Pages

Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts

Review of Aviya Kushner's "The Grammar of God"

"A Hebrew Speaker's Response to the Bible in English." xxxii.

It is important to note that most of the reading I do is in biblical academia, so my judgment of this book is not based on the same criterion. The reason I mention it is because I read some other reviews of this book in which they were quite unfair, attempting to judge it as a work of biblical or linguistic scholarship. That is not what this book is, nor does the author claim this (see Introduction xxxii); reading the book you will find that to not be the point.

This book was recommended to me and now I am so glad it was; what a fantastic work! I appreciated her insights and background of having been raised in a Jewish home where speaking and reading Hebrew was at the center of the family life.

Again, while it is not a scholarly work, The Grammar of God does contain many trails for the chasing, if the reader possesses the notion. This book will thrill both the grammarian and lover of the Bible, as it is written beautifully and is full of heart. She investigates the histories of English translational difficulties and tells the story of her own personal journey with the realization that "some of the most politically charged issues of our time are rooted in biblical translation." xxiii

Here is one of my favorite quotes from the book:
"It [the Bible] is a story that is part of every man and woman who has ever felt the need to claw against destiny, to insist on a different future than what God appears to be offering. And sometimes, in the Bible, what man wants so passionately is unacceptable to God. What man wants is so destructive that is is a threat to the earth, to the creatures that live on it, to other humans." 114.

Also, the book is available in multiple formats and editions, including audiobook.

With Us or Them?

I am currently working on a project that is related to the book of Jonah. Here is some commentary on Jonah's attitude in chapter 4 that struck me as being particularly relevant to our day:

"It is always easier to assume that God is with us more than he is with our enemies. In war, how can God be on the side of the foe? Whether it was the time of the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, or the Persian Empire (etc) those Israelites who heard or read the story of Jonah were all people who chafed under subjugation by a foreign power. Their natural tendency would be to presume that God was with them and not with their oppressors. But they could not confine God to serving their own interest! Jonah’s resentment at having his fears come true strikes at the complacency of the audience." 


Douglas Stuart, Word Biblical Commentary: Hosea-Jonah, vol. 31 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 502.

Before too long, I will be posting a more detailed look at this idea of nationalism and political hegemony as it relates to God being with "us," and against "them."

Strong Finishes and Fresh Starts

It has been a great year. There is much on which to reflect, both good and otherwise. While the changing of one digit to another on the calendar is no major accomplishment in and of itself, it has and continues to be a cultural phenomenon that promotes reflection, identifies with fresh starts and new beginnings. I love that. 


As I did last new years eve, I've listed the most viewed posts of 2016. But first, I wanted to let you in on what has been happening. I have not posted much in the past few months, and I doubt that my frequency will increase in the near future. The blog is not going anywhere, but I am.

Having begun seminary, it has demanded my undivided attention. For those who may be inquisitive, my focus is on biblical studies, not in pastoral ministry of an official capacity as often equated with seminary attendance. Between school, taking care of my family, my obligations around my house and those people in my life (who I am grateful to call "friends,"), I have little time to devote to other cyber activities. 


This will not be permanent, and as projects present themselves as capable of being quickly turned into posts - which I think you will enjoy - I won't hesitate to share them. I appreciate your readership and interest in this blog, so stay tuned; "patience, patience my love," as Gollum said to himself.

Here then are the most popular posts of 2016:












I'll leave you with this benediction:

This year may truth be a stranger you meet on the road, welcome into your home and with whom you form strong bonds of affection. 

May you subsequently seek out her travel companions, wisdom, prudence and meekness until you have thoroughly exhausted yourself in doing so. 

May the love of God flow from your lips and fill your heart, spilling over into the lives of others. 

May your heart groan over the abominations and injustices done in the earth, while your hands rise to defeat the chaos and meet needs of our world in God’s Name. 

May your mouth be slow to speak, creating good not causing evil. 

May your ears be open, quick to listen and not for that which feeds their own desires. 

Let the words of your mouth and the deepest desires of your heart be pleasing to your God. 

May you follow rabbi Jesus so closely that the dust from his sandals clings to you as an ornament from your head to your feet, revealing your desire and passion to walk in his steps.

Wishing you and all your loved ones a wonderful year ahead.


- Shaun

Resources for Educational Purposes

I have benefited greatly in the past from the generosity of various professors and institutions of higher education, who have made resources freely available to those who may otherwise never have the opportunity.

With the rise of the internet has come a tool of incredible power to share and learn, but with it comes the danger of widely disseminating falsehood as well. There are endless circular quotations and content that is taken as legitimate but is often not the case. Fake news, propaganda, falsified information and amateurs purporting to be experts can find unsuspecting audiences, unaware of what they are consuming. As individuals, it is our responsibility to be prudent with the information we take as "truth" and "fact." This is where reputation can play a large factor; find it in a book.

One particular tool that has been useful is iTunes University. It is like podcasts or video-casts provided by Colleges, Universities and Seminaries. There is an incredible amount of classes able to be taken on your own and at no expense. Many even contain the handouts and syllabi to provide the full experience. I have utilized this resource on many occasions including (but not limited to) classes from Yale, AMBS and Fuller Theological Seminary. The disadvantage is that it is limited to Apple users, but it has been worth it to me to have an Apple device for this reason alone.

Another option is "The Great Courses." Some of the most well-known teachers from respected institutions have lectures covering any range of topics and areas of study. These can be downloaded, or (my personal favorite) found in your local library system. If you have not been a regular patron of your local library, you are missing out on an incredible resource with dedicated people possessing an extraordinary knowledge for aiding you in your quest. As Matt Damon's character Will said in Good Will Hunting,

"You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library."
  
There are other options as well, such as reputable professors making their classes available on a site like YouTube. One in particular I will note is Craig Keener. He has magnanimously made various of his lecture series available to all, such as Romans and Matthew. Dr. John Walton has similar lectures: Job.



There are lectures given in a series, such as those the Lanier Theological Library in Houston has done at regular intervals. They host various scholars giving talks on a variety of topics. Their videos are archived on Vimeo

For someone who may be interested in learning a foreign language, I highly recommend Simon and Schustler's Pimsleur (and Little Pim for Children). Again, these are resources that will be readily available at most local libraries. 

Mueller's Hebrew

“I now studied much, about 12 hours a day, chiefly Hebrew … [and] committed portions of the Hebrew Old Testament to memory; and this I did with prayer, often falling on my knees … I looked up to the Lord even whilst turning over the leaves of my Hebrew dictionary.”

George Mueller, Autobiography of George Mueller (London: J. Nisbet and Co., 1906), 31.

A Free Gift: Romans

You are probably supposing that the title of the post relates to Paul's theological motif in Romans. Well, it does, but not in the way you might expect. Here's the deal, every month, Faithlife Corp. (who has brought us great tools such as Logos Bible Software) generously gives away a free resource (no strings attached, really), such as a digital book or commentary. 

This month (October, 2016) is a phenomenal prize, Craig Keener's Romans commentary. If you aren't familiar with this Asbury distinguished scholar and are a NT biblical studies and research person, you have been missing out. His list of works are extensive. I have used his written and media content and greatly benefited. He is well researched and articulate. Best of all, this is free. Who doesn't like a free gift? Click, and it shall be given.

Son of God Apologetics: Deity, Divinity and Blessed Ambiguity.

The New Testament's use of "son of god" has been the source of confusion, confrontation and conflict in times past and present. With the ever narrowing fields of scholarship regarding these subjects, it has become evident that earlier (mostly) dogma driven views that captivated the Church were incorrect.

What is overtly disturbing however, are the Christian apologists and zealous pew occupying Christians who still maintain the false notion that "son of god" is somehow an ontological category. Never-mind the ambiguities of what god, deity or divinity may mean to them, somehow the title - with its root in the Hebraic worldview from which the NT writers hail - still finds a way to "clearly communicate" to some that Jesus, as the Son of God, just is the God of Israel. This is not the story of the Synoptics, nor is it the Jesus they describe. 

The writer of the book of Luke in his genealogy of Jesus stated at the end of chapter 3 that Adam was the "son of god." What does that mean? What is this piece that Christianity has been neglecting? What does it mean to be a "son of god"? Apparently unbeknownst to some Christians is the fact that the title "son of god" is not exclusive to Jesus. Adam was the first human "son of God," so what is special about Jesus' connection to this title?

There has been great progress in recent years on this subject, and scholars continue to investigate as more evidence comes to light. It is a wide, intriguing and important field of study, but suffice it to say, son of god is not tantamount nor synonymous to the later innovative title "God the Son."

Son of god does not point to a metaphysical or numerical identity with God, but rather a relational one. 

Far too many Christians are under the mistaken notion that the title son of god implies some strange metaphysical existence. This has large traces of Gnosticism present. This conclusion is unwarranted when deriving information from the Gospels. It severely distorts the context, reads external, anachronistic events into it and abolishes the meaning of the original authors/hearers by introducing categories alien to their worldview. Son of god was not a title reserved for Jesus alone. One need only read the rest of the Bible to know this is not the case. The real kicker is that this fact is not reliant on views of high or low Christology, liberal, conservative, Trinitarian scholars or not, but rather on its context. It was not firstly a theological title. 

"We must stress that in the first century the regular Jewish meaning of this title [Son of God] had nothing to do with an incipient trinitarianism; it referred to the king as Israel’s representative." N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 485-86.


"The psalms speak of the king as son of God, and say he is begotten, not adopted. This language is mythical and metaphorical rather than philosophical. It does not employ ontological categories. But it should not be dismissed as ‘mere’ metaphor. It was a powerful way of shaping perceptions about the special relationship between the king and his god." Collins, Son of God, 204.

"But when the One who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately thereafter consult with anyone . . . " Gal 1:15-16

"ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, 'to reveal his Son in me.' The language of v 16a raises a number of difficult questions and has caused a great deal of speculation. The Christological title 'Son of God,' 'his [God’s] Son,' or simply 'the Son' appears in Paul’s writings fifteen times ('Son of God': Rom 1:42 Cor 1:19Gal 2:20; “his Son” or “the Son”: Rom 1:395:108:329321 Cor 1:915:28Gal 1:164:461 Thess 1:10), which warrants Werner Kramer’s comment: 'In comparison with the passages in which the titles Christ Jesus or Lord occur, this is an infinitesimally small figure' (Christ, Lord, Son of God, 183). Furthermore, in that all of these fifteen instances are in Paul’s earlier letters (i.e., the Hauptbriefe and 1 Thessalonians, but none in the Prison or Pastoral Epistles), it can be argued that “Son of God” as a Christological title was derived by Paul from his Jewish Christian heritage (cf. ibid., 185). During the first half of the twentieth century, of course, scholars influenced by G. H. Dalman and W. Bousset tended to separate “Son of God” from its Jewish roots and to see it as a Hellenistic epiphany accretion. Of late, however, the title is being increasingly related to Jewish messianology (cf. 4QFlor on 2 Sam 7:144 Ezra 7:28–2913:32375214:9) and seen as a feature of early Jewish Christian Christology (cf. my The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, 93–99). In Galatians the title “Son of God” or “his Son” appears elsewhere at 2:20 and 4:46, with each of these occurrences situated in a confessional or quasi-confessional portion. . . . So it may be claimed that “Son of God” is a title carried over from both Paul’s Jewish and his Christian past, and that he uses it here as a central Christological ascription because (1) it was ingrained in his thinking as a Jewish Christian, and (2) it was part of the language of his opponents, who were also Jewish Christians." R. N. Longenecker, vol. 41, Word Biblical Commentary : Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary,  (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 30.



"'Son of God' is perhaps the single most familiar christological title. Indeed, it is so familiar that many people think it is the 'real' one, with the others perhaps being metaphorical. Tracing its development illuminate the meaning of the phrase. It has a history in the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish tradition. 'Son of God' could refer to Israel. In the story of the Exodus, Moses is told to say to Pharaoh: 'Thus says the Lord: Israel is my firstborn son. . . . Let my son go that he may worship you.' Hosea says in the name of God, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.' 'Son of God' could also refer to the king of Israel. Speaking in the name of God, Nathan the prophet said about the king, 'I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.' In a psalm probably used in a coronation liturgy in ancient Israel, the divine voice addresses the king and says, 'You are my son; today I have begotten you.' In the book of Job, angels or perhaps members of the divine council are referred to as sons of God: 'One day the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also was among them.' One further use of the metaphor in the Jewish tradition is also worth noting. Near the time of Jesus, other Jewish Spirit persons were sometimes called 'son of God.' What do Israel, the king, angels, and Jewish religious ecstatics have in common? All have a close relationship with God. That is, “Son of God” is a relational metaphor, pointing to an intimate relationship with God, like that of beloved child to parent.” N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus, pg. 151.

Dr. Colin Brown, who was senior Professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological seminary (also lexicographer of NIDNTT) wrote, 

“Indeed, one may well ask whether the term ‘Son of God’ is in and of itself a divine title at all. Certainly there are many instances in biblical language where it is definitely not a designation of deity. Adam is called "the son of God in Luke's genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3: 38). Hosea 11:1 (which is cited in Matt 2: 15) alludes to the nation of Israel as God's son. In Wisdom 2: 18 the righteous man is called God's son. Nathan's prophecy to David contains God's promise to David's successor: ‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son’ (2 Sam 714; cf. Psalm 89: 26-27). This passage also occurs in a collection of testimonies at Qumran (4QFlor IOf.), indicating that the messianic significance of this prophecy was a matter of continuing speculation in first century Judaism. In Psalm 2: 7 the anointed king is addressed at his installation: ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you’ (cited in Acts 13: 33; Heb. 1: 5; 5: 5; cf. 2 Pet 1: 17). This passage is the source of the identification of Jesus with God's Son by the Bat Qol (voice from heaven) after his baptism (Mark 1: 11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3: 22; cf. John 1: 34). The voice also identifies Jesus with the chosen servant in whom God delights (Isa. 42: 1; cf. also Matt 12: 18-21). In the light of these passages in their context, the title ‘Son of God’ is not in itself a designation of personal deity or an expression of metaphysical distinctions within the Godhead. Indeed, to be a ‘Son of God’ one has to be a being who is not God! It is a designation for a creature indicating a special relationship with God. In particular, it denotes God's representative, God's vice-regent. It is a designation of kingship, identifying the king as God's son… it seems to me that a complex structure has been erected upon the systematic misunderstanding of biblical language of sonship. What seems to have happened with a number of issues that we have been considering-various ways of understanding person- and Son-language, ‘eternal generation,’ kenosis, and indeed the social Trinitarian approach-is the evolution of a series interrelated protective lines of defence designed to safeguard central beliefs about God and Christ. In the course time these protective lines have come to be felt to be a necessary part of orthodoxy. Although justification was sought for them in biblical language, they moved progressively away from the testimony of Scripture.” Colin Brown, “Trinity and Incarnation: In Search of Contemporary Orthodoxy,” Ex Auditu, vol. 7 (1991), 88, 92.

Because I am in a small and conservative community, when discoursing on this issue (son of god), it often ends with accusations toward me as though I inhabit some "marooned islander" position. If the average Christian is convinced by apologists, pastors or other influential Church laity that scholarship is useless and liberal, seeking to subvert true Christianity, how can this topic even be engaged on those terms? Some Christians are convinced that the Bible was designed as a "living document" which has only to be read by them, under the illumination of the spirit and exposition of their pastor, to say everything it ever needs to say or was meant to say. What's the point of a discussion where logic, reason and authentic scholarship are forsaken in favor of tradition and dogma? 

This is the difficulty of Christians who take up the mantle of an apologist with little knowledge on a subject that has been studied by countless dedicated, qualified scholars who (have) document(ed) and discuss(ed) to gain a more complete understanding of what the intended phrase or passage meant/means. What's even worse is that many of these well-intending apologists have little desire to find out. These amateur apologists seek-out those - like ancient heresy hunters - who take a position different than what they identify as "orthodox" (although that almost always works itself out idiosyncratically) and attempt to bash them over the head with the hammer of orthodox hegemony.


Unfortunately, so many have been conditioned to think that the tradition they inhabit is the “right” and “true” perspective, the set of transcendent interpretations that can prove all others wrong, therefore there is no reason to ask questions or take other options into consideration.

Heiser Videos on The Gods of the Bible

I have posted articles and content from Dr. Mike Heiser before containing numerous links. Here are a couple more videos recently done, and well done, I should add. These are short and to the point, covering an area of study that most Christians are unaware exists.

It is a subject of utmost importance to me, on which I have spent a great deal of time and energy because of its contribution to misunderstanding what the ANE context reveals and does not teach about God. Misunderstandings and misguided hermeneutical approaches have crept into Genesis and even transformed themselves into bad trinitarian apologetics (and really bad christological ones for the particularly uninformed and overzealous apologist) via linguistic sophistry.



The Divine, Inerrant, Infallible, Inspired Theory?

I have mentioned this from time to time and continue to do so for the simple reason of it being a misunderstanding that runs deep and wide within the minds of average church-going Christians as well as those who may be classified as post-Christian.

While the "word of God" is a prerequisite in the life a believer, perhaps we've gotten the "word of God" confused with "the Bible" or "the Scriptures." These are not synonymous terms, although the Scriptures do contain the words of people's interaction with God, and his direction to them. Many conservative Christian groups are guilty of creating their own definitions of inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility, then forcing the Bible into that framework. It is demanded that this alone is the way to view the Bible while all others are liberal attacks against God. 

I have seen the modern view of inerrancy shatter too many people's faith - specifically in relation to a failed fundamentalism experience - because it's a wrongly based faith. 

Craig Evans put it: 

"In reading some of the more radical books on Jesus, I find that a loss of confidence in the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels is often occasioned by misplaced faith and misguided suspicions. By misplaced faith I mean placing one's faith in the wrong thing, such as believing that the Scriptures must be inerrant according to rather strict idiosyncratic standards and that we must be able to harmonize the four Gospels. If our faith depends on these ideas, especially in rigid terms, and scholarly study may well lead to a collapse of faith. . . . Observe the line of reasoning; it is so typical of brittle fundamentalism. I have heard fundamentalists say, 'show me one mistake in the Bible and I will throw out the whole thing'. . . . The truth of the Christian message hinges not on the inerrancy of Scripture or on our ability to harmonize the four Gospels but on the resurrection of Jesus. And the historical reliability of the Gospels does not hinge on the inerrancy of Scripture or on proof that no mistake of any kind can be detected in them." 


It amounts to this; the Bible is not where my my faith nor hope is based. The Bible helps to govern my faith and works in tandem with it by showing what God is like and how he interacts with and through people. We miss the point of the Bible when we make our faith about it. Even those who claim to hold the Bible in the highest regard forget that those very people of whom the Bible speaks had no such book. If no such book existed, how did their faith survive? Perhaps their faith was not textually based and instead reliant upon God. Can God exist without the Bible? It seems as though some Christians are dangerously close to not thinking so.

Believe it or not, there are readers of the Bible today who have been indoctrinated into accepting an unrealistic and uncritical view as to what the Bible is and often means, go figure. Far too many have been convinced that the Bible is incapable of containing even the slightest contradiction or infinitesimal discrepancy. Some have even been convinced that if such things existed to the slightest degree, none of the Bible could be trusted. I have personally heard this stated, "if every single word isn't accurate, none of it is." This is poor logic and entirely ignorant of the way texts were created, copied, dispersed and come to us in the modern era. It also shows an ignorance of the textual variation between the thousands of competing copies in possession today.  Armed with a presupposition of what God is like and concluding that since God is perfect and the ultimate source knowledge, the Bible therefore - through divine inspiration of the prophets - cannot contain "imperfections." 

While this theory is convenient and comfortable for some, forming a tidy and safe God box, it can only be kept intact for the reader who doesn't look too closely at the Bible itself. There have been many conservative Christians (young and old) who have had their Bible-based faith shattered into oblivion due to probing at a deeper level. This is entirely unnecessary not by virtue of shutting ones eyes and ears to the truth about the Bible, but by understanding what the Bible was, is and therefore what our relationship to it should be. Are we fundamentally interested in investigating and being liberated by truth, or rather in error grown old by perpetuating and reiterating a lie? 

Getting into the intricate details of the Bible may be scary for those whose faith has been placed in certain idiosyncratic concepts regarding the Bible's identity. The Bible is inspired and our rule of faith, but what "inspiration" means to some is entirely different than what it means to others. Also words such as "inerrancy" and "infallibility" are often harnessed as though they had a single authoritative standard of definition of unquestionable quality. This is subjectivism masquerading as objectivism. 

God used people to write the content of the Bible. The Bible is messy, written by messy people, about messy people in a messy world that continues to this messy day. It is a messy way to describe a very great God in the business of cleaning things up. They were not early, prehistoric ink-jet printers upon whom the spirit came and dictated the words of God verbatim. Dogmatic theories about who wrote, how they did it and why the Bible has to be this way or that way to be believed, is where the error lies.

Book Review: The One: In Defense of God

I am honored to say that I am a friend of J. Dan Gill. In the past few months, my family and I enjoyed the fantastic southern hospitality of Dan and his wonderful wife Sharron. Together, with their wide spectrum of combined talents, they run the 21st Century Reformation web site. 

Dan magnanimously provided me with a copy of his new book "The One: In Defense of God," and so I offer this short review.

This apologetic work is a skillfully woven case not only for theism, but something he refers to as monotarianism (p. 98), the existence of one God as one person. He begins his defense in the introduction as though his audience has little to no understanding of who God is or even possesses doubt regarding his existence. Quite naturally then, he begins with atheism and agnosticism, systematically working his way into examining the ways various people groups throughout the ages have thought about the divine and worshipped the “gods.” He investigates and calls into question the traditional ways Christendom has been conditioned to think about God throughout the past two millennia. Not surprisingly, the testimonies of such voices are often found confusing, contradictory and unnecessarily complicated.

The foundation of Hebrew Scriptures and the witness of the New Testament take precedent for Dan over the years of bishop and emperor governed councils and subsequent theological tradition: 

“Multi-personal orthodoxy ultimately triumphed not because it was a good idea or because it was biblical – it was neither. Rather, it prevailed because of persecution. With the coming of Emperor Constantine the Great and his embracing of Christianity, Christians were allowed to exist freely in the Roman world. However, that freedom applied only to people who adhered to the version of Christianity approved by Constantine and his successors” p. 255.

Dan constructs his arguments layer by layer in a clear, direct and understandable way that any layman would be able to fully appreciate. He calls relevant scholarship to the figurative witness stand for the sake of providing testimony, often revealing dubious characters, sinister plots and heinous acts.

Dan writes with a warm, friendly and gentle tone. Great heart and genuineness bleed through the pages as he discusses a plethora of issues that have captivated some Christians and addled others. He provides sufficient detail without becoming too technical or academic for the average reader. Technical details on topics that require greater explanation are put in chapter end-notes.


As I worked my way through the book, I found a number of short, quotable gems: 

“If it were not for the abuses of some religious people, there would be far fewer agnostics and atheists” p. 14. 

At the conclusion of this case, I resoundingly concurred with the verdict. The statements made in his closing remarks offer an appropriate challenge on which Christians should ruminate:  

“Will we forever allow ourselves to be mesmerized by proof-texting, faulty syllogisms and non-scriptural examples . . . will we cling to the notion that we are invincible? We need to quit believing our own Christian propaganda that Christianity could never be wrong in the matter of defining God” p. 263.

Podcast Episode - Is God Timeless?

I'll admit, I have spent little time formally investigating this subject, but it is nonetheless fascinating to me. In this episode of the Trinities podcast Dr. Dale Tuggy interviews Dr. R.T. Mullins regarding the topic of his new book, The End of the Timeless God.

"In this episode, Dr. Mullins surveys current philosophies of time and change, explains his understanding of time, analyzes the meaning of traditional claims that God is “timeless,” gives an objection or two to divine timelessness, and discusses previous theologians who’ve taken the minority view that God is temporal."

Have a listen, perhaps there are things about God and his relationship to matter, space and time that we don't yet know (said with a bit of cheek).

Be Not Drunk With . . . Grape Juice?

I am interrupting the salvation series to have a brief look at another topic of interest to many Christians. Recently someone asked my opinion as to what a Christian perspective toward alcohol might or should be. It’s been a topic I’ve wanted to discuss for a while, so here we go.

Within the Bible, Old and New Testaments, there are people who drink wine. What is to be made of such narratives and the wine they are consuming? I grew up in a fundamentalist environment where not only abstinence was “strongly encouraged,” but biblical interpretation mandated it.

There are numerous positions on this topic which various traditions take regarding the consumption of alcoholic beverage. Most however, I assume, would agree that being controlled and addicted to alcohol is forbidden in Scripture (e.g. Eph 5:18, 1 Tim 3:8). Let me summarize a few of these perspectives:

·        Some drink and have no problem getting a bit tipsy, others are fine with being intoxicated occasionally, but are not addicts (i.e. drunkards).

·        There are those who enjoy the occasional glass of wine or a beer, etc. but do not get intoxicated.

·         There are some who abstain from any form of alcohol due to preference, denominational allegiance, conviction etc., but not because they feel it is mandated by Scripture.

·         Then, there is a minority who believe that everyone biblically is prohibited from consuming any type of alcohol. Often this is linked to an interpretation of what “wine” is in the NT.  

I have personally heard it said, "the early Church didn't drink wine, they drank grape juice." "Ok, it was wine," others have conceded, "but its alcoholic percentage was extremely low, not like the wine today." I suppose this perfectly explains how the Corinthians were getting inebriated when consuming it? Let’s just get this out forth right: 

“All wine mentioned in the Bible is fermented grape juice with an alcohol content. No non-fermented drink was called wine.”[1]

While there are many examples that could be presented, Acts 2:13 is sufficient. When the spirit came upon these followers of Jesus on Pentecost (Shavuot) some strange things were happening. Some mockers proposed, “They are filled with new wine” (Act 2:13 ESV). Peter takes this as an insinuation of being drunk, “These men are not drunk, as you suppose” (Act 2:15 NAU). If this “new” wine contained no alcohol or fermentation and therefore cannot cause intoxication, then why do they imply intoxication and Peter infers it?[2] Perhaps some expositors want the Bible to say what they want it to say.

The popular text for addressing this topic is John 2 and Jesus’ involvement with providing “wine” (Gr. oinos) at a wedding (i.e. Jesus as a bartender). Some, who have taken issue with Jesus’ connection to alcohol, propose this “wine” was watered-down, unfermented or that it was merely grape juice. New wine – wine that was most recently harvested – was capable of intoxication, although it was not as strong as old wine – that from the previous year’s harvest. There is nothing in the culture or the text to lead to the conclusion that this wine failed to possess any amount of alcoholic content.

It may surprise some, but this sign Jesus performed at the outset of John’s narrative is not about wine, prohibition or indulgence. It’s not the point of the story. This story is loaded with nuance for John’s particular audience in Asia Minor and also an 

“implicit contrast between water used for Jewish purificatory rites and the wine given by Jesus; the former is characteristic of the old order, the latter of the new. There can be little doubt that the change of which the miracle is a sign is the coming of the kingdom of God in and through Jesus.”[3]

When serving the wine to guests, it may have been that the wine was watered down for the sake of preventing rapid inebriation, as Keener notes, 

“Sometimes at Greek parties drunkenness was induced through less dilution or the addition of herbal toxins, but Jewish teachers disapproved of such practices; that drunkenness is part of the celebration of Cana is unlikely. Yet one would normally serve the better wine first because, drunk or not, guests’ senses would become more dulled as the seven days of banqueting proceeded.”[4]  

There were those in the Bible that abstained from wine for various reasons. If nothing else, the example of abstinence by some (Nazarites, Rechabites, Daniel and company[5]) should alert us to the fact that they did so for a specific reason. What reason could there be to refrain from drinking merely grape juice, or unfermented wine?

“A careful examination of all the Hebrew words (as well as their Semitic cognates) and the Greek words for wine demonstrates that the ancients knew little, if anything, about unfermented wine.”[6]

Overall, the OT and NT look with favor toward drinking wine when done so in a responsible way.

“The evidence . . . suggests that wine in the OT was not mixed with water and was looked on with favor when taken in moderation.”[7]

Oinos (Gr. Wine) was definitely fermented; not merely grape juice. While they would indeed mix it with differing substances, in multiple ratios, for various times and purposes of drinking, this in and of itself provides no evidence to suggest they did so because of morality or ethical issues against it. Drunkenness was forbidden; excess, not the wine itself.

“Wine was consumed at daily meals (Gen 14:18; Judg 19:19; 1 Sam 16:20; 2 Chron 11:11; Is 55:1; Dan 1:5; Lk 7:33–34). It was customary in Greek, Roman, Jewish and early Christian cultures to mix wine (Jub. 49:6; 2 Macc 15:39; m. Ber. 7:5; 8:2; m. ˓Abod. Zar. 5:5; b. Šabb. 77a; Pesah 108b), usually with water (Is 1:22; cf. Ps 75:8[9]; Prov 9:2, 5; Is 65:11).”[8] 

The OT and NT are not against wine, whether it be old or new. There is no reason to think that Jesus did not drink fermented wine, and the NT makes no such distinction. Actually, according to his own admission he drank wine from which others abstained:

“For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine,[9] and you say, 'He has a demon!' The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'” (Luk 7:33-34 NAU).

The best summary I can offer is that addiction, overindulgence, drunkenness or abuse of wine (or strong drink) is strictly forbidden. It is the conscience of the individual that must be taken into consideration. If you are among those who for various reasons are offended by it, don’t. Basically, love for your brothers and sisters and not wishing to cause them hardship should override your “need” for a drink. But having a conviction to abstain need not mean we twist the text in order to support that conviction.



[1] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, “Wine,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992) 870.
[2] For a thorough treatment of wine in general, Christian attitude, first-century context and various other thoughts regarding wine, see Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 1 (Baker Academic, 2012), 1:853-61.
[3] George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary: John, vol. 36 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 36. Also see F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Eerdmans, 1983), 70-1.
[4] Craig S. Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 268-9.
[5] Daniel and his little band of faithful Hebrews most likely refrained due to not wanting to participate in the king’s god-cult.
[6] Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Wine,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1988), 2146.
[7] Ibid., 2147.
[8] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, “Wine,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 871.
[9] It is possible that John had a vow similar to that of a Nazarite (Luke 1:15).

The Paulcast

I love the Hebrew Scriptures. I love the New Testament. When someone is dedicated to reading the NT within the framework of its indigenous paradigm, something beautiful and insightful happens.

Kurt Willems, in addition to his blog, has recently begun a podcast on Paul, which he has cleverly titled The Paulcast.

I am three episodes in and really enjoying it. Kurt keeps it light and interesting. I am looking forward to listening to some of the big name NT scholars he has lined up in the next few episodes.

So, for those who - like me - are fascinated in in Second Temple era Judaism, are convinced Paul should be read in this historical context and have time on their hands when a lighter, historically driven discussion (rather than theologically driven) sounds appealing, you may want to have a listen or two. 

Hope

"Plato has taught us to be suspicious of claims of hope. In the Greek world, hope is merely the projection of desired ends in order that I may survive the current trauma. Hope is not real. It is merely psychologically necessary, a convenient crutch to support my battered psyche until I can return to a more rational state of mind. So when the psalmist declares that I can hope in God’s word, my good Greek training whispers, 'Well, if you need to believe this, go ahead, but you know that things don’t turn out that way in the end, do they? You don’t really think God’s goodness will show up, do you? After all, how could the world be in such a mess if what God says is really true?' Ah, the wonders of paradigmatic assumptions. If I listen to all that good training, I will stay in the dark, brooding over the lie of fate." 

Bliss-less Ignorance

With all I have learned and continue to discover, it is - at times - overwhelming, not in a negative sense, but perhaps more along the lines of how Sir Isaac Newton described:

"To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me." 

It seems as though the more informed I become, I am increasingly aware of how little I know.

One Great Tri-Personal Book - Part XI - Conclusion

Smith addressed numerous phrases often used in an attempt to buttress Jesus as having been an incarnated deity, such as “the word [logos] became flesh” and “come into the world” p. 39, 136, 137-9, 168-9.

He also analyzed the Synoptic emphasis on begetting, “the moment he came into existence” p. 139. This language is frequently accompanied by the reader’s presupposition, as if the gospel writers intended only Jesus’ human nature came into existence, thus communicating Jesus is somehow more than human. He goes on to say, 

“the Synoptics call Jesus an anthrōpos a total of eleven times (three times in Matthew 3; two times in Mark; six times in Luke). What may be surprising to some is the increased persistence regarding Jesus’ humanity within the Fourth Gospel, which calls him an anthrōpos fifteen times – more than Matthew, Mark, and Luke combined!” p. 139.

Irons was adamant that the 

“historic, orthodox interpretation of the birth narratives…is superior to Smith’s psilanthropic interpretation because it is consistent with the New Testament’s preexistence-incarnation teaching.”

Irons made the claim that 

“by focusing on the virgin birth, they teach that Jesus is the divine Son of God who took true human nature into personal union with himself by being born of the virgin” p. 154. 

Apart from being entirely outside the scope of Synoptic data and relevance, this is also wholly an eisegetical and anachronistic perspective. The Gospel writers make no such claim.

While Irons foundationally objected to Smith’s “methodology” on the grounds of a perceived reliance on Jewish literature, Irons exemplified somewhat of a double-standard, being completely dependent on later views forced upon the Jesus narratives, all the while claiming his paradigm to be derivative from the biblical text. 

Smith covered a great deal of Christological ground in short order, as to the New Testament’s identity of Jesus. He examined the title “Son of God” within biblical context and use, rather than a Nicene and ontological one: 

“It should come as no surprise that Jesus frequently spoke about his identity. Within the Gospels, Jesus refers to himself most often as the Son of Man, the messianic human agent of judgment from Daniel 7:13…No less than forty times does Jesus address God as ‘My Father.’ As a good Jewish monotheist who without hesitation affirmed Judaism’s Shema (Mark 12:28-34), Jesus identified the Father as ‘My God’ ten times (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 20:17; Rev 3:2, 20). Since the Father was Jesus’ God, he regularly claimed his unreserved subordination to Him by saying things like ‘the Father is greater than all,’ ‘the Father is greater than I,’ and so forth (John 10:29; 14:28; 20:17” p. 141-142.

The statements made by the Gospel narratives concerning Jesus’ identity were not taken as stated by Smith’s interlocutor Irons, but were coupled with an interpretation of Phil 2 and divine self-emptying (meaning an ontologically divine self) p.148. This interpretation finds its way into Irons’s perspective of what the Gospel writers intended, i.e. only the human aspect of the divine Son of God.
There are of course multitudinous details that could continue to be examined regarding this discussion, but it’s high time to close the cover (I don’t like to keep too many Irons in the fire). In my opinion, while arguing with class and clarity, both Irons and Dixon failed to provide any conclusive evidence to substantiate their views (whether historically Orthodox or not), and I failed to be convinced.

Out of all three essays and subsequent interaction, Smith stuck to the core of biblical evidence, and I found his premises to be derived from solid historical and cultural contexts without imposing anachronistic arguments or extraneous issues.

Throughout the discourse, while a mutual consensus of Jesus’ identity between the three interlocutors was not reached, nor were there hailed “victors,” the goal of a gentlemanly, coherent and scholarly dialogue accessible for non-academics most certainly was.

I want to commend Lee Irons, Danny Dixon and Dustin Smith for their contributions resulting in a valuable work that will no doubt become an asset for people in years to come, as there are those seeking to educate themselves on basic arguments from multiple sides of this ancient conversation. Upon completing the last segment of the dialogue, the reader is left with a framework and comprehensive bibliography to further examine any of the issues discussed.

It is my hope – as I am sure is also true of the authors – that many individuals as a result, will do just that. Don’t be afraid, dig in.

 - My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. (Hos 4:6; Isa 5:13)

How I Do Research: James D.G. Dunn

I find interviews with authors and scholars that probe their writing and research methods inspiring. This post from Cruxsolablog with James Dunn is no exception.

Prof. James D.G. Dunn (Emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity, University of Durham) is undoubtedly my favorite New Testament theologian – brilliant, gracious, creative, and a wonderful friend and mentor to his students. It is an understatement to say that he is prolific – I am especially fond of his commentaries on Romans (WBC), Colossians (NIGTC), and Galatians (BNTC), but he has written many stimulating monographs including Christology in the MakingUnity and Diversity in the New Testament, Theology of Paul the Apostle, and the acclaimed three volumes in the “Christianity in the Making” series, the third volume having just been released, Neither Jew nor Gentile. I was deeply honored to have him answer questions about his way of doing research.
How do you approach research as a whole? Do you have a big-picture strategy? Do your research all at once, and then write? Do you do some sketching and reflecting on paper and then dig into research? Do you go back and forth?
My practice over the past 40 years or so has been to identify an issue or subject I want to write on, but to confine my reading to a few major works (to ensure I am alert to the main issues) and to work directly on the text(s) to draft out what seems to me to be the main concerns and arguments. Only then, with a paper in first draft, do I go into intense study of as much of the main secondary literature as I can lay my hands on. This may explain why in most of my writings most of the argument with other scholars comes in the endnotes.

  1. What kind of notes do you take (ideas, quotes, etc.)? How do you organize them?
Since my preliminary draft will have identified most of the issues to be discussed, when I do the more extensive secondary reading the notes I take are of direct relevance to the issues identified.

  1. What kind of tools do you use for researching and collecting information? (software? Do you store notes in Endnote? Dropbox? Evernote? Filing cabinet?)
This question comes too late for me. I developed my own style well before Dropbox, etc. was available. And in what I have been doing since these tools became available it wasn’t really necessary to change my practice.

  1. What have you learned about doing research, collecting notes, and the process of writing throughout your career – put another way, if you could get into a time machine and go back twenty years (or ten years), what advice would you want to give to your younger self about the process of research and how you take notes and read scholarship?
I would press the value of the practice I have followed, since it allows the texts to throw up the questions and enables me to order the results of my reading in accord with the text and the issues/questions raised thereby. It would seem to me to be important that the texts being analyzed or discussed always have primacy and the secondary literature be treated as secondary.