ἱκανός: I will never pass over you again!

I have been busy for the past 7 weeks as my lack of posting clearly demonstrates. I ended up teaching a bit more than I anticipated this fall, and well, I am finally finished. I did enjoy my semester, but when time is at a premium, the blogging tends to dry up.

A funny thing happened on my way between grading Greek exams and then resuming my Sunday school notes for the church I pastor. One of the Greek vocabulary words on a final exam was ἱκανός which BDAG lists in two major ways: (1) sufficient or adequate in terms of number or quantity and (2) fit, appropriate, competent in terms of being worthy. Anyway, last week I graded 13 exams and noted it 13 times in grading. I might add, when you grade the vocabulary part of an exam, it tends to be really fast. This is because you have known these terms for a while (almost 30 years for me since I first took Greek) and it is pretty automatic.

Then this morning I resumed my Sunday school notes in Matthew and was translating 3:11 and there it was: “I am not fit to remove his sandals” (οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι). It is just a little adjective, used only 39 times in the New Testament. But this morning it seemed really important! John’s statement hit me very hard.

I know that my academic world should impact my ministry world, but I guess this morning it seemed the other way around. I will never look at this little adjective again in the same way when it comes up on a vocabulary exercise.

D. A. Carson on Matthew’s genealogy

In the near future I will be teaching through Matthew’s Gospel and this past week I was working through the genealogy in 1:1-17. Sometimes we tend to rush over this material like this, thinking that the good stuff is after all that preliminary material!

Anyway, as I was working through the text, I was reminded of a few things. One, the genealogy includes women, and not the likes of say Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel, but Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth. The genealogy that begins with Abraham (1:2) and ends with Jesus (1:16) runs through King David (1:6) showing that Christ is the ultimate Son of David. In that blood line are these women.

Second, while genealogies in the Ancient Near East served many purposes, this genealogy is for the purpose of showing the kingly line of “Jesus the Messiah” (1:1).  Leave it to D. A. Carson to find a pastoral comment in a genealogy. He writes,

          Actually, Matthew’s chief aims in including the genealogy are hinted at in the first verse—viz., to show that Jesus Messiah is truly the kingly line of David, heir to the messianic promises, the one who brings divine blessings to all nations. Therefore the genealogy focuses on King David (1:6) on the one hand, yet on the other hand includes Gentile women. Many entries would touch the hearts and stir the memories of biblically literate readers, though the principal thrust of the genealogy ties together promise and fulfillment (“Matthew” in EBC, 63).

Schreiner’s new commentary on Galatians

I have been absent from blogging for the past 5 weeks. On top of being a pastor, I am teaching several courses this fall and simply could not justify any “free time.” Anyway, I caught a break this week because of a break in the course schedule and started reading Tom Schreiner’s new commentary on Galatians in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series. The series has a target audience of pastors with knowledge of Greek as well as teachers and the format reflects that goal. The commentary section is an easy read, yet the footnotes reflect excellent scholarship.

I was reading the introduction to Galatians where Schreiner was addressing the identity of the opponents in Galatians. Schreiner prefaced the various views of these opponents with an introduction that I thought was superb. Though Schreiner is addressing a particular issue regarding the background to the epistle, his words have a benefit to the student of God’s word that should be heeded. His comments demonstrate why good research and scholarship is critical for the believer. He writes,

Many different theories have been proposed regarding the identity of the opponents. Here the various options are surveyed and critiqued. I will argue that the traditional view that the opponents were Judaizers is still the most satisfying. Readers may wonder why it is helpful to consider viewpoints that are ultimately rejected. It is important to see that almost every theory has some evidence in its favor, so even if a particular view is ultimately judged to be incorrect, it helps us sharpen our view as to what the letter teaches about the situation if we consider carefully other theories. Indeed the theory we end up favoring must integrate all of the evidence in a more satisfactory manner than the other solutions that are suggested. We gain greater confidence that the identity of the adversaries is accurate if it stands up against other proposed solutions (39-40). [Italics mine]

This is wise counsel from a careful scholar.

Be on guard against greed: A note on πλεονεξία

I will be preaching through the Gospel of Luke and I was working my way through chapter 12.  In 12:15 Jesus says, “Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed.” The term “greed” is πλεονεξία and it is an interesting noun. It is used 10 times in the NT and 8 times in the LXX. The ten uses in the NT are interesting.

Two uses are in the gospels (Luke 12:15; Mark 7:22) and they seem to have the sense of coveting something that one does not yet possess. The two uses by Peter are located closely together (2 Peter 2:3, 14) and they seem to speak of those whose overall nature is characterized by greed.

Two uses by Paul in Ephesians are also found in the same context (4:19; 5:3). The first use describes the pagan who is given over to sensuality that is driven by greed while the second use exhorts believers not to live like the unregenerate. The use in Romans 1:29 is similar to this. Paul’s use in 1 Thessalonians 2:5 uses the term to describe a hidden motive. Paul did not proclaim Christ in order to make a buck!

It is the last two uses of πλεονεξία that I find so very interesting. In 2 Corinthians 9:5 Paul uses the term in respect to financial giving towards gospel ministry.  Paul says our giving should not be done “grudgingly” (NIV). Interesting, when our motives for giving are not pure, when we have a hard time parting with our cash, when it is given grudgingly, it is greed. We wish we could hold to what rightfully belongs to God!

The last use is even more interesting. Paul states in Colossians 3:5 that we are to consider ourselves dead to a host of vices, the last of which is greed. He then goes on to explain this greed more specifically by saying of greed, “which amounts to idolatry.” I wonder how often we see greed or covetousness as God sees it: as a form of idolotary. God wants us to desire him alone so when we don’t, when something else has our attention, we are not worshiping him, but it. Jesus is so right: “Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed.”

Schnelle (again) on the Atonement in Pauline thought

I mentioned in my previous post that I am reading Udo Schnelle’s Theology of the New Testament published by Baker. Schnelle has an interesting section dealing with Paul’s handling of the atonement in Romans 3:25-26a, specifically dealing with the difficulty of both translating and understanding the term ἱλαστήριον. He writes, “The breath of meaning of the word ἱλαστήριον and the problems of deriving its meaning from a unilinear understanding of its tradition history show that it is appropriate to understand ἱλαστήριον in Rom. 3:25 in the broad sense of ‘means of atonement’” (252). There is not anything new here, but it gives the framework for what follows. He goes on to discuss the major difference between the OT sacrificial system and that found in Christ on the cross. He then asks a question and answers it. It is his way of discussing the issue that I found so interesting.
He writes,

           Is the atonement model capable of adequately expressing the theological intentions of  the tradition and the apostle? In particular, is the image of sacrifice an appropriate way of grasping the saving effect of the death of Jesus? These questions have arisen not only within the modern horizon but above all from the fundamental differences between Old Testament atonement theology and Rom. 3:25-26a. For the atonement ritual, the laying on of hands (performed by the one making the offering) and the blood ritual (enacted by the priest) are constitutive (Lev. 16:21-22). Moreover, a ritual transfer of identity follows, in which the animal is identified with the one offering the sacrifice, and only so does the killing of the animal become a sacrifice. Nothing in the crucifixion of Jesus really corresponds to these fundamental elements of the sacrificial ritual. The cross has God as its exclusive acting subject throughout; God acts on his own initiative at the cross and incorporates humanity into this event without any activity or previous achievement from the human side. It is not necessary for human beings to make contact with the holy; in Jesus Christ, God comes to human beings. Sacrifice stands for something different, pointing to something that mediates between two  parties, whereas at the cross only God himself is involved. The Philippians hymn (Phil. 2:6-11) shows that—in the categories of sacrificial offering—we must speak of God’s offering himself. But Paul does not speak of the cross in these terms because the cross has abolished the soteriological relevance of every sacrificial cult. The concept of sacrificial offering is thus structurally inappropriate for the Pauline thought world, and it can hardly be an accident that only in the tradition found in Rom. 3:25-26 does Paul take up a text that thinks in the categories of atonement and sacrifice (253).

Any thoughts?

Udo Schnelle on Paul’s doctrine of election

I am reading Udo Schnelle’s massive Theology of the New Testament published by Baker and translated into English by M. Eugene Boring. In chapter 6 Schnelle is addressing Paul as theologian and  he has a section titled, “The God who acts in election and rejection” (212-14). He is addressing how Paul’s thinking on election finds its culmination in Romans 9-11 when he writes,

The Pauline statements about predestination are by no means exhausted, however, by this interpretation centered on the believing life of individuals. They are primarily theological affirmations that communicate a reality revealed by God in Scripture.  God the creator owns the ineluctable freedom to choose and reject. Free will is thus for Paul predicated exclusively of God. The infinite distinction between creator and creature is the basis for the specific perspective from which Paul thinks of human beings. God meets human beings as the one who calls; “to be human is to be called and addressed by God.” Christian existence is grounded in the call of God. It is thus something not at the individual human being’s own disposal but rather can be appropriated only by hearing. Ὁ καλέσας ἡμᾶς (the one who called us) becomes in Paul a central predicate of God (cf.  1 Thess. 2:12; 5:24; Gal. 1:6; 5:8). God encounters the individual human being as the calling “I,” whose will is made known in Scripture.  Regarding salvation, individual human beings can understand themselves only as the ones who receive, who are given a gift. As creatures, they are fundamentally incapable of devising
and executing salvation and meaning. If human beings want to understand and assess their own situation appropriately and realistically, they must acknowledge and take seriously their creatureliness, which means knowing their limits. It is not the creature, but only the Creator, who makes decisions about salvation and damnation (213).

Schnelle has read Paul quite correctly. He goes on to state,

Paul’s aim is to preserve the freedom of God; this is why he specifically emphasizes a fundamental theological insight: God’s act is independent of human deeds or presuppositions, and God’s will always precedes our own decision. God’s electing grace is the same as God’s justifying grace. Both the exclusive doctrine of justification and the statements about predestination are in the service of preserving God’s freedom and the character of salvation as a gift not at human disposal (214).

Brunelleschi’s Dome of Florence

I was doing a little research on the land of my ancestors. Anyway, I came across a fellow named Brunelleschi who designed the dome of the church in Florence, the largest brick dome in the world. He was one of if not the greatest architect of the Italian Renaissance. Click on the picture and  enlarge. If you look close you will see tourists on top which will help you appreciate the size of the dome.

A note on ὄγκος in Hebrew 12:1

I just preached this past Sunday on Hebrews 12:1-3 and in verse 1, the author exhorts us to “lay aside” two things and to “run with endurance the race that is set before us.” The first verbal is an aorist middle participle (ἀποθέμενοι) while the second is a present active subjunctive. The second one influences the first and we have two exhortations. The author is inviting his readers to do these two things. The first exhortation calls for us to lay aside “every encumbrance” (ὄγκος). It is a term that is used only here in the NT and never in the LXX. It was used in classical Greek of any type of weight or mass. All attempts to identify more specifically what he has in mind are hindered by the use of πάντα (“all”). In other words, anything in life that holds us back from running this race with Christ as our goal is to be discarded. He also exhorts us to lay aside “the sin” which so easily entangles us. In other words, lay aside all sin and for that matter, we are to lay aside anything at all that restricts us. Some of what holds us back may not be sin, but just an unnecessary weight that we need to shed.

Novum Testamentum Graece (NA27), Wide-Margin Edition

I recently received in the mail a wide-margin edition of NA 27 (Nestle-Aland 27th edition). Christianbook.com (CBD) has them available for $19.99. The regular price is 59.95! There seems to be about a 2 inch margin on the outside and at least that at the bottom. If you like to write notes in your Greek NT, it is real benefit and you cannot beat the price.

Evangelicalism Divided

I am reading Iain Murray’s book, Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the years 1950 to 2000. It is both a fascinating and sad read, since it basically explains how pragmatism infiltrated the local church and continues to influence ministry today. Murray basically begins with Schleiermacher and shows how his philosophy ultimately  impacted church leaders in England. Doctrine became less and less important while unity (at all costs) became all important. Murray details how bible believing leaders bowed the knee to ecumenicalism, accommodating at every turn.

Murray’s book is a stunning, but sadly accurate critique, of how liberalism impacted the church of the latter half of the 20th century. Let the reader be warned: many sacred cows are exposed in the book, from the man-made institution of altar calls to perhaps your favorite TV evangelist.