Just a Nugget

One of the frustrating things when preparing a sermon is discovering some interesting nugget in Scripture that we just do not have the time to unpack or disclose during the sermon. We wish we could because we personally find it fascinating. Unfortunately we live in a world governed by the god called the clock, and to it we must bow, so we leave out these interesting little nuggets.

A couple weeks ago I preached just such a sermon. There was so much I would have loved to share with the congregation, but time constraints as well as keeping a flow to the sermon just forced me to leave it out. My text was Ephesians 6:5-9, and since I could not share this nugget in the sermon, I figured I would share it here for the occasional wandering eye to read.

One of the points I made in the sermon was how this passage took the greater pericope of 5:21 through 6:9. Before 6:5 Paul is talking about submission but arguably stays at the surface level. In 6:5 he takes it to a new, deeper level by saying “Slaves, obey your masters… with a sincere heart.” This is important because of the nugget I am about to disclose.

In all our major English translations, the word “heart” appears twice in 6:5-9. In the Greek however, something different is happening. In verse 5 the Greek term is kardi,a (kardia). Translating this term as “heart” is the normal translation, and common sense tells us Paul is talking figuratively and not about the actual blood pumping muscle. The nugget is that in verse 6 Paul switches words on us and uses the word yuch, (psuche). Typically we would translate this word as “soul” but not here. Why?

Here is my two cents. “Heart” is a good translation. Paul, when using both words here is talking about the innermost being of a person; the very essence of what makes that person a unique human being created in God’s image. The reason for utilizing both I believe is because Paul wants the hearers to realize he is talking about an all-encompassing idea. He wants the slaves to serve whole-heartedly, holding nothing back, and this must be a joyful, pleasurable desire from deep within. The service being rendered is not done “because I must” but “because I truly desire to do it.”

Given he is using this to help expand his idea of submission, we begin to realize just how incredible a call Paul is making. This goes way beyond anything we can do naturally. It is only by supernatural, Gospel empowerment that we are able to go this extra distance. God changes our hearts, and that heart change exudes itself even in how we submit to authority and one another… and even to Christ himself.

Oldest-Known Bible Now Available

What is considered the oldest text of the New Testament known to date has been reassembled and is available online for your free viewing pleasure.

The codex sinaiticus originally was found in the Monastery of St. Catherine but was divided in the mid-1800's among several universities. Now it has been reassembled and is available online for free.

Why is it so important? As noted on the website;

Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its heavily corrected text is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible and the manuscript – the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity – is of supreme importance for the history of the book.

This will be a helpful tool for many New Testament scholars as we seek to continually understand the early church period as well as in the area of textual criticism, opening the doors to many who once found access to these documents difficult.

The website is here.

Hermeneutical Hypocrisy?

I have been pondering some things lately and in the process I came to a realization but want to get some feedback before I make any final conclusions on this thought. So for all you theologically and philosophically minded people out there, I could use your help.

The topic I am studying is the biblical teaching on divorce, and I was reading an article today from the theological journal Didaskalia, and it provoked some thoughts. If you are curious and have access, the article is titled “Divorce and Remarriage in Church History” and it is by David Smith (Sp 2000, p 59-75).

Here is the thought: in Matthew’s gospel is the primary teaching of Jesus on divorce, and there is the infamous clause that has created significant controversy. Either way, it seems Jesus gives the ok for a particular form of divorce related to some form of sexual immorality (see Matthew 5:31-32). The Greek word there is porneia, which is debatable as to what form of sexual immorality Christ is referring to, but most believe it to be adultery. This does not mean he is condoning divorce, only that he is allowing it in this particular case.

But let us consider this in its context. Just before our divorce text, Jesus gives a teaching on lust and adultery. The teaching there is that even lusting after a woman is committing adultery. He is getting at the heart of the law and going beyond the simple letter of the law. Even before that we have the passage on hating a brother is the equivalent of murder, again the heart of the law versus the letter of the law. Put all this together:

If looking at a woman with lust is adultery, and sexual immorality which is typically accepted as being adultery in Matthew 5:32 is grounds for divorce, is it possible to say Jesus was implicating lust as being legitimate grounds for divorce? I titled this blog “Hermeneutical Hypocrisy” because it seems we are forcing a limiter on Christ’s teaching on divorce, ignoring the context. We are forcing our desired understanding into the text?

Again, this is where I am asking for help out there, to see if there is a flaw in the logic. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Boot Camp

Again, this post comes from an old blog I authored that is been shut down.

Like last week, this week I am posting on something brought to my attention some time ago that I occasionally revisit to meditate on.  Whereas last week I mentioned a sociological study that got me thinking, and still does every time I visit the supermarket, this week I shall focus on a study of a single verse of Scripture.
I was directed by my Greek professor Matt Harmon to occasionally check out another blog called Hellenisti ginoskeis by Daniel J. Phillips about Greek studies.  It has been very enriching, and one particular entry consistently gets me thinking.

Hebrews 5:8 is an incredible statement of the "boot camp" Christ had to go through as he worked to be the source of salvation for us. 

The ESV reads;

Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.  And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 5:8-10)

Anyway, allow me to point out the beauty of verse eight, which really gets me thinking.  For ease, I'll just quote Phillips;

Then there is what I'll un-academically call the syntactic suspense. The author does not write, ἔμαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔπαθεν. Rather, it is ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν. "Son though He was, He learned from the things He suffered"— learned what? The wickedness of sin? The brokenness of the world? The rough providences of God? No. "Submission." And this is held in suspense until the last, syntactically. As if to say, "Son though He was, He learned from the things He suffered—submission!"

It is amazing first of all to think that Christ learned anything.  Obviously, he did not learn in the same way we do, because he is infinite and we are finite.  But he still learned.  How to wrap this into my theological understanding is no easy task, and I have yet to do so.

Another difficult thing to grasp is how he learned - suffering.  I doubt anyone will contest that he endured suffering unlike anything any other man has ever endured.  For he, being one with God the Father, came under the weight of the full extent of the wrath of God.  Not only this, but he who enjoyed complete fellowship with the Father since eternity past was forsaken by the Father while enduring the Father's wrath.  Not one of us will ever begin to understand just how much suffering he endured.

The most difficult aspect is what he learned.  He is God, equal with the Father, and he placed himself under submission to the Father.  This is most clearly seen in the Garden of Gethsemane; "Not my will, but your's"  The one who is ruler over all submitted himself to the Father.  I struggle under my pride to submit to anything and I do not hold the position he held even before he came to this earth.

But most importantly, he did all this for us.  He did it to save us, which is astounding enough.  But here's the kicker - he did it as an example for us also.  He placed himself under submission to the will of God both for our salvation and to demonstrate to us the extent to which we should be willing to submit ourselves.  This is tough to swallow, for it is easy to submit to God's will when it gives us immediate warm fuzzies.  But what about when it calls for us to endure a little suffering for only a while.  My tendency is to shy away.  Instead, we, like Christ, should be saying "Not my will, but your's."