Category Archive: Uncategorized
Subcategories: No categories
Money Matters
“Money” is not a subject I broach often. In fact I don’t like to talk about it much at all. I never write on the subject of tithing unless it is to dispel certain misconceptions about “what the bible really teaches about tithing”. But even there I do this very rarely because the tithe is a sacred cow to so many who take it for granted that the bible teaches it in the way it is commonly practiced today. I only step up when I see people getting abused by this church practice. I’m on the council of my church where, like any church council I suppose, the subject of money seems to dominate the agenda. I loathe that part of our meetings and for the most part remain silent.
Today I want to talk about money. The reason is because as of late, the subject of “money” has become something I do like to talk about. Not because I have more of it. In fact, most often the words out of my mouth are, “I don’t think I can afford that”, when asked to do something, buy something or go somewhere. But our (my wife and I) lives have been transformed in recent years. You might say that, while yes we still do not have much money, we are however no longer “slave to the lender”, and that is exciting!
I grew up in a home where my mom was very honest to us. When she said, “I have no money”, she meant it literally; there was absolutely no money to her name. If she said, “I have a $20”, that is what she had. My parents lived paycheck to paycheck by paying bills (if we could) and blowing the leftovers (if ever there were any).
My wife was more responsible with money then I was when we were engaged. But that’s because her parents typically lived within their means. Still, no one taught her how to handle money and her father typically lives on a line of credit and sees that as a normal thing, even expecting us to do the same and finding it odd that we don’t want to.
When we got married, her lack of money handling mixed with my training of, if you have it, it’s there to be used, made of a disastrous first year of marriage.
Then I discovered Dave Ramsey’s Total Money Makeover book. I read it and thought it could change our lives. Foolishly I jumped into “gazelle intensity” and sold my guitar to begin my “debt snowball” before my wife was on board. The result is that we both lost something of sentimental value (I used that guitar to sing her the wedding song I wrote on our wedding day), we cannot get it back and it did nothing to further our financial freedom.
Today she confesses that the reason she did not want to do the Total Money Makeover with me back when I first presented it to her was because of pride and control. First she did not want to admit that we needed help, and second she didn’t want someone else telling her how to handle our money. I have found this to be a common reaction whenever I broach the subject of money and suggest Dave Ramsey.
Eventually we both got on board with Dave’s program and took the course, Financial Peace University. While we have not kept to Dave’s ideals in every detail (recently we purchased a new car without paying cash, something Dave would not approve of), on a whole this decision has literally changed our lives. Last year we managed to pay off over $14,000.00 in debts and we bought a used car with cash ($2,000.00). What makes that number even more amazing is that just prior to taking Dave’s course we were still living paycheck to paycheck and struggling to get ahead even a little.
The point of writing this post is not to reflect on how much money I have (I don’t have much!) nor to boast on how much I have paid off (but I am proud and amazed at the fact). I’ve written this post because of the real change that has taken place inside of me. A change that involves my thinking process.
Someone recently said to me that every time they talk to someone who has taken the Dave Ramsey course, they never seem to have any money. It baffled this person, “does the course work? Does it not? I don’t know. But no one who takes it seems to have any money.”
I’m afraid my friend misses the point, as my wife did when I first broached the subject with her, as I would have if someone had made the suggestion to me four years ago. We judge whether or not something works based on a monetary value. What kind of results are you looking for?
If you are looking for money, look elsewhere; because you have missed the point. If you are looking for freedom, however, then let’s talk. Look for money and you’ll find bondage, look for freedom and you’ll find money. If my wife and I stopped at this moment to look for freedom, we would find that we have lots of money. Money we have been using to get out of debt. But we would also find that before long that money would be gone and we would still be in bondage. However, if we continue to use our money to press for freedom, if – to quote Dave – “we told our money where to go instead of allowing our money to tell us where to go”, we would eventually find freedom and when that happens we’ll have lots of money and no place to go but up.
So what kind of results are you looking for? For my wife and I, searching for financial peace has changed the way we think. I purchased a Tim Horton’s travel mug for $4.00 because I drink a cup of coffee on my way to work every day (it’s in the budget). When you first buy the mug your first coffee is free, thus the mug really only cost me $2.50. Plus, because I use the mug every day when I go through the drive thru they take 10 cents off the price of the coffee. Before long the coffee has paid for itself and I keep my car clean (the paper cups always leak). This way of thinking would have never occurred to me before.
I am still as honest as ever when it comes to money, just like my mom was. But I have redefined terms. You’ll recall that when my mom said she had no money, it meant that her bank account had run dry. For me, to say that I have no money does not mean that my bank account has run dry; it means that I have no money to spend. It means that this thing, event, whatever, is not in the budget. It means that I had to prioritize and set an agenda and those shoes I want are going to have to wait a few weeks. It also happens to mean that if I come across someone in dire straits, a sheer desperate situation, to say that “I have no money right now” to other things actually means, “here, let me help you out.” It just takes a little adjusting of the budget.
And what is one of the most delightfully joyful things of this whole life changing process my wife and I are doing right now with all of its menial and temporary sacrifices? It is the knowledge that one day our kids will not have to struggle for food and will not have to worry about having a good education and will not be dependent upon the system in any way and will not be in bondage to the lender. That their children will be able to play all of the sports they can and also get a good education. That my wife and I are readjusting the settings on our lives so that we are no longer in financial cruise control which may alter the course of our family for generations to come and, let’s not forget that when this happens, we are in a better position to move forward the Kingdom of God and to help those around us in need when we ourselves are no longer there.
Reflections on Pastoral Visitations: A Pastor Grieves Because His Sheep Won’t Read
A part of my job as the marketing guy for a Christian bookstore is to travel the area visiting pastors. It is not the easiest part of my job. Most pastors receive me with a great deal of apprehension, which adds some unnecessary tension to our meetings – though no doubt from experience most pastors have learned to be guarded for good reason unfortunately. It is difficult to get into seeing a pastor from a larger church. They are usually quite busy. But visiting pastors in smaller churches sometimes feels like being invited to a friend’s home for the first time. They want to show you around the house, every room, every feature. With great pleasure, they share an abbreviated history of the church and their time as pastor. Things sometimes warm up quite quickly.
Just the other day I went in to visit a pastor of a small Pentecostal church. His office was too small and cluttered for two people to cohabitate, so when I entered the foyer (which was the same as entering the sanctuary) the first thing I saw was a table set up at the altar of the church, a chair on either side and a bottle of water in front of each seat. He was waiting for me with a big smile and eagerly extended the right hand of fellowship.
Before that I had visited a United Methodist Church where the pastor was just as friendly as he gave me the grand tour. It was beautiful building with great acoustics, recently remodeled. And today another minister, a Baptist pastor, handed me a printed copy of the history of the Church. They had just celebrated their 125th anniversary! Quite the accomplishment for this area.
As I entered the Baptist church I had passed through a large library, high ceilings, large thick wooden shelves which extended to the top, a deep room with a ladder reaching to the high shelves and a table in the center. I marveled as I passed through and into the pastor’s office and had made a comment of how much I like it.
He shared with me how he grieves that no one uses it. The person who built it and stocked it had done so over 25 years prior, they had since passed away. About four years ago a young man took charge of the library, but began to toss anything that seemed “dated”, “irrelevant” or “unknown” to him. The pastor was horrified and put a stop to it as soon as he could. Fortunately, the young man was not in charge long enough to deal too much damage, most of the books were salvaged.
The pastor went on to show me a little book of hardly more than a hundred pages sitting there on his desk. It was Mark Dever’s What Is A Healthy Church. He said he was going to ask his board members to read it. “It’s small”, he said, “they shouldn’t have much excuse not to. But if I don’t politely, but forcefully ask them to read it, they won’t read at all.”
He then said something which stuck for me, like one of those quotes worth archiving. He said:
“If only six men would read three books a year, it would change the whole environment of our church.”
I grieve with this pastor. In our store we have a quote on the wall by A.W. Tozer:
“… the right book in the hands of the right person, can easily transform a life.”
It did for me. It can for you. It and will for those in your church.
Binney & Steele on Women Preachers
I see that Derek’s latest post is on NT Wright’s remarks on women’s roles in the Church. And, I thought a little reminder of the historic Wesleyan / Holiness position on this issue might be of interest to some people.
I know it’s a paradigm shift for a lot of people, but early Methodists and the leaders of the 19th Century revival movement, while strongly committed to the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God, were not only abolitionists (in the days when slavery was a live issue) but also encouraged the idea of women in ministry — and this, long, long before the contemporary feminist movement. To demonstrate this, I offer the following abstract from Binney’s Theological Compend written by Amos Binney and Daniel Steele and published in 1839. This text is in the public domain. Anyone who doubts that Binney was an inerrantist may check out his views on Scripture here: Divine Revelation.
WOMAN’S SPHERE IN THE CHURCH.
This is not limited to the duties of the family or household, since she is often by nature and grace pre-eminently adapted for a wider service. Hence women were employed as prophets, that is, in the sense of public religious teachers, including the higher ministerial duties, as appears from the rank next after apostles . 1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11. Compare Acts 2:17-18; 21:9; Rom 16:1-2. So in the Old Testament. Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Num 11:29.
Compare also Psalm 68:11, where the true rendering is, of the women preachers there was a great host; which accords with the wish of Moses, Numbers 11:29, and of Paul, I Cor 14:5. (181. Who should govern in the decisions of the Church? What is the duty of the minority? What benefit will result? What is said of woman’s sphere? Of their service as prophets or teachers? Did Paul condemn the practice?)
Some have understood Paul as prohibiting women teaching. I Cor 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2: 11-12. But he evidently refers to such only as prayed and prophesied unvailed, as appears 1 Cor 11:5-13. Paul in this had respect simply to the usage of society, as was his custom in matters of indifference. I Cor 9:19-23. To say that his prohibition applies alike to all times and conditions of society, is to say that the prudential regulations of a degraded heathen people, eighteen hundred years ago, are universally binding, and that Christianity in this respect has wrought no change in the world it came to reform. Paul surely had a different estimate of woman service. Rom 16:1-7, 12-15. His first public discourse in Europe was at a meeting of women, and his first convert and host was a woman. Acts 16:9-15.
There is indisputable scriptural and historical proof that subordinate official position was accorded to women in the apostolic Church:- 1. The correct translation of Rom 16:1-2, shows that Phebe was a deacon of the Church and a patron of many-the original of patron being radically the same as is rendered, he that ruleth, in chap. 12:8. (182. What is said of his estimate of women? Was official position accorded to her? What is said of Phebe? What exposition of Rom. 16:1-2?) of Deacons not only minister to the sick and needy, but from Phil. 1:1, and I Tim. 3:2, 8, we infer that they preached and discharged other spiritual functions subordinate to the elders or bishops, who correspond to the pastors of modern times.
2. The rules of conduct laid down for women in I Tim 3:11, and Titus 2:3, have been referred to the deaconesses by a series of eminent commentators from Chrysostom to Alford.
3. Dr. Schaff and other scholars interpret the words, “let not a widow be taken into the number,” I Tim 5:9. Let not a widow be elected and ordained under threescore years old.
4. From Titus 2:3-4, we learn that women were employed as teachers in the direct personal application of Christian truth.
5. Pliny, a few years later, speaks of the order of deaconesses as exercising, in relation to their own sex, functions analogous to those of the deacons.
The history of the early Christian Church confirms this statement, and adds, also, that women baptized. (183. What exposition of I Tim 3:11; 5:9? Of Titus 2:3? What is said of the history of the early Church?) Signal honors are recorded of woman’s devotion to Christ and his cause. Matt 26:6-13; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 10:38-42. She was first to preach the actual advent of the promised Messiah, both to the Jews and to the Samaritans. Luke 2:36-38; John 4:28, etc.; and first to preach the risen Savior to his doubting apostles. Matt 28:7-9, 17.
“Not she, with traitorous kiss, her Savior stung; — Luke 22:47-48.
Not she denied him with unholy tongue; — Matt 26:69-75.
She, while apostles shrank, could danger brave: —Matt 26:56
Last at the cross, and earliest at his grave.” — Matt 27:55-56 28:1.
— Amos Binney & Daniel Steele, Binney’s Theological Compend (1839).
So, it seems to me that people within the Wesleyan movement have listened to scripture in a different way than those in other traditions. It was not a difference in their explicit doctrine of Scripture, but in the ways in which Scripture spoke to them. (And, that is to say: it’s hermeneutics, not exegesis per se.)
[Cross posted at: Commonplace Holiness.]
It’s Been One Whole Year! Cov-of-Luv Anniversary
This November marks the first anniversary of Covenant of Love. So I’d like to take this opportunity to share some insights I learned through trial and error. What works for a Christian blog, want doesn’t work. Mistakes I’ve made and what is really important.
1. Friends Matter Most: I’m starting here because, as I’ve discovered, the Christian community is a Covenantal community. No two people agree on all points. But it is when you can develop respectful online friendships in the blogging world, that whether or not we agree, your blog will truly be benefited. Because from respectful dialogue you can celebrate with your friends on issues where you agree and take constructive criticism in areas where you do not. And, what’s more, you support each other’s blogs and will extend the influence you have. Friends matter most.
2. Content Matters Most: Because Covenant of Love was new, I decided the best way to “introduce” my blog to the wider Christian blogosphere was to do a “book giveaway”. I had hoped that this would allow my blog to go viral and once having discovered it, that people would return regularly. In retrospect, nothing makes a blog go viral like a great blog post with great content. My posts titled N.T. Wright, R.C. Sproul and the Scarecrow, and Soul-Journey Into The Lost World of Genesis One generated nearly twice as much action as the giveaway.
3. Courtesy Matters Most: Passion and inexperience results in the use of many exclamation marks (!). Exclamation marks can be a dangerous thing because they often communicate a message contrary to what is intended. For example, a writer may use many exclamation marks because they are shocked or excited about something, but the reader will read into those exclamation marks as arrogance, pride or immaturity. Exclamation marks can be powerful and effect when used infrequently and timely. But it says something of the writer’s skill when he is able to communicate a powerful point without the need of exaggerated emphasis. But what I have also noted is that people will be more inclined to dialogue with your blog and engage with you as a blogger if you write with courtesy and humility. It is fair and expected that when you write you will be giving your opinion, and in doing so you can be firm. But be respectful, or become your only reader.
4. Controversy Matters Most: Writing on matters of controversy will almost certainly drive your blog status up – at first. But how you handle the controversial subject will weigh heavily as to whether someone will return to read new stuff. If you write in favour of someone’s view, they will wish to see if you have any new insight to add. If you write against someone’s view, they will want to see what you have to say (and most often make an attempt to rebut you). If possible, be your own worst critic, be as well read on the subject as possible, and be open to correction. Controversial issues can be divisive, and the church does not need any more division. But controversial issues can also open fresh lines of thinking on old and difficult problems, and we Christians need to allow our received traditions to be challenged and to open our minds from time to time. Controversial blog posts can help, but they need to be written with a spirit of exhortation and humility.
5. Comments Matter Most: We are way beyond the age of passive-web-surfers. The internet is no longer about information retrieval; it is equally about information bestowal. People want to engage and contribute to the information out there, particularly by sharing the information they have; i.e. they leave comments. Whenever possible, engage those comments, because one thing is for sure: when someone leaves a comment they will almost certainly return to see if you’ve responded. Seeing that you have will make their return worth the cyber trip. You can expect that they will come back again. A word of caution: choose your battles wisely. Many commenters’ are like drive-by parishioners: they blow in, blow up, and blow out. Some people just want to cause trouble while others are consumed in their own pride and feel it is their mission in life to correct everyone with their absolute opinions. I suggest that a great deal if humility will be required not to take their bait.
6. Inspiration Matter Most: Why do I blog? This question has taunted me since I first opened Covenant of Love. Do I blog to stroke my pride? To vent my frustration? To hammer those I disagree with? Or do I blog to add something positive and constructive into peoples lives? Another way to put it: if Covenant of Love ceased to exist today, would it be missed at all? If not, then what is the point? I want Covenant of Love to be a place of useful (and sometimes challenging) information, of resources, and of spiritual encouragement. I don’t think I’ve been able to cultivate any of these to any great degree. But bloggers who do are those Christian blog sites who have proved to be most successful. In time, I hope to be there.
Special thanks to those who have been returning friends and partners to Covenant of Love this year, to José who helped get Covenant of Love up and running, and to Craig Adams who has come along side in recent months to help keep Covenant of Love running by contributing great articles.
“Rapture” Theology – Part 1
The concept of the “Rapture” has been a characteristic feature of conservative and evangelical Christian theology for a long time now. This doctrine that all true Christian believers will be removed from the world just before (or maybe within) a period of earthly Tribulation has become not only a standard feature of conservative Christianity, but also a phenomenon in the wider culture through the best selling Left Behind books.
Actually, the commonly-held doctrine of the Rapture is a feature of the Dispensational theological system. This system of thought began with John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), but was popularized in the early part of the 20th Century by C. I. Scofield and the extremely successful Scofield Reference Bible, first published in 1909.
Dispensational theology, with its distinctive doctrine of “two comings” of Christ is a 19th Century doctrinal innovation. It arose, I think, in response to growing pressure to see and interpret the Bible in light of its own history. Dispensationalism by-passed an historical approach to Scripture by (a.) interpreting the Bible in a strict literalistic sense, (b.) dividing the Bible history into dispensations in which God dealt with the world on different principles, (c.) asserting a strict dichotomy between Israel and the Church. Thus, there was no need to appeal to history or to a notion of Progressive Revelation. Bible books belonging to a previous dispensation did not directly relate to the present dispensation of grace. (You start to see some of the problems here when you consider that the teaching of Jesus itself, would, from this point of view, belong to a previous dispensation.)
Most people who have been trained in Biblical studies and theology believe the Dispensational schema to be false. You can find several refutations on the Internet. While the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary defends this point of view (though sometimes in a significantly modified form from the teachings of Darby and Scofield), very few academic theologians defend this view, or even take it seriously.
It is generally ignored in major theological Seminaries. It is never even mentioned.
And that’s too bad. It is very much a “live” theological option out in the real world, whatever professional theologians may think of it.
I think this is some sort of academic-theology ego thing. Theology teachers need to get out of their ivory towers and mix with real folks once in a while. Dispensationalism is a live option out in the church and in our culture even though its academic-theology credentials are… um, … not so good. It sells a lot of books. More people read stuff like the Left Behind books (or The DaVinci Code, for that matter) than read respected academic theology.
Besides, academic theology is hard to read!
Yes, I much admire Wolfhart Pannenberg and Jürgen Moltmann (and many other Systematic and Biblical theologians). But, the writings of academic theologians are generally not accessible to average (or even in some cases, the above-average) lay reader. By contrast, Tim LaHaye has always written for the masses. Academic theologians tend to see Dispensationalism as beneath contempt, but that stance is arrogant — and it is not been helping the church at large. The rest of us encounter it quite commonly.
Like it or not, this is the dominant eschatology of our day. And what it tends to say to people is this: The world is going to the Devil (and his minion, the Antichrist) and if we are fortunate enough to be believers we will be “bailed out” by the Rapture before things get too awfully bad. No need to improve things on this evil world. It’s going to the Devil anyway.
And, I believe it has spilled over from Christianity to our secular culture, as well. The dominant secular “eschatology” is a vision of a bleak future: an overcrowded, oppressive world, or the world decimated by plague, or maybe nuclear holocaust and its aftermath.
It was a long time ago that Jürgen Moltmann wrote about a Theology of Hope. But, the concept of “hope” (i.e., a confident expectation of good in the future) is pretty foreign to a lot of Christians. And, the eschatology of gloom, doom, and despair is very much ingrained into our churches and our culture. This is the mythos of our age.
The pre-tribulational Rapture theory is, as I have said, the Dispensational view. In this view, all of salvation history is divided into Dispensations in which God worked in significantly different ways. The Dispensational view is an approach to the interpretation of the Bible that avoids historical & cultural & literary questions. Thus, it has a certain amount of appeal to folks who do not wish to see the Bible as having been historically & culturally conditioned by its times.
Any particular Bible verse is simply located within its proper Dispensation. God worked in different ways at different times. So, for example, God doesn’t call us to slaughter Canaanites anymore, that was the Word of God to Joshua and appropriate to a previous Dispensation when God was working in a different way. And so forth. (In the older Dispensational theory there were 7 dispensations in which God worked in a distinctively different way. I don’t know what they teach nowadays.) Thus, the Dispensational theory has an attraction to folks who hold to a more Literal-Dictation view of the Scriptures, since it irons out what might otherwise be seen as discrepancies in the Bible’s teachings. But, people who adopt an historical approach to the Bible have no need of the Dispensational theory.
The most fatal flaw in this is that the Dispensational theory is nowhere explicitly taught in the Bible itself. It’s advocates argue that the theory is needed in order to understand the Bible properly. Dispensational Baptist preacher H. A. Ironside called this “rightly dividing the Word of Truth.” But, how can they claim that this is necessary when it is nowhere explicitly taught in the Scriptures themselves? If this is so important why didn’t Jesus (or, failing that, the apostle Paul at least) clearly spell this out? The great irony here is that people who proclaim that their theology is based in the Bible alone actually depend upon an extra-biblical theory of interpretation to give their view coherence.
And — worse yet! — the centerpiece of this theory, the Pre-tribulational Rapture is nowhere explicitly taught in the Bible itself.
Detailed support for the above affirmation follows in Part 2.
Praying the Psalms
Many years ago, back in the days when I was in Seminary, I picked up an Interlinear Hebrew-English Psalter.
It’s one of the best purchases I’ve ever made.
It’s a small, slim volume, a 1974 Zondervan reprint of a much older edition published by Samuel Bagster & Sons Ltd. in London. The correct title is: The Interlineary Hebrew and English Psalter in which The Construction of Every Word is Indicated, and the Root of Each Distinguished by the Use of Hollow or Other Types.
I liked the little book immediately, because it is printed in a way that clearly indicated the Hebrew roots and constructions. I knew immediately that I’d made a good purchase.
But, it was many years before I actually put it to any regular use.
Somewhere, some time, I learned to use the Psalms as my Prayer Book. I no longer remember when I stumbled across this technique of prayer. For years I had found it hard to spend extended periods of time in prayer. My mind wandered (of course). Silence was comforting to me at first. But, the time would often pass slowly. Some days I seemed to have nothing to say.
I began to pray the Psalms.
I would read a verse or two. I would meditate upon it. I would pray. I would intercede for the many people on my heart. And, at the point where I caught my mind wandering (as it so naturally does) I would come back to the Psalm again. The process would begin again.
And, this is where my Interlinear Hebrew and English Psalter came in so handy. It allowed me to actually meditate on the original words of the Psalm. It forced me to slow down. It forced me to read each word. It forced me to reconstruct the meaning of the sentences. It suggested new possibilities of meaning that I might not have seen in translation.
(A stodgy, literal translation like the New American Standard Bible will produce much the same effect, for those who have no knowledge of Hebrew. But, bear in mind, an Interlinear Bible only requires a rudimentary knowledge of the original language.)
And, I began to feel that my prayers were a dialogue with God. I spoke to God. I listened for the echo of God speaking in the Psalm.
You see, I feel like I hear the Psalms in an echo chamber. I don’t know how else to describe it. It echos with the history of Israel. It echos with the life of David, and so many ancient hopes that were pinned on him. It echos with all the varied emotions of the human heart: joy, laughter, sorrow, despair. It echos down through all the history of the Christian faith, as believers have turned to these ancient songs for guidance and inspiration. Because I see the Psalms through a Christ-lens, they yield levels of meaning to me because I see them in the light of a certain, particular fulfillment.
And, in that sense I’m not alone. These songs of faith and devotion, doubt and despair, are the property of a community of faith that has read and cherished them through ages of time.
And, here they lie in front of me. Ancient words, carefully preserved by Masoretic scribes, who added markings so that even their accents and pronunciations might be preserved. It’s really quite amazing if you think about it.
My God,
Thank you for the gift of the Word
and these particular words
very human and yet divine
an ancient and living part of your redemptive plan
a gift to me today.
Lord,
I do not understand
my prejudices and preconceptions run deep
I am so quick to defend my ideas
so often arrogant and fearful
(maybe they are the same thing)
I am easily distracted;
Inspire me
Teach me your ways.
May your Word
find an entrance into my heart
today. Amen.
Clark Pinnock’s Memorial Service
Approximately 9 minutes worth in his small church in Hamilton Ontario.
Hebrews 11:32 By Ruth Hoppin (Guest Blogger)
Today’s post is an excerpt taken from an article written by Ruth Hoppin titled Priscilla and Plausibility. It is published here on Covenant of Love on the request of Ruth as a fuller response to someone who commented on the interview (posted here). Brian (the commenter) raised the question of Hebrews 11:32 which reads:
“And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell [διηγούμενον]… (NIV)
The Greek word for “tell” is masculine and refers to the person writing. It would seem that the use of this word would exclude Priscilla as a potential author of Hebrews. Yet Ms. Hoppin believes that this passage can be plausibly explained:
_____________________________________________
The controversial participle in Heb. 11:32, diegoumenon, or telling, in the phrase “time will fail me telling…” is routinely cited as masculine – routinely and by rote, because not much thought is given to it and we have the impression that one commentator copies from another. The participle allegedly disqualifies a female author or as one source declares “thereby disposing of Priscilla.” “Disposing of” is strong language. Upon more nuanced reflection we will see that Priscilla is not gone.
As we know a participle is a verbal adjective. Just as in English, an adjective modifies a noun or pronoun. In 11:32, telling modifies the pronoun me. Just as in English, me is in the accusative case, so that telling is in the accusative case.
This is significant because in the accusative case, the masculine and neuter forms of the participle are identical.
If we had the pronoun I or egw, thus the nominative case, the masculine form would be diegoumenos and the neuter form diegoumenon, the feminine being diegoumenan, differing by only one letter, eta, in next to last position.
But we don’t have the nominative case. What we have is a participle that is either masculine or neuter.
When I wrote my 1997 book, Priscilla’s Letter: Finding the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, I knew that the masculine and neuter forms were identical, but I didn’t realize that the neuter might have been intended. In November 1997 two events occurred. First, through serendipity, I met a Professor of NT Greek at the annual SBL convention in San Francisco, who later informed me he had new evidence for my Priscilla theory concerning the participle in Heb. 11:32. Second, my newly published book was removed from general circulation, paving the way for its eventual reprinting by another publisher in 2000, with inclusion of the new material.
In brief, he said the participle diegoumenon may have been neuter in intention as well as form. According to good classical usage, when the individuality of the author is not crucial in a sentence, the use of the neuter has ample precedent.
Tracing the grammar, we recall that a participle is both a verb and an adjective. According to Blass and Debrunner:
“When the predicate stands for the subject conceived as a class and in the abstract, not as an individual instance or example, then classical usage puts the adjectival predicate in the neuter singular, even with subjects of another gender.” (2)
In Heb. 11:32. time would fail anyone in telling.
In addition to BDF I wish to cite another reference, an earlier work, Herbert Weir Smyth’s Greek Grammar for Colleges published earlier, in 1920.
Yet, there have been objections to the explication of telling as an adjectival predicate intended as neuter. One is “it’s not an adjective; it’s an adverb.” My response is “it’s not an adverb; it’s an adjective.” An adverb modifies a verb. Where is the verb?
If the participle has an adverbial quality to it, referring to duration of time (Time will fail me telling…) that is an issue in English translation.
When translated from Greek into English, an adjectival predicate can morph into an adverbial clause. In the phrase, “time will fail me telling,” it is clear that “telling,” which modifies the pronoun “me” is a verbal adjective. However, English translations sometimes introduce the pronoun “I” and/or change the participle to an infinitive, “to tell.” Thus in the NAB, we have “I have no time to tell,” giving the adverbial sense of time failing “as I tell.”
NT Professor Martin Culy of Briercrest Biblical Seminary (Apr. 13, 2004 b-greek@lists(dot)ibiblio(dot)org) asks “what syntactic basis (in most cases) remains for viewing the participles as adverbial? I would suggest that the only basis relates to English translation rather than Greek syntax…If “adjectival” elements modify constituents like nouns and pronouns, while “adverbial” elements modify verbs, I prefer to label these participles, which go with a pronoun, adjectival and to then ask how that syntax affects our understanding of the text.”
In his article, “The Clue is in the Case: Distinguishing Adjectival and Adverbial Participles,” he writes:
“Adverbial participles will always be nominative, except for absolute constructions or when they modify an infinitive.”
(3) Our participle thus remains accusative and adjectival.
However, he has posed a different objection: “It’s not a predicate.” In email correspondence he wrote that the participle, in referring back to the pronoun, is not a predicate, and so does not qualify as an adjectival participle covered by the rule in BDG. According to the first-mentioned Professor of NT Greek, the participle, being part of a “pat construction”, is an adjectival predicate, and is covered by the rule in BDF. According to a recent email from Prof. Carl W. Conrad, the participle is obviously in the predicate, although he disagrees that it is an adjectival predicate under the rule in Blass and DeBrunner.
Prof. Bernard LaMontagne recently reviewed the relevant material, and in his own words:
“I read Heb. 11:32 in Greek without any consideration for the English in order to capture the sense of the original…I still do believe that it’s neuter (an impersonal or general reference.)”
Along a slightly different line, Prof. Culy suggested that the idiom, time will fail me in telling, was so common that it may have become “fossilized,” that is, the masculine form might have been used by an author of either gender. This is the “editorial masculine” that Harnack and others considered plausible, that is, the author speaks for herself, for herself and another person, or for people in general. Priscilla may have been speaking for herself and Aquila, as Harnack suggested. Or the “literary masculine” may have been intended. On three other occasions the author refers to lack of time, in behalf of hypothetical multiple writers: 2:5 about which we are speaking; 5:11 about which we have much to say; and 9:5 of these things we cannot speak now in detail.
Carl Conrad does not consider the participle “decisive for the possibility of authorship by Priscilla.” He writes that one could use “the generic Greek masculine form just as a writer of American English in the past could have written “he” rather than “she.” It is plausible that the original document may have had the feminine participle, even without manuscript evidence for this possibility. At a time when female teachers and leaders were falling out of favor in the church, the suppression of a feminine participle would have been essential to gain acceptance for the letter. The plausibility of this scenario increases in connection with substantive evidence for Priscilla’s authorship.
In setting forth grounds for a grammatical resolution of Heb. 11:32 in favor of Priscilla, I acknowledge one more differing viewpoint. According to one professor of NT Greek, we can’t ascribe a neuter intention in every such case. He personally thinks the intention was masculine. However, he agrees that the matter has been thrown into uncertainty, in which case Priscilla cannot be eliminated as a possible author. That is all one needs to show.
-excerpt from a paper by Ruth Hoppin (Priscilla and Plausibility)
On Healing: A Verse by Adrian Plass
There’s a man who when I’m sickly, says, “You very, very quickly”
Should be starting to be better, not worse,”
And he tells me that he sees I’m needing longer on my knees,
And there will always be a relevant verse.
But some say if you suffer,
then your spirit will get tougher,
So you’d better find a will and get it signed,
But just as I’m refusing to go on, it’s so confusing,
Halleluljah in the back of my mind.
Time To Unlearn A Few Things
I suggest that if we put the question of Calvinism and Arminianism aside for a time and study God as he has revealed himself in the scriptures we will not discover Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover as Calvinism has always espoused; in fact we may not even discover God as the Arminian understands him. It may be, after seeking to discover the God of the scriptures on their own terms, that we may discover the God of Open Theism quite by accident! Not of Calvin’s Unmoved Mover, but of Pinnock’s Most Moved Mover.We will, in all probability, discover as John Sanders said, a God Who Risks. This – I believe – is the truth we all must wrestle with whether or not we embrace Open Theism.
Walter Brueggemann, one of the foremost Old Testament scholars, seems quite disinterested in questions of determinism and foreknowledge – except when specific texts’ call attention to such speculation – and in the debates between Calvinism and Arminianism (and Open Theism). But in his studies of the God of the Old Testament, the “Hebrew testimony” and portrayal of YWHW, he writes: “the defining category for faith in the Old Testament is dialogue, whereby all parties – including God – are changed in a dialogic exchange that is potentially transformative for all parties… including God.” And again, “The Old Testament is an invitation to reimagine our life and our faith as an on-going dialogic transaction in which all parties are variously summoned to risk and change.” He goes on:
“When we are freed of static categories of interpretation that are widely utilized among us, we are able to see that the articulation of God in the Old Testament partakes exactly of the quality of complexity, dynamism, and fluidity that belong to the post-modern world… such an open and thick articulation of faith may be threatening to some and may require unlearning by us all”. An Unsettling God; 2009, p.xii; italics added.
What a powerful statement from a man who is not interested in sustaining “static categories of interpretation” such as Calvinism or Arminianism; neither, it is prudent to add, is he interested in Open Theism. When Brueggemann approaches the scriptures he does not ask, is the God of Calvin here or the God of Arminius or the God of Pinnock? When Brueggemann approaches the Old Testament he asks the question to the ancient Hebrews, “Who do you say that He is?” Sometimes we see the categories of Calvin and sometimes we see the categories of Arminius, this is partly what makes God “unsettling”, because YWHW cannot be made to easily fit into our “static categories of interpretation” – He is too big, and we are too fallible.
Yet it is a fearful road Brueggemann offers, it is a road of discomfort; because in asking the Hebrews and not the Greeks “Who is YWHW?” he finds himself immediately at odds with classical Christian theology.
“In… much classical Christian theology, ‘God’ can be understood in terms of quite settled categories that are, for the most part, inimical to the biblical tradition. The casting of the classical tradition… is primarily informed by the Unmoved Mover of Hellenistic thought… a Being completely apart from and unaffected by the reality of the world” [p.1]
We have come to a point – or perhaps we have always been there – where the God revealed by the Hebrew testimony is rather embarrassing to our sensibilities. The Hebrews speak of a God affected by the passing of time; a God emotionally invested in his creation and sometimes those emotions are even mixed. They speak of a God whose mind is not settled and what’s worse, they don’t seem to mind this God at all! This God repents, He laughs, He tests, He changes His mind and what’s more, He allows his creation to move Him to action and at other times, they have the power to stay His wrathful hand.
“It is common to be embarrassed about the anthropomorphic aspects of this God, so embarrassed as to want to explain away such a characterization or at least to transpose it into a form that better serves a generic notion of God…. All such embarrassments, however, fail to do justice to the scriptural tradition.” [p.2]
Again, Walter Brueggemann has called us out on the carpet; all of us! Classical Christianity cannot escape the ugly reality that we have since near the beginning been embarrassed of the Hebrew testimony of God and so silenced it. It does not jive well with our sensibilities, our Hellenistic sensibilities. But who is the guilty one; are they or are we? It is not they who are being unfaithful to the scriptures; indeed they wrote them! And instead of being embarrassed of the Hebrew testimony of YWHW we ought to be embarrassed of our selves. It will no longer do, in my mind, to dismiss the challenge of the Old Testament as embarrassing “anthropomorphic” ramblings of ancient people. Christianity needs – to some extent – to put Classical Christian Theology on trial and the judge ought not to be Aristotle, but Abraham. Classical Christian Theology is in need of purification, and its filter ought to be the scriptures.



