Technical Terms - 2 (Day of the LORD - DOL)

Several studies have examined the DOL, each with their own particular contribution. In his seminal work, Ladislav Cerny observed that the DOL study must eventually encompass both the origin and content of the DOL [Ladislav Cerny, The Day of Yahweh and Some Relevant Problems (Prague: Nakladem Filosoficke Fakulty University Karlovy, 1948), vii.]. Since 1948 the major focus of scholarly endeavors has been on the origin of the DOL. While Mowinckel dominated the scene with his contention that the DOL grew out of the cultic festival celebration, Gerhard von Rad broke new ground with his claim that the DOL emerged from the holy war tradition [Gerhard von Rad, “The Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh,” Journal of Semitic Studies 4 (April 1959), 97–108]. A. Joseph Everson summarized the main proposals for the origin of the concept in his article in 1974. In addition to these, he noted F. Charles Fensham’s theory that the covenant tradition (treaty-curses) formed the basis of the DOL. Meir Weiss advocated the theophany motif. Despite the value of these studies, they fell short, as evidenced by Everson’s critique. “All of these origin studies of the tradition are confronted, however, by the problematic fact that specific locution of the Day of Yahweh are found only in the writings of the classical prophets and in the book of Lamentations [A. Joseph Everson, “The Days of Yahweh,” Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (September 1974), 330].

Conscious of Everson’s critique, most scholars since then have concentrated their studies on the prophetic writings, most often limiting themselves to those passages that specifically contain the exact phrase, DOL (16 total). Those passages are: Isaiah 13:6; 13:9; Ezekiel 13:5; Joel 1:15; 2:1; 2:11; 3:4; 4:14; Amos 5:18 (2 x); 5:20; Obadiah 15; Zephaniah 1:7; 1:14 (2x); and Malachi 3:23 [Chapter and verse citations are according to the Hebrew text, BHS]. Yet as Cerny, Everson, and Yair Hoffmann concede that there are many other phrases which are very close in form and must be included [Yair Hoffmann, “The Day of the Lord as a Concept and Term in the Prophetic Literature,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 93 (1981), 37–9].

Appropriately, then, expressions such as “the day of Yahweh’s wrath,” “the day of Midian,” and “the day of battle” fit within this study. The most frequent phrase, “in that day” (בַיּוֹמ ההוּא), which occurs ~200 times in the prophets alone, expands the field of study dramatically. I disagree with those who follow P. A. Munch, [The Expression Bajjom Hahu: Is It a Terminus Technicus? (Oslo, 1936)] who claimed that it was essentially a connective. The plural of the phrase, “in those/these days.” also falls within the scope of such an investigation. Even terms such as “time” (עֵת) and “year” (שָׁנָה) apply toward the development of the DOL concept. Everson, followed by Hoffmann and others, claims that “it is methodologically more difficult and dangerous to include such references in the basic field of evidence” [Everson, 331. Hoffmann, 39]. While I agree that it is more difficult to expand the field, I contend that it is methodologically dangerous to not include these other references.

Thus, if the DOL is both a technical term and a broad concept, a prophet may develop his understanding of the concept by using related expressions, especially “in that day.” Another prophet may express the concept, describing events associated with the DOL without specifically mentioning the DOL (i.e. Micah). In both cases the prophets would be concerned with the DOL. This approach seems more consonant with the DOL origin and would more accurately reflect the prophetic understanding of the DOL. Critical for further study (another major paper) is the study of DOL must take into account the given time period. For instance, Hosea and Micah, normally forgotten in DOL studies, offer additional textual territory for study and development. The combined study of these eighth century prophets should then be the basis on which to study later prophets, particularly Zephaniah and Joel.

Translations of Yom Yahweh in the Later Prophets

Isaiah 13:6
Isaiah 13:9
Ezekiel 13:5
Joel 1:15
Joel 2:1
Joel 2:11
Joel 3:4 (2:31 Eng)
Joel 4:14 (3:14 Eng)
Amos 5:18
Amos 5:18
Amos 5:20
Obadiah 15
Zephaniah 1:7
Zephaniah 1:14
Zephaniah 1:14
Malachi 3:23 (4:5 Eng)

The following translations consistently used “day of the LORD” as the translation for Yom Yahweh in all 16 passages:

NKJV, NAS95, ESV, NRSV, HCSB, TNK, NIV, TNIV, GW, so also REB and NLT2 except these omit any translation at Zeph. 1:14 [2nd])

Interestingly, HCSB used “day of the LORD” in Isa. 13:6, 9, and Ezek. 13:5, and in all other occurrences used the capital letter D to highlight it: “Day of the LORD”. This suggests that the translators wanted to insure that the readers understood the phrase as a technical term (of some type).

NET varied its translation of Yom Yahweh, by using the possessive form “the LORD’s day” occasionally (Isa. 13:6, 9, Amos 5:18 [2nd], Amos 5:20; Zeph. 1:14 [both].

CEV showed the greatest variation, and no seeming consistency. Thus, “day of the LORD” is used only at Joel 2:1, Joel 4:14, and Zeph. 1:14 [2nd]. Otherwise, it translated the phrase as:

“day” - Isa. 13:6, Joel 2:11, Joel 3:4, Amos 5:18 [1st], 5:20, Obad 15, Zeph. 1:14 [2nd], and Mal. 3:23
“time” - Isa. 13:9, Amos 5:18 [2nd], and Zeph. 1:7
“soon” - Joel 1:15
untranslated - Isa. 13:9

Conclusion:

Such a survey suggests that Yom Yahweh had indeed become a technical term in the prophetic literature in the original languages. The evidence above also shows that English translations consider it a technical term by not varying its formula “day of the LORD”, except for CEV.

Technical Terms in the Bible - 1

I have been re-reading Biblical Words and Their Meaning (2nd ed) by Moises Silva. In the chapter on “Semantic Change in the New Testament” he notes how some words in Greek narrow the range of meanings and hence become technical terms. He writes,

Second, and much more frequently, we notice reduction in the meaning of words... Of the numerous examples to be found in the New Testament, we may note ευαγγελιον, ‘good news,’ specialized to ‘the good news,’ that is, the gospel. We must understand that once the semantic range of a term has been narrowed, we are less dependent on the context when we wish to grasp the meaning of the word. that is, the word becomes more precise: a more or less definite referent (what the word stands for) is automatically associated with the word itself. These are the terms that become technically charged at times, so that they serve as “shorthand” for considerable theological reflection. (p. 77)

Then he continues to examine Changes due to Semantic Conservatism, producing a list of technical terms (pp. 79ff.).

Because the nature of the study is so vast, I will focus on three very narrow aspects of technical terms:

identify some original language terms that became technical terms,

examine how these terms are translated (specifically into English)

determine, if possible, whether the translated terms also serve as technical terms in English.

The latter aspect is pertinent today because we have many translations that seem to avoid English technical terms in the Bible. Some translators question whether English should resort to technical terms at all. This raises another issue: if translators do not use English technical terms when the original language text does, then how well do the choices of other English words reflect the original language technical term?

Obviously this is a major undertaking and will not be a “10 minute research.” For the sake of limiting the scope of this examination, I will concentrate on 6-7 words in the Hebrew and 6-7 words in the Greek.

Here is my Hebrew list to examine

יומ יהוה Yom YHWH (Day of the LORD)

ברית Berith (covenant/testament)

חסד Hesed (lovingkindness, covenant love)

צדכך Zedek (righteousness)

םשפת Mishpat (justice)

תרה Torah (“law”, “principle”, etc.)

In the NT, I think the following merit examination

δικαιοσυνη dikaiosune (righteousness, justify)

χαρις charis (grace)

νομος nomos (law)

Silva further cautions,

We should note that these theological examples usually involve, not a factual change in the referent, but a subjective change in the speaker's understanding: for example, once a Greek speaker identified true wisdom with the Old Testament conception, his use of σωφια must have changed.

So, this begins an interesting and, hopefully, a thought-provoking exercise. If anyone has suggestions for either Hebrew or Greek words that could be part of this, let me know.

Further Thoughts on ESV

No translation is perfect. However, ESV does an admirable job of presenting the intent of the underlying (original) languages (Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek). For the most part I wouldn't hesitate to encourage people to use it. From a liturgical perspective, ESV has much to commend itself.

Having said that, though, there are some problem areas, some in English as the following illustrate, and some in changing the meaning (John 20:23).

Overall, NAS tends to be choppy, although not unreadable. But in these specific passages (and others I have found), the ESV is not only choppy, it presents awkward English.

Isaiah 22:17
ESV "... He will seize firm hold on you"
NAS95 "And He is about to grasp you firmly"

The NAS correctly uses the adverb. I realize that the ESV is following the KJV/RSV tradition and so continues that use in this verse. But the adverb is expected according to current English usage.

Isaiah 63:10
ESV "therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them"
NAS95 "Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them."

It seems that the ESV is missing the word "he" before "himself" (read it aloud to catch the incongruence).

Jeremiah 10:25
ESV "Pour out your wrath on the nations that know you not, and on the peoples that call not on your name."
NAS95 "Pour out Your wrath on the nations that do not know You and on the families that do not call Your name."

The ESV is inconsistent in placing the negative. In this case, it is awkward, yet in other places the negative is placed with the helping verb ("do") as in the NAS.

Jeremiah 12:6
ESV "... they are in full cry after you"
NAS95 "...even they have cried aloud after you."

One has to ask what does "full cry" mean to the average speaker/reader of English in this sentence? I think of a hunting dog spotting the prey. Again, the ESV is following the KJV/RSV tradition and so continues that use in this verse, but the phrase does not reflect current English usage.

Jeremiah 12:11
ESV "... but no man lays it to heart."
NAS95 "... because no man lays it to heart"
NKJV "... because no one takes it to heart"

I would say that both ESV and NAS95 present unnatural English; NKJV does better.

Jeremiah 31:8
ESV "Behold, I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the farthest parts of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the pregnant woman and her who is in labor, together..."

NAS95 "Behold, I am bringing them from the north country and I will gather them from the remote parts of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and she who is in labor with child, together..."

NKJV "Behold, I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the ends of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and the one who labors with child, together..."

The ESV misses on two counts: The use of "her" is awkward and yields very unnatural English. Also, the other elements in parallel all have the definite article in English, which would suggest that the NKJV has rendered the parallelism best.

Isaiah 10:7 ESV
But he does not so intend,
and his heart does not so think;
but it is in his heart to destroy,
and to cut off nations not a few;

Try to read it orally and see whether it is clear, natural English?

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

The following is a passage in which the ESV translators abandon their guidelines and present an inaccurate translation.

John 20:23
ESV: If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.
NKJV: If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

In the Greek the word κρατῆτε has the sense of "hold fast, or retain" (BAGD, 448). The ESV misuses the word "withhold" in this context. Notice that it appears as if the ESV is claiming that disciples are controlling the forgiveness - "they are lording it over someone by withholding forgiveness."

However, in the Greek, it is clear that what the disciples retain or hold against the person are the sins (plural), not forgiveness.

ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς

if ever of whom you forgive the sins, they are forgiven to/for them

ἄν τινων κρατῆτε κεκράτηνται

if ever of whom .... you retain, they have been (and are still) retained ...

Note, the parallel construction of the sentence. The direct object in the first part is "the sins" (τὰς ἁμαρτίας); the indirect object is "to them" (αὐτοῖς) . In the Greek of the second part of the sentence, the direct object and the indirect object are not supplied. But normal Greek structure means that the direct object and indirect object previously mentioned would carry over. Thus, the second line would translate:

if ever of whom [the sins] you retain, they are retained [to them]

Note that ESV changes this, so that it takes the verb of the first part of the sentence and makes it into a noun to be used as the direct object in the second phrase. I don't know of any other case in which such a practice is followed, especially by a translation that favors an "essentially literal" approach.

Some have noted that the Greek word κρατῆτε also means "to restrain" or "to hold back". So the question arises: Can this mean that they to retain the sin or the forgiveness of sin?

The answer is: neither. That is, the direct object in the sentence is τὰς ἁμαρτίας ("sins") - plural. Note, that "forgiveness" is not in the noun form in the sentence, rather it is the verb parallel to "retain". Thus, the parallel of the verbs is: "forgive" / "retain". Now the question is what is forgiven and what is retained? In the first phrase, the direct object of "forgive" is τὰς ἁμαρτίας ("sins") - plural. So they are to "forgive sins". In the second part of the sentence there is no direct object associated with "retain", and so the normal Greek sequence is to repeat the direct object of the earlier verb: "retain the sins"? The question then arises whether "retains" is appropriate translation in this context.

If a person claims that the direct object of "retain" is "forgiveness", then the only way to get that is to ignore the first direct object, change the the first verb into a noun and make it the direct object of the second verb (none of which the Greek does).

So, no matter how you slice it, in this text, the ESV is inaccurate, and reflects a poor choice.

Luke 1:53 ESV

This Sunday morning (liturgically Advent 4), the Gospel reading caught my attention. I had mentally read the passage many times in the Greek and in several translations preparing for the Bible study on Luke (in the past two months). But I had not read it aloud. When I heard it read this Sunday, I grabbed the bulletin to see whether the person read it correctly - he did. But the text itself was "wrong".

The reading, Luke 1:39-56, was from ESV. Note 1:53:

he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.

I think many people read it in their minds (like I had before this Sunday) and make the necessary mental adjustment so that it reads correctly. But when this is read orally, it is clear how awkward the English phrasing is.

The way it is written, "empty" functions as noun/pronoun as the direct object (substitute "them" and see how you would speak it). As it is, I would wonder whether "empty" was lonely when sent away? Was "empty's" feelings hurt?

In reality, the word "empty" should be an adverb telling "how" the rich were sent away. Thus it should read:

he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.

Thus, a typically good liturgical translation (ESV) fails in this specific liturgical text.

Just to clarify my use of the ESV: I use several translations for preparing Bible studies, in addition to the original language texts. ESV is one of them, but I personally prefer the combination of NAS, NKJV, HCSB, and GW. However, the congregation where I teach has now started using the ESV for Sunday readings - because Concordia Publishing House began using ESV on the back of the bulletins beginning with Advent 1 Sunday (four weeks ago). And CPH used the ESV as the base for the liturgical sections of the new hymnal published in August (Lutheran Service Book - LSB)

In the past couple of years I was encouraged by the ESV translation because of its "standardized" liturgical texts (i.e. Ps. 116:12-13, 17-19, Ps. 136:1, Is. 6:3, John 6:68 etc.). However, the more I have read the ESV (about 1/2, so far), the less I like it. I find it not as easy to read as NAS and NKJV, which are usually considered "choppy". Could I teach using the ESV? Yep, just like I can with other translations. But I would use it with caution.

Given my exposure to the ESV over the past year (through private reading/devotion and some teaching), I would definitely state that the NKJV is a much better liturgical translation.

Doctrines of Church and Ministry

I think it important to lay out the critical doctrines and ask questions related to each, so that doctrine becomes the basis for our practice. My goal is to stimulate doctrinal and theological reflection, examination, and purpose in determining who we are and where we as Lutherans stand on this issues.


Background reading:

Matthew 16:13-20; Ephesians 5:25-27; 1 Peter 2:8-9; Ephesians 4:11-32; Matthew 28:16-20; Matthew 18:15-20; Matthew 24:4-5, 10-11, 24; Acts 20:27-32; Romans 16:17-18; Ephesians 6:10-17; Galatians 1:6-10; 3:1-5; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:6; 1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:1-5; Hebrews 13:17


Augsburg V (Ministry of the Church/Office of the Ministry), Augsburg VII (The Church), Augsburg VIII (What the Church is); Apology VII and VIII (The Church); Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.


1. Priesthood of All Believers

What is the Church?


What is the doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers?


How does that relate to the authority/privileges of Baptism, Lord’s Supper, Absolution?


What congregational responsibilities are included in Priesthood of all believers?


What about avoiding false teaching?


What responsibilities do congregational members have relative to their pastors?

Luke 1 Some Thoughts

I begin teaching the Gospel According to Luke next month. Although I have taught this class before in other congregations and once as a Concordia University class, I still like to approach the text fresh. As I began re-translating the text in my preparation, I investigated a few interesting tidbits.

For instance, in Luke 1, there is the Greek noun ἀγαλλίασις ("intense joy, gladness"). My first thought was to look at where in the NT this word occurs. Luke 1:14, 1:44, Acts 2:46, Hebrews 1:9, and Jude 24. In the LXX it occurs 22 times, 18 in the Psalms.

Then I looked for the verb form: αγαλλιαω, Matthew 5:12; Luke 1:47; 10:21; John 5:35; 8:56; Acts 2:36; 16:34; 1 Peter 1:6; 1:8; 4:13; and Revelation 19:7. In the LXX, it occurs 70 times, 50 in the Psalms and 10 in Isaiah.

I also briefly reviewed another prominent word group connected with joy: χαρα. It occurs 46 times in the LXX (3 times in Psalms, and 4 times in Isaiah). I'll pursue this more in the future.

Initial reading and context of these occurrences in LXX suggest a worship and/or liturgical orientation. Such a connection fits well with a similar connection in Revelation.

Now the questions arise: Are both elements important in Luke's two volume work? Are Luke 1-2 both liturgical and eschatological? If so, what is significance of both in the development of his two writings? Obviously Arthu Just, Concordia Commentary: Luke 1:1-9:50, provides a liturgical view of the text, and David Pao stresses the eschatological element in his examination of Isaiah as the framework for Acts (and Luke), particularly ISaiah 49:6.

So, these two angles will provide further food for thought in my study and preparation for Luke.

Leon Morris (03/15/1914 – 7/24/2006) Gentleman Scholar

Just read about the death of Leon Morris


Obviously I had never met him, but I am very familiar with his writings, from his doctoral dissertation (Aplostolic Preaching of the Cross in 1951) to his later works on the New Testament. In fact, I have many of his writings especially on John. He was a fine scholar and an excellent writer. While we mourn his passing, we rejoice in his victory over sin, death, and the devil.

"... After God's Heart"

Mission Focus


Grow Up!

The Great Commission of “making disciples” is a lifelong adventure. Sadly, many have equated confirmation instruction with “graduation,” and then assume that they “learned it all in confirmation.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The end of formal catechism is really the beginning of a lifelong study of God’s Word. Peter wrote: “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).

So the goal of every Christian is to “grow up”! That means we study God’s Word — publicly in Bible classes and privately by ourselves. For us as Christians we can never grow tired or bored with God’s Word. He is revealing himself and his salvation. Nothing is more important than that!

The challenge lays before each of us: Am I studying God’s Word? If not, why not? Perhaps we feel inadequate — I have often heard this statement: “I don’t know enough to go to Bible class.” Then Bible class is the very place to be! How else can we learn? Take advantage of the Pastor’s background and education and others who have spent years studying God’s Word. Listen and learn. When you go home from Bible class, follow the example of the Berean Christians (“… they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true,” Acts 17:11).
Only as we are growing as Christians can we then be actively involved in Biblical evangelism/mission. Our message is Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). We need to get the message straight — and we do that as we grow up (in the knowledge and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ)!

Grow Out!

Evangelism/Mission cannot be done in a spiritual vacuum. Thus, as we grow up, we also grow out. Our increasing knowledge of God and his grace means that we develop a heart after God’s heart. God is very clear in his Word about what he desires (“…wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth,” 1 Timothy 2:4).

As we explore God’s Word we discover that God uses people and events to achieve his saving purpose (Genesis 12:1-3; Exodus 7-14; Isaiah 45:1; Luke 1:26-38;1 Timothy 1:15; etc.). The Old Testament is filled with references to God’s desire to reach the farthest ends of the earth with love and mercy (i.e., Isaiah 49:6; Acts 1:6-8). Disciples of Jesus Christ will desire to reach the same.

So where is the “mission field”? For many of us , we imagine that “mission work” involves language study and traveling to far away lands. So “mission” became synonymous with that narrow view. However, are you aware that the countries in Africa send more Christian missionaries to the United States, than the U.S. sends to Africa? That’s right, the U.S. is a mission field!

Should this surprise us? After all, mission work in the Bible always started at home (Acts 1:8). Thus, mission work is an essential part of congregational life. Even without the immigration of millions to the U.S., we have had a great mission field here; many of our neighbors and co-workers do not know Jesus Christ. With immigration increasing, the (home) mission fields are ripe for harvest (Luke 10:2). In greater Kansas City, we face this new reality. In fact, more than 100 native languages are represented in just one school district! And we don’t have to live in a metropolitan area to have contact with this new mission field.

I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it. (1 Corinthians 9:22-23 NAS)

My focus for the coming years will be to equip pastors and congregations in three ways: 1) find ways to grow spiritually in Bible study (grow up) 2) explore congregational outreach and growth opportunities (grow out), and 3) equip those congregations that are prepared to start new mission congregations (grow out).

Regaining time

I have not posted much on many boards in the last few months because of a major project. I took my mother's hand-written 300 page manuscript and transferred it to the computer, then scanned 100+ photos, re-touched them, edited the document (many times), laid it out in a page layout program. I finished making the last PDF yesterday - after spending an additional 15 hours over the weekend to meet my own deadline. Now for a final proof and I can send to the printers for printing/binding. I should have the proof of the whole book in 2-3 weeks, then hope to have all copies printed/bound by late May.

Doesn't sound like much, but I have a 9 hours/day analyst position plus 2 hour commute; during this same time period I helped start a Bible College and taught half the courses, and I preach/teach 1-2 times per week in addition to that. It took 5 years - sending each section of each chapter to my mother to edit, re-edit, add more material. She has a diary entry for every day back to 1934.

I ended up using Papyrus XI (for Mac OS X, but also available for Windows), purchasing it in December. Originally I was going to use Word, but with auto numbering of photos, chapters, parts, etc. Word can become unstable. And I didn't need that. It worked very well. And I made the PDFs directly in OS X - and the proof prints of some of the photos are almost as good as the originals.

So, I am relieved, excited, and just trying to regain a sense of time, sleep, etc. Now I begin preparations to teach several Biblical sessions at TAALC Convention in June.

Oh, and this week I am interviewing for a manager of analytics position...

Good thing I haven't had too much to distract me. ;)

Discipleship: The 4th R

Response

Hebrews 10:24-25

Review:
Renewal How did I renew my mind this week?

What made that difficult?

How did I share that with someone this week?

Introduction:
In Hebrews the writer warns these Jewish Christians not to revert back to the legalism of Judaism, following rules to please God and earn heaven. The writer sets the foundation

Hebrews 9:27-10:2

27 And just as it is appointed for people to die once—and after this, judgment — 28 so also the Messiah, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him.

1 Since the law has [only] a shadow of the good things to come, and not the actual form of those realities, it can never perfect the worshipers by the same sacrifices they continually offer year after year.

Do I face the possibility of going back to the Law to see how good I am?

How does it feel to be under the Law?

What does Romans 8:1 say to me?
(“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus…”)

What is the connection to worship?

Hebrews 10:19-22
19 Therefore, brothers, since we have boldness to enter the sanctuary through the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that He has inaugurated for us, through the curtain (that is, His flesh); 21 and since we have a great high priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled [clean] from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water.

The privilege of right standing with God means that the Christian can come into the presence of God with confidence. What is the basis of that confidence?

1
2
3

What am I encouraged to do? (vv. 19, 22)

Hebrews 10:22-25
23 Let us hold on to the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. 24 And let us be concerned about one another in order to promote love and good works, 25 not staying away from our meetings, as some habitually do, but encouraging each other, and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

A right relationship with God leads (supernaturally) to do what?
In v. 23
In v. 24
In v. 25

Response is directed in two ways:
1.
2.

What word is the real problem for me in v. 25?

Conclusion: Let's R.A.P. Up!

Response:
What is my response to God this week? In worship? In fellowship? In finances?

Attitude:
How do I approach worship? (Review Acts 2:42-47; See also Psalm 122:1)

Purpose:
Reconciliation leads to new relationships, which leads to renewal through Word and Sacrament. Our response is always a response to God's grace.

How then should I/we live?

How can I pursue this with others at our church home?

Renewal (3rd Discipleship R)

Renewal
Romans 12:1-2

Review: Relationship
How did you do with your reconciled relationships this week?
How did you share that with someone this week?

Introduction:
The theme of Paul's letter to the Romans is “justified by grace through faith”; in other words, Paul lays out the plan of salvation. In chapters 1-8 Paul presents the doctrine, in chapters 9-11 he deals with the special case of Israel, then in chapters 12-16 Paul looks at the practical application of salvation.

Theme verses: 1:16-17
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

See also Philippians 3:8-9
What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ -the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

Righteousness is used often in the New Testament - with three Biblical uses of the word:

…of God. This refers to the characteristic of God Himself. God does not live up to a standard, rather whatever God does is right.
…of the demand for us to live up to the righteous standards of God. (Romans 3:10, 23)
…of the gift that is accounted to the person who believes in Jesus Christ. (Romans 3:21-22)

Where do I see myself relative to these?

Why does it matter?

What does Romans 8:1 say to me?

Romans 12:1-2

1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God -this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is -his good, pleasing and perfect will.

“Therefore” is the transition from doctrine to practice. It means “In light of everything that I have written.”

See also
Titus 3:5-6
2 Peter 3:18
Philippians 1:6

According to Romans 12:1 what are Christians to do?

What is the basis of that urging?

How does that relate to my worship life (in actual practice)?

Conforming: What are some examples of conforming to the world?

Some misunderstand Paul, that he is advocating “removing” the mind. But Paul writes that the transformation occurs by renewing the mind. How do I renew my mind?

What does Paul tell us in Titus 3:5-6 about this process?

A book was written about 40 years ago, entitled The Half-Known God referring to the Holy Spirit. Is that still true for me?

When Paul says that “you will be able to test and approve what God's will is,” the Christian discovers the truth of God's promises and purposes. What does that say to me about living out the renewal of my life in Christ?


Conclusion: Let's R.A.P. Up!

Renewal:
Renewal is the living out and growth that God works in the life of the Christian. It can be painful as old habits, conforming patterns are hard to break. Why is renewal an ongoing process?

Attitude:
Do I look for “renewal fixes”? What is my attitude about renewal personally and in worship? (See John 4:24)

Purpose:
“Therefore” I have read what God desires: to offer my body as a living sacrifice.
What can I do this week in the renewal process?

Have I done that?

How can I pursue this with others at my church home?

Relationship (2nd of Discipleship R's)

Relationship

Ephesians 4:20–32

Review: Reconciliation
How did my new understanding of reconciliation help this week?
How did I share that with someone this week?

Introduction:

The theme of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is found in the phrase “in Christ.”
Theme verses: 2:8–10

Ephesians 2:8-10 (HCSB)
8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift— 9 not from works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are His creation—created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.

How many times do I find that phrase (“in Christ”) in Ephesians (or similar phrases, i.e. “in Him”)?

chapter 1
chapter 2
chapter 3
chapter 4
chapter 5
chapter 6

What is Paul trying to say by this emphasis?

Ephesians 4:20-24 (HCSB)
20 But that is not how you learned about the Messiah, 21 assuming you heard Him and were taught by Him, because the truth is in Jesus: 22 you took off your former way of life, the old man that is corrupted by deceitful desires; 23 you are being renewed in the spirit of your minds; 24 you put on the new man, the one created according to God's [likeness] in righteousness and purity of the truth.

In these verses Paul contrasts the “old” and the “new”.
What stands out in these verses for you?
What is that new self like?
What does it mean to “put on the new self”?

Ephesians 4:25-32 (HCSB)
25 Since you put away lying, Speak the truth, each one to his neighbor, because we are members of one another. 26 Be angry and do not sin. Don't let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and don't give the Devil an opportunity. 28 The thief must no longer steal. Instead, he must do honest work with his own hands, so that he has something to share with anyone in need. 29 No rotten talk should come from your mouth, but only what is good for the building up of someone in need, in order to give grace to those who hear. 30 And don't grieve God's Holy Spirit, who sealed you for the day of redemption. 31 All bitterness, anger and wrath, insult and slander must be removed from you, along with all wickedness. 32 And be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving one another, just as God also forgave you in Christ.

Paul addresses specific issues that affect Christians in their walk “in Christ.” Notice that these are in relationship to other Christians.
What are some of these issues?
What is the connection between talking and relationships (v. 29)?
How do I grieve the Holy Spirit?
Ephesians 4:32 is the key verse. What stands out for me in this verse?
What is the hardest part for me?

Conclusion

Relationships:
What is the key point in beginning or restoring relationships?
How can Ephesians 4:32 help me?
Attitude:
Am I putting on the new self in Christ?
Daily?
Do I look at relationships as flowing out of my reconciled life?
Purpose: How are my relationships with others? Spouse? Children? Parents? Siblings?
Paul addresses these areas in Ephesians 5:22–33, and 6:1–4 and flow out of this text.

What does Romans 12:19 say to me about our life together at our congregation?
About relationships with others in the Church? Outside the Church?

4 R's of Discipleship

Reconciliation

The next four studies will focus on the 4 R's of Discipleship, a series of Bible studies I wrote for small groups. The 4 R's: Reconciliation/Restoration, Relationships, Renewal, Response. This is not an in-depth study series, but it is meant to encourage wrestling with the text and the issues raised, and then examine our current life in light of that.

While this is the Bible study material, I also meet with the small group leaders in the week prior to each Bible study to go over the material. In that meeting I challenge to the leaders to investigate the text and context. For instance, in this study of Luke 15, I have them back up to Luke 15:1-2 to understand the greater context of the parable. And then we read and study Luke 15:3-10 to see how those parables relate to the current one.

Luke 15:11-32 (HCSB)

11 He also said: "A man had two sons. 12 The younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of the estate I have coming to me.' So he distributed the assets to them.

13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered together all he had and traveled to a distant country, where he squandered his estate in foolish living. 14 After he had spent everything, a severe famine struck that country, and he had nothing.
15 Then he went to work for one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to eat his fill from the carob pods the pigs were eating, and no one would give him any.

What attitude is shown by the younger son? (v. 12, 13)

What is the parallel in vv. 12 and 16?

What does that show about the younger son?

Do I sometimes struggle with this same attitude?

17 But when he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired hands have more than enough food, and here I am dying of hunger! 18 I'll get up, go to my father, and say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight. 19 I'm no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired hands." '

20 So he got up and went to his father. But while the son was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion. He ran, threw his arms around his neck, and kissed him.

What change takes place in vv. 17-19?

How does he imagine his reception (vv. 18-19)?

How does the Father respond?

21 The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight. I'm no longer worthy to be called your son.' 22 "But the father told his slaves, 'Quick! Bring out the best robe and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Then bring the fattened calf and slaughter it, and let's celebrate with a feast, 24 because this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!' So they began to celebrate.

What is the Father’s response?

What does he give the younger son (v. 24)?

If I had been the parent how would I have responded?

25 "Now his older son was in the field; as he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he summoned one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 'Your brother is here,' he told him, 'and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'

28 "Then he became angry and didn't want to go in. So his father came out and pleaded with him. 29 But he replied to his father, 'Look, I have been slaving many years for you, and I have never disobeyed your orders; yet you never gave me a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your assets with prostitutes, you slaughtered the fattened calf for him.'

How does the older son respond?

Would you have felt the same way? Why?

There is a key concerning both sons’ condition. What is it (vv. 12, 29)?

31 "'Son,' he said to him, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'"

What does he invite the older son to do?


Concluding Reflections

Reconciliation: Fact or process? What is the main point Jesus is addressing?

Attitude: Am I the younger son or the older son?

Purpose: How does that affect me today?

What gets in the way of reconciliation?

How do I handle someone who seems to get all this “free”?

What does 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 say to us (me) about our life together at this church?

exegete reflections: What makes a good Liturgical Translation?

Stephen Smith respnds to: What makes a good Liturgical Translation?

What makes a good Liturgical Translation?

As a frequent reader, sometime participant, of BetterBibleBlog [Wayne Leman, host and primary author] and Bible-Translation list, the issue of Bible translation is center stage. Bible translation has been an interest of mine for 25+ years, and learning Greek and Hebrew spurred my continued interest. At one time or another I have translated all but two (small) books of the NT, and portions of the OT. I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I am concerned about good translations, especially for use in the Church and by the Church.

A couple of weeks ago on BBB, the discussion went to the relative merits of ESV and TNIV. I raised the concern about whether any translation makes for a good liturgical translation. What follows is an edited version of my comments.

==========================

Wayne Leman asked: “Liturgically the ESV is much better than TNIV.” How do you determine what is liturgically better? Does it have to do with one’s personal preference for an older form of English that sounds more dignified or sacred? Or are there some objective criteria by which we can measure liturgical quality?

I think this might relate to whether someone comes from a liturgical background. That is, the general Protestant Christian congregation (especially in western cultures) today is essentially non-liturgical. By that I mean that what was the liturgical form of worship for the past 1,500 years has not been retained among these congregations (this is not meant as a judgmental statement, but an observation). The historic liturgical form included spoken/sung responses (Kyrie, Alleluia, Gloria Patri, Te Deum, Nunc Dimittis, Agnus Dei, etc.).

Thus, part of the liturgical use of a translation relates to how the translation expresses and relates to these traditional musical/lyrical/rhythmic elements. This is both a translational and a musical process/evaluation. It is interesting that when the LCMS (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod) had worked with the LCA and ALC on a new hymnal, eventually Lutheran Book of Worship LBW, in the 1960’s and 1970’s, Psalm texts were translated specifically for the hymnal. However, when the LCMS pulled out of the project due to theological problems with the project itself, the LCMS couldn't use those translated Psalms, and so settled for the NIV for the Psalms text — because it was royalty-free!

But this brings up another point — whose text is it? and what purpose does it serve? Dr. Theodore Letis has written about this in the book The Ecclesiastical Text. That is, the Church (not referring to a denomination) has traditionally been the retainer of the text, translator of the text, and especially the user of the text. In the last 100 years there has been a major shift from the Church to the Academic and parachurch organizations (publishers) who have taken over the role of translation and Bible “selling”. Sadly many in the parachurch groups do not have the liturgical heritage to evaulate whether a translation is good for liturgical purposes.

And finally, the liturgical text must have the oral/rhythmic quality that can only be heard and not just read on the page. This is a critical factor for any translation (and one which GW does well), but especially for a liturgical translation (which GW doesn’t do as well).

Wayne wrote: Ideally, we want a Bible that contains good quality English wordings ... is highly accurate, and sounds good for public reading, including liturgical reading.

I would agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I suspect part of the problem with English word choices relates to whether a translation should use Latin-based words ("expiation") or highly specific "church-language" words: righteousness, justification, grace, reconciliation, etc. Since I use the text within the context of the faith community, I believe that it is important to grow the believer into the knowledge of the faith. This is the point at which liturgy, translation, and catechesis come together. They become both faith expressions and teachers of the faith. Thus, an 80 year old great-grandmother and an 8 year old great-granddaughter can recite texts based on a common liturgical heritage (I have examples of the Lord’s Prayer), where small accomodations for language changes still allow the rhythm of singing/chanting/reading the same text.

I remember the struggle I had with God’s Word translation as it field-tested some translation choices. Obviously grace, righteousness, justification were at the top of the translators' list of "alternatives". They were correct in pointing out that many people in the test congregations misunderstood the words (our congregation at the time did quite well in understanding the meaning as related in the Biblical texts). The solution for the GW translation team was to use words that may or may not have been better: God’s approval instead of righteousness. However, that choice too may be misleading. And yet GW retained righteousness 130 times, and in several key OT passages (i.e., Psalm 4:1, 5; 9:8; 50:6; 97:2; Isaiah 1:27; 5:7; 9:7; 51:7, 8; 54:14; 56:1; 58:14) and then 1 Corinthians 1:30. My solution would be to continue to teach people so that they grow in the understanding of what is behind the translation whether TSeDiQ (צדק) or DIKAISOUNH (Greek: δικαισυνη). And by retaining righteousness there is a historic link — theologically and liturgically.

=================

I don't have a final answer about translations and liturgical use. But it seems that this is a critical factor that is often ignored by translation committees. I have read several books about how various translations were made, including the decision-making agenda on wording and the translating process. Not once have I read anything that relates to liturgical worship. To me, this suggests a major need for translators and liturgical churches. And who knows, perhaps the focus on a litrugical translation might avoid some of the traditional conservative/liberal splits that fracture churches and even translation committees.

My little plea is that translation committees m ake a concerted effort to examine the translation in light of and for liturgical use.

Jonah and Missions

It might be surprising to some people that Jonah is really a mission book. Many years ago at seminary a returning missionary/Bible translator spoke about his work in the mission field. He then noted that when new converts wanted a book of the Bible translated, often the first one mentioned was Jonah. Let’s pursue that a little more and see if we can discover the reason.

In Jonah 1:1-2 God commissions Jonah with these words: “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness has come up before me.” Interestingly the LXX uses κηρυξον (“preach”), which the ESV follows, “preach against”. Such wording implies a very strong Law proclamation.

But Jonah has other ideas: But Jonah rose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD. He went down to Joppa and found a ship going to Tarshish; so he paid the fare, and went on board, to go with them to Tarshish, away from the presence of the LORD. At the command to go to Nineveh, Jonah heads in the opposite direction; while there is doubt about the exact location of Tarshish, it is generally agreed to be in the western part of the Mediterranean Sea, most likely Spain. In other words, Jonah tries to flee as far from Israel/Judah as he can go.

It might be easy for us to criticize Jonah, but let’s remember the situation in which he finds himself. Nineveh represented the hated and feared enemy of God’s people. They would soon swoop down and conquer the northern 10 tribes (Israel), killing many, dragging many into captivity. Consider today if God told me to go the Al Qaeda headquarters and preach against it. What would my reaction be? Probably the same as Jonah’s.

But God does not let Jonah get away. For God’s prophet to speak God’s Word, he will first have to undergo the same as the people of Nineveh. God has to “preach against” Jonah. He does so by sending the storm, then allowing the sailors to throw Jonah overboard, and finally a great fish swallows Jonah. The Law is spoken in its harshest measures. Only an intervention by God can save Jonah - and that is what happens.

Jonah recognizes in the bottom of his despair - in the bottom of the fish - that apart from God’s steadfast love/covenant love (חסד) there is no hope. Ironically Jonah adds the phrase “those who pray to idols” forsake that very hope. Thus, Jonah is setting himself up against the Ninevites (who have the idols - chapter 3). That is, it is “good, right, and salutary” that Jonah, an Israelite would be shown grace, extended God’s steadfast love, and receive hope in the midst of no hope.

What Jonah forgot was something that happened early in the kingship of Israel, several hundred years before his time. Notice this critical passage: 1 Samuel 15:23, Samuel speaks to Saul: For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has also rejected you from being king." Jonah fell into the same trap; he could not see that his rebellion was in the same category as the idolatry of Nineveh. Therefore, all are under the same condemnation, whether Jew or Greek (Romans 3:9-10).

Nevertheless, God’s grace rescues Jonah, leads him to renewed faith in God.

Sometimes we as forgiven, restored Christians might think that God will change his mind about what he wants us to do. “I have been forgiven, but surely God won’t ask me to do something that I have already refused.” But not so with God. In fact, 3:1-2 we find a repeat of 1:1-2, God’s commission to preach against Nineveh. This time Jonah responds in obedience (result of faith); he goes to Nineveh and preaches against the people. Only an intervention by God can save Nineveh - and that is what happens.

The results are stunning! The people hear the judgment against them and their city, they recognize their sin, and repent in sackcloth. Even the king publicly proclaims the changed hearts, in the desire that “God may relent and turn from his fierce anger” (3:9).

Given Jonah’s prior experience of terror under the Law and the refreshing new life in the Gospel, we might expect that Jonah would rejoice at such a response. Alas, Jonah does not. Rather, he is quite put out! “It is exceedingly evil” was how Jonah considered this new situation. Because Jonah was an Israelite, he knew the promises of God to God’s people. But the Ninevites? No way! They are people who cling to their idols (Psalm 115:1-6), and in Jonah’s mind meant that meant there were two classes of people: God’s people and “them”. The people of Nineveh were part of “them” and therefore could - should not! - receive the same “steadfast love/covenant love (חסד)” that is the heritage of Israel. God shows the same compassion to the “nations” (epitomized by Nineveh) as he does to Israel. The law of God and the grace of God are not hindered by barriers set up even by the strongest of nations.

So the pattern is:

Part 1: God commissions Jonah to speak against Nineveh

Jonah refuses

God speaks against Jonah

Jonah repents and lives

Jonah rejoices in prayer

God’s first mission complete



Part 2: God commissions Jonah to speak against Nineveh

Jonah obeys

God through Jonah speaks against Nineveh

The people of Nineveh repent and live

Jonah sinks into despair

God’s heart of compassion demonstrated and second mission complete

Now through the lens of Jonah, let’s glance ahead to the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20. Jesus sends the disciples to “make disciples” of all nations (note also the “preach” aspects in Luke, Mark, harking back to the LXX use of the same word in Jonah's context). In the past “nations” (Hebrew: GoYiM) would have meant “them” of Jonah’s experience, now the “nations” include Israel itself as part of the “nations” (Acts 1:8, “beginning in Jerusalem”). Everyone and every nation is the missionary target of the Good News.

Further, notice the promise in 28:20 “for I am with you always.” Jonah thought he could avoid the mission assignment by fleeing, not from Nineveh, but from God’s presence. It didn’t work; God was with him. So also, those who think that the Great Commission can be shuffled off to someone else forget that Jesus “is with them always”. No matter where they go, when they go, how far they go, Jesus is there, and the commission is in effect. Jonah becomes a precursor of both Jesus' resurrection (Matthew 12:39-41) and the Jesus' Commission to the disciples (Matthew 28:16-20).

Jonah truly is a missionary book - for all of us!

Samson and "what is right"

In Sunday morning Bible class the last two weeks Samson (Judges 13-16) was mentioned in the context of missions (and diversity). I am not teaching this particular class. However, I found a significant theme related to the entire book of Judges.

The repeated cycle of blessings, judgments, restorations, in the book of Judges is well summarized in Judges 21:25 “every man did that which was right in his own sight.” As we read through the book, the problems arise when “every man did what was right in his own sight”, in a sense repeating the three-fold problem of Genesis 3:6 (And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes to look upon and beautiful to contemplate).

Samson becomes a miniature view of that cycle, but with some interesting twists in terms of God’s judgment. In Judges 14:3b we read: And Sampson said to his father, "Take her for me, for she is right in my eyes,” which is repeated in 14:7. Now in between those two verses, Samson is empowered by the Spirit of Yahweh to kill the lion. As an Israelite he was not to touch a dead animal (Leviticus 11:39-40), but if he did he was to offer sacrifices for his uncleanness. Also, note that Samson does not tell his parents about his encounter, and therefore leads them to be unknowingly unclean (Judges 14:6). On top of that, as a Nazarite Samson was not to have contact with a dead animal, which likewise causes even his parents or siblings to be unclean (Numbers 6:6-8). Samson compounds his problems when later he kills the Philistines (Judges 14:19), again empowered by the Spirit of Yahweh. However, when the Nazarite has contact with a dead person he is to shave his head (Numbers 6:9). Samson does neither (offer sacrifice nor shave his head).

And yet God accomplishes his cleansing purposes with Samson, but through the Philistines. While the Philistine woman “was right in his eyes”, the Philistines gouged his eyes out (Judges 16:21). And his hair was indeed shaved, by trickery (Judges 16:19), seemingly in retaliation of his own arrogance and his ability to deceive (Judges 14:12, 14, 18, 15:16).

And finally, after he suffers these humiliations, he is now where God can work his greatest work through him, that is, to bring judgment upon the Philistines themselves for their role in conquering some of the tribes of Israel.

So the structure of Samson’s episode is:

A: right in his own eyes
B: uncleanness not taken care of by head shaved
B': uncleanness resolved by head shaved
A': right in the eyes of God

Other ideas can be gleaned, but this was an key insight for me today.

Mission, Isaiah, Acts, and Romans

To continue the thought of the previous post: the book by David Pao is Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, Biblical Studies Library, J.C. B. Mohr, 2000 (Baker Academic, 2002). The key point of his study relative to Acts 1:6-8 is the framework of Acts in light of Isaiah 49:6. This is the second Servant Song in Isaiah and focuses on the mission objective (Isaiah 52:13-53:12 focuses on the how):

Isaiah 49:6
he says: "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.

Notice that the Servant has two objectives: 1. restore Israel, and 2. be a light to the nations. When these are achieved, then salvation goes to the end of the earth.

In Acts 1:6, the disciples ask “Is it at this time you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus does not rebuke them for their question, nor does he say that their theology is mistaken. Rather, their theology is incomplete. Jesus focuses the disciples on the two fold objective (Israel and the nations), and they will be guided in that objective by the Holy Spirit, the same Holy Spirit who guided him when he began his ministry (Luke 4:16-30). Their ministry will be begin in Jerusalem, then to Judea/Samaria, and finally to the end of the earth.

Pao notes that the phrase “to the end of the earth”, “the exact form of the phrase (with the singular εσχατου) appears only five times in the LXX, and twice in the Lukan writings, and nowhere elsewhere in ancient Greek literature not influenced by either Isaiah or Acts” (pg. 94). Thus, the mission outlined in Acts 1:8 is more than a geographic mission, rather a theological mission, and more particularly an Isaianic mission. Pao adds to this perspective by noting that Isaiah 49:6 is quoted in Acts 13:47. Barnabas and Paul had been commissioned by the church in Antioch, receiving the Holy Spirit for the mission ahead. The pattern of Barnabas and Paul (now Paul and Barnabas) has been to go to the Jews, but when they reject the message, to turn to the Gentiles, in fulfillment of Isaiah 49:6.

Now, what is interesting is that the restoration of Israel only happens as the second part (light to the nations) happens. And this bring us to Paul’s thematic phrase in Romans, “first to the Jews and then to the Greeks”. One can not happen without the other. Paul emphasizes this in Romans 11, when he writes:

Romans 11:25-26a
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved;

Thus, Paul’s missional understanding in Romans parallels the missional understanding of Acts - and both reflect the Isaianic mission (“restore Israel, bring light to nations - and bring salvation to the end of the earth”).

As always this post leaves many unanswered questions and raises even more. It is not definitive, but a starting point for further investigation.

Church and Mission

For the past few months in Sunday morning Bible study, we have examined the five passages that cumulatively flesh out the Dominical Mission for the Church (Matt. 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-20; Luke 24:44-53; John 20:19-31; Acts 1:6-8).

While each of these is distinctive in setting forth the mission of the Church, and each is uniquely suited to its particular writing context, they also share elements of mission. Here are a few of the most important elements:

Authority (of Jesus)
Holy Spirit
Faith/Believe
Scriptures/Testimony
Baptism
Extent (“end(s) of the earth”)

The study has helped clarify for many the framework for understanding Church, Mission, and the New Testament. One particular element of this study has intrigued me, namely Acts 1:6 in relationship to these topics, and specifically the Extent (“end of the earth”).


Acts 1:6 οἱ μὲν οὖν συνελθόντες ἠρώτων αὐτὸν λέγοντες κύριε εἰ ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ ἀποκαθιστάνεις τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ Ἰσραήλ

Acts 1:6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” ESV

Coming from an amillennial perspective, I have found few, if any, theologians in this school who have adequately addressed this verse. That is, concern about the accepting a bifurcation of Israel/Church that is symptomatic of premillennial theology causes many to either ignore or gloss over this verse and “get to the real meat in 1:8”. But what is the proper way to address this verse, in the context of Acts, Luke-Acts, or even broader, the New Testament? An insightful work by David Pao provides the basis for a solution.

Welcome to exegete reflections

Howdy. I am trying this blogger to see what kinds of thoughts I can scrape together. I have many interests, primarily theological, but also software, bluegrass music, and assorted odds and ends.