Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Wilken on the early Christian redefinition of "religion"



This semester, I’m having one section of NT students read Robert Louis Wilken’s The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, Second Ed. (Yale University Press, 2003).  Wilken traces the views of various Romans (including Pliny, Galen, Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian the Apostate).  Wilken stresses the fact that the Romans were a religious people (contra those who see them as irreligious and thus something of easy pickings for a movement like Christianity) but that their understanding of religion was fundamentally different than that of the early Christians.  One example of this was the Christian view of their religion as distinct from their national or ethnic identity.  Here are some of comments from his discussion of how Celsus viewed the early Christians:

Celsus sensed that Christians had severed the traditional bond between religion and a “nation” or people.  The ancients took for granted that religion was indissolubly linked to a particular city or people. Indeed there was no term for religion in the sense we now use it to refer to beliefs and practices of a specific group or people or of a voluntary association divorced from ethnic or national identity….  The idea of an association of people bound together by a religious allegiance with its own traditions and beliefs, its own history, and its own way of life independent of a particular city or nation was foreign to the ancients.  Religion belonged to a people, and it was bestowed on an individual by the people or nation from which one came or in which one lived… (pp. 124-125).

I am struck at how Christianity not only introduced a religion that transcended culture but that it was based on personal, individual beliefs and practices.  It teaches the necessity of conversion, repentance, and faith.  For those in the Western world, influenced by the success of the Christian movement, we take it for granted that this is the way religion works.  This was not, however, the way pre-Christian, pagan Romans viewed religion, and this is likely not the way people in cultures not influenced by Christianity see it.

Monday, January 20, 2014

New edition of "American Theological Inquiry"

 
The latest edition of American Theological Inquiry: A Biannual Journal of Theology, Culture, and History  (Vol. 7, No. 1 January 15, 2014) has been posted online (read the pdf here).  I have a review article and two book reviews in this issue:
 
Review Article:  "Considering Michael Horton's The Christian Faith" (pp. 63-68).
 
Book Review of David C. Parker's Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament (pp. 81-84).
 
Book Review of Mark S. Gignilliat's A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism (pp. 84-85) [also in the last issue of the RBT].
 
JTR

Friday, January 17, 2014

New "Reformed Baptist Trumpet"

 
Yesterday we sent out the latest edition of the Reformed Baptist Trumpet, the e-journal of the Reformed Baptist Fellowship of Virginia.  You can also read a pdf of the complete issue here.
 
In this issue:
 
  • An article by W. Gary Crampton on Jephthah's Vow.
 
  • A review article by Jeffrey T. Riddle on the Go Stand Speak video and the contemporary street preaching movement.
 
  • A book review of Mark Gignilliat's A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism.
 
  • A Paradosis article reprinting a hymn written by Benjamin Keach.
Mark your calendar now for the 2014 Keach Conference scheduled for September 26-27, 2014 in Warrenton, Virginia.
 
JTR
 

Thursday, January 16, 2014

The Vision (1.16.14): Jesus on Justification by Faith


Scene:  Lord's Day lunch at CRBC (1.12.14)
 
Note:  I preached last Sunday on Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, noting that Jesus teaches justification by faith here in a way that sounds very much like what Paul would later proclaim.  Here are some notes:

Luke 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


In nearly complete contrast to the prayer of the Pharisee is that of the publican (v. 13).  The publican is also standing, but he stands “afar off.”  His distance from the center of the temple, reflects the spiritual distance he feels from God due to his sinfulness.  And the temple was very much designed to give a physical representation of sanctification.  It all centered around “the holy of holies.”  If you were not holy, you had best not come close, lest you suffer the same fate of others who have acted presumptuously and suffered the consequences (Nadab and Abihu in Lev. 10; Uzzah who committed the “error” of reaching out to steady the ark in 2 Sam 6:6-7).  Whereas the Pharisee boldly mouthed God’s name, though he was really speaking to himself, this second man, Jesus says, “would not lift up so much as his eyes to heaven.” And instead, he smote or struck (typto:  to strike to beat; it can even mean to wound, as the root verb indicates, to leave a “type” or mark) upon his breast (v. 13).  Notice, as well, that the verb here is in the imperfect tense.  It refers to repeated action in the past.  He did not just strike himself once but multiple times.

And then, if this stance was not enough, there are his words which match perfectly his posture. His prayer is:  “God be merciful to me a sinner.”  The verb here for “to be merciful” is hilaskomai.  It is not the root word that is typically used in the New Testament to describe the giving of mercy in the sense of allowing someone to escape some penalty he is rightly due.  This root word does not appear, for example, in Luke 6:36 where Jesus taught:  “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful” (there the adjective oiktirmon is used).  The word used here (hilaskomai) literally means to make propitiation for sins.  Compare:

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation [the related noun hilasterion] through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation [the related noun, hilasmos] for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation [hilasmos] for our sins.
 

There are a couple of things that secular Bible scholars don’t like or understand about this passage.  First, they don’t like the fact that Jesus teaches not only that man needs his sins taken away (expiation), but that he also needs those sins paid for by someone else in order to satisfy the wrath of God (propitiation).  Second, they don’t like the fact that what Jesus teaches here sounds so much like what the apostles Paul and John teach.  They want to drive a wedge between Jesus and the apostles (particularly Paul).  Jesus, however, presents the publican as a man who knows he is a sinner and who knows he needs a propitiatory sacrifice for his sins.

To round it off, Jesus closes:  “I tell you this man [the publican] went down to his house justified rather than the other” (v. 14).  Here is that great Pauline expression—a Pauline thunderbolt— on the lips of Jesus.  Jesus speaks of a man being justified by faith and not by works, the great article of the faith upon which Luther said our religion either stands or falls.  Jesus teaches just as Paul did:

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:


Galatians 2:16:  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ….

 
All the righteous deeds, the good works, of that proud Pharisee were nothing but filthy rags in God’s sight (Isa 64:6).  One man went home lacking justification, because he thought much of himself and his own righteousness and little of God, while one went home justified because he thought little of himself and his own righteousness and much of God.

 
We are given a model here of what we are to avoid:  The self-trusting, self-justifying disposition of the Pharisee, which is accompanied by a looking down upon others.


And we are given a model of what we are to follow:  The publican, who comes to the Lord empty handed.  “Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling.”

 
The only man who can truly pray is a saved man.  And the only way a man can be saved is if he understands his sin and his desperate and profound need of a Savior.  He must come with a publican-like spirit and not with a Pharisee-like spirit.  This is the mark of a man who has been justified by faith.


Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

How to receive hospitality


Image:  Fellowship at the Lynchburg Reformed Baptist Mission (1.12.14)


Note:  Below are my notes from the Sunday School lesson last Lord's Day at CRBC on the subject of how to be on the receiving end of hospitality (here also is the audio of the class and some follow-up discussion).
How to receive hospitality

Romans 16:23a: “Gaius, mine host, and the whole church saluteth thee.”

CRBC Sunday School January 12, 2014

Last time we talked about (1) the biblical basis for hospitality; (2) the spiritual usefulness of hospitality; and (3) how to make your home a warm and welcoming center of hospitality.

Though the command to be hospitable is explicitly stated in Scripture (1 Peter 4:9; Rom 12:13; Heb 13:2) what is less explicitly discussed is that if hospitality is to be graciously offered, it is also to be graciously received.

I.  Biblical basis for how to receive hospitality:

Here, for the Biblical basis, apart from the same passages cited earlier in which we saw the practice of hospitality (from the OT to Jesus to the apostles), I think we have to turn in general to the verses that speak of the general Christian qualities of humility and contentedness, along with the fruit of the spirit, as guidelines for how we are to receive hospitality.

1.  As in all circumstances, we are not to be demanding or difficult, a prima donna, but lowly, self-deprecating, and self-effacing.

Compare:

Ephesians 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.


Philippians 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.


Consider also the teaching of Jesus in Luke 14:


Luke 14:7 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, 8 When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; 9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. 10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. 11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


2.  As in all circumstances, we are to be content.


Paul could say in Philippians 4:11 that he had learned the secret of being content in all situations.  The writer of Hebrews admonishes in Hebrews 13:5:  “be content with such things as ye have.”


3.  As in all circumstances, we are to do our best and to be grateful and thankful to God for what he provides.


Colossians 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.


Summary:  Be lowly, be content, and be thankful.


II.  Spiritual usefulness of receiving hospitality:


1.  It can humble us to be in a situation in which we are served and ministered unto.


Think of Jesus when he washed the feet of the disciples (John 13).  What a humbling experience that must have been for them.  But recall that Peter protested:  “Thou shalt never wash my feet” (v. 8), but Jesus answered, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me” (v. 8).


2.  It provides an opportunity for us to share in deeper koinonia with our fellow believers in our local church (if we are in their homes) or to understand the larger body of Christ beyond our own local church (if we are in the homes of believers from other churches).


3.  It provides a way for us to learn from the customs and practices of fellow believers.


We can observe and learn how they arrange their lives, what books they have on the shelves, what artwork hangs on the walls, how they conduct family worship, etc.


We can take some of these things perhaps and make use of them in our own home.


Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.


4.  It can help us understand better how to pray for each other (in a local church) and for the church universal (if outside our church).


Consider Paul’s instructions in Colossians 4:


Colossians 4:7 All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellowservant in the Lord: 8 Whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that he might know your estate, and comfort your hearts; 9 With Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They shall make known unto you all things which are done here. 10 Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)


III.  How to be a good guest (some practical suggestions):


1.  Bring a small gift as a token of thanks and goodwill.


2.  Have an open, gracious, and generous spirit.


3.  Take an interest in the persons with whom you are staying and ask them about themselves.


Ask them questions about themselves not from manipulation or in a merely perfunctory manner, but with genuine interest in them.


If someone asks you a question about yourself, give a forthright response, but then return the favor and ask them about themselves.


4.  Be willing and flexible enough to adapt to the circumstances and customs of your host, if it does not bring you into some clear violation of conscience.


5.  Do not, however, act hypocritically, as Peter did.


Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.


6.  Try to eat and drink that which is offered and do not seek any special or burdensome accommodations.


7.  Be helpful and lend a hand as needed.


You might help in setting a table, in preparing a meal, in watching children, etc.

 
If you have children offer to help with cleanup of toys when you leave.


If you stay the night, leave the bathroom tidy and make the bed.


8.  After your visit, pray for your hosts and, if appropriate, send a note of thanks.

 

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Get to know your Bible translations

Someone shared this on the RB pastors' list from this site:
 
 
 
 


Thursday, January 09, 2014

The Vision (1.9.14): Crying day and night unto him


 
Note:  Last Sunday morning’s sermon was on the parable of the widow and the unjust judge from Luke 18:1-8.  Here are some expanded notes from my exposition of v. 7.

And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? (Luke 18:7).
 

Notice how Jesus depicts the elect as being answered as “they cry day and night unto him.”  This is, in fact, a unique Christian insight into prayer.  Prayer is to be constant.  It is to take place day and night. Jesus tells the parable to teach that men “ought always to pray” (v. 1). Notice in the parable that the widow was continually coming to the judge (v. 5).  Consider the urgings of the apostle Paul to the saints:  “continuing instant in prayer” (Romans 10:12) and “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17).

In his commentary on Luke 18:7, Leon Morris points out that this is a place where the teaching of Jesus on prayer differed from that of his fellow Jews of his day.  Morris said they “tended to limit the times of prayer lest they weary God.  Three times a day (on the model of Dan. 6:10) was accepted as the maximum” (The Gospel According to Luke, p. 262).  This reminds me of the antitheses (“Ye have heard that it was said … but I say unto you….”) of the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5:21 ff.).  Jesus demands even more than the old revelation required.  Not three times daily prayer but constant prayer.  Jesus expected his followers to lead a life of constant prayer and devotion.

Think of how the Christian view of prayer is so different than prayer in other religions. Many think of Islam, for example, as a religion of prayer.  Prayer or salat is one of the five pillars of Islam.  Pious Muslims are expected to pray five times daily, turning to Mecca.  If you have ever watched their prayer times, you may have noticed that every one of the motions, actions, and words in Islamic prayer are sharply prescribed (see this video).  There is not free communication with God as we think of prayer.  Contrast this with what Jesus taught about prayer.  Jesus did not prescribe ritualistic patterns or words in prayer (quite the opposite:  see Matthew 6:5, 7).  Jesus called upon believers to pray not merely corporately once weekly, not three times a day, not five times a day, but Jesus called upon his disciples to pray constantly, to cry out to him day and night.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Wednesday, January 08, 2014

How to have a warm and welcoming home


 
Note:  Here are my sermon notes from last afternoon's message at CRBC on hospitality which follows three points:  (1) the Biblical basis for hospitality; (2) the spiritual usefulness (benefits) of hospitality; and (3) how to make your home a warm and welcoming center of hospitality: 
 
How to have a warm and welcoming home

1 Peter 4:9

CRBC, January 5, 2014

We begin today a brief afternoon series on personal ministry.  We want to look today at the ministry of hospitality by asking how we can develop a warm and welcoming home.

I.  The Biblical Basis for Hospitality:

Hospitality was highly valued by the saints in the OT.  Consider how Abraham and Sarah received the three men who come to them on the Plain of Mamre:

Genesis 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, 3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: 4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: 5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said. 6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. 7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. 8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.


And contrast that with the way these same men were treated in Sodom in Genesis 19.  Through righteous Lot gladly took them into his home (19:1-3), the vile men of that city attempted to abuse them.


Recall the pious Shunamite woman in 2 Kings 4 who extended hospitality to the prophet Elisha:


2 Kings 4:8 And it fell on a day, that Elisha passed to Shunem, where was a great woman; and she constrained him to eat bread. And so it was, that as oft as he passed by, he turned in thither to eat bread. 9 And she said unto her husband, Behold now, I perceive that this is an holy man of God, which passeth by us continually. 10 Let us make a little chamber, I pray thee, on the wall; and let us set for him there a bed, and a table, and a stool, and a candlestick: and it shall be, when he cometh to us, that he shall turn in thither. 11 And it fell on a day, that he came thither, and he turned into the chamber, and lay there.


Her faithfulness was rewarded by having her womb opened to conceive a son and then, later, to have that son miraculously raised to life after he died.


When we come to the New Testament we find the same high value given to hospitality.


Our Lord in his earthly ministry had no place to lay his head but he received the hospitality of his disciples.  Consider how Jesus came into Simon Peter’s home:

 
Luke 4:38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her. 39 And he stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her: and immediately she arose and ministered unto them.


And into the home of Mary and Martha:

 
Luke 10:38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.


Jesus even received hospitality from those who were not disciples (e.g., it was while  in the home of Simon the Pharisee that the sinful woman anointed his feet in Luke 7).


We also find that the apostles, the first ministers of Christ’s flocks, received hospitality.


The first gathering of believers in Jerusalem after Christ’s resurrection was in the upper room of a home, which might well of been a house belonging to Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 1:13; 12:12).


Luke says that in the early church, they broke bread “from house to house” (Acts 2:46).


Peter stayed in Joppa at the home of Simon the Tanner (9:43) who also received messengers from Cornelius (10:23:  “Then he called them in and lodged them”).  Peter then went into the home of Cornelius in Caesarea (10:24-25).


The newly converted Lydia gives hospitality to Paul and Barnabas:


Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.


As does the newly converted jailer:


Acts 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.


Hospitality is presented as a mark or evidence of true conversion!


Paul was constantly receiving hospitality in his missionary travels.  In Corinth, for example, Paul was received and hosted by Aquila and Priscilla:


Acts 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; 2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. 3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers. 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.


Another example is godly Mnason:


Acts 21:16 There went with us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge.
 

Paul then, we might say, returns the favor when for two years he was under house arrest in Rome, as Luke records:


Acts 28:30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,

 
Hospitality was a general duty expected of all Christians:


Romans 12:10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; 11 Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; 12 Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer; 13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality (here the noun philoxenia for hospitality which literally means, “love of strangers”).


1 Peter 4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. 9 Use hospitality (the adjective philoxenos, “hospitable” is used here) one to another without grudging. 10 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
 

Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers (literally:  forget not hospitality, philoxenia): for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.


However, Christians were to be discerning and not welcome false teachers:


2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:


Hospitality is also especially expected of elders.  1 Timothy 3:2 says the bishop is to be “given to hospitality” and Titus 1:8 says an elder is to be a “lover of hospitality.”


II.  The spiritual usefulness (benefits) of hospitality:


1.  It provides a practical means to facilitate ministry, whether opening your home to a church meeting or keeping a visiting minister or brother.


2.  It provides an opportunity for deeper fellowship and koinonia.


3.  It aids in our discipleship by giving us a concrete opportunity to serve.


4.  It exposes our family to ministry and to fellow believers.


5.  It reminds us that we are but stewards of all we have (Psalm 24:1).


III.  How do we make our home a warm and welcoming center of hospitality:


1.  By recognizing that hospitality is a basic Christian opportunity for ministry and service.


2.  By having a willingness of spirit to extend hospitality (becoming a “lover of hospitality”).  In practical terms, volunteering to offer your home to Christian service when needed (hosting church meetings, welcoming fellow members into your home, keeping visiting ministers or missionaries).


3.  By creating space in your home so that you can extend hospitality.  Don’t have so much clutter that there could not be a meeting space in your home (which need not be large).  Some can set aside a room as a true guest room, as the Shunamite did.  They might keep a guest log to register the visitors they have and periodically pray for them.  Others do not have the space for a room set aside, but they can have a plan (e.g., guests will stay in the master bedroom while we move into the children’s room).  If you do not have a plan to host, you will be less likely to host.


4.  By keeping your home neat and tidy enough (though it need not be like a museum) to be able to welcome guests even unexpectedly.  Some are held back from opening their home for fear of being judged.  We should not hold impossibly high standards.  If our home is like a museum, then folk will not feel comfortable staying there.


5.  By seeking to learn about those who visit or stay with you (asking questions about them and showing interest in their lives and making reasonable accommodations to their needs [special meals for diabetics, etc.]).

Monday, January 06, 2014

Text Note: Luke 17:36


The issue:

I came across this textual difficulty while preparing to preach from Luke 17:20-37.
Should Luke 17:36 be included in the text of Scripture (as in the traditional text) or omitted (as in the Majority and modern critical text)?

External evidence:

The verse is omitted in a number of significant manuscripts, including some that regularly support the Majority and traditional texts in Luke:  p 75, Sinaiticus, A, B, L, W, Delta, Theta, Psi, and family 1.

On the other hand, the verse is included in D, family 13, and in some Latin and Syriac manuscripts.

There is another key piece of external evidence:  In the original hand of Sinaticus and some Latin Vulgate manuscripts, the preceding verse (Luke 17:35) is also omitted.  Most agree that in this case the verse was accidentally omitted through homoeoteleuton.  But this omission raises the question as to whether it might not be equally possible that the omission of v. 36 also came through scribal error.

Internal Evidence:

If v. 36 is not original, why would it have been included in the text?  The standard modern critical argument seems to be that the verse was added as an assimilation or harmonization to Matthew 24:40.  So, Metzger concludes:  “Although it is possible that v. 36 … was accidentally omitted through homoeoteleuton (an accident which happened to v. 35 in Sinaiticus* and a few other witnesses), in view of the weighty manuscript authority supporting the shorter text … it is more probable that copyists assimilated the passage to Mt. 24:40” (Textual Commentary, p. 168).

There is also another challenge related to the context of Matthew 24:40.  In the context of Matthew 24, Jesus uses two examples:

v. 40   two in the field

v. 41   two women grinding at the mill

Assuming the omission of v. 36 in Luke 17, Jesus would have been using two examples:

            v. 34   two in one bed

            v. 35   two women grinding

The question would then be that if there was a scribal effort to assimilate Luke to Matthew, why was this not done more uniformly and extensively?  Why not omit v. 34 and insert v. 36 before v. 35?  Why not insert “at the mill” in v. 35 from Matthew 24:41?

On the other hand, in defense of the omission of v. 36 in Luke 17 is the fact that D and family 13 (the two leading manuscripts that include Luke 17:36) insert the two in one bed example after Matthew 24:41, a reading rejected by both the traditional, Majority, and modern critical texts.

Another internal argument might be made as to why Luke 17:36 might have been omitted.  Could it be that some scribes saw an inconsistency in v. 36 describing a daytime activity (working in the field), while v. 34 refers to “in that night.”  Though not embracing it, Leon Morris acknowledges this argument in his commentary on v. 37:

AV includes verse 36, but it has inferior MS attestation and most agree that it has been taken over from Matthew 24:40 (though some argue that a scribe may have omitted it on the grounds that a daytime activity is incompatible with the ‘night’ of verse 34) (The Gospel According to Luke, p. 262).

Finally, the inclusion of v. 36 might perhaps be argued on the basis of Lukan triadic style.  Namely, Luke often records Jesus’ usage of a triad of examples in his parables and teaching (e. g., lost sheep, lost coin, lost son in Luke 15).  Of course, in this case the third item does not appear to be climactic or expansive.

Conclusion:

Traditional text readings which are not supported by the Majority Text are some of the most difficult to defend, since they lack strong external support.  Luke 17:36 is an example of this circumstance.  There do, however, appear to be some significant reasons to support the possibility that Luke 17:36 was accidentally omitted (as even Metzger suggests) or intentionally omitted (as Morris acknowledges).  The verse is included in the printed received texts and translations of the Reformation era and, thus, it should not be easily dismissed.

JTR

Friday, January 03, 2014

2013 Reading Highlights


 
It’s time again for my annual survey of reading highlights (you can find past entries here for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012).  As is evident, my 2013 list does not mean that these books were first published in 2013 (in fact, none were), but it simply means I read them in the past year.  Here are ten books I enjoyed (listed in no particular order):

1.  David C. Parker, Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2012):  186 pp.

This is Parker’s 2011 Lyell Lecture at Oxford University on the current state of text criticism.  Parker rejects the quest for the “original” text and also overthrows the textual theories of Westcott and Hort.

2.  Gary Burge, et al., The New Testament in Antiquity:  A Survey of the New Testament Within Its Cultural Contexts (Zondervan, 2009):  479 pp.

Burge and his co-authors (all professors at Wheaton) have produced an accessible, college level textbook which focuses on the historical backgrounds of the New Testament while generally defending traditional positions on authorship, dating, etc.  This is now my preferred textbook for teaching Introduction to the NT.

3.  Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (HarperOne, 1996):  246 pp.

Stark applies contemporary sociological method to early Christianity and overthrows numerous stereotypes (e.g., early Christianity was misogynistic).  In the end, he argues that Christianity triumphed, because it offered a superior way of life.

4.  Rodney Stark, The Triumph of Christianity:  How the Jesus Movement Became the World’s Largest Religion (HarperCollins, 2011):  506 pp.

Stark’s Rise of Christianity sent me to this longer and more popular work which summarizes not only his ideas on the sociology of early Christianity but also arguments Stark has put forward in other works, including how Christianity ended slavery, how it produced capitalism and science, and why the Crusades have been given a bad rap.

5.  Charles H. Talbert, Ed. Reimarus: Fragments (Fortress, 1970):  279 pp.

Hermann Samuel Reimarus’ Fragments were published posthumously by the German literary critic G. E. Lessing from 1714-1718 and opened the Pandora’s Box of Enlightenment era radical skepticism regarding the historicity of the Gospels and the life of Jesus.  Reimarus, therefore, was the grandfather of skeptics from the Jesus Seminar to Reza Aslan.

6.  Thomas Vincent, The Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture (first published, 1674; Banner of Truth reprint, 1980):  282 pp.

I have been using this classic work as a guide in my Sunday afternoon sermon series through the Baptist Catechism.

7.  M. L. Todd and T. W. Higginson, Eds., Collected Poems of Emily Dickinson (Gramercy Books, 1982):  256 pp.

This book was on my nightstand for several months as I slowly made my way through these poems from the 19th century recluse who died in obscurity and spent much time contemplating time, eternity, and death.  Sadly, her rejection of an orthodox, Biblical worldview left her with little hope, but how gifted she was with language!

8.  David Alan Black and David R. Beck, Eds., Rethinking the Synoptic Problem (Baker Academic, 2001):  160 pp.

These papers come from a 2000 seminar at Southeastern Baptist Seminary on the Synoptic Problem and feature evangelical scholars (D. Bock and Scot McKnight) defending modern theories of Q and Markan Priority and William Farmer defending the revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis (or “Two Gospel Hypothesis”).  It helped confirm my rejection of Markan Priority.

9.  Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament, Revised Edition (Eerdmans, 1960, 1973):  432 pp.

Young was thoroughly familiar with modern historical-critical study of the Old Testament, yet rejected it in defending the inspiration, authority, and infallibility of the Old Testament from a confessional perspective. I read through this work while teaching Old Testament survey and used it as a balance and counterpoint to modern textbooks.

10.  David Miller, AWOL on the Appalachian Trail (Mariner, 2011):  330 pp.

I picked up this book this summer at the bookstore near Clingman’s Dome (the highest point in Tennessee).  This is a lively memoir of a through-hike on the Appalachian Trail from Springer Mt., Georgia to Mt. Katahdin, Maine from a secular man seeking meaning in life.

Other notable reads in 2013:

New Testament Studies:  David Alan Black, Why Four Gospels?  The Historical Origins of the Gospels, Second Ed. (Energion, 2001, 2010); Craig L. Blomberg,  Jesus and the Gospels:  An Introduction and Survey, 2nd Ed. (B & H Academics, 2009); D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Ed. (Zondervan, 1992, 2005); David Wenham, Did St. Paul Get Jesus Right?  The Gospel According to Paul (Lion, 2010); Philip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels:  How the Search for Jesus Lost its Way (Oxford, 2001).

Old Testament Studies:  Tremper Longman, III, Introducing the Old Testament:  A Short Guide to Its History and Message (Zondervan, 2012); Carl E. Amerding, The Old Testament and Criticism (Eerdmans, 1983); Marc Zvi Brettler, How to Read the Jewish Bible (Oxford, 2007); Mark Gignilliat, A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism:  From Benedict Spinoza to Brevard Childs (Zondervan, 2012).

Theology, philosophy, and apologetics:  Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006); D. Scott Meadows, God’s Astounding Grace:  The Doctrines of Grace (Pillar & Ground, 2012);  W. Gary Crampton, A Concise Theology of Karl Barth (Whitefield Media, 2012); John W. Robbins and Sean Gerety, Not Reformed at All:  Medievalism in “Reformed Churches” (Trinity Foundation, 2004); Paul Strathern, Socrates in 90 Minutes (Ivan R. Dee, 1997)

Practical Theology:  Mark Dever, The Gospel and Personal Evangelism (Crossway, 2007); Hal Brunson, The Rickety Bridge and the Broken Mirror:  Two Parables of Paedobaptism and One Parable of the Death of Christ (iuniverse, 2007); Tom Wells, Does Baptism Mean Immersion?  A Friendly Inquiry Into the Ongoing Debate (Audubon Press, 2000).

Puritans:  Thomas Watson, The Doctrine of Repentance (1668; Banner of Truth, 1987); John Owen, “Of the Divine Original, Authority, Self-Evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures” and “A Vindication of the Purity and Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Old and New Testament,” in Collected Works, Vol. 16 (Banner of Truth, 1968).


Biography and Memoir:  Guy Clark Rogers, Alexander:  The Ambiguity of Greatness (Random House, 2004); Deborah Feldman, Unorthodox:  The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots (Simon & Schuster, 2012).
 
Children's Devotional:  Derek Prime, Tell Me About The Ten Commandments (Moody Press, 1967, 1969); Various, Stories of the Huguenots in France and Italy for Younger People (Sprinkle, 2004).

Poetry and Fiction:  Douglas Wilson, Evangellyfish (Canon Press, 2012); Peter Porter, Ed. Great English Poets:  Christina Rosetti (Potter, 1986); Henning Mankel, Faceless Killers (Vintage, 1991, 1997); The Dogs of Riga (1992, 2001); Colin Dexter, Last Bus to Woodstock (1975, 1989); The Remorseful Day (Fawcett, 1999).