Over a month ago, I wrote a post answering the question “Why was Jesus Baptized?” where I argued that no answer has been truly satisfying, there were two paradigms that are very helpful to me. The first paradigm, argued for in the first post, was the “tri-perspectival” paradigm where I said that the entire baptism event (baptism, Spirit descending, and the voice of God) should be held as a unity integrating ideas such as identification, anointing, and pronouncement. Please see the first post for an actual treatment of this view. In this post, I’m going to look at the Biblical-Theological view. I also want to restate that I don’t think this is an either/or issue, but that both paradigms shed led on the baptism event. Nor do I think these are the only valid paradigms. Jesus’ baptism can be found in Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, and Luke 3:21-22.
Read the rest of this entry

As I was translating a bit more out of 2 Corinthians chapter 2 tonight, verse 12 and 13 jumped out at me like a lion on a gazelle (too much?). Here’s the text:

When I reached Troas to preach Christ’s gospel, the Lord gave me an opportunity, but I had no peace of mind because I could not find my brother Titus. So, I left those at Troas, and departed for Macedonia.

The text literally reads “a door was opened to me by the Lord.” So here’s my question- is it ever ok to just walk away from an “open door?” Paul specifically tells us that it was an opportunity (open door, if you will) that was given to him by Jesus himself. Was it a sinful act for Paul to just walk away from it?

There’s something we have to keep in mind- just because the Bible records a historical act does not mean that God gives his stamp of approval. The passage here is simply Paul telling the Corinthians what he did during his travels that had kept him from coming to them as he first expected too. Paul is not giving an ethical judgment on his actions; he is simply stating what he did.

But that’s what makes it so weird for me… Paul is somewhat flippant about it. “Jesus gave me an opportunity to preach the Gospel, but I skipped out on it and went to hang out in Macedonia because I was sad that I couldn’t find Titus.” My opinion is that we shouldn’t miss out on divine opportunities, and that Paul was in the wrong here- but there’s two qualifying remarks I need to make here: 1. This is an opinion that I would give up if I was being persecuted for it. And by that I mean I would recant as soon as I saw them approach. 2. I’m just stuck on the flippancy of the statement.

Also, I get it. Not the point of the passage. If I was preaching this, it would be a sub-sub point. The point Paul is getting at is that he was so worried about finding Titus because it was Titus who was bringing Paul the news of how things were going at Corinth. When we couldn’t find Titus, his worry about the welfare of the Corinthians overwhelmed him. Paul was torn between Troas and Corinth. I really like what David Garland says on verse 13:

“This sad account reveals how interconnected Christians are. We cannot hurt one another without also hurting the work of God in the world. Paul does not discuss whether it was the right thing to do to abandon a place where God had made an opportunity. His uneasiness over the Corinthians, however, made it impossible for him to continue his work there.”¹

Hmm. You know what? My original question doesn’t matter anymore. The question I should have asked first is, “do I have this same heart for those I minister to?” If you want to answer the question posed in this post, go ahead. It’s an important question. But I realized it’s not the most important question. I’m off to pray and ask Paul’s ministerial heart.

I’ve been thinking recently on Jesus’ baptism. If John’s baptism was one that represented repentance and cleansing, why would the sinless Jesus have to receive such a baptism? I have never been fully satisfied with any one answer, and I don’t think we ever will be. With that in mind, I’m going to try and look at his baptism through two different paradigms. By doing this, I’m not saying the issue is either/or… but both/and. In other words, we shouldn’t use one paradigm to the exclusion of the other, but that both can be utilized in understanding what is going on in Jesus’ baptism. Also, by giving two paradigms, I’m not saying that these are the only two ways of looking at the issue- there maybe be several, maybe even many, others- but I am just focusing on the two that have come to my mind recently in thinking through the issue. Jesus’ baptism can be found in Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, and Luke 3:21-22.
Read the rest of this entry

I’ve finished translating 2 Corinthians 1, and it is available under the translation link above. I’m pretty happy with most of it, though I’m not so happy about verses 13-14. That being said, I want to see how you would translate it. The text is:

¹³οὐ γὰρ ἄλλα γράφομεν ὑμῖν ἀλλ᾿ ἢ ἃ ἀναγινώσκετε ἢ καὶ ἐπιγινώσκετε· ἐλπίζω δὲ ὅτι ἕως τέλους ἐπιγνώσεσθε, ¹⁴καθὼς καὶ ἐπέγνωτε ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ μέρους, ὅτι καύχημα ὑμῶν ἐσμεν καθάπερ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ.

My translation is:

For we never write anything different to you, but only what you can read and understand. However, my hope is that you will completely understand, just as you have partly understood us, that you will boast of us just as we boast of you in the day of our Lord Jesus.

I’m just not completely satisfied with it (and really, I’m never completely satisfied with translation). What say you?

I apologize to my reader who don’t know Greek- I want your insight as well. You’re absolutely free to work from several english translations and make it your own.

The work of exegesis and translation is a community effort. Post your thoughts in the comments.

Immanuel in our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship
Tremper Longman III
Paperback: 228 pages
Publisher: P & R Publishing (August 2001)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0875526519
ISBN-13: 978-0875526515
Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.4 x 0.6 inches
amazon.com

After Jesus had risen from the dead, he met two of his disciples as they were walking on the Emmaus Road. He told them that all of the Scriptures, the Old Testament, pointed to Him as their fulfillment. Since then, Christians have debated exactly to what extent the Old Testament points to Jesus- is it every word? Every part? Certain parts? And in what way? In the book, “Immanuel in our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship,” Tremper Longman III seeks to give us an answer to that question– at least in regards to the Israelites’ practices of worship.

The book is part of the “The Gospel According to the Old Testament” series, and is an excellent addition, both to the series and to the Christian’s library. Longman’s writing is theologically penetrating, yet very clear and accessible, and often doxological. He handles the text with great insight, all while keeping a broad audience in view. The book is broken into four units:
Part One: Sacred Space
Part Two: Sacred Acts
Part Three: Sacred People
Part Four: Sacred Time
This review will look at the book according to these units, and not necessarily by chapter.
Read the rest of this entry

We Become What We Worship
G.K. Beale
Paperback: 341 pages
Publisher: IVP Academic (November 2008)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 083082877X
ISBN-13: 978-0830828777
Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 1.2 inches
Amazon.com
Read the rest of this entry

Revelation 12:1-12a (NLTse)

Then I witnessed in heaven an event of great significance. I saw a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant, and she cried out because of her labor pains and the agony of giving birth.

Then I witnessed in heaven another significant event. I saw a large red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, with seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept away one-third of the stars in the sky, and he threw them to the earth. He stood in front of the woman as she was about to give birth, ready to devour her baby as soon as it was born.

She gave birth to a son who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. And her child was snatched away from the dragon and was caught up to God and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where God had prepared a place to care for her for 1,260 days.

Then there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels. And the dragon lost the battle, and he and his angels were forced out of heaven. This great dragon—the ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world—was thrown down to the earth with all his angels.

Then I heard a loud voice shouting across the heavens,
“It has come at last—
salvation and power
and the Kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Christ.
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters
has been thrown down to earth—
the one who accuses them
before our God day and night.
And they have defeated him by the blood of the Lamb
and by their testimony.
And they did not love their lives so much
that they were afraid to die.
Therefore, rejoice, O heavens!
And you who live in the heavens, rejoice!

Mark’s Prologue
In the prologue to Mark’s Gospel (1:1-15), the author sheds a lot of light on who he believes Jesus to be. It is loaded with the evangelist’s Christology (belief about the person and nature of Christ), though it can be easy to miss. In this post, I’m going to look at three verses, and four dimensions of how Mark views the identity of Jesus: as the Messiah, as the Son of God, as the God of Israel, and finally as the One through whom we have access to the Father. Due to space, I will not go in depth with these, but touch on them briefly (readers may argue this point, however!).

Verse 1 The Messiah, Son of God.
The opening verse of Mark’s Gospel serves as a type of title to the Gospel as a whole. In this short statement, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God,”¹ we have two very strong statements of Mark’s view of Jesus. The first is commonly looked over today- Jesus the Messiah. The word used by Mark here is Christ², which many people today use as if it were part of Jesus’ name. The term is actually a title, which means “annointed one” or “messiah.” This is the term used in the Septuagint³ to translate the Hebrew term ‏מָשִׁיחַ (mashiach, annointed). Mark’s use of the term implies his understanding of Jesus as the one who is the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. This term appears throughout the four Gospels, but particularly in Mark, it serves as the “hinge” between the two halves of the Gospel in the infamous confession of 8:29- “But who do you say that I am?” and Peter answered, “you are the Messiah (Christ).” At this point in the narrative, Jesus begins his journey to Jerusalem, teaching about his impending death on the cross, and its centrality to discipleship. It is worth noting that there is no mention of title at all between 1:1 and 8:29, yet after Peter’s confession it appears 5 times. The entire Gospel asks the question, “who is this man?” As my friend Brad has commented, he gives us the answer right here in verse 1, and we don’t even realize it. It then resurfaces at Peter’s confession as the narrative focuses on the movement to the cross. Why is this? It is because for Mark, the identity of Jesus is unable to be separated from his work.

The second Christological thrust in this verse comes in the next phrase, “the son of God.” This phrase is one of the most significant titles in the New Testament, and is the most prominent title used in the Gospels. The idea of divine sonship will appear later on in this passage at Jesus’ baptism, where God declares Jesus to be his “beloved son.” The phrase “with whom I am very pleased” (1.11) shows that in this title is understood some role of obedience and submission. This obedience and submission is shown most radically through the crucifixion event, where Jesus prays for the Father’s will to be done hours prior (Mark 14). On the day of crucifixion, Mark records the centurion as saying “Truly, this was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39). This marks the first of two bookend phrases in the prologue that open and close Mark’s Gospel. The term “son of God” also serves the purpose of identifying Jesus as the true Israel. It echoes God’s declaration of Israel as his first-born son to Pharoah in the Exodus⁴ and the “prophecy” of God bringing his son out of Egypt,⁵. As such, the term points to the reality that promises given to Israel, as well as Israel’s mission (particularly to the nations) were fulfilled in, or will be fulfilled in Jesus himself. This idea cannot be separated from the previously made point of obedience however. He is the true Israel precisely in His obedience where Israel the nation had failed. This is presented in stark relief as the very next scene after God’s declaration in verse 11 is the wilderness temptation. Whereas the first generation of Israelites were not able to enter the promised land because of their wilderness experience, Jesus is successfully obedient in his. ⁶

Verse 3 The God of Israel.
The third Christological statement comes in the form of a quote. The interesting thing here is what Mark is saying without saying anything. In fact, the statement comes in what Mark leaves out. Verse three is a quote directly from the Septuagint version of Isaiah 40:3. Here are the verses in parallel:

Notice the differences in bold? Mark’s editorial work on the quote has substituted “his” for “our God’s.” This is not an incidental substitution- it is a deliberate way of showing that Jesus (“his”) is the same as the God of Israel (“our God”). This is an unmistakable allusion to the deity of Jesus. In a paradox that rivals John’s prologue, the Messiah is both the Son of God (v. 1), and also God himself (v. 3). If we continue on in Isaiah, we find this statement in verse 5: “And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.” This is true most primarily in the incarnation, when God himself took on human flesh. Jesus is the fullest revelation of God and his glory⁷, and we await again that revelation at his second advent.

Verse 10 Access to the Father.
The Biblical narrative is one of fractured and broken relationships between God and creation. It moves from the garden where there is unrestricted access between God and people, to the fall and the need to reconciliation, to a city where once again the presence of God is among his people. How does this reconciliation come about? The narrative is clear that sinful people cannot reconcile themselves to God, so how can they? That is what the Gospel answers.

In this verse, Mark describes the scene after Jesus’ baptism. The heavens are “torn open” or “split apart,” the voice of the Father is heard, and the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus. The word Mark uses for “torn open” is σχίζω- the second of the two “bookends” Mark uses to open and close his Gospel. That Mark uses this term instead of the more regular term used ἀνοίγω (to open), and that it serves as a bookend term, points to a purpose behind his vocabulary. The other appearance of the term comes in Mark 15:38- “and the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.”

This event of the tearing of the curtain is found in all three of the synoptic Gospels,⁸ which shows that it is an important event. In the Old Testament, the curtain was used to keep the Israelites from having access to the glory and presence of God because of their sinfulness. This is a picture of the broken relationship between God and people. Only the High Priest could enter in behind the curtain, into the place called the Most Holy Place, and they could only do so once a year. On this day, Yom Kippur, they would make atonement for the sins of the people. The reason the evangelists include this story in their gospels is to show that in Christ, that curtain is no longer needed; we all, through faith, have access to the Father. As the author of Hebrews says, “With his own blood—not the blood of goats and calves—he entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever”⁹

As I said, the word that Mark uses for the tearing of the veil, which symbolizes access to God, is the same word that Mark uses here to graphically describe the tearing of the heavens at Jesus’ baptism. It seems to me that in framing the Gospel narrative this way, Mark is using the same symbolism at the beginning of the end. Here in verse 10 and in 15:38 Mark is telling his readers, “Here is the One through whom we have access to God. Not through any other, but this One.”

Conclusion
There is certainly much more that can be pulled out from these verses, but it is astounding what we have seen about Jesus in just these three verses. According to Mark’s prologue, Jesus is the Messiah, the promised one who is to come to save his people. He is also the Son of God- and therefore fulfills the role that Israel failed to do in full obedience. He is not only the Son of God, however, he is also paradoxically the God of Israel himself- which finds explanation only in the mystery of the trinity. Finally, it is this Son of God, who is somehow God himself, who came in the form of a person so that we could be reconciled to God. He did so by willingly and obediently going to the cross, taking on the iniquity and sins of mankind, and offering atonement for those who believe. It seems, then, in Mark’s prologue we do not just get an introduction to the person and work of Jesus- we get the gospel itself.

Next week is finals week, so I’ve been spending my Thanksgiving “break” trudging through the Old Testament, Hebrew, the Greek of 2 Corinthians, and Systematic Theology (Note: actual amount of energy spent studying is minimal). I was reading through some select passages of 2 Corinthians, when I read:

προνοοῦμεν γὰρ καλὰ οὐ μόνον ἐνώπιον κυρίου ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων

Which I translated “For we attempt to do what is good, not only before the Lord, but also before people.” They want a rather literal translation on the final. As usual, I try to gauge my translation against several others, including the ESV, TNIV, NLT, etc, though this isn’t really a hard passage at all. I was a bit confused at why the ESV decided to render the two genitive phrases differently however. The ESV says in 21b: “not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of man.” I think the translation “sight” renders the ideal well (see also the TNIV’s “in the eyes of”), but see how differently the two phrases are rendered? This seems to ruin the parallelism of the verse to me. In rendering the word “before” as “in the sight of,” the ESV correctly translates the first phrase as a subjective/possessive genitive “in the Lord’s sight,” but then switches to “in the sight of man.”

Now, this isn’t an ESV hate post. The translation is correct (well, there is that issue of people/men). Just wondering why they inconsistently translated the two phrases, seemingly breaking up the parallelism. It just seems a bit soppy, or perhaps they decided to go with stylistic variation? I know, this won’t mean anything to some others, and that’s fine; it’s just that this kind of stylistic things jump out at me.

On my last blog, I did a short study on Mark’s view of Christ according to his prologue. Soon, I hope to incorporate that article on this blog and maybe take it a little more in-depth, but when I translated Mark 1:3 I strayed from the traditional rendering. In this entry, I am going to look at why I did so.
Read the rest of this entry