I wonder if I am the only one who has never spent much time in Philemon. Sure I’ve read it before, read it quickly, too. I’ve probably skimmed over it several times in the last 10 or 30 years. Now I'm amazed at how rich is this mighty one page book. It really does belong in the canon of Scripture!
Who is the Author of Philemon?
Okay, I’m starting easy here. Of course, we all know Paul wrote the book. He says he did and there is no reason to quarrel about it. Nevertheless, there would develop the habit of imposters using Apostle's names, so keep in mind the personal touches.
That style of salutation was the standard of the letter writing culture, just as our letters contain the inside address (business letters anyway) and a Dear Sir or Madam. Other writers of epistles said much the same things? Yes, and mostly they lso identify themselves as servants, etc. Perhaps my weak point is, by this cultural trait of writing salutations we have quickly distinguished the Biblical writers from the secular writers, such as Maximus Arellicus, “Commander of the 3rd Italian Brigade,” or even Pluticus Nauseous, “Caravan guide and dealer in salt fish.” Hey, the Holy Spirit knew what He was doing by utilizing (or engineering) the cultural practice of salutations to keep questions of authorship of the Biblical letters to a minimum.
The Content of the Text, and to whom is it sent?
Paul addresses Philemon as “our dear friend and fellow worker.” He then addresses Apphia, “our sister.” She’s a sister in Christ, but who is she to be named? Interestingly, the King James version refers to the “beloved Apphia.” This has some support in the manuscripts, so I understand. The importance of it may well be seen, as several scholars suggest, by examining the usage of the “beloved” title here. Scholars note the normal cultural routine of something very close to ignoring the mistress of the household when the esteemed husband is still living. They see meaning in the specific inclusion of her as a recipient of the letter and calling her “beloved,” a very meaningful term in those days, not tossed out lightly like a Hollywood kiss. This has led to the reasonable idea of Apphia being the wife of Philemon. Further, we know from Colossians that Archippus “our fellow soldier” was a minister of the Gospel. While the work of a sister in Christ might be most worthy, it would be unusual for Apphia to be addressed before Archippus, a minister devoted to teaching the Word. And he was male! On the other hand, naming Archippus after Philemon and Apphia would be the usual order when naming father, mother and son.
One scholar of the last century (1900s), undoubtedly a married man of many years, observes wisely that Paul’s reason for such a high standard of polite diplomacy that results in Apphia receiving a special greeting of honor is to help smooth the way for Philemon to decide to free Onesimus without opposition from his beloved wife, Apphia. Let me explain: Onesimus, as a runaway slave without worldly goods, would ordinarily take money or items to sell or trade to cover travel expenses, as was the practice of runaway slaves. Philemon was apparently wealthy, yet Apphia might still be simmering with resentment over the loss of some favorite jeweled necklace or other valuable adornment of great sentimental value stolen from her. I digress a moment to point to what surely must be proof of the Holy Spirit’s aid to Paul in writing the letter. Paul is a bachelor, yet he appears to know something of the lingering anger and resentment of a woman scorned. (Ouch! Stop that, beloved wife of mine! I was only kidding! Speaking in generalities!)
Paul knew the family well. In the letter to Philemon, Epaphras, himself a prisoner with Paul, sends his greetings to those he knew in Colossians. Epaphras is also mentioned in the Colossians letter. Aristarchus also is well known in Colossae. Of course, Mark and Luke are Christian icons. With them is a man named Demas. Further, the case for authenticity becomes irrefutable against any atheist’s argument: Tychicus brought the letter to the Colossians (Col. 4:7,8) and the letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 6:21,22). Onesimus traveled with Tychicus; Onesimus would boldly deliver Philemon’s letter while in Colossae.
The Date and Place of Origin
In Acts 28:16, Luke reports, NIV: “When we got to Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with a soldier to guard him.” (The Western text, followed by the Byzantine, gives a fuller reading: “When we entered Rome, the centurian handed his prisoners over to the stratopedarch, but Paul was allowed to stay by himself outside the barracks with the soldier who guarded him.”) Then Acts 28: 30,31 ends by telling us: “For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.” Thus, it would appear probable that it was in this imprisonment that Paul wrote his letter to Philemon.
As to the date of this imprisonment–as noted in Philemon, Paul writes of himself: “...an old man and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ” and relates that, consistent with the liberty of the Acts description, Onesimus “became my son while I was in chains.” (from Philemon, vs. 9,10). Thus, it would seem Paul had advanced in age from the days of his journeys set out in Acts. Acts tells us no more about Paul. Nevertheless, early church fathers wrote of Paul’s imprisonment (or otherwise there is a tradition) as being in the time of 61-62 AD. Paul was released from this particular imprisonment. Eusebius relates that Paul continued his ministry during the time between his first and second imprisonment. However, Paul was rearrested a few years later and this imprisonment in Rome was “hard time.” That is consistent with a time of about 64 AD when Nero’s persecution raged insanely against Christians.
In II Timothy 4:9-18 Paul writes that Demas deserted him “because he loved this world.” Only Luke was with him. Paul asks Timothy to come to him and bring Mark and bring a cloak “left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.” It is in this final chapter 4 of II Timothy that we find Paul’s inspiring, uplifting words (vss. 6-8): “For I am being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will reward to me on that day–and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.”
To comment more specifically upon the significance in the date and place of the writing of Philemon, I can only believe that the Holy Spirit has allowed us to see into the Christian heart, see the unfailing perseverance of a great warrior for Christ and the power and truth of the Gospel even in the very last days of Paul’s earthly life. Unlike Demas, Paul faced death confidently and always loyal to God even in the more minor things...like a runaway slave.
Onesimus has converted to Christianity through Paul’s prison ministry–sort of a reverse prison ministry, not what we would think of as a “prison ministry” today. Do we not see another instance of the kingdom of God opened to Jew and Gentile, freeman and slave alike? Even the slave owner Philemon had previously been brought to belief in Jesus, the Christ, through the work of Paul–as used by the Spirit–in presenting the Word. Now with Onesimus being returned, Paul alludes to his ministry that brought both owner and slave to Christ. They are both adopted children of God, brothers in Christ, and one is not more important to God than the other.
We see Paul’s request for forgiveness for the offending slave as concrete application of “forgive, as your Father forgives you.”
Paul makes another easily understood application of a most important Christian theme when he tells Philemon that he, Paul, would pay the debt of Onesimus’disobedience. Isn’t that offer of substitutionary atonement exactly what Jesus did, paying the debt we owed to God?
We see the legally ordained practice of slavery in the world in that time. Paul doesn’t expressly direct Philemon to release Onesimus. Paul preferred Philemon to act, not because Paul commanded it, but that Philemon might choose willingly, his choice springing out of a heart that loves God above all else. A Sovereign God gave us free will; nevertheless, Jesus taught, if you love God, you keep His commandments. Paul doesn’t teach disobedience to the law; he relies on Grace to motivate obedience and it is Grace that avoids the law’s harshness.
Though Paul is not speaking words condemning the owning of slaves, yet Paul clearly expects a new day-to-day real life relationship between master and slave–“no longer a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.” Paul argues persuasively that Onesimus was very dear to him, “but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.” Onesimus is a “new creation.” (2 Cor. 5:17)
What meaning is here for a modern day Christian?
Christians are released from slavery and became one of the adopted children through the power of His Word. The principle of substitutionary atonement is well portrayed here. Paul offers to pay what Onesimus owes Philemon. Paul is making intercession with Philemon on Onesimus’ behalf, much as a very loving, gentle, compassionate Jesus gave Himself for us. I rather know that Philemon will free Onesimus, and that Onesimus will be more than a slave. There are no words to fully describe the joy of our redemption and adoption into the family of God, a very dear position indeed!
We were all runaway slaves until Jesus freed us from captivity. I am confident that if Onesimus should remain a slave, heaven forbid, his faith is sufficient. Christians are in the world, but not of the world. The Lord has overcome the world and we cherish the hope within us; that we too will be with Him. As the Christian hope is real and sufficient for Onesimus, so this hope is sufficient for us whatever the circumstances.
It is fascinating to see the cross-references to the cities or churches. For me, the historical significance of Paul’s letters more real and presents vividly the richness of Acts.
I can understand the slight frown that might come across the brow of some of you. Did I find doctrine in places where it was just Paul using his common sense...in a letter--and Paul wrote plenty of letters. Ah, that is an important point. We too go about our ways, perhaps sharing a greeting with a friend or stranger. Perhaps we hesitate a moment and actually assist someone struggling with the task before them. Saint Frances of Assisi is supposed to have said, “Preach constantly; use words if necessary!” That makes sense!
Lastly, we see Paul relating to Philemon his prayers of thankfulness, hearing of Philemon’s faith and love for all the saints. Paul prays that Philemon’s sharing of the faith “may promote the knowledge of all good that is ours in Christ.” (RSV) Then Paul says: “Your love has given me great joy and encouragement, because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the saints.” (NIV) Oh, that every Christian might receive a letter like that! As our gifts enable us we must take Paul’s praise to heart and share the faith, promote knowledge of our God, give joy and encouragement to others and thereby refresh the hearts of the saints.
Never again will I take the letter to Philemon so lightly!
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
Dating the New Testament Books
On one of the sites I regularly go to, they have numerous discussion boards with designated topics. The atheist who writes on the Religion board, and who is in love with himself and greatly admires his own perceived brilliance is something more than a atheist who does not merely believe there is any God or Supreme Being. Nope, this guy hates anything Christian and wants everyone to hate God, too. He is, I submit, a fine example of Freud’s findings and conclusions that people repress, or suppress, from their memory horrible experiences, usually childhood things. "He’s in denial," has a certain amount of truth to it, at least on some occasions. Yet those sub-conscious memories keep being tweaked and that irritation triggers personality abnormalities, like maybe great irrational fear of a man wearing a large silver buckle or a dark car with tinted windows. Well, this atheist fellow throws unoriginal ideas around as made popular by the German Higher Critics, such as the Bible is all myths and legends, as if he knew everything about the subject.
To his obsessions and compulsions, I once answered in detail and hopefully with logic for a full page or two suggesting the posting over and over of the same myths and legends junk was an obsession or compulsion indicative of a repression problem as per Freud. I was amazed. He absolutely went silent for awhile, maybe a month, then lately he came back, but not one additional time has he expressly mentioned myths and legends.
A few days ago I went to the board and he was arguing with what I deem might be a new believer, lots of zeal but not a lot of information or resources. [So I fail in controlling my own arrogant judgments, too, now and then.] The atheist had the Christian just a tad on the defensive. Atheist claimed the Christian’s belief in the Bible was ill-placed, because the New Testament books were actually not written by the Apostles or eye-witnesses, but were written in the 4th Century. Kind of a variation of the myths and legends argument! Now remember, this guy delights to speak as if he had unimpeachable knowledge of all he chooses to reveal to any gullible Christian that believes the Bible, and he doesn’t bother to support anything he says with citations to resources.
The Atheist has now said: "The consensus of the learned experts is that the New Testament books were written in the 300 AD era."
I responded: For sake of brevity I must summarize, yet I will be kind enough to explain my sources and some reasoning for what I say here. Okay, if someone doubts me then be kind enough to me to visit a Christian Book store and browse. Several good New Testament Surveys will give you a lot of information concerning every N.T. book. If that is not convincing, you will find author scholars who seem to specialize in a particular book and you can examine the reasoning of authors of each book separately. In their introductions to a particular book you will find discussions in detail of the probable date of the writing. They meet any variant opinion with logic and reasoning expressed and argued. To be sure, I possess or have access to numerous scholars’ work, scholars with fantastic credentials and awards and fellowships, etc. Some are conservative, some moderate/liberal and some (like me perhaps) may be considered conservative on some issues and liberal on another. One of the recognized best scholars on John’s Gospel, even by protestant scholars, is a Roman Catholic. That is to say, this is not my cooked-up narrow minded analysis in furtherance of some "fundamentalist" agenda. When we read arguments, points and counter-points we truly learn in depth about the issues upon which we argue.
In regard to dates, there are no meaningful disputes. For example: As to the time of NT formation, some might suggest 40-70 AD while another might use 50-100 AD based on his own analysis, not a meaningful difference in most cases. I recognize that in the 19th century when Nietzsche and the European liberal existentialists were a rage and had captured the attention of theological thinkers, it was opined that John was late, written decades after John would have died. That would mean John the Apostle would not be alive to write it. However, the bright idea fails because a manuscript fragment of numerous verses from John’s Gospel exactly as we know it was discovered about 125 AD in Egypt.
Then, examining the many books internally we find Paul, for example, referring in several of his letters to writers like Mark and Luke being with him in Rome. Paul’s last letters were written from prison. In Acts, really a NT historical document, we again learn of Paul imprisonments. Based on internal materials we know Paul in his latter days was imprisoned by the caesar who first intently and insanely persecuted Christians. Historically, things fit! Nero had Paul killed. Thus, Paul had finished his writings not later than about 64 AD and many of his letters clearly were much earlier, within maybe a decade of Jesus’ resurrection. The point is that cross-referencing points can be found between books and between authors.
We should not overlook early Church fathers who also wrote various letters that have been found. Of particular interest is a letter from an early church father Clement to the Christians in Corinth, with unmistakable dating--in AD 95. He cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. Ignatius wrote to several churches in Asia Minor, citing Matthew, John, Romans, 1 Cor., Galations, Ephesians, Philippians, 1-2 Timothy and Titus verses. Ignatius wrote in AD 115 (translated into our dating method). The point: the entire NT was written within the first century AD.
I had no intention to discuss reasons to proclaim the reliability of the Gospels for truth in this post, yet I point to Tacitus, a non-Christian Roman historian. He corroborates not only Nero’s persecution, but in learning about those crazy christus people who would die for their faith, he gives a good summary of the belief--Pontious Pilate, the crucifixion, the resurrection. There are other non-biblical points of corroboration by non-Christian writers of Jesus’ existence and of such things as His healings and other miracles. For example, Jewish writings of the time contain expressions that Jesus did these unusual things by sorcery.
I will now be so bold as to imitate the "consensus" comment, yet I have given the reasons for my statement: The genuine consensus of learned opinion is that every NT book was written not earlier than 40 AD and not later than 100 AD with most of it written before 70 AD.
The manuscript evidence for the authenticity of Biblical texts is astounding. There are 24,000 extant manuscripts to study and compare for any man-made corruption, alterations or variations. There are some excellent examples of intact manuscripts dating from AD 325-450, the Vaticanus and the Codex Siniaticus. There are multiple thousands of early fragments dating from 100 to 200 years before Vaticanus and Siniaticus. The especially clear and legible among the many fragments are those called the Chester Beatty Papyrus and the Bodner Papyrus. From these fragments alone all of Luke, John, Romans, 1-2 Cor., Galations, Eph, Philippians, Col., 1-2 Thess., Mark, Acts and Revelation are reconstructed into a whole. The pieces by words fit together to form the whole, much as forming the picture of a jig-saw puzzle from pieces. And it matters not whether the fragment depicting words from Mark 10 (example) came from Syria or Egypt. One scholar in Church history (sounding like others) has said succinctly, "It is of wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration."
Lastly, I note the Dead Sea Scroll fragments. Some of them are definitely pieces of the NT. It is certain that the Qumran community hid their scrolls in caves at that crucial time in Jewish history when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem and the countryside villages, i.e., around 70 AD. These fragments are carefully cataloged. For example: Cave 7, Q6, Q15, Q5 contained verses from Mark, chapters 4, 6, and 12. There are similar fragments from Acts 27; Romans 5; 1 Timothy; 2 Peter; James. To be sure, much of the cave material has been basically destroyed, plus I haven’t printed the names of other Old Testament book copy fragments found.
After all this, and there is more an expert with time to write could add, I trust we can see that the claim the NT books were not written before the 4th century is...laughable!
Perhaps a lack of general biblical and church knowledge and failure to distinguish between the date of writing of the books by the Apostles and eye-witnesses and the much later church declaration of the canon has led to the confusion we are discussing. To again quote a scholar: "When at last a Church Council–the Synod of Hippo in AD 393–listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity." The Church declaration was good and necessary to guard against those groups, such as the Gnostics, who tried to get their material used by the church, not to mention a serious heretical challenge by Marcion urging some strange ideas.
*********************
Post Script: Since I posted my response the atheist has not replied to it. I’m almost disappointed! He has been on the site and has actively posted on other topics on the Religion board. The encouraging thing for me is to have received super comments from several Christians, including the one I deemed to be a new Christian and even from one who rarely posts there.
To his obsessions and compulsions, I once answered in detail and hopefully with logic for a full page or two suggesting the posting over and over of the same myths and legends junk was an obsession or compulsion indicative of a repression problem as per Freud. I was amazed. He absolutely went silent for awhile, maybe a month, then lately he came back, but not one additional time has he expressly mentioned myths and legends.
A few days ago I went to the board and he was arguing with what I deem might be a new believer, lots of zeal but not a lot of information or resources. [So I fail in controlling my own arrogant judgments, too, now and then.] The atheist had the Christian just a tad on the defensive. Atheist claimed the Christian’s belief in the Bible was ill-placed, because the New Testament books were actually not written by the Apostles or eye-witnesses, but were written in the 4th Century. Kind of a variation of the myths and legends argument! Now remember, this guy delights to speak as if he had unimpeachable knowledge of all he chooses to reveal to any gullible Christian that believes the Bible, and he doesn’t bother to support anything he says with citations to resources.
The Atheist has now said: "The consensus of the learned experts is that the New Testament books were written in the 300 AD era."
I responded: For sake of brevity I must summarize, yet I will be kind enough to explain my sources and some reasoning for what I say here. Okay, if someone doubts me then be kind enough to me to visit a Christian Book store and browse. Several good New Testament Surveys will give you a lot of information concerning every N.T. book. If that is not convincing, you will find author scholars who seem to specialize in a particular book and you can examine the reasoning of authors of each book separately. In their introductions to a particular book you will find discussions in detail of the probable date of the writing. They meet any variant opinion with logic and reasoning expressed and argued. To be sure, I possess or have access to numerous scholars’ work, scholars with fantastic credentials and awards and fellowships, etc. Some are conservative, some moderate/liberal and some (like me perhaps) may be considered conservative on some issues and liberal on another. One of the recognized best scholars on John’s Gospel, even by protestant scholars, is a Roman Catholic. That is to say, this is not my cooked-up narrow minded analysis in furtherance of some "fundamentalist" agenda. When we read arguments, points and counter-points we truly learn in depth about the issues upon which we argue.
In regard to dates, there are no meaningful disputes. For example: As to the time of NT formation, some might suggest 40-70 AD while another might use 50-100 AD based on his own analysis, not a meaningful difference in most cases. I recognize that in the 19th century when Nietzsche and the European liberal existentialists were a rage and had captured the attention of theological thinkers, it was opined that John was late, written decades after John would have died. That would mean John the Apostle would not be alive to write it. However, the bright idea fails because a manuscript fragment of numerous verses from John’s Gospel exactly as we know it was discovered about 125 AD in Egypt.
Then, examining the many books internally we find Paul, for example, referring in several of his letters to writers like Mark and Luke being with him in Rome. Paul’s last letters were written from prison. In Acts, really a NT historical document, we again learn of Paul imprisonments. Based on internal materials we know Paul in his latter days was imprisoned by the caesar who first intently and insanely persecuted Christians. Historically, things fit! Nero had Paul killed. Thus, Paul had finished his writings not later than about 64 AD and many of his letters clearly were much earlier, within maybe a decade of Jesus’ resurrection. The point is that cross-referencing points can be found between books and between authors.
We should not overlook early Church fathers who also wrote various letters that have been found. Of particular interest is a letter from an early church father Clement to the Christians in Corinth, with unmistakable dating--in AD 95. He cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. Ignatius wrote to several churches in Asia Minor, citing Matthew, John, Romans, 1 Cor., Galations, Ephesians, Philippians, 1-2 Timothy and Titus verses. Ignatius wrote in AD 115 (translated into our dating method). The point: the entire NT was written within the first century AD.
I had no intention to discuss reasons to proclaim the reliability of the Gospels for truth in this post, yet I point to Tacitus, a non-Christian Roman historian. He corroborates not only Nero’s persecution, but in learning about those crazy christus people who would die for their faith, he gives a good summary of the belief--Pontious Pilate, the crucifixion, the resurrection. There are other non-biblical points of corroboration by non-Christian writers of Jesus’ existence and of such things as His healings and other miracles. For example, Jewish writings of the time contain expressions that Jesus did these unusual things by sorcery.
I will now be so bold as to imitate the "consensus" comment, yet I have given the reasons for my statement: The genuine consensus of learned opinion is that every NT book was written not earlier than 40 AD and not later than 100 AD with most of it written before 70 AD.
The manuscript evidence for the authenticity of Biblical texts is astounding. There are 24,000 extant manuscripts to study and compare for any man-made corruption, alterations or variations. There are some excellent examples of intact manuscripts dating from AD 325-450, the Vaticanus and the Codex Siniaticus. There are multiple thousands of early fragments dating from 100 to 200 years before Vaticanus and Siniaticus. The especially clear and legible among the many fragments are those called the Chester Beatty Papyrus and the Bodner Papyrus. From these fragments alone all of Luke, John, Romans, 1-2 Cor., Galations, Eph, Philippians, Col., 1-2 Thess., Mark, Acts and Revelation are reconstructed into a whole. The pieces by words fit together to form the whole, much as forming the picture of a jig-saw puzzle from pieces. And it matters not whether the fragment depicting words from Mark 10 (example) came from Syria or Egypt. One scholar in Church history (sounding like others) has said succinctly, "It is of wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration."
Lastly, I note the Dead Sea Scroll fragments. Some of them are definitely pieces of the NT. It is certain that the Qumran community hid their scrolls in caves at that crucial time in Jewish history when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem and the countryside villages, i.e., around 70 AD. These fragments are carefully cataloged. For example: Cave 7, Q6, Q15, Q5 contained verses from Mark, chapters 4, 6, and 12. There are similar fragments from Acts 27; Romans 5; 1 Timothy; 2 Peter; James. To be sure, much of the cave material has been basically destroyed, plus I haven’t printed the names of other Old Testament book copy fragments found.
After all this, and there is more an expert with time to write could add, I trust we can see that the claim the NT books were not written before the 4th century is...laughable!
Perhaps a lack of general biblical and church knowledge and failure to distinguish between the date of writing of the books by the Apostles and eye-witnesses and the much later church declaration of the canon has led to the confusion we are discussing. To again quote a scholar: "When at last a Church Council–the Synod of Hippo in AD 393–listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity." The Church declaration was good and necessary to guard against those groups, such as the Gnostics, who tried to get their material used by the church, not to mention a serious heretical challenge by Marcion urging some strange ideas.
*********************
Post Script: Since I posted my response the atheist has not replied to it. I’m almost disappointed! He has been on the site and has actively posted on other topics on the Religion board. The encouraging thing for me is to have received super comments from several Christians, including the one I deemed to be a new Christian and even from one who rarely posts there.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
"Discussion" with an atheist!
On a discussion board is the stereotypical atheist. He is sure he knows everything. He is terribly anti-Christian, British and extremely liberal. As foolish as it is, I enjoy fussing with him. He had a long post and did brag of quantum physics going to answer the issue of Creation. Some of my friends believe he may be a BBC reporter. He is rather knowledgeable about events, filtered through a flaming liberal screen. Thinking he had some point in answering a previous poster's writing he has this sassy little statement and question. I answered and the answer is my blog post today.
[His question:] "Atheists don't believe in a Creator. Does that help?"
Good of you to ask. If I start with Friedrick Nietzsche, the German philosopher and atheist (he popularized the battle cry of "God is dead"), we find him saying that without the influence of God (and he wanted no part of God) our society would be in disasterous chaos within a few generations. He proposed it would take a "superman" (not the one with a cape flying around with an S on his chest) to take control and forcibly establish a ruling order. Hitler took that atheist's idea to heart! Hitler even gave a book of Nietzsche's writings to Mussolini. Yes, Hitler deemed himself just the superman to estabish the super race. How many millions died? Is it possible to even add up the costs of the destruction and death because Hitler was so gullible as to believe Nietzsche's atheistic theories, i.e., that man was self-sufficient now in the scientific age and didn't need God?
Then to name a few more: There is Stalin, whose murder and death count exceeded Hitler's. Pol Pot was another--both atheists. Okay, okay, yes, one particular brand of Christians killed some people in the Inquisition. Would some atheist please step forward and tell us about that horrible Inquisition in the olden days one more time, while ignoring the uncountable horror of the egotistical self-declared atheist supermen of modern times?
Again, the question: "Atheists don't believe in a Creator. Does that help?" And the answer is: "No! It hasn't helped anyone!" If the multi-millions dead, tortured, maimed and otherwise left with meaningless lives because atheist leaders don't believe in a Creator were able to shout, the roar of their "No" would surely be astounding.
I suppose an atheist quantum physicist can state his theory about matter popping into existence by chance and there would be a group who so want to believe him that they would not think it out for themselves. Something cannot be created out of absolute nothing, not the least speck of dust nor whiff of gaseous elements. That's a scientific principle that has never been proven wrong in any fine modern laboratory. Atheists may think they have crawled out of a slimy pond, but no one else would believe such a---! No, wait! Maybe...maybe atheists really did! On second thought...yes, I can believe that!
[His question:] "Atheists don't believe in a Creator. Does that help?"
Good of you to ask. If I start with Friedrick Nietzsche, the German philosopher and atheist (he popularized the battle cry of "God is dead"), we find him saying that without the influence of God (and he wanted no part of God) our society would be in disasterous chaos within a few generations. He proposed it would take a "superman" (not the one with a cape flying around with an S on his chest) to take control and forcibly establish a ruling order. Hitler took that atheist's idea to heart! Hitler even gave a book of Nietzsche's writings to Mussolini. Yes, Hitler deemed himself just the superman to estabish the super race. How many millions died? Is it possible to even add up the costs of the destruction and death because Hitler was so gullible as to believe Nietzsche's atheistic theories, i.e., that man was self-sufficient now in the scientific age and didn't need God?
Then to name a few more: There is Stalin, whose murder and death count exceeded Hitler's. Pol Pot was another--both atheists. Okay, okay, yes, one particular brand of Christians killed some people in the Inquisition. Would some atheist please step forward and tell us about that horrible Inquisition in the olden days one more time, while ignoring the uncountable horror of the egotistical self-declared atheist supermen of modern times?
Again, the question: "Atheists don't believe in a Creator. Does that help?" And the answer is: "No! It hasn't helped anyone!" If the multi-millions dead, tortured, maimed and otherwise left with meaningless lives because atheist leaders don't believe in a Creator were able to shout, the roar of their "No" would surely be astounding.
I suppose an atheist quantum physicist can state his theory about matter popping into existence by chance and there would be a group who so want to believe him that they would not think it out for themselves. Something cannot be created out of absolute nothing, not the least speck of dust nor whiff of gaseous elements. That's a scientific principle that has never been proven wrong in any fine modern laboratory. Atheists may think they have crawled out of a slimy pond, but no one else would believe such a---! No, wait! Maybe...maybe atheists really did! On second thought...yes, I can believe that!
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Oh, the burden of metaphors!
In the comments after the Salt of the Earth post, it was noted that metaphors get mixed and scrambled and that can often irritate. I decided to write the definitive life-changing explanations and wrote the following, or most of it, but just couldn’t get it finished. I could never quite explain Lot's wife turning into salt. I felt like a mountain trout trying to swallow a whale–just couldn’t get my teeth into it. But I’ve decided to stop with the whale and be happy nibbling on a goldfish. The goldfish too bland, I moved on to saltier fare. I hunted among the oysters for a pearl, but only came up with grains of sand. Enough of that Shakespearian type musing; here are my Sherlock Holmes deductions and conclusions:
After my extensive research--Not!--I find the references to salt in the OT indicate its significance in early Judaism as a symbol of endurance and worth. (Kittel, and others).
I think the interesting application of that principle comes from Numbers 18:19 where it seems to be an ingredient of an "everlasting covenant of salt" (this wording coming in a discussion of sacrifices).
In Mark 9, reading the verses beginning about 35 through 50, I wouldn't be wrong to suggest that the discussion involves doing good work, refraining from sin and avoiding the fires of hell. In the proper context, these verses are emphasizing to the disciples in importance of their constant participation in the kingdom of God, which cannot be separated from the person of Jesus and the exercise of faith. A few verses earlier in Chapter 9, and elsewhere, Jesus has clearly warned His disciples of His own death and that persecution awaits the disciples who follow Him. Testing, tribulation, persecution, floggings, even burning at the stake and death await those followers listening to Him. His teaching culminates in the verse: "Everyone will be salted with fire." Here we have something of a metaphor within a metaphor–maybe? Salt purifies and certainly fire melted the ore and impurity was burned or strained away leaving the ore pure.
Before moving on you should know that the "Everyone....salted...fire" language is textually disputed by many scholars. The NIV (printed bold above) is the most accepted, probably supported by the better manuscripts. It is interesting to see that other lines of ancient manuscripts read: "...for (or and) every sacrifice will be salted with salt." You might logically ask, "But the New Testament disciples will not be offering sacrifices with salt for burning. That’s OT stuff!" The association of salt with the sacrifices is indeed strong and inseparable, yet we must read Romans 12:1 to see it all make sense. "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—which is your spiritual worship."
All of these good works, persecutions and tribulations are our NT sacrifices done in the care and strength of the New Covenant, a covenant where salt has relevance in worship. We need to go and do and live with strength, endurance and worthiness, i.e., as salt that never loses its savor. Luke 14:33-35 very well confirms the preceding statement with this: "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?...." Give up everything? That is part of being Biblical salt? Possibly–if we were to love everything more than Christ. We’ve been taught that if your eye causes you to sin you should pluck it out rather than continue and miss out on the Kingdom of God. No one, except a Muslim maybe, would blame the eye or hand for our sin. Jesus objected to such external religion ways of thinking. He isn’t teaching mutilation. He teaches that nothing should be so important to us as to cause us to breach our Covenant of Salt, lose our saltiness and fall short of eternity with Him.
Perhaps Colossians 4:2-6 might help us grasp the meaning of salt. Paul wanted the readers to be devoted to prayer. He wanted prayers for himself so he could proclaim the Gospel clearly. Then abruptly he switches back while in this paragraph expressing concerns to proclaim the Word clearly, saying to the reader: "Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone."
It seems to me that most every supposedly learned commentary expounds upon "seasoned with salt" as if the first phrase "full of grace" had not been given, i.e., they explain that seasoned with salt sort of means our speech should be full of grace. Maybe someone has a better commentary, but in its absence I will boldly suggest that Paul wasn’t stupid and that he knew seasoned with salt meant something. I think of Francis of Assisi who is reported to have said something like, "Preach constantly; if necessary use words." So I dare to suggest that even without the Word mentioned specifically, principles of the Word may be presented, e.g., encouragement, comfort, calmness, goodness and mercy, forgiveness. Such words, together perhaps with Christian conduct such as hospitality or physically helping another in need, may render an otherwise simple "God bless you" to be a powerful sermon, salt to the other on his journey toward responding to God’s calling to repentance and salvation.
I’ll close with these further thoughts concerning "Covenant of Salt." Salt was often used among the Oriental peoples for ratifying agreements. Through absorbing the meaning and adopting the practice over time, salt became for the chosen people, too, the teaching symbol of fidelity and constancy. In Leviticus, Numbers and 2 Chronicles we see the use of salt as a preservative in the world and typifying the eternal nature of contractual benefits and responsibilities inherent in the Covenant of Salt between God and His Chosen.
Hang the metaphors! We are salt of the earth! You know what it means, so get out there and make the world around you better. Full speed ahead!
After my extensive research--Not!--I find the references to salt in the OT indicate its significance in early Judaism as a symbol of endurance and worth. (Kittel, and others).
I think the interesting application of that principle comes from Numbers 18:19 where it seems to be an ingredient of an "everlasting covenant of salt" (this wording coming in a discussion of sacrifices).
In Mark 9, reading the verses beginning about 35 through 50, I wouldn't be wrong to suggest that the discussion involves doing good work, refraining from sin and avoiding the fires of hell. In the proper context, these verses are emphasizing to the disciples in importance of their constant participation in the kingdom of God, which cannot be separated from the person of Jesus and the exercise of faith. A few verses earlier in Chapter 9, and elsewhere, Jesus has clearly warned His disciples of His own death and that persecution awaits the disciples who follow Him. Testing, tribulation, persecution, floggings, even burning at the stake and death await those followers listening to Him. His teaching culminates in the verse: "Everyone will be salted with fire." Here we have something of a metaphor within a metaphor–maybe? Salt purifies and certainly fire melted the ore and impurity was burned or strained away leaving the ore pure.
Before moving on you should know that the "Everyone....salted...fire" language is textually disputed by many scholars. The NIV (printed bold above) is the most accepted, probably supported by the better manuscripts. It is interesting to see that other lines of ancient manuscripts read: "...for (or and) every sacrifice will be salted with salt." You might logically ask, "But the New Testament disciples will not be offering sacrifices with salt for burning. That’s OT stuff!" The association of salt with the sacrifices is indeed strong and inseparable, yet we must read Romans 12:1 to see it all make sense. "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—which is your spiritual worship."
All of these good works, persecutions and tribulations are our NT sacrifices done in the care and strength of the New Covenant, a covenant where salt has relevance in worship. We need to go and do and live with strength, endurance and worthiness, i.e., as salt that never loses its savor. Luke 14:33-35 very well confirms the preceding statement with this: "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?...." Give up everything? That is part of being Biblical salt? Possibly–if we were to love everything more than Christ. We’ve been taught that if your eye causes you to sin you should pluck it out rather than continue and miss out on the Kingdom of God. No one, except a Muslim maybe, would blame the eye or hand for our sin. Jesus objected to such external religion ways of thinking. He isn’t teaching mutilation. He teaches that nothing should be so important to us as to cause us to breach our Covenant of Salt, lose our saltiness and fall short of eternity with Him.
Perhaps Colossians 4:2-6 might help us grasp the meaning of salt. Paul wanted the readers to be devoted to prayer. He wanted prayers for himself so he could proclaim the Gospel clearly. Then abruptly he switches back while in this paragraph expressing concerns to proclaim the Word clearly, saying to the reader: "Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone."
It seems to me that most every supposedly learned commentary expounds upon "seasoned with salt" as if the first phrase "full of grace" had not been given, i.e., they explain that seasoned with salt sort of means our speech should be full of grace. Maybe someone has a better commentary, but in its absence I will boldly suggest that Paul wasn’t stupid and that he knew seasoned with salt meant something. I think of Francis of Assisi who is reported to have said something like, "Preach constantly; if necessary use words." So I dare to suggest that even without the Word mentioned specifically, principles of the Word may be presented, e.g., encouragement, comfort, calmness, goodness and mercy, forgiveness. Such words, together perhaps with Christian conduct such as hospitality or physically helping another in need, may render an otherwise simple "God bless you" to be a powerful sermon, salt to the other on his journey toward responding to God’s calling to repentance and salvation.
I’ll close with these further thoughts concerning "Covenant of Salt." Salt was often used among the Oriental peoples for ratifying agreements. Through absorbing the meaning and adopting the practice over time, salt became for the chosen people, too, the teaching symbol of fidelity and constancy. In Leviticus, Numbers and 2 Chronicles we see the use of salt as a preservative in the world and typifying the eternal nature of contractual benefits and responsibilities inherent in the Covenant of Salt between God and His Chosen.
Hang the metaphors! We are salt of the earth! You know what it means, so get out there and make the world around you better. Full speed ahead!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)