Hosanna - Advent and Lent

The word ‘Hosanna’ originally meant “help us!” but later came to be an expression of praise. This paradoxical dialectic reflects a moment when desperation turns to celebration: when our ugent panicked need dissolves as we see our salvation approaching.

In the history of nations, as well as in the story of each individual human life, symbols of great distress become symbols of great joy, when that distress is relieved.

The ultimate instance of this two-sided symbolism, when what could have been the worst disaster becomes the greatest triumph in a pivotal moment, is the cross: it is a symbol of shame and horrific pain; but after the resurrection, it is the symbol of liberation and forgiveness.

The word ‘Advent’ means ‘arrival’ and points simultaneously to the birth of Jesus, two thousand years ago, and to His future “advent” at the end of time. For this reason, Jesus followers speak of living in the “already” but at the same time in the “not yet.”

Between these two advents, Jesus arrives many times, in the hearts of individuals, and in the grand events of history. The notion of preparing a way for the Lord (Isaiah 40:3) applied first when He rescued the captives from Babylon, then for the start of His public ministry at the time of John the Baptist, and later for His celebrated entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.

Preparing the way for the Lord continues every year during the season of Advent, and every day in the hearts of individuals. Finally, the way is being prepared for the His arrival at the end of time.

Advent was originally a season of fasting, but in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has become also a time of celebration. Both are appropriate; both are contained in the concept of Advent.

God is so great, filling time and space, that He encompassses opposites - or what seem to our finite minds like opposites. (One might say that God is a Hegelian.) Jesus rides on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9), symbolizing peace; He also rides on a horse (Revelation 19:11), symbolizing war.

The dialectic continues as we read that God is “mighty in battle” (Psalm 24:8), but brings a peace which means that men will not “train for war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4).

Crowds wave palm branches for Jesus, a symbol of royalty (John 12:13); but Jesus is also a servant (Matthew 20:28).

Lent, which leads up to Maundy Thursday, and therefore up to Passover, again embraces these opposites. The observation begins with the misery of being slaves in Egypt, with the harrowing experience of the “angel of death” moving about, and with narrow escapes at several points during the Exodus narrative. But anguish and fear turns to joy as the celebration puts these events into a retrospective, and the celebrants thank God for the gift of freedom.

God’s liberating action is not limited to the Exodus from Egypt. He freed the captives from Babylon. He frees people from sin and its consequences. Liberating language permeates Scripture: “I will set your prisoners free” (Zechariah 9:11).

Psalm 118 is part of a Passover liturgy. The Hebrew language allows for a marvelous understanding: “This is the day which the Lord has made, and we will rejoice and be glad in” Him. The common translation of being “glad in it” is correct; we can often be glad “in” a day. But it is also true, and sometimes preferable to say, that we can be glad “in” God.

Some days are filled with suffering and pain, and it is unlikely that we would be glad “in” those days. But even in such days, we can be glad “in” God. This is another dialectic of opposites: we can have peace even when we are grieving - a peace that will ultimately lead to joy - a “peace that passes all understanding” (Philippians 4:7) - a peace that comes only from God.

In the life of each human, there are phases of captivity. The metaphor of captivity includes economic, psychological, relational, and other types of imprisonment. We cry “Hosanna” begging for liberation; we cry “Hosanna” celebrating that liberation. At a pivotal moment, our cry for help turns into a shout of praise.

What Jesus Does

Everywhere, all the time, Jesus is active. He’s doing things. He never stops. Yet so often we don’t notice His energy.

Learning to watch God’s unfolding plans in the world, all over the world, is a spiritual skill - an art or a science. The more we study Scripture, and the more we talk about Scripture with others who study it, the better we become at noticing God.

Our senses become more finely attuned to detecting God as we spend more time alone, in silent prayer and meditation: not our five physical senses, but the ability of our hearts and minds to identify God’s work.

While Jesus was doing His earthly ministry, He often spent times in “solitary places” (Mark 1:35, 6:32) or “desolate places” to meditate. He did this, in part, to be a role model for us - to show us the importance of these quiet times.

After His ascension (Acts 1:9), things are different: Jesus seems to be on the move all the time. As Greg Finke writes:

Jesus is on a mission. He is on a grand adventure to redeem and restore human lives to the kingdom of his Father. This is nothing new. Ever since he broke out of the tomb on Easter Sunday, Jesus has been on the loose, pursuing his redemptive mission, messing with people, ripening people, preparing people to be drawn back to the Father he loves. It’s what he does.

We, however, are ordinary flesh-and-blood human beings. We need those quiet times - and they need to be truly quiet. Not only do we need to turn of the radio and the cell phone, but we need to turn off the endless stream of thoughts, concerns, and desires which course through our minds.

Our meditation can take different forms. Sometimes it includes remembering or processing past events, as in Psalm 143:

I remember the days of old;
I meditate on all that you have done;
I ponder the work of your hands.

God’s plan is unfolding twenty-four hours a day, all over the world. In meditation, we can do a slow motion replay of God’s work, because our minds can’t move as fast as His. We can notice his activity by remembering what He’s done - for us or for others - in the past.

As we reflect both on God’s written word and on His actions, we can synthesize the two, and He blesses us with a grander view and a deeper insight, as in Psalm 119:

Make me understand the way of your precepts,
and I will meditate on your wondrous works.

Jesus is in constant motion, doing amazing things. But we’ll miss much of His action if we don’t take the time to study His word together, and spend time in quiet meditation alone.

Paul Tells Timothy to Meditate

In Paul’s first letter to Timothy, he includes an imperative to “meditate.” The Greek verb here can be understood as ‘premeditate, imagine, practice,” and has been rendered as ‘occupy one’s self, be careful about’ and ‘attend to, care for, ponder.’

In addition to the lexical meaning, it is to be noted that Paul uses the second person singular. This is an individual and personal activity for Timothy. The text reads:

Meditate upon these things; give yourself wholly to them; so that all may see your progress.

Paul is encouraging solitary times of meditation, prayer, and study by using the singular imperative instead of the plural. This is a counterbalance to Timothy’s ministry among the people in his area.

Paul is relaying the example set by Jesus, who likewise balanced His solitary time against time spent among large crowds and small groups. The lesson for the reader is clear: it’s good to spend time in fellowship, and it’s good to spend time alone. Both are necessary.

New Testament Semiticisms

Although the available text of the New Testament is in Greek, there are plausible reasons to suspect that part of the New Testament are translations from Hebrew or Aramaic. This is particularly true of reported speech.

Many of the individuals whose conversations are documented in the New Testament would have probably, or almost certainly, spoken Aramaic or Hebrew with each other. Based on the places, times, and situations of their discourse, Greek would have been unlikely.

The relevance of Hebrew and Aramaic is historically obvious. Greek and Latin, although widespread and in frequent use for business, travel, government, and military, were still foreign languages, and not the native languages of the region. Even the Roman governor ordered that signs be posted in Semitic languages (cf. John 19:20).

Greek and Latin would have had politically distasteful connotations to residents of the area.

Jesus and His earliest followers used their native Semitic speech in certain contexts (cf. Acts 21:40, 22:2, and 26:14).

The New Testament contains Semiticisms - Hebrew or Aramaic idioms rendered literally, too literally, into Greek. These phrase are unnatural and awkward in Greek, and in literal English translations of the text.

For example, instead of “he looked,” the text offers “he lifted up his eyes and saw” (Luke 6:20; Matthew 17:8; John 4:35, 6:5).

To “find favor with someone” is a typically Semitic formulation (cf. Luke 1:30), and a variant to Old Testament phrase, “to find favor in the eyes of someone” (cf. Genesis 6:8, 50:4; Deuteronomy 24:1; Ruth 2:10, 2:13; and many other citations).

Circumlocutions like “the fashion of his countenance was altered” or “the appearance of his face was altered” seem needlessly cumbersome in English, Greek or German. Why not simply write, “his face was altered”? But what sounds needlessly wordy in English is natural and idiomatic in Hebrew (cf. Luke 9:29).

The of the verb “to know” as a euphemism for a sexual relationship will be familiar to the reader; but it hints at a deeper connection between the mere physical activity of sex and the spiritual connection between a wife and her husband. The New Testament doesn’t use this terminology to refer to sexual activity, but it does make extensive use of the marriage metaphor to describe God’s relation to the corporate whole of His followers on earth, and it also makes use of the verb “to know” as transcending mere intellectual information (I Corinthians 13:12).

Likewise, the phrase “he set his face to go to Jerusalem” is an overly-literal translation of a Hebrew idiom into Greek (Luke 9:51).

To name a child, the semitic phrase is “to call his name” (cf. Matthew 1:21, 1:23, 1:25; Luke 1:13, 1:31, 2:21; Revelation 19:13).

On the basis of these examples, some scholars have conjectured that parts of the New Testament may have been originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated into Greek.

To be sure, some of the discourse recorded in the Gospels would not have taken place in Greek. But it is a different claim entirely to say that it was written first in a Semitic language and then translated into Greek.

Historically, certain contexts dictate that a given conversation would have been conducted in Hebrew or Aramaic, e.g., Jesus speaking with Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30).

When the authors of the New Testament recorded those conversations, however, did they record them in Greek?

Eusebius, writing around 324 A.D., cites a famous passage by Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, who wrote around 100 A.D., stating that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and others later translated it into Greek.

Jerome, writing around 400 A.D., likewise reports that he saw one or more Hebrew copies of Matthew’s Gospel.

It is plausible and even persuasive, although not conclusive, to argue that some parts of the New Testament were originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. It is more speculative, and less plausible, to assert that the entire New Testament was originally composed in a Semitic language. Certain aspects of John’s and Peter’s epistles, and Luke’s writings, bear the markings of Greek composition.

In any case, however, an understanding of Semitic idioms aids in the interpretation of the New Testament.

Jesus makes a statement about eyes (Matthew 6:22) which has mystified some commentators. If the reader knows a Hebrew idiom (Proverbs 22:9, 28:22) which identifies the eyes with either stinginess or generosity, then the passage in Matthew becomes more clear. This is confirmed by the preceding passage (Matthew 6:19) about charitable activity.

Biblical Virtues: Forgiveness Unites

In Paul’s letter to the Colossians, one passage - roughly the middle third of chapter three - offer some interesting features. The verb ‘forgive’ appears three times in quick succession, in a passage about virtue.

The other virtues in the passage are named but once.

While forgiveness is therefore preeminent among the virtues, ‘love’ appears as a meta-virtue, “over” and “above” all the others. Love, in turn, produces harmony.

This text is filled with abstractions and has very few concrete nouns. Yet the reader learns that love “binds” things together in “perfect unity” (or “harmony”).

It is noteworthy that Paul does not write here about people being in unity. Readers commonly anticipate talk of unity among people in the New Testament, but often the text speaks of uniting things, indeed, “all things” (cf. Ephesians 1:10).

The scope of the New Testament is grander than the entire human race. The vision of the Gospel extends to “all things,” and Jesus is the Redeemer of all creation (cf. Colossians 1:20):

Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

This unity of all things, including humans, is not a ‘uniformity’ or a ‘conformity,’ but rather a harmonious joining together, to form a complex whole, for a purpose. Jesus unites everything as He reconciles everything.

In a sort of return to Eden, the final Paradise will be a united creation. What kind of harmony existed, not only among humans, but among all things, prior to the Fall?

That harmony - that ‘unity’ - will be restored, and the structure of the text reveals that forgiveness is one of the key mechanisms whereby this restoration will take place.

To contemplate forgives is to contemplate sin, because without sin, there would be no need for forgiveness.

Jesus unites as He redirects: the Greek metanoia and the Hebrew shuv. He unites as He causes ‘all things’ to fall into their roles in His plan. The breadth of this common purpose includes inanimate physical objects.

As there are millions of different objects, different people, and different ideas, so there are millions of sins as each of them can take the wrong direction, and millions of virtues as Jesus redirects each of them into His will.

There’s Only One Hero in This Story

People tell lots of stories about “Bible Heroes” - a quick search through a bookseller will reveal titles like My Big Book of Bible Heroes for Kids, Greatest Heroes and Legends of The Bible, and Wonder Women of the Bible: Heroes of Yesterday Who Inspire Us Today.

Are we doing a disservice to children with these books?

There is only one hero in the Bible. These book titles give the impression that there is a whole category of people who are ‘heroes’ in the Bible.

The people often characterized as heroes are, to the contrary, ordinary human beings - which is to say, sinful and flawed human beings.

The list names - Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, Peter, James, John, Paul - are noteworthy and significant, but not heroes in the common sense of the word.

In fact, the text goes out of its way to show us that both the sins and the inabilities of these people. Not only are wrongdoings of each carefully catalogued, but their ineptitudes and insufficiencies are also listed.

In sum, the narrative is working precisely to prevent us from calling these people ‘heroes.’

By contrast, the one true hero of the metanarrative which spans all of Scripture is God. Numerically, adjectives like ‘righteous’ are applied far more often to God than to any one human being, or even all human beings together.

God heroically uses flawed and sinful human beings to accomplish His will.

God is the one true Hero.

The Bible is not a book with heroes and villains. It is a book with one Hero, one villain, and many ordinary human beings. For this reason, Jesus says that “no one is good - except God alone.”

If we attempt to rewrite Moses and David and Abraham and Joshua into heros, we create a scenario in which God uses only this superior class of people to perform His mighty deeds.

But if we realize that that these people were poor, miserable sinners - exactly like us - and if we realize that God used them anyway, then we can also understand that God can and will use us, despite our many imperfections, to carry out His will.

Credo and Credamus

The followers of Jesus express in words what they believe. These statements are called ‘creeds’ or ‘confessions.’

The word ‘confession’ has two different but related meanings. A ‘confession’ is an admission of sin and guilt, but another ‘confession’ is also a statement of beliefs.

Creeds often begin with either ‘I believe’ or ‘we believe’ - both formulations are needed, to balance the individual reliance on God as well as the corporate relationship to God.

The earliest creed is found in the New Testament, when Jesus challenges Peter to put beliefs into words by asking Peter, “Who do you say I am?” (Mark 8:29 and Matthew 16:15)

Peter was already following Jesus and working for Him. But still Jesus wanted to challenge Peter to articulate his belief in words. By so doing, Peter clarified his faith, both for himself, and for others.

Several other confessions of faith are also found in the New Testament (cf. I Corinthians 15).

In the years after the last New Testament documents were written, the followers of Jesus continued to express themselves in creeds. In the first few centuries, the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed appeared.

Each successive creed added to, but did not replace, the previous ones.

In the 1500s, statements of faith like the Augsburg Confession appeared. In the 1900s, the Barmen Declaration was another expression of faith in Jesus. Which new creeds might appear in the 21st century?

Followers of Jesus repeat their creeds aloud, together, and often. Why? In a world filled with many bizarre ideas, one’s thinking is easily led astray. Only by reviewing, perhaps once a week, a brief statement of faith can one maintain a steadier relationship to reality.

The One Single Story

The publishing industry produces numerous books of “Bible Stories” for children. A glance at the inventory of any bookseller will reveal titles like Bedtime Bible Stories and Illustrated Family Bible Stories.

As pleasant and well-intentioned as such volumes may be, there is a particular danger in their approach to Scripture.

By presenting the text as a collection of discrete and independent narratives, which can be read in isolation from each other, and in any order, the grand narrative of the Heilsgeschichte can get lost.

There is no such thing as One Hundred and One Favorite Bible Stories, such titles notwithstanding. There is one story, told over the course of 66 different books. One goal of discipleship is to see that story as a whole, not as bits and pieces.

One continuous story, from Genesis to Revelation, permeates the Scripture.

We can lose sight of the “big picture” of God’s work in history, if we become too enmeshed in the “little picture” of the “stories” in the Bible.

Taking care not to get lost in the details of the story, we must hang on to the point of the story.

All the subplots in Scripture must be viewed in their context within the one overarching plot of the Scripture.

There is one story: God created (Genesis 1 and 2), creation fell (Genesis 3 through 11), and God saved His creation (Genesis 12 through Revelation 22).

A Book of Grace: the Old Testament

Among many Christians, the old cliche still circulates that the Old Testament is primarily the text of a stern God whose wrath is directed at sinful humans who sullied His perfect creation.

This same platitude asserts that the New Testament is a contrasting text of a gracious, loving, and forgiving God.

Such a characterization of the Hebrew text against the Greek text is not only wrong, it is dangerous.

The Old Testament is a document of grace: of freely-given, unearned love. God showers unmerited gifts upon undeserving sinners.

We read, e.g., that Abraham was worshipping idols or false gods when God chose him and called him to be the head of the messianic lineage (Joshua 24:2).

When the Heilsgeschichte continues with the Exodus, the narrative shows us that the Hebrew slaves in Egypt, whom God rescues, were busy worshipping Egyptian deities (Ezekiel 20:8).

God was blessing sinners who were not living lives devoted to Him. The old Testament shows a grace so lavish that it’s scandalous.

If the message of the Old Testament is “You are saved by grace, not by works” (and it is), then what is the message of the New Testament?

The Gospel, if we understand the word ‘Gospel’ to be the saving message about God’s love, is already present in the Old Testament. Jesus is fully anticipated as Redeemer and Messiah.

The New Testament, then, is a text which is designed to teach us about how to live here and now, in the Messianic Era.

Jesus is saying, in effect, “Look, don’t worry about how to get into Heaven after you die. You can’t solve that problem, and I’ve already solved it for you. I would rather have you spend your time and attention on this world and on this life. Concentrate on living as one of My followers.”

The Old Testament announces God’s grace. The New Testament teaches us how to live in that grace.

Martial Imagery: Isaiah’s Call

The sixth chapter of Isaiah is paradigmatic to the extent that it has been incorporated into the sanctus part of the liturgy for Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, and other churches.

Isaiah begins his account by noting the time - “in the year that King Uzziah died” - which alerts us to a notion of political instability: who would the new king be? And which policies would he enact?

Interestingly, Isaiah did not choose to begin his narrative with “in the year that King Ahaz took the throne.”

Judah faced political instability - much like a modern nation-state in an election year! - but Isaiah’s text pointedly then refers to God as ‘King.’ Isaiah is telling us that although it might be worth noting who the next king is, and what that king’s policies will be, it’s far more important to remember that God is King is a more profound and permanent sense.

The vision of Isaiah pictures God on a throne and having a garment with an excessively long train - both symbols of royal power.

The attending seraphim introduce a military image: seraphim are warrior-angels, perhaps pictured as flying flamethrowers. (‘Flamethrowers’ were terrifying weapons used primarily in the Pacific in WW2.)

The seraphim were ‘calling’ to one another, not singing - perhaps reminiscent of the marching cadences of soldiers. They identify God not simply as the ‘Lord,’ but rather as the ‘Lord of armies.’

In the face of this vision, Isaiah can only see himself as condemned and doomed. Isaiah is scared and terrified in the presence of an omnipotent and holy God.

An approaching angel, carrying a glowing coal, can only have increased Isaiah’s terror. He must have assumed that he would die within a few seconds.

How it must have amazed him to find that, not only did he not die, but rather that God had sent the angel to save him!

Note that Isaiah is utterly passive in this salvation event: God sends an angel, who touches the coal to Isaiah’s lips. Isaiah is merely present, motionless.

Isaiah moves from passivity to activity only after the salvation event: grateful for redemption, Isaiah says, “Here I am! Send me!”

2,500 years later, how does God sanctify us? Most 21st followers of Jesus, we may assume, have not been approached by a seraphim carrying glowing coals. But we have been made just as holy as Isaiah.

God’s purifying work is done through baptism, through the bread and wine and body and blood, through His written Word, and perhaps in other ways. God is at work saving and sanctifying us.

Like Isaiah, we should be somewhat scared when we contemplate the holiness of God.

And like Isaiah, we should be moved to action by our gratitude when we experience God’s saving love.

For this reason, we “fear, love, and trust” God.

‘Christian Community’ vs. ‘Church’

In a perfect world, Christian community and the church would be the same thing. But we live in a fallen world.

The two terms are not coextensive. In our churches, we have casual contact with people who may not actually be part of our lives on a regular basis. They’re not part of our Christian community, but for 60 or 90 minutes a week, they inhabit the same worship space as we do.

People whom we see more frequently may form our Christian community, even though they’re not part of our church. Coworkers, neighbors, teammates, club members, and others, if they are followers of Jesus, may share a quote from Scripture or support us in prayer.

Working side-by-side with a fellow believer for 40 or more hours a week, over years, might make that person more a part of your Christian community than a fellow church member whom you barely know.

Naturally, it would be nice if our church were our Christian community. We undertake efforts on a regular basis to strengthen our discipling relations within our congregation.

We must, however, beware the pitfalls of attempting to attain that ideal state in which ‘Christian community’ and ‘church’ are exactly synonymous.

When we fail to acknowledge and accept the fallenness of this world, we are tempted to engage in a utopian question for the perfect church, which would also be the perfect Christian community. Such a well-intentioned but misguided effort will not end well.

Some of the darkest chapters of history are the results of quixotic endeavors to construct consummate Christian community. Such ventures forget to reckon with the brokenness of the world.

Efforts to construct a perfect church in a world which is inherently imperfect are efforts which justify extreme means by citing the nobility of their goal. If perfection is attainable, then any measures are warranted in the pursuit thereof.

The actual results of such attempts are cults and dictatorships, often harsh ones, demanding unconditional loyalty and obedience.

God, on the other hand, is asking us to patiently endure life in an imperfect world - in which neither church nor Christian community will be ideal.

We can, and should, ask if there are things we can do to improve our fellowships. But looking for steps toward improvement is something quite different than a vision of perfect association. Such visions are dangerous.

God asks us to forbear, and persevere in our in communities, knowing that we, and the others in them, are all sinners. Churches and fellowships are imperfect.

Our communities are groups of sinners positioned around a sinless God, imperfect humans placed into contact with a perfect Messiah, finite people encountering an infinite Jesus.

Churches will never be perfect, and neither will Christian community. But God still uses them, and we should look for the good in them, and from time to time, we may be able to adjust them and make them a bit better than they are.

We must be patient and realistic, both about our fellowships, and about ourselves.

What Does Jesus Mean by ‘One’? (John 17:11)

Unity among the followers of Jesus is not an option. But what is ‘unity’? The locus classicus for such discussion is in His high priestly prayer:

And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

The unity for which Jesus prays is a unity of purpose: that His followers be united in their striving for one goal.

Jesus is not asking that His followers be all the same. ‘Unity’ is not ‘uniformity.’ Unity is not conformity.

To the contrary, Paul writes in his letters to the Corinthians that there is a diversity of spiritual gifts. There is a diversity of roles which individuals play when the followers of Jesus gather.

The ‘unity’ which Jesus gives to His people is a supernatural unity which the world cannot give. Jesus gives a unity amidst the diversity of His followers.

In Luke’s account of the early church, he records that a diversity was acknowledged: those followers of Jesus who came from gentile backgrounds were asked to do one set of tasks, while those from Jewish backgrounds were asked to do another set of tasks (Acts 15:28).

God Wants You To Use Your Brain

Jesus saved you, and He saved your mind along with you. After all, the Scripture mentions ‘mind’ over a hundred times.

Of course, translation comes into play. The Hebrew word translated as ‘mind’ is often nefesh, which could be translated as ‘soul.’ The Hebrew noun lavav, usually rendered as ‘heart,’ is also glossed as ‘mind.’

Functionally, the text mentions the activity of ‘reasoning’ - ‘reason’ in the sense of ‘ratiocinate,’ not ‘reason’ in the sense of ‘cause’ - most famously in Isaiah 1:18, but also in Leviticus 19:17, Daniel 4:34 and 4:36, Luke 9:47, and Acts 17:2, 17:17,18:4,18:19, 19:8, 19:9, and 24:25. (Cf. I Corinthians 13:11, Philippians 4:5 and James 3:17).

Depending on translation, these are also rendered as ‘thought’ or ‘understanding.’

The strongest arguments for God’s endorsement of human rationality are indirect. Consider Proverbs 22:3 as an example of reason in action:

The prudent sees danger and hides himself,
but the simple go on and suffer for it.

The ‘prudent’ or ‘wise’ man is not operating under some supernatural knowledge or divine revelation, but rather using common sense. God expects this of His people as a matter of stewardship: He has entrusted us with brains, and it would be disrespectful not to make appropriate use of those brains.

Likewise, Proverbs 19:3 sees that human suffering is sometimes (but not always!) the result of failing to use reason:

When a man's folly brings his way to ruin,
his heart rages against the Lord.

God, therefore, encourages us to use our minds to avoid certain problems. Some suffering is unavoidable and necessary. But some misery is simply the result of ignoring the mental capacity which God has given us.

Therefore, God does not despise or denigrate human reason. Rather, He created it and gave it to us as a gift, and expects us to use it wisely.

Misconceptions about the Early Church: What the Text Does Not Say

Certain passages from Scripture have been, and continue to be, the topic of seemingly endless commentary. While selections like Proverbs 26:1-11 receive little attention, texts like Acts 2:42-47 are regularly featured in preaching, teaching, and writing.

With countless pages having already been written on such a passage, one wonders if there is anything left to be said about this paragraph in Luke’s account of the early church.

Perhaps, however, a few words are appropriate about what Luke did not write.

When he writes that the believers “were together,” the reader should not automatically conclude that this was a form of communal living. To the contrary, Luke tells us that they often met each other “in their homes” - note the plural!

The members of the early church had their own houses, and often invited each other for prayer, fellowship, and study. But it was not a kibbutz.

Likewise, when they met “in the temple courts,” the text is not telling us that they were there all day long. Certainly these early followers of Jesus spent much of their time in secular employment - farming, bricklaying, weaving, cobbling, smithing, etc.

There is a certain tension between meeting together “every day” in the temple courts and breaking “bread in their homes and” eating “together.” How to resolve this puzzle?

If these early believers spent large segments of time plying their trades and crafts, and were also obliged to attend to the usual daily business in the marketplace, then they would have scarcely had time to both attend long meetings in the temple courts and enjoy extended fellowship at home.

One must imagine this daily meeting in the temple courts as a type of brief devotional service - perhaps similar to a daily chapel service on a college campus, or to early morning chapel services as they are often held in large cities for businessmen hard-pressed for time.

Having completed their work, and having concluded whatever business was necessary in the marketplace, these followers of Jesus stopped by the Temple for brief moment of reflection, perhaps a few hymns, prayers, and Scripture readings. Some scholars translate this as “attending the temple.”

It is conceivable, and perhaps even probable, that what these Jesus followers attended were the usual temple services as they’d been conducted for centuries, and not some new Messianic innovation. The Jewish rituals would not have been superseded in the minds of the early church, but rather simply imbued with a new layer of meaning.

It would be fitting and reasonable, then, that after attending end-of-day prayers at the temple, that one might invite another home for supper, there to enjoy fellowship.

On the other hand, it is possible that this brief prayer service was early in the morning, before the commerce of the day began.

While eschewing communal living, the first followers of Jesus engaged in a type of economic communism, having possessions “in common.” But this was not an inward-oriented sharing. Rather, they gave to “anyone who had need,” i.e., not merely giving to each other, but rather giving to whole town, even to, and perhaps especially to, those who were not followers of Jesus.

This is, and was, true Christlike love: giving “to all, as any had need.” The text does not limit the distribution only to the believers.

Not only did the followers of Jesus generously give to those around them, but they engaged socially. It is for this reason that they enjoyed “the favor of all the people.”

The text is clear: the Jesus followers had “favor with all the people.” The townspeople who were not followers of Jesus nonetheless held the early church in favor. This was because of the friendly engagement which these Christians showed toward their neighbors.

This image which emerges from the second chapter of Acts is, then, that the early church consisted of people who lived in their own houses, not communally, attended a brief chapel service daily, and often enjoyed meals and fellowship at each other’s houses. They were not separatists, but rather gregarious, and thereby earned a reputation for friendliness even among those who were not followers of Jesus.

Categories of Blessedness: Psalm 1

The word ‘bless’ is used frequently in Scripture, and in other texts. It is the first word in the first Psalm, both in the original Hebrew and in various common English translations.

The most common Hebrew word for ‘bless’ is baruch, which has a broad semantic field. Roughly, it means to ‘have a positive regard for’ someone.

In the usage of Scripture, God blesses humans, humans bless God, and humans bless each other. Sometimes it means to speak well of someone; other times it means to speak well to someone. In some situations, it is not about speaking, but rather about giving gifts or assistance.

Several other words are rendered as ‘bless’ in English. Psalm One commences, not with baruch, but rather with ashre.

The verb ashre denotes the subjective experience of being blessed. The Psalmist uses a noun form, ‘blessedness,’ to indicate the emotional and psychological state of one to whom God has given the Torah: the happiness of one who receives God’s instruction.

For this reason, several common German translations begin with Wohl dem! and not with the expected Gesegnet sei! The Geneva translation uses the word glücklich.

Psalm One starts, then, not with the objective event of blessing, but rather with the subjective experience of being blessed. Of course, the two often coincide.

The text continues with a systematic listing of iconographic postures. In Scripture, walking, standing, and sitting each have certain patterns of usage. Sitting, e.g., can be used to show that one has issued a verdict, or more broadly, that one considers a matter to be settled or a task to be completed.

The exhaustive and comprehensive listing of these postures indicates the thoroughness with which God’s Torah – God’s instructions – blesses various aspects of human life.

Unlike human civil laws, which are reactive and punitive, God’s Torah is guidance, proactive and nurturing.

For this reason, the rendering of ‘law’ or Gesetz in the second couplet of the Psalm is ambiguous.

That the reader should consider ‘law’ here as guidance and instruction, and not as regulation and statute, is clear from the ‘joy’ and ‘meditation’ associated with this ‘law.’

Indeed, Hebrew has a separate noun which more narrowly means ‘regulation’ or ‘statute’ and has a series of nouns for bylaws, legislations, and decrees. The use of Torah is saved for kindly counsel, given generously by God to people for their benefit.

When God gives his guidance, the result is growth. The image of the fruit tree is introduced by the Psalmist for this purpose. Water is also a common image for God’s instruction.

God’s affectionate instruction is like water to a tree. Trees cannot grow without water, and generally do grow when someone waters them.

Paul picks up this image in his letter to the Galatians, when he speaks of the ‘fruit’ of the Spirit. Receiving Torah from God and receiving the Holy Spirit are closely related.

It is the Spirit which enables us to read, hear, and understand the written Word. The written Word, and the preaching of it, contains the Torah. The Word is a means by which the Spirit comes to us.

There is a continuous and, in the best cases, an accelerating cycle at work here. The Spirt empowers us to learn the Word; by learning the Word, we receive the Spirit.

For this reason, Paul’s encouragement, in his letter to the Ephesians, to ‘be filled with the Spirit,’ uses a progressive verb form: “be continuously in the state of being filled” or “continuously receive an ongoing filling.”

Among the ‘fruit’ of the Spirit is joy: if one is continuously receiving the Holy Spirit, then joy will be a result.

Life, as Scripture tells us, contains moments of mourning and weeping. Therefore, ‘happiness’ is not a fruit of the Spirit. By using ‘joy’ instead of ‘happiness,’ Paul is indicating something deeper, something steadier. One cannot have happiness while grieving. One can have joy even while grieving. This is the power of the Holy Spirit.

This, then, is the joy indicated by the first word of Psalm One: the joy of one onto whom God has poured His Torah and thereby poured His Holy Spirit:

Oh, the joy of the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;

but his delight is in the instruction of Yahweh,
and on his guidance he meditates day and night.

He is like a tree planted
by streams of water
that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither.

In all that he does, he prospers.

The scansion of these lines is somewhat ambiguous, but the divisions as shown above are at least plausible. The Psalmist has maintained the usual Hebrew pattern of couplets for the first ten lines. The first and second couplets have been arranged into a quatrain, as have the fourth and fifth couplets. By allowing the eleventh line to stand alone, the Psalmist has introduced a stop into the flow of the verse.

The text resumes in the next line, clearly introducing a different tone. The standalone line is the final line of the first part of the Psalm. The demarcation is clear.

The Fate of John the Baptist: What Is the Kingdom of Heaven?

The New Testament regularly uses the phrases ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ and ‘Kingdom of God.’ The two are synonymous. The phrase ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ is more Jewish: it is a pious circumlocution, avoiding the word ‘God.’

These phrases refer to the presence and activity of God on earth, here and now. He acts often by means of His people, so these phrases refer also to them.

The ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ correlates roughly therefore to the Jesus followers living in this world. A passage from Matthew illustrates. Jesus says:

Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

What is Jesus saying here? John the Baptist is not part of the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’! That seems counterintuitive. John was, after all, a prophet, and Jesus calls him “more than a prophet.”

John the Baptist is a person whom God chose to do important tasks, and John accomplished those tasks. Why then would John not be reckoned as part of the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’?

To clarify: this text does not mean that John was denied access to the afterlife. Jesus is not telling us that John didn’t get into Heaven. Jesus is not asserting that John failed to receive eternal life.

Rather, Jesus is pointing out that John was part of a preliminary operation on God’s part. John was “preparing the way,” as he often used that phrase from Isaiah.

John’s movement, that large crowd of people from the city who visited him in the desert, was preparatory for the ‘Kingdom of God,’ but it was of itself not that kingdom.

Likewise, those who are not being used as God’s instruments on earth are not included in Kingdom of Heaven. Paul writes in his first letter to Corinth:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

If one spends one’s time murdering and thieving, then one is not spending one’s time being used by God: then one is not reckoned as part of the ‘Kingdom of God.’ This is not to say, however, that one will fail to receive eternal life, or that one will not be pulled into Paradise.

Parallel texts in Luke and Matthew show that ‘Kingdom of God’ and ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ are indeed synonymous and interchangeable. Otherwise identical passages vary only in this one regard.

That the Kingdom of Heaven is a matter of God’s activity in this world, and not of our future presence in the afterlife, is seen in Mark 1:15, where Jesus says that the Kingdom of God “has come near” or “is at hand.”

In John’s Revelation, a vision of a primordial exile of Satan from God’s presence is given. In it, John hears the announcement:

I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come.”

Revelation is telling the reader that the Kingdom of God and its ancillaries “have come,” i.e., is already a matter of this world and not of the next world.

Both in the Gospels - so many of parables are about the Kingdom - and in the epistles, texts about the Kingdom are about the present and not about the future. The verb forms reflect this: “the kingdom is like …” not “the kingdom will be like …”

To be sure, there is a connection between being a Jesus follower in this world, and spending eternity in Paradise with God. But the two are not identical.

Peter, while indicating this linkage, encourages virtue, not as a key to the afterlife, but rather as the key to making one’s self the most efficient instrument - as the key to placing one’s self at God’s disposal: making one’s self available as an instrument to be used by God:

For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Note that Peter tells us that virtues ‘confirm’ our status, but they do not create it. Practicing virtues verifies what is already the case - that we will spend eternity with Jesus and in His presence.

Yet, despite the inefficacy of the virtues to work salvation, there is some connection between virtue and salvation: note Peter’s use of the word ‘eternal’ in the text above.

Peter tells us that the virtues have this effect, that instead of merely entering the Kingdom, we will enter ‘richly’ and ‘abundantly.’

Note also that Peter stresses the ‘eternal’ Kingdom. What is begun in this world continues into the next. One can speak of the Kingdom in this world, i.e., what God is doing by means of His people here and now. Most of the citations in the New Testament speak of the Kingdom in this way.

But Peter adds the adjective ‘eternal’ - he lets the reader know that he’s going to reveal a new aspect of the Kingdom - that it has some connection with the afterlife. This ‘eternal’ Kingdom is somehow connected to the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, to God’s activity here and now using His people as instruments.

Jesus and Gender

There are two versions of masculinity, and two version of femininity: the original and the fallen.

Because we live our live as broken people in a broken world, we often lose sight of the fact that the masculinity and femininity with which we are acquainted are the fallen versions of better originals.

The original version of masculinity was one which sought to order, to bring order, to the world, but not in the sense of commanding, but rather in the sense of organizing and creating.

By contrast, the fallen version of masculinity seeks to dominate – it is ‘creation-oriented’ – i.e., oriented toward the creation rather than the Creator. Paradoxically, this fallen masculinity is also tempted to passivity. One of the cardinal sins of fallen masculinity is passivity.

The original version of femininity was responsive: the virtue of responsiveness is understood in contrast to reactiveness. The original femininity was sensitive in the sense of perceptive and respectful.

The fallen version of femininity is compulsively dependent. It is ‘creature-oriented’ rather than ‘Creator-oriented.’

We find ourselves, then, in a fallen world with the fallen versions of the two genders. What can we do about? The quick answer is: nothing.

The better question is: what can God do about it?

Jesus is about the business of restoration. That includes helping us out of the mire of our fallen natures, and helping us glimpse, in this life, that original perfect nature with which we were created. We will fully embrace that creation perfection in the next life.

But even in this present world, before we enter eternity, Jesus brings us bits of His shalom – His healing, wholeness, and wellness.

He will implant in us, and help us to manifest, occasional glimpses of those better versions of masculinity and femininity. He will start gradually to correct in us the inborn flaws of the fallen versions of the two genders.

Jesus will grow in us a desire to “seek first” God’s rule in our lives.

As we begin to manifest the original better version of the genders, our relationships will change. We find that we are married in order to love – instead of love leading to marriage, marriage leads to an ever-deeper and growing love.

This also provides an insight into the practice of arranged marriages which occurred during some segments of history recorded in Scripture.

Jesus Makes Claims: His Kingship Consists of Love

In the New Testament, Jesus makes some shocking claims. He asserts both that He’s divine, and that He’s a king.

He asserts that He’s both a bar-enosh, a Son of Man, and a Son of God. He asserts, alluding to Ezekiel 34:10 to 34:15, that He has come to “seek and save the lost.”

He asserts that we love God best by loving our neighbor, and that this ‘love’ is seen in concrete helpful actions, not in mere pity or emotion.

He gives us two commandments that sum up all commandments (Matthew 22:39), and then tells us that the second of these two “is like” the first. To “love God” and to “love your fellow human” are not two different things, but rather two similar things.

To love God is to love your neighbor, and to love your neighbor is to love God. This ‘love’ is again no mere emotion, but rather ahava: a combination of the will and the conduct.

This same ahava appears as ‘love’ in Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:4 and 6:5. This analogy – this appearance of a key word in other verses – gives us an interpretive key. ‘Love’ is a key term in these verses.

If we are told to love our neighbor, then the question, ‘who is my neighbor?’ quickly arises (Luke 10:29). In the broadest sense, every human is my neighbor. I’m obliged to help and care for everyone. But being finite, humans cannot simultaneously demonstrate help and care for the seven or more billion people on the planet.

So some manner of sequence arises. If I live in the context of a family, my primary neighbor is in my family – parents, siblings, or children. If I’m married, if I have a living spouse, my primary neighbor is my spouse.

Adam and Eve began as equal and mutually adequate partners: a covenanted interdependence.

In a complicated bit of Hebraic interpretation, the letters of the Hebrew words for God, man, woman, and fire are examined. If one subtracts the letters found in the word for God from the letters found in the words for man and woman, only two letters are left, and they spell the word for ‘fire’!

This is easier to picture if one sees it written out in Hebrew characters. But lesson is simple enough: together, man and woman need God as the third partner in their relationship. If you take God out of the relationship, then what is left is ‘fire’ – i.e., destructive.

The centrality of God in human life is seen in His mysterious name. Philologists have had a field day for several centuries as they’ve examined the mysterious name of Yhwh.

Among the dozens of proposed interpretations are ‘the One who causes existence to be’ and ‘I am, I was, I will be that I am’ and ‘I will be what I will be.’

The riddle of God’s name will probably never be solved in this world – and will probably be solved in the next one. But whatever it may be, it is clear that God is not aloof from His creation, but rather is intricately involved and intertwined in the very existence of this world.

[These thoughts loosely based on a talk given by Dwight Pryor on Saturday, October 01, 1994]

God's Kingdom: What is It?

Comparing the synonymous phrases ‘kingdom of God’ and ‘kingdom of heaven,’ we see that the gospels which are directed more toward the gentiles use ‘kingdom of God,’ while those directed toward a Jewish audience use ‘kingdom of heaven.’

‘Kingdom of heaven’ is a pious euphemism. It is a circumlocution for ‘kingdom of God,’ used at a time when the word ‘God’ was considered so holy that, out of reverence and awe, it was rarely or never uttered aloud.

The Jewish piety first avoided pronouncing the name of God - Yhwh - aloud, and proceeded to additionally avoid pronouncing the word ‘God’ as well.

In either case, the phrase refers to the followers of Jesus on earth here and now. It is not designation for eternal life in the future. Hence we are told that ‘blessed is ...’ and not ‘blessed will be ...’

The gospels begin with notion that the kingdom is here, not near. Jesus is primarily concerned with the present life.

As with an earlier covenant at Sinai, so also Jesus, establishing a new covenant, is not concerned with the future life, but rather with the here and now. Jesus took care of our eternal future, once and forever, so that we would not worry about it.

We might paraphrase Jesus as saying, “don’t worry about what happens to you after you die. I’ve taken care of that. It’s all set. Focus instead on living this life well: helping others and spreading My good news.”

His message can also be phrased in terms of His kingdom. Jesus makes a clear, although often misunderstood, claim to be a king. He goes on to claim that He reigns: His rule is symbolized in signs and wonders. His subjects are His followers, the community of faith.

Therefore it is understood that the ‘kingdom of heaven’ or the ‘kingdom of God’ are titles for the group. These two phrases refer to the followers of Jesus.

The prayer of a Jesus follower is, “May Your rule be established in my life; Your will be done” (Matthew 6:10), and “seek first to have Jesus as your king” (Mark 12:28).

What does it look like when Jesus is ruling? People loving God by loving each other (Mark 12:28). One gives honor to God by helping other people.

The commandment to ‘honor your mother and father’ (Exodus 20:12) is parallel to the statement that Jesus is a ‘mediator’ between God and humans (I Timothy 2:5): parents have a priestly role, interceding to God on behalf of their children, and presenting God’s Word to their children.

[These thoughts loosely based on a talk given by Dwight Pryor on Saturday, October 01, 1994]

The Good News

The words that we often hear are the ones most in danger of having their meaning slip away. Frequent usage means that hearers become accustomed to a word and so notice it less when it’s uttered.

If you follow Jesus, you hear the word ‘gospel’ often.

The word means ‘good news.’ It’s from an older English form, god spel.

The gospel is the news about Jesus. That He was miraculously born, lived a truly human life while being truly God, acted as a bold prophetic servant, taught us how to understand the Hebrew Testament, died a bodily and physical death, and experienced a bodily and physical resurrection.

The good news is that He did this for our benefit, that He has arranged for us to receive forgiveness and eternal life with Him.

Remember that the good news is good.

It’s not a set of rules. It’s not a moralizing lecture designed to create guilty feelings inside of you.

The good news is that Jesus is setting you free, and He’s giving gifts to you.

Eternal life is merely the first gift, but He’s giving you other gifts, too.

He’ll give you peace of mind to endure painful and difficult times in life. He’ll give you His attention when nobody else will listen. He’ll give you opportunities for joy by reminding you that He’s lifted some of your burdens. He’ll give you help in carrying those burdens that He didn’t lift.

The gospel never ends. Scripture tells us about “the beginning of the gospel” (Mark 1:1), but it never mentions an end.

So, remember, the next time you hear the word ‘gospel,’ it’s supposed to be good!

Do You Worship God Or Do You Worship the Bible?

It is appropriate that those who follow Jesus have a respect for Scripture, and a desire to study it. But it is possible to love the Bible too much?

The written Word is not the ultimate object of our worship. The text serves as a means to an end. God is the focus of our adoration.

Scripture is one way in which God reaches out to us during this life. But in the next life, we will not need the Bible!

In heaven, when our perception has been clarified by God, we will perceive Him better and more directly. At that point, the written Word will become superfluous.

An analogy illustrates our point: you might enjoy getting letters from a person you love; you might read and reread them; you might love those letters. But even more, you love the person who wrote them. In fact, you love the letters because you love their author even more.

If that person were to visit you, you’d certainly set the letters down, and engage in conversation with that person.

So it is with God.

Yet it is possible, and wrong, to love the Bible more than God.

The word ‘bibliolatry’ is used to describe those who worship the Bible. Bibliolatry asserts, not that the Bible is a message from God and a means to God, but rather that the Bible is God.

This is the error of ‘biblicism’ or ‘bibliolatry.’ Because the word ‘biblicism’ has competing and controversial definitions, ‘bibliolatry’ is a clearer term for this error.

It is, in any case, a grave error to worship the book instead of its Author.

This error is found, e.g., in those groups which insist that you use only this or that translation, and in those groups who say or repeat Bible verses as if they were magical words which make things happen.

Among those groups who absolutely insist on certain translations, not all of them are guilty of bibliolatry.

It is possible to insist on using one particular translation, or set of translations, and insist on not using others, without engaging in bibliolatry. There are errors aside from bibliolatry which will lead to this peculiar insistence.

A manifestation of bibliolatry is also found in folk religion. Superstition makes the physical object, the book itself, into a talisman. Practitioners may clutch Bibles, sleep with them, keep small Bibles or parts of Bibles in their pockets, etc., to provide some imagined protection.

The Bible is holy, but its holiness is a derived holiness. The physical paper and ink are common and ordinary, but they represent and communicate words and ideas.

Those words and ideas, in turn, also have a merely derived sanctity. They are not holy of themselves, but rather holy because they come from, and direct us toward, God.

The word ‘God’ is not in itself holy. The idea of God is not in itself holy. God is holy.

Certainly, many serious followers of Jesus would, if presented with this definition of ‘bibliolatry,’ agree that bibliolatry is not good, and agree that it is something to be avoided. Most, hopefully all, Jesus followers would say that they worship Jesus, not a book.

Are there subtle ways, however, in which bibliolatry can creep into one’s thinking? Can one unwitting and unintentionally fall into some amount of bibliolatry?

The habits and attitudes of some Jesus followers are described by Skye Jethani:

Rather than a vehicle for knowing God and fostering our communion with him, we search the Scriptures for applicable principles that we may employ to control our world and life.

This is not a real working relationship with Jesus. It’s deism. The word ‘deism’ refers to a belief that God created world, and then went on vacation, having no further direction interaction with His creation.

In other words, we actually replace a relationship with God for a relationship with the Bible.

While such people may want to follow Jesus, and may think that they’re following Jesus, they may in fact be simply formulating sets of axioms and principles which they’ve found, or think they’ve found, in the text. God is more than advice. This type of bibliolatry, however, reduces God to advice and ignores the personhood of God.

To say that God is a person means that He has thoughts, emotions, desires, and intentions. God’s personhood means that He’s an agent: He acts in an original and self-motivated way. God is not a human, but He is a person.

Bibliolatry denies the personhood of God. This quietly creeping form of bibliolatry,

with its emphasis on working principles and worshiping the Bible rather than God, may be appealing because it is far more predictable and manageable than an actual relationship with God. Relationships, whether human or divine, are messy, time consuming, and often uncontrollable. But principles are comprehensible and clinical.

This mindset can sneak into our thoughts. Nobody wakes up one day and says, “today I’ll engage in bibliolatry.” But it edges, unnoticed, into our souls. Skye Jethani continues:

This posture is particularly tempting in affluent, professional communities where people are accustomed to off-the-shelf solutions and self-help manuals. Their education and wealth mean they are used to being in control of their lives, and a huge publishing industry has ensured they maintain this illusion. Many best sellers are self-help books advocating principles to overcome nearly any problem. While proven formulas might be expected for losing weight or growing a vegetable garden, we tend to apply scientific certainty to even the more mysterious areas of life. Perusing the shelves at the local bookstore can be a very comforting exercise. Knowing that there is a solution to any problem life throws at you provides a sense of control — it calms our fears. And if the answer cannot be found at the bookstore, we know there is always the pharmacy down the street.

This is a deistic view: we read the Bible, we analyze it and discover principles in it, we apply those principles to our lives, and we enjoys the benefits of acting on Biblical wisdom. This is the worst possible view. Notice that ‘we’ are doing everything, and God is nowhere to be found in this view!

This is the sinister shortcoming of faith built upon principles, laws, and formulas. It causes us to reduce faith to divine instructions or godly self-help tips: five steps to a more godly marriage, how to raise kids God’s way, biblical laws of leadership, managing your finances with kingdom principles, etc. But discovering and applying these principles does not actually require a relationship with God.

Skye Jethani points out that this view distorts what it means to be a follower of Jesus. If you follow this view, being a Jesus follower “simply means you have exchanged a worldly set of life principles for a new set taken from the Bible. But like an atheist or deist, the” Jesus follower who’s been tricked into being a “deist can put these new principles into practice without God being involved.”

Instead of a living relationship with Jesus, the person who’s been subverted by creeping bibliolatry has a ‘religion’ which is merely a set of principles – and principles begin to look suspiciously like rules.

God can be set aside while we remain in control of our lives. He may be praised, thanked, and worshipped for giving us his wise precepts for life, but as with an absentee watchmaker, God’s present participation is altogether optional.

So how do we avoid unknowingly slipping into bibliolatry?

We keep our eyes fixed on Jesus (Hebrews 12:2). Jesus is the center of our lives and our thoughts.

We read Scripture, not to discover ways to live successfully, but to find out more about God.

We surrender the illusion of control. We never had control over our world or our lives, but we had the illusion of control, and it is a harmful illusion.

We pray to God, “Your will be done,” instead of trying to figure out how to get God to do our will (Matt. 6:10).

We remember that this life will necessarily contain suffering, and that our task, given to us by God, is to learn to suffer well.

We recognize that there will be suffering in our lives. Our assignment is to be good at suffering.

Paradoxically, when we rid ourselves of the subtle bibliolatry which is nothing other than an attempt at some type of magical manipulation of our environment – when we rid ourselves of trying to use Scripture as a formula to get what we want – when we surrender our wills and desires – it is then that we will find a peculiar and powerful type of peace and joy.

This subtle, self-help bibliolatry is an attempt to make things understandable. But there is a beautiful blessing “which passes all understanding” (Philippians 4:7).

Understanding the Word ‘Covenant’

Throughout Scripture, the word ‘covenant’ is used often. There are several covenants recorded for us; most important are the ones between God and humans.

Several covenants are recorded between humans, and these are relevant in setting the context for various portions of Scripture. But they are secondary in significance when compared those covenants which God authors between Himself and humans.

It is worth noting that there are no covenants authored by humans between themselves and God.

Among the covenants in Scripture are one with Noah, one with Abraham, one at Sinai, and the New Covenant through Jesus.

Many scholars note a particular form in these covenants, a form from the Ancient Near East called the ‘suzerain’ form. A suzerain is, according to at least one dictionary, “a sovereign or state having some control over another state that is internally autonomous.”

A suzerain covenant is a contract between unequals, one proposed, or more probably imposed, by the superior upon the inferior. This model is a logical model for God to use when making an agreement with humans.

The covenant at Sinai most clearly reflects the patterns of suzerainty covenants in the Ancient Near East (ANE). It follows a six-part model: (a) a statement of what the superior power has already done for the inferior, (b) what the inferior power is asked now to do, (c) a statement of witnesses, (d) penalties for violation of the contract and rewards for its fulfillment, (e) the identity and credential of the superior issuing the covenant, and (f) the preservation and promulgation of the text of the covenant.

It is seen, then, that covenants are written in accord with a strict legal form, which was used for business agreements between government officials at that time.

In addition the suzerainty pattern, there are other patterns of covenant in Scripture. In the case of Abraham, there is a form of covenant which was used in business deals of the time – a sort of ‘private sector,’ in contrast to the suzerainty form.

In Genesis (15:17), the narrative includes “a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch” passing between the halves of animals. It was, in fact, a standard way to confirm a contract among the businessmen of the ANE to split an animal in half, and walk between the halves.

God, being Himself invisible, issued visible symbols of His presence in the forms of the fire-pot and of the torch, and caused them to pass between the halves. God was using a standard business contract form, one which Abraham would recognize.

It’s worth noting that “a deep sleep fell on Abram.” Even more, a “dreadful and great darkness fell upon him.” Abraham is disabled, made utterly passive, and God does the work here.

Another odd narrative is when (Genesis 24:2) Abraham tells his servant, “Put your hand under my thigh.” The language here is euphemistic. The meaning is that the servant should make an oath, not only to Abraham, but also to Abraham’s descendents, symbolized here by the location of the servant’s hand. The servant would thus be answerable and responsible to those descendents in the event of Abraham’s death.

The servants complies. Why? Because this was a recognized and common way of concluded a business agreement in the ANE:

So the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master and swore to him concerning this matter.

The question remaining, then, is about the word itself: what is a ‘covenant’?

The Hebrew word underlying the English text can be rendered a number of ways, including ‘deal’ or ‘agreement’ or ‘binding agreement’ or ‘contract.’

It may seem too worldly to reduce ‘covenant’ to ‘a deal, contract, agreement, binding agreement,’ or a similar term, but by placing the text in its historical context, we see that God is using the forms used by governments and by businessmen in the ANE.

To describe the Scriptural covenants as ‘contracts’ is not to denigrate them, but rather to honor them, by phrasing them in meaningful and impactful terms. These are the terms which form daily life.

To understand further, one must remember that there are various types of contracts, including unilateral contracts and imposed contracts.

God has explained His relationship to humans, not in an ambiguous and mushy sea of emotions, but in the rigorous legal terms of contract law. This is not a cold and distancing view, but rather one which encourages us to rely all the more on God’s generosity.

God’s contract with us is predicated on the fact that He’s saved us. Salvation is the beginning point, not the culmination, of the contract.

Personal Or Private?

Is your faith a personal matter, or a private one? Too often, these words are not carefully distinguished from each other; yet there are significant differences between them.

Something which is ‘personal,’ in the sense of the word which is here relevant, is unique to an individual, or has a unique relation to a particular individual. We speak of a wealthy individual as having a ‘personal’ fortune, or a celebrity making a ‘personal’ appearance. In those examples, the fortune is peculiar to the individual, and nobody else could have made a ‘personal’ appearance for the celebrity.

By contrast, ‘private,’ in the meaning here pertinent, refers to something which is confidential, secret, or undisclosed.

Our faith is always personal, but never private. God calls us to live in a community.

Each of us has a unique relationship to God. Each of us lives out our faith in a unique way. God calls each of us to unique tasks.

But this uniqueness occurs in the context of fellowship. We often pray alone, but sometimes corporately. We often study Scripture alone, but sometimes together. We worship both individually and as a group.

This is reflected in the language of Scripture.

In older English translations, we encounter the word ‘thou’ and in fact, this word has become, in some circles, the hallmark of classic or traditional religious discourse, for good or for ill.

But in those historic translations, the word ‘thou’ is used alongside the word ‘you’ – in, e.g., the King James Version, also called the Authorized Version.

The difference is significant. ‘You’ is plural; ‘thou’ is singular.

Note the various, between the plural and singular second person in, e.g., the early chapters of Deuteronomy (‘thou’ and ‘you’). Is God, through Moses, talking to each individual, or to the whole community?

Hebrews, Israelites, or Jews?

Abraham, his father Terah, and his descendants were known as “Hebrews,” which identified them by their language, genealogy, and culture. The word ‘Hebrew’ occurs less than forty times in the Old Testament.

The word ‘Hebrew’ occurs first in the book of Genesis (14:13). It occurs several other times in that book. It’s also found in Exodus, Deuteronomy, I Samuel, II Kings, II Chronicles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Jonah.

After they left Egypt, they became known as the “Israelites,” which was a nationalistic identification. The word ‘Israelite’ occurs more frequently than either ‘Hebrew’ or ‘Jew’ and is found more than 700 times in the Hebrew text.

The covenant made at Sinai is understood as being made with the Israelites, not with the Hebrews and not with the Jews.

After the Israelites were taken captive and later released from Babylon, they became known as “Jews,” which identified them with a spiritual re-awakening which was the result of their captivity. The word ‘Jew’ is relatively rare in the Hebrew text (II Kings 25:25, Daniel 3:8 and 3:12, Zechariah 8:32, and multiple references in Nehemiah, Ezra, Esther, and Jeremiah).

The words ‘Israeli’ and ‘Israelis’ refer only to the twentieth and twenty-first century. Do not confuse ‘Israelite’ with ‘Israeli’!

To speak of Jews any time prior to the Babylonian captivity, i.e., anytime prior to approximately 586 B.C., is a retrojection and historically incorrect.

Discerning a cutoff date for the use of ‘Israelite’ is somewhat less clear. In some instances, the translation either into ‘Israelite’ or into simply ‘Israel’ is ambiguous, inasmuch as ‘Israel’ is sometimes simply a name for the man called ‘Jacob,’ but other times is a collective singular for his descendants.

The cutoff date for ‘Israelite’ could be as early as Jacob’s arrival in Egypt, around 1800 B.C., or as late as the writing of the covenant at Sinai, around 1,400 B.C.

Because of this ambiguity, some English translations have over 700 occurrences of ‘Israelite’ in the Tanakh, while others have only several dozen.

The Apocrypha: Should We Read It?

The collection of texts called the Apocrypha presents challenges to the ordinary layman. Are these useful for personal growth, and worth reading? Or are they superstitious fables, to be avoided?

The layman’s uncertainty only grows in the face of institutional silence on the subject.

The standard Apocrypha, also called the Deuterocanonical books in some traditions, consists mostly of additions or appendices to the canonical books of the Hebrew Testament.

Outside of the Apocrypha, there are other texts, many of them additions to the Greek Testament, which are labeled ‘apocryphal.’

The Apocrypha is a defined set of documents, while there is no sharp delineation to the amorphous collection of writings which can be called, in one sense or another, ‘apocryphal’.

If God wanted us to read and study the Apocrypha, then the New Testament would encourage us to do so as much as it encourages us to the read the Old Testament. By its silence about the Apocrypha, the New Testament is placing the Tanakh in a superior position, and the Apocrypha in a lesser position.

If God wanted us to avoid the Apocrypha, then the New Testament would warn us away from it. By not issuing such warnings, the New Testament is permitting the study of the Apocrypha.

Study of these texts is neither obligatory nor forbidden: the New Testament does neither. Luther concludes that the Apocrypha is not “to be held equal with the Bible,” but is nonetheless “profitable for study.”

The Apocrypha has a place in church history. Traditional German Lutheran hymns, such as “Now Thank We All Our God” and those written by Paul Gerhardt, make use of verses taken from the Apocrypha. Luther preached on Apocryphal texts, as did C.F.W. Walther (one of the founders of the Missouri Synod).

It is worth noting the printing history: The Apocrypha was included in all Bibles until the late 1800s. It was part of all English translations, including the King James; it was in Luther's German translations. Luther's view, as mentioned above, was that these books “are not equal to Scripture, but are profitable and good study.” It was included by the Missouri Synod in its printed Bibles until the switch to English in the 1930s and 1940s. It was included in seminary training and sermons until then as well.

In the late 1800s, an anti-Semitic movement began in England to remove the Apocrypha. From that time on, Bibles in the English language have been generally printed without the Apocrypha. This trend is relatively recent in church history, and centers in the English-speaking world.

We can formulate about the Apocrypha two extreme views and a middle ground:

One extreme is to say that the Apocrypha is worthless and perhaps even dangerous, and that it should not be studied or read by Christians.

The other extreme is to say that the Apocrypha is an important part of the Bible, which Christians should study as much as the rest of the Bible.

A more calm view expresses that the Apocrypha is an interesting set of books which contain information which can help us better understand the people, times, and places of the Bible.

The New Testament often uses the phrases “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven” to refer to the church, i.e., to the collection of Jesus followers on earth. The Old Testament does not use this phrase in this way. We see that this phrase come into use in the time between the testaments.

A wisdom text (Wisdom 10:10) in the Apocrypha uses the phrase: “When the righteous fled from his brother's wrath, she guided him in right paths, showed him the kingdom of God, and gave him knowledge of holy things, made him rich in his travels, and multiplied the fruit of his labors.”

The Old Testament uses the phrase “son of man” often, but never “son of God” (with a possible ambiguous exception in Daniel 3:25). The New Testament messianic phrase finds an early appearance in two Apocrypha texts: (II Esdras 2:47) “So he answered me and said to me, 'it is the Son of God, whom they have confessed in the world.' Then I began to commend them greatly that stood so stiffly for the name of the Lord.” (Wisdom 2:18) “For if the just man be the Son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies.”

The phrase “son of man" finds continued use: (Judith 8:16) “Do not bind the counsels of the Lord our God: for God is not a man, that he may be threatened; neither is He as the son of man, that he should be wavering.” (Sirach 17:30) "For all things cannot be in men, since a son of man is not immortal."

An important Hebrew idiom for generosity is found both in the Old and New Testaments; the Apocrypha attests the continuity of that idiom between the two. The Hebrew expression for ‘generous,' found in Proverbs (22:9 and 28:22) and used by Jesus Himself (Matthew 6:22 and Luke 11:34), is used: (Sirach 35:8) “Give the Lord honor with a good eye, and diminish not the first fruits of your hands.”

Idle Chatter

What is “idle chatter,” and is it a sin?

The exact phrase will vary, depending on which translation of the Hebrew and Greek phrases one reads. In the book of Proverbs, this passage can be translated as dealing with idle chatter, although the phrase itself does not appear in the text:

The wise in heart accept commands,
but a chattering fool comes to ruin.

Whoever walks in integrity walks securely,
but whoever takes crooked paths will be found out.

Whoever winks maliciously causes grief,
and a chattering fool comes to ruin.

Analysis of the passage reveals that ‘chattering’ means, first, that one is not ‘accepting commands,’ i.e., the “chattering fool” would rather talk than listen, and because he is talking, misses the command, or talks in order that he might miss the command.

Second, ‘chattering’ is malicious. The act of winking can undermine another person, or be a signal for some type of foul play, or be seductive. In any case, the outcome is bad. Winking as such, in general, is not forbidden by the text, but rather such winking as causes sorrow or trouble.

Finally, a ‘chattering fool’ is contrasted with ‘the wise in heart.’

‘Chattering’ is an adjective. The emphasis is on ‘fool.’ There might be other types of fool. The problem is primarily foolishness.

The Hebrew word rendered as ‘chattering’ has also been translated as ‘prating’ or ‘talkative.’ While 10:8 is relatively unproblematic, some scholars read 10:10 differently. Instead of the repetitive parallelism of the LXX, in which two negative personalities receive the consequences of their action, it is possible, looking more to the Masoretic text, to see the second half of the couplet as contrasting a positive personality to the flaw identified in the first half:

He who winks the eye causes trouble,
but he who boldly reproves makes peace.

In any case, there is no textual evidence in Proverbs for a prohibition against all socializing, which some have attempted to find in this passage.

There are sects which would impose a rule that one may speak either only of ‘purely spiritual’ matters, or may speak when the practicalities of life require it, e.g., ask where to find water.

Proverbs does not provide any justification for such a legalistic burden. The stricture also deconstructs itself, inasmuch as the recognition that Jesus is Lord over all aspects of life does not allow the division of conversation into ‘purely spiritual’ and other matters.

Although the phrase ‘idle chatter’ has entered ordinary discourse, it is not found in Scripture. The word ‘chatter’ and the word ‘idle’ do appear in the text, but not together.

Surprisingly, the phrase ‘idle chatter’ is common in certain Buddhist texts.

The New Testament uses the phrase ‘godless chatter’ twice. In Paul’s first letter to Timothy, he concludes with a final exhortation:

Guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have departed from the faith.

In this context, ‘godless chatter’ is that which opposes the doctrine which has been ‘entrusted’ to the believer’s ‘care.’ This ‘godless chatter’ is condemned precisely because of its spiritual content.

In Paul’s second letter to Timothy, he repeats the phrase in a variant of his first admonition:

Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene.

Again the phrase refers to the ‘teaching,’ i.e., to the spiritual or doctrinal content of the speech.

In the New Testament, then, ‘chatter’ does not refer to casual socializing, but instead to false spiritual teachings.

Although the phrase ‘idle chatter’ has entered common usage in modern English, and although it carries for some listeners a moralizing connotation which some may vaguely associate with the cultural aura of Jesus and His followers, the phrase actually finds its origin and home in Buddhist thought.

Among commonly-used English translations, the NKJV alone uses the phrase, in Proverbs 14:23. The NKJV was composed between 1975 and 1980, and so after the point in time at which ‘idle chatter’ had entered common usage. The inclusion of the phrase in the NKJV is, then, a retrojection and does not reflect the Vorlage, i.e., the original Hebrew MSS.

The followers of Jesus are not prohibited from casual social speech, i.e., talking about everyday events and cultural topics.

Phrases Used by Both Jesus and the Pharisees

If one looks at the Hebrew word ‘amen,’ written in its Hebrew characters, then an interesting pattern presents itself. The word means ‘truth,’ and each of its three letters, in sequence, is the initial letter of the words ‘God,’ ‘king,’ and ‘faithfulness.’

Thus the word ‘amen’ contains its own explanatory mechanism: God is a faithful king, or the king of faithfulness.

His kingdom is linked closely with the concept of repentance (Matthew 4:17 and Mark 1:15). In associating the concept of repentance and the concept of God’s kingdom, Jesus is operating with notions that would have been familiar to His audience.

The Pharisees of the time emphasized both repentance and God’s kingdom, so they had set foundational ideas in place, upon which Jesus built.

By their exposition of Mosaic texts (e.g., Exodus 20:22 to 20:26), the Pharisees had also promulgated an early version of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. In this way, too, they had cleared a path for Jesus, however unwittingly.

In contradiction to oversimplified views of the New Testament, often and inappropriately presented to small children, the Pharisees were not uniformly the ‘bad guys.’ Jesus was in many respects similar to them, and many of them became followers of Jesus.

In teaching about repentance, the Pharisees offered a trifold explanation: repentance is first the recognition of wrong, second the resolve to change, and third the actual change. Repentance is more than remorse; remorse is mere emotion.

In teaching about generosity, the Pharisees used phrases which Jesus would likewise use. ‘Storing up treasures in heaven’ was their idiom for giving to the poor (Matthew 6:20 and 19:21, Mark 10:21, Luke 12:33 and 18:22). Having a ‘good eye’ meant being generous (Matthew 6:23, Luke 11:34 to 11:36).

[These thoughts loosely based on a talk given by Dwight Pryor on Saturday, October 01, 1994]

Jesus the Rabbi

The word ‘Rabbi’ carried with it a slightly different connotation at the time of Jesus than in the last years of the twentieth century and the first years of the twenty-first century.

Two thousand years ago, it was not formalized into an institutional title. It meant ‘owner’ or ‘master’ and was a term of address. There was no official certification for being a rabbi, but it was nonetheless a status which was bestowed by an informal, unspoken, and perhaps even unconscious consensus of the community.

Jesus is, obviously, a Jew both by birth and by education. He preached frequently in synagogues, starting around the age of thirty. He died as a Jew and was resurrected as a Jew.

Following the statistical distribution of the words ‘teach’ and ‘preach’ in the New Testament, it can be seen that the model presented in the text is that every follower of Jesus is tasked with preaching, while only a few, i.e. clergy, teach. ‘Teaching’ is explanation, while ‘preaching’ is proclamation.

The followers of Jesus do not, therefore, “go to” church, but rather “assemble as” the church. The church is where “two or three are gathered” (Matthew 18:20). The Holy Spirit, by means of “apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers” works to “equip” the followers of Jesus “for ministry” (Ephesians 4:11-12).

Some rabbis were, two thousand years ago, itinerant. Jesus is an itinerant rabbi. He is mobile. It is not merely a metaphor to “follow” Jesus - it is often requires motion. People follow Jesus into the world: into stores and schools and workplaces. He leads them there, in order that they may be salt and light in those places: in order that they may present God’s love for all people, present it in deeds and occasionally in words.

Interestingly, a man of two thousand years ago needed permission from his wife to become a disciple of a rabbi.

Jesus speaks of the “Kingdom of God” and the “Kingdom of Heaven” - these are the synonyms, by way of reverential circumlocution. In the book of Matthew, the phrase “Kingdom of Heaven” is used 31 times, while “Kingdom of God” is used only 5 times.

Of the Gospel narratives, Matthew is the most Jewish in flavor, and for this reason, he uses the word ‘God’ sparingly, and substitutes instead a pious euphemism. The phrase “Kingdom of Heaven” is used only in Matthew. The other New Testament documents use “Kingdom of God.”

The phrases “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Kingdom of God” refer, not to eternal life after we die and are resurrected, but rather to the followers of Jesus here and now on earth.

To the point, Jesus cites John the Baptist as someone who is not part of the “Kingdom of Heaven.” Jesus certainly did not mean to say that God did not bring John the Baptist into eternal life; rather, Jesus is saying (Matthew 11:11) that John the Baptist was temporally prior to the loosely-organized group of Jesus followers on earth.

[These thoughts taken from a talk given by Dwight Pryor on Friday, September 30, 1994]

Holidays (Galatians 4:10)

In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he expresses dismay about their observance of holidays. He uses the second person plural:

But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

One interpretative question arises about the holidays the Galatians are observing: Are they the traditional Jewish holidays? Or are they the holidays of the pagan Greeks?

On the one hand, Paul’s writing is occasioned by the presence and activity of Judaizers among the Galatians: the work of those who would impose Mosaic laws, and additional Jewish laws, upon those who had only recently become followers of Jesus.

On the other hand, the Galatians were a set of predominately gentile congregations in a predominately gentile region of Asia Minor, and so the pagan holidays would have been more familiar, and more compatible with the surrounding culture.

In either case, there’s something wrong with the fact that the Galatians were observing these holidays.

(Most scholars tend toward the interpretation that Paul refer to Jewish holidays being introduced among the Galatians.)

Why is Paul displeased? Is he upset about how the Galatians are observing these holidays? Is Paul upset about which holidays the Galatians are observing? Or about why they are observing them? Or about that these holidays are being observed?

Some readers have taken extreme the interpretation that this passage prohibits the observation of any holiday whatsoever.

One clue is the verb: Paul is dismayed that the Galatians are “observing” holidays. He is not dismayed that they are “celebrating” holidays. The difference might be related to elements of Mosaic and post-Mosaic laws.

In John 10:22, e.g., the text states that it was “the Feast of Dedication” (Hanukkah), and Jesus is at the Temple. Presumably, He was there to celebrate, not to observe, Hanukkah. God’s message of grace in the Gospel is something to be celebrated, not observed. It engenders joy, not legal conformity.

In John 7:2 and 7:10, the text likewise avoids mention of ‘observance,’ and instead tells us that Jesus ‘went up’ (the elevation of Jerusalem being higher than that of the surrounding countryside) for the “Feast of Booths.”

Similar wording is used in John 5:1 and 2:13.

In Matthew 26, Jesus organizes His disciples to ‘prepare’ for the Passover, meaning that it was a deliberate act on His part to celebrate the feast. Jesus says that He will ‘keep’ or ‘celebrate,’ but not ‘observe’ the feast.

The Greek verb used in Galatians 4:10 is a verb of scrupulous rigor and legal compliance. The verb in Matthew 26:17 is means merely ‘to do’ or ‘to make,’ indicating a physical action.

Other passages in the New Testament also indicate that Jesus celebrated at various occasions.

The early followers of Jesus celebrated Sunday (Acts 20:7 and Revelation 1:10). There is no indication that this was observed as a legal requirement.

Is there, then, a tension between Paul’s comment in his letter to the Galatians and the fact that Jesus celebrated holidays? If so, how is this tension to be resolved?

A few general interpretive comments: Scripture contains tensions and paradoxes, but not contradictions (James 1:17); Scripture is accurate (Numbers 23:19) and inspired (II Timothy 3:16).

Already indicated is one route toward resolution: the difference between ‘observing’ a holiday and ‘celebrating’ a holiday. (The verb in Matthew 26:17 indicates simply the physical action, the task of preparing for the holiday, and is therefore not an ‘observance’ because there is no legal connotation.)

A second route to harmonizing the texts is to note that Jesus celebrates largely, if not exclusively, the holidays commanded by Scripture. He keeps Passover (Exodus 12:14 and 13:5), and the Feast of Tabernacles (Leviticus 23:34 and Deuteronomy 16:16). His celebration of Hanukkah is less clear, because it is not in Scripture proper, but rather in the Apocryphal book of Maccabees.

This second route also highlights an innovation introduced by Jesus: He ‘celebrates’ the holidays ‘commanded’ by Scripture. He defangs the legal aspect of the holidays, and instead recreates them as opportunities to delight in God. Perhaps Paul’s dismay arises from the fact that the Galatians are ignoring this example set by Jesus.

Neither of the above two interpretive options excludes the other, which leaves the opportunity to use both.

In his commentary, Richard Lenski sees Paul’s remarks as directed toward Jewish, not pagan, holidays. Lenski understand Paul’s concerns about holidays as part of a more generalized concern about imposed legalism:

Here we see what success the Judaizers had had with the Galatians, which agrees with the present tenses used in v. 9; also in how far they had failed, for the Galatians had not yet accepted circumcision otherwise Paul would have mentioned this and more likely have named it first.

The ‘observance’ is riddled with legalistic matters, and devoid of joy. They are ‘regulations’ which ‘forbid’ actions or things, and which create a stress of careful observance instead of the spiritual peace which Jesus wants to give His followers:

The terms used refer to Mosaic regulations. While all of them refer to time, the terms expressing time are not themselves the stoicheia but refer to the elements involved in these terms. Thus all labor with earthly things was forbidden on the Sabbath, the Jewish fasts forbade eating food, et. Material, earthly things are always involved. “Days” are singled out by being placed before the verb; the compound verb is perfective: “you are carefully observing.”

The tone of Paul’s vocabulary indicates that these observances were a burdensome legal imposition, not a joyous celebration.

Lenski catalogues which Jewish holidays the Galatians might have known:

These are the days fixed by the Mosaic law, the Sabbaths, the fast and the feast days such as the Passover, the new moons, etc.

Far from the true freedom of the Gospel, the Galatians had tied themselves to a schedule, and made a moral obligation out of keeping that schedule.

Some of the holidays were indeed from Scripture, i.e., from the Tanakh, but others were innovations.

“Months” are often referred to new moons, but these are “days.” Months signify entire months such as the seventh month Tisri, called Sabbath month since its first day was treated like a Sabbath; also Nisan.

Nisan is, and was, “the first month which introduced the Jewish” cyclical “year and was distinguished by the Passover.”

The Galatians could not have been under this legalism for long, as they were relatively new followers of Jesus, yet the influence of this false teaching was so profound that Paul uses the word ‘bewitching’ to describe its influence.

Paul is less interested in the exact details of the holidays in Galatia than in the monotonous imposition of them as obligatory.

“Seasons,” as distinct from “days” and “months” on the one hand and from “years” on the other, are the seasons of prayer and fasting prescribed by the law. The “years” refer to the sabbatical year and to the interval of years. It would be speculative to conclude that a sabbatical year was in progress at the time when Paul wrote. His meaning is that the Galatians had been under Judaistic influence for only a brief period yet had begun the observance to time; how many Sabbaths, etc., they had already kept is immaterial. The tense of the verb means that the Galatians were launched upon this Jewish legalism.

Among the earliest recorded blessings which God gave was a blessing given, neither to a person nor to a material object, but rather to a unit of time. “God blessed the seventh day and made it holy” (Genesis 2:3).

Paul was dismayed that the Galatians were encumbered by legal observations of days.

The followers of Jesus are freed from such burdens and impositions. Rather, they are invited to celebrate the “Sabbath rest” and enjoy the freedom of the Gospel (Hebrews 4:9). Because the “Sabbath was made for man,” (Mark 2:27) followers of Jesus are encouraged, not to observe days, but to celebrate them.

Shedding Occidental Dualism: Discovering the Non-Platonic Jesus

The pervasive influence of Plato is clearly seen in the attempt to discard, indeed the need to discard, that influence when examining the text of the New Testament and discovering the truly Hebraic nature of Jesus and His teaching. Occidental thought can be expressed in the slogan that “prayer is spiritual; study is mental.”

But Jesus has a view in which study is equated with prayer and worship.

Occidental culture studies in order to know; Hebraic culture studies in order to reveal and form an intimate relationship. This gives rise to the Hebrew idiomatic pattern of using the verb ‘to know’ as a euphemism for forming a significant relationship. (“Adam knew Eve.”)

The Occident overemphasizes abstract conceptual knowledge, and thereby underemphasizes knowledge as personal acquaintance. Some people find study unattractive because they are familiar only with the Occidental pattern thereof.

Not only does the Occident overemphasize the one and underemphasize the other, but it also neglects the close connection between the two.

Jesus is clearly identified as a ‘teacher’ (cf. John 8:31 and other passages), and His disciples are His ‘pupils.’

This understanding of knowledge leads to a recognition that ‘spirit’ and ‘life’ are one (cf. John 6:63). There is no Platonic division: What is spiritual is in this world, not some other dimension or some future universe.

A Hebraic worldview does not sharply distinguish between the physical and the spiritual; it sees body and soul as two aspects of one being, whereas Occidental thought sees body and soul as two separate entities.

Thus when Moses commands us to “choose life” (Deut. 30:19), he is encouraging us to live spiritually in this physical world, to engage in this world. Jesus says that “the flesh counts for nothing,” meaning that it cannot be considered apart from its spiritual aspect - just as whatever is ‘spirit’ is also meaningless in isolation, and obtains meaning only in conjunction with “life.”

It is the words of Jesus which take ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ - both of which ‘count for nothing’ on their own - and unite them and give them meaning and power.

We can see in the temptation narrative that the desert is a place of power (Matthew 4): in Scripture, powerful things happen in the desert. Consider the prophets and what they did in the desert (cf. Acts 7:30, 8:26; Hebr 11:38). Jesus is empowered against temptation.

Jesus uses Scripture against temptation in the wilderness (desert) narrative. Scripture inspires and is inspired, i.e., brings life and has been filled with life. Consider the linguistic origin of ‘inspire,’ which deals with inhalation. Thus Jesus says that the Word is ‘life and spirit.’

[These thoughts taken from a talk given by Dwight Pryor on Friday, September 30, 1994]