May 17, 2010 Posted | 0 comments

Israel

I’m off to Israel early tomorrow morning. The Lord provided funds for me to go for two weeks with my pastor. I hope to provide a few updates from the field. Mebbe (as they say in Hebrew—rhymes with “Rebbe”) daily ones. Mebbe.

May 17, 2010 Posted | 0 comments

Tyndale Tech

Make sure to check out Tyndale Tech’s latest release. David Instone-Brewer seems to know all about what’s going in the technology of biblical studies. He mentions a good number of interesting sites I wasn’t even aware of.

May 15, 2010 Posted | 0 comments

TNIV and NLT vs. Pretty Much Everybody Else On Something Kind of Important

Most major translations agree that man is to have dominion “over all the earth.”

Genesis 1:26 (NIV) Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

ESV—”over all the earth”
RSV—”over all the earth”
NASB—”over all the earth”
KJV—”over all the earth”
NET—”over all the earth”
HCSB—”all the earth”
NKJV—”over all the earth”
LXX—πάσης τῆς γῆς

But three major translations have another rendering:

The TNIV renders the same Hebrew phrase (וּבְכָל־הָאָרֶץ) with “all the wild animals,” while the NLT has “all the wild animals on the earth.” The NRSV is different by one word: “over all the wild animals of the earth.”

A note in the TNIV explains that, in the committee’s judgment, this is the “probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see Syriac),” while the Masoretic Text has “the earth.”

Neither of my top two Genesis commentaries (Wenham and Hamilton) even mention this question, but the UBS Translator’s Handbook does include a note:

The Hebrew Masoretic text has “and over all the earth,” which the authors of the Hebrew Old Testament Textual Project (HOTTP) rate as {A}. Another textual variant is “and over all the animals of the earth”; HOTTP believes this may be the original form and therefore suggests placing it in a footnote.

The difference seems pretty important! Either mankind has dominion over the animals or over all the earth. But note that whether this phrase gives man dominion “over all the earth” or not, he still has dominion over all the animals—and, perhaps more importantly, the passage still says man is to “subdue” the earth. “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (1:28).

Some Christians are fearful of this verse because of postmillennial or Reconstructionist overreach, but note that the Bible never abrogates this command. Subduing the earth and having dominion over it remain part of our marching orders even as Christians. I find that fact liberating. It means, to get down to the nitty and the quite gritty, that the mulching and digging and beautifying I did last week in my yard wasn’t a waste even if no one notices it. I subdued my little plot of ground. (Except for those nasty stumps! But I have purchased a few subduing mechanisms at Home Depot!)

I think it means even more, however. It means that God built a justification for the domains of human culture and the academic disciplines into His blueprint for humanity. This may sound like overreach on my own part, and I’m still exploring this topic, but here’s what I mean: As soon as you start trying to subdue the earth, to “make something of it” you might say, you run into agronomy, science, engineering. As soon as you subdue the earth into a garden or subdue a river by bridging it, you’re into art and architecture. Such as they are, gardens and bridges and wisely fallowed fields honor God by honoring His design for the world.

That design comes in two forms: God’s special and His general revelation. His special revelation in Scripture tells you to build your bridge for God’s glory and out of love for your neighbor who uses it to commute. His general revelation tells you to construct your garden according to the principles of beauty (color, shape, size, proportion) He built into the world. There are, then, Christian ways to engineer and garden. You will subdue whether you have God in mind or not, but you should subdue for Him (Rom. 11:36; Col. 1:16).

The Fall frustrates our attempts at subduing. The world doesn’t quite work the way it should because it’s groaning under the same weight of sin we are (Rom. 8:22). Only when God puts all things in subjection under Christ’s feet will all bridges and gardens—and every other product of human earth-subduing—give full honor to God (1Cor. 15:20-28). But it’s striking that God never said, “Eh, forget that subduing stuff. There’s more important work to do.”

So Christian engineers and gardeners (to name just a few of the vocations) don’t have to feel like they are wasting their time. They have many other obligations in God’s world (including Matt. 28:19-20!), but in their daily work they’re doing what God said to do.

May 12, 2010 Posted | 2 comments

Ἀγαπάω Is Commanded While Φιλέω Is Not, So the Former Is More Volitional Than the Latter

Have you ever heard someone argue that ἀγαπάω is commanded in the New Testament while φιλέω is not, so the former is more volitional than the latter?

Immediately, anyone familiar with the work of linguist and biblical scholar James Barr should be suspicious. He warned that “belief in the necessary reflection of theological structures in the linguistic structures…causes the distortion of linguistic evidence.”[1] This point of the standard view of ἀγάπη love is an excellent example of what Barr is criticizing.

The point is also very significant, because it is the primary exegetical argument proponents of the standard view make for seeing ἀγάπη as a volitional (that is, non-emotional) love. Without this argument’s support, arguing that ἀγάπη is volitional becomes much more complex and difficult (I would say impossible) because it means examining many different contexts to see whether the Bible actually says in sentences that Christian love is supposed to be primarily volitional.

Many linguistic arguments can be made against this point. Here are six.

1. First, meaning is not tied as directly to morphology as this argument supposes. Speech-act theory has shown that you can “do” more things with a declarative sentence than merely make propositions. When the God of the universe speaks through Scripture, whatever He says in any grammatical mood constitutes a norm, something you must believe, love, do, etc. Just because a sentence includes no imperatives does not mean it includes no commands. “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked” (Ps. 1:1), for example, constitutes a command: do not walk in the counsel of the wicked. So does “Jesus…loved him” (Mk. 10:21): we ought to love others, too. The imperative mood is not the necessary ingredient which creates obligations for the readers of Scripture.

   In fact, some imperatives in Scripture are not commands for believers to follow. Context makes this clear. Obviously, Jesus’ command, “What you are going to do, do quickly” (Jn. 13:27) is delimited by context to exclude everyone but Judas. “Be angry, and do not sin” (Ps. 4:4; Eph. 4:26) is not as straightforward an imperative as it sounds, either. It is delimited by its canonical context to exclude many reasons for anger.[2]

   In addition, some sentences which contain no grammatical imperatives are still rightfully translated with one in English: “Τίμιος ὁ γάμος” and “Ἀφιλάργυρος ὁ τρόπος” (Heb. 13:4, 5) are both translated as imperatives: “Let marriage be held in honor” and “Keep your life free from the love of money.”[3]

   Also, there are grammatical imperatives in OT prophecy which are sarcastic and therefore not meant as “commands” for anyone, and there are grammatical imperatives elsewhere in Scripture which are essentially optatives.[4] These linguistic arguments mean that an examination of the full context of each use of ἀγάπη is necessary to determine whether or not the stress is on volition. The mere fact that there are no imperatives of φιλεῖν does not say anything either way about its volitionality. If the NT were longer, it could have used φιλεῖν in the imperative. The word appears only 25 times in the NT to ἀγαπᾶν’s 143. Ἀγαπᾶν itself occurs in the imperative only ten times in the NT. This argument appears to be guilty, then, of a kind of insufficient sampling—as are most arguments in the lexical theology tradition.

2. A second linguistic argument against this point comes from NT usage. There are clearly laudable instances of φιλέω which believers are meant to emulate, and which are therefore in a definite sense “commanded”: Jesus’ love for Lazarus (Jn. 11:3, 36); the disciples’ love for Jesus (Mt. 10:37; Jn. 16:27); God’s love for His Son (Jn. 5:20); God’s love for us (Jn. 16:27). And 1 Corinthians 16:22 certainly constitutes a command to φιλεῖν: “If anyone has no love for (φιλεῖ) the Lord, let him be accursed.” If this were not enough, forms of φιλέω are coupled with imperatives and commanded of Christians. There are combining forms using φιλέω that believers are told to have: “Let brotherly love (φιλαδελφία) continue” (Heb. 13:1); “Train the young women to love their husbands (φιλάνδρους) and children (φιλοτέκνους)” (Titus 2:4).[5] Interpreters regularly point out that men are commanded to love their wives (Eph. 5:25ff.) while women are never commanded to love their husbands. A woman’s love for her spouse is commonly thought to be natural. But Titus 2:4 constitutes such a command, and it uses a combining form of φιλέω—the supposedly natural and instinctive form of love—to do so.Is a theological conclusion—one in the domain of theological anthropology in this case—the best one to draw from the fact that φιλεῖν is never found in the imperative in the NT? Its presence in the imperative in the OT suggests that a linguistic explanation may be better: φιλεῖν in the imperative meant “kiss.” In Gen. 27:26 and Sng. 1:2, the verb appears in the imperative with that sense. Perhaps Jesus, in choosing ἀγαπᾶν for the Great Commandment, was not rejecting a lesser or even different form of love; He simply was not saying, “Kiss the Lord with all your heart.” Only a usage survey can say.
3. Third, Roy Butler has listed the adverbial modifiers that accompany ἀγαπάω and φιλέω, and he notes that while positive words modify both ἀγαπάω (to love “in sincerity,” “in deed,” “in truth,” “unto the death,” “much,” “more abundantly”) and φιλέω (to love “in the faith,” “more”), negative modifiers accompany only ἀγαπάω (to love “little,” “less,” “in word,” “in tongue”). He comments with tongue in cheek, “From these facts it would be reasonable to infer that agapao connotes a love which, depending on circumstances, is good or bad; but phileo connotes a love which is good only.”[6] But Butler’s faux argument is linguistically equivalent to the argument from grammatical mood which is the subject of this post. Interpreters using either would be finding theological significance where God put none.
4. Fourth, does this type of argumentation work with any other NT synonyms? The three words for “wash”—νίπτω, πλύνω, and λούω—have very similar overall usages in the NT (55, 43, 55 times, respectively), but νίπτω is commanded more often than the other two combined. Is the kind of washing communicated by νίπτω a more volitional kind of washing?
5. Fifth, does this method of study admit of degrees? Λαλέω is commanded proportionally almost four times more often than its closest synonym, λέγω. Does this mean that λαλέω speech is approximately four times more volitional than λέγω speech? (Does it mean, in fact, that φιλέω is not volitional at all since it is never commanded?)Does verbal inspiration truly demand that Bible interpreters find theological significance in every linguistic or stylistic choice? This is Bible Code reasoning.

   It may be objected that volition is not at issue in such simple external actions as washing and speaking, so it will be appropriate to take an example from the same semantic domain as ἀγαπάω and φιλέω: is λυπέω equal to πενθέω in volitionality since they are commanded the same number of times in the NT+LXX—with similar overall usages outside the imperative? No one has ever thought to argue this way (I would suggest that is because no one’s theology is not pushing him to do so, but theology is pushing the volitional-love view).

   A final comment under this point: in the NT, ἐλέγχω is commanded twice as often as it synonym ἐπιτιμάω.[7] However, if the LXX is included, the proportion of imperatives to overall uses is very similar between the two verbs. Perhaps this demonstrates that an effort to discern meaning from the relative frequency of synonyms (in various moods, even) invites linguistic pitfalls. We simply do not have all the Κοινή usage evidence.

6. Sixth and last, the verb ἀγαπάω is used in statements like “people loved the darkness rather than the light” (John 3:19) and in imperatives such as “Do not love the world or the things in the world” (1Jn. 2:15).[8] Many interpreters recognize that such uses make it clear that ἀγαπάω does not always mean Christian love. These interpreters insist, however, that the noun ἀγάπη can and does communicate Christian love. But the noun ἀγάπη, of course, is never found in the imperative mood! By giving up ἀγαπάω, they give up their key objective support for the view that ἀγάπη love is more volitional than others.

The argument that ἀγαπάω is more volitional than φιλέω because the latter is never found in the imperative mood has insurmountably grave linguistic problems. It is probably the weakest point in the standard view of ἀγάπη love.

If you made it this far, even if you are not a regular reader of my blog, you may have gathered that this is an excerpt from my dissertation (slightly blogified). I’m not sure if it’s good form to post excerpts from an ongoing work, but the web is an evolving medium and I’m taking the risk. I do so in part to ask you to interact with me. I just turned in the chapter containing this material. Prepare me for my committee’s barrages by giving me any critique you like.

---

[1] Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 127.

[2] Admittedly, this particular paragraph could be consistent with the overall point, because it would not matter whether ἀγαπάω is commanded of believers, only that it is commanded. But this paragraph is illustrating the general truth that grammatical form and theological meaning are not tied together in the way the standard view of ἀγάπη is supposing.

[3] Lane comments, “By virtue of its position at the beginning of the sentence, τίμιος, ‘respected,’ is emphatic. The simple adjective is used imperatively here, and in 13:5 as well. This is a usage closely related to the imperatival participle, which is common in the Koine.” In other words, syntax—the smallest unit of context—can “overrule” grammatical form. William Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews 9–13 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), 508.

[4] One example is “Your kingdom come” (Mt. 6:10). Randy Leedy suggests that “in classical Greek this would have been an optative.” Lecture notes, Exegesis of Matthew, Bob Jones Seminary, 10/7/01.

[5] Greg Mazak anticipates this argument. Emotional Life of Jesus, 158.

[6] Butler, Agapao and Phileo, 52.

[7] Both mean “rebuke” or “reprove.”

[8] Note what this means: 1 John 2:15, a usage of ἀγαπάω which clearly does not fit the standard view of what ἀγάπη means, has always been a full ten percent of its evidence for a major supporting point.

May 11, 2010 Posted | 0 comments

Turn Neither to the Right Hand nor to the… Wait… Mom, Which One is My Left?

I saved this whole article in my BibleWorks notes.

Here are the excerpts I highlighted for use as a future sermon illustration:

Not long ago, a team of researchers watched a 1-year-old boy take justice into his own hands. The boy had just seen a puppet show in which one puppet played with a ball while interacting with two other puppets. The center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the right, who would pass it back. And the center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the left . . . who would run away with it. Then the two puppets on the ends were brought down from the stage and set before the toddler. Each was placed next to a pile of treats. At this point, the toddler was asked to take a treat away from one puppet. Like most children in this situation, the boy took it from the pile of the “naughty” one. But this punishment wasn’t enough — he then leaned over and smacked the puppet in the head.

. . . .

From Sigmund Freud to Jean Piaget to Lawrence Kohlberg, psychologists have long argued that we begin life as amoral animals. One important task of society, particularly of parents, is to turn babies into civilized beings — social creatures who can experience empathy, guilt and shame; who can override selfish impulses in the name of higher principles; and who will respond with outrage to unfairness and injustice. Many parents and educators would endorse a view of infants and toddlers close to that of a recent Onion headline: “New Study Reveals Most Children Unrepentant Sociopaths.” If children enter the world already equipped with moral notions, why is it that we have to work so hard to humanize them?

A growing body of evidence, though, suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. With the help of well-designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone.

I placed these paragraphs, of course, in my notes on Romans 2:15, “They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.”

This is pretty well perfect for a sermon: A human interest story involving the cutest category of human. A statement of the “worldly” view. An unwitting scientific affirmation of Paul’s view.

I get innumerable illustrations from the New York Times.