue?
The next-of-kin, or גֹאֵל in Hebrew, had not performed his duty. As גֹאֵל, he was to buy the land from Naomi, thus keeping it in the family. But this גֹאֵל had not even so much as indicated that he was going to fulfill his role. As a result, Boaz went to the gate to resolve the issue. After Boaz arrived at the gate, the text literally says, “And behold, the kinsman was passing by whom Boaz was speaking of.” It is as though God orchestrated the event. Boaz was speaking of the גֹאֵל at the gate, and while he was speaking, not as coincidence, he came passing by.*2*
Boaz took charge at the moment the גֹאֵל was passing by. He commanded him to turn and sit down. But he did not call him by name. The NRSV rendering, “friend,” is misleading. The Hebrew reads פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי. The meaning of this phrase has been lost.*3* It is possible that it could be a name, but it is highly unlikely. It is possible that it could have an idea of concealment or secrecy behind it, but this is quite uncertain. It is probably best to take it to mean “So and so” (literally, “certain one--so and so”). Perhaps the reason for this convoluted phrase is the fact that in one copy of the Septuagint, one commentator says, the phrase is translated into Greek to mean “anonymous,” while in a different copy of the Septuagint, the phrase is translated to mean “secret.” It is plausible that this textual variant contributes to the obscure interpretation of the phrase for us today. Whatever the reason, the end result is we have lost the way the original audience heard, interpreted, and understood this phrase.*4* One commentator likes the translation “John Doe.”*5* However, this translation would lead a contemporary reader to believe that the person’s name is simply not known and so the anonymous name is applied to that person. However, we do not know if the situation merits this translation. Perhaps the real name was known to the original audience, and it was instead left out of the text and replaced with the anonymous phrase for dramatic effect (i.e., “unmentionable one”). In any case, it seems best to leave the translation as “So and so,” so that no confusion or incorrect interpretation might take place.
After commanding פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי to turn and sit, the text says he turned and sat down. In verse 2, Boaz then proceeded to get 10 elders to sit down at the gate. Ten men were necessary for a lawful assembly.*6* One commentator says that 10 sages were required to be present for marriage ceremonies, and thus links the situation here in Ruth with a wedding.*7* The text itself does not necessarily indicate that a wedding ceremony is occurring. To proclaim a wedding in this text is to interpret beyond the boundaries of the text. In other words, it makes more out of the story than is actually present. We need only to say that an official meeting is taking place, since the setting is at the city gate and ten elders of the city are present, which satisfy the requirements to have an official meeting.
After having assembled 10 elders at the gate, in verse 3 Boaz then speaks to פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי. He says that Naomi is selling the plot of land that belonged to Elimelech, their brother. What is difficult here is the Hebrew word מָכְרָה. It is Qal Perfect, which means it is rendered literally, “She sold.” Did Naomi already sell the land? Verse five prohibits a sale, since Boaz charges פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי to purchase the land, and there is no mention of a waiting period in accord with the law if it was previously sold.*8* As in this case, the Qal Perfect can have a present meaning. In this case, the verb ought to be translated, “She is selling,” or, “She is going to sell.” One commentator argues that since the land itself was not sold, only the right to use the land could be purchased, she in fact was not selling the land but was surrendering her rights to the use of the land.*9* This understanding seems logical enough, but the text does not strongly support it. Perhaps the text is literally, “She is going to sell,” but in the back of the minds of the audience it was understood that she was selling her rights to the land. In any case, a transaction is in view; it is the goods that are being purchased that are in dispute for this particular commentator. The Septuagint notes that the land was given to Naomi and does not have the idea of a purchase. This issue is not easily resolved. It seems as though the Septuagint translation wants to avoid Naomi selling land in any case, and so interprets it to mean that Naomi was given the plot of land Boaz was talking about. The Septuagint reading is very unlikely to be original, since it can be explained from the more difficult reading. It is somewhat problematic for a woman to be in charge of selling land. The Septuagint wants to avoid this problem and has strayed from the original reading. To sum up this situation, we can be certain that a transaction is in view, but all the specific details surrounding the transaction are uncertain.
Boaz continued speaking in verse 4. He literally said, “I said I will uncover your ears to say,” meaning, “I said I will reveal to you by saying.” Boaz is saying that he has set out to inform פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי of his duties. What were his duties? Boaz explicitly stated the duties, and he underscored the legal ramifications of his decisions, since they were at the gate with 10 elders. He said, “Buy the plot of land before the ones sitting down and before the elders of my people.” Boaz charges him to buy the land Naomi is selling, which is the responsibility of the next-of-kin. One commentator has argued that there are two groups present at the meeting, as indicated by the double use of נֶגֶב.*10* Another commentator argues that this double use is a reiteration. The second use is in apposition to the first to note the same group. In other words, there is only one group present.*11* Given the setting from verse 1, we should agree with the latter commentator and take the double use of נֶגֶב to be an appositional statement in reference to the same group. Boaz charges the גֹאֵל to purchase the land in the presence of the 10 elders he had assembled at the gate. He conditionally states, “If you will redeem, redeem.” In other words, “If you intend to act as kin, do it!” The second “redeem” is a command. He is firmly stating that if he intends to act as kin, he needs to do it promptly. But Boaz does not stop there. He continues his conditional statement, saying, “And if he will not redeem declare it to me.” Here we must stop to consider some important textual issues.
The text is written as “he will redeem.” However, many manuscript versions have “you will redeem.” It is odd to have the text in the third person while directly speaking to the גֹאֵל. It is problematic to have it in the third person. But it is precisely for this reason that we can say that “he will redeem” is the original text, for it explains the change in the other manuscripts into the second person (and not the other way around). If it was original, since it is difficult, later scribes would have changed it to the second person to make it easier and more in harmony with the context. Given this reason alongside of the fact that there are more manuscripts in support of the third person, the correct reading is “he will redeem.” It should also be noted that this verb is not passive, so any translation wishing to interpret it as “it will be redeemed” is not correct.*12*
If the גֹאֵל would not redeem the land, then Boaz requested that it be declared to him so that he would know, for there was no one else to redeem the land. But Boaz was next after the גֹאֵל he was confronting. The text reads, “and I will know,” but in the margins of the Hebrew Bible there is a marking indicating that the text should be audibly read as “and I may know.” The difference between the two is important. The former is incomplete, which is understood as an action to be done in the future. The imperfect makes the verb as a result of the declaration. The latter is causitive, which is understood to cause an action to be done. The cohortative makes the verb function as the purpose of the declaration. In this case, the text is written as imperfect, but it is understood by the scribes to be cohortative. In other words, although it is written as imperfect, and this is the original text, it is understood to be cohortative, so that it is not translated “and I will know,” but rather, “and I may know.”*13*
For the first time in the narrative, the גֹאֵל speaks. He said, “I will redeem.” However, he responds with the imperfect rather than the perfect. The perfect would be used if it were an official declaration, but since he responded with the imperfect, he was indicating that he was willing to perform the duty of the גֹאֵל, but at the same time he was leaving the option open for Boaz to take over.*14*
In the end, Boaz took the position of גֹאֵל and from his line came King David and eventually Jesus Christ. Boaz was not only a leader, but he was a valiant and noble leader. He helped, by the power and guidance of the Lord, to set things right for Naomi and Ruth, so that Naomi could override her previous declaration to be called Bitter (Mara) and instead be called Pleasant (Naomi). As for “So and so,” we do not know what became of him. We do know that Scripture has purposefully left as much as his name out.
In this text, we come to an important truth. We need to be led by God and to do what is right. Boaz was led by God to do what was right in relationship to his relatives. How often do we complain about having to go meet with relatives in our setting today? It should not be so. Family is important. The Bible places a strong emphasis on the importance of family, including relatives. God honors those who stand by the needs of their family. Boaz was honored by eventually having his lineage blessed with kingship; in addition, he was blessed when his lineage took on the Messiah, God’s chosen one. Therefore, we need to do what is right as God has instructed us to do, including with our family. If anyone has a relative in need, so long as it is possible, come to that relative’s aid. Lend them money without requiring a return. Loan them possessions. Tend to them when they are sick, or when they are near death. Do not forsake family; hold on to relatives.
A family had a grandmother who was a heavy smoker. She developed emphysema and needed an oxygen tank to help her breathe. Eventually, she developed lung cancer. She was in a terrible amount of pain. However, her family did not come to her aid. She was a bitter woman. For some reason or another, she treated her daughter-in-laws very terribly. Her grandchildren suffered psychologically from the verbal abuse that she shot at her sons’ wives. But her sons did not do what is honoring to the Lord. They did not aid their mother. She died bitterly. The story of Ruth demands that we do differently. If we ever find ourselves in that position, we should tend to our mothers even if they have dealt bitterly with us and with our wives. We need to spread the love of God to everyone, including those who hurt, and especially to our family. Just as Boaz acted, so also should we take leadership and honor God by coming to the aid of our family.
___________________________________
Bibliography
Gray, James. The Biblical Museum: A collection of notes, explanatory, homiletic, and illustrative, on the Holy Scriptures, especially designed for the use of ministers, bible-students, and Sunday school teachers. Vol. 3. New York: Anson D. F. Randolph & Company, year not found.
Broch, Yitzchak. Ruth: The book of Ruth in Hebrew and English with a Talmudic-Midrashic commentary. 2nd ed. Jerusalem and New York: Feldheim, 1983.
Bush, Frederic. Word Biblical Commentary: Ruth, Esther. David Hubbard, Glenn Barker, John Watts, eds. Vol. 9. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1996.
Campbell, Edward. Ruth: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1975.
Zlatowitz, Meir. The Book of Ruth. 2nd ed. Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1993.
*1*Yitzchak Broch, Ruth: The book of Ruth in Hebrew and English with a Talmudic-Midrashic commentary, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem and New York: Feldheim, 1983), 90. Cf. also Meir Zlatowitz, The Book of Ruth, 2nd ed. (New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1993), 120.
*2*Edward Campbell, Ruth: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 141. Cf. also Zlatowitz, The Book of Ruth, 120.
*3*Campbell, Ruth, 143.
*4*Ibid.
*5*Ibid., 141.
*6*James Gray, The Biblical Museum: A collection of notes, explanatory, homiletic, and illustrative, on the Holy Scriptures, especially designed for the use of ministers, bible-students, and Sunday school teachers, vol. 3 (New York: Anson D. F. Randolph & Company, year not found), 180.
*7*Broch, Ruth, 91.
*8*Zlatowitz, The Book of Ruth, 123.
*9*Frederic Bush, Ruth, Esther, Word Biblical Commentary, David Hubbard, Glenn Barker, John Watts, eds., vol. 9 (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1996), 200.
*10*Campbell, Ruth, 145.
*11*Bush, Ruth, Esther, 207.
*12*Bush and Zlotowitz are ones who take the verb to be passive.
*13*Bush, Ruth, Esther, 210.
*14*Bush, Ruth, Esther, 210.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Paul's Perspective on Women
This paper was submitted to my New Testament: Acts through Revelation class. It looks at how those scholars who maintain Paul does not contradict himself conclude that Paul has a high view of women. It also looks at how they harmonize positive texts, those areas of Paul's letters that seem to have a positive view of women, with negative texts, those other areas that seem misogynistic. It briefly explores the positive texts while focusing heavily on four of the most popular seemingly negative ones.
Introduction
Many people find Paul’s perspective on women to be very confusing. Paul seems to affirm a positive view of women, such as in Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 16, 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, 1 Timothy 5:3-16, and Titus 2:3-5, where he identifies women to be on the same level playing field as men. However, Paul also seems to have a negative view of women, such as in 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, Ephesians 5, and 1 Timothy 2, where he subordinates women to men. Does Paul contradict himself? Some scholars have argued that there is no contradiction and that Paul does have a good perspective on women. We should look at the aforementioned negative texts and see how scholars who argue that Paul has a positive view of women and does not contradict himself make their case. We will look at what they argue and claim regarding each of the negative texts, and then we will summarize their methods. Before we look at the scholarly explanations of the seemingly negative texts, let us first look at the general feel of the positive texts, so that we will see the distinction between the two types that are often juxtaposed.
Looking at Scripture
Positive Texts
There are five positive texts that we should briefly summarize, which are Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 16, Titus 2:3-5, 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, and 1 Timothy 5:3-16. In Galatians 3:26-29, Paul argued as follows: in Christ, we are all equals; ethnic, social, and gender distinctions do not exist in Christ. The issue at hand is a present equality in Christ for every person so that gender distinctions do not exist.
In Romans 16, Phoebe is identified as a deacon and a benefactor (vv. 1-2), Prisca (or Priscilla), who is a coworker with Paul, is the object, along with her husband, of much gratitude among the Gentiles, and in fact she and her husband host a house church (vv. 3-5), Mary is said to work hard for the Roman church (v. 6), Junia is identified as a relative of Paul and as being prominent among the apostles (v. 7), Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis are identified as workers in the Lord (v. 12), Rufus’ mother is identified as a non-biological mother to Paul (v. 13), and Julia and Nereus’ sister are identified among a company of saints (v. 15). All of these people are women, and they are all considered to be prominent in some way or another in the church. It seems in this text that women were seen as coworkers and equals alongside men in Paul’s view.
The next three passages give or affirm some sort of rights or privileges to women. In Titus 2:3-5, older women are charged with specific instructions for leadership for the specific purpose of teaching younger women. Here it seems women are specifically given a leadership role in ministry in this specific text, and although it is a leadership role over other women, it is a leadership role nonetheless. In 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, each man is urged to have his own wife and each wife should have her own husband (v. 2). The husband should give his wife her conjugal rights, and the wife to her husband (v. 3). The wife does not have authority over her body, and the husband does not have authority over his body (v. 4). Paul views marriage through a lens of equality, so that wives have the same rights as their husbands. In 1 Timothy 5:3-16, Paul affords provision for women by the church, women who are old widows and are true widows--those who meet specific qualifications. Paul shows concern for widows.
Therefore, the positive texts that we have looked at seem to demonstrate that Paul had a positive view of women. He was concerned for the care of widows. He upheld equality in terms of conjugal rights in marriage between the husband and wife. He made room for women to teach at least other women. He perceived women to be equal co-workers alongside himself and other men in service to the church and to the Lord. He taught that in Christ there is neither male nor female; in Christ there is no gender distinction. However, Paul elsewhere seems to contradict this positive view. We should now look at the seemingly negative texts and see how some scholars have treated these passages.
Negative Texts
There are four seemingly negative texts that we are going to look at, which are 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 1 Corinthians 14:33-36, Ephesians 5:21-33, and 1 Timothy 2:8-15, respectively.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16
In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, there are several pieces that point toward a negative view of women. We should summarize this text’s contents. Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ (v. 3). Disgrace comes upon the head of a man who prays with his head covered (v. 4). Disgrace also comes upon the head of a woman who prays with her head uncovered (v. 5). Man is the reflection and image of God, and women are the image and reflection of man (v. 7). Woman was made from man and woman was made for man (vv. 8-9). Woman should have authority on her head because of the angels (v. 10). In the Lord woman is not independent from man nor man independent of woman (v. 11). Woman came from man but so also man comes from woman through childbirth (v. 12). However, all things come from God (v. 12). It should be asked, “Is it proper for women to pray with their heads unveiled?” (v. 13). It should also be asked, “Does nature say men who cover their heads are a disgrace?” (v. 14). Finally, it should be asked, “Does nature say women who have long hair are glory?” (v. 15).
There are no less than six questions regarding 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. What does “head” mean? What does the relationship between Christ and man, husband and wife, and God and Christ mean in relation to “head”? What is the significance of head coverings? What does the image of God and image of man mean? What does “because of the angels” mean? What does it mean that man and woman are not independent of each other in the Lord? Perhaps these questions should be answered (or attempted to be answered) by considering the issue at hand.
Paul seems to be concerned with praying according to the social customs in public and seems to be addressing a specific issue that the Corinthians had inquired to him about. But it seems from this text that Paul perceived men to be the rulers of women. Is this Paul’s view? Linda Belleville says that it is not.
According to Belleville, 1 Corinthians 11 explains how women should pray or prophesy, but it does not question who or what one should pray.*1* To be clear, her point is that Paul was not restricting wives from speaking in church worship, but rather he was prescribing how women generally ought to speak in church worship.*2*
In Belleville’s view, the issue in 1 Corinthians 11 is not concerning husbands and wives, but rather males and females; it has been suggested that since virtually all women were married during the First Century A.D., it can be assumed that “males” and “females” is understood to mean “husbands” and “wives,” but this proposal does not consider Paul’s care for widows, virgins, and the divorced earlier in 1 Corinthians.*3*
Belleville argues that Paul’s instructions were addressing a specific situation. During the First Century A.D., Asia Minor had fixed customs regarding gender attire. The words “shameful”, “proper”, and “disgraceful” in 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrate that Paul seems to be concerned with these social customs regarding gender attire. However, Paul’s appeal to Genesis 2 involves something more than inappropriate attire; women and men are taught by nature to wear their hair differently from each other. By addressing the issue of hair, gender distinctions are clearly at hand. Women were approved by Paul to pray or prophesy alongside men, but Paul was concerned with how they publicly performed prayer or prophecied.*4*
Belleville demonstrates that the attire in question in 1 Corinthians 11 is headgear. Is it hair? Is it a covering? Verses 14-15 seem to indicate that women ought to cover their heads with something else because of their long hair. The long hair is understood to be a covering provided by nature, but it is not the head covering itself. Also, in v. 6, Paul said that if a woman will not cover her head then she should cut off her hair, which assumed a different covering from her hair itself. Verse 10 also suggests that something other than the woman’s hair ought to be placed on her head, because there was no indication in the First Century A.D. that hair and authority were linked, but it was an accepted practice for female laity in Roman religions to place a cover on their heads before performing religious functions.*5*
Furthermore, Roman women did not wear head coverings in public, but religious laity and civic leaders did cover their heads in public by pulling their togas up far enough to cover their head. There was a leadership role for women in the Fi
Introduction
Many people find Paul’s perspective on women to be very confusing. Paul seems to affirm a positive view of women, such as in Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 16, 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, 1 Timothy 5:3-16, and Titus 2:3-5, where he identifies women to be on the same level playing field as men. However, Paul also seems to have a negative view of women, such as in 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, Ephesians 5, and 1 Timothy 2, where he subordinates women to men. Does Paul contradict himself? Some scholars have argued that there is no contradiction and that Paul does have a good perspective on women. We should look at the aforementioned negative texts and see how scholars who argue that Paul has a positive view of women and does not contradict himself make their case. We will look at what they argue and claim regarding each of the negative texts, and then we will summarize their methods. Before we look at the scholarly explanations of the seemingly negative texts, let us first look at the general feel of the positive texts, so that we will see the distinction between the two types that are often juxtaposed.
Looking at Scripture
Positive Texts
There are five positive texts that we should briefly summarize, which are Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 16, Titus 2:3-5, 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, and 1 Timothy 5:3-16. In Galatians 3:26-29, Paul argued as follows: in Christ, we are all equals; ethnic, social, and gender distinctions do not exist in Christ. The issue at hand is a present equality in Christ for every person so that gender distinctions do not exist.
In Romans 16, Phoebe is identified as a deacon and a benefactor (vv. 1-2), Prisca (or Priscilla), who is a coworker with Paul, is the object, along with her husband, of much gratitude among the Gentiles, and in fact she and her husband host a house church (vv. 3-5), Mary is said to work hard for the Roman church (v. 6), Junia is identified as a relative of Paul and as being prominent among the apostles (v. 7), Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis are identified as workers in the Lord (v. 12), Rufus’ mother is identified as a non-biological mother to Paul (v. 13), and Julia and Nereus’ sister are identified among a company of saints (v. 15). All of these people are women, and they are all considered to be prominent in some way or another in the church. It seems in this text that women were seen as coworkers and equals alongside men in Paul’s view.
The next three passages give or affirm some sort of rights or privileges to women. In Titus 2:3-5, older women are charged with specific instructions for leadership for the specific purpose of teaching younger women. Here it seems women are specifically given a leadership role in ministry in this specific text, and although it is a leadership role over other women, it is a leadership role nonetheless. In 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, each man is urged to have his own wife and each wife should have her own husband (v. 2). The husband should give his wife her conjugal rights, and the wife to her husband (v. 3). The wife does not have authority over her body, and the husband does not have authority over his body (v. 4). Paul views marriage through a lens of equality, so that wives have the same rights as their husbands. In 1 Timothy 5:3-16, Paul affords provision for women by the church, women who are old widows and are true widows--those who meet specific qualifications. Paul shows concern for widows.
Therefore, the positive texts that we have looked at seem to demonstrate that Paul had a positive view of women. He was concerned for the care of widows. He upheld equality in terms of conjugal rights in marriage between the husband and wife. He made room for women to teach at least other women. He perceived women to be equal co-workers alongside himself and other men in service to the church and to the Lord. He taught that in Christ there is neither male nor female; in Christ there is no gender distinction. However, Paul elsewhere seems to contradict this positive view. We should now look at the seemingly negative texts and see how some scholars have treated these passages.
Negative Texts
There are four seemingly negative texts that we are going to look at, which are 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 1 Corinthians 14:33-36, Ephesians 5:21-33, and 1 Timothy 2:8-15, respectively.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16
In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, there are several pieces that point toward a negative view of women. We should summarize this text’s contents. Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ (v. 3). Disgrace comes upon the head of a man who prays with his head covered (v. 4). Disgrace also comes upon the head of a woman who prays with her head uncovered (v. 5). Man is the reflection and image of God, and women are the image and reflection of man (v. 7). Woman was made from man and woman was made for man (vv. 8-9). Woman should have authority on her head because of the angels (v. 10). In the Lord woman is not independent from man nor man independent of woman (v. 11). Woman came from man but so also man comes from woman through childbirth (v. 12). However, all things come from God (v. 12). It should be asked, “Is it proper for women to pray with their heads unveiled?” (v. 13). It should also be asked, “Does nature say men who cover their heads are a disgrace?” (v. 14). Finally, it should be asked, “Does nature say women who have long hair are glory?” (v. 15).
There are no less than six questions regarding 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. What does “head” mean? What does the relationship between Christ and man, husband and wife, and God and Christ mean in relation to “head”? What is the significance of head coverings? What does the image of God and image of man mean? What does “because of the angels” mean? What does it mean that man and woman are not independent of each other in the Lord? Perhaps these questions should be answered (or attempted to be answered) by considering the issue at hand.
Paul seems to be concerned with praying according to the social customs in public and seems to be addressing a specific issue that the Corinthians had inquired to him about. But it seems from this text that Paul perceived men to be the rulers of women. Is this Paul’s view? Linda Belleville says that it is not.
According to Belleville, 1 Corinthians 11 explains how women should pray or prophesy, but it does not question who or what one should pray.*1* To be clear, her point is that Paul was not restricting wives from speaking in church worship, but rather he was prescribing how women generally ought to speak in church worship.*2*
In Belleville’s view, the issue in 1 Corinthians 11 is not concerning husbands and wives, but rather males and females; it has been suggested that since virtually all women were married during the First Century A.D., it can be assumed that “males” and “females” is understood to mean “husbands” and “wives,” but this proposal does not consider Paul’s care for widows, virgins, and the divorced earlier in 1 Corinthians.*3*
Belleville argues that Paul’s instructions were addressing a specific situation. During the First Century A.D., Asia Minor had fixed customs regarding gender attire. The words “shameful”, “proper”, and “disgraceful” in 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrate that Paul seems to be concerned with these social customs regarding gender attire. However, Paul’s appeal to Genesis 2 involves something more than inappropriate attire; women and men are taught by nature to wear their hair differently from each other. By addressing the issue of hair, gender distinctions are clearly at hand. Women were approved by Paul to pray or prophesy alongside men, but Paul was concerned with how they publicly performed prayer or prophecied.*4*
Belleville demonstrates that the attire in question in 1 Corinthians 11 is headgear. Is it hair? Is it a covering? Verses 14-15 seem to indicate that women ought to cover their heads with something else because of their long hair. The long hair is understood to be a covering provided by nature, but it is not the head covering itself. Also, in v. 6, Paul said that if a woman will not cover her head then she should cut off her hair, which assumed a different covering from her hair itself. Verse 10 also suggests that something other than the woman’s hair ought to be placed on her head, because there was no indication in the First Century A.D. that hair and authority were linked, but it was an accepted practice for female laity in Roman religions to place a cover on their heads before performing religious functions.*5*
Furthermore, Roman women did not wear head coverings in public, but religious laity and civic leaders did cover their heads in public by pulling their togas up far enough to cover their head. There was a leadership role for women in the Fi