Nielsen’s Nook

This was the mystery long hidden from the world in the secret counsels of God and the wisdom that Israel did not expect. Israel expected the Jewish Messiah to come, to exalt the Jews to a place of prominence in the world (with the Gentiles as their servants) [much like some Christians today], and to reign physically from the city of Jerusalem. the full glory and political prominence would come with the first appearance of the Messiah. (That was what the Jewish crowds were expecting when they welcomed the Lord into Jerusalem on that fateful Palm Sunday; see Mark 11:10.) They did not suspect the riches of the glory of God’s mystery, or the overflowing generosity of His grace. They did not suspect that God would pour out His grace upon all flesh — even the Gentiles, thereby abolishing the distinction between Jew and Gentile.

__________

Farley, Lawrence. The Prison Epistles, The Orthodox Bible Study Companion Series. (Ben Lomond, Calif.: Conciliar Press, 2003) , p. 162. Commenting on Colossians 1:26-28.

Translation

1 But thanksgiving [1] to God - for did he not prevail against all? [2] For the noble Germanikos was encouraging their cowardice through the steadfastness in him. And he fought against the wild animals remarkably. [3] For when the Proconsul desired to cajole him, even saying to have pity on his youthfulness, Germanikos forcefully [4] dragged the wild animal upon himself, [5] desiring at once to be free from their unrighteous and lawless life.

[1] χάρις a common word usually meaning “grace,” in centuries before Christ, Euripides, Xenophon, and Plato, for example, used χάρις + dative to express thanksgiving or gratitude (BAGD). This is of course the use here. Hebrews 12:28 gives us a NT example, which assumes God as the indirect object: Διὸ βασιλείαν ἀσάλευτον παραλαμβάνοντες ἔχωμεν χάριν, διʼ ἧς λατρεύωμεν εὐαρέστως τῷ θεῷ μετὰ εὐλαβείας καὶ δέους. Therefore, since we are receiving an unshakable royal rule, let us give thanks to God, through which we might offer worship in a manner acceptable to God with reverence and awe (author’s translation).

[2] Here the period seems to be misplaced. The syntax appears to be asking a rhetorical question.

[3] ἐπισήμως is a adverb that describes something done “in an outstanding manner” (BAGD); however, it also describes the imprints on a coin which mark the coin out for a particular kingdom and king. (Middle Liddell)

[4] This adverbial use of the aorist middle participial form of προσβιάζομαι is supported by BAGD.

[5] When used in the middle voice ἐπισπάω refers to doing the action to or for one’s self. See 1 Macc 14:1, καὶ ἐπορεύθη εἰς Μηδίαν τοῦ ἐπισπάσασθαι βοήθειαν ἑαυτῷ and [King Demetrius] marched into Media to call help to himself. (author’s translation) In this case the reflexive pronoun is used. In Martyrdom of Polycarp 3:1 it seems to be assumed in the context.

Parts: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Translation

is seated at the right hand of God the Father, All-Powerful [1] from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

[1] παντοδυνάμου (παντα + δύναμις) a compound adjective (singular genitive), functioning in an attributive sense to explain to us about the one at whose right hand Jesus now sits. It is worth noting that in most English translations of the Creed both the beginning phrase, “I believe in God the Father, Almighty” and this phrase use the same English word where two synonymous but distinctly different Greek words appear. The English translations have followed the Latin translation in which παντοκράτορα and παντοδυνάμου are rendered derivations of omnipotens. We use “All-Powerful” to indicate the variation in the Greek.

Parts: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Translation

on the third day he was raised [1] from among the dead, was taken up [2] into heaven,

[1] ἀναστάντα (ἀνίστημι) in this passive participial form is not used in the NT. Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians (9:2) writes οὐ γὰρ τὸν νῦν ἠγάπησαν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀποθανόντα καὶ δι ̓ ἡμᾶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀναστάντα (They [the Apostles] did not love this present age, but the one who died for our sakes and who was raised by God for us).

[2] ἀνελθόντα (ἀνέρχομαι) It should be noted that this may be a continuation of the passive aorist participle form that has been used of the other verbal elements in the Creed; however, it may also be functioning as a deponent, meaning middle/passive form serving with active meaning. Ambiguously, Jesus either ascended into heaven or was taken up to heaven. Given that the passive is used throughout the Creed, it seems that the former possibility is the better translation. Much like the ambiguity in John 3, when Jesus answers Nicodemus, the prefix ἀνα here can augment the type of going/coming to mean “to return” or “to go up.” In a very real since both are true, Jesus is confessed to be the incarnate God come from heaven, now returned. In terms of the hierarchy of places in the Fallen scheme of things, heaven is indeed a step up. The NT uses the word in speaking of ascension in elevation (in a clearly active aorist form). ἀνῆλθεν δὲ εἰς τὸ ὄρος Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐκεῖ ἐκάθητο μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ, But Jesus went up on the mountain and sat there with his disciples (Jn 6:3). When speaking of traveling to Jerusalem NT writers would speak of going up to it (again active aorist). οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, neither did I go up to Jerusalem (Gal 1:17). This is also true in the LXX (active aorist). τὴν ὁδὸν, ἐν ἧ ἀνῆλθεν, the way by which he came up (3 Kings 13:12 LXX, 1 Kings 13:12 English). See also Josephus, Antiquities 6.314.

Parts: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

NB: Received texts from Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom electronic edition of Christian Classic Ethereal Library.

Translation

I believe in God the Father, Almighty, [1] Maker [2] of heaven and earth.

[1] παντοκράτορα is a compound word made up of παντα meaning “all” or “every” and κράτος which connotes a glorious divine might and rule. Josephus employs a slightly different variation of this word structure when he writes, “When, therefore, those that had intended thus to destroy Daniel by treachery were themselves destroyed, king Darius sent [letters] over all the country, and praised that God whom Daniel worshipped, and said that he was the only true God, and had all power. He had also Daniel in very great esteem, and made him the principal of his friends.” (Ant 10.263) This is the same root (κράτος) that Hebrews 2:14-15 uses to contrast Christ’s supreme power with the power over death that the devil possesses, “¹⁴ Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, ¹⁵ and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death.” (NRSV) The Latin renders omnipotentem, which of course is where we get the English word omnipotent.

[2] ποιητὴν the accusative form of ποιητής is traditionally rendered “Maker”, which is correct but should be nuanced to the English speaking mind. In Acts 17:28, St Paul is addressing the Athenians and uses the term to refer to the Greek poets. This gives us the semantic understanding that when God writes the lines of creation and history, he did not simply make something but he made it as living poetry. All Creation, heaven and earth, is the Great and Living Poem.

Yesterday I had the privilege of preaching to a congregation in Northwest Dallas. They are relatively young, composed of mostly hispanic and some anglo people. In preaching on Psalm 70, I made the mention that it was a prayer that should be prayed on our mountain tops and in our darkest valleys and everywhere in between.¹

A mother of three, with whom I spoke after the service, made mention of the strain that she often felt in having a moment where she might pray at all. Her goal, as I understood it, was to prayerfully mother her children. As I have learned, this seems to be an idea that has monastic virtue. Many, including myself previously, had thought the monks were those who wanted nothing to do with the world. Some, of course, were more hermit like. However, generally, monks would withdraw for the purpose of engagement with the world. They would retreat to advance. They would worship God with hoe in hand. What a beautiful connection this mother of three had made. As she tends the fertile soils of her children, she retreats to advance, tending their little lives, worshiping Christ with hoe in hand.

This seems to be something the Apostle Paul had in mind when he wrote, μάρτυς γάρ μού ἐστιν ὁ θεός, ᾧ λατρεύω ἐν τῷ πνεύματί μου ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (God is my witness, whom I worship in my spirit in the gospel of His Son). Apparently, Paul is making great contrast with the Greek idea of worship that emphasized “geographical focus and physical activity”³ and in this sense seems to coalesce nicely with the mother of three, who, like Paul, has more on her plate than often seems manageable; and yet, both worship God with hoe in hand, as they would go along in their respective vocations.

² author’s translation, Romans 1:9.

³ N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 422.

The third and last section of Osborne’s article, “Special Issues” moves to consider the following elements:

1. Paul’s use of Hellenistic forms of rhetoric
2. Liturgical elements in Paul
3. Virtue and vice lists in Paul
4. The center of Paul’s theology
5. Theological development in Paul
6. Sociological factors in Paul
7. Paul’s relation to the narrative
8. Contextualization of Paul

In order to not get too bogged down in the details here, this writer will interact with some of the themes that runs through out these sections. In the section ‘The Center of Paul’s Theology” Osborne asks this question:

Since the Pauline letters are occasional in nature, and since Paul failed to develop his thought systematically, is it possible to conceive of a Pauline “theology” in the broad sense or of a “center” in the narrow sense?¹

With the controversy that has surrounded the Apostle Paul since his calling by Christ Jesus into the Apostolic office, there is much to be said here. Osborne informs us that most interpreters have sought to seek a balance. Since there is no overwhelming consensus on what that center is, many have sought to articulate a “cluster of themes rather than a single idea or controlling principle.” ² Osborne offers this solution to the dilemma:

The way out of the maze is to utilize the techniques of biblical theology, especially those of the analytical method. A “bottom-up” approach will follow the themes as they develop from one Pauline letter to another, allowing them to decide their own direction. ³

So far so good. However, we suggest one qualification which we will seek to understand via considering more of Osborne’s thoughts in this article.

Personally, “analytic method” is not a term that we would expect to see in apposition to “biblical theology.” Perhaps, because Osborne does not define the nuance he is presenting in the term “analytic method” we may find through other writings that he is concerned with the qualification that we make here. How does one implement biblical theology and have any assurance that the venues one explores in Paul are not rabbit trails but actually the main ideological thoroughfare Paul travels?

If the concept of scriptura ex scriptura explicanda est (roughly, scripture from scripture is explicated) still holds then we are bound to employ both a bottom up, inductive, biblical theological approach to the texts in concert with a top down, systematic, deductive fashion those scriptures outside of Paul, particularly those that can bring perspicuity to some of the unclear statements he has written. So the qualification would be that mere biblical theology will not provide the resolution that some offer as over against a merely systemic approach.

If we would understand scripture that it might be the explanation of scripture, then it would seem employing such circumspect studies of sociology contemporaneous with the texts being studied, understanding Paul’s use of narrative and rhetoric, and his theological development is necessary for understanding Paul on his own terms. Osborne rightly advocates the tempered use of some of these elements directing the reader towards a more balanced reading of Paul.

Out of the brief second section of Osborne’s article on interpreting Paul there are nuggets of insights into Paul’s world. The letters of the Apostle Paul generally follow the traditional bounds of “Hellenistic letters”; however, Paul “felt less bound” to these structures, mixing several forms to accomplish his literary task.¹

Osborne incorporates nine types of Hellenistic letters into his catalog of letters with which Paul was likely familiar: ²

1. Letters of friendship (cf. 2 Cor 1:16; 5:3; Phil 1:7–8)
2. Family letters
3. Letters of praise and blame (1 Cor 11; Rev 2–3)
4. Exhortatory or paraenetic letters (1 Thess 1-5; the Pastorals)
5. Letters of mediation or recommendation (Phil 2:19-30, Philemon)
6. Juridical or forensic letters (1 Cor 9:3-12; 2 Cor 1:8-2:13)
7. Private or documentary letters
8. Official letters
9. Literary letters

Osborne, Grant R. “Hermeneutics/Interpreting Paul.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 388-396. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

I have some time off from preaching for a while, so I am diving into Paul, especially the book of Romans after spending much time in Genesis, Deuteronomy and the Psalms.� In trying to understand how first century apocalyptic elements may have featured in Paul’s writing, I came across this article by Osborne.� I found it engaging and insightful, while at the same time troublesome, such that I felt the need to work out some of the reflections I had here.� Perhaps readers of the Nook will have irenic insight for me also.

Osborne’s article, after brief introduction, falls plainly into three sections.� First, he addresses recent hermeneutical issues, establishing so called “Classical Hermeneutics” over against various interpretive theories and hermeneutical frameworks.� Second, the article briefly considers the rubric and specifics of the forms Paul uses in his epistolary writing.� Finally, Osborne marches through territory he names “Special Issues.”� Here Osborne touches on rhetorical criticism, Paul’s use of liturgical material, social codes impacting Paul, the center of Pauline theology, Paul’s theological development, Paul and sociology, narrative criticism, and the contextualization of the Pauline corpus.

In the coming posts, I will lay out some of the high points Osborne makes and attempt to interact meaningfully with them.

I. Introduction

A. Propositional Anemia

Part of the problem with the church today is that we really have lost connection with God’s work in history. Being a Christian, in many cases, has been reduced down to 3-5 propositions about grace, humanity, God, Christ and faith - abstracting the propositional from the historical.

If I told you that it was important for you to understand that a man painted a woman’s home, would that matter to you? Not really, it is a mere proposition and not a very interesting one at that. But what if I told you that a man, who was out of work, painted an elderly widow’s home at his own expense out of a deep conviction and delight that God uses people like him to care for people like her? Now we’re talking! The history of the thing has breathed life into the proposition that ‘a man painted a woman’s home.’

B. Satanic Strategy towards Apathy

Personally, I believe the reduction of the Christian faith to mere proposition is a quite amazing strategy of the Enemy of our God and our faith. If he can keep our faith in the abstract then he will never have to worry about our faith affecting us or anyone else.

C. Robust Historical Christianity

The good news is that our faith is not merely propositional. We believe the propositions of the faith handed down to us by those Christians who have come before us who received it from those before them. The connection goes back to those people like the Apostle Paul, King David, Abraham, Moses and our first parents, Adam and Eve. If you understand the weight of my argument here, you understand that Christianity, the faith of God working redemption throughout time and space, is of cosmic proportions and not merely a handful of propositions that we believe merely intellectually or emotionally.

Our faith is built upon the word of God, spoken by the Apostles and Prophets, now inscripturated in the Bible. It reveals to us that even before there was sin in the world, there was faith and faithfulness. Adam and Eve, the image of God, walking in the likeness of God, were created to have uninhibited fellowship with God. That is what is meant by paradise. In the created order, God was communicating to Adam and Eve in ways that are very much alive to us today.

1 The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
(Psalm 19:1-2, ESV)

As his image we say and do things that communicate far more than the mere proposition of our words or appearance of our actions. The two trees in the midst of this Garden of Eden are communicating to us a great symphony of covenantal overture.