Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder, Textual Criticism of the Bible, revised ed., Lexham Methods Series, edited by Douglas Mangum (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018), Paperback, 236 pages.
The authors of the present volume are professional scholars in Old Testament (Wendy Widder) and New Testament (Amy Anderson) respectively.[1] Widder, a contributing editor for Logos Mobile Education, holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies from the University of the Free State (South Africa), an M.A. in Hebrew and Semitic Studies (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and the M.Div. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary. Her published works include a technical linguistic work for the BZAW series (De Gruyter), commentaries on Daniel (ZECOT, SGBC), and was the original author of the first edition of the present work (2014).[2]
Amy Anderson joins the revision of this project as co-author. She is Professor of New Testament and Ancient Greek at North Central University (Minneapolis, MN), and holds a Ph.D. in New Testament Textual Criticism (University of Birmingham) and an M.A. in New Testament from Fuller Theological Seminary (Pasadena, CA). Additionally, Anderson has published technical works on New Testament textual criticism for Brill (Texts and Studies) and serves on the steering committee of the Editio Critica Maior for the SBL steering unit of the International Greek New Testament project (IGNT).[3]
Thesis of the Book
In keeping with the stated goal of the Lexham Methods Series to provide an overview of the “broad movements” within the fields of biblical criticism, Anderson and Widder introduce textual criticism of the Bible for the emerging scholar and biblical interpreter in order to better equip them to understand the basic question for many English readers of the Bible is translation: why are there differences in among the English versions?[4] Anderson and Widder offer an updated guided tour of textual criticism to equip the emerging scholar to “take on” the text critical issues that are behind some of the more technical reasons which account for these differences among Bible translations of the ancient original language manuscript copies.[5]
Summary of the Book
In the “Introduction” the authors isolate the practical importance of how understanding the field of textual criticism contributes to providing sensible answers for certain variations among contemporary Bible translations.[6] As a “ground clearing” chapter, it distinguishes changes brought about by the theories and practice of translation from the task of resolving “variations in the readings of [the] ancient manuscripts” of the Bible in pursuit of the ancient form of the text, i.e., the Ausgangstext.
In chapter two Anderson and Widder provide a general introduction to the field of textual criticism of the Bible. Despite different textual evidence for each Testament, the general principles of the discipline apply overall and the authors illustrate what is common to both fields.[7] As no two ancient hand-copied manuscripts of the Bible agree in every detail, the authors demonstrate the various types of scribal errors detected when comparing the extant copies of the manuscripts (accidental omissions, additions, misspellings, and intentional changes).[8] These examples illustrate the goal of textual criticism is to “establish the original reading of the biblical text” of the autographs, which for the transmission history of the Old Testament it is “more complicated” due various unknowns of scribal and editorial activity over a vastly longer period of time than the New.[9] The authors explain the importance in knowing the difference between external evidence and internal evidence, and how the former focuses on “what kinds of manuscripts is a given variant found” and the latter considers what is probable habits of the transcriber(s) of the manuscript and the author of the book (intrinsic).[10]
Chapter three offers a short history of the unique difficulties found in the transmission of the Old Testament. With no manuscripts available predating the canonical copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls (250 BC–AD 135), the authors begin their history with awareness of variants in the Hebrew text by early Christians. Representative of this early period are Origen’s textual notes in the fifth column of his Hexapla.[11] The textual history of the Old Testament is largely interwoven with Christian history (Greek and Latin translations, and other ancient polyglot texts) and the medieval scribal tradents of the Masoretic manuscript tradition. The Hebrew text in the modern period is represented in the two types of critical editions, diplomatic (e.g., BHK, BHS, HUB) and eclectic editions (e.g., HBCE). The textual resources available today (Masoretic Text, LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, and translations) demonstrate the importance of carefully assessing each variants in light of the probabilities of the scribal habits of each tradition and the which reflects an older state of the Hebrew text.[12]
Chapter four introduces the history of the Greek New Testament text.[13] This history reveals not only a proliferation of the early translation, citation, and copying of these texts, but also that a number of copying communities can be detected in the “patterns of variation” found in groups or family of manuscripts (Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean).[14] With the rise of Christianity, Byzantium (Constantinople) became a center for transmission, giving rise to the period of standardization culminating in the advent of the printing press in which a Greek New Testament would be printed (700s–1600s). This gave rise to what is called the Byzantine text-type. Today, scholarship has largely moved away from the Textus Receptus (or, Majority Text) in favor of eclectic critical approach to establish the Greek New Testament text, which weighs the strength and weakness of variants and manuscripts (seen in UBS, NA). Today, there are over fifty-five hundred manuscripts (papyri, majuscules, and minuscules) from which textual critics must work with in establishing the original wording of the text (the Ausgangstext), as they seek “to identify the reading that best explains how the other readings arose.”[15]
In chapter five, the authors bring their discussion to a close as they comment on the connection between textual criticism and English translations, and how many of the variations between them rely on the text the translation committee agrees to work from.[16] The scholarship of textual criticism directly impacts the practical life of church life, especially one’s doctrine of Scripture, inerrancy and infallibility, and its authority. While debated extremes exist, the inspiration of the text can be maintained as it relates to the original manuscripts. The transmission of the text of Scripture is a history of God’s providential use of imperfect human scribes to reliably preserve the text of the Bible for all generations.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Anderson and Widder have produced a very effective pedagogical-centered volume introducing the field of textual criticism to the emerging scholar of the Bible. The authors were neither overly academic nor did their discussions lack the specialty knowledge essential to this field of methodology. The strongest contribution is the practical hands-on approach illustrating how to evaluate textual variants, how to use the critical apparatus and critical sigla, and how to interact with the different resources (manuscripts, translations, lexicography, etc.) available to the emerging textual critic.[17] These helpful text-critical walkthroughs will guide the students well moving from theory to practice.
Overall, it is very difficult to find weaknesses in the current volume, but when they observed that biblical scholarship seeks to establish the “final form” of the authoritative text instead of the “original wording” of the autographs, little space is provided to address this important text-critical topic.[18] Outside the mention of the philosophical debate over the Urtext, the matter is only briefly commented on.[19] With the lack of older witnesses, important questions are sidelined, such as, “is seeking the original wording of the autograph no longer feasible in Old Testament studies? What are the implications of this issue?” I humbly suggest that Anderson and Widder would have served their readers better by exploring this question.
Endnotes
[1] Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder, Textual Criticism of the Bible, rev. ed., Lexham Methods Series, ed. Douglas Mangum (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018).
[8] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 16–40.
[7] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 11–48.
[9] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 40–41. For this reason, Anderson and Widder note that the Old Testament critic “has to decide exactly which state of the OT composition or transmission is the goal” (41).
[10] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 42–46.
[11] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 49–114.
[12] For example, the hands-on section of the text critical process illustrates that sometimes translations are preferred over original language manuscripts as they reflect “what Hebrew the translators had in front of them” (Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 95).
[13] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 115–77.
[16] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 179–87.
[17] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 90–109, 149–74.
[18] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 41–42. This concern may be theological motivated but more clarity would have appreciated (cf. Ferguson, “Textual Criticism of the Bible,” Presbyterion 46 [2020]: 158–59).
[19] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 93. If this was intended to supplement the “final authoritative form” discussion raised earlier, it seems completely disconnected (54–57).
Bibliography
Anderson, Amy, and Wendy Widder. Textual Criticism of the Bible. Revised ed. Lexham Methods Series 1. Edited by Douglas Mangum, et al. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018.
Ferguson, Anthony. “Textual Criticism of the Bible, by Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder. Revised edition. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018. Pp. xv + 236. ISBN 978-1-57799-663-7.” Presbyterion 46.1 (2020): 157–59.
There is no greater worldview question that divides humans so sharply than the following: does God exist? As a Christian, I believe there are many good reasons to assert that God does exist. This short piece offers a brief overview of these arguments for the existence of the Christian God.
The Case for the Christian God
The average Christian may think arguing for the existence of God is straightforward, but this is where we must get more specific. There are many worldview definitions of God/god that are distinct from how Christians have historically defined their Creator. Additionally, sometimes arguments for the existence of God only point to reasons to believe that a god exits, but not necessarily the God of the Christian faith. This is important because as a Christian casemaker, we do not merely argue that there are good reasons to believe a god exists, but that the God of the resurrected Christ exists.
For example, the apostle Paul employs well accepted natural theology to the Greek polytheistic mind and affirms this God resurrected Jesus Christ. In Athens, Paul affirms that the God of Israel (monotheism) is the god who is unknown to them in any specific detail (Acts 17:16, 22–23). They have knowledge of God in general terms: creator of the universe and mankind, manager of the world, and moral law giver (Acts 17:24–31a). This God will call all to moral account through Jesus, and he assures this expectation on the grounds of the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 17:31b). With this move, Paul excludes all other gods.
Step One: Arguments for the Existence of God
Arguments from nature provide good reasons to believe in the existence of God. They do not stand or fall together, but they do provide a cumulative case for the reasonableness of the Christian worldview. The following groups (or families) of arguments are used to make this case. I will offer a simplistic definition for each and then provide an example or two of how they make their case.
Cosmological Arguments: the existence of the universe demands a cause, whether natural (random) or supernatural (intelligent). As Baxter reminds us, “the argument is based upon the general, universal observation that ‘Nothing comes from nothing’” (I Believe Because…, 53). There must be a cause. Being careful with our words, it is more accurate to say “nothing [physical, material] comes from nothing.” Here’s why. Some things do exist necessarily. The field of mathematics reveals that numbers, mathematical sets or entities are not caused by something else. But things like people, planets, galaxies depend on other forces to exist (Craig, On Guard, 56–57). Physical things are contingent on past forces and cannot exist by themselves. As Ralph Gilmore says, these are “iffy” things that only exist “if” certain events or states occurred. Otherwise, you are left with a series of never-ending origin stories–an equally challenging miracle!
The cosmological argument makes its case from effect (the cosmos) to a necessary cause (God). There are both narrow and broad forms of this argument. Thomas B. Warren in debate with atheistic philosopher Antony Flew (1976) argued the narrow form, affirming that the first human came about either by evolutionary forces or by supernatural means. The apostle Paul employs the broad form when he argues that the material things of the world that make plain that there is an invisible, powerful, and divine God who created the world (Romans 1:19–20). Another broad form is known as the KALAM cosmological argument. In short, the argument goes as follow: whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe has a cause. This ultimate cause is not contingent, nor impossible, but necessary. We call this necessary cause God.
Teleological Arguments: the presence of design in, or of, the universe demands that the design have a designer who employed intelligent agency. As an argument from empirical evidence, the argument moves from a design to an intelligent agent. The process has an intuitive aspect to it, making it a very accessible family of arguments. Nevertheless, the secular worldview explains apparent design as the result of “enough time and some luck”–certainly not the result of intelligent agency. It is important then to be clear on how to identify intelligent agency in the form of design.
To illustrate, the fine-tuning of the universe argument affirms that the cosmos is life-permitting in the most basic scientific sense: “organisms […] take in food, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to their environment, and reproduce” (Craig, 110). This reality implies a Fine-Tuner. But could this be the result of chance and time? Is this feature necessary to the universe? How do we distinguish between these options? On pure naturalism there is nothing necessary to the universe that requires it to be life-permitting. To the contrary, any potential life-permitting universe is “fantastically improbable.” Instead, a life-prohibiting universe is far more likely. The odds are so bad against a fine-tuned universe we should believe the system was rigged (Craig, 112–20).
Thus, the evidence of a fine-tunned universe points to its Fine-Tuner. It is not the result (contingent) of unintelligent processes, neither can chance explain its complexity, and it exhibits specific patterns characteristic of intelligence (Dembski, Intelligent Design, 127–49). As a watch, a camera, or a painting point to their intelligent agent, so the eye, the human body, the life-permitting features of the universe point to its Intelligent Agent, whom we call God.
Moral Arguments: based on the moral order of the human experience, the Cause of this moral order must be moral and its lawgiver (God). The argument observes a fundamental reality of the human social experience, the expectation of moral obligation. Regardless of worldview we all seem to play by the same rule, there are things you “ought to do,” and there are things you “ought not to do.” This holds even when there is disagreement over specific “oughts.” It has been well said,
Wherever man is found, he is convinced there is a difference between good and evil. Men may differ as to where to make the distinction between good and evil, but all men agree that such a distinction is to be made.”
Bales, The Law in the Heart, 56
The human experience is conscious of an objective moral law; objective moral laws imply a moral lawgiver; therefore, there must be a supreme moral lawgiver (Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 16).
Morality is a transcendent reality, not centered within a person. The conscience may have subjective elements but ultimately, moral obligations are not personal preferences. For example, why are hate crimes against women (kidnapping, sex-trafficking, etc.) objectively wrong and not personal preferences? Or, consider how the center of moral justice has shifted towards one’s subjective “psychological self” (truth) from which the moral imperative is to liberate oneself from all oppressive (evil) power structures (Trueman, Strange New World, 157). Even here the rules are the same, something is wrong in the objective world. External, transcendent moral obligations exist grounded in an objective reality point to the Giver of this moral code.
Ontological Argument: God is a necessary being, not a contingent being, and the cause of all contingent things. The argument is based on the very concept of the being of God, it is not directly based on empirical evidence as the previous arguments (cause, design, moral). Some regard this as the weakest argument for God because it depends heavily on abstract thinking. However, it has the same logic behind believing that mathematical items, like numbers, necessarily exist. Nevertheless, it relies on the likelihood that God exists (from evidence in the world). Thus, if God exists, he necessarily exists as the First Uncaused Cause (“God is”).
Step Two: From God to Christianity
Presently, we have surveyed arguments for the existence of God. From this general case for God can a specific case for the God of the Christian Faith be made? The above arguments help us to make certain measured expectations about God. God is: infinite, singular and powerful (cosmological); intelligent, powerful with deep knowledge (teleological); personal and relational, loving and holy (moral); transcendent, great and eternal (ontological). It is reasonable to suggest that such a God would likely seek to have a relationship with his creation and this activity may be identifiable in history in supernatural ways.
Of all the various world religions which exist, the Christian faith provides the most evidential and testable historical claim that “Jesus of Nazareth [was] crucified and killed [and] God raised him up” from the dead (Acts 2:22–24; 17:32; 25:19). The historical figure of Jesus is well attested by early non-Christian sources, including the circumstances of his death by crucifixion (Tacitus, Annals 15.44; Josephus, Antiquities 18.63–64, 116–17; 20.200). The earliest Christian claim asserted that Jesus was resurrected bodily and appeared to his disciples, and to skeptics and hostile unbelievers who converted to the faith (1 Corinthians 15:1–8).
Although many naturalistic explanations have been offered to account for the rise of the Christian faith, none have the explanatory force of the historical claim that Jesus rose from the dead by the power of God.
Conclusion
Does God exist? There are very good reasons to believe so. We must, however, take this a step further and affirm that there are very good reasons to believe that the God who rose Jesus from the dead exists.
Works Cited
Bales, James D. The Law Within Their Heart. Dallas, TX: Gospel Teachers Publications, 1981.
Baxter, Batsell Barrett. I Believe Because… A Study of the Evidence Supporting Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1971.
Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 2010.
Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999.
Geisler, Norman L., and Ronald M. Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences. Revised ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2013.
Trueman, Carl R. Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022.
This article originally appeared in The Carolina Messenger. To subscribe for FREE click here. There are slight edits in this version.
Recently, traveling for a speaking engagement some dear friends and I reminisced over the time when they pulled one of the most memorable pranks on me that will live on in the lore of our friendship until the Lord returns. As we talked about this event, I realized I learned something important about friendship that had not truly crossed my mind before. I would like to invite you to join me in the retelling of this story and a reflection on friendship.
The Snowman Prank
The setting. It was a cold Spring Semester at Freed-Hardeman University in Henderson, Tennessee. Usually, snow would fall in February and last for a few weeks. I can tell you driving in snow was one of the more challenging adjustments I had to make, as the driving I experienced in San Francisco little prepared me for it. After living in Henderson for a couple of years, I had developed some comfort with the cold and awareness for driving in the snow–especially becoming alert for “black ice.”
Snow out on the roads is one thing, but it was beyond thought to anticipate the sight I came upon one cold day in my car. I was heading to my car after taking a test in an undergraduate Bible class, when I noticed a car that looked just like mine with a snowman in the front passenger seat. I told myself, “wow, that’s funny… a snowman is sitting in the car,” shaking my head in disbelief. No way that was my car. No way a snowman was in my car.
It wasn’t until I tapped my key fob, heard the beep and saw the lights flicker that I accepted the truth. Even then it was tentative. I walked up to the car in disbelief, examining through the window the incredulous reality that a snowman sat on my front passenger seat. It was a fully three-tiered perfectly white snowman. I even marveled that whoever had done this was at least “Christian” about it as they had placed a garbage bag underneath it to protect the fabric. “Wow, this is what Christian pranks look like,” I thought to myself.
I realized I had left my car unlocked which in turn gave the pranksters the literal “open door.” In the course of a couple of years in small town Henderson, I had grown comfortable contrary to all the security precautions I had learned in the big-city. We locked everything. The front door to the home I grew up in had five locks. But now, I felt safe and comfortable, and look at how I was repaid… with a snowman! I was no longer the guarded city-kid who distrusted any person walking on the side of the street.
Unexpected Reactions
Today I chuckle at this story. I wish I had then my sensibilities that I have now. But I can assure you that my prankster friends bore witness to an unexpected reaction from their Christian brother. They had an aerial view of whole encounter from the large and wide windows of the Student Center/Cafeteria overlooking the parking lot. It was the perfect perch for them to be rewarded by seeing the comedy but that’s not entirely what happened.
I decided to remove the snowman, as one does, from my car. Instead of a calm and somewhat goofy procedure to move it to the sidewalk, I proceeded to dismember the snowman and slam each frozen sphere to the ground. My friends realized that I did not take the prank so kindly or jovial as they had hoped. They saw rage. As it was at this time they realized they messed up.
I can tell you, each time I picked an increasingly larger icy ball over my head I dropped it with all the force I could muster. I was not used to good-humored pranks. Every prank I received or dished out in the streets never had good-willed intentions. Humiliations were not really tolerated, unless you were on the lower end of the totem pole. Like Coolio said, “Me be treated like a punk, you know that’s unheard of.”[1]
When my friends saw my reaction, they knew it was time to go. As they have told me, they quickly vacated the premises, hopped in a car and tried to escape undetected. They tried. After I took my heat off on the snowman, I proceeded to investigate to see if there were any witnesses to the “crime.” Nothing proved fruitful until I saw a car pull up. I could not identify who was in it, but it looked guilty. After a few attempts to corner them, they escaped my grasp. Eventually, I took a call in which they confessed guilt to this prank.
Accepting Good-willed Friendship Fun
Suddenly, my indignation melted away to relief that my friends meant the prank as nothing more than some friendly winter fun. At that time in my life, I had very little experience with this type of fun. This was not a cruelly-intended hazing, it was just fun shared among good friends. It was a practical joke, a rather hilarious one.
It is not that I lacked friends growing up, but the “jokes” we played on each other always had an element of humiliation that betrayed trust. Even the “jokes” were deceptions designed to manipulate me and my emotions. I once had a friend that told me my wife and toddler daughter died in a car accident they had actually been in. It felt as the Proverb says:
Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, “I am only joking!” (Proverbs 26:18–19 ESV)
But my friends were people of quality. I went from gangsters to pranksters. Again, the Proverbs tell us
A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother. (Proverbs 18:24)
Over the past twenty plus years, despite the passing of time, the reunions with my closest friends have been sweeter than honey–even if some of them placed a snowman in my car.
Friendship in the Bible
The Bible speaks about friendship, of the 187* instances of the Hebrew word rea’ (friend, companion, neighbor, fellow, associate), the English Standard Version of the Bible translates it “friend” thirty-three times. Broadly, however, it means to suggest an acquaintance or fellow–a neighbor. It is the word used in the Second Great Commandment, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” (Lev 19:18; 19: 13, 16; Matt 22:34–40; Mark 12:28–34; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8). While not all “neighbors” are those that stick closer than a brother, God’s people are called to treat all neighbors with dignity and respect (i.e., love).
The book of Proverbs provides a number of insightful principles for appreciating the value of good friendships.
We need good friends. More importantly we need good friends. Additionally, we need not only to be “friends” to many, but a good friend who treats people with dignity and respect. We make our interactions personal, rather than impersonal.[2] The proverbs of Solomon continue this theme in the following couplet (Prov 10:1):
A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity. One who lacks sense gives a pledge and puts up security in the presence of his neighbor. (Proverbs 17:17–18)
These two verses are connected by the word rea’, translated “friend” and “neighbor.” There seems to be an intensification of “friend” who expresses a loyalty like a sibling, the closest relationship in the ancient world. Such a friend will be there even in times of rushed decisions without abandoning them in their time of need.[3]
Perhaps no better example of this type of friendship is found outside of David and Jonathan. In the midst of David’s rise in Israel during the reign of King Saul, Jonathan and David’s friendship transcended family allegiances. It is said that “the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul” and makes a covenant with him (1 Sam 18:1). He even protected David from his father’s wrath (1 Sam 20).
Good friends are not pushovers. They are not enablers. Many a “ride or die” friendship has imploded because they offer no space for accountability. Proverbs calls us to this very truth:
Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy. One who is full loathes honey, but to one who is hungry everything bitter is sweet.Like a bird that strays from its nest is a man who strays from his home. Oil and perfume make the heart glad, and the sweetness of a friend comes from his earnest counsel. Do not forsake your friend and your father’s friend, and do not go to your brother’s house in the day of your calamity. Better is a neighbor who is near than a brother who is far away. (Proverbs 27:5–10)
The word friend in this section is the translation of ahabāh means “love,” as in “one who loves.” A faithful friend who loves us will not withhold their love from us, but will offer words that may leave a mark. These “wounds” are not the sort to injure, but to provide counsel so their friend may redirect their decisions. It may hurt on the front end, but the outcome will be like sweet food or an enjoyable fragrance.[4] Such friends are comparable family who have a vested interest in our success.
Could we have a better friend than God? James writes of Abraham that it was his faith in God that led to his deep relationship with the Lord. He affirms that “‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’—and he was called a friend of God” (Jas 2:23). Moses spent time in the Tent of Meeting and communed with the Lord there. “Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (Exod 33:11a). Faith in the words and character of God, and the boldness to commune with the Lord are vital components to a vibrant “friendship” with the Lord.
Concluding Thoughts
God clearly points us to forging good friendships. Being a good neighbor is the foundation to offering authentic friendship and loyalty to those outside our families. Sometimes, we find deeper relationships or comparable ones in outsiders to the point that our neighbor is now our soul knit friend.
It can be very difficult for many of us to make friendships and trust in the good will they offer. This is often due to trauma. At least it was in my case. I did not know how to have fun and playful friendships. These pranksters helped me break through a hang up I did not know was there. I am beyond grateful the Lord has blessed me with friends like these at different stages in my life.
I pray that in your lifetime, and despite any trauma, you too will appreciate and be blessed by good friends. Finally, I pray that you will learn to be the friend your neighbor needs in their time of difficulties and hardships. This is the commandment of love that identify us as disciples of Jesus (Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8).
Endnotes
Coolio, “Gangsta’s Paradise” (1995).
Derek Kidner, Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary (1964; repr., Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 41.
Dave Bland, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002), 165.
It is not unusual for businesses and enterprises to have “mission statements” to outline their objectives, goals, philosophy, and proposed impact their products or services are intended to have.
When you think about it, the “statement” is a great way to bring focus to an image about an outcome, or the goal of an organization. It is also a way for there to be creative control over how we would like people to envision us, our message, and our ethics and values as we seek our mission. In short, our mission statement holds us accountable for what we seek to accomplish and it includes the culture we seek to generate in the process of reaching this mission.
What’s Your Mission?
Do you have a mission statement? Are you involved in something where you have “bought-in” to its image, message, and mentality? If you are employed then to a degree you share something of the company’s “mission” whether it be in baby care, athletic activewear, intellectual property law, or even that entrepreneurial zest.
Being on Mission at Work
When I worked at NikeTown, San Francisco in the Union Square of San Francisco, CA, as a sales floor associate, I was all in. Everything was Nike. Socks, shoes, T-shirts, jackets, watches, even my gifts were Nike. I was all in on the apparel, the knowledge of our products, and its work culture. What was my mission? To find out what our customer’s athletic needs were and match them with the proper activewear so they can achieve their goals. So when I had track and field athletes, we went over to running wear, and when I worked with the head coach of a major league soccer club we went over soccer wear. I was all in on our mission and committed to it. I loved my time there.
Then there were those jobs I had no investment in its mission. It was just a job, just a paycheck, and I did as little as possible. I came in late. I
It is not even about personal aspirations.
So the question posed here again is: Do you have a “mission statement”? Yes, this is a spiritual double entendre – I have another meaning in mind.
A Line of Thought on the Mission
First, let us begin with a few ideas. Everything around us that we see on Earth and in the universe is the result of a Creator. It is unfortunate that some do not acknowledge this truth but suppress it (Rom 1:18).
To this point, the apostle Paul writes:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19–20 ESV)
The world is evidence within itself that there is a creator of limitless power and intelligence, and he is to be acknowledged by us – the product of his creation (Psa 8:3–8) – in the way we live.
The quote ends with the strong indictment that if we do not acknowledge His existence we are “without excuse” (Rom 1:20). The word has a litigious background, and essentially means that in the cosmic courtroom such are “without defense” (Gk. anapologetos).
No words, no smooth arguments, no loopholes, nothing will be grounds for a mistrial; there is simply no excusable rationale for rejecting the existence of a Creator as revealed in nature which bears the marks of intelligent design and infinite power.
Moreover, such a Creator by virtue of His very nature has the right to demand faithful service from His creative progeny – humanity (Gen 1:26–30, Rom 1:18, 21–23; 9:19–21). If we mortal parents may expect by virtue of our position to hold authority over our children, how can we expect the Father of all to hold any less authority?
Second, every expectation to obey God’s will (= Law/commandment) is a reflection of His holiness and the expectation that humanity will take upon themselves the freedom to make a choice to obey or to disobey.
This freedom of choice is reflected very clearly in the historical narrative of Adam and Eve as they are given everything in the Garden of Eden save the right to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The stated consequence should such an infraction occur, the Lord said, is “death.”
It is not told to us how long or short the first family lived in compliance with this expectation of behavior in the garden; however, it is revealed to us that unfortunately Eve gave in to temptation as did Adam. As the initial consequence, the first couple was expelled from the Garden and lost access to the Tree of Life (Gen. 3).
Sin it is said by John, the apostle, is the rejection of God’s law (1 John 3:4). In fact, it is an expression of a lack of love and a lack of fidelity to God (1 John 5:2). Hence, what we have been given in this freedom of choice is an ability to decide our relationship with God – will we show love and fidelity, or will we show a lack thereof?
Freedom of choice is a powerful instrument of human behavior. With it, we fall from grace and the stature of one made in the image of God (Rom 3:9–18, 23), and by it we return to God and submit our powers of decision into the hands of a forgiving and holy God (Rom 2:4; 3:26).
At every instance, then, we have a choice. Will we make those choices that inherently become less as we expend more earthly time on His service or our own selfish ambitions? Surely, our plans can only be enhanced by submitting to the Mind of God (Prov 16:25; Isa 55:8–9).
Third, while we may enjoy the blessing of freedom of choice it is a privilege that swings two ways. Much like the tongue, by our choices, we may praise God or reject him (Jas 3:45). As a consequence of our decisions, sin is a common problem to all accountable individuals (Ezek 18:20). And yet, in Jesus we are given the saving message of rebirth (John 3:4), of salvation (1 Thess 1:10), and a new creation (2 Cor 5:17).
If in our sinful choices, we have lost our identity as the image of God, then surely our choices which reflect our recreation in Christ amount to a new plan of action in our lives. Paul, the apostle, writes that when we are saved we are remade to walk in certain works He has assigned us to accomplish (Eph 2:10).
Back to Our Question
What’s your mission statement? While we have freedom of choice, when a person chooses to become a Christian that person has committed to live as God directs, as Christ reflects, so that our living connects His mission with our mission in this world.
The Lord’s mission was to reconcile the world back to Himself:
[I]n Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (2 Corinthians 8:19–20 ESV)
Notice how Paul acknowledges that his mission is the same as God’s mission: to appeal to others through the message of the Gospel to announce how God is reconciling the world to himself.
Christians are those recreated in Christ, and our “mission” is to help other people see God’s abundant love found in the Gospel. Our mission matters because our mission is supposed to be His mission. So how does your “mission” add up?
Psalm 53 proclaims a God who will deliver his people from those who abuse their power and influence, and live lives of practical atheism. A fool is a person from a community of believers who rebels against God recklessly without fear of divine judgment. God will not forget His people or their plight. Let us explore this psalm a bit more, looking at its genre, movements, background, and theology.
Genre
The literary genre of this psalm is hard to nail down, but a few different but complimentary proposals are suggested. It clearly reads as a wisdom psalm, with its emphasis on the contrast between the foolish who rebel against God and those God protects (53:4). Others see in this contrast a liturgical–an assembly–purpose, as it proclaims God’s past and present deliverances (53:5–6). Some offer the description of prophetic, in that there is a proclamation about God’s judgment on evil and deliverance of his people.
However we map the psalm, the wisdom of God’s prophetic word finds its perfect place in the assembly of God’s people where it is proclaimed.
Movements
One can read Psalm 53 with profit by pausing to reflect on its three progressions. First, Psalm 53:1–3 calls attention to those who have rejected God both in their knowledge and in how they live. In the second movement, Psalm 53:4–5 calls on those who are taking advantage of God’s people to live in the terror of the God who will put them to shame. Finally, verse 6 invokes–either as an intercession or confession–God to reverse the fortunes of Israel through divine deliverance.
Background
The ancient traditional notes in the superscription (i.e., headings) do not always provide helpful information. The organization of this section may lend us some clues from Psalm 52 to 54. They point to the scriptural historical context of David’s life when King Saul pursued him throughout the hill county in 1 Samuel 22–26 (Kidner, Psalms 1–72).
In the heading of Psalm 52, the setting is “when Deog, the Edomite, came and told Saul, ‘David has come to the house of Ahimelech’” (22:9–10). In 1 Samuel 22, Deog, the chief herdsman of King Saul (21:7), reports to a demoralized king that he saw David with Ahimelech the priest who inquired of the Lord on his behalf (21:1–9). This led to an inquiry by the king, the execution of 85 priests, and the desolation of the priestly city Nob by the hand of Doeg (22:11–19). The story reveals Saul’s insecurity and his unrighteous aggression toward David.
The heading of Psalm 54 relates: “when Ziphites went and told Saul, ‘Is not David hiding among us?’” (26:1). David made his strongholds in the hill country of the wilderness of Ziph (23:14) after the Ziphites gave intel to Saul. Despite Saul’s aggression, David refrained from easily killing him twice, once while Saul relieved himself in a cave (24:1–22), and another while sleeping among his soldiers (26:1–25). These events reveal David’s righteousness, patience, and respect for Saul as the Lord’s anointed; in contrast, Saul is a failed king with an unjust vendetta against David, rebellious against God’s plans for the kingdom.
Interwoven between these stories, and bridging between Psalms 52 and 53, is the story of David and the death of the wealthy Calebite, Nabal, a fool. David had protected the city of Keilah from the pillaging Philistines, preserving the livestock and the shepherds (23:1–5) of the wealthy Nabal (25:1–3). When David attempted to claim a good faith reward from him, Nabal harshly denied David, “who is David?” (25:1–13). Nabal’s wife, however, remunerated David and his men (25:14–35). His wife described him as “this worthless fellow, Nabal [nabal], for as his name is, so is he. Nabal [nabal] is his name and folly [unbaleh] is within him” (25:25). The Lord struck him dead (25:36–43). There is a play on his name. Nabal is nabel, that is, he is stupid, senseless, foolish—an idiom for godless as in Psalm 53:1.
As these three stories are connected in 1 Samuel 22–26 (Deog, Nabal, Ziphites), it seems it likewise fits the pattern across Psalm 52–53 (Deog, nabal, Ziphites). These all tell a story of God’s people acting as practical atheists who will be judged by God.
Theology
There are a few theological takeaways to consider. First, taking the liturgical context seriously, the “fool” (nabal) is not a pure atheist but a practical one (53:1). Sadly, God’s people often act as if He is not, and “have become corrupt” (53:3).
Second, those in leadership positions can lose their fear of God to their own demise. God (‘elohim) is used seven times in this psalm with the same covenantal faithfulness as the usage of Lord (YHWH) in Psalm 14, a parallel psalm. In Psalm 53:5, God is a “consequential God” and will shatter the bones of the enemies of God’s people.
Third, it has been suggested that Paul’s quotation of Psalm 14:1–3/53:1–3 in Romans 3:10–12, was too broad of a statement about all people, and therefore had no justification to use this passage (Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 1).
A few responses are worth pointing out: (1) the argument in both Psalm 14 and 53 argue that those who should know better, have not properly assessed God’s presence in their lives, do not do good, and so disobey him; (2) Paul’s argument in Romans 1–3 is that both gentile and Jew have no grounds for rejecting God in their knowledge—through natural theology and revealed truth in scripture, both groups are morally corrupted; and, (3) since Paul appeals to gentiles and Jews as the full complement of fallen humanity (Rom 5:12–14), Paul’s use of these psalms fits very well with his purpose.
In the book of Hebrews, the author spends considerable space on perseverance through faith; it may be said that this is the essential point emphasized throughout Hebrews 11:1–12:2. In the last two verses of this section (12:1–2) the central key to perseverance through faith is stated:
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (ESV)
There are two major points made here; consider the following.
First, we must recognize that faithfulness as demonstrated in the cases found in Hebrews 11 affirms that “to be faithful is to hold on despite pain [sic].”[1] The pain may come in different forms and may either be the decision to reject sin or the constant struggle of unbelief.
Second, in order to imitate the faithfulness of the biblical heroes painted in Hebrews 11, and to complete the redemptive story of God (Heb 11:39–40), we are also called to remove the obstacles of sin with which we struggle in order to persevere faithfully.
The Weight and Grip of Sin
The call to faithfulness is illustrated through a well-known image from the Greco-Roman world – runners in the races. It would be a foolish athlete who competes in a race and impedes his performance by adding weight (12:1); in fact, it is common sense to remove as much weight as possible in order to improve one’s speed. The point is clear: weights hinder performance.
The “weight” which hinders the runner’s performance is equated by the phrase “sin which clings so closely.” Sin is a common human problem (Rom 3:23) and occurs when we behave contrary to God’s guidance (1 John 3:4).
The Hebrews author describes this sin as that which “clings so closely” (Grk. euperistatos). As a Greek term, the word used is quite rare and only found once in the entire New Testament. It appears, however, to have a wide range of suggested meanings, but essentially here reflects the idea of a dangerous “distress” or “calamity.” In the ancient Jewish Greek work, 2 Maccabees, this word is used to describe how “heavy disaster overtook” the Jews as they accepted an alliance with the Romans (2 Macc 4:16).[2]
There is also an element of skillfulness involved in sin suggested by this term, to exert a tight grip of control upon us.[3] God wants us to know that if we allow sin to dwell in our lives, it has the skill to take “advantage” to prevail against our better judgments.[4]
For this reason, we must not be passive with sin in our “race” of faithfulness, but with focused determination (taking the figure of the runner) we must act decisively to “thrust from ourselves” (“lay aside” ESV) the “weight” and the “sin” which will have a disastrous grip upon our spiritual lives.[5]
When Sin Grabs You
With the foregoing in the mind, it is clear that we must be on our guard against sin. It appears to be that many Christians flirt with sin and roam the borderlands of acceptable godly behavior with reckless abandon, believing that “all is under control.” Yet, like a fly snared by a Venus Fly Trap, once its trigger is initiated the tight and skillful grip will not release until the fly is dead.
Solomon sets forth a profound “cautionary tale” about those naïve and immature souls thinking they can live within the clutches of sinful living (Pro 7:1–27). Such will leave home free of constraints of the commandments, teaching, and insights of godly wisdom and wander the streets until they come to the threshold of sinful behavior. They will stand at the very edge thinking it’s possible to be so close to sin until the folly of sin “seizes” them (7:13) and seductively leads them to spiritual death (7:21–23). Foolishly tempting folly is viewed as ungodly, something the emerging wise person should refrain from.
Some have suggested that the “weight” and “sin” in Hebrews 12:1 ought to be viewed as two different problems, both of which hinder faithfulness to God and the ultimate completion of service to God.[5] This may be possible, though we feel that “weight” is a metaphor for sin; nevertheless, the point is taken “that there may be many things which could serve as hindrances to our running well.”[6] All of them weigh us down, so it is imperative we seek divine grace and sanctification to be Spirit enabled to run the Christian race.
The warning we ought to understand here is that instead of piling on questionable burdens, we ought to “lighten” our loads from hindrances that both hinder and distract us from full and complete service to our God and Father; which consequently affects our hope of heaven.
The fact that we come near to God through faith (Heb 11:6), and that this “nearness” rewards them that “seek” Him ought to compel us to offer a life filled with choices that seek His will over that of our own. Below we consider a couple areas where hindrances appear quite often.
Emotional Fixations
Additionally, we are prone to make emotional connections; this is part of our human experience and in fact, is a God-given attribute that reinforces healthy relationships. However, at times we can ill-invest our emotions into dangerous territory.
Some invest their emotional connections in unhealthy relationships. Affairs begin when one’s emotions are invested in another who is not their spouse. Young ones join gangs when they invest their loyalty into a group of friends, which they adopt as a surrogate family structure. Christians become emotionally compromised when they invest their romantic emotions into potential mates which could care less about their faith and godly morals.
It is not simply a matter of human weakness, after all, “all have sinned,” so goes the argument. There is, however, a real difference between succumbing to temptation and placing one’s self into the lion’s mouth of temptation because we are fixated on someone or some vice. It is a trite spirituality for one to appeal to grace while indulging in every sin. Paul clearly said, “may it never be” that Christians abuse God’s grace in this fashion (Rom 6:1–2).
Due to fear of rejection by friends or family, some people give in to pressure and trade their birthright for worldliness. We would be wise to guard our hearts and emotions (Pro 4:23):
Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life. (ESV)
Planning for It
Finally, planning for sin is perhaps the most obvious area where hindrances appear in the life of the Christian. Temptations appear to everyone, but God promises that with every instance there is a “trap door” to escape the call of sin (1 Cor 10:12–13).
Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:12–13)
“That you may be able to endure it” is an implied promise of spiritual strength if you will give in to the Spirit’s lead. Nonetheless, we are allowed to make our own decisions (Jas 1:13–15). God cannot force us to live godly. We will in fact reap what we sow:
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. (Galatians 6:7–8)
One may be tempted to compromise sexually with a boyfriend or girlfriend, but that can only occur if a provision is made to fulfill the lust of the flesh (Rom 13:14). One may be tempted by the desire to want things that they obtain what they want through immoral methods of gain; when instead, we are to “work quietly” and “earn” our “own living” (2 Thess 3:12). Another may structure their lives so they can indulge in pornography, drugs, or drunkenness.
Sometimes we are so consumed with the notion that we have the capacity to do something that we do not stop to think about whether or not we should. “I’m 21 today, I’m going to a bar”; only that the consequence of a “night out” is a drunk mess barely able to wake up in the morning. Hangovers are not proof of adulting, they are consequences of a lack of wisdom. A practice surely condemned in Scripture (1 Pet 4:3). Unfortunately, we can multiply these “entitlement” habits, which are ultimately antiauthoritarian expressions that dishonor parents and ultimately God.
Concluding Thoughts
For those who have truly absorbed the beauty of the loving Gospel of Jesus Christ, and know that the ultimate dwelling placed is prepared for those who are faithful to God, no hindrance ought to be too difficult to cast aside so that we can have all the endurance we need to run the race of faith. So that we too can say with Paul:
I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. (2 Tim 4:7–8).
Cast off your sins! Trust God’s grace! Lean on the Spirit’s sanctificaiton! I’m praying and rooting for you.
James H. Moulton, and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914–1929), 264.
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, editors, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2d edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 1.471-42; Joseph H. Thayer, 1889, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1889; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1962), 261.
William E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984), 2.63.
H. G. Liddell, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (New York: American Book Co., 1888), 109.
biblicalfaith.online 