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.

The Puritan Utopia and John Winthrop

The following post was an exam essay for my class on American Church History:



The Puritans came to America and developed a utopian society that did not last very long. They quickly came across some tensions. Their basic ideals, evident in John Winthrop’s sermon, were challenged early on. The Puritans, although short lived, did provide the American Church with a legacy that focused on a high sense of morality.

In order to understand the Puritans, we should take a look at their reason for coming to America, their view on education and the effect it had on them, and their religious views. The Puritans sought a total reform of life (Noll, 42). They came to America for the reason that they thought they could achieve total reform (Noll, 42). The Puritans came to America after the English made their settlement there, along with the Pilgrims. They came to the Massachusetts Bay area, north of the Pilgrims, who settled in the Virginia area. They came in 1630 and were the largest English group to come; seven hundred colonists arrived in 11 vessels.

They had a high view of education. It was from the Puritan group that the first university came—Harvard. The Puritans made education a very important thing, requiring that there be a teacher for every 50 people (Noll, 44). As a result of their view of education, the area that they settled became “one of the world’s most literate places by the end of the century” (Noll, 44). What were their religious views like?

Their religious perspective was fixed on the Old Testament covenant. They believed themselves to be elected by God, which served as a social adhesive for the community. They focused on sermons; they had two—one in the morning and one in the afternoon, and each of them were two hours long and were in the plain style. The heart of the Puritans was their weekly gatherings (Noll, 45). There they chanted the Psalms in worship houses. The buildings themselves were plain rectangular meetinghouses at the village green. These meetinghouses were the centrally located being built at the village green, and they were also the largest buildings in the villages (Noll, 45). At the heart of their worship was the sermon (Noll, 45). The content of the sermons were quite constant: “individuals are sinners who need divine salvation; God has provided that salvation by grace, from his mercy alone; saved sinners now have the right and privilege to serve God by following his law” (Noll, 46).

And how did their public lives interact with their religious views? Their public lives were tied together with their religious practices (Noll, 42). They were quite restrictive when practicing religion. They did not celebrate holidays. They were “nervous about the use of pictures, drama, and decorations in church” (Noll, 44). What did they value? They were a religious group deeply devoted to the community, brought together by a basic set of beliefs and core ideals. Essentially, they were a utopian society.

The Puritans had four main beliefs. One, they perceived that a personal conversion experience was very important. Personal conversion was so important that it became a requirement for full church membership among the Puritans (Noll, 42). Two, the Puritans placed great importance on private devotional practices. Three, they were very much in favor of Bible reading. Four, the Puritans listened to sermons and thought them to be important. The Puritans, in addition to their religious beliefs, maintained three fundamental elements to their faith and presence in the new land. First, they held to a covenant with God. Second, they held to a community of believers. Third, the Puritans thought that they were a City Upon a Hill. They thought that the old world would look at them in the new world and they would be examples to them. These three fundamental elements are evident in John Winthrop’s sermon, “A Model of Christian Charity,” which he delivered when the Puritans arrived to Massachusetts.

Winthrop’s sermon rests on four main points. One, the persons involved in the Puritan group. Two, the work of the Puritan group. Three, the Puritan’s view on the end. Four, the means for the Puritans to reach the end. The first point deals with the Puritans as a community of believers that came together under the common perception that they all had fixed their attention on—the covenant with God. They were focused on the community and not on the individual, and as a community they were focused on the covenant with God. Winthrop said that the care of the community took precedence over the individual (p. 27, the first I.2ly). They were together, as seen in his third point, working towards serving the Lord. They were seeking to make their lives better by preserving themselves from the common corruptions that come from the world. As seen in his fourth point, they were setting out to make Christian practices the standard way of life for every person in the community. They were seeking to please God—who is jealous—so as to avoid punishment. They saw themselves as the vessel for which the world would be sanctified in the Lord when it came into contact with them. They also focused on God’s judgment that came onto those who failed the mission He gave to them. They felt that God gave them a mission to be a City Upon a Hill, and if they failed their mission they would be punished (cf. p. 28).

The Puritan community began to see some difficulties, however. Their utopia was quickly challenged by several factors. Declension was a problem for the community. Their utopian society was not working; with people backsliding, the vision became in jeopardy, for God, according to their view, was likely to strip them of His support and punish them. Furthermore, three people help to reveal the threats that the Puritans faced.

Roger Williams wanted separation of church and state. As a result, he was kicked out of the Puritan settlement in 1636. The Puritans had a combination of church and state, where the leaders looked to the clergy for aid. When Williams got kicked out, he settled in Rhode Island and established an environment in which people can live and worship freely. He also respected the Indians and wanted to know how to evangelize to them. Anne Hutchinson was a midwife who got into religious conversations. She elaborated on sermons, believing herself to have a personal connection with God outside of the Bible. The Puritans put her on trial. As a result, she got banished from the settlement in 1638 and was later killed by Indians. Thomas Hooker was a minister who defied the Massachusetts government and was banished. He developed the area that later became Connecticut.
The Salem Witch trials did not help the utopian cause, either. The level of witchcraft in the area outside of Boston put the people in a very suspicious mood. They went so far as to try and execute 20 individuals (Noll, 51). These executions underscored the present tension in the utopia. Things were not going as anticipated.

Winthrop’s sermon helps us to understand these tensions. The Puritans thought themselves to be a community under a divine calling. They were together functioning in service to the Lord. When a few of them begin to think separate from the group, such as Hutchinson, the communal unity is put into jeopardy. When a few backslide, the group is thought to be subject to divine punishment, or even displacement. When they seek to separate the church from the state, the purpose of being a city on a hill cannot be maintained. The three elements fundamental for the Puritans—covenant, community, and a city on a hill—were challenged rather quickly in their history. Winthrop’s sermon highlight these elements, and the tensions that later arose demonstrate the reality that the elements were being compromised early on, so that the Puritan utopia would not last.

The Puritan legacy is found in the idea as the country being a City Upon a Hill. The idea that this country is an example for the rest of the nations to follow is taken from John Winthrop’s sermon and the Puritan perspective. This idea was directly related to their high sense of morality. Their fervor for morality was also carried throughout the country, especially in the First and Second Great Awakenings and the moral reforms that came later.

The Puritan society was a utopia that came under tension rather quickly. Their beliefs and ideals, as represented in Winthrop’s sermon, were challenged early and they never recovered from them. However, their belief in the City Upon a Hill has stuck with the country. Although short lived, their legacy has been long lasting.

--------------

Noll, Mark. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992.

Winthrop, John. "A Model of Christian Charitie." American Sermons: The Pilgrims to Martin Luther King, Jr. Michael Warner, ed. New York: The Library of America, 1999.

America, The Great Awakenings, and the American Church

The following post was an exam essay for my American Church History class:



The First and Second Great Awakenings dramatically altered the religious landscape of the United States. It prepared the way for a religious tolerance that had not yet been seen in the new land. We will briefly describe the more important events and details of the two revivals and explain why they are important. We will briefly examine how they changed the church. We will see how the revivals reflected or responded to the broader context of American society and culture. We will also question whether or not they were the most important events in the history of the American Church up until the Civil War. To the more important events of the First and Second Great Awakenings we now turn.

The First Great Awakening was first sparked by Jonathan Edwards, a puritan pastor in West Massachusetts at a North Hampton Congregational Church. Although he was most famous for his sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, he focused more on theological treatises, one of which, A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, perceives that Christianity is not about outward displays of spirituality but about the inward reality of the heart as a result of Christ’s work and God’s love (Noll, 96). This inward reality, a personal conversion experience, is important, for it provides the basis for denominational change and for moral change in the people.

Following Edwards was George Whitefield, the chief generating force of the First Great Awakening. He was an amazing orator. Ben Franklin spoke highly of his ability to speak to the crowd. Whitefield went from Georgia to New England, preaching everywhere he went. Denied pulpits, he would speak in barns or open fields. He passed these practices on to John and Charles Wesley, which later became part of the Methodist way of doing things (Noll, 91). He was Episcopalian. Thousands came to see him speak, and many converted. In the fall of 1740, upwards of 8,000 people attended his sermons everyday for nearly a month (Noll, 91). He is important because he changed American history, not simply American Church history, by speaking all over the East Coast, converting a multitude of people, thus helping to cause Church growth in the colonies. This growth later became important for moral reform as many people in the colonies became saved and became Protestants.

As a result of the First Great Awakening, the American Church was beginning to see some changes. After the 1770s, Baptists became the third most popular church denomination, passing the Anglicans. The American Church became split into two groups—the Old Lights (traditional clerics) and New Lights (Whitefield supporters and others). An increasing number of people were “making personal profession[s] of their faith and joining a church” (Noll, 97). There were five ways that the First Great Awakening impacted American Church history.

First, revivals started a decline in the influence of old churches—Quakers, Anglicans, and Congregationalists—and in turn the number of Baptists and Presbyterians after 1740 increased. Second, the revivals stimulated the founding of new colleges. Third, the revivals drew many Native Americans and African Americans to Protestantism for the first time. Fourth, the revivals gave women added prominence in colonial religion. Fifth, the revivals fostered religious tolerance by blurring theological differences among New Lights; emphasis was on inner experience rather than dogmatic fine points.

The Second Great Awakening mostly occurred out on the Frontier. The revival started in the 1790s in Connecticut, but it spread out to the Frontier. It largely focused on the Second Coming of Christ, which required repentance of the hearers. In 1801 in Kentucky, men and women were reported to roll around like logs, they jerked their heads, and made animal noises, thus demonstrating spiritual manifestation of what they felt they were experiencing. They were concerned with a personal conversion experience that was manifested in the physical reality. The Second Great Awakening was influenced by the idea of the Jacksonian Democracy and the Market Revolution. It involved circuit riders, such as Francis Asbury. It involved all denominations. One of the products to emerge out of the Second Great Awakening was the “anxious seat”—a bench for ready converts to be prayed for. One of the basic premises of this revival was that sin was a voluntary act, and therefore people could live a life free from sin. It emphasized the role of women, encouraging them to give public testimonials. Women were even involved in this revival as itinerate preachers who traveled up and down the coast. The involvement was important because it later led to the movement for women’s rights. The Second Great Awakening welcomed slaves and invited blacks to preach. It was often directly challenging the practice of slavery. The involvement of slaves was important because it later led to the movement against slavery. However, due to the influence of Jacksonian Democracy, limits of equality were set into place, which eventually limited race and gender, leading to the justification of slavery and women’s subordination. The Second Great Awakening first justified slavery, but as later movements of reform came from leaders who came out of the revival, it was later abolished.

The First and Second Great Awakenings were influenced by their surrounding cultures. The Second Great Awakening especially was influenced by culture. The Market Revolution—the push towards materialism and the market—gave a strong desire for the Church to lead moral reform. As a result, the Second Great Awakening can be seen as a response to the Market Revolution. And as the Jacksonian Democracy idea became prevalent. The common man was the focus of the Jacksonian Democracy; the common man was also the focus of the Second Great Awakening. As a result, the Second Great Awakening can be seen as influenced by or reflecting the Jacksonian Democracy.

Leading up to the Civil War, the First and Second Great Awakenings could be argued as the most important events in the history of the American Church. The revivals caused the decline of the Puritans and Anglicans and the rise of the Baptists and Presbyterians. With the rise of the Baptists in the South, social equality was being demanded, which did not suit well with the wealthy plantation owners (Noll, 101). The Great Awakenings provided the basis for social and moral reform that would come later, and were therefore very important not only for the Church but also for the country. But the Great Awakenings were America’s first true national events (Noll, 110). The revivals were the talk of the clergy throughout North America (Noll, 110). The revivals ended up “. . . linking larger and larger sections of the continent” (Noll, 111). The First and Second Great Awakenings also helped to influence church leadership. Coming out of the revivals came a model of leadership that encouraged the common people to rely no longer on clergy to perform religious duties, but instead, to do them for themselves (Noll, 112).

The First and Second Great Awakenings left a huge impact on the American Church. It changed the way religion functioned. It changed the way Christians thought about religion. It was the first national event, which is also why the revivals can be argued to be the most important events in the history of the American Church before the Civil War. They were both a reflection and a response to the culture, but their own effects were felt long after they occurred. They helped pave the way for later social and moral reform. The Great Awakenings were very important for the American Church and for the country.

-------------

Noll, Mark. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Co., 1992.

What Would Be Enough?

Have you ever heard an argument against the existence of God that rests on the statement, "There is too much evil in the world"?

In my Hebrew Exegesis class on Saturday, we stopped for a moment to consider this kind of argument. The professor, Tony Petrotta, asked in response, "What would be just right? Fifteen percent less? Twenty percent less?" He was basically asking, "At what point does the amount of evil become enough, acceptable, or just right?" To say, "There is too much evil in the world," is to suggest either explicitly or implicitly that there is a level of evil that is acceptable. However, determining that acceptable level is purely subjective. Therefore, the question is not helpful.

So? What do you think of this response? Do you find it helpful? Frustrating? I don't know that I find it all that helpful. It may be a subjective matter, but I can see where people are coming from. The problem of evil is a problem nonetheless, even when we can't determine with an objective basis for an acceptable amount of evil. The truth is, no level of evil is acceptable. But evilness is evident. If the aforementioned question doesn't work, then it can be restated: "There is evil in the world." Upon this question, one could conceivably state, "Since there is evil in the world, and since God is supposed to be all good, there must not be a God." Although I would not agree, I can see where they are coming from.

I do find it helpful that the original statement rests upon a level of subjectivity. Most of the time the statement is parallel with contemporary issues of hunger, injustice, and war. But they are not ever considered as a result and consequence of human imperfection in an open system of cause and effect. It assumes that evil is entirely God's responsibility. But is it? I think not. Ultimately, we could say that God is in charge of all that happens and exists, and so he is therefore responsible to a certain extent. But humans also have a role and responsibility in what happens. Humans are not off the hook. Their role, action, and inaction need to be considered as the main reason for what happens in this world.

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?

Mouw Muses on the Forgetful Messiah

Over at Mouw's Musings, the President of the seminary I attend talks about his theology regarding God's generosity. He says that while he believes one comes to salvation by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, he does allow room for God's divine generosity. It is through this divine generosity that those who come before Jesus Christ when they die can acknowledge him at that time and be permitted to dwell with the Lord.

Mouw reports to have received opposition from two different sides regarding this theology of divine generosity. First, his evangelical friends have criticized him for this position. It is too inclusive for most evangelicals and it opts for an idea of salvation that does not require a relationship with God through Jesus Christ in this present life. Second, his Jewish friend has criticized him for his position. Why must Jesus Christ still be acknowledged?

I find this intriguing and I have often thought about it without forcing myself to come to a conclusion. I had a professor at Simpson University who said that we cannot tell God what to do, but rather, God will bring anyone he would like into heaven. The thrust of this statement is the thrust of Mouw's theology of divine generosity. God can commune with anyone he wishes. We cannot decide for God whom he will permit to dwell with him in heaven. Not only that, but the biblical evidence has support for a more inclusive stance when it talks about every language being represented in heaven. Every language is equal to every language from any and every culture throughout the history of humanity, including before Christ, does it not? If such is the case, perhaps Mouw is being more biblical by holding to his theology of divine generosity.

Caspian, Lewis, War - A Post at Ev Epheso

Mike over at Ev Epheso has looked at a post on Prince Caspian, women, and violence over at the Gender Blog. His post is here.

I like what Mike has to say. He points out that the arguments on the Gender Blog are ill-supported (proof-texting is not sufficient, especially so when the context is ignored). He also points out the Gender Blog's underlying assumption: men can fight in battle. But he is alarmed, and rightfully so, that the Gender Blog does not question whether or not Christian men can fight. I find this to be a very important question: can Christian men or women fight in war? The Gender Blog does not tackle this question. Instead, it presumes that men can fight, and it argues that women cannot.

I would say that Mike's own argument against Christians going to war is ill-supported. He says that the New Testament does not mention that Christians should go to war. But this is an argument from silence. It is something that should be considered, but in itself it is not a good foundation for an argument. Rather, the fact that Christians are to be lovers and messengers of God speaks against involvement in war. War is all about pride and selfishness. War is all about force and overpowering. Such things are looked down upon by the New Testament. Looking at war in light of the Old Testament, we see that God will sometimes use war as the means for bringing about his justice. And even in the New Testament we find God's wrath to be burning hot against the wicked. Look at Herod; God struck him down. The New Testament is not free of war or wrath support, but the overwhelming majority of the New Testament does motion towards love and peace.

Yet, Mike's argument about what Christians ought to be doing--saving people--is good. Let's not forget that in the early church Christians could not serve as soldiers. It ought to be taken very seriously. Love is key; violence is a detriment to love. The New Testament motions towards love and peace. Christians should take such a route.

One thing I would ask, however, is this: are Christians not dual-citizens? Both citizens of heaven and of this world? There is a tension, then, is there not? So, in light of this tension, how do we understand Christian soldiers--believers in Christ who long for love and peace, but who are also citizens of the USA and are soldiers in the United States Army--who get shipped off to war? Are we able to say that their lives are split down the middle and function as though they have one leg in heaven and one leg in this world?

EDIT: let's see if the pingback, backlink, trackback works with this link here.

Heavy Metal is Deep, I tell you

Killswitch Engage has yet another deep song. The song is "Reject Yourself" on the album "As Daylight Dies." Here are the lyrics:

Their cries are blown away with the wind.
How passive can we be before humanity is lost?
Turning our backs on those who need love.
We must not rest while healing is needed.

Tear down the veil.
That bars your heart from feeling this.
Dedicate yourself.
Give your soul to compassion.
With open arms, embrace this heart.
With open eyes, behold the truth.
Embrace this life.

So little time is left.
We must be relentless in our pursuit of those in torment.
Tear down the veil
That bars your heart from feeling this.
Dedicate yourself.
Become the voice of compassion.
With open arms, embrace this heart.
With open eyes, behold the truth.
Embrace this life.

Can you reject yourself?
Can you feel their agony?
In a world that feeds on disregard.
Heal the broken hearted.

What do you think this song means? Again, I don't know about the spiritual condition of the members of the band. I don't know their background. I don't know what their intentions are in this song. And yet, it seems open to discussion, doesn't it? The song is deep, and it is available for anyone to argue their case at this point what the song is saying.

What is the truth to behold? What is the heart to embrace? What is the life to embrace? Why reject yourself? Who's agony are we to feel? Who are the broken hearted?

From a Christian perspective, the lost, poor, and down-trodden are the broken hearted. The life to embrace is the life of discipleship to Christ. The life to reject is the current life that precedes discipleship. The heart to embrace is Jesus' heart, the heart that God has promised to give. The truth to behold is Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

I am not saying this interpretation is how Killswitch Engage meant for their song to be understood. But it is how I am interpreting it in light of my own experience with following Jesus Christ.

How do you understand this song?

Evangelical?

Scot McKnight talks a little bit about the term "evangelical" in relation to a book he is reading for his blog. His post, "Evangelical", gives a good treatment, I think, of the way the term is perceived. I can't say anything about the book he is reviewing as I haven't read it. However, I want to note how evangelical is perceived by my coworkers and how one of my professors at Fuller has talked about it.

My coworkers use the term "evangelical" to refer to right-wing protestants. If you are Episcopalian, then you are not evangelical in their minds. "Evangelicals" would be charismatics, baptists, etc., but not Catholics, Episcopalians, or Lutherans. I think this view is wrong.

My professor, Dr. Art Patzia, said that the term "evangelical" is used at Fuller to denote those Christians who do not take a left or right-wing approach to issues. If one is "evangelical," then he or she is basically agreeing to disagree on minor theological matters. He said that the term was not originally linked to right-winged fundamentalism. I find this to be true of the position my church takes. Bayside Church is affiliated with the Evangelical Covenant Church. Bayside's stance is simple: we agree to disagree on minor issues. I agree with this position.

Check out Scot's summary and see what you think about the use of the term "evangelical." 

Heavy Metal Can be Quite Beautiful

If you don't think heavy metal has a sensitive side to it, think again. Killswitch Engage has a beautifully written song, in terms of lyrics at the least, called "Rose of Sharyn." The song is about someone who died and the person is reflecting on the lost one. Here are the lyrics:

Numb and broken,
Here I stand alone,
Wondering what were
The last words I said to you
Hoping, praying that I'll find a way
To turn back time,
Can I turn back time?

What would I give to behold.
The smile the face of love,
You never left me,
The rising sun
Will always speak your name.

Numb, i'm broken
Here i stand alone.
Wondering the words,
The last words i said to you
It won't be long
We'll meet again...

What would i give, to behold
The smile, the face of love?
You never left me 
The rising sun
Will always speak your name

It won't be long, we'll meet again
Your memory is never passing
It won't be long, we'll meet again
My love for you is everlasting.

I mourn for those who never knew you
I mourn for those who never knew you

It won't be long, we'll meet again
Your memory is never passing
It won't be long, we'll meet again
My love for you is everlasting.

It won't be long, we'll meet again...
It won't be long, we'll meet again...
It won't be long, we'll meet again...
It won't be long, we'll meet again...

I think this song is profound. I don't know the spiritual condition of the writer of the song nor the band members of Killswitch Engage, but I can say that for Christians this song speaks much truth. The song praises the lost one for being a wonderful person, one that everyone else should get to know. So the song is of loving memory towards the one who has died.

It is my hope that when I die my family and friends will be able to think of me along these same lines. I hope that their memory of me will be a good one. I hope that they will think of me as someone worth getting to know. And, for my family and friends who are Christians, I hope that they will remember death is not the end and I will not be lost to the earth, for we will see each other again in heaven.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,