Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry
  • Home
  • Calendar
  • Events
  • Blog
  • Recording Archives
  • Resources
    • Bible Study - Matthew's Gospel
    • Bible Study - John's Gospel
    • Bible Study - Ephesians
    • Greek Tutorials
  • About
    • About Wittenberg CoMo
    • Support Us
    • Contact Us
  • Position Papers
  • Sandbox

Matthew 14 Study Questions

10/10/2024

0 Comments

 
Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Fourteen

Keep working on learning where to look for different things in Matthew's Gospel. In chapter thirteen, Jesus uses a number of parables.

Write down at least three questions you hope will be answered. As always, I urge you to post them in the comments of this blog post, and to engage with other people's questions yourself!

Read Albrecht's commentary on Matthew, pages 210-220.

See if you have any more questions or answers to put in the comments section.

Questions for Study and Discussion:

When Herod hears what Jesus is doing, he is reminded of John the Baptist. Verses 1-12 are a flashback, but possibly not very far back. What kind of decisions do we make which leave us feeling guilty? What is a biblical way to deal with that guilt?

Matthew 14:13-14 show Jesus making a striking change in his actions. What does this show you about him and about you?

Notice Jesus' actions in verse 19. What do they remind you of?

In verses 22-36, Jesus sends the crowd away, spends time in prayer, then rejoins his disciples. What do we learn from Jesus' coming to his disciples on the water?

​
0 Comments

The Bible describes sex outside of marriage as sin. What are my girlfriend and I supposed to do?

10/10/2024

0 Comments

 
The Bible describes sex outside of marriage as sin. What are my girlfriend and I supposed to do?
10/10/24

    This is an oddly challenging line of questioning, especially in the 21st century in the United States, and probably in many other places as well. It's challenging because there are a few unstated assumptions. Let's walk through the logical requirements in a more or less orderly manner.
    First, we're making an assumption that the Bible actually matters in our current culture. That's an assumption that I think it's evident I would make anyway. The Bible makes internal claims to be an authoritative text. It makes unambiguous claims to authority. Christians routinely accept that authority.
    Second, we're making an assumption that we can correctly identify the Bible's overall view as being opposed to sexual activity outside of the bounds of marriage. The depictions in the Bible of sexual relationships outside of marriage are routinely negative. Again, in this matter we have an authoritative claim which I find to be unambiguous. If we accept the canonical Scriptures as an authority, we can also accept that it takes a negative view of sex outside of marriage. Last Thursday's post gave several reasons that marriage would be recognized as involving one man and one woman in an exclusive relationship for life.
    A third assumption we make in this line of questioning is that what the Bible identifies as sin is wrong. If we ignore this presupposition, the bulk of Jewish and Christian teaching is instantly no more useful than anyone's individual opinion. So we're going to keep that in the mix.
    Here's where we actually run into some difficulty. The beginning of the line of questioning said, "The Bible describes sex outside of marriage as sin." It's a clear statement. What's the assumption in the actual question, "What are my girlfriend and I supposed to do?"  In a very real way, this is a question that answers itself. I would propose that our current society could ask the question only because of not liking the answer.
    There are really only two directions to go with this relationship. One is to get married and to enjoy one another's sexuality, exclusively, for as long as you both live. The other is to find a way to enjoy a friendship without a sexual relationship. I suppose another is to offend or anger one another and cease to be friends, but that is generally not a positive way to move in a relationship.
    The real difficulty here isn't one of interpersonal interactions so much as one of our view of sexual activity. Our culture has an assumption that it's possible, and even maybe normal and beneficial, to be sexually involved with someone else in a way that will be indifferent in the long run. Yet if we accept the biblical presuppositions in the first sentence of our line of questioning, we will also observe that the Bible never describes a sexual relationship as a matter of indifference. It's always to be surrounded by a marital relationship. Genesis 2:24, described by Jesus in Mark 10:8-9 affirms that marriage is a relationship which protects both parties. It places their sexuality in a lasting, exclusive relationship. It makes the husband and wife relationship an illustration of the lasting, exclusive relationship of Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). And it's good, really good.
    So what should you do? If your girlfriend is someone you should marry, marry her. And remember that marriage is to last as long as you are both alive. If your boyfriend is someone you should marry, marry him. And remember that marriage is to last as long as you are both alive. Otherwise, figure out a way to be friends. Friendships normally don't involve a sexual relationship. And they are good also. 
    

​
0 Comments

Matthew 13 and Parables in General

10/9/2024

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays Are for the New Testament.
10/9/24

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2010). "Matthew 13."  Matthew 11:2-20:34. (pages 659-736). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)

    Gibbs prefaces his discussion of the parables in Matthew 13 with an extensive discourse on the nature of parables.
    Early interpreters of the parables, until the time of the Enlightenment, took them to have symbolic elements which would require decoding (Gibbs 2010, p. 659). In general, the smaller elements would be viewed in the context of the parable as a whole. The interpretation tended to be more allegorical in nature than many modern conservatives would like. Gibbs maintains that, in general, Jesus and the apostles intended an allegorical interpretation. This does not, in Gibbs' estimation, endorse "unlikely or outrageous interpretations" (Gibbs 2010, p. 660).
    With the rise of the Enlightenment Gibbs sees a shift toward distrust of the biblical accounts. This led toward attempts to re-interpret the events and statements to find the "historical Jesus" (Gibbs 2010, p. 661). One of the important interpretive changes, endorsed by Adolf Jülicher in the late 1800s, was to make a sharp distinction between metaphor and simile (Gibbs 2010, pp. 661-662). He endorsed the idea of a simile being used to clarify a concept, and a metaphor to obscure it. An extended simile is a "similitude" while an extended metaphor is an "allegory" (Gibbs 2010, p. 662). He also took the original words of Jesus to have been clear similes, which were converted into allegories by the evangelists and other interpreters. Gibbs considers Jülicher's process to be "wrong-headed" partly because it creates confusion in interpretation of modes of communication and also because it denies the fact that symbolic language appears on a continuum rather than as an either-or proposition where a message is symbolic or it isn't (Gibbs 2010, p. 663).
    Gibbs notes that an actual definition of a parable is somewhat elusive. The Greek word is used in a number of ways, and different scholars take different views about what constitutes a parable in the canonical materials (Gibbs 2010, p. 665). Matthew's Gospel uses the term 17 times, 15 of which "refer to brief past-time narratives that are really about something other than the surface meaning of the story. Most are about the reign of heaven/God" (Gibbs 2010, p. 665). This is generally the case with Mark and Luke as well. There are often exaggerated aspects which appear unexpectedly (Gibbs 2010, p. 666).
    Gibbs suggests four principles for interpretation of parables. First, he cautions against over-interpreting small details (Gibbs 2010, p. 667). Second, it is important to look for ways in which the details complement one another. The large and small may work closely together. Third, it is important to pay attention to the story as told. Interpretation of what we perceive to be literary and historical contexts are very important (Gibbs 2010, p. 668). Events and statements before and after are significant contextual clues.
    Gibbs observes that the process of reaching an understanding of a parable is significant. In some instances a parable might make a concept more readily understandable, while at other times it may provoke ongoing thought and questioning to get the point (Gibbs 2010, p. 669). An important question in Gibbs' view is the overall purpose of Jesus in use of parabolic teaching. If Jesus were only intent on obscuring his teaching from the crowds he could simply have taught only his closest disciples. There is a more complex situation in Jesus' teaching. Gibbs postulates that it may be that Jesus' teaching in parables pushes people to invest the necessary mental energy to understand concepts at a later time (Gibbs 2010, p. 670).
    Matthew chapter 13 is taken up with a series of parables. Gibbs notes that there have been a variety of patterns proposed for the overall structure of the passage (Gibbs 2010, p. 671). There is a major break in 13:36 where we see a shift from teaching crowds outside to teaching disciples inside (Gibbs 2010, p. 672). The parables can also be divided into two groups of three, from 13:24-50. Gibbs proposes a three part structure. Here, the first part is the parable of the Sower (1-23) (Gibbs 2010, p. 672), followed by a second part in 24-35 and a third part in 36-50 (Gibbs 2010, p. 673). This creates a count of seven parables. The brief explanation in 51-52 signals the end of the discourse.
    Following this pattern, Gibbs returns to his commentary on the text proper, starting with the Parable of the Sower and its explanation, 13:1-23 (Gibbs 2010, p. 674). After his translation, Gibbs provides textual and grammatical notes as is his custom. The grammatical notes are fairly extensive here due to the slightly obtuse and choppy language used by Matthew.
    The parable of the Sower follows on the heels of a passage in which it has been clear that the Pharisees are rejecting Jesus. Gibbs sees this as a very deliberate move, as Jesus is explaining why there are such different responses to him (Gibbs 2010, p. 680). Some of the seeds are prevented from doing their natural work, for various reasons. However, the seed which falls in good ground is quite productive (Gibbs 2010, p. 681). Gibbs points out that while the reasons for a lack of productivity are fairly clearly given, the way the good ground makes the seed thrive is not very clear. He takes this to suggest that there are a variety of ways that a positive life for Christ may be lived out.
    Matthew 13:10-17 records Jesus' disciples asking him not how to understand his parable, but why he is teaching the crowds by using parables. Gibbs points out that Jesus' disciples typically ask him questions when away from the crowds. Jesus' answer is an explanation of the parable, not an answer to the disciples' specific question (Gibbs 2010, p. 83). Yet it is an interaction which demonstrates that Jesus, at least here, instructs only his disciples. The revelation of meaning, further, does not come due to intellectual ability or persistence, but because God has chosen to reveal it (Gibbs 2010, p. 684). Gibbs observes again that the parabolic teaching is not merely intended to be difficult to understand, but that it also provokes thought and further inquiry, in a way similar to God's teaching through Isaiah (Gibbs 2010, p. 685).
    Gibbs closes his discussion of the Parable of the Sower with a reflection on the intended impact of the parable. He takes this parable to caution us against an expectation that Jesus will work and succeed in the ways we might think normal (Gibbs 2010, p. 687). The disciples may have been in doubt as to the effectiveness of Jesus' work. He, on the other hand, understands and teaches that there are reasons why God's Word would not be embraced by all. Yet there is a positive response, which would bring joy (Gibbs 2010, p. 688). God spreads his word freely and generously. And, finally, life in light of God's word is to be lived out in wisdom. It is necessary for Chrsitians to be conscious of the "soil" they are, and to seek to improve it.
    The next three parables, concerning weeds, a mustard seed, and leaven, are treated together (Matthew 13:24-35). Gibbs treats them together for three primary reasons. The three parables are distinguished by their setting of being in a crowd, as well as by the theme of the present reality of Jesus' kingdom, though it is not completely realized yet (Gibbs 2010, p. 694). Gibbs points out the kingly action of reigning is under way in Jesus. However, we find it in an unexpected way.
    Gibbs understands the parable of the wheat and the weeds to signify a present kingdom of God, with the master planting his grain in the ground (Gibbs 2010, p. 696). The kingdom is not fully realized when the work of an enemy is discovered. The weeds are found to be growing along with the desired grain. The master commands that nothing should be changed until the harvest. Gibbs concludes that the audience would observe two things: first, God's kingdom is present already, and second, that Jesus is content to let it develop as it has begun (Gibbs 2010, p. 697).
    Matthew 13:31-32 is a very brief parable about the kingdom of God. Again, Gibbs notes it speaks to the presence of God's kingdom (Gibbs 2010, p. 697). He points out the strongly hyperbolic description given by Jesus of the mustard plant, which never grows into a large tree (Gibbs 2010, p. 698). In its present form, God's kingdom appears insignificant. However, it will grow beyond the listeners' expectations. Though we have no record of an explanation given to the disciples, Gibbs takes Jesus to be the one planting in both the parable of the Sower and the Mustard Seed. The apparently small thing Jesus is doing can be expected to grow. God's reign is established using his own means (Gibbs 2010, p. 699).
    Matthew 13:33 contains a very brief parable. Surprisingly, the main character is a woman, and she is using leaven, which is often associated symbolically with sin (Gibbs 2010, pp. 699-700). The quantity of flour, about ten gallons, is a very substantial pile, which will bake a large amount of bread. Gibbs takes the essential message of the parable to be the hidden nature of God's kingdom. The bread will rise, given time. Yet it may not be immediately perceptible (Gibbs 2010, p. 700).
    The group of three parables concludes in 13:34-35 with a brief explanation of Jesus' use of parables,citing Psalm 78 (Gibbs 2010, p. 701). In the context, the Psalm calls people to attend to its riddles which will be made plain. Jesus' work in Matthew 13 includes speaking of God's work, but in a way which may seem unclear at first. God's kingdom has come, and will be revealed more plainly given time.
    Gibbs takes the move into a house in Matthew 13:36 to signal a new section where we have an explanation of the parable of the weeds, then three additional parables (Gibbs 2010, p. 703). The section continues through verse 50. The audience here is no longer the crowds but Jesus' disciples, who ask for an explanation of the Parable of the Weeds (Gibbs 2010, p. 705). Gibbs considers that the disciples, in staying with Jesus and asking for his explanation, are also asking that they be under the protection of God's kingdom, even though they don't fully see it as Jesus does (Gibbs 2010, p. 706). They are struggling with their lack of understanding, and need Jesus' reassurance.
    Gibbs describes Jesus' explanation of the parable of the Weeds and divided neatly into two parts. In Matthew 13:36-39 Jesus briefly explains who or what the different elements are in the story (Gibbs 2010, p. 706). He then goes on to a description of the end of the age (13:40-43). Those who do not follow Jesus have a horrible fate, while those who believe Jesus will receive a place in glory in God's reign (Gibbs 2010, p. 707).
    There is an interpretive challenge inherent in the parable's relatively extended discussion of the conversation with the farm workers and the master's insistence that nothing is to be done. The explanation given by Jesus lacks any focus on that prominent element (Gibbs 2010, p. 708). Gibbs considers the different setting of the parable and its explanation to be important in this regard. The parable was told to the crowds, but interpreted to the disciples in private. The crowd may have had a greater benefit thinking about the present age when those who trust Jesus are mixed in with those who don't. The disciples, on the other hand, may have been more in need of reassurance of their future state.
    Another interpretive challenge is the identification of "the field" with "the world." Much historic commentary has taken "the field" to be the visible church, thus leading to an overall interpretation related to church discipline (Gibbs 2010, p. 709). More recent commentary has emphasized the identity as "the world," thus placing the interpretation into the realm of the Church as compared with unbelievers. Gibbs, though acknowledging the strength of the more recent views, thinks the imagery is more apt in terms of the visible church, with believers and unbelievers in Christ mixed together. The focus is on the different seeds in one compact location (Gibbs 2010, p. 710).
    The two brief parables in Matthew 13:44-46 have a challenging history of interpretation. The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl have regularly been interpreted along the lines of a call to commitment and discipleship. Gibbs surveys interpretations along these lines in some detail (Gibbs 2010, pp. 712-713). There has been a more Christological interpretation articulated periodically since the 1840s in which Christ is the one seeking a treasure, which turns out to be His people (Gibbs 2010, pp. 713 ff). Gibbs provides an exegetical summary of the significant differences between the two parables, as well as a summary of their striking similarities of a decision to sell or give up all so as to obtain the reward. He finds the force of giving up all and being able to make the purchase a compelling argument in favor of understanding Christ as the one who purchases the treasure (Gibbs 2010, p. 715). Gibbs continues with a detailed exegetical study of the two parables from a Christocentric point of view (Gibbs 2010, pp. 716ff). Gibbs concludes that throughout these parables Jesus is illustrating his concern for the world and his treatment of his disciples as a treasure for which he would give everything to redeem (Gibbs 2010, p. 720). The motif of hiddenness is significant throughout all the surrounding context. The glory of God's reign has been present, unnoticed, in Christ and the disciples (Gibbs 2010, p. 721). Gibbs sees this as an encouragement to the disciples. They and Jesus are seeing what the world surrounding them does not see.
    Matthew 13:47-50 describes a dragnet, a departure from the agricultural motif (Gibbs 2010, p. 721). In distinction from the parable of the weeds, here there is no indication of anybody interfering with a good outcome. However, Gibbs notes the outcome is still encouraging. The good will be saved (Gibbs 2010, p. 722).
    Gibbs takes Matthew 13:51-52 as a conclusion. Here the disciple is able to reveal God's mysteries (Gibbs 2010, p. 723). The disciples of Jesus are coming to understand the mysteries of God's kingdom. They know that all will be put to right in the end. Gibbs interprets this as "a treasure-store of wisdom and truth that comes from the Christ" (Gibbs 2010, p. 724).
    Matthew 13 closes, in verses 53-58, with a description of Jesus being questioned and rejected in Nazareth (Gibbs 2010, p. 726). Gibbs observes that this show of unbelief is the close of a "bracket of unbelief" around the chapter 13 parables (Gibbs 2010, p. 728). Here, in verses 54c-56, the people are reported as asking a stream of five questions, all centered on Jesus' identity. In Gibbs' estimation it shows not only a failure to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, but that they don't even see him as a prophet (Gibbs 2010, p. 729). Except for the first and last questions, which assume Joseph is Jesus' father and that there is no way Jesus could have miraculous powers, the questioners are correct in identifying family members. Matthew, in 13:57-58, tells us the people are not so much wrongly informed but are stumbling into unbelief (Gibbs 2010, p. 731). The unbelief, as it spreads, ultimately is what kills Jesus and incurs God's judgment, as we will see in later chapters of Matthew.
    Gibbs, taking the rejection of Jesus in Nazareth as his impetus, discussies the view of Jesus' brothers and sisters, as well as the concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary (Gibbs 2010, p. 732). Though the Church of Rome and the Orthodox churches consider Mary to have remained a virgin all her life, the Lutheran community is not entirely in agreement. Gibbs takes the clear statements of Scripture about Jesus' family, particularly Matthew 12:46-47 and 13:55-56 to be that Mary and Joseph had at least six children (Gibbs 2010, p. 732). There are no hints of the brothers and sisters being from a previous marriage of Joseph, adopted, or otherwise brought into the family. Gibbs notes a statement in the Latin version of the Smalcald Articles (1.4) referring to "ever-virgin" Mary, but that the allusion was a later insertion (Gibbs 2010, p. 733). The claims of perpetual virginity of Mary, in Gobbs' opinion, are intended to create a doctrine about Mary. However, the theologically important view is that Mary was a virgin at the time of the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus (Gibbs 2010, p. 734). This is clearly stated in Scripture.

​
0 Comments

Weighing the Debate on Infant Baptism

10/8/2024

0 Comments

 
Tuesday Scholarly Notes
10/8/24

Aland, Kurt. (1961). "Chapter One: Changes." Did the Early Church Baptize Infants? (Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray). (pages 29-41). Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock. (Personal Library)

Aland begins his work with a review of the thought of the generation before his as to the practice of infant baptism. He takes Harnack's summary as a helpful starting point, when he referenced infant baptism as verifiable after the end of the second century but not verifiable earlier (Aland 1961, p. 29). Other scholars with less liberal views likewise say that there is no clear evidence for a usual custom of infant baptism at an early date. In 1931, Ethelbert Stauffer conceded that there is no mention of infant baptism in the New Testament (Aland 1961, p. 30). Aland then references "the work of Joachim Jeremians, Infant Baptism in the first Four Centuries, published in German in 1958 and in English in 1960" (Aland 1961, p. 30. The 1960 edition of Jeremias was published by SCM Press). The preface of this volume indicates that it self-consciously serves as a counter-argument to Jeremias' work. Aland will work with Jeremias' arguments, particularly drawing on the English edition, as it is of a more recent date.
    Aland reports that Jeremias "makes a point of distinction between 'the baptism of children joining the Church' and 'the baptism of children born to Christian parents'" (Aland 1961, p. 31, cf. the first and second chapter titles in Jeremias 1960). Because of the missionary nature of the first century Church, adult converts are at the center of the picture. However, as families would convert to Christianity the accounts are made in terms of households. When these families included children, it is natural to assume the children were baptized along with the parents. It would be expected that if some were omitted, there would be some mention of the fact. Aland walks through Jeremias' argument of this point in detail, with specific references to the location of the different elements of the argument in Jeremias.
    A persuasive element of Jeremias' argument as described by Aland is that of Jewish baptism of proselytes. Children who were already born at the time of the family's conversion were circumcised (male) or baptized (female). If children were born after the family, they were treated exactly as other Israelites (Aland 1961, p. 32-33). It is reasonable to assume a similar pattern for Christian family conversions.
    If baptism is a Christian version of circumcision (Colossians 2:11), and Christians rejected circumcision, it is valid to ask whether baptism was applied to children or not (Aland 1961, p. 33). Jeremiahs, in his 1958 edition, finds a change of baptismal practice in the mid fifties (Aland 1961, p. 33-34). Before this time, the consensus was to not baptize children.
    Jeremias' 1960 edition did not identify baptism, but rather the descent of children from a Christian parent was taken to place people into the protection of God.
    Jeremias takes there to be an abrupt change in A.D. 55. Before that time he finds less evidence for infant baptism, but after then there is a greater bulk of information about the makeup of families who convert to Christianity.
    From the middle of the first century to the end of the third century, there is considerably more evidence for baptism, though not in all regions (Aland 1961, p. 37). Origen's report, which may be influenced by the testimony of his grandfather and father, suggests a habit of baptizing infants at an early time in the Christian period (Aland 1961, p. 38). The second century testimony of Tertullian is more difficult, as it makes arguments for cases in which a delay of baptism would be appropriate (Aland 1961, p. 40).

​
0 Comments

An Orderly Life Matters

10/7/2024

0 Comments

 

Mondays are for Church History
10/7/24

Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter VI. Church Discipline and Schisms." In  History of the Christian Church. (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Volume 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600, from Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great. (pp. 2106-2123). (Original work published 1889).  Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 68-73).

"§68. Decline of Discipline."

    Schaff points out a decline of discipline within Christianity related to its close relationship with the state (Schaff 2014, p. 2106). Because of the legal status of Christianity, penalties for various failings tended to be administered as would violations of civil law. The death penalty might even be imposed upon a heretic. At the same time, however, discipline in general was weakened. Schaff lists a number of other times in history when the Church has tended to be very lenient. This tendency, in the fourth through sixth centuries, was pronounced in the Greek church (Schaff 2014, p. 2107), even resulting in free access of all to communion, with no role except for bishops in fencing the table. Schaff does identify several exceptions to the widespread lack of discipline, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

"§69. The Donatist Schism. External History."

    After a brief bibliography, Schaff identifies the Donatist schism as the most important controversy of the period. At its heart, Schaff considers it related to differing views of discipline (Schaff 2014, p. 2110). The persecution under Diocletian pushed some to expect and even pursue martyrdom. Others would tend to make some capitulation in the interest of self preservation (Schaff 2014, p. 2111). At issue, then, was whether it was permissible for someone who had capitulated to be restored to fellowship in the church. There were also questions about the validity of ordination performed by someone who had capitulated. Donatus, elevated to be bishop of Numidia in 315, became the leader of a party which rejected bishops who were understood as having capitulated (Schaff 2014, p. 2111). Constantine urged toleration on both sides of the dispute, granting the Donatists "full liberty of faith and worship" in 321 (Schaff 2014, p. 2112). Some of the Donatist party pursued radical attempts to be arrested and persecuted, with their efforts continuing through the time of the emperor Julian the Apostate (Schaff 2014, p. 2113). 

"§70. Augustine and the Donatists. Their Persecution and Extinction."

    Near the end of the fourth century and beginning of the fifth century, Augustine of Hippo, who dealt with a large number of Donatists, worked to reconcile them with the Catholics (Schaff 2014, p. 2113). The controversy and Augustine's efforts at reconciliation resulted in a meeting for arbitration in Carthage in 411, attended by just under 300 bishops from each side of the controversy.
    Because the judge in the matter was sympathetic to Augustine, who made the argument on behalf of the Catholics, the decision went against the Donatists (Schaff 2014, p. 2114). Donatist clergy were widely banned, and some even threatened with death. This inspired Donatists to further attempts to be condemned and persecuted. Schaff observes that the controversy finally came to an end by a "conquest of Africa by the Arian Vandals in 428" (Schaff 2014, p. 2114). Some remnants remained until the seventh century and the overthrow of North Africa by Islam (Schaff 2014, p. 2115).

"§71. Internal History of the Donatist Schism. Dogma of the Church."
    
    An important issue raised by the Donatist controversy was the actual "doctrine of the essence of the Christian church, and, in particular, of the predicate of holiness" (Schaff 2014, p. 2115_. This pushed Augustine in his writings to attempt an articulation of the nature of both faithful and faithless people within the fellowship of the Church. Schaff notes this work serves as a continuation of the earlier work of Cyprian of Carthage. The Donatists were predisposed to remove those lacking in external holiness from the Church (Schaff 2014, p. 2116). Augustine, on the other hand, asserted a theory that the church is inherently holy and that, even though some members are lacking in personal character, the unity of the church and its churchly functions is rightly holy. Schaff notes this view has been affirmed by many different branches of Christianity. Because sinners and saints are together in the world until the final judgment they cannot be made entirely separate (Schaff 2014, p. 2118). Augustine held that the one Church contained all sorts of people. The Donatists held that the true Church was only those recognized as adequately holy.

"§72. The Roman Schism of Damasus and Ursinus."

    Another schism of the Church came about between Damasus and Ursinus in Rome, partially motivated by personal ambition and partially by the Arian heresy (Schaff 2014, p. 2120). The orthodox bishop Liberius was deposed and banished, and an Arian, Felix, was elected as pope, with the consent of Constantius, in 355. Liberius embraced Arianism during his exile. After the death of Liberius, the parties of Felix and Liberius elected Damasus and Ursinus respectively for the position of pope. The controversy then resulted in a number of bloody skirmishes. Damasus ultimately retained the office.

"§73. The Meletian Schism at Antioch."

    The schism at Antioch was provoked by the elevation of Meletius to bishop (Schaff 2014, p. 2121). Because Meletius had been an Arian then professed orthodoxy, both parties considered him questionable. He was eventually banished by the Arians, then briefly supported by the orthodox Christians. At issue between the groups at the time was whether the Godhead had three hypostases (the Meletians) or three prosopa (the Nicenes) (Schaff 2014, p. 2122). The schism continued until 413 or 415, when the parties were reconciled (Schaff 2014, p. 2123). 

​
0 Comments

Liturgy for Baptism and Eucharist

10/4/2024

0 Comments

 
Friday Scholarly Notes
10/4/24

Niederwimmer, Kurt. (1998). "II: The Liturgy.(7.1-10.7)" In The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache. (125-167). (Original German 1989). Fortress Press. (Personal Library).

    Niederwimmer sees the Didache to engage in a completely different kind of task in 7.1-10.7 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 125). The pre-baptismal catechesis is over. Now there is what we could consider an "agenda." "In it the Didachist apparently makes use of liturgical traditions and probably had a fixed, written set of instructions as his source. To the old tradition (i.e., the source) he adds passages from his own pen" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 125). Niederwimmer divides this material into a section on baptism (ch. 7), and one on the Eucharist (9-10), with instructions about fasting and prayer inserted as an excursus tied to baptism.
    Nitederwimmer takes the transitional statement "having said all this beforehand" in 7.1, as well as the concessions about the method of baptism to be the work of a redactor, not the original source material used by the Didachist (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 125). The introduction, "but about baptism, baptize this way" is likely from the source used by the Didachist (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 126). Niederwimmer considers it uncertain whether there was a recitation of Didache ch. 1-6 before a baptism, even while he considers it certain that additional instruction took place before baptism. There is a three-part ritual formula in Didache 7, which is identical in nature to that in Matthew 28:19 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 126). He considers this agreement to be best explained by both authors depending on the same liturgy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 127). The water is expected to be "flowing, fresh spring water," which Niederwimmer notes as the normal water used in Jewish purification ceremonies. Though "living water" is the norm, Niederwimmer takes the redactor to have relaxed the standard, allowing other types of water in verse two. The threefold pouring of water on the head is acceptable if other water is not available. Niederwimmer comments that the beginning of the process is trinitarian in nature, as is the end.
    Niederwimmer notes that there were Jewish classifications of water for ceremonial worship. Though "the effect of baptism is unquestioned" it was still preferable to have the pure running water if possible (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 128-129).
    Didache 7.4 speaks of fasting before baptism. Niederwimmer takes this to come from the liturgical source the Didachist used. Again, fasting is a common practice in Jewish and early Christian tradition (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 129). The command to have others join in the fast was possibly more rigorous and declined early. Niederwimmer bases his opinion on this matter on the fact that a community fast is not absolutely required (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 130).
    Didache 8.1 digresses slightly from the pre-baptismal fast to identifying appropriate days for routine practices of fasting. no motive is given for the fast. However, the Christian practice is to differ in some substantive way from the Jewish practices (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 131). Niederwimmer considers the reference to "the hypocrites" as encapsulating all Jews, not just one class, such as Pharisees. This statement does signal that the Christian and Jewish communities are in closer proximity, but are distancing themselves from one another at the time (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 132). The Jewish community may well have had prescribed fast days. The Christians did not have them prescribed, but were urged to make a difference in their fasting (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 132-133).
    Didache 8.2-3 draws us into prayer. Again, Niederwimmer observes the prayer customs of the Christians should differ from those of the Jews (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 134). The reference to praying as the Lord commanded in his gospel strikes Niederwimmer as being a clumsy insertion into the pre-existing liturgical tradition. This "gospel" may have been an oral or a written tradition (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 135). The prayer is almost identical to that used in Matthew. Niederwimmer doubts literary dependence on Matthew, preferring instead a common liturgical tradition. Niederwimmer details the difference between the prayer in the Didache and in Matthew 6 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 136). He also observes that "Adolf Schlatter and Joachim Jeremias have instructed us. . . that the our Father was one of the prayers 'with the "seal," i.e., with a freely formulated conclusion'" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 136). Over a period of time a fixed form of a doxology could become permanently attached to a prayer. The doxology which attached itself to Matthew is distinct from the one in the Didache. While the Matthean prayer gained "kingdom, power, and glory" the Didache has simply "power and glory" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 137). The doxology on the prayer in the Didache (8.2) occurs again at 10.5, and with a slight variation at 9.4 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 138). The prayer is to be used three times daily (8.3) but the specific times of the day are apparently not yet set. At least they are not mentioned in the Didache.
    The eucharistic segment of the Didache goes from 9.1-10.7. Niederwimmer notes this is "the oldest formula for the Christian eucharistic liturgy" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 139). The passage has been studied extensively. There is no clear description of the liturgical elements. However, we have prayers, acclamations, and rubrics. Chapters 9 and 10 have strong parallels to each other, as Niederwimmer illustrates by setting the material in parallel columns. The prayers throughout this section follow the model of Jewish prayers (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 140).
    Niederwimmer observes that the reader expects the eucharist as presented to be the Lord's Supper essentially as it might be practiced today. However, the elements are in the opposite order than normal modern practice would expect. Further, there is no institution narrative. The prayers also contain little, if any, reference to the passion of Christ. Finally, it appears this may be a full meal (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 140). Niederwimmer catalogs proponents of three possible positions: a eucharistic celebration introducing an agape meal, an agape meal with its prayers, or two versions of a eucharist (one with a special circumstance of baptism, one representing a regular Sunday observance) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 141). Another suggestion is that the prayers for the community meal may be followed by a eucharist, or that the eucharist and agape meal had not been distinguished from one another (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 142). Niederwimmer attempts to resolve the difficulty by starting with a view of Didache 10.6 as a text to precede the "sacramental Communion" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 142). This would require that the eating introduced in 10.1 is a community meal, resolving the difference in the order of the elements. If this is the case, the blessing in 9.2-4 can be seen in the same way as that in 10.1 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 143). Niederwimmer's view requires his argument that εὐχαριστία in 9.1 is not yet used as a term for the sacrament but can be applied to other acts of giving thanks (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 143). The omission of the institution narrative has been explained in two ways, which Niederwimmer finds unsatisfying. Either it was entirely well known or it may have been retained unwritten to guard secrecy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 143). Niederwimmer does not suggest an alternative. Rather, he goes on to specific comments on the content.
    Didache 9.1, like 7.1, is an introductory rubric. Here it signals a move to speak about εὐχαριστία (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 144). Niederwimmer does not take it to refer to the Lord's Supper, as mentioned above. In verse two, Niederwimmer notes the Jewish custom of a meal starting with a cup, over which each participant states a blessing. The structure of the blessing is parallel to common Jewish meal prayers (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 145). Niederwimmer takes the admittedly cryptic giving of thanks for "the holy vine of David" as a metaphor for salvation, revealed through Jesus (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 146). The term παῖς, applied to both David and Jesus in this passage, is routinely interpreted as "servant" rather than "child." Niederwimmer contends (though without proofs in this instance) that the term would not have been interpreted as "child" by this time, but took on the significance later (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 147). The doxology, at the end of 9.2, could well be a response of the community (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 148).
    The reference to bread in Didache 9.3 often draws comment due to its unusual wording. The use of the word κλάσμα rather than ἄρτος is curious. Niederwimmer takes it to be the broken bread, as opposed to a whole loaf (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 148). This may signal a later stage of redaction, as well as possibly indicating an Egyptian emendation, as the word was more common in Egyptian eucharistic usage. The structure of the prayer is parallel to that used earlier over the wine. Niederwimmer considers the reference to "life" and "knowledge" to be forceful, indicating a fullness of life and knowledge (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 149). In Didache 9.4 a second prayer follows, desiring an eschatological unity of Christians, as the bread is a unity of many grains. Niederwimmer again emphasizes that the evidence in the Didache represents the oldest known example of liturgy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 150). 
    Niederwimmer engages the actual text of the prayers in a brief excursus. The eschatological hope is a well established Old Testament concept The structure of the prayers also follows a well established pattern for Jewish prayers. Yet the language used is clearly reflective of a Christian confession, that not only the people of God's covenant with Israel, but the entire Church will be gathered together in the last day (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 151). An appropriate liturgical response to such a prayer is found in the doxology ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ δύναμις διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 152).
    Niederwimmer sees Didache 9.5 as a rubrical comment. Those who have not been baptized are not partakers of the meal (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 152). Again, it is not clear to Niederwimmer whether this refers to the entire meal or to simply the particular foods, and whether this meal is considered a sacramental Lord's Supper. He considers the meal in chapter ten to be more clearly a sacramental Lord's supper, and that the rubric here separates the unbaptized from the sacrament (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 153). The prohibition, predicated on a saying of the Lord, uses the exact words of Matthew 7:6, however, in a vastly different context from Matthew's use of the statement. Niederwimmer considers that this usage does not reflect use of Matthew's Gospel, but from some other collection of Jesus' statements due to the very different context (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 153).
    While Niederwimmer considers the material just discussed to contain significant redaction of an original source on the part of the Didachist, at 10.1 he considers the Didachist to have returned to his original source (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 155). The meal in question has been eaten. Now that everyone's hunger has been satisfied, a prayer of thanksgiving follows. Niederwimmer observes that "the prayer consists of three benedictions…, each introduced by an address…, and concluded by a doxology" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 155). The prayer follows the pattern of the Jewish Birkat Ha-Mazon. However, the parts do not correspond with each other. The first part has no parallel in content, while the second part of the Didache prayer shows similarity in content to the first Jewish benediction, and the third part of the Didache prayer resembles the third Jewish benediction (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 156). Niederwimmer notes the element of praise to God who dwells in his people's hearts with his name. In 9.3 God gave gifts of life and knowledge, but here he gives knowledge, faith, and immortality (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 157). He is addressed as the creator of all, and the one who acts in a gracious manner. The giving of "spiritual food (and) drink" is understood by Niederwimmer to look forward  to the sacramental meal, which follows the more substantial and filling meal which has been eaten together before the prayer (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 158). Didache 10.5 bears some similarity in content to the third benediction in the post-meal prayers of Jewish tradition. God is present among his people. Rather than recognizing him in Jerusalem and the people of Zion, the prayer in the Didache asks God to remember his church and bring them into his kingdom, a clearly Christian understanding of restoration (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 159). Again there is a doxology, which Niederwimmer sees as the likely congregational response (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 161).
    Niederwimmer finds Didache 10.6 to present difficulties in interpretation. The verse moves from the prayer which precedes it to a ritual acclamation. It presents a number of short and not strongly connected sentences (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 161). The material shows a strong eschatological orientation, and cries out to God in praise. This is more fitting for the introduction of a sacramental meal than for the conclusion of a meal. Niederwimmer, then takes the passage as a dialogue introducing the sacramental eucharist, which follows after chapter 10.  The dialogue both invites the Lord's presence and those who are holy to come, but prohibits those who are not holy, calling them to repentance (Niederwimmer 1998, pp. 162-163).
    Didache 10.7 appears to Niederwimmer as a rubric, guiding the community in their reception of prophets, who will act in different ways from the local elders (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 164). The prophets may pray freely in the eucharistic setting. This may apply to their choice to use or not use the earlier specified liturgical prayers, or it may be understood as permission to add prayers to those already used in the liturgy. 
    Niederwimmer next considers the brief insertion found in the Coptic version of the Didache. He provides a Greek version of the Coptic text at this point, along with a parallel Greek text of Apostolic Constitutions' corresponding passage (7.27.1-2) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 165).  The prayer is a blessing on myron, which is often assumed to be special scented oil. This is variously considered something used in baptism or in anointing of the sick (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 166).

​
0 Comments

Are All Christians Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage?

10/3/2024

0 Comments

 
10/3/24

    I get variations of this question fairly frequently. Are there other posts on my blog about a similar issue? Very likely. The short answer to the question is "no." Not all Christians are opposed to same-sex marriage. My slightly longer, more nuanced, answer is "no, but they should be." Let's unpack that a bit.
    In the biblical account of creation, in Genesis 2:18-24, we can discern a complementary role of male and female. This is illustrated certainly in the world of animals, as well as in many plants. In the animal kingdom, there are only a few species for which both male and female are not needed to reproduce and continue the species.
    In Matthew 19:3-6, Jesus is recorded as not only affirming the assumption that marriage, central to family formation, consists of male and female relationships, but also that the source of this understanding is in Genesis chapter two and that marriage is something intended to endure throughout life.
    We are given a compelling rationale for this in the letter of the apostle Paul to the church at Ephesus, also included in the New Testament writings. In Ephesians 5:31-32 the apostle quotes Genesis 2:24 and says the real relationship he is describing is that of Christ and the Church.
    Now here's where my slightly more nuanced answer from the first paragraph gets some traction. If marriage is to be a picture of Christ and the Church, it is not to be of two (or more) beings who are identical in all ways. As males and females have a fundamental equality but normally perform different roles, Christ has made the Church fundamentally his equal, through what is described as adoption. Yet Christ is the head of the Church, which is His body. There are different roles. Since marriage depicts this relationship, it is reasonable to expect some difference between the people involved. This is described as being one man and one woman. The picture then becomes intelligible.

0 Comments

What's the Root of the Controversy with the Pharisees?

10/2/2024

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays Are for the New Testament.
10/2/24

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2010). "Matthew 12."  Matthew 11:2-20:34. (pages 595-658). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)

    Gibbs provides fairly extensive textual notes for Matthew 12:1-14. The grammar is relatively challenging in this passage, as there are several oddities in the word order. These oddities serve to place emphasis on unexpected parts of the sentences, which will become clearer as Gibbs moves into the commentary proper.
    The accusation of the Pharisees in Matthew 12 begins with an objection to the disciples doing what could constitute harvesting grain on the Sabbath. For this reason, it is natural to assume the issue is fairly clear-cut. However, Gibbs observes that Jesus immediately draws the Pharisees into a different topic (Gibbs 2010, p. 600). Jesus' counter-argument "asserts that he and his ministry are so central to what God is finally doing in Israel that Jesus (and by implication, his disciples) cannot be in violation of the Sabbath" (Gibbs 2010, p. 600, emphasis Gibbs'). The importance is to understand Jesus, not the Sabbath, correctly. Gibbs argues that the Christological concern is the unifying theme for Matthew 11:2-16:20.
    The controversy raised by the Pharisees is related to their understanding of Sabbath law. This prompts Gibbs to review what we know of this area of law established and developed throughout the period to the time of Jesus' ministry as described in Matthew 12 (Gibbs 2010, p. 602). The actual Old Testament passages pertaining to the day of rest are relatively brief, calling for rest, and illustrating ways in which normal behaviors of daily life may exemplify a failure to take the required rest. Texts such as Jubilees 50:1-13 and the Damascus Document 10:14-11:18 and 12:3-6 present lists of specific ways the Sabbath may be violated (Gibbs 2010, pp. 602-603). The later tractates found in the Mishnah and Genera, written between about A.D. 200 and 600 provide additional insight. However, Gibbs observes that we are not certain when the rules listed originated (Gibbs 2010, p. 603). Matthew 12 does suggest a preoccupation with the right interpretation of keeping the Sabbath (Gibbs 2010, p. 604). While Gibbs urges his readers not to consider Jesus' opponents as necessarily attempting to endorse salvation by works of the law, he considers it fairly certain that their attempt to guard God's law through extensive additional stipulations was inappropriate, making it "more a burden than a blessing" (Gibbs 2010, p. 605).
    Matthew 12:3-8 shows Jesus' move to turn the Pharisees' complaint from the context of legal stipulations to their understanding of Jesus' identity (Gibbs 2010, p. 605). Jesus simply refuses to speak to the initial question of the permitted activities on the Sabbath. He proceeds to identify himself as greater than David, whose actions would have been seen as a violation of the Law (Gibbs 2010, p. 606). In this first example, it is important to observe that David was recognized as the one anointed by God. Jesus goes on in verses 5-6 to state that priests work on the Sabbath, and it does not profane the temple (Gibbs 2010, p. 607). In this instance, Jesus clearly says his work is greater than God's temple (Gibbs 2010, p. 608). Gibbs explains the logic implicit in Jesus' statement at some length. In verses 7-8, Jesus makes a third argument, that he is the manifestation of God's mercy (Gibbs 2010, p. 610). Using Hosea 6:6, as he had in Matthew 9:13, Jesus points out the Pharisees' failure to understand God's mercy. It is implicit in Jesus' role as the Messiah that he gives rest to God's people (11:28-29). This, in Gibbs' view, is why he is the Lord of the Sabbath, a manifestation of God's mercy for Israel (Gibbs 2010, p. 611).
    Matthew 12:9-14 moves directly from talk of Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath to actions demonstrating his use of the Sabbath as a time of rest and healing (Gibbs 2010, p. 612). The Pharisees present Jesus, in the synagogue, with a man who has a withered hand. Gibbs observes that we have no record from the period of rabbinic discussion of healing on the Sabbath (Gibbs 2010, pp. 612-613). Jesus' response to the question is that the man is more valuable than an animal which would be rescued on the Sabbath.His work of healing gives rest and relief, appropriate for a Sabbath.
    Gibbs concludes that in Matthew 12:1-14, the controversy originally presented regarding work on the Sabbath, has been resolved by the very identity of Jesus, who shows himself as the authoritative Lord of the Sabbath, giving people rest which surpasses their expectations (Gibbs 2010, pp. 614-617 passim). Gibbs describes a proper view of the Sabbath as finding rest in Jesus. He notes, "no one day of the week need be observed as the exclusive Sabbath because Jesus' promise of rest is continual for all who come to him (11:28)" (Gibbs 2010, p. 615). The rest Christians have, however, is not idle. As Jesus does good in giving rest, Gibbs maintains that the proper work of Christians is also to do good and give mercy and rest to others (Gibbs 2010, p. 617).
    Gibbs sees Matthew 12:15-21 as a coherent unit. He observes that in verse 15, Jesus deliberately removed himself from the area, probably because he knew the Pharisees were plotting against him (Gibbs 2010, p. 618).
    There are significant differences among Matthew 12:18-21, the Masoretic text, and the Septuagint of Isaiah 42:14. Gibbs catalogs them in some detail (Gibbs 2010, p0. 619-623). He considers it likely that Matthew here may have translated the Hebrew himself, though in other places Matthew used the Septuagint text (Gibbs 2010, p. 619).
    Gibbs observes that the transition in Matthew 12:15-16 is very brief, but sets up the longest Old Testament quotation used in Matthew (Gibbs 2010, p. 624). Jesus' withdrawal in these verses allows him to continue showing mercy to the crowds and to remain in control of the timing of his future arrest and execution. Gibbs takes Jesus' prohibition of making him known to be another means of control over the timing of his arrest (Gibbs 2010, p. 625).
    Matthew 12:17-21 quotes Isaiah 42:1-4, which, in turn, is a challenging passage to interpret. Gibbs notes the important question of who the servant is (Gibbs 2010, p. 625). In its context, the servant may be understood as either an individual or the nation of Israel (Gibbs 2010, p. 626). Gibbs considers evidence for both views. He then notes that Matthew's narrative identifies the servant, and that it is Jesus, an individual (Gibbs 2010, p. 627). Gibbs does entertain the possibility that Matthew is using Jesus as the servant being "Israel reduced to one," which would still leave us with only partial clarity in his understanding and use of Isaiah. Regardless, from Matthew 12:18, the work of Jesus is to bring justice, which is inextricably bound up with preaching, healing, and exorcism (Gibbs 2010, p. 628). Gibbs is clear that Jesus' work to bring justice has an influence on the greater society, in which Christ works through human works of mercy and justice (Gibbs 2010, p. 630).
    A new segment of Matthew 12 begins at verse 22 (Gibbs 2010, p. 631). As Jesus heals a man who was blind and mute, the crowds were amazed. However, in verse 23 their question suggests they are not ready to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of David (Gibbs 2010, p. 632). Gibbs takes the language used in the discussion through verse 37 to be combative. The power of God has entered into the world. Jesus is not acting with a demonic impetus, but God is calling people to believe he is overcoming Satan (Gibbs 2010, p. 634). The people speaking against Jesus' work are engaged in combat against God.
    The power of Jesus over demons is clear in verses 22-30 (Gibbs 2010, p. 635). While the crowd is not ready to accept Jesus as the son of David, the Pharisees reject him definitively, saying he uses demonic power. Jesus' response to the accusation is an appeal to logic and to human experience (Gibbs 2010, p. 636). If Satan casts out Satan, he defeats himself. It would make no sense. Additionally, true exorcisms were acknowledged among the Pharisees, apparently using the same power Jesus used. The accusation against Jesus is therefore not sustainable. The conclusion Jesus advocates in Matthew 12:28 is that in him the power of God is present (Gibbs 2010, p. 637).
    Matthew 12:31-37 is connected directly to verses 22-30, as the passage opens with "because of this" (Gibbs 2010, p. 639). The words of rejection by the Pharisees lead directly to a stern warning from Jesus. Gibbs observes the significance of the question of what it means or does not mean to speak against the Holy Spirit. The statement of Jesus is admittedly very challenging and important.
    In Gibbs' opinion, there are two errors commonly made regarding Jesus' teaching about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Gibbs 2010, p. 640). One is to attempt to identify the particular motivation which would lead to the sin. There is no biblical evidence that such a diagnosis can be made. The other common error is to say that such blasphemy can only be committed, possibly by accident, by Christians (Gibbs 2010, p. 641). Gibbs finds even less support for this in Matthew 12. In this passage, Jesus is warning his opponents that they are on their way to condemnation. The warning of Jesus is couched in hyperbole. Gibbs observes that while Matthew 12:31-32 says that every sin will be forgiven, there are exceptions to that statement. Not only does Jesus rule out forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but Gibbs notes that rejecting God's forgiveness in Christ also leaves one unforgiven (Gibbs 2010, p. 641). The passage at hand makes it clear that speaking of Jesus as being governed by Satan is an unequivocal rejection of the Holy Spirit. The words of the Pharisees serve as their condemnation (Gibbs 2010, p. 642). Yet Gibbs sees this as a condition which could be reversed. "A person who renounces Christ will not be forgiven – unless he repents and confesses Jesus" (Gibbs 2010, p. 642). The language, then, is hyperbolic.
    Gibbs also considers that Matthew 12:33-37 is helpful in interpreting verses 31-32. In these verses, Jesus observes that the mouth speaks from the heart. Words therefore can be used to judge attitudes (Gibbs 2010, p. 643). True faith in Jesus results in positive confessions about him. An ongoing rejection of Jesus indicates a heart which denies him (Gibbs 2010, p. 644). While Gibbs is clear that rejection of the Holy Spirit brings condemnation, he also confesses that the overall thrust of the Gospel is that one who formerly rejected Jesus may repent and be restored (Gibbs 2010, p. 645).
    In Matthew 12:38-45 some of the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus for a prophetic sign, which he refuses to give them. In verses 43-45 he describes the departure of a demon and its return with more evil spirits. Gibbs points out that the opponents of Jesus, who have already seen his signs, are asking for another sign (Gibbs 2010, p. 649). Their request might not be for a greater sign. As an example of such a request, Gibbs notes Hezekiah's request for a sign in 2 Kings chapter 20. God had made a long-range promise. Hezekiah wanted a short-term, verifiable sign that the longer range promise would be done.
    The sign which Jesus concedes will be given in Matthew 12:39 is "the sign of Jonah the prophet" (Gibbs 2010, p. 650). Gibbs finds a concentration on Jonah's rescue from the sea creature to be a common emphasis in teaching from the Second Temple period. The significance is that Jonah is released from the creature after three days and that Jesus is released from death after three days. It is a sign of resurrection (Gibbs 2010, p. 651). His resurrection, not his death, is the sign of the validity of his promises.
    The fact that Jesus has presented himself as greater than Jonah or Solomon leads him directly to speaking specifically of the danger of rejecting him. Gibbs does not take Matthew 12:43-45 as a direct teaching of demonology. Rather, he sees it as illustrative of the danger of refusing the protection of the Gospel (Gibbs 2010, p. 652-653). Those who refuse Jesus place themselves in danger of progressively increasing troubles.
    In Matthew 12:46-50, Jesus essentially redefines family. Gibbs does point out that the term used in 12:46 for "brothers" is specifically not used for cousins or other relatives with any regularity (Gibbs 2010, p. 654). In Gobbs' opinion it is most natural to take these people as children of Joseph and Mary. The emphasis of the passage is the central importance of "the family relationship to Jesus that comes through being his disciple" (Gibbs 2010, p. 656). The identification of those who believe in Jesus as his family would have been shocking in the culture of the time, as it is now in many cultures. Gibbs points out that Jesus calls people to care and respect for their biological family. Yet a relationship with Jesus is even more important (Gibbs 2010, p. 657).

​
0 Comments

Malachi - God's Offer We Shouldn't Refuse

10/1/2024

0 Comments

 
Tuesdays Are for the Old Testament
10/1/24

Lessing, R. Reed, & Steinmann, Andrew E. (2014). "Chapter Thirty-Nine: Malachi." In Prepare the Way of the Lord: An Introduction to the Old Testament. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. (551-559).

    Malachi centers on God's covenant offered to people, but which must be embraced by those people. In the end, the community will split apart as God brings judgment on those who reject him (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 551). Lessing and Steinmann observe that there is no information about Malachi or his setting in the book. However, the problems mentioned in the book suggest the fifth century B.C.
    The name "Malachi" means "my messenger." Lessing and Steinmann note that those who consider its use in 1:1 as a title rather than as a name speculate that most of the material was taken over into Zechariah but that this portion was left separate so as to reach the important symbolic number twelve (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 551). Yet the book shows significant unity and cohesion as a literary unit. Lessing and Steinmann therefore take Malachi to be the name of the author (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 552).
    Malachi is identified as an "oracle," as are Nahum and Habakkuk. The oracles of God's intervention are full of rhetorical questions, no less than twenty-two within Malachi's fifty-five verses (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 552). The pattern Malachi uses is to provide a thesis confronting a wrong belief or action, providing a rationale (antithesis) of the people, and then providing a defense for the thesis, demonstrating the accusation is correct. Most scholars find a total of six different cycles of argument (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 552).
    Malachi 1:8 uses a Persian term for the governor, though the setting indicates that Judah has returned from Babylon. This suggests a historical setting in the middle of the fifth century 
B.C. (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 554). Thematically, there are significant similarities to Nehemiah, suggesting a date of 450-430 B.C.
    Election is a significant theological theme in Malachi. God has loved Jacob and hated Esau. Lessing and Steinmann consider the "hate" not to indicate a particular animus but rather a lack of relationship (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 554). God's plan is to defend his people who are faithful to him. In Malachi, Edom is the enemy of his people (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 555). The covenant with the patriarchs is still in effect. The people of God are his "treasured possession" (Malachi 3:17).
    A second important theological concept in Malachi is the home (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 556). The household is the source of stability and living a life with a future. Lessing and Steinmann note that archaeologists have identified housing complexes where a few families, related in some way, would live together. This placed the extended family as a crucial societal unit.
    Christ is seen in Malachi as the one who, in 1:11, is the name to be honored. In the NewTestament Jesus is depicted as the possession of all and the name to be exalted (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 557). To stand in awe of Yahweh is to stand in his grace. To do otherwise is to remain in sin (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 557). The sins of people will be judged, but those who hold to God's grace will be spared judgment (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 558).

​
0 Comments

Ecumenical Councils and Authority

9/30/2024

0 Comments

 

Mondays are for Church History
9/30/24

Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter V. The Hierarchy and Polity of the Church." In  History of the Christian Church. (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Volume 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600, from Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great. (pp. 1993-2106). (Original work published 1889).  Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 48-67).

"§65. The Papacy from Leo I to Gregory I. A.D. 461-590." (pp. 2081-2099).

    Schaff provides an annotated bibliography of important editions of the acts of various ecumenical councils (Schaff 2014, pp. 2081-2082), then observes that the authority of the ecumenical councils was greater than that of any of the patriarchs. The roots of the ecumenical councils can be traced back as far as the apostolic council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts chapter 15 (Schaff 2014, p. 2083). After that time, various councils were convened, some of which were localized, while others had broader influence. Seven of the ecumenical councils have broadly been recognized by Greek and Russian Christians, and Schaff notes an ongoing hope of an eight council which would involve Eastern and Western Christianity (Schaff 2014, p. 2084). However, he observes that in these ecumenical councils Western and North African bishops were never represented in great numbers, and the councils dealt mainly with issues which primarily were of interest in the Greek church. All seven ecumenical councils were convened between 325 and 787, with the approval and authority of a Roman emperor (Schaff 2014, p. 2085). The authority to convene a council was ceded to the bishop of Rome after the demise of the Roman empire (Schaff 2014, p. 2086). Schaff briefly describes the involvement of imperial power, normally in the hands of appointed proxies, at the ecumenical councils.
    Counter to the pattern found in Acts 15, where the council spoke as the unified voice of Christians, the later ecumenical councils were self-consciously assemblies of bishops, speaking with their authority regardless of the presence and input of presbyters and deacons (Schaff 2014, p. 2090). In Schaff's estimation, the assemblies and their decisions were more akin to those of the Roman Senate than to the deliberative bodies which operate based on a consensus or majoritarian authority (Schaff 2014, p. 2091). While unity was required, that unity could be achieved by expulsion of dissenting voices.
    Schaf takes the councils to have differed from one another in the perceived importance of their decisions (Schaff 2014, p. 2093). Some were concentrated primarily on current standards of discipline and organization, thus not bearing weight and authority which would be perceived as universal or timeless. He illustrates this through citations of prominent bishops who accepted or rejected a variety of precepts from the councils. Therefore, Schaff considers that the deliberations and decisions deserve careful analysis so as to seek out actual insight into fundamental Christian doctrine and practice (Schaff 2014, p. 2095). The councils were marked with political intrigue and division, as Schaff illustrates through quotations of a number of participants in different councils.

"§66. List of the Ecumenical Councils of the Ancient Church." (pp. 2099-2103).

    Schaff provides a list of the ecumenical councils and their general issues. A summary list follows:

1. Concilium Nicaenum I (325) at Nicaea, dealing with the Arian controversy (Schaff 2014, p.  2099).
2. Concilium Constantinopolitanum I (381) at Constantinople, enlarging the third article of the Nicene Creed, dealing with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Schaff 2014, p. 2100).
3. Concilium Ephesinum (431) at Ephesus, dealing with the relationship of the two natures of Christ, rejecting Nestorianism (Schaff 2014, p. 2101). 
4. Concilium Chalcedonense (451) at Chalcedon, positively describing the doctrine of the person of Christ as opposed to both Eutychianism and Nestorianism.
5. Concilium Constantinopolitanum II (553) at Constantinople, dealing with the Monophysite controversy (Schaff 2014, p. 2101).
6. Concilium Constantinopolitanum III (680) at Constantinople, dealing with Monothelitism (Schaff 2014, p. 2102).
7. Concilium Nicaenum II (787) at Nicaea, accepting Catholic image worship (Schaff 2014, p. 2102).

    After this time, the Greek and Latin factions no longer joined together in councils.

"§67. Books of Ecclesiastical Law." (pp. 2103-2105).

    Schaff reviews publications of ecclesiastical law which stem from the seven ecumenical councils, observing that the decrees of the councils resulted in numerous publications of orders from the councils or inspired by conciliar actions. He describes them briefly but with significant detail (Schaff 2014, p. 2103-2105). 

​
0 Comments

Before Baptism

9/27/2024

0 Comments

 
Friday Scholarly Notes
9/27/24

Niederwimmer, Kurt. (1998). "I. Baptismal Catechesis: The Tractate on the Two Ways: 1.1-6.3." In The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache. (59-124). (Original German 1989). Fortress Press. (Personal Library).

    Niederwimmer takes the opening of the Didache's Two Ways tractate as having an abrupt start, and being drawn from an earlier Christianized source. What is of special note to him is that the Two Ways seems repurposed for pre-baptismal catechesis (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 59). The overall theme is expressed in 1.1 as the alternative ways placed before humans: a way of life and a way of death. The moral choice was not a new idea in moral philosophy, as can be shown from various Greek philosophers. Niederwimmer notesthat parallels can be found within Islam and Buddhism as well (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 60). I observe as a matter of course that Islam developed significantly after this time period. Niederwimmer supplies a wealth of references to similar concepts expressed in Judaic writings. He evaluates statements in the Fathers in more depth. In some instances the disparate ways are subject to two spirits or angels. In others, they are broad and narrow ways (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 62). Niederwimmer observes that by Didache 7.1 it becomes clear that the choice also involves a decision to live as a Christian and receive baptism or not (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 63).
    Didache 1.2-4.14 describes the Way of Life. This way is summed up by the command to love God and the neighbor, from 1.2-3a. Niederwimmer compares this statement with Mark 12:30-31, Matthew 22:37-39, and Luke 10:27, but concludes that the phrasing in the Didache does not depend on any of the Synoptic sources. It is significantly shorter, and lacks any narrative framework such as we find in the Gospels (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 64). The statement of the "Golden Rule" which follows in Didache 2c appears in negative terms, which is the more common way to phrase it, in comparison to the positive phrasing in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 66).
    Niederwimmer considers the source material for the Didache to have continued immediately with the prohibitions found in Didache 2.2-7 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 67). The Didachist may well have inserted the brief explanation of 1.3a and the more particularly Christian interpolation of 1.3b-2.1.
    The material in 1.3b-2.1, in Niederwimmer's view, is clearly an insertion in the overall Two Ways material (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 68). It appears only in the Didache and tractates which were derived from it, and nowhere else. Niederwimmer takes this passage to be original to the Didachist, rather than representing a later interpolation. Niederwimmer evaluates a possible source for the sectio evangelica. He concludes that it was most likely inspired by Luke's Gospel or its source, either in a written or oral tradition (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 72). While Niederwimmer does not specifically say so, his description of the material as allusive strongly suggests the Didachist adopted a thought rather than a text .
    Didache 1.3b introduces the concept of loving one's enemies. Niederwimmer observes the passage is arranged in a series of couplets expressing parallel ideas (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 74). The requirement of repaying love for hatred is distinctly countercultural, yet is considered the norm for Christians. Niederwimmer notes numerous parallels to these ideas as found in the Synoptic gospels. However, the statement that such love for enemies will eliminate enemies is not found in the Gospels (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 75). Niederwimmer proceeds to observe several statements not found in other Two Ways tractates, which he interprets as interpolations in the Didache's use of the source material (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 76).
    From 1.4b-5a, Niederwimmer finds clear parallels in contiguous passages of the Synoptics (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 78). The overriding concept in all these statements is a renunciation of vengeance and retribution. Niederwimmer concludes that the audience consists of "exploited and helpless people who cannot and will not defend themselves" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 80). The change of life which Christians engage in is something fulfilling. The result is becoming τέλειος. 
    Didache 1.5b-2.1 turns attention to giving of alms. Niederwimmer notes the ideas are not known from the gospels or other Jesus traditions, but that they do appear in Hermas (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 81). Niederwimmer does not take the similarity to show dependence, rather, to signal a common source (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 82). The emphasis in giving alms is to distribute them as God's gifts, and that they should be used by a person in need. The gifts should be given "according to the commandment," though what specific commandment is not clear (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 83). The person who receives alms is responsible for rightly evaluating his need. Receiving unworthily will have consequences. At v. 6 a proof is given which purports to be from Scripture (meaning the Old Testament). However, Niederwimmer cannot provide a definitive reference. In question is the command to "let your alms sweat into your hands: (personal translation of ἱδρωσάτω ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη σου εἰς τὰς χεῖράς σου) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 84). He does consider a number of possible, but not certain, parallels. The quotation is well known by the time of Augistine, as Niederwimmer demonstrates with numerous citations (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 84-85).
    Didache 2.1 is introduced by a transitional statement, referencing δευτέρα δὲ ἐντολὴ τῆς διδαχὴς (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 86). Niederwimmer takes this as a transition from the sectio evangelica back to the Two Ways material which already existed. Niederwimmer takes the transition and the ordering to show a lack of forethought and finesse, calling it an "emergency construction" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 87).
    Didache 2.2-7 appears to be drawn from the Two Ways source, providing a list of prohibitions (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 88). Niederwimmer, following Audet, considers the basic structure of the passage to be loosely based on "the second table of the Decalogue" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 88), though adapted with considerable freedom. The vices listed in chapter five serve as a parallel, in terms of content (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 88-89). Niederwimmer observes the strong abhorrence held by Jews against Gentile sexual offenses and practice of magical arts. The magical arts prohibition in Didache chapter two departs from the second table of the Commandments (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 89). Niederwimmer further notes that verse two "offers the oldest explicit Christian instance of the prohibition of abortion" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 89-90). However, he considers abortion to have been rejected by Jews and Christians uniformly. While verse two spoke primarily about actions, verses 3-5 speak primarily about words (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 90-91). Verses 6-7 move on to speak about offense against the neighbor, reminiscent of the 9th and 10th commandments (8th-10th) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 92). Verse seven concludes with a strong statement about caring for one's neighbor.
    Didache 3.1-6 moves into a series of statements addressed to the τέκνον, "my child" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 94). Niederwimmer notes that this passage has no parallel in Barnabas (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 94). "The primary intention of the series is to reveal apparently minor vices as, in fact, dangerous temptations, which (if one surrenders to them) lead to serious sins" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 95). The teacher here takes the role of the parent, while the student has the role of the child. Niederwimmer observes that this is a typical style for Jewish teaching (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 96). The warning of Didache 3.1 is to flee from every evil thing and everything like it. While the "evil" could be masculine, implying an evil person, Niederwimmer takes it more likely to be a neuter. The next verse gives an example of an evil thing - anger (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 97). All the evils can be seen to lead to more serious acts, such as murder. Likewise, verse three describes lust leading to acts of sexual immorality (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 97). Verse four describes pagan superstition leading to idolatry (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 98). Lying, in verse five, leads to theft (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 98). Niederwimmer finds this surprising, but takes the logic which follows lying to suggest not merely making false statements but particularly practicing deception or treachery. The final teknon saying is that grumbling can lead to blasphemy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 99).
    Didache 3.7-10 changes from the brief aphorisms of 3.1-6 and describes a quiet faithfulness. The humble people are to hope in the Lord, rather than grumbling. Niederwimmer ties this to "socioeconomic oppression" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 100). He finds allusions here to Barnabas 19, Matthew 5, and Psalm 36. The piety described here is lived out in the community of the faithful who are eager to hear the word of God (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 101).
    Niederwimmer observes that the ideal of accepting whatever happens has many parallels both in Jewish and Chrsitian traditions as well as in Stoic philosophy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 102).
    Didache 4.1-11 details rules for living in society. Niederwimmer observes that the structure is clearly the same in Didache and Doctrina, but very different in Barnabas 19 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 103). At the end of the passage there is some structural similarity to the "household codes" but it appears to be incidental in its similarity. Verses 1-2 speak to the relationship of learners to their teachers, who Niederwimmer assumes to be resident in the community, rather than a peripatetic group (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 104). There is an expectation that the pupil and teacher should both be dedicated to piety, and that the teacher would be honored as a master (κύριος, the standard reference to Jesus) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 105). The teaching is to be sought out on a daily basis (v. 2). Not only is this to be a matter of individual dedication, but in verses 3-11 it is to pervade the community. Niederwimmer notes that respect also calls for an impartial application of accountability (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 106). There is no place for doubt or regret about right teachings and decisions (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 107). Verses 5-8 extend the standards to charity and care for the poor, an important commitment in Jewish and Christian traditions. Almsgiving is closely related to forgiveness of sins (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 108).
    Niederwimmer considers whether the commitments to charity in Didache 4.8 represent a community of possessions (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 108). An alternative to this view is a commitment to use possessions, which are still private property, for the benefit of the community. While both views can be defended based on the Old Testament, as well as passages in Acts chapters two and four, Niederwimmer sees no clear point of view in the mind of the Didachist (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 109). He does, however, see that giving in charity is considered a matter of joy, rather than a burden. Verse 8c emphasizes that it is appropriate to share earthly goods since we willshare eternal goods later.
    Verses 9-11 shift the focus slightly from the community to the household (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 109). Parents are to bear responsibility to bring up their children. Niederwimmer observes this is a common commitment expressed in early Christianity, as well as the Jewish world (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 10). Masters are not to be harsh to slaves, especially as they are called to believe on the same God as the master. Both free and slave are called by the same Lord. Niederwimmer notes the language here may not fit in the Jewish source of the tractate but presumably reflects a Christian adaptation (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 110-111). In 4.11, slaves are likewise to respect and honor their masters, as they also have a heavenly master.
    The Way of Life closes with a brief epilogue in Didache 4.12-14. Commands are to be kept, rather than being neglected or departed from. They are not to be changed or falsified (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 112). In verse 14, the person who has failed in the commands is to repent and confess the sin so as to be received back into the fellowship of the way of life (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 113).
    Didache 5.1-2 moves us to the Way of Death (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 114). The transition statement is a parallel to the introduction found in 1.2a. The language is strong, stating clearly that it is evil and accursed. Verses 1b-2 list 23 vices and 19 groups of evildoers. Niederwimmer notes that these lists are not repeated in the same terms in Barnabas or Doctrina (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 115). The sins listed are largely arranged on the same pattern as the mentions of sins to avoid in Didache 2, following the pattern of the second half of the Decalogue (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 116). The list of evildoers, from 5.2, has parallels in Barnabas 20. Niederwimmer notes the structure includes several parallelisms (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 117-118). 5.2 closes with an admonition to avoid evil in the way of death (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 119).
    Didache 6.1-3 may be seen as a brief epilogue and appendix to the Two Ways (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 120). Niederwimmer considers the epilogue to have been longer in the original tractate, similar to that found in Doctrina. He believes the Didachist abbreviated it, then appended a few statements that he had found useful in baptismal catechesis. The "whole yoke of the lord" (6.2) is to be taken up if possible. However, the person who is not able "should concentrate on the part of the commandments that he or she is able to fulfill" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 121). Niederwimmer concedes that we don't know what the "whole yoke" entails. He does review several possibilities, then agrees with Rordorf and Tuilier, who consider it to be "the law of Christ,a s the Didacheist had revealed at the beginning in the sectio christiana sive evangelica" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 122). Further, in verse three, while dietary laws may be relaxed, the Didachist does not make an exception for meat offered to idols (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 123). Distance from idolatry is required.

​
0 Comments

Where Does Your Church Meet?

9/26/2024

0 Comments

 
Where Does Your Church Meet?
9/26/24

    Thursdays are for questions people ask me. Here's a question I realized has come up a number of times. "Where does your church meet?" I don't know why this question takes me by surprise. It shouldn't.
    As a missionary campus chaplain, I am not the pastor of a parish church. I walk alongside several local churches in an attempt to supplement their presence, reaching to parts of the community that most local congregations are less prepared to engage.
    Wittenberg Door is a confessionally-oriented Lutheran ministry. This means we consider the theological descriptions articulated by the 16th century Lutheran Reformation to be a strong, biblical explanation of the Christian faith. These writings were gathered in the year 1580 in a publication called the Book of Concord. 
    There are three local Lutheran congregations which subscribe to these writings in the same way as Wittenberg Door does. I would encourage attendance at those churches, though I do recognize that there are many deeply Christian congregations in town. The confessional Lutheran congregations take what I would consider the most consistent stance on biblical faith. The congregations are different from one another in the way they conduct services. Each has its own "flavor."
    The most traditional of the three , and the one I normally attend, is Trinity Lutheran Church (222.trinity-lcms.org, 2201 W. Rollins Rd.). They celebrate the Divine Service at 8:00 and 10:30 am Sundays and at 6:00 pm Mondays. Additionally, they have Bible classes at 9:30 Sunday mornings, plus many other opportunities to grow in the Christian faith. The services have a very strong and predictable structure and are relatively formal.
    Somewhat less formal is Campus Lutheran Church (www.campuslutheran.org, 304 S. College Ave., an easy walk from the middle of the Mizzou campus.) They celebrate the Divine Service at 8:30 and 11:00 a.m. on Sundays, with Bible classes at 9:45 Sunday mornings. Campus Lutheran also has many other opportunities to grow in the Christian faith. They also offer a session to practice American English for internationals on Fridays at 10:00 a.m. The Sunday service at 8:30 is more formal than the one at 11:200.
    The least formal of the three is Alive in Christ Lutheran Church (www.aic.org), located at 201 Southampton Drive.) They have a church service at 8:30 and 11:00 a.m. on Sundays, with a Christian growth period at 10:00 a.m. Sundays. As with the other congregations, they offer a variety of opportunities for Christian growth.
    Each of these congregations is a part of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, a confessionally oriented church body of about 6,000 congregations in this country, with many ministries and connections in other countries.
    Pastor Spotts and Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry are under the umbrella of a much smaller Lutheran church body, the American Association of Lutheran Churches. We are in fellowship with the Missouri Synod, and often end up sharing resources due to our similarities in understanding of Christianity.
    Join with Christians to receive the gifts of God in Christ. I hope to see you on Sunday!

​
0 Comments

Matthew 11 - Jesus as a Polarizing Figure

9/25/2024

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays Are for the New Testament.
9/25/24

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2010). "Matthew 11:2-30."  Matthew 11:2-20:34. (pages 551-594). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)

    Gibbs, observing that Matthew 11:2-16:20 do not have one clear structure, works with the texts based on two themes, "(1) the identity of Jesus and (2) the increasing refusal of Israel, and especially of her religious leaders to acknowledge Jesus' identity and receive him in faith" (Gibbs 2010, p. 551). Jesus' work remains that of caring for people and offering them blessing. On the structural front, Gibbs does observe an inclusio, with 11:2-6 and 16:13-20 serving as the start and finish. Both passages include the question of Jesus' identity and a pronouncement that a blessing accompanies recognizing Jesus.
    In Matthew 11:2-6, Gibbs finds the reference to "the Coming One" to be a significant reference to numerous Old Testament promises, that God and a Redeemer will come (Gibbs 2010, p. 553). Matthew here ties these promises with the identity of John as described by Jesus, the coming Elijah from Malachi chapter three. Significantly, the actions Jesus calls to the attention ofJohn's messengers are all in the passive voice. The people are receiving Jesus' blessings apart from any work of their own (Gibbs 2010, p. 554).
    Gibbs evaluates the question from John the Baptist. 'With the apparent exception of Tertullian, the church fathers and early commentators held that the Baptist could not possibly have entertained doubts about the identity ofJesus. Yet in terms of grammar, near context, and even the wider sweep of Scripture's story, there is no compelling reason to reject the obvious sense of the text" (Gibbs 2010, p. 555). There is a very reasonable possibility that John was disappointed in his expectation since he was in prison. This would not have seemed like God's reign to him (Gibbs 2010, p. 556). Jesus' answer, in the form of his works of blessing, does show that God is working through him.
    Matthew 11:7-15 contains Jesus' explanation to the crowds of who John the Baptist is. In verse ten, Jesus combines Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3:1, a pairing known in Jewish literature before the time of Jesus (Gibbs 2010, p. 559). Gibbs notes the strong consistency with the text in Matthew and the specific wording in the Septuagint. Verse 12, with the words for force and seizure, presents numerous challenges. Gibbs addresses them briefly from a textual point of view (Gibbs 2010, p. 560-562) and will return to the issues in a later section.
    Gibbs notes that God reveals himself in real time and space. This is precisely what happens in Matthew 11:7-15 with John the Baptist. Real questions occur to people, who then seek a solution (Gibbs 2010, p. 563). Jesus' answer for the question is ultimately that God's kingdom is at hand and has been introduced by John, serving as the Elijah to come. It is to be received by faith (Gibbs 2010, p. 564). Jesus' eschatological emphasis in the passage asserts John as the person who signals the end times (Gibbs 2010, p. 566). God's kingdom has arrived.
    Gibbs again describes the critical verse, Matthew 11:12, in some detail, from a standpoint of contextual commentary, rather than a focus on the actual text. He observes that in Jesus "God is reigning in a hidden, lowly, resistible fashion" (Gibbs 2010, p. 567, emphasis Gibbs'). Those who oppose and reject Jesus, while they act in the way people often have toward God's prophets, will not receive the grace of God's kingdom.
    Having discussed Matthew 11:12 in his text analysis and commentary, Gibbs moves on to a brief excursus dealing with the history of interpretation of Matthew 11:12. He identifies Peter Cameron (Violence and the Kingdom, 1984) as a seminal work which summarizes the scholarly history (Gibbs 2010, p. 569). The Greek fathers emphasized verse 12b - "violent men are snatching it away" (Gibbs 2010, p. 569). They take the action as a negative, but suggest the "violent men" are Christian ascetics who are working against their fleshly desires (Gibbs 2010, p. 570). Latin fathers tended to draw in an historical element, saying the Kingdom was being taken from Jews by Gentiles. Again, the vocabulary was seen as negative, but the theology as positive. Cameron finds little development through the Middle Ages. The Reformers tended to follow the Greek fathers, though some took the overall action as a theologically negative move. Melanchthon, understanding βιάζεται asa middle voice verb indicated that the meaning must of necessity be positive (Gibbs 2010, p. 571). In the past several hundred years, no consensus has emerged.
    Matthew 11:16-24 is a warning to the stubborn and rebellious generation of Jesus' contemporaries (Gibbs 2010, p. 572). The language is based on a concrete view of time - the situation of the people with whom Jesus was interacting. Gibbs notes the contrasts of rejoicing or mourning, eating or fasting (Gibbs 2010, p. 573). Gibbs argues that verse 19 should be rendered . . . "Wisdom was declared innocent of her own works" rather than a more traditional "by her works" (Gibbs 2010, p. 574). In the other two New Testament statements using the same idiom (Acts 13:38B, Rom. 6:7) the phrase refers to being absolved of something (Gibbs 2010, p. 574). Therefore, Gibbs takes Jesus to be saying, with more than a little irony, that in the court of public opinion, Wisdom cannot be considered responsible for the things she does (Gibbs 2010, p. 575).
    Gibbs again notes that the opposition to Jesus seen in Matthew chapter 11 demonstrates the fact that the people have hardened their hearts, as Isaiah predicted (Gibbs 2010, p. 576). In verses 16-19, the generation is compared to children who refuse to follow the leadership of others. The leaders, in Gibbs' understanding, are John the Baptist or Jesus, while the rest of the culture are those who refuse to play their games (Gibbs 2010, p. 577). The responses of the broader society show they have no real interest in participating in the life to which they are called. Both John and Jesus are too radical for their taste (Gibbs 2010, p. 578). Because the culture turns away from Jesus in their unbelief, Jesus, who has extensively shown his forgiveness and restoration makes a number of statements of "woe" over them, in verses 21-24. Gibbs considers that these statements "primarily express judgment, rather than sorrow" (Gibbs 2010, p. 579). Jesus remains the savior who calls all people to come to him. Gibbs is clear that the issue is the need to come on Jesus 'terms, not our own (Gibbs 2010, p. 581).
    In Matthew 11:25-30, Gibbs chooses to divide the structure into 25-26 and 27-30. In the first portion, Jesus praises God the Father for His work of hiding and revealing heavenly mysteries (Gibbs 2010, p. 584). Verses 27-30 address the human listeners who are with Jesus. They need to hear of the work of Christ and be invited to participate in it by coming to him.
    In verses 25-26, Jesus emphasizes that God the Father is firmly in charge of his world. However, God works "to hide the truth from those who regard themselves as wise and understanding, and to reveal it to those who have no wisdom of their own" (Gibbs 2010, p. 585). Those to whom God has revealed his mysteries recognize "the true identity of John and Jesus, the end-time significance of their words and deeds, and especially the truth that Jesus is  the Coming one who will save the people from their sins" (Gibbs 2010, p. 586, emphasis Gibbs').
    Verses 27-30 invite the crowds to receive the peace and loving care of Jesus, who has been working in them. The Father has given "all things" to the Son, who invites all to come to him (Gibbs 2010, p. 588). Gibbs is clear that Jesus' desire is to reveal the Father to all people. The call is not only to some, but to all (Gibbs 2010, p. 589). The obligations of keeping Torah were a heavy burden. This was seen by many as too much to bear. Additionally the burden of sin is a crushing load. Jesus' words offer to lift these loads and to give rest (Gibbs 2010, p. 590). Gibbs notes that "what one needs to learn is what Jesus is like" (Gibbs 2010, p. 591). It is Jesus' gentle humility which frees us from our burdens.
    Gibbs comments that verses 25-30 articulate a very high Christology. The question of the passage urging "readers to regard Jesus as Wisdom Incarnate" deserves comment, partially as there are parallels between this passage and Sirach 51:23-30 (Gibbs 2010, p. 592). Gibbs provides an English text of the passage from Sirach. In Gibbs' opinion, Christ is far greater than the wisdom described by Sirach. Sirach's invitation is to himself, as a teacher of wisdom. In Matthew, we are called to the one who is divine Wisdom. He does not teach them how to succeed. He teaches them what he is like (Gibbs 2010, p. 593).     

​
0 Comments

Zechariah - God's Justice Calling for Restoration

9/24/2024

0 Comments

 
Tuesdays Are for the Old Testament
9/24/24

Lessing, R. Reed, & Steinmann, Andrew E. (2014). "Chapter Thirty-Eight: Zechariah." In Prepare the Way of the Lord: An Introduction to the Old Testament. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. (541-550).

    Lessing and Steinmann comment on both the length and the obscurity of the oracles in Zechariah. These factors have moved scholars to widely varied "theories concerning its date, authorship, unity, and meaning" (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 541). Zechariah can be plainly identified as a prophet who returned to Jerusalem in 533 B.C., along with the high priest Joshua. With the temple not yet reconstructed, motivating the people for the project was a critical task. Zechariah 2:11 and 8:22 indicate the temple must be finished for Yahweh to bring his reign to all nations from Zion.
    Authorship of Zechariah has long been questioned. Matthew's Gospel conflates Zechariah 11:12 and Jeremiah 32:6-9, and in Matthew 27:9-10 both are attributed to Zechariah (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 541). On a more modern front, scholars have noted striking differences between chapters 1-8, 9-11, and 12-14, which leads some to ascribe the writings to different authors (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 542). Others have noted signs of unity throughout the book, including a chiastic structure in both 1-8 and 9-14.
    Zechariah's visions are aligned with priestly values. Numerous concepts such as the altar, priesthood, menorah, and holiness are treated in various literary manners (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 542).  Lessing and Steinmann consider whether Zechariah contains apocalyptic features. The difficulty in this matter is the definition of apocalypse (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 542). After providing an extensive outline of the book, Lessing and Steinmann discuss the chiastic structure of chapters 1-8. The structure is relatively clear (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 544).
    Zechariah provides three dates, in 1:1, 1:7, and 7:1, placing the prophecies in the period of 520-518 B.C. (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 544). At the time, Darius is the ruler of Persia. The temple construction had been approved by Cyrus, reigning 559-530. However, the project had not been completed. Persia had endured a period of turmoil due to the unexpected death of Cyrus' son in 522. The reconstructed temple was less impressive than the original model, constructed under Solomon, indicating that the construction project was neglected in some ways.
    The material in chapters 9-14 tends toward apocalypse and eschatology. The names of people from chapters 1-8 are no longer present in 9-14. Chronological markers are also much more vague (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 545). Some scholars maintain that these chapters are closely related to the conflicts of the time between Persia and Greece, while others see them looking forward to Alexander the Great's conquest in the later part of the fourth century. Lessing and Steinmann consider the attempt to identify people in Zechariah 9-14 as a futile effort. They prefer analysis based on theological themes.
    Divine justice is a primary theme in Zechariah. Unlike many concepts of justice, the call to justice in Zechariah requires protection of those who can't protect themselves. "Zechariah rejects a type of dualism where spiritual issues are divorced from political and social concerns" (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 546). The spiritual person cares about society.
    God's holiness is a second important theological issue in Zechariah. The divine glory nas moved from a hiding place in the Holy of Holies and now all of Jerusalem is surrounded by God's glory (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 546). In the end, everything is declared holy to God, with the exception of those who turn against Yahweh's holiness.
    Christ is seen in Zechariah 1 as the messenger of Yahweh, riding a red horse. He prays for Israel, much as, on the cross, Jesus prays for the Romans who are executing him (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 547). The images of Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12-15 present Yahweh's Branch in terms similar to the depiction ofJesus in Hebrews. Zechariah 9-14 contains material cited at the passion of Christ.
    Zechariah portrays God expressing wrath over the sinful actions of the nations (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 548). God's plan is to execute judgment against them. Yet his grace is also seen in the vision of a man measuring Jerusalem, demonstrating the room for all to receive God's protection. 

​
0 Comments

Leo and Gregory as Bookends

9/23/2024

0 Comments

 
Mondays are for Church History
9/23/24

Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter V. The Hierarchy and Polity of the Church." In  History of the Christian Church. (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Volume 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600, from Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great. (pp. 1993-2106). (Original work published 1889).  Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 48-67).

"§64. The Papacy from Leo I to Gregory I. A.D. 461-590." (pp. 2074-2081).

    Schaff considers Leo and Gregory as "the two greatest bishops of Rome in the first six centuries" (Schaff 2014, p. 2074). He sees no important figure between the two, and Leo to have been more important than Gregory. While Leo acted as a monarch, Gregory acted as the primary patriarch.
    Leo was succeeded by Hilary (461-468), then Simplicius (468-483), under whose papacy the Roman empire fell in 476. The rule of "barbarian and heretical (for they were Arian) kings" (Schaff 2014, p. 2074) was not a great challenge to the papacy as they allowed the bishops freedom in church governance.
    Simplicius was succeeded by Felix (II or III) (483-492), who worked against the Monophysites and to assert papal power above imperial edict, a move continued by Gelasius I (492-496) (Schaff 2014, p. 2075). Anastasius II (496-498) tended to be conciliatory toward Constantinople, thus becoming a target of suspicion. After his death, Schaff describes a period of disorder and violence in the papal context. The Arian king was called upon to decide the context and elevate a bishop. The controversy included numerous councils. Schaff sees this as the start of a long lasting pattern of popes being elevated by emperors and councils (Schaff 2014, p. 2076)l The next pope mentioned by Schaff is Hormisdas (514-523), though in his time the defeat of the Monophysites is credited to emperor Justin (Schaff 2014, p. 2076). Ho4misdas was succeeded by John I (523-526), followed by Felix II/IV (Schaff 2014, p. 2077), appointed after a period of struggle. Next came Boniface II (530-532) and John II (532-535). At this time, Gothic power declined, to be replaced by Eastern imperial power. The power of Constantinople extended into the Roman papacy as well, influencing Agapetus (535-536), Silverius (536-538), and Vigilius (538-554). The empress pushed Vigilius to "nullify the decrees of the council of Chalcedon, and pronounce Anthimus and his friends orthodox" (Schaff 2014, p. 2078). Vigilius suffered the loss of his positive political connections and died while en route to Rome from Sicily (Schaff 2014, p. 2079). He was succeeded by Pelagius I (554-560), who was more accepted in the East than the West. In general, Schaff sees the papacy entering into a period of pragmatism, decay, and capitulation to imperial pressure, as the papacy was held by John III (560-573), Benedict I (574-578), and Pelagius II (578-590).
    Gregory I (590-604) marks a change in the work of the papacy. Because of the radical change, he is normally seen as the first of the series of those after him, rather than the last of those before him (Schaff 2014, p. 2080). He used the title "Servant of the Servants of God" (Schaff 2014, p. 2081). This, along with the firm stance he took reflecting Leo I as his predecessor, had a strong effect on the authority of the papacy.

​
0 Comments

Matthew 13 Discussion Questions

9/20/2024

0 Comments

 
Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Thirteen

Keep working on learning where to look for different things in Matthew's Gospel. In chapter twelve, Jesus clashes with the Pharisees concerning the Law and his character as greater than the Law.

Write down at least three questions you hope will be answered. As always, I urge you to post them in the comments of this blog post, and to engage with other people's questions yourself!

Read Albrecht's commentary on Matthew, pages 188-210.

See if you have any more questions or answers to put in the comments section.

Questions for Study and Discussion:

What is the point of using parables in teaching? Consider this question especially in terms of the seven parables in Matthew 13.

How does the difference between a secret and a mystery help you understand Jesus' parables?

As you read the parables, after reading Jesus' explanation of the parable of the sower, try to prepare a similar explanation of other parables.

(As you prepare for this discussion, consider whether Albrecht's interpretation is correct. On a number of points I would respectfully disagree with his understanding of the parables. You might also.)

​
0 Comments

A Book with Two Titles

9/20/2024

0 Comments

 
Friday Scholarly Notes
9/20/24

Niederwimmer, Kurt. (1998). "The Title." In The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache. (56-57. (Original German 1989). Fortress Press. (Personal Library).

    Niederwimmer considers the double title found in the Jerusalem manuscript of the Didache. The short title is set apart above the start of the text, while the longer title is presented on the first line, followed by the start of the main text, also begun on the first line. He considers it "probable . . . that neither title is original" and that the short title without the number "twelve" was original (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 56). This would explain the title as it is referred to in early Christian writings. A remaining problem is that the document has no internal claims to apostolicity. He considers the titles, then, to be superimposed on the document, possibly from an origin as a superscription placed on the Two Ways tractate, therefore not indicative of a way in which the Didache is to be interpreted (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 57).

​
0 Comments

What's Your Conscience Telling You?

9/19/2024

0 Comments

 
9/19/24

    I had an interesting discussion recently with a student involved in the social sciences. This person expressed a feeling of guilt due to not having followed a biblical practice. While some biblical practices are possibly matters of debate, this one was not controversial. We'll suggest it had to do with deciding to study what the Bible says so as to know what God desires. The person talking to me brought up a different issue, but one which was similarly uncontroversial.
    The root of the question amounted to this. "How do I deal with a guilty conscience, especially when I know it is guilty with reason?" It's essential to this question that the person I was speaking with agreed that the conscience was correct and that the neglected practice was something the Bible generally assumes will be the norm. How do we deal with a conscience?
    First, when our conscience is nagging us about something, we want to explore whether it is right. Christians admit to having a fallen nature which can lead them astray. So we look at a reliable source outside ourselves to evaluate our conscience's claim.
    When we find that our troubled conscience is operating correctly and we are rightly guilty, there are effectively two possible responses, one good, and one bad.
    On the side of the bad response, we can choose to harden our conscience, maybe by minimizing our failure or denying that there is anything actually wrong. This effectively leads to a denial of God and a rejection of all the good he pours out on those who trust him. Such a denial of what we have established as valid guilt is always a terrible move. Don't do it!
    So what is the good response? You have neglected that which you should do. Traditionally, theologians call this a "sin of omission." You omitted the good which God showed you was yours to do. 1 John 1:9 tells us to confess that before God and He will forgive us. That is of primary importance. The forgiven conscience is not guilty. However, if you want to avoid future guilt, you also want to try not to omit the practice. Back to our earlier example of feeling guilty for not learning what God says in Scripture. Confess your failure, and start reading and learning what the Scripture does say. Then, as you learn and grow in understanding, you will quickly see your conscience was right. You did need to do the reading. And now you are no longer omitting it.
    When your conscience is right, it is a helpful guide!

0 Comments

Rome at Last

9/18/2024

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for the New Testament
9/18/24

Bruce, F.F. (1988). "Acts 28" In The Book of Acts (Revised). (pages 495-512). William B. Eerdmans Publishing.

    In Acts 28:1, the shipwrecked crew and passengers learned they were on Malta. Though the island was well known, Bruce considers that due to the weather and being away from a normal port the crew would likely not know where they were at first (Bruce 1988, p. 496). Bruce further notes that the island's name is derived from the Canaanite word for "refuge." This is exactly how the island functions in Acts. Verse two describes warm hospitality, including a fire to become warm and dry. In verse three, a snake emerges from a bundle of sticks and bites Paul (Bruce 1988, p. 497). While the term used for the snake is normally associated with venomous snakes, Bruce notes Malta currently is not home to venomous varieties. However, it may have been at the time. The description of the snake coiling onto Paul is not consistent with the normal behavior of venomous types (Bruce 1988, p. 498). The Maltese natives, however, assumed it was venomous and that Paul would die of divine judgment. Since he did not die, they then considered him a god. Bruce notes the similarity to Acts 14:11-19.
    Acts 28:7-10 describe hospitality shown by Publius, a leader on the island. Bruce notes the name given is a praenomen and not a term of respect. Paul prayed for Publius' father, who had been sick, and he was healed (Bruce 1988, p. 499). This drew many others who desired healing. Bruce suggests that Luke may have worked as a physician as well, and that some of the honor they received may have been in the form of money. In verse ten, when it was time to continue the journey, the islanders provided them with what would be needed.
    Once the journey was resumed from Malta, Acts 28:11-15 describes a voyage to Puteoli, with no further incidents. Paul and his party were greeted and shown hospitality for seven days. It was common for grain ships to dock at Puteoli, near Naples, and at least to discharge any passengers there (Bruce 1988, p. 502). The city was well known and home to Jews and Christians at the time. Bruce considers the seven days' hospitality to coincide with some business the centurion needed to take care of . The gospel had arrived in Rome prior to Paul, as is clear from the presence of Christians greeting him. Bruce further notes that Romans had been written about three years earlier and included greetings to many Christians (Bruce 1988, p. 503).
    Paul's living arrangement in Rome was with a Roman soldier to guard him (Acts 28:16). It is possible, in Bruce's opinion, that Luke remained in Rome for a while as well (Bruce 1988, p. 503). Paul was apparently allowed to live in a private residence rather than in a military barracks, but under guard (Bruce 1988, p. 504).  Guards were typically chained to the prisoner in shifts of about four hours.
    Acts 28:17-22 describe Paul inviting Jews from Rome to meet him, since he was not free to visit their synagogues. He summarized his imprisonment and his work in mild terms, not showing hostility toward the Jews in Jerusalem (Bruce 1988, p. 505). The issue for which he is imprisoned is the resurrection. Bruce notes that the Jewish leaders would be surprised not to know about the case, as news traveled freely. The Jews in Rome knew little about Christianity and wished to learn more (Bruce 1988, p. 506).
    Rather than pursuing information about Christianity at that moment, Paul set an appointment with the Jewish leaders on another day (Acts 28:23). Luke notes many people in attendance (Bruce 1988, p. 507). Bruce considers that Paul's exposition of Christianity would not have differed much from the others recorded, but that this account has relatively little detail. There was enough material to take a large portion of the day. While some of th Jews were open to Paul's message, most were not, just as we see in other communities (Bruce 1988, p. 508). Bruce observes that Paul's quotation of Isaiah was commonly used among early Christians to describe the rejection of the gospel by the Jews.
    Acts 28:30-31 brings us to a conclusion, that for two years Paul had considerable freedom to proclaim the gospel to anyone who wished to come to him (Bruce 1988, p. 509). Bruce notes that there have been attempts to explain the period of two years' imprisonment in Rome. However, it is not clear. Bruce thinks it possible that it simply took two years for the case to come up before Caesar (Bruce 1988, p. 510). Luke's failure to say anything about the case is also curious. Bruce suggests possibly the outcome was so well known that Luke felt no need to mention it. Bruce surveys a number of other hypotheses, none of which can be proven.

​
0 Comments

Haggai - an individual in the shadows

9/17/2024

0 Comments

 
Tuesdays Are for the Old Testament
9/17/24

Lessing, R. Reed, & Steinmann, Andrew E. (2014). "Chapter Thirty-Seven: Haggai." In Prepare the Way of the Lord: An Introduction to the Old Testament. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. (533-540).

    Unlike most of the prophets Lessing and Steinmann observe that Haggai says nothing about his ancestry. He rather introduces himself merely as a prophet (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 533). His focus is on the fact that God has begun to speak after a lengthy silence. At the end of Persian dominance, it is time to rebuild the temple.
    The narrative in Haggai is in the third person. This has prompted some to assume it was written by the prophet's followers. However, third person narratives are not uncommon in the literature.
    Lessing and Steinmann observe that Haggai has a high density of chronological markers, recording oracles received during a period of four months (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 534). The language is prose, but with some poetic qualities.
    From a historical viewpoint, the apparent end of Israel predicted in Jeremiah and Ezekiel is not the actual end of the story. Judah has been promised a rebirth which would last forever. The event which we often consider a "return" from captivity is not actually a return (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 535). Most from Judah had been left in Judah rather than being deported. Most who were deported to Babylon had died in Babylon. The return was that of descendants of a minority group who had been deported. This move of immigration was spurred on by unrest in Persia under Darius. There was some comfort and wealth in Jerusalem, but the conditions in Judaea were largely poor and plagued by crop failures and hunger.
    Haggai was closely related with the move to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. Lessing and Steinmann draw in some details from Ezra and from Kings and Chronicles which shed light on the rebuilding activity (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 536).
    Haggai presents God as the powerful God who acts as a warrior for His people (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 536). Despite the riches, power, and attractiveness of the Persian kingdom, the nation would fall, along with many other strong nations (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 537).
    Christ may be seen in Haggai as the one who arises like the rebuilt temple as a place for worship. There is extensive language about one desired, a servant, and a seal for Judaea (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 538). The troubles of Judah are portrayed as a direct result of their sin, while the grace of God is tied to Judah's repentance.

​
0 Comments

Papal Authority and Stability

9/16/2024

0 Comments

 
Mondays are for Church History
9/16/24

Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter V. The Hierarchy and Polity of the Church." In  History of the Christian Church. (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Volume 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600, from Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great. (pp. 1993-2106). (Original work published 1889).  Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 48-67).

"§62. The Decrees of Councils on the Papal Authority." (pp. 2062-2065).

    While Schaff previously detailed the responses of individual Fathers to Rome's claim to authority, he considers the decrees of church councils to be more important evidence. The council of Sardica, in 343, considered it appropriate that deposed bishops should appeal to the bishop of Rome, and that vacant bishoprics should await the counsel of the bishop of Rome before being filled (Schaff 2014, p. 2062). This applied to posts both in the West and the East. However, it was specifically applied only to the Roman bishop Julius, without mention of any successors. Schaff observes this council was only that of a local synod, and that its decision was not binding on other regions (Schaff 2014, p. 2063).
    The stance of Sardica was not affirmed by any of the subsequent ecumenical councils. "The general councils of 381, 451, and 680 knew nothing of such a supreme appellate tribunal, but unanimously enacted, that all ecclesiastical matters, without exception, should first be decided in the provincial councils, with the right of appeal - not to the bishop of Rome, but to the patriarch of the proper diocese" (Schaff 2014, p. 2063). The ecumenical councils took Rome to have a primacy of honor, but not of authority, despite Rome's protests (Schaff 2014, p. 2064). Schaff observes a fundamental difference between the Eastern rejection of the papacy and the Protestant rejection. While the Eastern church held the leadership was a rightful oligarchy, the Protestants rejected the primacy of bishops on the theory that the need for such rule passed away as the Church was well established (Schaff 2014, p. 2065).

"§63. Leo the Great. A.D. 440-461." (pp. 2065-2073).
    
    After a brief bibliography, Schaff observes that in early Christian history the bishop is generally eclipsed by the office. This changed with Leo I (Schaff 2014, p. 2066). Leo was uniformly considered not only an important scholar but also elevated the papacy to a notably prominent office (Schaff 2014, p. 2067). Though little is known of his early life, he comes into view as an archdeacon by about 432. He was elevated to be pope, serving from 440-461, taking on the role with a strong concept of personal unworthiness. He then proceeded to be fully dedicated to the work of the Church.
    Leo's view of papal supremacy was built on an understanding of Matthew 16 that Jesus had transferred his authority to Peter, as the rock on which the church would be built (Schaff 2014, p. 2068). This authority, in Leo's view, was passed down to subsequent generations who followed Peter (Schaff 2014, p. 2069). He further understood that Peter's primacy was what had made Rome to have an eternal dignity. Leo's claim, then, was to the primacy of his office as bishop of Rome, rather than to his personal authority (Schaff 2014, p. 2070). Yet Schaff describes Leo as forcefully rejecting rival claims to his authority. "Obedience to the pope is . . . necessary to salvation" (Schaff 2014, p. 2070).
    Schaff describes Leo as using not only his theological acumen, but also considerable political leverage to establish his claims to primacy (Schaff 2014, p. 2071). He was able to use circumstances of conflict to assert his authoritative opinions in East and West alike. Leo was, however, unsuccessful in these attempts in Gaul and Constantinople (Schaff 2014, p. 2072).
    Schaff notes that Leo twice rescued the city of Rome from destruction. He persuaded Atilla the Hun not to overthrow the city, then several years later negotiated a treaty with Genseric the Vandal, limiting him to fourteen days of pillaging (Schaff 2014, p. 2073). 

​
0 Comments

A Detailed Introduction to Study of the Didache

9/13/2024

0 Comments

 
Friday Scholarly Notes
9/13/24

Niederwimmer, Kurt. (1998). "Introduction." In The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache. (1-54). (Original German 1989). Fortress Press. (Personal Library).

    In his introduction to the Didache, Niederwimmer first describes the major divisions of the work, in a conventional manner (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 1). He identifies 1.1-6.3 as a "tractate on the two ways;" a liturgical section in 7.1-10.7, divided into material about baptism, fasting and prayer, and eucharist; a church order section from 11.1-15.4; and an eschatological conclusion from 16.1-8. He observes that a variety of genres exist, with each of the major divisions fitting into a different literary genre. He takes the whole to be compiled from different types of materials (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 2). Niederwimmer particularly notes that the work is not a work of theology but rather a handbook "for ecclesiastical praxis" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 2). He takes the work to have sprung from some local situation "in a time of transition and its author is clearly making an effort to harmonize ancient and revered traditions of the church with new ecclesial necessities (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 3).
    The Didache was known by mention in a variety of ancient witnesses (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 4). Eusebius (H.E. 3.25) classifies it among spurious works which are generally well known. Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 listed it among noncanonical works which are good for reading (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 4-5). Niederwimmer goes on to cite a number of later references, giving less detail. Additionally, he considers a few quotations in early church literature to be conclusively genuine citations rather than statements which are similar but not quotations (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 6). The difficulty, as Niederwimmer illustrates using Clement of Alexandria's Stromata 1.20; 100.4, is that while there is close correspondence, in this case, to Didache 3.5, there is no mention of Clement quoting a statement of another work. He may have obtained the wording elsewhere and may have any of a variety of different levels of regard for the statement's source (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 7). 
    Liturgical texts may at times show a close resemblance to portions of the Didache, but Niederwimmer takes them to be similar due to a common tradition (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 9). There is a Latin quotation in Pseudo-Cyprian which also states it is "in doctrinis apostolorum." "This quotation is a welcome proof of the existence of a Latin translation of the Didache (and not merely of the tractate on the 'ways') around 300 (in Africa?), as well as of the title it bore: 'doctrinae apostolorum'" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 9).
    Niederwimmer evaluates a number of other Latin texts which may make a reference to the Didache but which may equally be drawing an idea from another source. The references are normally only a few words long (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 10 ff). Significantly, Niederwimmer discusses Augustine's use of the concept of allowing an offering to sweat in your hand (Did. 1.6), though he thinks it may have reached Augustine through a non-literary path (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 12). Niederwimmer additionally finds possible references to the Didache in Syrian witnesses. Niederwimmer considers these quotations may well have been derived from a Syriac version of the Didache (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 13). 
    Niederwimmer goes on to evaluate a number of references to the Didache in later church orders (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 13). Proof of actual literary dependence is elusive. A knowledge of a Latin version of the Two Ways, however transmitted, can be documented as recently as the 11th century (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 15). There is a clear connection between the Didache and the Didascalia apostolorum from the third century, both in Syriac and Latin. Niederwimmer illustrates this with a number of quotations from the works, in parallel columns (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 15-16). Niederwimmer's conclusion is that the Didache was known and may have been used for a variety of other works, but that the precise usage is unclear (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 17).
    Niederwimmer finds evidence of knowledge of the Didache among Byzantine authors in the 12th to 14th centuries (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 17). However, the knowledge seems to be based on writings of Athanasius, not on the Didache itself (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 18).
    The identification of the Didache in the 19th century brought to light a document which had been known, but not through clear firsthand evidence for many centuries (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 19). Niederwimmer provides a brief biographical sketch of Bryennios, who found the manuscript in a parchment codex in the "Jerusalem Monastery" in Constantinople. The text is noted as being completed on Tuesday, June 11, 1056, by one "Leon, notary and sinner" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 19). Niederwimmer provides a table of contents for the entire codex, as follows.

"1. Ps. Chrysostom Synopsis Veteris et Novi Testamenti (cf. PG 56.313-86): fol. 1a-38b
2. Epistle of Barnabas: fol. 39a-51b
3. 1 Clement: fol. 70a-76a
5. A list of the ὀνόματα τῶν βιβλίων παρ' ἑβραίοις ("names of the books of the Hebrews"), with the Hebrew and Aramaic titles in Greek transcription, followed by the Greek titles of the respective book: fol. 76a
6. Didache: fol. 76a-80b
7. The letter of Maria of Cassoboloi to Ignatius of Antioch: fol. 81a-82a
8. Twelve letters of Ignatius (recensio longior): fol. 82a-120a; the text of the letters of Ignatius is followed by the colophon (see above)
Finally, there is:
9. a discussion of the genealogy of Jesus: fol. 120a-120b."

Note the colophon is the notice referring to the scribe Leon.

Bryennios' edition of the Didache was published in 1883.

    Niederwimmer mentions the double title at the start of the Didache as well as the abrupt ending followed by seven blank lines ((Niederwimmer 1998, p. 19-20). He considers it "obvious" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 20) that the text is incomplete due to the overall structure of the apocalypse and the conclusions provided in Apostolic Constitutions as well as a Georgian version. Niederwimmer observes that there is scholarly disagreement about the quality of the manuscript, whether it is a late and possibly inaccurate version or a faithful copy from a relatively early period. Without a substantial collection of other manuscripts this challenge cannot be resolved (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 20).
    The two fragmentary leaves of Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1782 from the fourth century include Didache 1.3a-1.4a and 2.7b-3.2a (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 21)). Niederwimmer considers the book to have originally contained the entire Didache, and to have been written by someone who was not highly proficient. The pages are important because they date to "approximately the time when the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions was copying the Didache into book 7" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 22). Niederwimmer considers the documentation of the passage which some take as a later, specifically Christian, gloss to be important. The alterations in the text also suggest that the work may have had some instability. Niederwimmer illustrates this in parallel columns of the Jerusalem version and the Oxyrhynchus remains (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 22). He describes the significance of the individual variants as well.
    A Coptic fragment was identified in 1923, published subsequently in several editions. After discussing the unusual format and the date in the 5th century Niederwimmer identifies the text as Didache 10.3b-12.2a (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 24). Niederwimmer notes the various debates regarding the provenance of the text and the purpose of its presentation. There are numerous oddities in layout and dialect (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 25).
    An Ethiopic version exists, possibly translated from either Greek or Coptic (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 25). The text of Didache 8.1-2 and 11.3-13.7 exist, not in a copy of the Didache but as an element in a church order (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 26). Niederwimmer does not consider the work helpful in establishing a text, as it appears to be paraphrased.
    Niederwimmer describes a Georgian version of the Didache, copied in 1923 from a manuscript containing Georgian and Armenian texts. The manuscript is said to have been early 19th century, and to have been destroyed since 1923 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 27). This tradition, in Niederwimmer's view, is not reliable and tells us little about the history of the work.
    An indirect witness to the Didache text is found in Apostolic Constitutions when the compiler "copied the whole of the Didache in the first, major part of book 7, making some changes in the text of the source and sometimes paraphrasing. The extent of this dependency is visible in the edition by Funk" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 28, reference to Funk Didascalia 1.386-423). Niederwimmer describes the work's use of the Didache to be essentially a copy with added commentary. Niederwimmer describes a number of the editorializing elements found in Apostolic Constitutions. 
    Niederwimmer moves on to consider the relationship between the Didache as a whole and the Two Ways tractate. The tractate, appearing in similar form in a number of other early Christian works, makes up the beginning of the Didache, but appears in different locations in other works (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 30). Literary relationships of these works seem likely, but the direction of the influences is an elusive matter. The material in Barnabas other than the tractate seems unrelated, in Niederwimmer's view (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 31). The tractate as found in Doctrina Apostolorum is more similar. Niederwimmer notes the publication history of Doctrina Apostolorum in some detail (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 31). He considers this work and the Didache to depend on a common source. The Doctrina Apostolorum, like Barnabas, does not contain Didache material other than the tractate. There is a partial instance of the tractate in the Apostolic Church Order (Can. 4.1-13.4 or 14), attributed to various different apostles (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 32). Again, Niederwimmer takes this to have come about through use of common source material (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 33).
    Niederwimmer briefly mentions the Life of Shenoute of Atripe, the Syntagma doctrinae, and Fides patrum, which use some form of the tractate but almost certainly apart from the Didache (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 34).
    Research on the Didache has long been predicated on an hypothesis of a basic source document (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 35). Niederwimmer suggests the Two Ways material is based on a Jewish base document (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 36). He sees this as being adopted, with a variety of modifications, as an early Christian work (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 38). A number of different works could have drawn on different recensions of the two ways tractate. Niederwimmer hypothesizes three different versions leading to the witnesses we have, and presents a chart for the influence of the various forms (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 40).
    Niederwimmer attempts a reconstruction of the Didache's origin. He takes it almost certainly to have originally been Greek, rather than Syriac (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 41). Counter to Audet's hypothesis of a number of phases of redaction and interpolation, Niederwimmer thinks a "model of the evolution of the work in stages at the hand of one and the same author (to whom is added the interpolator)" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 42) is more likely. The Didachist drew from a number of sources, including the two ways material, tradition about baptism and eucharist, tradition about reception of itinerants, and apocalyptic information (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 44). He compiled the material, expanding it as necessary, and interpreted the ideas. Niederwimmer continues by giving a detailed version of the possible steps of assembly and growth. The sources and redaction of materials from Didache 7.1 on is less clear, as we really don't have much information about a possible source. Niederwimmer considers a good deal of it as redactional in nature (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 45). Niederwimmer considers much of 11.4-15.4 to come from a written document, with only brief interventions by the author (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 46). The eschatological conclusion appears to come from a fairly old tradition.
    Niederwimmer questions whether actual New Testament texts are in use in the Didache. He observes that any New Testament allusions or quotations would be found at the end of the redaction process (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 48). It is, however, unclear whether the Didachist actually used the New Testament. Niederwimmer briefly analyzes the four passages which use the term εὐαγγέλιον (8.2, 11.3, 15.3, 15.4) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 49). The references are all similar in form and express the same idea (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 49). The content given of the gospel in the Didache refers not to christology, but to words of Jesus (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 50). The source may be an oral tradition, though Niederwimmer considers this less definite in 15.4 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 51). Niederwimmer considers whether the source referenced is the same in all four instances. If so, it is possible the source is a written gospel.
    The time and place of composition for the Didache is challenging, in part because of its apparently composite nature (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 52). The component sources may come from different times and places. Due to the lack of clearly defined distinctions among the different church offices, Niederwimmer thinks we "cannot move too far into the second century" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 52). He is willing to suggest 110-120 C.E., but as a hypothesis (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 53). The place of composition is less distinct. Egypt, Syria, and Palestine all emerge as plausible locations (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 53).

​
0 Comments

Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twelve

9/12/2024

0 Comments

 
Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twelve

Keep working on learning where to look for different things in Matthew's Gospel. In chapter eleven, John the Baptist inquires about Jesus, Jesus describes John the Baptist as Elijah, then condemns cities which didn't receive him.

Write down at least three questions you hope will be answered. As always, I urge you to post them in the comments of this blog post, and to engage with other people's questions yourself!

Read Albrecht's commentary on Matthew, pages 172-188.

See if you have any more questions or answers to put in the comments section.

Questions for Study and Discussion:

Based on Matthew 12:1-13, how should we understand Jesus' relationship with God's Law? What is Jesus' desire in his interactions?

Compare Matthew 12:15-21 with the quotation from Isaiah 42:1-4 in its context. What priorities do we find?

The Pharisees were a group which took holiness and obedience to God's Law very seriously. Why were they so opposed to what Jesus was doing? What does Jesus' response to them say about his priorities?

Why would the Pharisees ask Jesus to do more miracles? Is there some sort of parallel in our modern culture?

In Matthew 12:46-50, who is part of Jesus' family? Are you?

0 Comments

What do Lutherans Do with God's Law?

9/12/2024

0 Comments

 
9/12/24

    You might remember that the Lutheran Reformation was largely built on a renewed emphasis on the grace of God, which brings salvation. Salvation is by grace through faith, not based on works of the law (Ephesians 2:8-9). This leads some to suggest that Lutherans should be called "antinomians" - literally, those who are opposed to God's law. And, at times, there have been groups of Lutherans who were willing to go along with this, even suggesting that doing good works in accord with God's law could endanger our salvation.
    The problem with an emphasis like this is clear and simple. The Bible consistently presents statements we would describe as "law" from God, as good things, and in contexts that are essential to living in an ordered society.
    Before we get too far ahead of ourselves, though, let's get two quick definitions. They're simple, but precise. Speaking biblically "law" is what we are told we need to do. "Gospel," on the other hand, is what God has done for us. I make those definitions because Lutherans have a particular understanding of matters of law and gospel, which other church bodies don't approach very well. For instance, it's normal to hear a Baptist or a Presbyterian speak of "gospel imperatives." A Lutheran will reject that out of hand. There's no command involved in what God has done for us. A "gospel imperative" is an oxymoron. The confusion of law and gospel is at the root of all sorts of troubles involving our understanding of the nature of salvation, the preservation of Christians, the role of the Church in society, and the way a Christian needs to live life. This distinction of law and gospel is one of the true developments of the Lutheran Reformation. It sets Lutherans apart.
    God's law is good. In essence, it does three things. These three uses of the law have been identified in other Christian traditions, though they are sometimes listed in a different order. God's law acts as a restraint for society. It does things like prohibit murder, protect private property, tell people they need to treat others ethically, etc. Sometimes this is called a "curb." It prevents you from entering into sin as easily as you might.
    A second use of the law is to show us our failure. For instance, God's law tells husbands and wives to be faithful to each other. We can recognize that as soon as we are tempted toward unfaithfulness, even if nobody else sees it, the all-knowing God does see it. We are made aware of it. This isn't entirely bad news, though. As we see our sin, looking into the mirror of God's law, we are moved to sorrow that we are sinful, to ask God for forgiveness, and to receive his restorative love. We all sin daily in many ways. God's law is there, defining sin in a concrete way, and moving us to look for our hope in the gospel, what God has done for us to bring us forgiveness, life, and salvation.
    A third use of the law is to show us what is pleasing to God. It gives us ideas of how we can live our lives in a way that accords with God's mercy and grace. This one is a little harder to unpack. As an example, though, God's law tells us we are to love and serve our neighbors. That's a rather vague standard, though. It's not immediately clear what that entails. Once we start thinking about what our neighbors need, as well as what is pleasing to God, we may begin to perceive specific things that we can do for others that agree with God's law. Maybe that takes the form of supporting local charities. Maybe it involves scooping snow off the elderly neighbor's sidewalk. Maybe it means giving the neighbor kid a high five on report card day, or going to the band concert or school play because we know someone who needs encouragement. When we act in our society in ways that are pleasing to God, we serve as God's hand extended to our community. This is a very good thing.
    God's law is good. We have to remember that above all. Though in light of God's law we see our sin and failure, it's still good. It shows us what we need to do, and we do it because God has given us a standard. He tells us what good and evil are. And he, being the good God, wants to use his law in us and in everyone around us to bring blessing to our neighbors. We are not ashamed of God's law. We give thanks that God cares enough for us and our neighbors to give us such a gift.

0 Comments

September 2024 Newsletter

9/11/2024

0 Comments

 
Did you miss receiving our September newsletter in the mail? Here it is!
September 2024 Newsletter
0 Comments
<<Previous

    ​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

    All the work of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry, including this blog, is supported by the generosity of people like you. Please consider joining our team of prayer and financial supporters. Read more here!
    Please Note: The opinions presented in blog posts are not necessarily those of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry. Frequently we report on contrary views, often without comment. Please chime in on the discussion.

    About Throwing Inkwells

    When Martin Luther was dealing with struggles in his life he once saw what appeared to be an angelic being. Not trusting that he was going to be informed by someone other than the God revealed in Scripture, he took the appearance to be untrustworthy and hurled his inkwell at it. The chipped place in the plaster wall is still visible at the Wartburg Castle, though apparently the ink stain on the wall has been refreshed periodically by the caretaker.

    Blog Feeds

    RSS Feed

    Want to keep up with what's happening at Wittenberg Door? Subscribe to our mailing list!

    Categories

    All
    1 Chronicles
    1 Corinthians
    1 John
    1 Kings
    1 Peter
    1 Samuel
    1 Thessalonians
    1 Timothy
    2019-02-feb
    2 Chronicles
    2 Corinthians
    2-john
    2 Kings
    2 Peter
    2 Samuel
    2 Thessalonians
    2 Timothy
    3-john
    Abortion
    Academic-success
    Acts
    Advent 1
    Advent-1-a
    Advent-1b
    Advent-1c
    Advent 2
    Advent-2-a
    Advent-2b
    Advent-2c
    Advent 3
    Advent-3-a
    Advent-3b
    Advent-3c
    Advent 4
    Advent-4-a
    Advent-4b
    Advent-4c
    Akagi 2016
    Aland 1961
    Alesso-2009
    Alexander 1999
    Allegory
    Allitt-2010
    All Saints' Day
    Alon 1996
    Amos
    Anaphora
    Anointing
    Antioch
    Anunciation
    Apollinaris Of Hierapolis
    Apologetics
    Apostles' Creed
    Apostolical Constitutions
    Apostolic Fathers
    Applied Theology
    Aristides Of Athens
    Aristotle
    Aryeh 2021
    Ascension Day
    Ash Wednesday
    Athenagoras Of Athens
    Audet 1996
    Augustine
    Bakker-1993
    Balabanski-1997
    Bammel-1996
    Baptism
    Baptism-of-christ
    Baptism-of-the-lord-b
    Bardy-1938
    Baron-2019
    Baron-maponya-2020
    Bauckham-1984
    Bauckham-2006
    Bauckham-2007
    Beale-1984
    Belief
    Belonging
    Benamos-1999
    Betz-1996
    Biesenthal-1893
    Bigg-1904
    Bigg-1905
    Blogcation
    Blomberg-1984
    Boehme2010
    Botha-1967
    Botha-1993
    Botha-2013
    Braaten-2007
    Bruce-1988
    Bruce-1988
    Bryennios
    Butler-1960
    Caneday-2017
    Canonicity
    Capon1998
    Capon-1998
    Carr-2010
    Carson-1991
    Carson-moo-2005
    Catechesis
    Catholicism
    Cerfaux-1959
    Chilton-1984
    Chrismation
    Christmas-1b
    Christmas-1c
    Christmas-dawn
    Christmas-day
    Christmas Eve
    Christmas Midnight
    Chronicles
    Church History
    Church Order
    Circumcision And Naming Of Christ
    Cody 1995
    Colossians
    Conditions
    Confession Of Peter
    Confessions
    Connolly 1932
    Connolly 1933
    Connolly 1934
    Constantine
    Constanza-2013
    Cooper & Lioy 2018
    Costa 2021
    Court 1981
    Creeds
    Culley 1986
    Cyprian
    Daly 1978
    Daniel
    Danielou 1956
    Davids 1984
    Davis 1995
    DeHalleux 1996
    Dehandschutter 1995
    Denominations
    Deuteronomy
    Didache
    Diversity
    Divine Fellowship
    Dix 1933
    Dix2005
    Dix-2005
    Doane 1994
    Draper
    Draper 1984
    Draper 1989
    Draper 1995
    Draper-1996
    Draper-1997
    Draper-2000
    Draper 2005
    Draper-2006
    Draper 2008
    Dube 2016
    Due 2003
    Early Christian Functionaries
    Easter-2
    Easter-2a
    Easter2b
    Easter-2c
    Easter-3
    Easter-3a
    Easter-3b
    Easter-3c
    Easter-4
    Easter-4a
    Easter-4b
    Easter-4c
    Easter-5
    Easter-5a
    Easter-5b
    Easter-6
    Easter-6a
    Easter-6b
    Easter-6c
    Easter-7
    Easter-7a
    Easter-7b
    Easter-7c
    Easter-b
    Easter-day
    Easter-monday
    Easter-sunday-a
    Easter-sunday-c
    Easter-sunrise
    Easter-tuesday
    Easter-wednesday
    Ecclesiastes
    Eleutheria2014
    Elman-1999
    Ephesians
    Epiphany
    Epiphany-1c
    Epiphany-2-a
    Epiphany-2c
    Epiphany-3-a
    Epiphany-3b
    Epiphany-3c
    Epiphany-4-a
    Epiphany-4b
    Epiphany-4c
    Epiphany-5-a
    Epiphany-5b
    Epiphany-5c
    Epiphany-6-a
    Epiphany-6c
    Epiphany-7-a
    Epiphany-c
    Epistle Of Barnabas
    Epistles
    Eschatology
    Esther
    Ethics
    Eucharist
    Evangelism
    Eve-of-the-circumcision-of-christ
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Experiential Reading
    Eybers 1975
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg1988
    Fagerberg-1988
    Fall Of Jerusalem
    Farrell-1987
    Flew-2007
    Flusser-1996
    Forde-2007
    Fraade-1999
    France-2007
    Galatians
    Garrow 2004
    Gender
    Genesis
    Gero 1977
    Gibbins 1935
    Gibbs 2006
    Gibbs 2010
    Glover-1958
    Goga & Popa 2019
    Gonzalez-2010
    Good-friday
    Gospels
    Greek
    Grosvener-schaff-1885
    Grosvenor-1884
    Guardian-of-jesus
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Hagner 1984
    Harnack-1884
    Harrington 2008
    Harris 1887
    Harris 1984
    Hartin 2008
    Hasitschka 2008
    Hearon 2004
    Hearon 2010
    Hebrews
    Heilmann 2018
    Henderson1992
    Henderson-1992
    Henderson 1995
    Hezser 2010
    History
    Hoffman-1986
    Holy Cross Day
    Holy-innocents
    Holy-saturday
    Horsley 2010
    Hosea
    Hutchens2013
    Hymes-1994
    Ignatius Of Antioch
    Incarnation
    Infertility
    Isaiah
    Jaffee-1999
    James
    James Of Jerusalem
    James The Elder
    Jefford 1989
    Jefford 1995
    Jefford 2005
    Jefford 2019
    Jeffreys-1986
    Jeremiah
    Jerome
    Jesus
    Jewish Christianity
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Jones & Mirecki 1995
    Joseph
    Joshua
    Judaism
    Jude
    Judges
    Julian The Apostate
    Jungmann-1959
    Justinian
    Justin Martyr
    Kelber-1987
    Kelber-1995
    Kelber 2002
    Kelber 2010
    Kelber & Sanders 2010
    Kevil
    Kings
    Kleinig-2013
    Kloppenborg 1979
    Kloppenborg 1995
    Kloppenborg 2005
    Kloppenborg 2008
    Koch2010
    Kok 2015
    Kolb2000
    Kolb-2000
    Kolbarand2008
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Konradt 2008
    Koukl 2019
    Kurekchomycz2009
    Lake 1905
    Lamentations
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-a
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-b
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-c
    Last Supper
    LaVerdiere 1996
    Law
    Layton 1968
    Lectionary
    Lent-1
    Lent-1-a
    Lent-1b
    Lent-1c
    Lent-2
    Lent-2-a
    Lent-2b
    Lent-2c
    Lent-3
    Lent-3-a
    Lent-3b
    Lent-3c
    Lent-4
    Lent-4-a
    Lent-4b
    Lent-4c
    Lent-5
    Lent-5-a
    Lent-5b
    Lent-5c
    Lessing2014
    Lessing-2014
    Lessing & Steinmann 2014
    Leviticus
    LGBTQ
    Lincoln-1885
    Lindemann 1997
    Literacy
    Literary Character
    Liturgy
    Livesey 2012
    Long-2009
    Lord-1986
    Lord-1987
    Lord's Prayer
    Love
    Luke
    Luther
    Lutheran Confessions
    Lutheran Distinctives
    Maas-2014
    Maccoull-1999
    Maier-1984
    Malachi
    Manuscripts
    Marcion
    Mark
    Marty-2016
    Martyrdom-of-john-the-baptist
    Martyrs
    Mary-magdalene
    Mary-mother-of-our-lord
    Mason-1998
    Massaux-1993-1950
    Matthew
    Matthias
    Mazza-1995
    Mazza-1996
    Mazza-1999
    Mbamalu-2014
    Mcdonald-1980
    Mcdonnell-montague-1991
    Mckean-2003
    Mcknight-2014
    Micah
    Middleton-1935
    Milavec-1995
    Milavec-2003
    Milavec-2005
    Milavec2012
    Miller-2019
    Missional
    Mitch-2010
    Mitchell-1995
    Molina-evers-1998
    Monasticism
    Monday-in-holy-week
    Montenyohl-1993
    Morris-1992
    Motyer-1993
    Mueller-2006
    Muilenburg-1929
    Music
    Nahum
    Nehemiah
    Neufeld-1999
    Newsletter
    New Testament
    New-testament
    Niditch-1995
    Niditch-2003
    Niebuhr-1956
    Niederwimmer-1982
    Niederwimmer-1995
    Niederwimmer-1996
    Niederwimmer 1998
    Numbers
    Oaths
    Obadiah
    Old Testament
    Old-testament
    Olsen-1986
    Ong-1987
    Ong-1988
    Ong-1995
    Oralit
    Orality
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne-2002
    Osborne-2013
    Overman-2008
    Ozment1980
    Ozment-1980
    Painter-2008
    Palm-sunday
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm-sunday-c
    Pardee-1995
    Pardee-2012
    Parks-1986
    Passionb
    Pastoral-office
    Pastors
    Patterson-1995
    Paul
    Pearce-1993
    Pentateuch
    Pentecost-10a
    Pentecost-10b
    Pentecost-10c
    Pentecost-11a
    Pentecost-11b
    Pentecost-11c
    Pentecost-12a
    Pentecost-12b
    Pentecost-12c
    Pentecost-13a
    Pentecost-13b
    Pentecost13c
    Pentecost-13c
    Pentecost-14a
    Pentecost-14b
    Pentecost14c
    Pentecost-15
    Pentecost-15a
    Pentecost-15b
    Pentecost15c
    Pentecost-16
    Pentecost-16a
    Pentecost-16b
    Pentecost-16c
    Pentecost-17a
    Pentecost-17b
    Pentecost-17c
    Pentecost-18a
    Pentecost-18b
    Pentecost-18-c
    Pentecost-19a
    Pentecost-19b
    Pentecost-19-c
    Pentecost-1a
    Pentecost-20a
    Pentecost-20b
    Pentecost-20-c
    Pentecost-21a
    Pentecost-21b
    Pentecost-21-c
    Pentecost-22a
    Pentecost-22b
    Pentecost-22-c
    Pentecost-23a
    Pentecost-23b
    Pentecost-23-c
    Pentecost-24a
    Pentecost-24b
    Pentecost-24-c
    Pentecost-25b
    Pentecost-25-c
    Pentecost-26b
    Pentecost-26-c
    Pentecost-2a
    Pentecost-2b
    Pentecost-2c
    Pentecost-3a
    Pentecost-3b
    Pentecost-3c
    Pentecost-4a
    Pentecost-4b
    Pentecost-4c
    Pentecost-5a
    Pentecost-5b
    Pentecost-5c
    Pentecost-6a
    Pentecost-6b
    Pentecost-6c
    Pentecost-7a
    Pentecost-7b
    Pentecost-7c
    Pentecost-8a
    Pentecost-8b
    Pentecost-8c
    Pentecost-9a
    Pentecost-9b
    Pentecost-9c
    Pentecost-b
    Pentecost-c
    Pentecost-eve
    Pentecost-monday
    Pentecost-sunday
    Pentecost-tuesday
    Petersen-1994
    Peterson2010
    Peterson-2010
    Philemon
    Philippians
    Philosophy
    Picirilli-1988
    Pick-1908
    Pieper1924
    Pieper-1924
    Pieper-1968
    Piper-1947
    Pluralism
    Pope Leo I
    Post-70
    Powell-2000
    Prayer
    Preaching
    Presentation-of-our-lord
    Proctor-2019
    Proper19c
    Proper20c
    Proper-21c
    Proper-22c
    Proper-23c
    Proper-24c
    Proper-25c
    Proper-26c
    Proper-27c
    Proper-28c
    Prophecy
    Prophets
    Proverbs
    Psalm
    Psalms
    Purity
    Quinquagesima
    Quintilian
    Rabbinic-character
    Real-presence
    Receptivity
    Reed-1995
    Reformation
    Reformation-day
    Reinhartz-2018
    Reproof
    Repschinski-2008
    Resurrection
    Revelation
    Rhetoric
    Rhoads-2010
    Richardson-gooch-1984
    Riggs-1995
    Ritual-meal
    Romans
    Romeny-2005
    Rordorf-1996
    Rosenberg-1986
    Rosenberg-1987
    Rosenfeldlevene2012
    Rouwhorst-2005
    Rueger-2016
    Russo-1994
    Ruth
    Sacrament
    Sacrifice
    Saenger-1999
    Sailhamer1992
    Sailhamer-1992
    Sale-1996
    Samuel
    Scaer2004
    Scaer-2004
    Schaff-1886
    Schaff-1888
    Schaff-1889
    Schaff2014
    Schaff 2014
    Schollgen
    Schroter-2008
    Schwarz-2005
    Scriptural-usage
    Seeliger-1996
    Senn-1997
    Septuagesima
    Sermon
    Sexagesima
    Sim-2008
    Simon-and-jude
    Smith-2009
    Smith-2018
    Sommerville-2006
    Songofsongs
    Song-of-songs
    St-andrew
    Stark 1997
    St-barnabas
    St-bartholomew
    Stewart-Sykes 2008
    St-john
    St-john-the-baptist
    St-luke
    St-mark
    St-matthew
    St-matthias
    St-michael-and-all-angels
    St-paul
    St-peter-and-paul
    St Philip And St James
    Strawbridge 2017
    St. Stephen
    St. Thomas
    St. Titus
    Sunday Of The Passion
    Svartvik 2008
    Syreeni 2005
    Syria
    Tatian
    Taylor 1888
    TDNT
    Teaching
    Telfer 1939
    Tertullian
    Textual Comparison
    Textual Integrity
    Theological Development
    Theophilos 2018
    Theophilus Of Antioch
    Thielman 2010
    Thursday-in-holy-week
    Timothy
    Titus
    Tomson-2005
    Tomson-2008
    Tradition
    Transfiguration
    Transfiguration-a
    Transfigurationb
    Transfiguration-c
    Trinity-1
    Trinity-10
    Trinity-11
    Trinity-12
    Trinity-13
    Trinity-14
    Trinity-15
    Trinity-16
    Trinity-17
    Trinity 18
    Trinity 19
    Trinity 2
    Trinity 20
    Trinity 21
    Trinity 22
    Trinity 23
    Trinity 3
    Trinity-4
    Trinity-5
    Trinity-6
    Trinity-7
    Trinity-8
    Trinity-9
    Trinity-a
    Trinity-b
    Trinity-c
    Trinity-sunday
    Tsang-2009
    Tuckett
    Tuesday-in-holy-week
    Tuilier-1995
    Tuilier-2005
    Twelftree-1984
    Two-ways
    Ty-19
    Vahrenhurst-2008
    Van-der-merwe-2017
    Van-der-merwe-2019
    Van-der-watt-2008
    Van-de-sandt-2002
    Van-de-sandt-2007
    Van-de-sandt-2008
    Vandesandt2010
    Vandesandt2011
    Van-de-sandt-flusser-2002
    Van-deventer-2021
    Varner-2005
    Vatican-ii
    Veith1993
    Veith-1993
    Veith-sutton-2017
    Verheyden-2005
    Verheyden-2008
    Vikisfreibergs-1997
    Visitation
    Voobus-1968
    Voobus-1969
    Vows
    Warfield-1886
    Wasson-toelken-1998
    Wednesday-in-holy-week
    Wenham-1984
    Wenham-1992
    Weren-2005
    Weren-2008
    Weston-2009
    Wilhite-2019
    Wilson2011
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Winger-2014
    Wischmeyer-2008
    Wolmarans-2005
    Wright-1984
    Young-2011
    Ysebaert2002
    Zangenberg-2008
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah
    Zetterholm-2008

Proudly powered by Weebly