Nielsen’s Nook

Commentary

[1] τελειόω is the same word used by Jesus in describing our destination in the Father, Matthew 5:48.

[2] διώκω to hasten, press on.

[3] στοιχεῖν battle-order, walk by rule or principle (IGEL, 747).

[4] σκοπεῖτε connects back to the noun form (σκοπὸν) in 3:14. It is not merely the idea of placing one’s gaze upon another but looking for those who are also pressing towards that common goal. The pressing on bit includes the communion of those on the same quest.

[5] τύπον the direct impression, type, exact imprint (c.f., Hebrews 1:1-6).

[6] The word τἐλος runs throughout this passage. There is an antithesis that this one word is running through. There are those who are moving towards a perfection (purposed goal) that is life, spawning from the cross of Christ. There are others whose appetite is other than Christ and consequently they are part of the antithetical group. Choosing enmity with the only means of salvation, the cross of Christ, they impale themselves upon destruction. They swallow whole all that seems right in their own eyes only to puke their very shame in chunks upon the canvas of their lives. In living in the inverse, their very thinking is obscured.

[7] κοιλία is a most interesting word, ranging in meaning from the physiological organs of uterus and stomach to the more figurative use of heart, innermost recesses of the human being, and appetite (BAGD, 437).

[8] Some have rendered μετασχηματίσει as change or transform. While this is good as far as it goes, it does not underscore the nature of the change that is being described here in the Greek. This is not a change in form or appearance, which would employ μεταμορφόω. Rather, the change in view is far more radical. It is a reconstitution on the schematic level, in our most basic composition.

[9] It should be noted that the Greek does not read, our humiliated bodies (pl), but our humiliated body (sg). There is a solidarity in view that circumscribes (makes sense of) individual faith.

[10] σύμμορφον here describes like form. In other words our body will be reconstituted in the same form as Christ’s glorious body. It is a transformation from the inside out, from the core to the extremities.

[11] ἐνέργειαν working, power, operation (BAGD, 265). It is not raw power (though it is supremely powerful), but rather, the manner in which Christ orchestrates that power such that the cosmic order is subject to him.

I came across an interesting entry in The Anglican Tradition: a Handbook of Sources edited by G. R. Evans that caught my eye this morning while I was reading. A little water is customarily added to the wine during the consecration of the elements (BCP, 404). Buy why? How has this come to us and what is it attempting to communicate to those who participate in the Eucharist?

Part 3, §110, Evans directs us to the Council of Florence and the Decree for the Armenians:

Water is mixed in because, according to the testimony of the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church mentioned in the preceding discussions, it is believed that our Lord himself instituted this sacrament with wine mixed with water. Furthermore, this is a fitting representation of our Lord’s passion. … For we read that both, that is, blood and water, flowed from the side of Christ’ (Evans, 120-1, c.f., John 19:34).

Further more, Revelation 17:15 appears to equate the waters with the people and so the mixing of water and wine marks out the union that is celebrated at the Eucharist between Christ and His people.

For we see that the water represents the people and the wine manifests the blood of Christ. Thus, when wine and water are mixed in the chalice, the people are united with Christ, and the faithful people are closely joined to him in whom they believe.’ (Evans, 121)

Mark Traphagen just started a thread at Conn-versations which should shape up to be interesting:

Here’s what I would like to discuss with my fellow Conn-versation bloggers and all you gentle readers. Not why or why not Obama or McCain is the best candidate, but the far more interesting (to me, anyway) question of can one be a true Evangelical in all the usual earmarks (Deity of Christ, salvation by faith in him alone, Bible is the Word of God, etc.) and vote for Obama? And to get the 50,000 pound elephant out into the open, what about the Big A, abortion? For those of you who oppose Obama, is that the biggest reason why? For those who, like me, plan to vote for Obama, how do you “handle” the abortion question when it comes up? Is that the make-or-break issue for Evangelical Christians? Should it be?

Read the whole post.

I was at a lunch recently with some who seemed taken by the recent Republican rhetoric leveled at Barack Obama. As I listened to the conversation and the regurgitation of all the lines we all heard at the Republican National Convention, one claim in particular stood out to me as questionable:

Barack Obama has not passed any bill into law.

First, I thought, “Neither had George W. Bush.” After all, Mr. Bush went from co-owner of the Texas Rangers with an MBA from Harvard to the first back-to-back two term governor in Texas History to back-to-back terms as President of the United States (more on Bush).

Obama goes from working closely with the poor and disenfranchised (read oppressed), gets a doctorate in law from Harvard and serves two terms in the US Senate, not to mention passing significant legislation as an Illinois State Senator. Hmm, we’re selective in whose legislative record we consider (more on Obama)

Next, the Executive Branch is not generally the originator of bills. So comparing the legislative experience between McCain and Obama does not seem to be considering experience that is required for the Office of President.

Regardless, I would encourage you the reader to take a moment to get a nuanced presentation of Obama, one like Obama: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell of the Chicago Tribune. If you don’t vote for Obama, at least you’ll know why for yourself.

I’m preparing to co-teach a class on Biblical Interpretation at St. John’s this Fall. One of the books the teachers are reading is How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart.

There is the assumption that the text means only what the originating author intended it to mean (authorial intent, AI). While AI is certainly important, it does not have the last word on the meaning of a text. There are far to many instances in Scripture where AI demonstrates itself to be only one of the meanings of a text. For example, the way Galatians 4:21-31 deals with the story of Hagar (Genesis 16).

It would seem wise to consider first AI and then consider the eschatological telos (or perhaps to follow Dr. Doug Green’s terminology, the Christotelic reading) that the Church has in Christ, by Christ and ultimately to Christ. If we know clearly what was initially meant by the human author and we are clear about our destination in Christ, then we interpret passages in the bible in light of the “line” that we would draw, as it were, between the two. The advance of this approach is that we allow for a fuller AI such that the symphonic meaning of the ultimate author, the Holy Spirit, can be heard. The difficulty, potentially, is that apart from the Tradition of the Church we can be left in a quandary of the uncertainty of private interpretation.