I have got to learn more Greek

I’m working on my study notes for 1 Corinthians 12, and I see a footnote that makes no sense.  In verse 1, under “spiritual gifts” the ESV puts “or spiritual persons.”  I did a double-take and decided to try and look that one up.  It turns out that the word “gifts” or “persons” isn’t there at all.  The word “spiritual” (ό πνευματικος, “ho pneumatikos” (!)) is a substantive.  That is, it’s an adjective without any noun to modify.  We don’t use those much at all in English, so they sound weird, and as a result, most translations add in a noun to make things read better.  The older, more honest translations would indicate the words they added, usually with italics.  Newer translations just blissfully add those words without any hint of what’s going on below the surface.  I won’t tell you how I feel about this.

So, skimming off the wonderfully helpful Mounce Reverse-interlinear translation and the Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, here’s my shorthand translation of 1 Corinthians 12:1-11:

So: concerning the spiritual [things], brothers, I don’t want you to not know.  You know that when you were gentiles, to mute idols as led you were led astray. Therefore I make known to you that none in the Spirit of God says, “I say accursed [is] Jesus” and none is able to say, “Lord Jesus!” except in the Holy Spirit.

So different gifts there are, but the same Spirit; and there are different services, but the same Lord; and there are different activities, but the same God acting all in all. So each [one] is given the display of the Spirit toward symphony. For surely through the Spirit is given a word of wisdom, but to another a word of knowledge from the same Spirit; to a different [one], faith in the same Spirit; to another, gifts of healing in the one Spirit; to another, activities of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, separation of spirits; to a different [one], [various] kinds of tongues; to a different [one], interpretation of tongues

So all these are done by one and the same Spirit, dividing his own to each as he is willing.

Anyway, it’s a hackneyed job.  But it feels more accurate to the text than whatever it was I was reading.

 

“a system under which bad men can do least harm”

Don Boudreaux has a feature on the Cafe Hayek blog, where he presents a daily quote from an economics text.  Here’s one on individualism, which seems to predate and improve upon Ayn Rand a great deal.  I didn’t know there was a word for what Adam Smith  was into, other than “economics.”

“Because I was crushed”

Trolling merrily through Ezekiel, I find this little gem:

Then those of you who escape will remember Me among the nations where they are carried captive, because I was crushed by their adulterous heart which has departed from Me, and by their eyes which play the harlot after their idols; they will loathe themselves for the evils which they committed in all their abominations. (Eze 6:9, NKJ)

I read somewhere that in Orthodox thought, one of the attributes of God is the divine impassibility.  The idea is that, since God is perfect, He is not affected by things outside of Himself; He is not subject to passions.  Now, on the face of things, that’s obviously not true.  God is described hundreds of times in scripture as being affected by what people do.  But there’s still this concept of the aseity of God, that God’s source of subsistence is from Himself. (I tried and tried to find the adjective form of the word, but apparently it doesn’t exist.  God is aseious? aseiful?)  He doesn’t need anything from the world he created, or else, how could he have created it?  “If I was hungry, would I tell you?”

One of the great mysteries is that Jesus, being the very image of God, should not have been able to die.  He took on the form of man, something that should have been impossible, so that he might die for us.  (Of course, being who he was, he couldn’t stay dead…)  But the implication that you get is that every attribute that smacks of mortality really ought to be applied to the human nature of Jesus.  Does God suffer and die?  No, but the man Jesus Christ does.  Does God stub His toe?  No, but Jesus Christ could.  Is God overcome by grief, overjoyed, lost in a fit of rage?  No!  But maybe Jesus?

I get the impression that, in Orthodox thought, God the Father is sometimes pictured as a great and holy Vulcan: completely free of all fleshy emotion that might hint of weakness, a Platonic postulate of practical reason.  Well, that’s Kant, but Orthodoxy sometimes sounds pretty close.  And yet… aseity.  So my tendency was to split the difference:  Passion means “to suffer,” though we downgrade it often to mean experiencing great emotion.  Jesus suffered on the cross, God the Father did not.  So perhaps, while God can be emotional, only Jesus could be subject to “passions,” that is, overwhelming emotions.

Until I get to Ezekiel.  He says in chapter 6, verse 9, “I was crushed by their adulterous heart which has departed from Me, and by their eyes which play the harlot after their idols.” That isn’t the Son speaking.  That’s God the Father, crushed by the adultery of Israel’s idolatry.  Maybe a translation error?  Holman says “crushed;” KJV says “broken;” ESV says “broken;” ASV says, “broken.”  Now, the NIV says “I have been grieved,” and the New Living says, “how hurt I am,” so it sounds like some translators are struggling with the aseity thing.

The Hebrew word is

שָׁבַר, Shabar, (Strongs #7665)
to burst or break; to smash, to shatter, to shipwreck

It’s the word for what happened to Moses’ first copy of the 10 commandments, the word for what ought to be done to all the sacred pillars scattered about on every high place.  Most certainly it doesn’t mean “bruised, irritated, abraised.”  In short, I don’t think “grieved” really cuts it.  “How hurt I am” is in fact the question at hand.  The answer appears to be “broken.”

For Ezekiel, God is not impassible. He suffers much.  He does not need us in any sense of dependency, yet being broken because of us is part of what it means to be God.

I had some questions, but now I am confident:  It’s appropriate to pray, “Lord, break our hearts with the things that break yours.”

Top 10 Books

I don’t know who asked me to jump on this top 10 books list, but I’ve finally gotten round to it.  Here goes:

  • Emma, by Jane Austin.  It’s a long story, but this is how I decided I was looking for love in all the wrong places.  I had a long discussion with the girl who became my wife, shortly after reading this book
  • The Way the World Works, by June Wannasiki.  I don’t know that this is the best economics book.  Wannasiki is kind of like Algernon – he doesn’t necessarily write accurately, but he writes with wonderful expression.   Anyway, this book opened my eyes to the sort of political shenanigans that are being done in the name of bad economics.
  • Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, by Mark DeverI had been looking for what exactly was going wrong in the sort of churches I was going to.  Even in the prosperous, well-populated churches, there was something rotten about their state.  9Marks pointed me in the right direction. Incidentally, I gave my copy to somebody, so if you’d like to help me replenish my library…
  • Humility: True Greatness, by CJ Mahaney.  It was a toss-up between this and The Cross-Centered Life.  Either way, what I really appreciate about Mahaney’s little books is their practicality: “XYZ is true.  Here are some habits you can build into your life so it will have an practical effect.”  Want to be humble?  Start by thanking God that you get tired at night.
  • The Bruised Reed, by Richard Sibbes.  Just… Wow.  I used to want to be Dennis Jernigan when I grew up.  Now I want to be Richard Sibbes.  So incredibly helpful to see how exactly the Spirit of God works in actual broken hearts.  As a happy side effect: the sweetest, most reassuring teaching of God’s selection in salvation you have ever heard.
  • Surprised by Joy, by CS Lewis.  This is a cheat.  It stands in for “The Complete Works of,” which I understand is against the rules.  I might have been CS Lewis, if my middle class lawyer dad had just sent me to a private tutor for my entire high school, where I studied classics in Latin and Greek for 12 hours a day.  Surprised by Joy is less biography and more a spiritual memoir in the style of Augustin’s Confession.  The picture he give of his conversion still sticks with me:  a lobster in a corset on a bus, I think.  Strangely, he falls on the side of free will in salvation, while describing a perfectly Calvinist conversion.
  • Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert.  I wrote a paper on Gustave Flaubert my junior year in college. It kind of revolutionized my view on the world.  I got an A-.  My hard drive crashed, and now I have only the vaguest recollection of what my conclusions were.  Flaubert was set to be a fantasy author.  He had this blockbuster story he wrote about Saint Anthony in the tombs.  It was a colossal flop.  His friends urged him to quit writing about “Chimeras,” that is fantastical ideas, and to focus on realism.  So he wrote a story about a girl who wanted to have a truly great romance and ruined her life chasing it while ignoring the perfectly good romance right in her lap.  I was totally unable to relate to this concept.
  • Institutes of Christianity, by John Calvin.  This is kind of a cheat, since I never actually finished the book.  But he really knew how to pack ‘em in there. The one that comes up the most is his explanation of faith – not just confidence, but confidence in a person’s word in the face of very good reasons to doubt. We’ll skip past how much Calvin talks about the Spirit, and how I totally avoided him the first time I heard of him, because I knew he had nothing to say to me due to his ignorance of the Holy Spirit.
  • Canterbury Tales, by Geoffrey Chaucer.  More specifically, The Franklin’s Tale, which taught me about the complex overlay of loyalties that we would now call “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.”  As a bonus, reading journal articles on The Franklin’s Tale taught me that Feminism is bunk, specifically because it can’t see those loyalties as anything other than systematic oppression
  • On the Cessation of the Charismata, by John Ruthven.  Specifically, the footnotes to the first chapter, which gave me references to a whirlwind tour of early church thought on spiritual gifts, and the supernatural.  I used it as the bibliographical launching point for a church history paper, and it inspired me for the thesis for my PhD, which I will probably never get to write.
(Yes, Tolkien is lovely, but he didn’t change my life.  I’m very fond of Luther, but I haven’t actually read any books by him. Paradise lost did nothing for me, other than give me some perspective when reading Middlemarch. Inferno was extremely interesting, but Purgatorio was distressingly Catholic.  Robinson Crusoe was a waste of time.)
There’s a strange lack of fiction titles in this list.  I went through a major theological shift about 15 years ago, so my top 10 list changed accordingly.  The books above are the ones that got me going in my current direction.  It just so happened that when I was grasping, very few of the branches that held were fiction.

Won’t happen to me!

Genetic Testing gave my parents the gift of divorce.”  This actually makes me want to get genetically tested, my parental confidence is so strong.  Fortunately, I have very little interest in genetics.  I’m vaguely interested in genealogy, but I suspect 23andMe is the more expensive option for doing it.

Also, I’ve just discovered that I’ve been pronouncing genealogy wrong my whole life.  It rhymes with analogy, not biology.

Spirit of Prophecy

In my daily Bible reading, I’m coming up on Ezekiel, and he’s making me nervous.

Always in the back of my mind is a series of books that I want to write some day, about how people understand mystical experiences, the supernatural, prophecy, etc. I have in mind at least three books: The first one would cover the Old Testament and be titled, “Saul among the prophets,” referring to the two times that King Saul got distracted from whatever errand he was on because he ran into a group of prophets, had some kind of ecstatic experience, and ended up in a daze and naked. The second book would be called, “You may all prophesy,” from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, and it would cover what the New Testament church thought about these things. The third book would be about the early Christian era, and I would call it, “With a loud voice,” which is a quote from Ignatius of Antioch. Around 100 AD, he wrote a letter to the church at Philadelphia, where he asserted that what he said during a church service had been a prophecy, because he said it, “with a loud voice, with God’s own voice.” (What grand aspirations he has for a soldier, you say. It’s all right. I know of a newspaper man who once wrote a tome on Biblical authority.)

Anyway, because I have this in the back of my head, I’m always asking the question, “What exactly was this experience like?” When God said to Samuel, Look not to his appearance, what exactly did Samuel experience? Was it an audible voice, a thought inside his head? How did he know it was God and not his own idea? Was there some sort of sense of dread?

Ezekiel is especially hard to answer these questions. He has these dramatic experiences, where he is taken to some place, shown some awesome thing, and it’s not always entirely clear if what happened was in some sort of trance, or if he physically saw it with his eyes. Did he go afterwards and see char marks on the ground along the paths of the four living creatures?

But more close to home is that Ezekiel, being one of the most dramatic of the prophets, sets the standard for people who want to prophesy today. I am not a cessationist, and I think cessationists make their job too easy when they simply say the canon is closed. People have always had experiences. In former times, some of these were from God and some were nonsense. What help is it to say that now we are confident that all of them are nonsense? It’s a great help to those who want to be materialists and Christians also. But it’s kind of a Tolkien view of the world: In a former age, the world was flat and boundless, but in our current age, God has bounded it by curving it in upon itself. The way to the land of the Valar is now closed to mortals. They don’t seem to notice that, in Tolkien, the new rounded earth is a smaller, dimmer world.

But as I say, slamming the door closed on spiritual experiences is a kindness to folks who don’t have those experiences, and wonder if they should. But it’s a great harshness to people who continue to dream dreams and see visions. Those people are forced to resign the brighter half of their lives to the stuff of mental institutions and illegal pharmaceuticals. Yet they keep on seeing things.

As I said, Ezekiel in a lot of ways sets the standard for people who want to see visions. I mean, boy did he see them. But how much did he see them, and how much was it merely a divinely blessed imagination? I suspect the Hebrew word would have been the same.

It’s not an academic question for folks like me, with highly… enhanced… imaginations. If I’m meditating on a thing, and a picture comes into my mind, and boy what a humdinger, and with it comes a sense of dread and awe, how do I report it? How did Ezekiel report his experiences? “And saw a picture in my mind of four living creatures; whether they were real and imagined, I do not know. But as I contemplated these creatures, my heart rate was highly accelerated, and my hair stood on end.” Therefore: the word of the Lord. The ancient saints didn’t have the advantage of writing off Ezekiel’s visions simply because they were visions. (Unless they were Sadducees, but then the Sadducees were no saints.) There wasn’t any value in waiting to see if Ezekiel’s vision of the four creatures “came true.” There was no predictive element. Like all scripture, there was a certain component of his experience that must be self-authenticating.

And yet, charismatic though I am, I see in Ezekiel not only the authoritative word of God, but also the imaginative foundation of every two-bit quack and self-assured heretic in church history. Here is George Fox interrupting formal public meetings to ask why church houses are called churches. Here is William Blake writing vaguely seditious poetry, calling his acid-etched engravings visions of fire. Here is the hook for all the people Jude warned us about.

As the angel said to John, “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” As surely as there are antichrists, there are prophets who testify for them. Their visions must surely sound and feel quite a bit the same.

Here is scripture, both our model and our instructor. Let us handle and divide it carefully.

So there’s a technique to it…

Here’s some tips on how to criticize a preacher.  I think it’s likely not the same thing as correcting an elder.

Personally, having preached for the first time in about 8 years just last weekend, I suspect I have a bit thicker skin that a lot of people.  I was honestly hoping I had been controversial enough to get a reaction.  Apparently, what I said was completely unobjectionable.