while today

How Many Circles? How Many Circles?

April 18, 2014

I had a professor who spoke of the one circle man and the two circle man. He would draw a circle on the chalkboard for the one circle man, and two circles that overlapped a bit for the two circle man.

The one circle man is the person who believes that nature is all there is. The single circle represents the physical universe. If you attempt to talk to the one circle person about a miracle, for example, the resurrection of Jesus, he has ruled such things out of bounds. He will say such things cannot happen. No amount of evidence will be convincing. because he views the universe as a closed system. That’s all there is. He is a one circle man.

The two circle man believes in the natural universe but also believes in a spiritual realm and the existence of God. Or, if not certain about God, he is at least able to grant the second circle as a possibility to be reasoned about. If you attempt to talk to the two circle person about a miracle, for example, the resurrection Jesus, he is willing to consider the evidence.

The two circle man also believes the universe usually operates by physical causes and effects. Miracles are not claimed to explain everything. Miracles would be viewed as something rare, that is why they are by definition wondrous. But the two circle man doesn’t rule them out of bounds by definition. He is open to the possibility that God can intervene in this world and do something instantaneously that cannot be explained by natural causes and effects.

The one circle man sometimes thinks that his one circle worldview is to be identified with the scientific enterprise. But the two circle man can do science as well. In fact, science grew up in the midst of two circle thinkers — the Christian west. The two circle man believes that this universe is orderly and understandable, because the Creator made us with senses and minds that correspond to that reality and lead us to true knowledge about the world around us.

The one circle man will sometimes unknowingly borrow from the two circle man. He will talk about the pursuit of truth and moral values and even meaning, failing to realize that those things to have substance must come from the other circle — the circle he denies.

Some one circle men will even wistfully talk about the Christ of faith even though they believe Jesus of Nazareth is mouldering in the grave. Their one circle life doesn’t allow for a resurrection, no matter the witnesses, no matter the prophecies, and no matter the tremendous transformations that occurred.

I’m a two circle man. I’ve not ruled the evidence as out of bounds. In your life, how many circles?

Leave a Comment » | Jesus, materialism, miracles, resurrection, resurrection of Christ, Uncategorized, Worldviews | Permalink
Posted by Russell Holden

The Lesson of the One Talent Servant

April 11, 2014

When we use the word talent, we are usually talking about abilities and aptitudes which someone has. Interestingly enough, our English word comes from the Greek word used in the New Testament. Our English meaning may even come from the phrase “each according to his ability” in Matthew 25:15 in the Parable of the Talents. But the Greek word means a weight of about 75 pounds.

The servants in the Parable of the Talents receive 5 talents, 2 talents, and 1 talent respectively. That is, they receive about 375 pounds, 150 pounds, and 75 pounds of something. The talent was equivalent to about 6,000 drachmas or about 20 years’ wages for a laborer. If we were to say a laborer earns $15 per hour, at 2,000 hours per year, he would earn $30,000 per year. That would make one talent equal to about $600,000.

5 talents = 100 years of wages or about $3,000,000
2 talents = 40 years of wages or about $1,200,000
1 talent = 20 years of wages or about $600,000

These are approximations, but they give us a comparison we can understand. This stops me from saying, “Oh, the poor one talent servant, he was given so little.” He was richly blessed, but other servants had greater blessings.

What is wrong with the one talent servant? It is not that he possesses only one talent. He is not blamed for his more limited resources. But two words describe him that we ought to ponder. He is “slothful” ESV, KJV or “lazy” NIV, NASB, NKJV. The definition of the word is possessing a state involving shrinking from something, holding back, hesitation, reluctance. And from that, the definitions of idle, lazy, and indolent.

The second word is “worthless” ESV, NIV, NASB and “unprofitable” KJV, NKJV. This word means being of no use or profit especially in an economic sense or being unworthy of any praise, although the former of these meanings would be more likely in our parable.

The thing I must ask myself has to do with the kingdom of God. Am I dragging my feet to be involved? Am I hesitating to serve God with the result that I’m actually idle or lazy? Am I useful to the kingdom? Does God derive a benefit to his kingdom because I claim to be a servant? Let us learn the lesson of the one talent servant.

Leave a Comment » | parable, service, stewardship, talent, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Russell Holden

Noah’s Ark

March 28, 2014

Darren Aronofsky’s movie, Noah, may have people wondering about the biblical account. So what was the ark like?

The Hebrew word for ark means box. In the Old Testament, the word is also used of the papyrus (or bullrushes) ark in which Moses was placed as an infant (Exodus 2:3, 5). In fact, the word choice may have reminded the readers of the safety of Noah’s ark. A different word in Hebrew is used for the Ark of the Covenant, although both words mean box in some sense. Noah’s ark is not a ship in the normal sense of the word. It had no means of propulsion, and it may have had limited or no means of navigation. It was simply intended to rescue from the flood.

The text says that the ark was to be made of gopher wood. We do not know what gopher wood was. The “gopher” of the text of Genesis is a transliteration of the Hebrew word. (By the way there is no relationship in the Hebrew word to our English word gopher.) The etymology of the word is unknown. Several suggestions are made: cypress, pitch-pine, or simply some kind of resinous wood. The suggestions make sense given its use. The Greek Septuagint has “squared wood” which seems to be their attempt to translate gopher wood.

The dimensions of the ark were 300 cubits long by 50 cubits wide by 30 cubits high which comes to about 450 feet by 75 feet by 45 feet. The proportions of the ark are correct for a cargo ship. It size is about as large as a wooden ship could be built. Sailing ships in the Western world generally did not get much above 330 feet long, but the Greeks were able to build ships of this size. China in the 1400s built ships which may have been as long as the ark.

The ark was made into rooms (literally the Hebrew word is nests). We are not told how many or how big. The ark was covered with pitch inside and out, which would have been used as a water seal. “A window” of the KJV in Genesis 6:16 is now thought to mean roof or skylight. The word only occurs once in the Old Testament making it more difficult to define. It may refer to a window all the way around with a height of a cubit (or about 18 inches), which may have been covered or opened as needed. The ark had three decks and one door.

If you like details, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe may be of interest. He concludes that the ark was not beyond the building skills of the period and goes into details about how it might have been done.

Sixty-eight different people groups are known to have flood stories. Varying flood accounts are found around the world.

Leave a Comment » | Ark, Flood, Genesis, Noah | Permalink
Posted by Russell Holden

Go and Make Disciples

March 21, 2014

I have heard in a few sermons the following remark: “Although our English Bible says ‘Go and make disciples,’ the Greek would be better translated ‘As you go, make disciples.’” However, there are good reasons why most of our English translations actually say “Go and make disciples.”

The remark contains a partial truth. The verb translated “go” is actually an aorist participle in Greek. It is followed by an aorist imperative (make disciples). But knowing that the first word is a participle is just the beginning. The question is what does it mean in this construction with a command immediately following.

I thought about this recently because of Daniel Wallace’s blog on this subject which I happened to read after I had read Matthew 28. (Wallace is the author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics and his blog will give a fuller explanation. It may better to hear it from someone who has written a grammar than merely one who has read one.) I had noticed that Matthew 28:7 has the same construction as Matthew 28:19: an aorist participle with an aorist imperative. The ESV reads: “Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead” (Matthew 28:7).

I don’t think the message of the angel to the women was “As you go quickly, tell his disciples…” It is a bit more purposeful than that. I don’t think the women thought they could do anything they wanted before finding the apostles. Similar constructions can be found in Matthew (this is from a quick check in Accordance and only listing the other occasions in Matthew).

2:8 — Go and search diligently
2:13 — Rise, take the child and his mother
2:20 — Rise, take the child and his mother
9:6 — Rise, pick up your bed
9:18 — come and lay your hand on her
11:4 — Go and tell John
17:27 — Take that and give it
21:2 — Untie, bring to me.

In each of these narratives, the participle is usually rendered into English as a command. That is because in this kind of construction the participle takes on the force of the command that follows it.

To say that it would be better translated “As you go” is to make what is probably a first or second year Greek student’s error. By the way, I’ve made those kinds of errors too. I’ve even made this error at a point in my life. As several professors have warned: “a little Greek is a dangerous thing.” The bottom line is: “Go and make disciples” is the better way to say it in English.

Leave a Comment » | Great Commission | Permalink
Posted by Russell Holden

Was Baptism Unimportant to Paul?

March 14, 2014

In arguing against the divisions in Corinth, Paul questions “Or were you baptized in the name of Paul” (1 Cor. 1:13, ESV)? Paul then begins a digression where he is thankful that he hadn’t baptized many of the Corinthians, so they couldn’t claim to have been baptized into Paul. He notes that he had baptized Crispus and Gaius and then remembers he must add the household of Stephanas to the list, and he is a bit uncertain of how many more. But he concludes, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17, ESV). Does this statement mean that baptism was unimportant to Paul?

How do we go about answering the question? The context of the Bible must be our source of evidence. First, let us examine Paul’s teaching on baptism.

Romans 6:1-6. In baptism, we are united with Christ. We are united to his death, and therefore, we have the hope of being united with his resurrection.
1 Corinthians 12:13. Baptism is the occasion for our being united in the body of Christ and is linked with the reception of the Holy Spirit.
Galatians 3:27-29. Baptism is when we put on Christ and become heirs.
Ephesians 4:4-5. Paul places one baptism in a list which includes one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, and one God.
Colossians 2:11-12. Baptism unites us with the burial and resurrection of Christ, and it is also linked with the spiritual, circumcision of Christ (i.e., regeneration). Grammatically, the “having been buried” is antecedent or contemporaneous to the main verb “were circumcised.” That means the spiritual, circumcision of Christ occurs at the same time as the baptism or following it as far as the grammar of the sentence is concerned.

The clear teaching of Paul prevents me from saying that baptism was unimportant to Paul. So how am I to understand Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 1? Again, the context of scripture helps us.

Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again for Galilee. (John 4:1–3 ESV)

This is a passage which shows a division of labor between Jesus who is doing the preaching and his disciples who are doing the baptizing. Does a division of labor approach to preaching and baptizing explain Paul’s comment? It certainly does, and it fits with what Paul says about the differing functions in the body (1 Corinthians 12).

Was baptism unimportant to Paul? Paul’s clear teaching on baptism and the broader context of scripture must cause us to answer no. Baptism is clearly important to Paul.

Leave a Comment » | baptism | Permalink
Posted by Russell Holden

Habits of Holiness

February 21, 2014

The agenda no doubt was to criticize Jesus. The Pharisees and scribes noticed that Jesus’s disciples failed to wash their hands before a meal. The Mishna recorded the tradition that this ritual required a minimum amount of water equal to the volume of one and half eggs. This was definitely about ritual and not hygiene! Jesus countered with the legal loophole used by the religious leaders for declaring something dedicated to the temple, and so unavailable to be used for the care of aging parents. They were criticizing about a tradition of the elders; he was convicting them about the Law of Moses. (See Matthew 15:1-20.)

Following this exchange, Jesus addressed the crowds with a proverb: “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person” (Matthew 15:11 ESV). This led his disciples to note the Pharisees were offended by Jesus and to request further explanation of the proverb. Jesus’s reply stressed holiness is developed from the inside out. His reply gives us a glimpse into the habits of holiness.

Be careful with God’s revelation. Jesus noted that the Pharisees were blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit. God will uproot what he has not planted. In pursuing holiness and a relationship with God, truth matters.

Be careful what you say. What comes out of our mouths in Jesus’s proverb must refer to what we say. What we say reflects what we are thinking. What we say foreshadows what we will do. The connection between deeds and words is found in Paul’s discussion of sexual immorality and covetousness (Ephesians 5:3-5). Right in the middle of these two themes, Paul warns about the wrong use of words. Some kinds of talk defile. Some kinds of talk sanctify.

Be careful what you think. In Jesus’s explanation of his proverb, he goes further and warns about evil thoughts. Paul also reminds us to think about good and honorable things (Philippians 4:8). Some kinds of thoughts defile. Some kind of thoughts sanctify and make holy.

Although the good news may intervene and change our habits and destiny, God still uses our habits to develop holiness. Someone has wisely said:

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.

Leave a Comment » | habits, holiness, Jesus, sanctification, thoughts, words | Permalink
Posted by Russell Holden

Even the Plowboy Shall Know

January 31, 2014

I want you to mentally travel back in time to the 14th century AD. As we travel back in time, we notice that all of our English translations have disappeared. How’s your Greek, Hebrew, or Latin? Upon arrival in the 14th century, not only are there no English Bibles, but the religious leaders of the day regard allowing the “common man” to have a Bible to be a great danger. John Wycliffe produced an English translation in 1382 prior to the invention of the printing press. But the reaction to translating was so severe, that the Council of Constance in 1415 ordered Wycliffe’s remains to be disinterred and burned, and the ashes thrown on the River Swift.

In 1525, John Tyndale was the first to translate and produce a printed English New Testament. He was incensed by the prejudice of the religious clerics of his day. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs tells of Tyndale having a argument with one of these “learned” men:

Not long after, Tyndale happened to be in company of a certain divine, and in disputing with him he pressed him so hard that the doctor burst out into these blasphemous words: “We were better to be without God’s laws than the pope’s.”

Tyndale full of godly zeal, replied: “I defy the pope and all his laws;” and added, that if God spared him life, ere many years, he would cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than he did.

Tyndale made good on this, but he had to leave England to do it because of opposition. And irony of ironies, the English Bible had to be smuggled into England in bales of cloth. Religious leaders burned copies of it, and Tyndale was later imprisoned and finally executed.

Your English Bible is a priceless possession. Not everyone has been so fortunate as to be able to read for themselves the Word of God. Regrettably, the dream that even the plowboy shall know scripture can be lost today, not for lack of a Bible, but for lack of a Bible reader.

Leave a Comment » | Bible, Bible reading, Bible translations | Permalink
Posted by Russell Holden

Faithful Lament

January 25, 2014

The psalms model faithful lament. Lament is the expression of grief, pain, and sorrow. Our everyday word for it would be complaint. Life does not always go merrily along without a care even for people of faith. Bereavement, calamities, loss, illness, and painful interpersonal relationships may come to the best of us. The psalms reflect this aspect of real life. The psalms express these raw, but honest human emotions, but they do so in the framework of trusting God.

In Encountering the Book of Psalms, C. Hassell Bullock notes:

While the boldness and naked honesty of the psalmists may shock us, this attitude is nevertheless instructive for our own spiritual lives. We sometimes hold back too much from God, conceal our true feelings in prayer, and create a false image of ourselves at the heavenly throne of grace.

The psalms become tutors for our own prayer lives. We learn that God wants us to be fully open and transparent before him. We can cast our anxieties upon him; he is willing to hear our pain as well as our praise.

Bullock, however, offers a caution:

But it is also a dangerous freedom that can too easily move us, on the divine level, in the direction of spiritual defiance and mutiny.

Jeremiah provides a warning example of this freedom going too far. At one point, he says to God:

Why is my pain unceasing,
my wound incurable,
refusing to be healed?
Will you be to me like a deceitful brook,
like waters that fail? (Jeremiah 15:18 ESV)

In the very next line, God tells him to repent, so that he might stand before God.

But given this caution, the psalms encourage a great deal of openness and intimacy even in sharing the painful things of our lives. I think it is one of the ways we cast our anxieties on God. The psalms can teach Christians a great deal about faithful lament.

Leave a Comment » | grief, lament, pain, Psalms | Permalink
Posted by Russell Holden

The Reverse of the Curse

January 17, 2014

In many ways, Genesis 1-3 and Revelation 21-22 serve as the bookends to the Bible. The new Jerusalem of Revelation has Garden of Eden imagery. The earthly paradise of the Garden of Eden is found in Genesis 2-3. In both places the Tree of Life is found. The curse because of sin (Genesis 3) finds its reverse in the making of all things new in Revelation 21. I used the phrase, the reverse of the curse, in a recent lesson, and someone asked me what I meant by the curse.

When sin entered the world, God’s punishment involved a curse. The pain of woman’s childbearing was increased. Men too would experience pain laboring by the sweat of their brow and finding thistles and thorns (see Genesis 3:16-19). The greatest curse, of course, is death: “for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19 ESV).

Paul reflects on the problems sin has caused.

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Romans 8:18–23, ESV)

Creation is personified in this passage, which is also common in the Old Testament. The important thing to note is the creation was subjected to futility, and this subjection to futility has led to a lot of groaning.

Humanity was intended to have dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26), and there is still a sense in which we do. We are stewards of God’s creation. Yet, the point of these passages seems to be this: because humanity rebelled against God, God made the creation “rebel” against humanity. We experience thistles, thorns, and weeds. We experience droughts, storms, and calamities. We can only ponder how different life in the Garden of Eden would have been. But the frustrations, calamities, and the decay of death are our present experiences of this curse.
Because of the death of Christ, God will some day make all things new: “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” (Revelation 21:4 ESV) In hope, we look forward to the reverse of the curse.

Leave a Comment » | curse, heaven, salvation, sin | Permalink
Posted by Russell Holden

Which Bible?

January 10, 2014

“Which Bible should I read?” The question is simple enough, but sometimes people ask the question with a subtext. The subtext goes something like this: there are so many different translations of the Bible, how does God expect me to sort this out? The subtext’s complaint then becomes an excuse for procrastination and inaction.

Informed Christians know that the Old Testament was written for the most part in Hebrew with a small portion in Aramaic, and the New Testament was written in Greek. That means when there are controversies over meaning, the final appeal must be to the original languages. Yet, that does not rule out the importance of translations.

Translating the Bible into various languages has been done since earliest times (for example with the New Testament into Syriac and old Latin), but it received a greater emphasis beginning in the Reformation. Most people are not going to be in the position to learn Greek and Hebrew, yet we have a great interest in knowing what God’s word says.

So what are some good guidelines for choosing a Bible translation?

Choose a translation done by a committee. Committee members serve as checks and balances on one another to prevent a bias from entering the translation. Most major translation have been done by a committee, and most modern ones have had committees composed of a spectrum of Christian groups. That doesn’t mean never read a translation by an individual, and it doesn’t mean that bias can never be found in a committee translation. It rather reflects the safest place to start.
Be informed about translation philosophy. There are two basic approaches to translations: formal equivalence (more word to word) and functional equivalence (more thought to thought). Most translations can be described as formal equivalent or functional equivalent. Most translations will describe their approach in the preface. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. Comparing the two approaches can be valuable. It is important to know which approach you are reading. I find formal equivalence helpful for close study, but when I was a new reader of the Bible, I found the functional equivalence helpful to my fledgling understanding.
You can read more than one and compare. Although most of us will choose a primary translation for reading and study, we live in a world where it is easy to compare translations. Computers and mobile devices make this especially true. I’ve learned a lot through the years comparing the two kinds of translation approaches and different translations. Sometimes differences in translations make no real difference in overall meaning. Sometimes differences reflect possible nuances in the original languages, and sometimes differences alert the reader to problems of interpretation. But having read many different translations of the Bible, my overall impression is that they are all translating the same book. We may find verses where one translation is preferable to another, but the overall, big picture message remains the same.

According to a recent listing from the Christian Booksellers Association, these are the top selling translations by units sold:

New International Version
King James Version
English Standard Version
New King James Version
New Living Translation
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Reina Valera 1960 (if you read Spanish)
New International Readers Version
Common English Bible
New American Standard Bible

Although I would have preferences in this list, the reality is that you could learn how to become a Christian and what you need to be saved from reading any translation on this bestseller list. Just read it!

Leave a Comment » | Bible, Bible reading, Bible study, Bible translations | Permalink
Posted by Russell Holden