Good morning in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Did you know that spiritual maturity is not explicitly talked about much in Scripture? We have a few references in the Pauline epistles and a couple of mentions in the letter to the Hebrews; a mere eight references in some way to the word we translate as “mature”, τέλειος. Now “mature” isn’t exactly a direct translation, as τέλειος more literally refers to “completeness” or “perfection.” But the translation “maturity” seems to capture the transition from elementary knowledge. This is easily seen in the text I want to focus on, Hebrews 6. Hebrews 6:1 begins with this text:
Διὸ ἀφέντες τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα φερώμεθα
Here we see a command, prefaced by Διὸ, to “flee the elementary teaching of Christ and press on towards maturity.” It is here that we know to look back on what was written previously, in order that we might understand the Διὸ ("Therefore"). In 5:11-5:14 we see a bit of a scolding by the author upon the readers because they are “unskilled in the word of righteousness” and “need milk, not solid food.” They are “dull of hearing” and it is suggested they ought to be teachers by this time.
It is here that I think we all need to take a step back and consider where we are in our understanding of the Scriptures. Would we consider ourselves “skilled in the word of righteousness?” Do we consume “solid food,” in reference to the teaching we receive? I think many of us would be guilty of indulging in worldly pleasures instead of undergoing the training commanded here.
So we then come to 6:1, where it is commanded that the readers “flee the elementary teaching of Christ and press on towards maturity,” we have to wonder what is elementary and what is mature. The phrase τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον is in direct contrast to τὴν τελειότητα:
τῆς ἀρχῆς - the beginning, first, principle
τὴν τελειότητα - the completeness, perfection
Thus, when we compare the two, the idea is that there is a beginning teaching that spiritually immature Christians know, and there is a more complete and perfected teaching that spiritually mature Christians know. Not skipping ahead too fast, let us consider the gravity of what is being said here. We are not to remain idle in our learning of “the word of righteousness” (5:13). We are to continue learning, even unto perfection! Do not ever be fooled into thinking that studying the scriptures and immersing yourself daily in the teachings of Christianity is a worthless endeavor! This produces maturity and completeness!
The author continues on to give a list of what constitutes “the elementary teaching of Christ” and a the θεμέλιον (foundation) of our faith: Repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. These are considered elementary! I think at this point we can use this as a personal check-up so to speak; are we knowledgeable of these things? Are these foundational to our Christianity? Are these really “elementary teachings?” If we personally don’t feel that way, it is time to correct our thinking and align it with the words of Scripture.
Now, the author gives us examples of elementary teaching, but does he give us any examples of mature teaching? Well, it would seem that 5:11 through 6:12 is a bit of an interjection in a much larger argument the author is making. In fact, the author has been talking about the high priesthood of Jesus since 1:17, and even prior to that it seems the author is laying a foundation. We see a quotation of Psalm 110:4 back in 5:6, and then a section from 6:13 to 7:28 which continues the doctrine of Melchizedek: the basis for the following arguments in chapters 8-10 (Now the point in what we are saying is this, 8:1). At this point most people say “Melchize-who?” and lose interest, which is unfortunate. I think if we walked around our church and asked our elders and teachers to explain the doctrine of Melchizedek, we might get some strange looks, or even outright admittance of ignorance. There is a major problem with this, though. As previously stated and linked with 6:1, the doctrine of Melchizedek is given as an example of mature teaching. In fact, besides a brief mention of maturity in Phil 3:15 (press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way…), this is the only specific example in Scripture given as the mark of a mature Christian. At least, I can’t see how to read it any other way; the author scolds the readers for not having matured, suggests they should already know all of this and be teachers by now, and then continues laying out a well-formulated teaching regarding Melchizedek and the high priesthood of Jesus. To me, it sounds like a test of maturity in the faith is whether one is well acquainted with this particular doctrine. And yes, I think that sounds alarming to our ears when we first hear it (unless you are well-versed with the doctrine of Melchizedek, you are an immature Christian!), it is also alarming that no one ever seems to talk about Melchizedek in our churches. At least, not in the churches I have been in. I can recall a few times I’ve discussed it in Sunday School but that is about it. Why is that? Is it because Melchizedek is difficult to pronounce and sounds weird? Is it because Melchizedek doesn’t go well up on our church signs (such as “choose the bread of life, or you are toast”)? Or is it just difficult to teach or understand? Maybe we are all too lazy to learn about this. You have to wonder.
In the coming days (or weeks, depending on how much time I have) I will attempt to tackle the doctrine of Melchizedek with a mini-series of posts. But I first wanted to lay out the introductory point: spiritual maturity is important, and completeness in the faith, according to the Scriptures, is directly related to our knowledge of the word of righteousness, and in some sense, our knowledge of the doctrine of Melchizedek.
Grace and Peace,
Joel
The Blog Homepage for the Pressing On! Podcast
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Is Luke 23:34a Authentic Scripture?
Good morning in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! Another day, another blogpost.
Luke 23:34a - And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
No doubt, this text was used in churches everywhere over the Easter weekend to teach about the humility of Jesus, even as he was nailed to a cross. But as well as it preaches, is the text original? There is some dispute as to whether this actually took place, being that this is a textual variant. There is a lot to consider here, so I will try to cover it quickly.
What is a textual variant? A textual variant is where a particular manuscript of the scriptures deviates from another manuscript. This could be that a word or sentence is added, spelled differently, etc. As an example, most modern bible translations do not contain the latter part of 1 John 5:7, known as the Comma Johanneum: “For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” This variant is only found in very late manuscripts and is not in any of our earliest manuscripts, and therefore, it can safely be concluded that it is an addition to the text and is not original. Well, in the case of Luke 23:34a, we have the same thing: the verse does not exist in some of our earlier manuscripts, although it is not nearly as blatant as the Comma Johanneum.
Our earliest codices of the scriptures are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. A codex simply refers to it being a book rather than a single scroll, meaning it was collated and assembled to contain multiple works. Both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are traced back to about the fourth century. A fifth century codex, Codex Alexandrinus, contains it, but another fifth century codex, Codex Bezae, omits it. In addition, P75, our very early 3rd century papyrus which contains Luke and John (our earliest record of Luke 23:34a) also omits it. It would seem the manuscript evidence for this text is lacking.
Although our earliest texts omit this saying of Jesus, most modern translations have kept it in the text and have merely placed a footnote at the bottom of the page stating that the earliest manuscripts omit it. Why do they do this? A few reasons. First, most suggest that even if the verse is not original, it is probably historically accurate and fits well with the Lukan theme of forgiving one’s enemies (6:27). Further, Stephen appears to echo these words in Acts 7:60 during his stoning when he cries out “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” It is assumed by many that this was hearkening back to the words of Jesus. Consider I. Howard Marshall's words: "This verse is omitted by a significant number of early MSS, but it should be retained either as a genuine part of what Luke wrote (cf. Acts 7:60) or as a reliable piece of tradition that found its way into some MSS. It would have been omitted by scribes who felt that the prayer was unseemly or was not answered." On the other hand, the other gospels are silent on Jesus’s statement. Mark 15:24 simply refers to the casting of lots and dividing up of his garments, with no mention of Jesus asking for God to forgive them. One would think a statement like this which seems to be very memorable and teachable would find its way into another gospel as a way to verify its historicity.
Where does this leave us? Well, I am of the persuasion that it is a bit hazy and hard to be dogmatic about. It is very helpful to know that it is a variant, and if it is used in a sermon or class, it should be mentioned as such. I also don’t think it is wise to use it as the main teaching point. It would be safer to either refer to Stephen’s statement as the primary text for forgiving one’s enemies, even during death, or at least to use it in conjunction with Luke 23:34a. For me, the manuscript evidence is pretty convincing that this text is not original, but I am by no means an expert on the subject. I simply wanted to outline the evidence and present it to you for consideration.
Grace and Peace,
Joel
Luke 23:34a - And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
No doubt, this text was used in churches everywhere over the Easter weekend to teach about the humility of Jesus, even as he was nailed to a cross. But as well as it preaches, is the text original? There is some dispute as to whether this actually took place, being that this is a textual variant. There is a lot to consider here, so I will try to cover it quickly.
What is a textual variant? A textual variant is where a particular manuscript of the scriptures deviates from another manuscript. This could be that a word or sentence is added, spelled differently, etc. As an example, most modern bible translations do not contain the latter part of 1 John 5:7, known as the Comma Johanneum: “For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” This variant is only found in very late manuscripts and is not in any of our earliest manuscripts, and therefore, it can safely be concluded that it is an addition to the text and is not original. Well, in the case of Luke 23:34a, we have the same thing: the verse does not exist in some of our earlier manuscripts, although it is not nearly as blatant as the Comma Johanneum.
Our earliest codices of the scriptures are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. A codex simply refers to it being a book rather than a single scroll, meaning it was collated and assembled to contain multiple works. Both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are traced back to about the fourth century. A fifth century codex, Codex Alexandrinus, contains it, but another fifth century codex, Codex Bezae, omits it. In addition, P75, our very early 3rd century papyrus which contains Luke and John (our earliest record of Luke 23:34a) also omits it. It would seem the manuscript evidence for this text is lacking.
Although our earliest texts omit this saying of Jesus, most modern translations have kept it in the text and have merely placed a footnote at the bottom of the page stating that the earliest manuscripts omit it. Why do they do this? A few reasons. First, most suggest that even if the verse is not original, it is probably historically accurate and fits well with the Lukan theme of forgiving one’s enemies (6:27). Further, Stephen appears to echo these words in Acts 7:60 during his stoning when he cries out “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” It is assumed by many that this was hearkening back to the words of Jesus. Consider I. Howard Marshall's words: "This verse is omitted by a significant number of early MSS, but it should be retained either as a genuine part of what Luke wrote (cf. Acts 7:60) or as a reliable piece of tradition that found its way into some MSS. It would have been omitted by scribes who felt that the prayer was unseemly or was not answered." On the other hand, the other gospels are silent on Jesus’s statement. Mark 15:24 simply refers to the casting of lots and dividing up of his garments, with no mention of Jesus asking for God to forgive them. One would think a statement like this which seems to be very memorable and teachable would find its way into another gospel as a way to verify its historicity.
Where does this leave us? Well, I am of the persuasion that it is a bit hazy and hard to be dogmatic about. It is very helpful to know that it is a variant, and if it is used in a sermon or class, it should be mentioned as such. I also don’t think it is wise to use it as the main teaching point. It would be safer to either refer to Stephen’s statement as the primary text for forgiving one’s enemies, even during death, or at least to use it in conjunction with Luke 23:34a. For me, the manuscript evidence is pretty convincing that this text is not original, but I am by no means an expert on the subject. I simply wanted to outline the evidence and present it to you for consideration.
Grace and Peace,
Joel
Friday, April 28, 2017
Sons and Daughters... or Just Sons?
Good day to you all in the name of Jesus Christ our Savior!
I'll be picking up the slack here on the blog with some new posts. I've got a few already written up that I'll publish over the next few days, and it is my aim to continue writing a couple every week.
Over the past few years I have heard pastors and preachers use the phrase "sons and daughters" to refer to men and women in the church, specifically to us being adopted as God's children. There is even a Christian worship duo called "All Sons and Daughters." It got me thinking about the biblical doctrine of adoption and how it is used to describe us as the children of God. Is there a disconnect here? Does the Bible refer to us all as being adopted as sons and daughters, or is there a deeper, more rich understanding in the scripture that we are ignoring?
Apart from the OT reference to sons and daughters in 2 Corinthians 6:18, it would seem Paul is more interested in ascribing to Christians the υἱοθεσία (adoption as sons), regardless of gender. For example, while Galatians 3:28 seems to be a favorite feminist text for proclaiming the equality of men and women in the church, just a few verses later we see Paul exclaiming the blessing of υἱοθεσία for all the church (4:5). The concept of υἱοθεσία is no doubt heavily influenced by culture, so a modern import of thought and desire for “equality” would do damage to the term. In fact, by referring to both men and women equally as sons, however odd that might sound to call a woman a son, Paul has actually managed to further the equal standing that men and women both share in Christ. In ancient times, especially in Jewish culture, the firstborn son (or at times a younger son, if special election was made) was given special inheritance and privilege. To add, being adopted was no less than being a legitimate son; as Louw and Nida explains, υἱοθεσία is “to formally and legally declare that someone who is not one’s own child is henceforth to be treated and cared for as one’s own child, including complete rights of inheritance.” So when Paul says “In love, he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,” he is not doing a disservice to women by disrespecting gender. In fact, he is displaying the equal standing that men and women have in Christ. It is Christ who justifies, and nothing that we perform to earn our way into the presence of our Father, whether male or female. We stand on the work that Christ accomplished in our place, and on that work alone.
So I want to make a suggestion to Christian women: do not attempt to cheapen the inheritance you have in Christ in the name of equality; you have been adopted as a son, and therefore partake in all of the benefits that come with υἱοθεσία. Understand the historical importance of the term and the biblical truth which proclaims you as a joint heir. While this does not destroy gender entirely or the roles we have in every day life as well as in the assembled church, it does emphasize that within Christianity and the eschaton, women are not second-rate citizens. Men and women equally share in the righteousness of Christ, which produces our justification.
The next time someone suggests to you that Christianity is male-dominated and lessens the value of women, be sure to tell them whether male or female, as long as we are in Jesus, we are all sons, and therefore, all joint-heirs together with Him.
Grace and Peace,
Joel
I'll be picking up the slack here on the blog with some new posts. I've got a few already written up that I'll publish over the next few days, and it is my aim to continue writing a couple every week.
Over the past few years I have heard pastors and preachers use the phrase "sons and daughters" to refer to men and women in the church, specifically to us being adopted as God's children. There is even a Christian worship duo called "All Sons and Daughters." It got me thinking about the biblical doctrine of adoption and how it is used to describe us as the children of God. Is there a disconnect here? Does the Bible refer to us all as being adopted as sons and daughters, or is there a deeper, more rich understanding in the scripture that we are ignoring?
Apart from the OT reference to sons and daughters in 2 Corinthians 6:18, it would seem Paul is more interested in ascribing to Christians the υἱοθεσία (adoption as sons), regardless of gender. For example, while Galatians 3:28 seems to be a favorite feminist text for proclaiming the equality of men and women in the church, just a few verses later we see Paul exclaiming the blessing of υἱοθεσία for all the church (4:5). The concept of υἱοθεσία is no doubt heavily influenced by culture, so a modern import of thought and desire for “equality” would do damage to the term. In fact, by referring to both men and women equally as sons, however odd that might sound to call a woman a son, Paul has actually managed to further the equal standing that men and women both share in Christ. In ancient times, especially in Jewish culture, the firstborn son (or at times a younger son, if special election was made) was given special inheritance and privilege. To add, being adopted was no less than being a legitimate son; as Louw and Nida explains, υἱοθεσία is “to formally and legally declare that someone who is not one’s own child is henceforth to be treated and cared for as one’s own child, including complete rights of inheritance.” So when Paul says “In love, he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,” he is not doing a disservice to women by disrespecting gender. In fact, he is displaying the equal standing that men and women have in Christ. It is Christ who justifies, and nothing that we perform to earn our way into the presence of our Father, whether male or female. We stand on the work that Christ accomplished in our place, and on that work alone.
So I want to make a suggestion to Christian women: do not attempt to cheapen the inheritance you have in Christ in the name of equality; you have been adopted as a son, and therefore partake in all of the benefits that come with υἱοθεσία. Understand the historical importance of the term and the biblical truth which proclaims you as a joint heir. While this does not destroy gender entirely or the roles we have in every day life as well as in the assembled church, it does emphasize that within Christianity and the eschaton, women are not second-rate citizens. Men and women equally share in the righteousness of Christ, which produces our justification.
The next time someone suggests to you that Christianity is male-dominated and lessens the value of women, be sure to tell them whether male or female, as long as we are in Jesus, we are all sons, and therefore, all joint-heirs together with Him.
Grace and Peace,
Joel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)