Author: Jovan Payes

Formerly a knuckle-head, now an earnest Christian, who is married to his best friend, the father of three, an evangelist of the Gospel, a Star Wars fan, and tries to be an all around nice guy.

Did Paul Hallucinate the Resurrection?

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Corinthians, 2021, Biblical Criticism, Christian Apologetics, Early Christianity, Graduate Work, Jesus Studies, Paul's Letters, Research Papers, Resurrection, Theology1 Comment

[Note: This paper has been published. Go to the end of the article to download the published version.]

The historical bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the foundation of orthodox Christianity. The apostle Paul asserts, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Cor 15:14).[1] One argument skeptics, like former Catholic Priest and Jesus Seminar scholar John Dominic Crossan, use to counter the force of the historical claim of a bodily resurrection of Jesus is to say that the early Christians experienced hallucinations.

I intend to demonstrate the early Christian claim of Jesus appearing bodily after his resurrection­, as reflected in Paul, is the best explanation for the resurrection appearances of the New Testament over Crossan’s hallucination theory.

I first critique the hallucination theory of Crossan for contradicting the bodily resurrection language of the New Testament. Second, I demonstrate how Crossan’s trance mechanism for a hallucination imposes an anachronistic understanding on Paul’s words. Finally, I dispute Crossan’s denial of the falsifiable of the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Early Christians Believed in a Bodily Resurrection

The language of the miracle claim asserts that Jesus resurrected and appeared bodily to his disciples (John 20:27; Luke 24:39). However, a secular worldview primed by naturalism demands an alternative explanation of “what really happened” to Jesus other than a bodily resurrection.[2] The horns of the dilemma were posed by David F. Strauss (1808–1874), “either Jesus was not really dead, or he did not really rise again.”[3] However, all the details of passion-week Friday, such as, scourging, dehydration, crucifixion, etc., make any interpretation Jesus did not die to be “at odds with modern medical knowledge.”[4] The category of hallucination, as an explanation theory, is a popular attempt to claim the disciples hallucinated the bodily appearances of Jesus, and mass hysteria then spread their claim. As Dale C. Allison, Jr., frames it,

it was not the empty tomb that begot the hallucinations but hallucinations that begot the empty tomb.[5]

Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus (T&T Clark, 2005)

The charge is ancient. In the third-century AD, Origen of Alexandria (d. 254) combatted Celsus’ second-century claim that the disciples suffered a “delusion.”[6]

Another pushback against the orthodox view of a bodily resurrection is that it is just a fictional myth that developed over time as a result of a personal hallucination of Paul. To establish this claim, liberal Bible critic Crossan introduces the writings of two early non-Christian historians (Josephus and Tacitus) which he believes limit “what happened both before and after Jesus’s execution.” [7] Crossan argues their religious profiles of the Christian movement lack mention of the resurrection. Additionally, the Gospel of Thomas speaks of the “living Jesus” and the Epistle of Barnabas is void of resurrection talk. Crossan believes this evidence affirms that early Christian faith did not need to believe in a post-mortem appearance of Jesus. He further claims that Paul uses his experience of Jesus appearing to him (1 Cor 15:8) to give him the gravitas to be the equal of all the apostles in a political powerplay.[8]

Crossan’s novel hallucination theory also requires that the present passive indicative verb ōphthē, translated “appeared” in most translations, actually means “revealed.” This would be a culturally conditioned “trance” where Paul experienced an “altered state of consciousness” and used this personal experience to stabilize the infighting in the Corinthian church.[9] Crossan’s theory requires the church to have completely misread Paul’s testimony by taking his personal experience for apostolic orthodoxy. Crossan’s theory offers a “growth-politics” twist to the category of the hallucination theory.

The words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3–11, however, do not support Crossan’s theory. In fact, this passage is a test-case of the united shape of the earliest Christian tradition concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus.[10] The minimal facts theory of apologist Gary R. Habermas provides a firm critical foundation to respond to Crossan. The minimal facts theory is a critical approach that uses “the minimal, best-established facts surrounding the appearances” of Jesus that even Bible critics grant “to determine what really happened after Jesus’ death.”[11] Habermas has established four historical facts.

First, there is very little controversy that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, as even Crossan dates the letter to AD 53–54.[12] Second, Paul’s articulation of the gospel predates him, “I delivered to you… what I also received” (1 Cor 15:3). Here Paul affirms the normative nature of what he is preaching. Third, Paul received this “tradition” anywhere between AD 32–38, less than a decade after the crucifixion.[13] Fourth, this reception of the creed occurred during Paul’s Jerusalem information gathering “visit” (cf. historéō) with Peter and James (Gal 1:18–20) and anchors his tradition to the early Jerusalem church.[14]

Bible critical scholar, A. M. Hunter (1906–1991), argues that Paul claims in this passage “a very early Christian summary” of what the united apostolic voice affirms about the gospel and Jesus resurrection appearances (15:11);[15] namely, “that Christ died for our sins… that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day… and that he appeared” (15:3–5). The bodily death and resurrection appearances of Jesus legitimizes the existence of the Christian faith, for “in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (15:20; cf. 15:6, 14). There is no powerplay. Paul is in fact arguing from within the earliest Christian tradition and meaning of resurrection appearance. This is a substantial point since Crossan’s theory offers a reinterpretation of the early Christian tradition which cannot be sustained internally.

Ultimately, a naturalistic argument forces Crossan’s hand to redefine what is a resurrection and how one experiences it. Resurrection was not, according to N. T. Wright, a generic term for “life after death” but instead “the second stage in a two-stage process of what happens after death: the first stage being nonbodily and the second being a renewed bodily existence… Paul really did believe in the bodily resurrection” (cf. 1 Cor 9:1).[16] It is precisely this firm belief in the bodily resurrection that invalidates Crosson’s theory for Paul, and is in conformity with other the New Testament descriptions of the bodily resurrection appearances of Jesus.[17]

Beyond the evidence of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:3–11 of multiple eyewitnesses there are the public resurrection expectations and appearances in the Gospels; moreover, there are the resurrection creedal statements in the sermons of Acts.[18] It points to a clear unified belief among the earliest Christians that Jesus rose bodily from the dead and appeared in a renewed bodily existence. Bodily existence is the expected concept non-believers were to understand as the Christian view of the resurrection, as Judean Procurator Festus explains to Herod Agrippa II, “a certain Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive” (Acts 25:19; Acts 17:32). The New Testament evidence affirms, then, the early Christian claim that Jesus was a live again.

No Mechanism for Hallucination

As we shall argue, there are no cause for Paul to need a hallucination. Such a theory redefines the unified Christian claim of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Crossan, keenly aware that Paul provides the earliest creedal statement, posits that Paul is the key for all the New Testament internal evidence. For Crossan what really happened is Paul was desperate to have a trance experience of the resurrection. He theorizes the Easter tradition developed over the years into its current boundaries of the canonical New Testament. Crossan offers “apparition–which involves trance” as the alternative dissociated state in which he believes Paul experienced resurrection.[19]

Based on the work by Erika Bourguignon on “dissociational” states, Crossan affirms trance to be “a human universal” that may be a culturally trained and controlled experience by one’s social and religious expectations.[20] Crossan’s reading of Paul’s words is an eisegetical fallacy importing a modern socio-religious model of an “altered state of consciousness” into Paul’s experiences to establish his political equality with the other apostles.[21] Again Crossan claims, “Paul needs… to equate his own experience” with the apostles to establish “its validity and legitimacy but not necessarily its mode or manner.”[22] Crossan’s methodology is problematic on this point.

However, there are three major problems with Crossan’s hallucination theory. First, Crossan imports an anachronistic definition into the use ōphthē in Paul’s words. It should be noted with significance that in the Greek Old Testament ōphthē is used in appearances of God (i.e., theophanies) to Abraham, and clearly to Abraham in bodily form where he ate with the Lord (Gen 18:1).[23] Paul was quite familiar with Genesis as he makes substantial arguments about justification by faith with the stories of Abraham in Galatians and Romans. To posit a modern theory while ignoring this Old Testament tradition of the verb, “he appeared,” ignores the textual evidence. Furthermore, it calls into question the validity of Crossan’s exegetical methodology.

Second, he exchanges his own meaning for Paul’s intended meaning of the verb ōphthē.[24] Crossan’s claim puts the power of the trance in Paul’s hands, but Paul’s verbal word choice indicates the appearance was out of his hands. Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace, reminds in grammatical instances like this, “volition rests wholly with the subject [Jesus], while the dative noun is merely recipient [Paul].”[25] It is Jesus who “appeared.” Paul did not conjure a “revelation” of Jesus.

Third, Crossan’s portrayal of Paul as desperate for apostolic power does not agree with Paul’s own success in Judaism prior to his conversion and call. He writes,

I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely jealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. (Gal 1:13b–14)

Paul had the pedigree of a rising Jewish leader (Phil 3:4–8). There is no explainable mechanism which accounts for exchanging this advancement in Judaism for the trials of following Christ outside of an actual appearance of the resurrected Jesus which he did not initiate in a trance. Paul joins the pre-existing united voice of the apostolic witnesses, other earlier skeptical witnesses (non-believing siblings of Jesus), and the large groups seeing Jesus post-burial. Crossan’s theory do not adequately take these elements into account. Furthermore, Habermas’s minimal facts theory renders his mechanism historically implausible since its critical timetable places Paul as recipient, not creator, of the bodily resurrection confession.

Paul’s Claim was Falsifiable

This conclusion then leads to question of falsifiability. The early Christians claimed a dead man lived again. Writing about twenty years after the resurrection Paul asserts there were many eyewitnesses who could verify or falsify his claim that Jesus rose bodily. Paul wrote, “I delivered to you…what I also received” (1 Cor 15:2) and proceeds to outline six lines of eyewitness testimony evidence: Cephas, the twelve, over five hundred, James, all the apostles, and Paul. The most audacious claim is that Jesus appeared “to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep” (1 Cor 15:6). Paul’s submission invites investigation into the genuineness of the resurrection of Jesus and is essential to Paul’s argument for the validity of the gospel. Paul’s claim to have “seen the Lord” is falsifiable (1 Cor 9:1). Even Crossan understands the surface argument of this passage, and observes, “no Jesus resurrection, no general resurrection; or, no general resurrection, no Jesus resurrection.”[26] He does not however believe it.

Crossan believes that it would be impossible to falsify the traditional empty tomb and resurrection stories. When asked whether “the empty tomb” was historical, Crossan emphatically responds, “No.” Crossan expands,

“I doubt there was any tomb for Jesus in the first place. I don’t think any of Jesus’ followers even knew where he was buried–if he was buried at all.”[27]

John Dominic Crossan in Who is Jesus? Answers to Your Question About the Historical Jesus (Westminster John Knox, 1996)

From Roman sources Crossan argues the Roman expectation for the crucified was the denial of both body and burial.[28] To the point, Crossan says, the “final penalty was to lie unburied as food for carrion birds and beasts [i.e., animals that eat decaying flesh].”[29] Crucifixion meant, then, “death-without-burial” and “body-as-carrion”; consequently, there was little likelihood of Jesus’ body making it off the cross let alone into the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:42; Matt 27:1–61).[30] It would likely take “bribery, mercy, or indifference” to get the Romans to release the body over to a Jew seeking to avoid violating Jewish protocols of burying the hung (Deut 21:22–23).

Such a “hope” would be the exception, for only one contemporary crucified body remains have been found where thousands have been so executed; as such, it “is not history.”[31] This clearly undermines the Gospel tradition of the empty tomb where Jesus had been buried.

Crossan’s historical reconstruction of customary expectations and practices is a strong counterargument against falsification by the presentation of the cadaver of Jesus. If there is no body which survives the cross, there is no body to be buried, and therefore the Christian claim cannot be falsified. However, Crossan cannot historically rule out that Jesus was buried as Mark affirms. He can only suggest burial would be highly unlikely. Crossan’s alternative depends on advancing a legendary basis for the burial of Jesus. Yet, William Lane Craig responds this “would ignore the specific evidence” in Jesus’ case.[32] As established by the “minimal facts” critical theory, the creedal statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5 is very early. Furthermore, this four-line creedal formula affirms crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and then appearance.

The burial of Jesus was essential to the creed and Mark’s reference to it is substantial corroboration. First, the “assured results” of critical scholarship considers Mark the earliest gospel as it is the most “bare bones” narrative of Jesus.[33] Second, the Passion week narrative includes Jesus’ rejection and crucifixion. Third, Mark introduces Jesus’ burial in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb from which he resurrects. Mark retains the burial tradition.[34] Crossan’s methodology is prejudicial because it rules out, beforehand (a priori), the established testimony of the earliest claim of the Christians: Christ was buried, was raised, and he appeared.

Conclusion

This paper affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus over the challenge raised by the hallucination theory developed by Crossan. The language of the New Testament asserts that Jesus resurrected and appeared bodily to his disciples, to unbelievers, and to many others. Crossan claimed that the resurrection from the dead was not a main element of the Christian faith. However, a critical examination of the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3–11 verifies that the primary and earlier Christian creedal tradition which teaches that Jesus arose bodily and appeared. There is no other normative belief in the New Testament than Jesus resurrected from the dead.  

Second, Crossan’s trance mechanism for a hallucination imposes an anachronistic understanding on Paul’s words. The alternative theory offered by Crossan that Paul had a dissociative hallucination-trance experience to gain religious political power is based on seriously flawed exegetical methodology. There is ultimately no proper mechanism for Paul’s conversion to Christianity and his claim of seeing the resurrected Jesus, when he was living a successful Jewish life as a persecutor of the church. Paul’s claim that he saw the Lord resurrected must be taken seriously.

Finally, I asserted the early Christian claim of a bodily resurrection would have been falsifiable by the cadaver of Jesus. Crossan’s claim that Jesus’ body would likely never have survived nor made it to a burial actually is self-defeating because he cannot rule out known exceptions. In Jesus’ case, there were elements to his story that made it possible for Jesus to be taken off the cross and buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. This is in keeping with the earliest Christian claim regarding his burial.

Endnotes

  1. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016).
  2. Gary R. Habermas explains that a naturalist theory for the resurrection draws “from a host of philosophical backgrounds, the basic idea is to suggest an alternative explanation in place of divine causation… ‘Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. What really happened is (fill in the blank).’” Habermas, “The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus’ Resurrection,” Trinity Journal 22 (2001): 180.
  3. David F. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 4th edition, translated by George Eliot (London: Sonnenschein, 1902), 736. The longer form: “a dead man has returned to life, is composed of two such contradictory elements, that whenever it is attempted to maintain the one, the other threatens to disappear. If he has really returned to life, it is natural to conclude that he was not wholly dead; if he was really dead, it is difficult to believe that he has really become living” (735–36).
  4. William Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255.11 (1986): 1436.
  5. Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 204. Allison offers seven categories and sub-categories of resurrection appearance hypotheses each with different psychological catalysts (199–213).
  6. Origen Contra Celsum 2.60: “But Celsus, unwilling to admit any such view, will have it that some dreamed a waking dream, and, under the influence of a perverted imagination, formed to themselves such an image as they desired. Now it is not irrational to believe that a dream may take place while one is asleep; but to suppose a waking vision in the case of those who are not altogether out of their senses, and under the influence of delirium or hypochondria, is incredible. And Celsus, seeing this, called the woman half-mad,— a statement which is not made by the history recording the fact, but from which he took occasion to charge the occurrences with being untrue.”
  7. Josephus Antiquities 18.63; Tacitus Annals 15.44. cf. Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 161–62. Italics added.
  8. Crossan, Jesus, 166.
  9. Ibid., 167; 87–88.
  10. The following four arguments presume the work of Gary R. Habermas, “The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus,” In Defense of Miracles, ed. R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 264.
  11. Habermas, “Resurrection Appearances,” 262.
  12. Possibly later, like 64. Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861–1986, 2nd edition (New York: Oxford University, 1988), 308; Crossan, Jesus, 163.
  13. C. H. Dodd argues that Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem was “not more than seven years after the Crucifixion,” The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (reprint, New York: Harper & Brothers, n.d.), 16.
  14. William R. Farmer, “Peter and Paul and the Tradition Concerning ‘The Lord Supper’ in 1 Cor 11:23–26,” Criswell Theological Review 2.1 (1987): 122–28; Habermas, “Resurrection Appearances,” 265–67.
  15. A. M. Hunter, Jesus: Lord and Saviour (reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 99. John Dominic Crossan argues that Paul went to great pains to validate his own apostleship, yet, it was not the voice but a competing voice among many regarding the importance of the resurrection, Jesus, 159–92.
  16. N. T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan, “The Resurrection: Historical Event or Theological Explanation? A Dialogue,” The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006), 17.
  17. 1 John 1:1–4; John 20:1–21:24; Acts 1:1–3, 2:29–32.
  18. Expectations: Matt 28:8–20; Luke 24:13–52; John 20:10–23, 26–30, 21:1–14; Mark 16:6–7; statements: 1:1–3; 2:23–24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 10:41; 13:30–34; 17:31; 23:6; 24:21; 26:8, 23.
  19. Crossan, Jesus, 160–61. Italics are original.
  20. Ibid., 87–89.
  21. Ibid., 166–67; Acts 9:3–4, 22:6–7, 26:13–14.
  22. Ibid., 169.
  23. Genesis 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 26:2, 24.
  24. The following argument is based on Daniel B. Wallace’s discussion of the dative + the present passive indicative form of ōphthē in the New Testament in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 165, footnote 72; “horáo,” Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Ardnt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 719.
  25. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 165. What Wallace says for Paul applies equally to all listed in 1 Corinthians 15:5–8: Cephas and the twelve, the “more than five-hundred,” and James and the apostles. Crossan, Jesus, 164.
  26. John Dominic Crossan and Richard G. Watts, Who is Jesus? Answers to Your Question About the Historical Jesus (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 122.
  27. Suetonius, Defied Augustus 13.1–2, Tacitus, Annals 6.29.
  28. John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Antisemitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), 160.
  29. Crossan, Who Killed Jesus, 163. In Crossan’s perspective, Joseph of Arimathea is purely a construct of Mark’s imagination; see his discussion on Luke 23:50–54 and John 19:35–42.
  30. Crossan, Who Killed Jesus, 163–68.
  31. Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 208.
  32. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 150.
  33. Strobel, Case for Christ, 209.

Click here to download the published version of this research paper. To subscribe to Sufficient Evidence click here.

Q&A: Does God Hear the Prayer of a Non-Christian?

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Habakkuk, Prayer, Psalms, Questions

I received a question about prayer and the non-Christian. It asks whether God will or can hear the prayer of a non-Christian. I believe it is a question worth exploring. Here are a few of my thoughts on this blessing.

Prayer

In the Hebrew Bible, a common word translated “prayer” is tephillah (76x). It is found in various contexts of prayer, whether it be the act of prayer, a house of prayer, a prayer on behalf of someone else.[1] It is even used in several of the introductory superscriptions of the Psalms, identifying them specifically as the “prayer of…” David (17, 86, 142), Moses (90), of a certain afflicted (102), and of Habakkuk (3:1).

Prayer is certainly a form of communication lifted up to God, and if the psalms are any indication then prayer may be expressed a wide range of emotions and types. There may be laments expressing frustration and faith, the need for help in the middle of confusion and so forth. There is praise for God faithfulness employing God’s previous saving acts, or his creative powers seen in nature, and extol his wisdom and sovereignty. Prayer even channels our anger and sense of injustice, requesting God to avenge his people by bringing judgment upon their enemies.

That is a wide spectrum of human emotions and desires that may be offered to God. It seems to clear to me that prayer can express to God every part of the human experience —and for the Christian, the Holy Spirit communicates those “groanings” which are “too deep for words” (Romans 8:26, 27).

The question at hand, however, is not the extent of things which humans may pray about but whether God hears the prayer of a non-Christian.

What do We Mean by “Hear”?

I am of the opinion that we need to think of what we mean by God “hearing” our prayers. Hearing is a function of the ear, and an ear hears everything but may choose to focus on a specific sound; thus, some sounds are listened to while others are still heard. This limited analogy simply raises the point that “hearing” is a complex matter.

In Isaiah 59:1–2, the Lord’s distance from his rebellious people is made quite clear: 

Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear. (English Standard Version)

This clearly suggests that there may be contexts in which “hearing” is not about ability, but about choice. God can elect to forego answering his people’s requests of intervention when facing the consequences of their sins.

One’s lifestyle can affect whether God takes into consideration their prayer. For example, Christian husbands are warned that their behavior toward their wife may in fact “hinder” their prayers (1 Peter 3:7). The warning is significant: “live with your wives in an understanding way.” The sexual overtones are often unnoticed in English translations, but Scot McKnight highlights this:

The order for Christian husbands is one of being considerate—literally, of “living with one’s wife knowledgeably.” The verb synoikeo (“living together”) was especially used for sexual relations between husband and wife (Deut. 22:13; 24:1; 25:5), and that is no doubt the intended meaning here, though obviously not limited to that. The Christian man, Peter says, is neither demanding nor selfish in his sexual and marital relations; he is instead considerate, sensitive, and serving.

Scot McKnight, 1 Peter NIVAC (Zondervan, 1996)[2]

Many Christian husbands ought to pay attention to this verse, not merely because of its impact on “answered prayers.” It reinforces a biblical truth that how we treat others impacts our relationship with God. Here, Peter tells husbands that an authentic and healthy marital sex life (and more) affects our relationship with God.

Furthermore, it seems that God’s people are warned that mistreatment of the “sojourner” (Heb., gēr) will not go unnoticed. Mistreatment of “the pilgrim” will likewise affect their prayers. These were non-Israelites that were not members of the Mosaic covenant but lived in the land among the Israelites semi-assimilated. In Exodus 22:23–24, when the sojourner, widow, fatherless cries out to God due to their mistreatment by Israel, God will “surely hear their cry” and bring wrath upon his people. This suggests the non-Israelite’s prayers will be heard in response to injustice among God’s people.

This small sample seems to underscore that the behavior of God’s people does and will hinder His willingness to give attention to our prayers; and, it seems that God is concerned about the injustice perpetrated by his people and will hear the cries of those who suffer at their hands. The words of James are quite poignant:

You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. (Jas 4:2–3)

What about the Non-Christian?

It was the opinion of E. G. Sewell (1830–1924) that the

Bible teaches very plainly that neither alien prays nor prayers of members will be heard while the one that prays is willingly violating or refusing God’s requirements.[3]

Questions Answered by Lipscomb and Sewell

By “alien” Sewell means the non-Christian.

Sewell argues that God’s people cannot “expect” to be heard when they “turn” from “hearing” God’s word, but his “eyes” and “ears” are attentive to “the righteous” calls of prayer (Proverbs 28:9; cf. 1 Peter 3:12, Psalm 34:15).

The fundamental principle of prayer is found in 1 John 3:22, “whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.” The argument appears rather strong. After all, the lordship of Jesus, to whom we approach in prayer must be accompanied by “doing” the will of his father (Matthew 7:21).

Thus, Sewell concludes,

No man, in the church or out of it, need expect God to hear and answer his prayer unless he is devoting his heart and life to doing the will of God as revealed in the New Testament.[4]

Questions Answered by Lipscomb and Sewell

When the healed blind man says, “We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him” (John 9:31), he is affirming a general truth about those rebellious souls who are in covenant with God. This is not a statement about all non-Christians.

This perspective is quite sensible, but it does not exclude the non-Christian who is seeking the Lord.

The Case of Cornelius (Acts 10–11)

We need to be very careful to assume what the Bible teaches on prayer. God’s knowledge is infinite, he preemptively knows what we are going to ask of him (Matthew 6:8). But, the quality of our request along with the quality of our relationship with God seems to play into the reception of our prayer (James 4:3).

The case of Cornelius demonstrates that prayer by a devout person may be heard, however.

Luke portrays Cornelius as a “devout” person who “feared God” (Acts 10:2), who developed various expressions of his spiritual development (alms, prayer). On paper, we might say his character alone made his relationship with God impeachable. In fact, God took his prayers into consideration, for the angel said, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God” (10:4b).

David Lipscomb (1831–1917) once said,

When a man believes in God and realizes that he is lost, he cannot help praying. God hears such prayers. There is no sin in such prayers. The danger is in the man relying on such prayers and failing to obey God’s commands in other things. This is the point to be guarded against.[5]

Queries and Answers

I think he is right on point when it comes to evaluating the case of Cornelius. Prayer and devotion only brought Cornelius so far. What is telling from Luke’s account is that he portrays Cornelius as a Gentile who is as close to a Jew as possible, and his character is directly related to his prayers have been acknowledge by God.[6]

What is will no doubt be controversial for many followers of Jesus is the caution against reliance on prayers for conversion experiences as is common in many “Christian” circles. It goes by many names, such as “the Sinner’s prayer. But, as David Platt raises during a discussion on disciple making,

“Should it not concern us that there is no such superstitious prayer in the New Testament?”

David Platt, “Why ‘Accepting Jesus in Your Heart’ is Superstitious & Unbiblical,” VergeNetwork[7]

I believe it should concern us. Luke clearly points out Peter was summoned to Cornelius to tell him things he needed “to hear” (10:22), a “message” through which he would be saved (11:14). In response to the preaching of the gospel, Cornelius and his household were baptized (10:42–48; 11:18). It was this same Peter that affirmed the importance of repentance and baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

For our purpose, to answer if God hears the prayer of a non-Christian, it seems that there is precedent to see that a non-Christian drawing near to God may have his or her prayers heard. So God heard the prayer of Cornelius before his conversion to Christ, and I believe we should be mindful of the many “Corneliuses” that exist today.

Concluding Thoughts

It would seem then that the answer to the question above depends on what we mean by “hear.” In one sense, God hears everything; however, in another sense, God does appear to be selective. We cannot draw up a formula that “a + b = answered prayers,” but it does appear that a person’s character and covenantal relationship with God are major components to prayer.

Scripture more often than not speaks in terms of those who are in covenant with God, and the implications of whether or not God will hear their prayers. Yet, as demonstrated in the case of Cornelius, being an outsider of the covenant does not mean God will ignore the prayers of the “alien sinner” seeking God’s glory and his salvation. The God of the sparrow is faithful to his creation, and for this, we should be thankful (Matt 10:29-31; Luke 12:6-7).

Endnotes

  1. Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 813.
  2. Scot McKnight, 1 Peter, NIVAC (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 186.
  3. David Lipscomb and E. G. Sewell, Questions Answered by Lipscomb and Sewell, ed. M. C. Kurfees (Nashville, TN: McQuiddy, 1921), 494.
  4. Lipscomb and Sewell, Questions Answered, 495.
  5. David Lipscomb, Queries and Answers, ed. J. W. Shepherd (Nashville, TN: McQuiddy, 1910), 341.
  6. C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 1:493.
  7. David Platt, “Why ‘Accepting Jesus In Your Heart’ Is Superstitious & Unbiblical,” VergeNetwork (April 11, 2012).

Prayer and Fasting in the Greek of Didache 8.1-3

On By Jovan PayesIn Didache, Early Christianity, Fasting, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, Greek Grammar, Greek Studies, Patristics, Prayer, Research Papers, Spiritual Formation

In 1873 a manuscript was discovered by Philotheus Bryennios at Constantinople dating from the mid-11th century (AD 1056), though its tradition is believed to be of much earlier origin.[1] Due to certain political problems it was not published for ten years; however, once it began to be studied the Didache became generally known as “being the most important literary discovery in patrology made in the nineteenth century.”[2]

In fact, “the Didache (‘The Teaching’), as it is usually known today, is a ‘handbook,’ or manual of Christian ethical instruction and church order.”[3] It is believed that such instruction was offered to each candidate for church membership prior to baptism.

Although the text maintains a basic “literary unity,” the divergent interests and approaches of the materials strongly suggest, “more than one writer is at work here.”[4] One the one hand, the vocabulary and grammar is not extremely difficult; on the other hand, the theological insights from this early Christian document can become complex, particularly when a reconstructed community is conceptualized.

Exegesis of the Greek Text

8.1 (And) let your fasts not stand with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and on the fifth day of the week, but you fast during the fourth day and during the Sabbath preparation day.[5]

The instruction logically moves from the prior discussion of baptism and the new converts’ requirement of fasting, to a capsulated discussion of fasting and prayer. Draper disagrees, affirming that Didache 8.1-3 is an “interruption to the logical progression of the liturgical section of Didache, in which baptism is followed by the Eucharist.”[6] However, Αἱ δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν begins with the post-positive δὲ, connecting the logical flow between 7.1-4 and 8.1-3, and should not be viewed as adversative nor as an interruption.[7] Instead, it is a necessary discussion in connection with prospective converts.

The fasts (Αἱ + νηστεῖαι) are the first concern of this chapter, and they are particular fasts – they belong to the readers (ὑμῶν) who are preparing for baptism (Did. 7.4). This is the genitive of possession. The fasts that they are to perform must be expressly free from hypocrisy; moreover, this conclusion is drawn from μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, where the author(s) of the Didache prohibit fasting (thus, an imperatival prohibition) that is μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν. This prepositional phrase is very descriptive, for it describes “the company in which an activity or experience takes place”; hence, the readers must refrain from joining the group of “hypocrites” (whoever they may be) when they fast.[8]

The prohibition against joining the hypocrites is given specificity by the post-positive γὰρ where it functions as a guide to understanding how to refrain from joining the company of hypocrites when fasting and praying. There seems to be more to the usage of γὰρ than at first glance. If it were simply a matter of explaining that the hypocrites fast on certain days of the week then this conjunction is unnecessary; however, it makes more sense that it takes on a “guide-to-an-ethical-methodology” based upon a cause for the instruction, even if it is too focused upon externals (i.e. specific days of the week).[9] It leads the potential converts to a methodology that allows them to avoid fasting which “coincides with those of the hypocrites” – μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν (Did. 8.1).[10] In order to express this ethical instruction, Robert Kraft renders the section, “do not let your fasts fall on the same day as ‘the hypocrites.’”[11]

The teacher(s) explain how these prospective converts can avert fasting in the same company as the hypocrites, by explaining that the hypocrites in question fast (νηστεύουσι; present of fact) on δευτέρα σαββάτων καὶ πέμπτῃ.[12] There is considerable discussion regarding who these hypocrites are. On the one hand, most see this as a reference to Pharisees because of the parallel instruction of Jesus in Matt 6:16-18; meanwhile, on the other hand, it is viewed as a reference to Christian Jews who are still partial to the pharisaical traditions.[13]

Aaron Milavec spends considerable time evaluating the evidence for the former, and argues heavily that Matthew and the Didache use the term hypocrisy differently and there is no solid evidence within rabbinic sources that the Pharisees distinguished themselves by fasting.[14] Furthermore, “when Did. 8.1 is compared with Matthew, one quickly detects that the Didache has an agenda and an internal logic quite distinct from that of Matthew’s Gospel.”[15] Be that as it may, from a grammatical and linguistic approach it is inconsequential. The fact of the matter is, the hypocrites fast on δευτέρα σαββάτων καὶ πέμπτῃ, and it is these days that are to be avoided by the soon-to-be-baptized-reader. These days are the second (δεύτερος)[16] and the fifth (πέμπτος)[17] days of the week (σάββατον[18]).

The reader learning which days to avoid is then given a glance into the future (cf. future tense of νηστεύσατε), where they see the days of the week they are going to designate for fasting (τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν). This idiom for days of the week has been also clarified by Kraft as “Wednesday and Friday,”[19] but such is unnecessary. Consequently, Milavec’s translation is preferred. The post-positive δὲ is adversative, moving away from the days “the hypocrites” occupy for fasting, the δὲ functions to enhance the reader’s understanding that they are to take on the new ethic imposed by the future, but imperative in force, νηστεύσατε (you will fast).

8.2a (And) do not pray as the hypocrites but as the Lord ordered in his good news.

As is characteristic of the imperative, the verb assumes its own subject, being the person(s) who are either to do the express action of the verb, or if negated avoid the action of the verb. Here, there is another negated imperative (μηδὲ προσεύχεσθε) “you are not to pray […]”; however, the idea is incomplete because syntactically it is connected to ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί “just as the hypocrites.” The idea of “praying” is supplemented by the phrase “just as the hypocrites”; hence, it can be argued that οἱ ὑποκριταί is functioning in an adverbial capacity to μηδὲ προσεύχεσθε. It goes without saying that praying is not what is being denied; instead, and more to the point, it is the type of praying characteristic of the hypocrites which is being denied.

“The hypocrites” almost serve as a biblical caricature of examples of how not to commune with God as a public servant of God (Matt 6:5-7). “The hypocrites” almost serve as a biblical caricature of examples of how not to commune with God as a public servant of God (Matt 6:5-7). Little wonder, that the author(s) contrast this how the prospective converts are not to pray, with a citation to the Gospel of the Lord (ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ).

This is perhaps the strongest argument that the Pharisees are seen as being equivalent to “the hypocrites”; however, there is no need to be literal since even the name Pharisee can be used figuratively for hypocrites. Be that as it may, the context of the Lord’s admonitions regarding prayer, as particular in Matthew, which has the high verbal agreement with Did. 8.2, has made Pharisee and hypocrite equivalent terms. The main rationale for the Lord’s condemnation is that they make public displays of religious devotion “to be seen by men” (Matt 6:5).

The contrasting ἀλλ’ emphasizes the transition from what not to do, towards the recommended orthodoxy, which is based upon an authoritative tradition. The ground for the moral instruction on prayer is what the Lord commands: ὡς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ. This translates, “as the Lord commanded in his Gospel [or gospel message, good news]”; commanded, ἐκέλευσεν (+ dative), stresses the fact that Jesus himself required the fundamental aspects of proper prayer in his teaching ministry.[20] It is not just theoretical, the instruction may be found in the Lord’s Gospel (or gospel message, good news).

The phrase ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ, within itself does not demand that the command is dependent upon a written source especially since it has its divergences.[21] In fact, several scholars believe the following prayer is, though having strong parallels with Matthew 6:9-13,[22] an independent tradition and may have been relied upon by Matthew.[23]

8.2b Pray thus: Our Father, the one in heaven, your name be made holy, you kingdom come, your will be born upon earth as in heaven,

The phrase οὕτω προσεύχεσθε is the resulting imperative calling attention to the reader that they are to “offer prayers” in a certain fashion. The fashion is very closely paralleled with Matthew; however, as Lake discusses there are four divergences between Matthew and the Didache: τῷ οὐρανῷ, τὴν ὀφειλὴν, ἀφίεμεν, and the doxology ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.[24] It takes the totality of Did. 8.1-3 for Lake to affirm:

These three sections, on fasting, on prayer, on the Lord’s Prayer, cannot be separated from each other. They point at least to similar local conditions; but the two former rather weaken the probability that the Lord’s Prayer is a direct quotation from our Matthew.[25]

Kirsopp Lake, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (1905)

What these differences between Matthew and the Didache suggest is, according to Lake, is nothing too substantive, they simply point to a more complex study of dependency. On this issue Milavec’s investigation on this particularly complex issue led him to conclude that there is no necessary proof that one borrowed from the other.[26] Similarly, according to Lake, these differences between Matthew and the Didache point to a broader sense of dependency (i.e., oral, proverbial) since vocabulary similarities and divergences, and the omission of similar Matthean tensions are absent, and so “the proverbial character of the saying reduces the weight which must be attached to verbal similarity.”[27]

The prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ functions as an adjective to ὁ “the one,” suggesting a prepositional phrase functioning in the attributive position; hence, just as ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ καλός translates “the good angel” or “the angel, namely the good one” the opening part of this prayer is attributive in structure: “Our Father [vocative Πάτερ], the one, namely in heaven.” The prayer Did. 8.2b.3 parallels the aorist imperative verbals of Matthew 6:9c-10:

Didache 8.2Matthew 6:9c-10Translation (AT)
ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σουἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σουyour name be sanctified
ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σουἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σουlet your kingdom arrive, 
γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σουγενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σουyour desire come to pass,
ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆςὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆςas in heaven so also on earth
Chart: Textual Parallels

The verbal parallels are striking. However, the usage of this tradition is different in its scope when compared to Matthew’s purpose of this prayer. The Didache has more of a liturgical and ceremonial baptismal preparations, emphasizing the specific wording of the prayer. Jesus, on the others hand, encouraged a well-balanced spiritual and personal prayer life anchored in intimacy with God rather than public fanfare (Matt 6:5-6).[28]

From the perspective of Matthew’s Gospel, the three sets of imperatival verbs are particularly interesting, each bearing a unique concept.[29] Following Jack P. Lewis’ observation, it is clear that the first is clearly a benediction of God greatness (ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου), the second, stresses a recognition of God’s sovereignty (ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου), and the third, accepts God’s will in any area it is to be accomplished (γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου). It is difficult, therefore, not to impose Matthew’s contextual message upon the Didache; however, because there is a liturgical purpose for this prayer, it does stand in contradistinction to Matthew’s use.

Principally, observe that while Matthew stresses a spiritually fresh prayer life and expression (Matt 6:5-8), as opposed to endless repetitions of words (6:7-8), the Didache actually encourages repetition (Did. 8.3). Draper argues extensively that the community responsible for the final form of the Didache emphasizes external matters of purity for the purpose of maintaining public purity. Draper writes, “the instructions provide for Christian behaviour [sic] in the crucial and public areas of fasting and prayer which would differentiate them from their opponents.”[30]

8.2c give us this day our loaf that is coming, and forgive us our debt at the final judgment as we likewise now forgive our debtors,

In the analysis of this particular section of the Didache prayer, it is noticeable that there are two changes from the Matthew prayer of the Lord. Following the research of Milavec, the theological scope and worldview changes possibly towards a more focused eschatological perspective.[31] It is significant that the verbs in the petitions of the Didache prayer are all aorist imperatives, even the ones paralleled to Matthew (paralleled: ἁγιασθήτω, ἐλθέτω, γενηθήτω, δὸς, ἄφες, ῥῦσαι, and one divergent form ἀφήκαμεν). Milavec makes an eschatological argument, and suggests that all the aorist imperatives suggesting a one-time future action on the part of God must be eschatological in scope.[32]

Consequently, images such as bread (τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν) and eating are metonymy for a banquet in the kingdom (Luke 6:21, 14:15, 22:29-30; Matt 8:11; Rev 7:16).[33] Forgiveness within and for the Christian community is, in the Didache prayer, a future promise rather than a present reality and will be judged as a single action.[34] The pressing matter, however, is not to prove or disprove if the Matthew prayer reflects similar nuances in its eschatology. It is enough to understand that the Didache community was firmly aware of their eschatological worldview. 

8.2d-3 and do not lead us into the trial of the last days but deliver us from that evil because your is power and the glory forever. [8.3] Three times within the day pray thus.

This is the final appeal in the aorist construction; however, in this case, the Didache prayer appears to digress from Milavec’s thesis regarding the aorist imperative stressing an eschatological outlook. Specifically, εἰσενέγκῃς is a subjunctive. The distinction within itself does not rule out the larger eschatological implications raised by Milavec, especially since ῥῦσαι, “you are to deliver,” is an aorist imperative verb. Milavec approaches the phrase, καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, and argues that since all the other Aorist Imperatives demand a one time eschatological fulfillment, then it follows this aorist subjunctive still finds resolution in the over arching argument.[35]

The contrastive ἀλλὰ blusters Milavec’s argument since what is really being pleaded for is deliverance from evil (ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ), not the pastoral hand of God shepherding his children from πειρασμόν (trials). However, what Milavec finds as evidence for a tribulation, can be potentially argued for as praying with an eschatological worldview, where these Aorist Imperatives – since they are timeless – may view the person’s life until the eschatological end.[36]

One of the unique parts of this section of the Didache 8.2 is the doxology, which is its major divergence from the Matthean prayer. As Kirsopp Lake stingingly remarks:

The peculiar form of the doxology does not agree exactly with any of the forms known to occur in the authorities for the text of Matthew.

Kirsopp Lake, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (1905)[37]

This has been the continued opinion of the editors of the eclectic Greek Testament texts that the Matthean prayer ends with πονηροῦ. Bruce Metzger observes that the major textual witnesses are late which include the doxology (9th century), the major textual witnesses which omit the doxology are early, and the witnesses which include it are not uniform and appear to be intentional expansion of the prayer when reappropriated for external liturgical use (as in The Didache, etc.).[38] Thus, the association of this doxology with Matthew’s prayer is ancient but it does not have the textual support to be included in the body of the prayer (contra the KJV and Received Text traditions for Matthew 6:13b).

At any rate, the shift given by ὅτι in a very practical sense closes the petitions offered by the potential convert, who acknowledges that “the power and glory belong” to the Father “into the depths of eternal.” The author(s) of the Didache return to their orthodox imperatival thrust: “You will pray like this three times a day.” The present imperative προσεύχεσθε returns the instructive balance to this section of the Didache which continues its “catechism” training for the one interested in joining the Christian community associated with this manual.

Conclusion

In summation, the Didache is a profound find in the field of Patristic Studies, providing insights into the community or communities to which it addressed. The syntax and vocabulary is not at all particularly difficult, it appears to be written at a very basic level.

The section examined demonstrated that there was a strong desire for the early Christians to visibly and practically be separate from any public association with hypocrites. Not even the days of the potential convert could or should coincide with the days which hypocrites fast upon. The references and citations of traditions found within the New Testament (quotations probable but not always necessary), coupled with the possible “new slant” contextualized by the author(s), brings a theological complexity that must be sifted and sorted out before a proper exegesis of the sections can be accomplished.

Endnotes

  1. Dates have ranged from AD 70, late second century, and even the third century; however, Kraft suggests that a secure date is the sometime within the fourth century somewhere near Egypt (Robert A. Kraft, “Didache” ABD 2:197).
  2. Francis X. Glimm, “The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” The Fathers of the Church, ed. R. Joseph Deferrari (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of American Press, 1969), 167-68.
  3. Michael W. Holmes, “Didache” DLNT 300.
  4. Clayton N. Jefford, Kenneth J. Harder, and Louis D. Amezaga, Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 35.
  5. The translation in the headings is taken from Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. (New York: Newman, 2003). Other translations will be noted. All uncredited translations are my own (AT).
  6. Jonathan A. Draper, “Christian Self-Definition Against the ‘Hypocrites’ in Didache 8,” Society of Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992), 364.
  7. The primary Greek text used for this study is from Michael Holmes, ed., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), and Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, LCL (London: Heinemann, 1919).
  8. BDAG 637.
  9. BDAG 189.
  10. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 259.
  11. Kraft, “Barnabas and the Didache,” 165.
  12. Kraft translates this expression as: “Monday and Thursday” (“Barnabas and the Didache,” 165), but we follow Milavec’s lead due to his literalness. Kraft’s translation does bring this idiom into modern parlance. It is preferable to leave it as is (Milavec), since it can be understood apart from accommodation to modern convention similarly done in the New Testament (Matt 28:1-2; Mark 16:1-3; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16.1-2).
  13. Glimm, “The Didache,” 177.
  14. Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 301-03.
  15. Milavec, 302.
  16. Did. 2.1 uses a similar expression, “the second commandment of the teaching is […]” (Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 252); that is, this is the second of a series of commandments.
  17. Moulton and Milligan provide an example of this sequential use: “showing the housing conditions of the time, we may cite P Fay 3115 (c. a.d. 129) where a woman applies to the keepers of the archives at Arsinoe for leave to alienate πέμπτον μέρος, “the fifth part” of certain house property belonging to her” (MM 502).
  18. BDAG lists both the singular and plural forms of σάββατον referring to a period of seven days, and any numeral connected to it represent that particular day of the week (910).
  19. Kraft, “Barnabas and the Didache,” 165.
  20. MM (340) lists the aorist active indicative κελεύω + the dative construction rare and list one New Testament example from the Received Greek Text and the King James Version of Matthew 15:35 (κελεύω + dative), whereas, the UBS4 reads παραγγείλας. The sense of urging to the point of a command is reasonable in such cases.
  21. Kirsopp Lake, “Didache,” in The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1905), 28-29. As will be developed in this paper, Lake observes a noticeable dependence of Did. 8 on Matthew 6 along with variations.
  22. Glimm points out that Matthew 6:9-13 and the Did. 8.2 agree against the parallel passage in Luke 11:2-4 (“The Didache,” 178).
  23. Draper, “Christian Self-Definition,” 632. Milavec has argued convincingly that despite their similarities, they are not enough when considering the influence of orality within the early church; furthermore, the divergences of theological emphases between Matthew and Didache argue against dependence (The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 694-739).
  24. Lake, “Didache,” 29.
  25. Lake, “Didache,” 29.
  26. Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 695-739.
  27. Lake, “Didache,” 27.
  28. Jack P. Lewis, The Gospel According to Matthew (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 2:101.
  29. Lewis, Matthew, 2:101-02.
  30. Draper, “Christian Self-Definition,” 374.
  31. Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2003), 66.
  32. Milavec, The Didache: Text, 65.
  33. Milavec, 66.
  34. Milavec, 66.
  35. Milavec, 66.
  36. Milavec, 66.
  37. Lake, “Didache,” 29.
  38. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001), 13-14.

Selected Bibliography

(BDAG) Bauer, Walter, F. W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Draper, Jonathan A. “Christian Self-Definition Against the ‘Hypocrites’ in Didache 8.” Society of Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers 31. Edited by Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992.

Glimm, Francis X. Translator. “The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” Pages 165-84 in vol. 1 of The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Edited by R. Joseph Deferrari. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1969.

Holmes, Michael W. Editor. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Revised edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004.

_____. “Didache, The.” Pages 300-02 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Development. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997.

Jefford, Clayton N., Kenneth J. Harder, and Louis D. Amezaga. Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003.

Kraft, Robert A. “Barnabas and the Didache.” In vol. 3 of The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary. Edited by Robert M. Grant. New York: Nelson, 1965.

_____. “Didache.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 2. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Lake, Kirsopp. The Apostolic Fathers. Vol. 1. LCL. Edited by E. Capps, T. E. Page, and W. H. D. Rouse. London: Heinemann, 1919.

_____. “Didache.” Pages 24-36 in The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. Oxford: Clarendon, 1905.

Lewis, Jack P. The Gospel According to Matthew. Vol. 1. LWCNT 2. Edited by Everett Ferguson. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2d edition. Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001.

Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: Newman, 2003.

_____. The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary. Collegeville: Liturgical, 2003.

(MM) Moulton, James H., and George Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. 1930. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

(UBS4) Aland, Barbara, et al. Editors. Greek New Testament. 4th revised edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001.

Are Miracles Possible?

On By Jovan PayesIn Biola University, Christian Apologetics, Christology, Early Christianity, Essays, Miracles, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Popular Essays, Resurrection, Talbot School of Theology, Theology2 Comments

The question of whether miracles are impossible strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. Its viability hangs on one significant miracle: the resurrection of Jesus. Paul argued,

 if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. (1 Cor 15:14 ESV)

If the bodily resurrection never happened, because it is impossible, then the traditional Christian faith is catastrophically and irreparably compromised. In response, I will first argue there is evidence for a creator-God necessary for miracles to occur, then demonstrate that anomalies (like miracles) require intelligent causation. Finally, I will look at the resurrection as a case study.

The Creator-God

The evidence for the existence of God is cumulative in nature. This means there is a body of positive evidence combined to support the case that the universe is created by a personal Creator-God. Furthermore, God as creator is separate, or outside, of this creation. This Creator-creation relationship would allow, then, for the possibility of miracles:

if God exists then miracles are possible.[1]

Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
When Skeptics Ask, rev. ed. (Baker, 2013)

Natural theology affirms that the created world is host to evidence positively supporting God’s existence and justifying belief in him. There are four broad categories of arguments from natural theology:[2]

  • Cosmological (argument from causality, from effect to cause),
  • Teleological (argument from fine-tuned and intelligence-laden design),
  • Moral (argument from the objective value of morality and ethics), and
  • Ontological arguments (argument of a necessary uncaused Being).

These arguments represent a preponderance of the evidence that justifies belief in a personal ethical Creator-God.

A strong case can be made for the existence of God with the Kalam cosmological argument.[3] The first premise may be stated as “the universe had a beginning.” The evidence from the second law of thermodynamics affirms that the universe is experiencing entropy, a running out of useable energy. This points to the finite nature of the cosmos and points to a beginning when the universe was “fully charged.” The second premise affirms, “the universe was caused to exist.” What caused it to exist? Or had it come into being out of nothing? The evidence from nature (natural theology) points to a powerful (creation), ethical (morality), and intelligent designer (DNA) which brought these phenomena into existence. The reasonable conclusion is that a supernatural being created the universe into existence, this is God.

Not all Causes are Naturally Recurring

In response to the above supernatural claim, proponents of a naturalistic worldview argue that the existence of miracles would render the scientific method impossible to practice. This is only an assumption because there are different kinds of scientific ways of understanding causation, for not all causes are natural. A difference must be made between “operational science” which studies “regular patterns in the present from which predictions can be made,” and “forensic science” which studies “past singularities.”[4] The study of photosynthesis which takes into account how sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water, are converted into food by plants (operational science) would be conducted differently than a study of a singularity like the creation of the Mt. Rushmore monument (forensic science).

Miracles would no more disrupt operational science than would the reshaping of a naturally formed mountainside into a monument bust relief at Mt. Rushmore, or the carved-out ruins of Petra Pella. The use of intelligence and power offers a different source for causation than the naturally regular patterns in the world. The question remains how to decipher in what way miracles interact with the regular patterns of nature (disrupt, break, suspend). This difficulty of understanding anomalies like miracles or “the Big Bang” is not proof that such anomalies are incompatible with known scientific theory. It suggests we still have much to learn.

The Resurrection

A religion that is consistent with the picture of God derived from natural theology should have evidence of supernatural activity (historical reliability, fulfilled prophecy, etc.).[5] As noted already, the central figure of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, is presented in the historical setting of first-century Palestine, in which his teaching ministry is substantially interwoven with supernatural activity (healings, exorcisms, telepathic and empathic actions). The most significant miracle is his post-mortem bodily resurrection from the dead following his execution by means of crucifixion. Is this just legendary material that has been added, or are these ancient documents reliable eyewitness testimony to the most important miraculous event of human history?

The study of the historical reliability of the New Testament demonstrates that it has the strongest transmission history of any work from antiquity. It has preserved the eyewitness testimony of its authors who acknowledge the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. (1 Cor 15:1–11 ESV)

Their ancient words have been preserved in over 5,000 Greek manuscripts.[6] These documents contain doctrinal traditions which include the Divine Lordship of Jesus, his bodily resurrection, and his miracles, so early (within less than a decade of the actual events) that there is no room for legends to displace Christianity’s core historical truths.[7]

The question “did Jesus rise from the dead?” must then be taken seriously. The death of Jesus is one of the surest known historical facts of Christianity.[8] Despite many attempts to theorize that he successfully survived the crucifixion, the medical evaluation[9] of the historical descriptions of his wounds points out that he was a “dead man” before the spear was thrust through his side (John 19:34). The belief that Jesus appeared bodily to his disciples after his execution is another known fact of Christianity, which transformed his disciples and converted unbelievers (e.g., James). The early disciples shared their witness that Jesus was raised from the dead by the power of God, many of them dying for their claim that they saw Jesus bodily raised.

Conclusion

The short version of this brief essay’s argument is, “if God exists, then the supernatural anomaly of the miraculous bodily resurrection of Jesus, as historically reported in the New Testament, is possible.” The possibility of the miraculous is, therefore, quite reasonable.

Endnotes

  1. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 71.
  2. Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 9–19.
  3. James P. Moreland, “Transcript: Arguments for the Existence of God” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.); Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 10.
  4. Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 74–77.
  5. James P. Moreland, “Transcript.”
  6. Geisler and Brooks, 101–05; Joe Hellerman, “Handout: Defending the Gospel Accounts of Jesus” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d).
  7. Lee Strobel, “Handout: The Case for Faith” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
  8. Known historical facts of Christianity are taken from Craig Hazen, “Handout: Evidence for the Resurrection” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
  9. William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255.11 (March 1986): 1462.

Must I “Hate” my Family for Jesus (Luke 14:26)?

On By Jovan PayesIn Christology, Essays, Gospel Studies, Jesus Studies, Luke, New Testament, Popular Essays, Theology

There are always those who jump at any opportunity to disparage the character of the Son of God. They pursue any apparent inconsistency and press it beyond anything resembling its biblical and original intent.

Such is the case with Jesus’s words in Luke 14:26. The passage reads:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26 ESV; emph. added)

An antagonistic critic of Jesus declared that these words makes Jesus a “cult leader” bent of intimidating his followers.

At first glance, the words are troublesome and it would be disingenuous to deny that the passage is disturbing. Nevertheless, the problem is skin deep, and is part of a larger flow of thought in which the Lord emphasizes the principle of focused commitment (Luke 14:28–32).

I will unpack this in two basic steps. First, I look at the context of the passage in the Gospel of Luke to see its big picture theme. Second, I show the term translated “hate” (miséō) has a broad spectrum of meaning and reflects a cultural hyperbolic expression of preference.

A Look at Context

In order to appreciate any passage of Scripture its context must be understood. No single verse reveals everything the Bible has to say on a given subject. It is easy to misunderstand a verse when read without getting a handle of the big picture of the passage.

The “big picture” gives us a proper perspective. This saying is found in the context of a dinner party that Jesus attended at the house of “a ruler of the Pharisees” (Luke 14:1). It is part of Jesus’ pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51) where he anticipates his rejection and crucifixion (Luke 9:21–22, 43b–45; 18:31–34).

It would be expected for the traveling rabbi to offer wisdom and instruction. The teaching done at dinner takes up a major part of this journey narrative (14:1–17:10) and provides some of Jesus’ strongest teaching on proper use of one’s life and material blessings for the good of others as members of God’s kingdom (search for the lost sheep, the lost coin; receive the wasteful son; live prudently; live generously, etc.).

Earlier in the dinner scene, inspired by a man with dropsy, Jesus initiated a discussion about the legality of healing on the Sabbath (14:2). Since the Bible experts (i.e., lawyers) and Pharisees “remained silent” Jesus went forward and healed the man (14:4). Jesus then pressed them with a question on compassion:

Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out? (Luke 14:5)

Since there was continued silence (“they could not reply to these things”, 14:6), Jesus posed a series of parables to them.

The Parables. Jesus told the parable of honorable seats to the guests that searched for prominent seats at the dinner party to rebuke their sense of self-importance (Luke 14:7–11). He then pressed his host to welcome those who could not repay him, trusting in repayment “at the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:12–14). This led to the parable of “a great banquet” to which many were “invited,” but these made excuses for why they could not attend. So, “the poor and crippled and blind and lame” were invited to enjoy this banquet instead (Luke 14:15–24).

Clearly, Jesus challenged the hypocrisy of his host and fellow guests as they “dined” while surrounded by the crippled and the poor without so much of a concern for their needs. The rhetorical tool of the parable provided an image-rich narrative designed to teach a spiritual truth in an understandable and comparative way. In this way, he shows that grace of the kingdom of God is not for some future age (Luke 14:15) but an ethic to be practiced in the now.

The host’s table was supposed to be the theater of God’s kingdom. In the end, all they could do was grumble because Jesus ate with sinners (Luke 15:1–2).

The Kingdom of Commitment. The themes of the parables Jesus teaches are initially focused on a disparity between the high society of the Pharisees and scribes with those disenfranchised Jews seeking and needing the grace found in the kingdom of God. The main problem was misplaced loyalties manifested in a dereliction of responsibility.

God seeks those who will hear his invitation to relationship. This parable anticipates the rejection of God on the part of the Jews who delivered Jesus to Pilate, and the global outreach to the gentile world with the Gospel invitation. In connection with this parable, Jesus lays out four “loyalty arguments” (14:26–32):

  1. One must “bear his own cross” and follow him. This phrase foreshadows Jesus’ commitment to God’s redemptive plan to the point of his own execution on a cross. His followers are called to the same level of commitment in the choices they make (14:27).
  2. To build a structure one must first “count the cost” to complete the construction. This statement is parabolic, if not proverbial, illustrating thoughtfulness in commitment. What will following Jesus demand of me? What will be the tradeoffs to commit to the kingdom of God (14:28–30)?
  3. Before entering war one must “sit down first and deliberate.” What are my strength or weakness? Should I act towards war or peace? Jesus illustrates that decisive decisions are based on the awareness of things as they are (14:31–32).
  4. Jesus bookends his sayings with strong words of full total commitment. Jesus speaks of “hating” the closest of human connections (14:26), and “renouncing all” for him (14:33).

Jesus was rebuking the conduct of the Pharisees and scribes at the dinner. They showed no loyalty, commitment, or deliberate reflection to follow through in their service to God, only excuses and self-righteous pretensions. Jesus calls this failure out through hyperbole, an obvious and intentional exaggeration.

Hyperbolic Exaggeration

Jesus, in this setting, is speaking hyperbolically. He was using a common feature that overlaps with our own: exaggeration. Today might say to a long lost friend, “I haven’t seen you in a thousand years!” Or, we may even claim, “I’m so hungry I can eat a horse.” They are not literal statements. Hyperbole is, according to Elena Pasarello, a “grasping beyond what is necessary in order to describe a certain feeling, an experience, or response.”[1] We often forget Jesus speaks with similar conventions and this failure affects how we read Jesus’ words.

Clearly “to hate” is a verb with strong overtones. But whose overtones should we be concerned about? Ours, or that of the ancient setting in which Jesus spoke?

First, the hostile environment provides the right background for the use of hyperbole. Our expectations of hate includes with it ideas of “intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury” or “to feel extreme enmity toward: to regard with active hostility” affect our reading of this text (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). This is not what Jesus had in mind.

In Luke 14:26, the verb miséō is translated “hate” in nearly every major English Bible translation. Greek dictionaries also agree that it corresponds to a spectrum of meaning such as hate, despise, disregard and “be indifferent to” (Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13).[2] Context, however, determines how the term should be translated. In the hostile dinner setting Jesus seeking to awaken the dinner party to their hypocrisy, their indifference to the poor and the outsider. God’s people must be woken up.

Second, Jesus is on record elsewhere in Luke that God’s people should treat their enemies with love. Earlier in Luke 6 Jesus teaches the following:

I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you... 32 If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them... 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:27–28, 32, 35–36)

Jesus teaches that God’s people should show a love that is kind toward those who hate them. Whatever miséō means in Luke 14:26 it must be read consistently with Jesus’ other teachings.

Third, Jesus knew, observed and defended the command to “honor your mother and father.” In one of his final encounters on his journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51–19:44), Jesus reminds the rich young ruler of this command (Luke 18:20; cf. Matt 19:19: Mark 7:10, 10:19). In Matthew 15:1–20, Jesus defends this command against the subversive traditions and tactics of the Pharisees and scribes:

“And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. (Matt 15:3–6)

Jesus is calling out the hypocrisy of the traditions of Pharisees and scribes, the very same guild of biblical scholars he is addressing in Luke 14. The non-exaggerated teaching of Jesus legitimately forces us to read Luke 14:26 in a different way. Jesus honored the commandments.

Fourth, parallel sayings of Jesus provide additional clarification evidence. In Matthew 10:37 Jesus provides another lens to understand “hate” in terms of “preference” or deep loyalty:

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:37)

To the Jew this was a very common way to express that one’s loyalty to God was to surpass any human bonds of loyalty.

Another example is found in Matthew 6:24, which highlights a cultural way of expressing ideas of “preference” or “indifference”:

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despite the other. You cannot serve God and money. (Matthew 6:24 ESV)

This probably explains why the Good News Translation (1992) renders Luke 14:26:

Those who come to me cannot be my disciples unless they love me more than they love father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and themselves as well. (emph. added)

While this is certainly the meaning of Jesus words, the softening of the language robs us of a significant fact. Jesus found value in targeted exaggerations to make a point.

Fifth, the ides of love and preference, or hatred and indifference are also seen in the Old Testament. For example, Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (Gen 29:30), yet this preference is also stated as “Leah was hated” (Gen. 29.31).

Paul illustrates his affirmation of the justness of God to elect whom he wishes by his election of Jacob over Esau. Jacob elected/preferred over Esau based upon God’s sovereignty (Mal 1:2–3; Rom 9:10–13).

10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 

Finally, in the culture of Jesus notions such as interest, disregard, and indifference are often expressed in terms of “love” and “hate” which do have very limited translations.[3]

On this point, consider the following observation:

[T]he Orientals [Eastern culture], in accordance with their greater excitability, are wont both to feel and to profess love and hate where we Occidentals [Westerners], with our cooler temperament, feel and express nothing more than interest in, or disregard and indifference to a thing.

Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1896)[4]

Scholar G. B. Caird observed similarly:

To hate father and mother did not mean on the lips of Jesus what it conveys to the Western reader (cf. Mark 7:9–13). The semitic mind is comfortable only with extremes –light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate– primary colours [sic] with no half-shades of compromise in between.

G. B. Caird, The Gospel of Saint Luke (1963)[5]

Jesus is speaking in an exaggerated hyperbolic fashion to give some shock value to illustrate the kind of deep preferential conviction God’s people must have.

Conclusion

The big picture context of Luke 14:26 demonstrates that Jesus is in the middle of a series of instructive parables focused on proper discipleship in the kingdom of God. They are directed to the host, the guests, and the crowds that joined them. When Jesus speaks to the crowds he outlines the deliberative nature of would-be disciples and should be disciples. These are non-negotiable matters.

The idea of “hate” (miséō) as a cultural hyperbolic expression provides a proper understanding to Jesus’ meaning. Jesus did not violate the mosaic law to honor one’s parents, but he lived it and defended against any corruption by false piety. Instead, Jesus spoke in his own cultural semitic vernacular.

In the final analysis, misguided assaults on the character of Jesus backfire. This should also remind God’s people to take the time to examine the passage adequately.

Endnotes

  1. Elena Pasarello, “What is Hyperbole?” Oregon State University.
  2. Barclay M. Newman, A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, rev. ed. (2010; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014), 119.
  3. BDAG 652.
  4. Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1896; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 415.
  5. G. B. Caird, The Gospel of Saint Luke, Pelican New Testament Commentaries, ed. D. E. Nineham (1963; repr., Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1974),178.

Tips for the Wise: Reading Proverbs

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Bulletin, Old Testament, Popular Essays, Proverbs, Wisdom Literature

Communication requires a certain sensibility to understand what is being said, written, or acted. A McDonalds menu communicates certain that “edible” products are available for a certain price, but the sentiment is very different from a romantic poetic Valentine’s Day card. A bank statement certainly tells a story, but does it use the same language and method as horror movie? For some it just might! These communicate to their readers but they do so with quite different expectations in mind. In fact, communication depends on certain expectations set by its author and the setting (context) it is offered.

The Bible presents a unique challenge because it is a library of several genres of communication written to people in a variety of context. Modern readers of the Bible should be aware that they are reading an ancient book with ancient models of communication. It becomes an imperative for the modern reader to respect the various genres of Scripture as intended by God and his chosen prophets.

A type of literature that is both popular but also easily misread is Hebrew wisdom. This type of literature is should not be taken as hard promises from God. I would like to explain why and offer a few suggestions to help God’s people read this section of scripture better.

The Importance of Genre

It is important to recognize that Old Testament books must be analyzed with respect. Conscientious Bible students recognize this. Respect must be rendered to the text not only due to the nature of the document as being the very breath of God’s mouth (2 Tim 3:16), but also because each document is a literary work composed in a unique style – a unique genre.

For example, one should not consider the creation week in Genesis 1 as a fictional-poetic treatise because the book of Genesis is a historical document, designed to instruct humanity concerning the origin of man, the fall of humanity, and the promise of the seed which would come to bless all the nations of the earth – Jesus Christ (Gen 22:18; Gal 3:9). Genesis is an inspired historical narrative and must be analyzed with this in mind.[1]

It is unfortunate that inspired historical documents are often treated by some as poetry or as a fictional novella, at the mercy of any revisionist who disagrees with its message or storyline.

Wisdom in Proverbs

Another unfortunate error, which is often overlooked, is that which transforms wisdom literature into absolute historical fact void of any sense of generality. The value of the proverbs is precisely because they are generalities which provide thoughtful guidance for those seeking to life a wise and spiritual life. Walter Russell calls attention to this aspect of wisdom literature:

It is concise, memorable, simple, and profound; it observes life and reflects the voice of experience; it is thoughtful about human experience and designed to give us practical living skills for confusing circumstances. It also challenges us not to falsely spiritualize everything in life.[2]

Walter Russell, Playing with Fire (NavPress, 2000)

A classic example of the generalness of wisdom literature is found in proverbs like the following:

When a man's ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him. (Pro 16:7 ESV)

How should such passages be understood: as an absolute formula or as general principles? Did Jesus experience this as an absolute promise? Hardly! What should the Bible reader do, then, with passages like this? Read them based on the merits of the expectations for its genre.

Here are a few suggestions.

First, it is the nature of a proverb to provide general wisdom principles:

The nature of the proverbs is such that they should not be interpreted as prophecy or as promises about certain effects and results. Rather, they are best viewed as theological and pragmatic principles.[3]

Samuel J. Schultz, The Old Testament Speaks, 5th ed. (HarperCollins, 2000)

For as much as we would want them to be absolute promises we must be cautious. Proverbial passages are not to be pressed beyond their intent, which is: to be general truths to guide the godly in the path of righteousness (Pro 1:1–9).

Second, the generalness of proverbs should discourage their use as an infallible rule.

For example, it is certainly true that the guidance of Proverbs 16:7 has run true to many who have lived a godly life. But it is also true that living consistent with the will of God will bring heartache and sorrow due to persecution (Matt 5:1–12, 2 Tim 3:12–13). A person’s enemies may become one-hundred-fold almost immediately when following God.

Recall the Lord Jesus’ ways which pleased the Father (John 8:29). Might one suppose that his enemies should come to a state of peace with him? If one took this proverb as an absolute formula, then yes. However, not all saw Jesus as a teacher come from God (John 3:1–2) and his enemies multiplied and waited to catch him in their theological traps (Luke 11:53–54). Proverb 16:7 is general in scope, emphasizing a positive aspect of godly living, never intending to exclude negative factors.

Finally, perhaps the most problematic factor in dealing with general principles is the failure of some to take into account that no one verse carries embedded within it the totality of a biblical subject.

While the sum of God’s word is truth (Psa 119:160), the Proverbs are maxims. In Proverbs 22:6 it is written: 

Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. (ESV)

The passage is designed to emphasize that children are impacted by their parents long after they leave home. The impact of domestic education is life lasting. Yet one should not take this passage as an absolute formula, for this would dismiss one of the most vital elements of the nature of man: free moral agency. The impact is life lasting, but the choices are left to the child.

It is unfortunate to see some depart from the faith after being “raised in the church.” It should not be assumed that it is the direct result of the parents being derelict in their parental duties. Life and decision-making are complicated matters.

Concluding Thoughts

Biblical literature is composed of a wide range of genres. These genres of literature ought to be treated with the respect they rightly deserve, otherwise poor exegesis will follow. In principle we run the danger of binding were God has not bound. 

We must be conscientious Bible students using Scripture correctly. May we never apply general principles as absolute infallible rules.

Endnotes

  1. There is a debate over how to read Genesis 1, but I find no reason to reject the twenty-four hour view even when presented in a stylistic way. See David G. Hagopian, ed., The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001), Stanley N. Gundry, ed., Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), and John F. Ashton, ed., In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation (2000; Repr., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001).
  2. Walter B. Russell, Playing with Fire: How the Bible Ignites Change in Your Soul (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2000), 161.
  3. Samuel J. Schultz, The Old Testament Speaks, 5th ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 2000), 290.

The Written Word of God

On By Jovan PayesIn Bibliology, Essays, New Testament, Old Testament, Popular Essays, Spiritual Formation, Spiritual Growth, Theology

The word Bible is a transliteration of the Greek bíblos, meaning “book, writing.” In the New Testament, the word has a range of applications that refer to sacred and important literary roles, written documents we would call “books” today (Mark 12:26; Phil 4:3, Acts 19:19, Matt 1:1).[1] It seems embarrassingly simplistic but the Bible means “the Book,” probably in the sense of, “the Book par excellence.” It speaks to us God’s Word, it tells us God’s story of the creation of the world and the pursuit of His fallen creation to bring about reconciliation through Jesus Christ.

At times it is easy to put the Bible aside and replace its intended centrality for our spiritual nourishment with other spiritual disciplines. Worship and praise, although an important discipline and expression, do not nourish the soul with transformative power the way the Bible does. Doing good in the community is detached from its purpose and mediation of the kingdom of God when ignorant of the biblical story and message imprinted on its pages.

For this reason, I’d like to focus briefly on three points. First, God intended for his revelation to be put into a written—durative—form that would extend beyond its original setting down to you and me, and beyond. Second, God intended for his word to provide standardized teaching to transform the believer and the lost seeker. Third, God’s word is what shapes God’s people into a faithful and vibrant community where the gospel is embraced and enacted.

The Durative Written Word

Several years ago, Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix made the argument that while God could have used angelic revelations, visions, and dreams, moral “oughtness,” or direct divine communication and intervention, God chose a permanent method to dispense his teaching and will – “the time-tested superiority of a written record of truth.”[2]

The value of a written record, particularly a religiously written record, is seen in Geisler and Nix’s concluding argument:

A written record has one additional advantage as well, namely, it can stimulate memory and conjure up within the individual’s imagination a host of personal implications that are latent within the given symbols or words of that record. Words, then, are not wooden as to prevent a “personal blessing” for the individual reader, particularly in light of the fact that biblical words are the objective vehicle through which the Holy Spirit applies truth personally and subjectively to each reader individually (cf. John 16:13; 1 Pet 1:11).[3]

Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. ed. (Moody, 1986), emph. added.

The Bible, then, is a written record –a durative witness– to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.

A life that existed in eternity, was revealed in the sinless life of a human servant of God, and fully demonstrated to be divine in the death and resurrection of himself, Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:1–3, 14; Phil 2:5–8; 1 Tim 3:16; Rom 1:1–4). This is a permanent record of the Greatest Story Ever Told.

A Pattern of Teaching

What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. (Romans 6:15–18 ESV)[4]

In a section focused on the conversion process (Rom 6), the apostle Paul frames it in terms of “dead to sin and alive to God.” Under the parody of death to slavery which releases one from “ownership” and then by means of a resurrection to life —legally free from slavery— Paul argues that one legally enters into voluntary slavery (Rom 6:15–19).[5] It is here that Paul rejoices: 

thanks be to God. that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching [typos didachēs] to which you were committed. (Rom 6:17)

It is here that a particular phrase emerges — “the standard of teaching [typos didachēs].”

Some feel that since Paul typically uses typos (standard, example, molding, etc) “is personal in nature” as in the following list:

  • Adam in Romans 5:14.
  • Paul and company in Philippians 3:17 and 2 Thessalonians 3:9.
  • The Thessalonians church in 1 Thessalonians 1:7.
  • The conduct of Timothy (1 Tim 4:12) and the good works of Titus (Tit 2:7).

If so, then it is “highly probable” that Romans 6:17 is a personal reference to Jesus.[6]

On the other hand, it has been argued that Paul means typos in its metaphoric use as a molding and hence normative teaching which “shapes the [Christian’s] whole personal conduct” once obedient to it.[7] So which is it? Are we forced to make a hard-line distinction between these two proposals?

I do not think so, for they are too intimately connected at the theological capillaries. First, Jesus despite being an actual person is the incarnate Word. Thus, when one submits to the word of God, one is submitting to Jesus as the complete exposition of God’s revelation.

Second, when one submits to the teaching of the gospel and is formed by it, one is being formed and fashioned by Jesus. It seems that one should not try to split hairs here since to submit and to be fashioned by the One is to submit and to be fashioned by the other. And so, we can agree with Harrison when he says,

Though Paul had not founded the church, he could be confident that whoever did had taken the trouble to give teaching upon which he himself could build as he wrote his letter. This in itself presupposes a rather fixed norm of instruction.[8]

Everett F. Harrison, “Some Patterns of the New Testament Didache,” BSac 119 (1962)

The concept of normative instruction is found throughout the biblical record. This supports our position that God intended to leave behind a reliable and trustworthy record of his message.

The Living and Active Word

Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Heb 4:11–13)

I have always found this passage to be troubling. It is troubling because it is straightforward but surrounded by a perplexing description of the “word of God” (4:12).

But first, consider the context of this passage (Heb 3:1–4:13). Thematically, (a) the author elevates Jesus as one who is faithful to his appointment by God as a son over God’s house, a house which is built by God, which the writers says “we are” (3:1–6). (b) As a consequence (therefore), the writer calls the Holy Spirit’s message from Psalm 95:7b–11 a warning to members of this house to be faithful to God’s voice. Concepts such as rebellion, provocation, hardened hearts, and God’s promise of reward or punishment, rest or disbarment from divine granted rest (3:7–19).

(d) The principles of Psalm 95 are brought to a conclusion in an appeal to fear lest any should seem to have failed to reach rest (4:1–10). The writer presses, then, a connection between Israelite failure and Hebrew Christian failure to enjoy the rest; one by means of unbelief (3:19), the other by means of disobedience (4:7). Yet, in all of this, there is a desire to create an environment of obedience of faith where confidence and hope thrive (4:2; 10; 3:6). (e) Finally, the last section (4:11–13) adds an additional conclusion to the reasoning begun in 3:1. The exhortation is to enter the rest promised by the Divine edict, and the explanatory words of “falling” in the wilderness before rest are implied. The writer then connects this exhortation with the implied method of obedience by accepting our heavenly calling to listen to the Word of God (3:1; 4:12).

It needs to be observed that “the author speaks to all the readers but focuses on a concern that ‘any one’ of them fall short: the concern here is not an individual achievement but rather that ‘the people of God’ reach its goal intact” (emph. mine).[9] The word of God then has an integral role to play in the communal faithfulness of God’s people. Its capacity to meet this goal is outlined in four ways.

Luke Timothy Johnson provides an excellent discussion of these descriptions:[10]

  1. The word of God is living (zōn). “Hebrews applies the same quality of life that is normally associated with God’s being to God’s word.”
  2. The word of God is active (engergēs). “The translation ‘active’ (see RSV) is certainly possible, but while it captures well the sense of ‘energy,’ it fails to capture the nuance of ‘power.’”
  3. The word of God is sharper than two-edged swords. “The sharpness of the blade is revealed by its ability to cut to “the division between soul and spirit, joints and marrow.”
  4. The word of God discriminates between thoughts and conceptions of the heart. “As with ‘soul and spirit, joints and marrow,’ the discernment between thought and conception is the more impressive because the difference between them is so slight and unavailable to human perception.”

If the church is to move in the direction of its mission and its calling, it must embrace the “deep tissue” work of the word of God to actively expose the areas that are strong and those areas that require Divine accountability and transformation.

Concluding Thoughts

Let us never ignore the great breadth and extent of the Word of God. God speaks in broad and generic terms through creation (Psa 19:1–2; Rom 1:20–21). God spoke through the oral preaching of prophets and apostles in the past. God spoke to selected individuals through dreams and visions. And most clearly, and finally, God has spoken through the very image of the Divine, Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1–3). Nevertheless, it is the sacred writings that Paul says we know of salvation and spiritual formation (2 Tim 3:10–17). Why? Because it is the very breath of God in a durative written record that provides us the pattern of the gospel message that makes us Christians and Christians only.

Endnotes

  1. James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930), 111.
  2. Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. ed. (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1986), 323.
  3. Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction, 324.
  4. All Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016) unless otherwise stated.
  5. Francis Lyall, “Legal Metaphors in the Epistles,” TynB 32 (1981): 87.
  6. Everett F. Harrison, “Some Patterns of the New Testament Didache,” Bsac 119 (1962): 120.
  7. Leonhard Goppelt, “túpos, antítupos, tupikós, hupotúpōsis,” TDNT 8:250.
  8. Harrison, “Some Patterns,” 120.
  9. Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012), 131.
  10. Johnson, Hebrews, 133–35.

Bibliography

Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Revised and expand. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1986.

Goppelt, Leonhard, “túpos, antítupos, tupikós, hupotúpōsis,” TDNT 8: 246-59.

Harrison, Everett F. “Some Patterns of the New Testament Didache.” Bsac 119 (1962): 120-28.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. Edited by C. Clifton Black, et al. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012.

Lyall, Francis. “Legal Metaphors in the Epistles.” TynB 32 (1981): 81-95.

Moulton, James Hope and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930.