This morning while driving the kids to school, a car coming at me in the other lane started spinning on some ice, entered my lane, and was coming side ways towards my Ford Escape which was going about 30 mph. It was one of those moments when time seems to slow down. I felt like I had several thoughts going through my mind in that split second. I slowly applied the brakes, went off road without slipping into a ditch, and safely made it past the oncoming car which missed me (still spinning) by several inches. I am not doing justice to how close, fast and intense this 3 seconds was in my description. The first words out of my mouth were, "Thank you Father", and I meant them theologically, emotionally, psychologically and any other -ology you want to put on there. It seemed a miracle.
Upon further reflection throughout the day, I have come to the conclusion that it was not a miracle in the sense that God set aside his normal rules for how the universe works, but that it was divine intervention. I believe God protected me and the other driver. Atheists may explain that my years of playing video games had sharpened my hand/eye coordination to such a degree that I was able to time the escape so precisely. My worldview and beliefs in Scripture (not to mention my own intimate knowledge of being pwned in games) leads me to a very different conclusion: God rescued me.
This experience reminded me of a lesson I taught at church a few weeks ago on the purpose behind Jesus' healing ministry. Perhaps you have asked yourself, "Why didn't Jesus set up shop in Jerusalem so that He could heal people?" After thinking about it you probably came to the conclusion that Jesus had another agenda besides the physical health of those around him, and you would be correct. What would you do if you had the gift to heal any disease, any disorder and any disability? I doubt you would be doing what you are doing now. You would probably feel that you were given this gift so that you could use it to help people (insert the Spider-Man code: With great power comes great responsibility). You might travel the world healing children and those terminally ill. Or maybe you would set up a permanent location so that people could come to you (that would be very efficient and American :)). Jesus did not do either of those things. Instead his miracles were strategically done for reasons beyond just the healing of the individual. Here are some reasons that Dr. Craig Blomberg (Jesus and the Gospels) gives for why Jesus did miracles in his ministry:
1) Jesus used miracles to support his claims as to who he was. [Luke 5:17-26; Mark 4:41]
2) Jesus used miracles to support his message of the Kingdom of God. [John 9]
3) Jesus used miracles as a means to support people's faith in him. [John 2:11; 14:8-11]
My experience this morning fits mostly with #3. My faith in the Lord has been encouraged. I wanted to pass on this experience so that your faith might be encouraged along with mine.
Romans 1:11, "I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong- that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith." (TNIV)
Monday, February 21, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Who wrote Matthew's Gospel and do we care?
Recently, I have been doing some reading on introductory issues to the Gospel of Matthew. One of the fascinating things about studying the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) is how much Matthew and Luke have in common with Mark's Gospel. Most scholars recognize what appears to be a high level of dependence on Mark as a source by the two other authors. In fact almost every verse in Mark is found in Matthew, Luke or both! Luke explicitly states that he did research before writing his Gospel and it makes sense that Matthew would have acted similarly.
Another interesting observation about Matthew's Gospel is that the Gospel has no claim to be written by the apostle Matthew (aka. Levi, formerly a tax collector). Our main reason for attributing it him as the author comes from several Church Fathers [Eusebius quoting a certain Papias (c. 125)]. This is strong external evidence (in other words evidence outside the Gospel itself). Even though there are difficulties understanding Papias' comments, they definitely indicate that Matthew wrote something.
A third interesting point about Matthew's Gospel comes from the previous two observations put together. If Matthew the apostle did write the Gospel and he used Mark as a source, then it is incredible that when he relates his own calling by Jesus (Matt 9) he uses Mark as his source! Perhaps by analogy this is the same as someone else writing your testimony of how you "got saved", and you using it instead of just writing your own version. This issue (and a few others) has caused Matthean authorship to be doubted by some biblical scholars.
But here is my point (finally, you may be saying); does it matter if Matthew wrote the Gospel or not? If there were an explicit, internal claim inside the Gospel itself that Matthew was the author, then I would say, "yes! it matters a lot", because then we have to evaluate whether the author was lying or being honest. But in this case no such self-acknowledgment exists. Perhaps we can treat Matthew's Gospel as we treat the book of Hebrews; included in the canon by the early church and therefore seen as authoritative presently, even though we don't know who wrote it.
Personally I think Matthew the apostle is the likely author based on the testimony of some of the early Church Fathers and some other arguments. I don't think I would die for this opinion though. Here is an area were conservative Christians who value "Matthew's" Gospel as authoritative and inspired need to be careful that we acknowledge the tentativeness of authorship for this book and not allow it to wreck our faith. Perhaps I am minimalizing something that means more for you. Are there other problems that develop from acknowledging only a tentative authorship for this Gospel?
Another interesting observation about Matthew's Gospel is that the Gospel has no claim to be written by the apostle Matthew (aka. Levi, formerly a tax collector). Our main reason for attributing it him as the author comes from several Church Fathers [Eusebius quoting a certain Papias (c. 125)]. This is strong external evidence (in other words evidence outside the Gospel itself). Even though there are difficulties understanding Papias' comments, they definitely indicate that Matthew wrote something.
A third interesting point about Matthew's Gospel comes from the previous two observations put together. If Matthew the apostle did write the Gospel and he used Mark as a source, then it is incredible that when he relates his own calling by Jesus (Matt 9) he uses Mark as his source! Perhaps by analogy this is the same as someone else writing your testimony of how you "got saved", and you using it instead of just writing your own version. This issue (and a few others) has caused Matthean authorship to be doubted by some biblical scholars.
But here is my point (finally, you may be saying); does it matter if Matthew wrote the Gospel or not? If there were an explicit, internal claim inside the Gospel itself that Matthew was the author, then I would say, "yes! it matters a lot", because then we have to evaluate whether the author was lying or being honest. But in this case no such self-acknowledgment exists. Perhaps we can treat Matthew's Gospel as we treat the book of Hebrews; included in the canon by the early church and therefore seen as authoritative presently, even though we don't know who wrote it.
Personally I think Matthew the apostle is the likely author based on the testimony of some of the early Church Fathers and some other arguments. I don't think I would die for this opinion though. Here is an area were conservative Christians who value "Matthew's" Gospel as authoritative and inspired need to be careful that we acknowledge the tentativeness of authorship for this book and not allow it to wreck our faith. Perhaps I am minimalizing something that means more for you. Are there other problems that develop from acknowledging only a tentative authorship for this Gospel?
Friday, February 4, 2011
Paper(work).
Perhaps my greatest frustration with the new semester comes from the fact that I’m not done with last semester yet... I received an extension to finish my Calvin paper over the break, with a due date of March 1st. As of this writing, it’s coming together with two pages written so far.
My paper explores John Calvin’s view of material goods and how that does or does not solve the problem of political/economic corruption. The interesting answer to the question is Calvin’s own perspective on human nature and the problem of corruption. We’re wrecked by sin. Man, apart from God is completely, utterly, fantastically unable to effect anything good. Even the appearance of good in the unbeliever is only a relative good enabled by the grace of God.
Solving the problem of sin begins with the initiative of God. If you’re not familiar with Calvinism, God in His infinite mercy chose some individuals from the wreckage of humanity and chose them to salvation. Those who are chosen hear and believe the message of Christ and become Christians who then follow God through their entire lives and ultimately live blissfully in heaven with Him. It’s not my purpose in this post to discuss the process of salvation, but to understand the life of a Christian as it relates to solving political/economic corruption. It’s a nuts-and-bolts kind of a question that I am trying to answer. What process can we effect to solve self-interest that exceeds its proper bounds to become corruption?
Calvin’s answer is interesting: his explicit solution is that individual persons must devote themselves fully to the person of God. A person should view him/herself as the very possession of God. I am not my own, I belong to Another. I like that solution, but what the heck does that actually look like? When I am confronted by temptation to sin I should… what? Remember that I am not my own… Calvin actually does go farther in the way he influenced the church and I think this first, internal attitude is pointless without the second part. I am not my own and I am accountable for my actions. And not only that touchy-feely accountable to the Jesus-who-loves-me kind of garbage (French accent) that passes for Christian accountability but also the kind of accountability where you have to actually confess your wrongs to the people whom you have sinned against. Maybe even work to make things right (shock).
This dual principle of ownership (I am not my own) and accountability form twin principles of the human relation to wrongdoing that pertain to all of society. When you sin against your marriage partner, you aren’t hiding anything from God and you need to handle it. The same is true for sins against your friends, your family, your church and your country. You are not your own and you will be held to account.
My paper explores John Calvin’s view of material goods and how that does or does not solve the problem of political/economic corruption. The interesting answer to the question is Calvin’s own perspective on human nature and the problem of corruption. We’re wrecked by sin. Man, apart from God is completely, utterly, fantastically unable to effect anything good. Even the appearance of good in the unbeliever is only a relative good enabled by the grace of God.
Solving the problem of sin begins with the initiative of God. If you’re not familiar with Calvinism, God in His infinite mercy chose some individuals from the wreckage of humanity and chose them to salvation. Those who are chosen hear and believe the message of Christ and become Christians who then follow God through their entire lives and ultimately live blissfully in heaven with Him. It’s not my purpose in this post to discuss the process of salvation, but to understand the life of a Christian as it relates to solving political/economic corruption. It’s a nuts-and-bolts kind of a question that I am trying to answer. What process can we effect to solve self-interest that exceeds its proper bounds to become corruption?
Calvin’s answer is interesting: his explicit solution is that individual persons must devote themselves fully to the person of God. A person should view him/herself as the very possession of God. I am not my own, I belong to Another. I like that solution, but what the heck does that actually look like? When I am confronted by temptation to sin I should… what? Remember that I am not my own… Calvin actually does go farther in the way he influenced the church and I think this first, internal attitude is pointless without the second part. I am not my own and I am accountable for my actions. And not only that touchy-feely accountable to the Jesus-who-loves-me kind of garbage (French accent) that passes for Christian accountability but also the kind of accountability where you have to actually confess your wrongs to the people whom you have sinned against. Maybe even work to make things right (shock).
This dual principle of ownership (I am not my own) and accountability form twin principles of the human relation to wrongdoing that pertain to all of society. When you sin against your marriage partner, you aren’t hiding anything from God and you need to handle it. The same is true for sins against your friends, your family, your church and your country. You are not your own and you will be held to account.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Cooking and Bible Study Methods
This week I started a new semester of teaching at the Grace College campus. One of my courses is "Scripture and Interpretation" which is an examination of the fundamentals of Bible interpretation. There is an illustration I use to try and hook the students into seeing the benefits of plowing through this kind of a methods course that I thought I would share.
I liken the need to learn cooking as similar to the need to learn how to interpret the Bible. So I ask, "Why is it important to learn how to cook?"
1) So I can learn how to feed myself. We have to eat to survive and so learning how to cook (and yes making toast could be considered cooking), is part of our physical survival.
2) So I can appreciate all the textures, tastes and smells available for good eating. Even though making toast and Ramen noodles could be considered cooking, limiting yourself to just these kinds of easy options really limits the amount of pleasure that can be taken from the world of food and the art of cooking.
3) So I can protect myself from poorly cooked/ inedible meals. I still remember taking the fried chicken off of my plate, putting my fork in it and watching the blood ooze out. Thankfully, even with my limited cooking knowledge, I knew that eating that chicken could be seriously bad for my health (and no it wasn't Lee-Ann's chicken :))
4) So I can serve other people meals, so that they can be nourished and appreciate the art of cooking and good food.
You probably already see the parallels that cooking has with studying the Bible. We need to feed ourselves with spiritual nourishment that can only be found when our minds are focused on the person of Jesus found in the Scriptures. If we do not know how to prepare that meal, then we are spiritually malnourished. If we do not know the rich textures of the Bible and the depth of art contained in them, then we may satisfy ourselves by only reading our favorite passage or psalm. We tend to avoid those parts/ genres of the Bible that we do not understand, instead of seeking the intricate beauty of God's Word. Failure to know the Scriptures can easily open us up to false teaching. Lastly, the purpose of studying the Scriptures never ends with our own spiritual "belly" being full; we are to pass on the truth in both word and deed. Studying the Scriptures will change our life so that we can be used to change the lives of those around us.
I liken the need to learn cooking as similar to the need to learn how to interpret the Bible. So I ask, "Why is it important to learn how to cook?"
1) So I can learn how to feed myself. We have to eat to survive and so learning how to cook (and yes making toast could be considered cooking), is part of our physical survival.
2) So I can appreciate all the textures, tastes and smells available for good eating. Even though making toast and Ramen noodles could be considered cooking, limiting yourself to just these kinds of easy options really limits the amount of pleasure that can be taken from the world of food and the art of cooking.
3) So I can protect myself from poorly cooked/ inedible meals. I still remember taking the fried chicken off of my plate, putting my fork in it and watching the blood ooze out. Thankfully, even with my limited cooking knowledge, I knew that eating that chicken could be seriously bad for my health (and no it wasn't Lee-Ann's chicken :))
4) So I can serve other people meals, so that they can be nourished and appreciate the art of cooking and good food.
You probably already see the parallels that cooking has with studying the Bible. We need to feed ourselves with spiritual nourishment that can only be found when our minds are focused on the person of Jesus found in the Scriptures. If we do not know how to prepare that meal, then we are spiritually malnourished. If we do not know the rich textures of the Bible and the depth of art contained in them, then we may satisfy ourselves by only reading our favorite passage or psalm. We tend to avoid those parts/ genres of the Bible that we do not understand, instead of seeking the intricate beauty of God's Word. Failure to know the Scriptures can easily open us up to false teaching. Lastly, the purpose of studying the Scriptures never ends with our own spiritual "belly" being full; we are to pass on the truth in both word and deed. Studying the Scriptures will change our life so that we can be used to change the lives of those around us.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Sinful sinners sinning sins.
For sinners, sin is a touchy subject... and we are all sinners.
Everyone at some time or another has not only committed a sin, but has also excused wrong behavior as a mere weakness or slight violation. Left unchecked, this becomes a pervasive environment which diminishes moral wrongdoing and cheapens our understanding of the cost of sin to ourselves and to our society. As Christians, we need to stand firm on the wrongness of sin as a violation of natural and Biblical law.
Many people mine the Scriptures to support opinions as to how Christians must act with regard to sin. For some, the commandment to love overrides all judgment about wrongdoing, saying something like: “Christians are called to be a loving presence in the world.” While this is a true statement, it isn’t a complete statement, nor is it a full understanding of what God wants from us. The first part of the greatest commandment is that we love God beyond all else.
“And He said to him, “'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'
This is the great and foremost commandment.” (Mat 22:37-38 NASB)
One simple misunderstanding of this passage stems from the word ‘love.’ In our modern cultural context, we view love as an emotional attachment, reading the passage as an admonition to be passionately attached to the divine Person. Do you love God? Of course you do; even if you have no idea of whom I am speaking. But love is much more in Biblical context. This passage wants more than your emotional attachment to a Deity that lives in a far away happy place where everyone gets to go when they die. This passage is about absolute commitment to the Judeo-Christian God and His standards for life.
When we understand love as commitment, our first responsibility is toward the person of God: to know who He is and what He has spoken in His word, the Bible. When we commit ourselves to Him, then we start the journey of understanding Him more and more and representing Him to other people. This ambassadorship has at least two aspects: compassion and honesty. Without either of these, we are not truly caring for others. Without compassion, our honesty smacks of hypocrisy and unjust judgment. Without honesty, our compassion is hollow and lacks substance.
Perhaps no issue raises the ire of sinners, Christian and non-Christian alike, more than the issue of homosexuality. The pro-homosexual community has done an effective job of pushing the debate into the realm of genetics, claiming that sexual orientation is determined at birth and, as such, an issue which is not subject to moral rules. Objectors are admonished to ‘just love’ the homosexual person, because that’s what Jesus would do. The fallacy here is that genetic orientation never justifies moral behavior. If someone is born with a tendency toward alcoholism or racism or hatred this does not excuse drunkenness, acts of discrimination or violence. In fact, we commend people who overcome accidents of birth or environment and become functional persons. We recognize good behavior and bad behavior in our common humanity as either sinners who have become Christians or as sinners who haven’t. The Bible clearly condemns homosexual practice (and a whole host of other things), but that isn’t the only standard by which the practice can be judged. The standards of the natural world demonstrate that male and female partners produce offspring. This natural law communicates a standard; the normal, productive relationship is between male and female.
Sinners who have become Christians would do well to seek a balance between loving all people and condemning all sins.
Everyone at some time or another has not only committed a sin, but has also excused wrong behavior as a mere weakness or slight violation. Left unchecked, this becomes a pervasive environment which diminishes moral wrongdoing and cheapens our understanding of the cost of sin to ourselves and to our society. As Christians, we need to stand firm on the wrongness of sin as a violation of natural and Biblical law.
Many people mine the Scriptures to support opinions as to how Christians must act with regard to sin. For some, the commandment to love overrides all judgment about wrongdoing, saying something like: “Christians are called to be a loving presence in the world.” While this is a true statement, it isn’t a complete statement, nor is it a full understanding of what God wants from us. The first part of the greatest commandment is that we love God beyond all else.
“And He said to him, “'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'
This is the great and foremost commandment.” (Mat 22:37-38 NASB)
One simple misunderstanding of this passage stems from the word ‘love.’ In our modern cultural context, we view love as an emotional attachment, reading the passage as an admonition to be passionately attached to the divine Person. Do you love God? Of course you do; even if you have no idea of whom I am speaking. But love is much more in Biblical context. This passage wants more than your emotional attachment to a Deity that lives in a far away happy place where everyone gets to go when they die. This passage is about absolute commitment to the Judeo-Christian God and His standards for life.
When we understand love as commitment, our first responsibility is toward the person of God: to know who He is and what He has spoken in His word, the Bible. When we commit ourselves to Him, then we start the journey of understanding Him more and more and representing Him to other people. This ambassadorship has at least two aspects: compassion and honesty. Without either of these, we are not truly caring for others. Without compassion, our honesty smacks of hypocrisy and unjust judgment. Without honesty, our compassion is hollow and lacks substance.
Perhaps no issue raises the ire of sinners, Christian and non-Christian alike, more than the issue of homosexuality. The pro-homosexual community has done an effective job of pushing the debate into the realm of genetics, claiming that sexual orientation is determined at birth and, as such, an issue which is not subject to moral rules. Objectors are admonished to ‘just love’ the homosexual person, because that’s what Jesus would do. The fallacy here is that genetic orientation never justifies moral behavior. If someone is born with a tendency toward alcoholism or racism or hatred this does not excuse drunkenness, acts of discrimination or violence. In fact, we commend people who overcome accidents of birth or environment and become functional persons. We recognize good behavior and bad behavior in our common humanity as either sinners who have become Christians or as sinners who haven’t. The Bible clearly condemns homosexual practice (and a whole host of other things), but that isn’t the only standard by which the practice can be judged. The standards of the natural world demonstrate that male and female partners produce offspring. This natural law communicates a standard; the normal, productive relationship is between male and female.
Sinners who have become Christians would do well to seek a balance between loving all people and condemning all sins.
Friday, December 31, 2010
The Omega and the Alpha
The final day of the year usually comes with reflections on the past and hope for the future. The ending of one event and the beginning of another. With Christmas having just finished, I have been thinking through the impact of the incarnation of God taking place in a humble manger. But the incarnation is not just about the Alpha and Omega becoming a human being and bringing salvation to us. The incarnation also effects God's future as well. Not only did the 2nd person of the Trinity feel the wrath of the 1st person of the Trinity (consider propitiation), but also the 2nd person of the Trinity is forever a human being - Jesus. It does not appear from Scripture that the God/Man reverted back to what He was prior to the incarnation. In fact the appearances of Jesus Christ point to the fact that He is forever Jesus. Just consider Stephen's sighting of Jesus in Acts 7 and John's vision of Jesus in Rev. 1. In both instances Jesus is a recognizable human. Now some may argue that God can assume human form, and that is certainly true. But a straightforward reading of the NT post-resurrection accounts of Jesus Christ indicate that He is forever the God/Man.
Honestly, I can't explain this. I don't think we know enough about God to be able to navigate intra-Trinitarian metaphysics. But I think there is still a good lesson we can draw from this: the permanent incarnation of God clearly shows the extent of the love, mercy and grace of God in the fulfillment of His plan of salvation.
My musings on the incarnation started with the manger but ended in Rev. 21 as the King of Kings is ruling the New Heavens and New Earth in righteousness. So even our futures are going to be affected by the incarnation, because Jesus is/will be our King.
I hope everyone has a great New Year! Thanks for being a part of this blog which started only 6 months ago!
Honestly, I can't explain this. I don't think we know enough about God to be able to navigate intra-Trinitarian metaphysics. But I think there is still a good lesson we can draw from this: the permanent incarnation of God clearly shows the extent of the love, mercy and grace of God in the fulfillment of His plan of salvation.
My musings on the incarnation started with the manger but ended in Rev. 21 as the King of Kings is ruling the New Heavens and New Earth in righteousness. So even our futures are going to be affected by the incarnation, because Jesus is/will be our King.
I hope everyone has a great New Year! Thanks for being a part of this blog which started only 6 months ago!
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Did God Learn Something?
Troubling verses are the biblical scholar's bread and butter. And it is amazing to me how a single verse or even a single word in the verse can be used (or maybe exploited) in opening up whole new vistas in thinking.
Here is one that I have been chewing on for the last few years: Genesis 22:12. Here is the scene: Abraham is obeying God on Mt. Moriah and offering up his son Isaac as a sacrifice. God tells Abraham to stop and provides a substitute ram. God comments on Abraham's obedience by saying, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God..." What?!? Now God knows that Abraham fears? This little, normal, common, everyday word, "now", causes the reader to pause and ask a question: did God learn something that day?
So how should we understand this verse? If God learned something that day, then we need to factor that into our traditional theologies which state that God is omniscient. This also impacts our views on whether God is "in" time or "outside" of time. It also impacts our views on whether God has direct, causal control over every detail in the universe. Here are three options for understanding this verse that I have considered.
1) One Option - Perhaps God did learn something that day and we should reevaluate our theologies on God's foreknowledge (as Open Theists do), God's sovereignty versus human free will, and also God's relationship with time. This has enormous ramifications.
2) Another Option - Perhaps God is using anthropomorphic language. In other words, God is communicating using human colloquialisms, and we should not read more into the word "now" then is needed. This opinion glosses over the word "now" and basically begs the reader to ignore it.
3) Another Option - Perhaps there is some literary purpose behind God/Moses inserting the word "now" in this place. Maybe if we were to read the preceding Abrahamic narratives and the remaining Abrahamic narratives, we would see that this word "now" functions to link segments together or to provide some rhetorical element. Perhaps someone who has spent some time in Hebrew narrative could shed some light on this (Coney, this is your open door :) )
I am a firm believer in hearing the voice(s) of the community of believers in regards to understanding a verse. So here is the question for readers of this blog: In what ways can this verse be legitimately understood? You are welcome to give your view and defend it, but I am also looking for legitimate options to understanding this verse. I have listed three ways to understand this verse above. Feel free to beat up on them or tweak them. I should also point out that in the Hebrew there is nothing fishy going on here. The word for "know" and "now" are common words that any first year Hebrew student would "know" "now" (sorry for the terrible word play).
Here is one that I have been chewing on for the last few years: Genesis 22:12. Here is the scene: Abraham is obeying God on Mt. Moriah and offering up his son Isaac as a sacrifice. God tells Abraham to stop and provides a substitute ram. God comments on Abraham's obedience by saying, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God..." What?!? Now God knows that Abraham fears? This little, normal, common, everyday word, "now", causes the reader to pause and ask a question: did God learn something that day?
So how should we understand this verse? If God learned something that day, then we need to factor that into our traditional theologies which state that God is omniscient. This also impacts our views on whether God is "in" time or "outside" of time. It also impacts our views on whether God has direct, causal control over every detail in the universe. Here are three options for understanding this verse that I have considered.
1) One Option - Perhaps God did learn something that day and we should reevaluate our theologies on God's foreknowledge (as Open Theists do), God's sovereignty versus human free will, and also God's relationship with time. This has enormous ramifications.
2) Another Option - Perhaps God is using anthropomorphic language. In other words, God is communicating using human colloquialisms, and we should not read more into the word "now" then is needed. This opinion glosses over the word "now" and basically begs the reader to ignore it.
3) Another Option - Perhaps there is some literary purpose behind God/Moses inserting the word "now" in this place. Maybe if we were to read the preceding Abrahamic narratives and the remaining Abrahamic narratives, we would see that this word "now" functions to link segments together or to provide some rhetorical element. Perhaps someone who has spent some time in Hebrew narrative could shed some light on this (Coney, this is your open door :) )
I am a firm believer in hearing the voice(s) of the community of believers in regards to understanding a verse. So here is the question for readers of this blog: In what ways can this verse be legitimately understood? You are welcome to give your view and defend it, but I am also looking for legitimate options to understanding this verse. I have listed three ways to understand this verse above. Feel free to beat up on them or tweak them. I should also point out that in the Hebrew there is nothing fishy going on here. The word for "know" and "now" are common words that any first year Hebrew student would "know" "now" (sorry for the terrible word play).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)