Translating Idioms (guest essay by missionary John R. Himes)

With final preparations for my dissertation defense under way, I thought this would be the perfect time for another guest essay by my father, missionary John Himes (who is currently involved in a new translation of the Greek New Testament into Japanese). Actually, his essays are more popular than mine on my own blog, but if you think about it, somebody who has spent 30+ years on the mission field should be heard before some young whipper-snapper who has yet to finish school and get a life!  :)

What Shall We Do with Those Idioms?

By John R. Himes

I know it’s a poor pun, but my wife enjoys saying, “Are you calling me an idiot?” every time I get linguistic on her and use the word idiom. This essay will tackle how to translate idioms, but first we need to define what one is. This brings up an interesting problem. The usual definition of an “idiom” says that it has two or more words. But can an idiom have only one word?

Nida and Taber define it this way: “idiom: an expression consisting of several words and whose meaning cannot be derived from the meaning of the individual words, e.g. kick the bucket for die; also called exocentric expression” (Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, 203). A dictionary of linguistics has: “A set expression in which two or more words are syntactically related, but with a meaning like that of a single lexical unit: e.g. ‘spill the beans’ in Someone has spilled the beans about the bank raid, or ‘put one’s foot in it’ in Her husband can never make a speech without putting his foot in it“ (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 2nd ed., 183). 

Another definition doesn’t specify more than one word, but gets the definition wrong: “Idiom: (1) Any expression peculiar to a language, conveying a distinct meaning, not necessarily explicable by, occasionally even contrary to, the general accepted grammatical rules” (Dictionary of Linguistics, Mario Pei & Frank Gaynor, p. 95). What is wrong here is that an idiom must be defined in terms of semantics, not grammar (though we must admit their point in that occasionally an idiom will defy conventional grammar).

Oddly enough, even a book of idioms proclaims that an idiom must be two or more words. Harold C. Whitford (Handbook of American Idioms and Idiomatic Usage, 183) says in his preface that, "An idiom...consists of more than one word." However, in the book Whitford gives many one-word idioms, such as "arms" (weapons), "axe" (used when firing someone), "baloney," etc.

So now we need to clarify what an idiom is. First of all, note that idioms are culture specific, or "culture bound" as secular translation scholar Susan Bassnett puts it (Translation Studies, 3rd ed., 30). For example, consider some idioms from the Old West, such as "men with the bark on" (tough men) and "salty" (good in a fight), easily found in western novels like those of Louis L'Amour. This illustrates how an idiom comes into existence from some aspect of the culture. These idioms are not used in modern America except for a few places out West where the Old West culture lingers on.  

Secondly, note that an idiom is a word or words which may carry a very different meaning than the literal meaning.  So in the examples from Whitford, the idiom “arms” does not mean human appendages but weapons, “axe” does not mean an edged weapon or tool but the firing of a person from a job, and “baloney” does not mean a sandwich meat but is an expression of doubt. This characteristic is what makes idioms fascinating but often hard to translate. The translator is not able to begin from a word-for-word meaning, but must carefully determine the non-literal meaning of the idiom in the original text.

Koine Greek has many idioms, as is well documented in books by C. F. D. Moule and Stewart Custer. However, very few writers on Bible translation have dealt with how to translate idioms. The only mention of the problem I can find in my library is by Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, who write, “The adjustments are quite understandably of three types: (a) from idioms to nonidioms (sic), (b) from idioms to idioms, and (c) from nonidioms (sic) to idioms” (The Theory and Practice of Translation, 106. There is about one page on the problem in this text). However, this statement misses the possibility of translating an idiom as is, even in cases where the target language does not have the same idiom. In rare cases an idiom from the source language can make sense in the target language. Let’s consider that possibility first, since it may be the most ideal rendering, assuming a genuinely equivalent meaning in the target language idiom. 

In a culture with bilingual people, sometimes an idiom will migrate directly from one language to another. In such cases one may translate the idiom literally and have it make sense. For example, “in Canadian French the idiom ‘to talk through one’s hat’ has acquired the equivalent ‘parler a travers son chapeau’” (“A Methodology for Translation” by Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet, in The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd ed., ed. by Lawrence Venuti, p. 134). Since many in Canada are bilingual in French and English, this idiom migrated successfully with almost exactly the same meaning.

A Bible example of the migrating idiom is “kick against the ox-goads” (Acts 9:5, 26:14), which is an idiom meaning “resist leading,” understandable literally in English through Greek from Hebrew. The KJB translates it literally, as does the HCSB, NIV and ESV (all three of which render “kick against the goads”), and many other versions. (Note that only the TR has the phrase in 9:5, but all Greek texts have it in 26:14.) This is a case when an idiom can be translated literally and retain its meaning. The original idiom migrated from Hebrew to Greek, and then the Greek idiom was translated into English with no loss of or change in meaning.

There are other cases where the original idiom can be retained in a language with no loss of meaning. This is only true in cases when the idiom makes sense outside of its cultural milieu. One example of this is the idiom common in the teachings of Christ, o ecwn wta akouein akouetw, “The one with ears, let him hear.” Though it may seem strange to our English-tuned ears, it makes sense, since it puts extra emphasis on hearing, thus meaning to the non-Greek ear something like, “You had better listen, this is important!”

Another possibility is translating an idiom with a non-idiom. A Greek example of when this is necessary is in 1 Peter 2:24, where we have taiV amartiaiV apogenomenoi (“being dead to sins”). It’s very hard to make this idiom work literally in Japanese, and one may question its literal rendering in English. It just doesn’t make sense in an Asian language, and may even steer the reader completely away from the authorial intent! So in our new Japanese translation we had to choose a wording that made sense. So, we have translated this into Japanese as 罪と係わりを断った私たち (refusing connection with sin), an idiom into a non-idiom.  

Again, the HCSB translates an idiom with a non-idiom in 2 Cor. 2:17,  kaphleuonteV ton logon tou qeou (“dilute the Word of God”) with “market God’s message for profit.” This idiom refers to the practice of wine merchants illicitly adding water to their product to make more money. This rendering does carry the original meaning over into the target language, but perhaps it loses some of the flavor of the original idiom. A possible rendering that keeps the flavor of the original idiom is, “huckster the Word of God.”

A third possibility is translating an idiom with an equivalent idiom. This is another good solution, better perhaps than translating an idiom with a non-idiom, since there is a certain nuance, perhaps a feeling the reader has when he reads, in the very fact that an idiom is used. (We have seen how this happened with the Hebrew idiom, “kick against the goads,” was translated into Greek.) Once again semantic equivalency is still necessary. 

According to secular scholar Susan Bassnett, Hilaire Belloc gave this guideline for translating idioms in 1932: “The translator should render idiom by idiom ‘and idioms of their nature demand translation into another form from that of the original.' Belloc cites the case of the Greek exclamation 'by the dog!', which, if rendered literally, becomes merely comic in English" (Translation Studies. 3rd ed., 2002, p. 116). So, while Belloc believed the best way to translate an idiom is with another idiom, he realized that the original idiom often may not be carried into the target language, but requires an idiom equivalent in meaning.

Basnett gives another example from the Italian: “The translation of idioms takes us a stage further in considering the question of meaning and translation, for idioms, like puns, are culture bound. The Italian idiom menare il can per l’aia provides a good example of the kind of shift that takes place in the translation process. Translated literally, the sentence Giovanni sta menando il can per l’aia. becomes John is leading his dog around the threshing floor. The image conjured up by this sentence is somewhat startling and, unless the context referred quite specifically to such a location, the sentence would seem obscure and virtually meaningless. The English idiom that most closely corresponds to the Italian is to beat about the bush, also obscure unless used idiomatically, and hence the sentence correctly translated becomes John is beating around the bush” (Basnett, 30-31).

Finally, let’s consider translating from a non-idiom into an idiom. HCSV translates a Greek non-idiom (aporoumenoV de egw, the verb being aporew) with an idiom in Acts 25:20, “Since I was at a loss . . . .” One wonders why an idiom was chosen to translate a non-idiom here when a fairly literal translation (“I was in doubt”) would accurately convey the meaning. Then one looks at the lexicons and learns that “at a loss” is given as a meaning in almost all of them! (I checked BAGD, Abbot-Smith, the Fribergs’ Analytical Lexicon, Louw-Nida, etc.) So obviously it is not a mistake to render “at a loss” here. Indeed, it might be argued that “at a loss” is a good rendering with a vivid meaning. But we could then ask, is vividness the right strategy here, since the original is a formal letter from one ruler to another? It seems obvious that translating from a non-idiom to an idiom should be carefully considered based on the context before making a final decision.

So, as can be seen, the translation of an idiom is not an easy task. The meaning of the original idiom and its possible renderings should be carefully considered in every case. Hopefully this brief essay will be a help in that regard to translators and future translators.

Christian identity, Markan soteriology, and a spiritual journey: Three fascinating scholarly articles from 2012

I originally intended to conduct an entire survey of journal articles from 2012 and bring the most interesting to your attention. However, since I'm in the middle of "crunch time" with my last dissertation chapter (hurrah!), I've toned down my ambitions somewhat and will simply point you to three really fascinating articles that I've come across (two of these are fairly non-technical, as well).

Jürgen Moltmann's spiritual journey
First off, we have a very moving personal reflection by German theologian Jürgen Moltmann (based off of his Faraday Lecture on 2/14/2012), entitled "From Physics to Theology--A Personal Story," in Science & Christian Belief vol. 24 (2012). Now, I will have one caveat about this article, where Dr. Moltmann does seem to go way off into left field, but this article is nonetheless well worth reading and should prove to be spiritually moving. The first half of this article is about Moltmann's own personal testimony of how he came to Christ as a prisoner of war in England. You see, Moltmann had actually been part of the German army during World War 2, conscripted into it when he was 16 years old. Seeing a companion destroyed by a bomb right next to him began his struggle with mortality and the existence of God.

Captured at the end of the war and shipped off to the United Kingdom, Moltmann was touched by the kindness of the Scots: "They met us, their former enemies, with a  hospitality that profoundly shamed us. We heard no reproaches, we were not blamed, we experienced a simple solidarity and a warm common humanity. For me this was quite overwhelming" (p. 101). After receiving a Bible from a British army chaplain, Moltmann struggled with the implications of Psalm 39 and Jesus' cry on the cross in Mark 15:34. He writes, "I began to understand the forsaken Christ, because I knew he understood me. He was the divine brother in need, . . . the fellow sufferer who carries you in your pain. . . . I read the story of the passion of Christ again and again and discovered my little life story in his great story" (p. 102). Shortly after, still technically a POW, at the first post-war SCM conference, he and his fellows were approached by a group of Dutch students: "They told us that Jesus Christ was the bridge on which they came to meet us and that without Christ they would not have been able to speak to Germans. . . . We too could step on this bridge which Christ had built from them to us,even if we did so only hesitantly at first, could confess the guilt of our people and ask for forgiveness." This defining moment then pointed Moltmann towards his lifelong passion: the study of theology (pp. 103-104). By the end of his term as a POW, Moltmann could say, "What at the beginning had looked like a grim fate became an undeserved blessing. It had begun in the darkness of war and then when I went to Norton Camp the sun had risen. We came with severely wounded souls, and when we went away 'my soul was healed'" p. 104).

The second half of the article provides Moltmann's perspective on science and God. There's some good stuff here, but at one point he goes off into left field--nay, actually goes up into the left field bleachers!--when he starts to talk about the earth as a living organism (p. 107--"At a certain point in its evolution the earth began to feel, to think, to become conscious of itself and to sense reverence. . ."; and I don't think that's just poetic license). Nevertheless, Moltmann still has some excellent observations, especially p. 106 where he states, "In the great dramatic picture of creation in Job 38-40, a human being is very small and insignificant before God's wild and immense creation. 'Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Can you bind the chains of the Pleides? Can you loosen Orion's belt?' And Job answers: 'I am unworthy--how can I reply?' This is the answer of human wisdom. True knowledge presupposes cosmic humility, as Richard Bauckham maintains, not the 'arrogance of power'. True science is bound to truth and is not for sale" (emphasis added).

Yes, occasionally academic articles can actually be spiritually beneficial and moving, and I believe this is one of those (caveat aside).

Brian Gamel's Markan Soteriology
While not quite as moving as Moltmann's article, Brian Gamel's article on Mark's soteriology was so well-written it actually made me want to preach a sermon on Mark 15:39. This is another of those rare articles that actually blesses the reader rather than simply enlightening him or her (or confusing, depending on the subject matter!)

Brian K. Gamel (who I think is a student at Baylor), in his article "Salvation in a Sentence: Mark 15:39 as Markan Soteriology," in the Journal of Theological Interpretation 6 (Spring 2012), basically argues that
". . . Mark 15:39 demonstrates what salvation means for Mark. Specifically, it shows that for Mark the cross offers eschatological sight, rapprochement between the hostile spheres of humanity and divinity, and the extension of Israel's blessings to the Gentiles" (p. 66).

Basically, Gamel's article is an exercise in biblical theology, demonstrating how Mark's soteriology peaks in the centurion's confession about Christ: "truly this man was the Son of God"  (Mark 15:39). Now Gamel's thesis is somewhat controversial; you could interpret the Centurion's statement as "the son of a god," i.e., simply a pagan's musings on the unique characteristics of the heroic death in front of him (and one of my friends just successfully defended his ph.d. dissertation where he takes a similar view on that verse). Gamel does deal with the "positive" vs. "negative" interpretations of the Centurion's statement, but some may not be convinced that the confession should be viewed positively.

Yet if Gamel's interpretation holds, then the rest of the article brilliantly unpacks that statement in light of what the author, Mark, was trying to accomplish by focusing on the Centurion. According to Gamel, in Mark 15:39, "Eschatological sight is offered to the ultimate outsider of Israel, and what is seen is that God and humanity are now united together" (p. 77). Furthermore, the key to Markan soteriology ". . . is understanding that the cross does not merely 'show' salvation in a series of connected, soteriologically loaded phrases. It effects salvation."

That'll preach, won't it!?

David Horrell on 1 Peter 2:9
I am very fortunate that Dr. Horrell's article came out when it did, because it is turning into a key source for the last chapter of my dissertation. In his article, "'Race', 'Nation', 'People': Ethnic Identity-Construction in 1 Peter 2:9," in New Testament Studies 58 (January 2012),  David G. Horrell (professor at the University of Exeter) examines the identity terminology of 1 Peter 2:9 (the terms "genos," ethnos," and "laos"), and focuses on this as "ethnic identity language, and a crucial early step in the construction of Christian identity in ethnoracial terms." (p. 125).

Dr. Horrell initially surveys use of these words in the LXX and elsewhere in the NT, as well as early Christian writings. He then focuses on 1 Peter 2:9 itself. While cautioning against "importing modern and debatable assumptions--about the biological essentialisms of race, or the nation-state as the obvious locus of sovereignty--into our studies of early Christianity and our translations of ancient texts" (p. 138), he nonetheless states, "The concepts of both ethnicity and race remain relevant to the study of early Christianity . . . ." A major point of Horrell's article seems to be how (more-or-less) flexible the concepts of "race" and "ethnicity" are in the NT social context and how, consequently, these concepts could be developed and attached to this community of believers in 1 Peter. Thus, "The letter's overall strategy, in which the identity-designations of 2.9 play an important role, is--put in terms of social identity theory--to develop a positive sense of in-group identity, of the status and honour that acrue to membership of the community, in the face of negative evaluation and stigmatization on the part of the outsiders." (p. 141-142).

Finally, "Just as 1 Peter represents the first attempt to claim what came to be the identity label par excellence--Christianos--as a positive badge of self-identity, so too it represents the first move to designate Christians explicitly as a genos, a move that was of considerable significance in the evolution of Christian identity discourse." (p. 143)

Chapter 6 of my dissertation will focus somewhat on how this "positive badge of self-identity" is a reaction to the status of "strangers" (displacement) in which the readers find themselves (in chapter 2 I partially defend John Elliott's view that they were literal "strangers/foreigners/resident aliens," not just "strangers" in a metaphorical-spiritual sense). (by the way, the term "pilgrim" is an absolutely horrible translation for any word in 1 Peter, but I digress . . .) Regardless of one's views, however, Horrell's article here is an excellent discussion on a key part of 1 Peter, Christian self-identity.

    

The hardest verse in the NT (1 Tim 2:15-"saved through childbirth"): A possible solution in the latest issue of JETS?

Note: updated 2/5/2013 to reflect one more observation on the article made by a friend.

The latest issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, volume 55 (December 2012), has a number of interesting articles for NT students (forgive my bias towards New Testament studies; it also has some decent non-NT related articles as well!) We have K. G. Beale's article on Matthew's citation of Hosea 11:1 and my friend Joe Greene's article on the Holy Spirit and God's temple in the NT as well as others (including some sort of debate on 1 Corinthians 10:13 and free will!). What especially caught my eye, however, is Moyer Hubbard's article on 1 Timothy 2:15 ("saved through childbearing"), what I've long considered to be the most difficult verse in the New Testament to interpret.

Hubbard is a NT prof at Talbot School of Theology (Biola). His well-written article does not advance a new thesis, but rather provides new and improved arguments for a particular view on this passage. I'm almost convinced of his arguments (his view is not a view that I've held to in the past), though there are a few areas I would like to see developed better. The reader especially interested in this notoriously difficult debate should make sure they get a copy of the latest JETS (or at least this article) for themselves rather than relying on my own summary and (sort-of) analysis.

Summary of Hubbard's article
Hubbard's thesis is that 1 Tim 2:15 should be translated ""But she will be kept safe through the ordeal of childbearing" (p. 743); in other words, it is not a reference to salvation or the Savior per se (the other two common views), but rather the act of giving birth to a child.

The first two sections deal with the meaning of sozo ("to save") in the New Testament and in Paul's letters. He correctly argues that sozo in the NT can mean both save and rescue (i.e., non-soteriological). He counters the common objection that Paul's usage of sozo is strictly soteriological by pointing to 2 Timothy 4:18 and 2 Cor 3:15. The former relies on his analysis of the preposition eis combined with sozo, while the second depends on his assertion (following BDAG) that the word here simultaneously works on both the spiritual and the physical level. Thus, for 2 Cor 3:15, the phrase "saved through fire"  "is intended to be heard on two levels, as the climax of the metaphor (the foolish builder escaping through the billowing flames) and as its application (saved, albeit through dangerous circumstances)" (p. 749).

In the third section, Hubbard examines "The Literary-Theological Context of 1 Timothy 2:15." In the process, he critiques the other common views on this passage. Against the view that this passage means  "although Eve transgressed, women can be saved through childbearing," Hubbard objects that this does not explain why Paul brings up the issue of childbearing in the first place  and that it would allow for a non-Pauline "theological conundrum of salvation by works" (pp. 750-751; more on this later). Regarding the second common view, that the passage is actually referring to "the childbirth" (i.e., the coming of the Messiah), he quickly dismisses this by arguing that such a highly technical and unprecedented meaning would not be easily picked up by the reader: ". . . with this interpretation, one must postulate a meaning for this word that is completely unattested" (p. 752). Also, key in this section is how Hubbard points out that 1 Tim 2:15 can be directly linked back to the curse of the pain of childbearing in Genesis 3 (Paul is using a cognate noun of the LXX reference to childbirth in Genesis 3:16).

In part 4, "The social-historical context of 1 Timothy 2:15," Hubbard focuses on the very real danger of child mortality (and maternal mortality) in the 1st century. In part 5, Hubbard discusses the function of the preposition dia in the phrase "saved/delivered through childbearing."  He argues that dia here is used as "attendant circumstances" rather than "means," and he cites 1 Corinthians 3:15 as a clear instance of Pauline usage where dia is used with sozo to refer to preservation "through difficulty." For the 5 instances that sozo with dia refer to "saved by means of," Hubble argues that ". . . the only reason we know this--is because the phrase attached to sozo dia makes its meaning obvious beyond doubt: saved by means of Christ's death, the cross, faith, etc." (p. 757)

In part 6, Hubbard deals with the most serious objection against his thesis, namely that good Christian women do indeed die in the process of childbearing. Hubbard argues along the lines of 1 Tim 2:15 being a more generic "proverbial promise of blessing" such as found in 1 Peter 3:10 (i.e., not every single person who guards his tongue lives a long life) and Ephesians 6:2-3 (not every obedient child lives a long life). Also as support of this, Hubbard takes verse 3:1, "this is a faithful saying," as belonging to the previous verse. In other words, "This is a faithful saying" = "the blessing pronounced in 2:5" (p. 759).

Section 7 deals with the suggestion that "childbearing" in 1 Tim. 5:14 represents [citing Douglas Moo] "the general scope of activities in which Christan women should be involved." Hubbard argues, contra Moo and others, that "A synecdoche is an easily recognizable, virtually transparent figure of speech in which the whole is represented in terms of its parts, or vice versa" (p. 759) and that "childbearing" (teknogonia) here most likely does not qualify. For Hubbard, "If teknogonia is being used as a synecdoche, it is probably the most opaque and obscure example in biblical literature," in addition to the fact that it makes sense as a reference to just the act of childbearing (p. 760).

Finally, in section 8, Hubbard defends his contention that "saved [soteriologically] by means of childbirth" is un-Pauline. He acknowledges that exegesis must precede theology, but suggests that this particular sense simply does not fit with what Paul says elsewhere.

In conclusion, Hubbard argues that, in light of the context and his exegesis, the expression in 1 Tim. 2:15 means "God will be faithful to those who are faithful, and he will keep you safe even through this harrowing ordeal of childbirth" (p. 762).

Some thoughts
First of all, this is an excellent contribution to the discussion, and I am almost convinced by Hubbard's arguments ("almost," for now; with some more thought I may be totally convinced). His linking of 1 Tim 2:15 to the language of the LXX in Genesis 3:16 is very convincing and one of the strongest parts of his argument, in my opinion.

However, for me, it all hinges on section 6 of the article, "1 Timothy 2:15 as a Proverbial Promise of Blessing." If Hubbard can convince me of that, then the article has won me over. More work needs to be done here, however. It's one thing to point out that there are general statements of blessing in Scripture that are not applicable to every single individual; it's another thing to prove that 1 Timothy 2:15 falls into that category, and I think Hubbard could have devoted some more effort into this and into the "Faithful Saying" of 3:1 (there's been some significant literature written on the function of the "faithful sayings" Paul's writings, literature which I don't see Hubbard citing. He downplays the importance of 3:1 for his argument, when in reality this may be the key piece that brings some of us over to his side).

On the other hand, I am very sympathetic to his rejection of the soteriological interpretation of "saved through childbearing." A straight-up reading like that does seem to indicate salvation by works (specifically, giving birth!) If we argue that it means something like "saved eschatologically by adhering to the good works of motherhood that stem from genuine conversion," then this dies the death of a thousand qualifications and is way too nuanced an interpretation, in my opinion.

Furthermore, there's a critique of the "saved [soteriologically]" position I would like to bring up: namely, it only applies to married woman or mothers in general. What about single ladies? (in the sense of "those who have never become mothers")  Paul himself elsewhere extols the virtue of singleness for both men and women, yet here he's saying that a woman is saved by means of giving birth? [or "adhering to her proper role as a wife," or whatever] The single women are left out! I guess they can't be saved then (forgive my facetiousness). This problem completely disappears in Hubbard's view, since single women miss out on the pain of childbearing anyway, and the context overall is focusing on the specific consequences of the woman's fall (including the pain of childbirth). Although, this needs more thought, because on second thought even Hubbard's view might exclude single women from the blessing when single women, it could be argued, are also in view in verses 9-12, unless we argue that it's more about the relationship of a husband to wife?? Hmmmm. Okay, I need to think this one through a bit more. Dear reader, please don't hold me to anything I just said in this particular paragraph, at least not yet!

Anyways, one final critique regarding the article. I wish Hubbard had given the "saved through the Childbirth [i.e., Christ's coming]" view a bit more thought. He dismisses it in a single paragraph, and personally I think it's worthy of a more thorough examination. It's been my preference ever since reading George Knight's commentary in the NIGTC series, though I fully acknowledge that it's a difficult view to defend exegetically.

So there you have it: Hubbard's article is well-worth reading and meditating on. Whatever positions we come to, however, we must approach the text in humility. Scripture can be very difficult, good people can disagree, and even the brightest scholars are bound to be wrong once in a while! Let's not let the difficulties of 1 Tim. 2:15 cloud over the Scripture's many clearer themes and more important doctrines.

Updated note: one more quibble. As a friend and fellow ph.d. student points out, Dr. Hubbard hardly touches on the last clause of 1 Tim. 2:15--"if they continue . . ." This is disappointing, since surely that clause has a bearing on how we should interpret the phrase "delivered through childbearing." While I'm sure that Hubbard can accommodate the role of that clause within his view, he needs to deal with it much more thoroughly before he has a fully convincing argument.

Greek Resources: Two Great Websites

Studying Greek is not just for "professional" students and Bible scholars! Many "regular" church folk throughout the centuries have taken up the challenge of learning the Biblical languages and making use of that in their own personal study, while, conversely, many "professionals" in the ministry possess just enough knowledge to be dangerous (e.g., placing too much emphasis on the Aorist tense in their sermons or falling into the etymological fallacy on the meaning of terms!). Furthermore, arguably the greatest Biblical language scholar of the 1700s, British abolitionist Granville Sharp, was self-taught in both Greek and Hebrew (though, admittedly, the man did possess an incredible intellect, enough to make Sherlock Holmes look like Elmer Fudd).

With that in mind, I hope that everybody, both those readers involved in academic studies of the Bible and those readers who are not, will take a look at these extremely helpful websites on the language of the New Testament.

Dr. David Black's New Testament Greek Portal
First off, we have the recently revamped "New Testament Greek Portal" by Dr. David Alan Black. It can be accessed here (or just see the sidebar to this blog). Two words: extremely comprehensive. Seriously, anything remotely related to studying New Testament Greek can be found here, generally in the form of links to helpful websites or programs. These include links to free flashcard programs, links to public domain grammars and other books on Google Books or The Internet Archive, links to websites on teaching Greek (including material on teaching Greek to children), links to dictionaries, and (for the more technically inclined), links to the full text of helpful articles discussing some of the finer points of NT Greek. Furthermore, the vast majority of the links on this website are annotated, with Dr. Black's own comments (or those of his grad assistant) describing what exactly the resource is good for.

Dr. Rodney Decker's NT Resources
Like Dr. Black's website, Dr. Decker's is devoted to providing the reader with resources on learning or teaching Greek. It can be accessed here. Dr. Decker's website is somewhat less comprehensive than Dr. Black's, but Dr. Decker is more likely to send the reader directly to his own personal discussion on a topic (normally in a pdf file). Dr. Decker's NT Resources site is a little bit less friendly to the casual learner, but does contain helpful, technical discussions on certain ares of NT Greek that you are less likely to find elsewhere (e.g., photos of papyri P21, technical diagrams of specific NT texts, Dr. Decker's famous "Poor Man's Porter" which attempts to delineate Dr. Stanley Porter's highly technical [and expensive] discussion of Verbal Aspect into a more manageable essay). Dr. Decker also has some helpful resources geared specifically towards students starting their first year of Greek (e.g., "Recommended Bibliography for Beginning Greek Students" and a chart on "Difficult Primary Verb Forms"). Finally, the NT Resources site also contains links to broader topics, including reviews of the ESV and NIV (2011), a "Bible Reading Chart," and a "Biblical Theological Dictionary" for those of us that need help sorting through the myriad of technical terms in Biblical studies. Also, there's a link to various papers in the ETS "Dispensational Study Group" which may prove interesting to some readers.

Both Drs. Black and Decker are bona fide Greek scholars with multiple published works (and great blogs), but more importantly they are dedicated teachers who wish to make the Biblical languages accessible to the average Joe (or Josephine).
[Irrelevant closing remark: Wouldn't it be hilarious to someday see a book written or edited by "Black & Decker"? Perhaps with articles on "Power Tools for Studying the Bible" or "Building up Your Church"? Sorry, couldn't resist a good pun]

Book Alert: Peter, Paul, and Prepositions

“Of making many books there is no end” (Ecclesiastes 12:12, kjv). Ah, if only the Preacher knew how true this would be in the modern era! Today we are overly-blessed (or cursed, perhaps) with a seemingly infinite influx of new books each year, and 2012 is no exception. Naturally, some books are more worthy of attention than others. While it is ultimately impossible to give a nod of recognition to every book in Biblical studies that deserves it, I’d like to highlight four noteworthy books from 2012 that caught my attention (and, subsequently, my credit card).

Note: the following are not reviews (though I might review one or all of them later), but rather just brief descriptions designed to pique the reader’s interest.

1. First of all, we have Larry R. Helyer’s The Life and Witness of Peter (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2012; 329 pages including indices).  To a certain degree, this is the book I’ve been waiting for the past few, ever since I decided to focus on Petrine studies. If you threw a stone, you could probably hit a dozen Pauline theologies or studies, but works focusing on Peter’s theology and writings are comparatively rare. Now Helyer’s book is not a pure Petrine theology per se, but rather a comprehensive study of both Peter and his writings (part of the book, then, is a Petrine theology; e.g., chapter 7, which deals with “Peter’s Christology”).  Much of The Life and Witness of Peter focuses on Peter’s role in the early church, but Helyer also devotes two chapters to 1 and 2 Peter, chapters which serve a similar role to their equivalent chapters in a standard NT Introduction (i.e., discussing issues of authorship, date, key themes, etc.). Other chapters, as mentioned above, deal with specific theological themes in Peter’s writings. Ultimately, The Life and Witness of Peter fills a very important, oft-neglected niche in scholarship. Furthermore, Helyer is a better writer than most; The Life and Witness of Peter is very scholarly but not at all stuffy, usually finding that right balance between overly-simple and too technical. This is a characteristic he carries over from his other  works, as well. In the doctoral seminary “Second Temple Literature,” Dr. Köstenberger required us to read Helyer’s Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period (as well as George Nickelsburg’s excellent Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah), and I remember being struck by how enjoyable Helyer’s book was compared to most required textbooks.

2. Secondly, we have my own advisor, Dr. David Alan Black’s, revision of an earlier monograph (and his dissertation) Paul, Apostle of Weakness: Astheneia and Its Cognates in the Pauline Literature (Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick, 2012; 193 pages including indices). Throughout this book Black examines the concept of “weakness” in the Apostle Paul’s writings and how it is developed throughout. Chapter 5 contains both an excellent overview of “weakness” in Paul’s theology (culminating in the conclusion that Paul’s concept of weakness is "markedly theocentric," p. 161) as well as a very valuable section on “Pauls’ Relevance for Today” (a welcome  addition to any academic monograph!) with the following thought provoking statement, “Too many Christians are disheartened over their infirmities, thinking that only if they were stronger in themselves they could accomplish more for God. But this point of view, despite its popularity, is altogether a fallacy. God’s means of working, rightly understood, is not by making us stronger, but by making us weaker and weaker until the divine power alone is clearly manifested in our lives” (pp. 161-162).

Like Helyer, one of Dr. Black’s strengths in writing lies in the fact that his works are generally easily accessible and often enjoyable (the reason Learn to Read New Testament Greek remains one of the most popular 1^st year Greek textbooks). Even Paul, Apostle of Weakness, which is a monograph (and should, by definition, be incredibly dull!), still manages to be both interesting and surprisingly easy to follow. Despite the occasional citation of untranslated German (he did, after all, get his doctorate at the University of Basel), this is a book that most Christians, even those without much education, can get some value out of (especially chapter 5).

Let me emphasize again, then, that accessible, enjoyable writing is a skill that should be prized in Biblical studies. Now, granted, it’s not like we want our scholars making their academic works read like the next Michael Crichton novel (although, maybe that wouldn’t be such a bad idea . . . [Zondervan, give me a call! I’ve got a great idea for Minnesota Mounce and the Participles of Doom!]) Yet the fact remains that academic works in Biblical studies do not have to be dry! (two of the best examples of enjoyable NT writers, in my opinion, are Michael Bird and N. T. Wright, regardless of whether or not one agrees with them).

3.Thirdly, we have a book that is already making quite the splash within Biblical scholarship. Murray J. Harris’ Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2012; 293 pages including indices) does not represent a new area of research per se, but is itself, to a certain degree, a refinement or expansion upon Harris’ essay in volume 3 of Colin Brown’s New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Harris provides a thorough overview of the Greek preposition in the New Testament, helpfully discusses “Dangers to Be Avoided in Any Examination of New Testament Prepositional Usage” (ch. 3), and then proceeds to examine every proper and improper preposition that occurs in the NT, paying special attention to important and/or controversial usage. At this point, Harris’ work does indeed seem to be turning into what the title promises: “An Essential Reference Resource.” See my friend Craig Hurst's review here. 

4.Finally, here’s a fantastic idea that makes you wonder why nobody thought of it sooner: Devotions on the Greek New Testament: 52 Reflections to Inspire & Instruct, ed. by J. Scott Duvall and Verlyn D. Verbrugge (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2012). This book is exactly what the title suggests: devotional treatments of Greek texts, basically Our Daily Bread for seminary students. The authors write in a casual, occasionally personal manner (sometimes including stories). Each writer focuses on one Greek text (a verse or two) and unpacks it, pointing the reader to its practical application in the Christian life. The authorial lineup is a partial “who’s-who” of New Testament scholarship (Darrell Bock, George Guthrie, Lynn Cohick, Ben Witherington III, to name a few) with a few “rising stars” (such as my friend Alan Bandy, recent doctoral graduate from SEBTS).

Well, there’s a whole lot more books worth reading from 2012, but hopefully these will prove to be helpful to those interested in New Testament studies. Looking forward to what 2013 will bring!

Book Review--"Hymns Modern and Ancient" (with a subsequent discussion of lyrics and theology)

Ever been part of a spontaneous "singspiration"? Just within the past year at my local church, occasionally after the evening service a few of us, both young and old, have started gathering around the piano and begun singing even while folks are still mingling in the auditorium (sometimes we're still singing past closing time; Pastor Joe just reminds us to set the alarm code when we're done). This is not a part of the "formal" worship service, but it is worship nonetheless. This can easily last for an hour or so, and can include anywhere from 3 to 16 or so of us together at one time. We sing from a variety of songbooks, but one of our favorites is the recent Hymns: Modern & Ancient (compiled by Fred R. Coleman; Milwaukee, Wis.: Heart Publications, 2011).

We are told multiple times in the Psalms to sing a "new song" to the Lord. While there are plenty of old classics ("There is a Fountain Filled with Blood" remains one of my favorites), I don't think the Creator of the universe, the ultimate Creative Genius, intended us to sing the same songs day after day. Rather, I believe he intended us to stretch our intellect and our imagination in both poetry and music, and to appreciate the efforts of others, especially when it teaches us good theology!

This, then, is my greatest praise of Hymns: Modern & Ancient--it has taught me many new songs with powerful theological messages which have consequently had a positive impact on me at the emotional and spiritual level.

The first section of this post will give a basic overview of the book, the second section will offer some positive (and slightly negative) critique, while the third section will then launch off into a discussion of lyrics and their theological message.

Overview
Hymns: Modern & Ancient (hereafter referred to as HMA) deliberately patterns its title after the great Anglican book Hymns: Ancient and Modern (1861). Like the older work, ultimately the purpose of HMA is to "include both ancient and modern texts that articulate the timeless truths of Scripture and are rich in biblical doctrine" (from the introduction, n.p.). Unlike the older work, however, compiler Fred Coleman hopes that HMA will prove more accessible to the average congregation of a local church. Concerned that "modern congregations ignore too many great hymns of the past and shun too many great hymns of the present," Coleman hopes that "the tunes in this collection will prove to be both accessible and memorable for any who revel in the Gospel and its life-changing power."

The book itself (available from Heart Publications; it also appears on Amazon.com but is currently listed as "unavailable") comes either in a hard-cover format or a "concealed spiral binding" format that allows it to be opened on a music stand without closing. It's roughly 16 dollars and contains 133 songs, together with an introduction and the indexes you would expect. Interestingly, the songs are all in alphabetical order.

The reader should note that first and foremost this is a supplementary songbook. In other words, this is not the kind of songbook that you'll find in the pew of your average church, simply because most of the songs will not be as familiar to the average Christian (or at least the average Baptist). This is deliberate, and simultaneously represents both the songbook's greatest strength and its only major obstacle to widespread use. You won't find "A Mighty Fortress" or even "Amazing Grace" in here, but those songs exist in virtually every mainstream Christian hymnal and there is no need to introduce them to believers. You will find many obscure (yet awesome) songs, as well as some that have started becoming more popular lately such as "Before the Throne of God Above" and "Complete in Thee" (and for good reason). Some songs will be familiar, but most probably will not be.

The book does live up to its name. Some of the songs have very old roots (e.g., "Jerusalem the Golden," with the words written by Bernard of Cluny; also a song paraphrased off of the 4th century Te Deum Laudamus, etc.), while others were penned by contemporary authors (NT scholar D. A. Carson himself is behind about five of the songs). In fact, you'll find a lot of songs by Keith and Kristyn Getty, Bob Kauflin, Stuart Townend, and Fred Coleman himself (along with his wife). As will be discussed below, given the ecclesiastical background of this particular book, this is actually more surprising than you would think (I'm deliberately being cryptic here; more on that below).

Here's some of the more noteworthy songs. First of all, "Before the Throne of God" (#14) is fast becoming a Christian classic, as it should! When I took the doctoral seminary "Hebrews" with visiting NT scholar George Guthrie (possibly the Best Class Ever!), Dr. Guthrie ended the week-long seminar by having us sing this song together as a class. The theology is straight out of the book of Hebrews and contains a powerful message. Christian, if you have not yet learned this song, do so immediately!

Other modern classics that may be better known in broader evangelical circles include "Complete in Thee" (28) and "How Deep the Father's Love for Us" (#52), which has even been sung by The Irish Tenors.

Other songs may be lesser known but contain familiar tunes. "O Love Divine," for example, is based off of the Irish tune "Star of the County Down" (still sung by modern group Celtic Woman). The rhythm, however, has undergone a major overhaul, going from a fast-paced, "spunky" folk song to something slower and considerably more reverent. The lyrics, of course, are first-rate.
More importantly, however, there are some songs that I learned directly as a result from singing from this book alongside of friends. These include #70 "Jesus, the Son of God", #15, the Getty's "Behold the Lamb,"#48 "His Robes for Mine," and the emotionally powerful #35, "Free from Guilt and Free from Sin."

Note: copyright laws prohibit me from quoting even a tiny snippet of the lyrics of these songs, though I can quote older songs that are public domain. However, I urge you, dear reader, to find the lyrics somewhere and meditate on them.

HMA, then, has enough content in it to keep any congregation occupied learning both new and old songs.

Review
As already mentioned, my greatest praise for HMA is that it taught me new songs rich with powerful theology. When I take  that into consideration with all the hours I've spent singing these songs in spiritual fellowship with my friends, and the powerful conviction and assurance that these songs can bring, I conclude that this songbook is definitely spiritually beneficial both to the individual Christian and to any community of believers (provided you aren't daunted by learning new songs). Thus, although I cannot critique individual songs, I believe overall this is an all-star selection that is reasonably accessible to a church.

It may, however, be a bit too obscure for its own good. Since the vast majority of songs are not those you'd find in the average hymnal, the average Christian may struggle a bit to get enjoyment out of it without help.  Even though I can more-or-less read music (if you don't rush me!), I still feel that as an individual Christian I had no hope of utilizing the songbook to its fullest potential without the help of my friends. Only when paired with somebody who knows how to use the piano have I truly benefited from it initially; once I learn the song, though, then I'm set and can sing it by myself. This will not be an issue for the truly musically talented, of course, but may be a stumbling block for most individual Christians.

Given the obscure nature of most of these songs, and given  that this is a supplementary songbook, perhaps a brief history of some of the older songs might have been appropriate. In addition, some other hymnals place an appropriate Scripture verse below the song's title; off all songbooks, that would have been especially appropriate here given that the theological depth of the songs in HMA put many others to shame.

Other than that, my only negative critique stems from certain omissions. There are only two Christmas songs that I could tell (#59, "Holy Child,"and #106, "See in Yonder Manger Low"). A few more would have been very beneficial since generally we end up singing the same dozen or so every November and December (and not all of them are theologically deep).

It's hard to critique HMA beyond that, since making the book any bigger would have hindered its accessibility. I do wish, however, that "Be Thou My Vision" had been included, just because it would "feel right" in this kind of book even though it's more well-known that most (yes, I realize that's a purely subjective critique; deal with it :)

This are all very minor, picky critiques (and I'm only offering them as a matter of principle; it's a personal quirk of my writing that I'm not going to give any book a perfect, 100% score unless I'm reviewing Scripture itself!), and they are fairly insignificant in light of the benefit this book can bring.
This, then, naturally leads into a discussion of lyrics in our songs . . .

Lyrics and Theology
I have a confession: it irritates me to no end when people sing only the first verse to "A Mighty Fortress" (yes, I've heard this done, including on an otherwise top-notch CD by a men's music group). Think about it; where does the verse end? "And armed with cruel hate, on earth is not his equal," a reference to the devil himself! You absolutely must follow it with the second verse ("Did we in our own strength confide our striving would be losing/were not the right Man on our side? The man of God's own choosing").

The sad fact is, many congregations don't pay attention to the actual content of their songs (this is why, this December, many congregations singing "The First Noel" will skip from verse 1 to verse 3, which makes absolutely no sense if you're actually paying attention to the lyrics). This results in some flat-out inaccurate phrases. In "Away in a Manger," for example, the phrase "No crying he makes" is, at best, inaccurate, and at worst, a diminishing of Christ's true humanity. Likewise, "We Three Kings" is inaccurate even in the title. It should be "We Three Magi" (there's a major difference between a "king" and a "magi"). Even theologian Roger Olson recently noted in a blog post about the irony of a premillennial church singing the postmillennial song "We've a Story to Tell to the Nations" (right after a sermon on the imminent return of Christ, no less!)

Now, this can be taken a bit too far, of course. I'm not going to stop signing "We Three Kings," I'm just going to replace "Kings" with "Magi" because accuracy matters, especially in worship. How can I dare to sing a lie to God who is literally "the un-lying One" (Titus 1:2--Gr. apsudeis)? Thus when singing "Away in a Manger," I replace "no crying" with "some crying."

I'm a little less harsh on theological issues in songs. The writers of "We've a Story to Tell to the Nations" felt they were accurately representing Scripture, and I'll respect them for that even as I disagree with their eschatology. I'm not going to throw out the song, I'll just hum a certain part of the chorus. Similarly, I have some friends who believe a certain phrase in verse 4 of the song "In Christ Alone" (by Getty/Townend) is too Calvinistic for them to sing. I'm not totally convinced that the phrase necessarily implies hyper-Calvinist theology, but even if it did I'm unwilling to throw out a beautiful and powerful love message to the Creator simply because I disagree on a relatively minor theological issue (and I firmly believe issues of Calvinism and Arminianism are relatively minor, in the grand scheme of things).

I say all that with a recognition that my own theology and exegesis and thinking is going to be inaccurate and even flawed in some places. Yet I hope that people will still read what I write in spite of that!

Having said all that, my point is simply that lyrics do make a difference and we should be aware of them and seek those songs that will be edify the church. I've long wondered, for example, what theological benefit a classic song like "I Come to the Garden Alone" really brings. Granted, the song isn't heretical, and it may even be quite beautiful. It reads like a personal love letter to Jesus, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Yet there is not much theological depth to it, nothing that can really teach the congregation. As such, I wonder whether or not this song is best sung by oneself rather than by the congregation. (feel free to disagree with me on this, dear reader)

In closing consider two modern songs about Mary. The first one, "Still Her Little Child" by Ray Boltz and Steve Milikan, I once heard sung in an IFB church by two ladies who cried all throughout the song (nothing wrong with the crying part per se; frankly, I think we should cry more often when we sing). The song is all about how Jesus was still, in Mary's eyes, her little boy throughout his ministry and culminating in the crucifixion. Now, there is a hint of theology in the song (find it for yourself; copyright laws prohibit me from quoting from it). The focus, however, is all wrong. Not that it focuses on Mary per se, but rather that in this song Mary's relationship to Jesus as her child trumps everything else in the Gospel narrative. Not only is this a wrong focus, it may be bad theology, because in both Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 11:27-28, Jesus declares that obeying God trumps genetic relationship. Indeed, it is not the one who gave birth to him that is family, but rather the one who follows him and does the will of God (not that this is any excuse for us to neglect our moms on Mother's Day! :)  Whatever the case, this is theologically inadequate for worship, especially congregational worship. I don't mean to criticuze Boltz/Milikan directly; I'm sure they're good folk who love the Lord. I just wish they had thought their song through a bit more.

Consider, on the other hand, "Mary Did You Know," by Mark Lowry and Buddy Greene. Now, granted, I've heard this song sung in ways that I would consider inappropriate for congregational worship (that's a very subjective discussion for another time), but I've also heard it sung very reverently. More importantly, however, the message is extremely power and focuses on Christ's deity, the mystery of the incarnation, and the fact that the Child whom Mary gave birth to will actually bring her (and others) redemption.

Notice the difference between these two songs. The first one focuses on Mary's relationship to her little boy; the second one focuses on Mary's relationship to her Lord and Savior!! This makes all the difference in the world. The first one is nice and sweet, but it's not worship. The second one makes you want to fall down on your face or raise your hands in triumphant adoration.

Dear reader, let's celebrate good lyrics, especially those that reflect good theology! If the ESPN commentators pull out all the stops to both imaginatively and accurately describe a football game, should we not strive to do the same when worshipping the Uncreated One?

Lament and Jubilee: Two Test Cases for OT Relevance in the Church Age

During my time in Southeastern's doctoral program, I have come to know a few fine Old Testament scholars-in-the-making. Occasionally I gently rib them about the OT being a "prologue" for Scripture, to which they respond with a suitably snarky comment (often calling into question my sanctification!)

Yet kidding aside, all Christian's must realize the unmeasurable importance of the Old Testament as a major portion of God's word, profitable for reproof, instruction, etc. Yet this begs the question: how exactly do we apply the OT to everyday life? Do we give up our BLTs and ham sandwiches? Do we adhere to all the purity laws that the Jews did? What about the festivals?

Of course, Christians live practically as if we were not under the same obligations the Jews were regarding such Old Testament commands, and I'm not about to suggest otherwise (seriously, my life's complicated enough as it is!) Yet in what way then can the Old Testament be instructional to the New? Likewise, whole books such as Lamentations or (dare I say it?) Song of Solomon get frequently ignored in our preaching or forced into a role they were never meant to fill (yeah, Song of Solomon 1:2 is pretty hard to explain when the whole book is treated as an allegory for the church).

Of course, as evangelicals we argue that the Old Testament points to Christ, and that is certainly true (and Jesus himself argued this, as my friend Matt Emerson wisely pointed out in a recent blog post entitled "The Bible is about Jesus"). Nevertheless, it sometimes becomes difficult to actually apply specific texts in this manner while simultaneously doing justice to the historical-sociological background (although, as Emerson points out, we must not take OT texts in isolation from the grander meta narrative). Preaching and teaching from the Old Testament can be tough! (at least for some of us)

What I'm offering here is not a comprehensive answer to how Leviticus 11, for example, should be preached in the church. Instead, this post will focus on two treatments of the Old Testament that, in my opinion, do an excellent job of making difficult sections of the Old Testament relevant to the modern Christian. The first is Dr. Heath Thomas' article "'My God! My God!' Lament and the Christian Life" in Miqra 7 (Summer 2008): 11-15. Dr. Thomas is the newly appointed director of Ph.D. studies at Southeastern; he taught a  1-credit class on Lament a few years ago that opened my mind to a whole new paradigm of thinking regarding this particular genre (not that I had done much thinking on it in the past!) The second article is Christopher R. Bruno's "Jesus Is Our Jubilee" . . But How? The OT Background and Lukan Fulfillment of the Ethics of Jubilee" in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53 (March 2010): 81-101.

1. Lament and the Christian
(note: while I am careful to credit Dr. Thomas whenever citing directly from his article, I should also point out that the way I discuss the topic or use certain terminology may also have been unconsciously carried over from his class lectures in the Integrative Seminar "Lament" at SEBTS, Fall 2008). Naturally, any mistakes, heresies, or even misinterpretations of anything somebody else wrote is completely my fault.

I can't remember the last time I heard Lamentations preached anywhere. Furthermore, while such phrases as "great is thy faithfulness" (Lam. 3:23) are well-known among Christians,  the rest of the book and much of OT Lament as a whole are neglected by Christians. Yet should they be? Is there really room for "lament" in the Christian life when we are commanded to be joyful? (and to say that Lament always ends in joy in the Scriptures is not entirely accurate, as seen in Psalm 88).

First of all, a definition. Lament, biblically speaking, is "an expression of distress directed to God" (Thomas, "My God! My God!", 12).  Naturally we find Lament all throughout the OT, including but not limited to much of Job, almost all of Lamentations, and various Psalms (e.g., Psalm 22). Significantly, however, we find a Lament on the very lips of Jesus himself, Mark 15:34 where he quotes Psalm 22:1. Elsewhere we see Lament in such New Testament texts as Revelation 6:10.

As we survey Lament throughout Scripture, we see that Lament is ". . . not petty complaints, but serious issues of justice about which the lamenter cannot keep silent" (Thomas, 12). Indeed, true Biblical Lament itself "recognizes that [the] world is upside down" (Thomas, 11), both in the sense that the wicked prosper while the righteous suffer (e.g., Job) and that God's mercy seems far away from his beloved (e.g., Lamentations).

We cannot minimize the real, raw emotion apparent in the cries of Lament, especially that of Christ himself. Whatever else Jesus was feeling on the cross, this was a desperate cry of pain and sorrow. As such, it is obviously not a sin for a Christian to cry out in the same manner. Well does Thomas note that ". . . the belief that lament lacks virtue because it is impious and unbefitting Christian ethics inevitably distorts (at best) or censors (at worst) a good deal of the biblical witness" (Thomas, 13).

Now, granted, there is a point in which Lament may cross the line into whining or, even worse, attacking the character of God. This is what Job came dangerously close to doing and why God rebuked him somewhat at the end (but this does not invalidate his Lament; my point is only that he began to go from Lament into something else; this is an immensely complicated issue--we cannot deny that Job is just, and that God himself holds him up as a paradigm for the others [Job 42-7; note that Job actually spoke rightly concerning God]; yet in his last speech it's possible that Job went from true Lament into a demand that God answer him together with an assumption that God was punishing him unjustly; see, for example Job 31:33-37)

Nevertheless Lament as seen in Scripture is not whining, nor is it undesirable, nor is it something that belongs strictly to Old Testament times. It is a genuine outpouring of grief, even a genuine questioning, expressed by believers of all eras and circumstances. When we are struck down with sorrow or despair, it is not only accepted but expected that we cry out to God, even if it means asking (as Christ did), "Why?!"

Yet here is what makes such Lament Biblical. Lament, first and foremost, is characterized by faith!! Thus Biblical Lament is "not tepid or weak in faith, but robust in the belief that God will hear and respond" (Thomas, 14). Indeed, "Lament remains a prayer to God, first and foremost" (Thomas, 14). In other words, the Christian may cry out to God, so long as he or she remembers just who it is they are calling out to! Thus, the Christian cries out to God, asking for an answer, precisely because he or she knows that God is capable of giving one!

Furthermore, Lament ultimately expresses a desire to see God's "Kingdom come." Lament does  this because "[it] knows of a time of God's goodness and intimacy with he faithful, but plays upon the 'gap' between that former reality and a present reality in which injustice, sin, oppression, and God-forsakenness reign. The desire for God to overcome that 'gap' and establish his justice in the world comprises the motivation for lament prayer in the Bible" (Thomas, 11).

So for the Christian living today, a in true Lament one  recognizes that something is not write with the world, whether it be sickness, sin, persecution, or loss of fellowship; but Lament prayer also recognizes that the one he or she is crying out to possesses the capability of making it right (and will someday do so). All this is seen par excellence in the death and resurrection of Christ. Going back to Mark 15:34, we see that "It is in the Christ-event that the present suffering of the world is embodied as well as (finally) overcome by God's reign" (Thomas, 12). Indeed, God did not allow Christ's body to suffer corruption but ultimately raised him up and glorified him. Consequently, the church may take comfort in that fact and provide a partial answer to the world regarding suffering: "By embracing suffering in the present, identifying with Christ, and allowing God to comfort, the Church becomes the minister of peace in the world (2 Cor 1:5-7)" (Thomas, 14).

So, what does this mean practically for the Christian living today? First off, there is no shame or sin in crying out to God in the midst of sorrow, even when accompanied by questions, so long as we remember who it is we are crying out to. This does not mean that God will or has to give us an immediate answer as to the "why," (e.g., Job never actually gets an answer), but we do get an Answer in the form of Christ, who has suffered beyond what we have. Thus we allow Lament to give proper expression to our grief and confusion, while at the same time looking forward to the time when God will answer everything and restore peace to his creation.

2. Jubilee and the Christian
In his article "Jesus is Our Jubilee . . . But How?", Christopher Bruno analyzes three  modern calls for a Jubilee (Jubilee 2000, Christopher Wright's Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, and John Yoder's The  Politics of Jesus) while examining Luke 4:18-19 in light of its Jubilee background in Leviticus 25:10 and Isaiah 61:1-3.

Bruno's discussion of the Jubilee begins with Leviticus 25. Here we see 3 key components of the Jubilee: 1. rest for the land, 2. the re-establishment of "proper distribution of land among tribes, clans, and families," and the 3. "resetting" of the Israelite economy via freedom for indentured servants (Bruno, "Jesus is Our Jubilee," 88). For this passage, Bruno especially emphasizes that Leviticus 25 focuses on "the centrality of the covenant," and that "The reason that Israel was to treat the poor among them with compassion was not simply out of magnanimous spirit, but as a demonstration of their loyalty to YHWH, their understanding of their own places as his redeemed people, and their trust in his care for them" (Bruno, 88-89).

In Isaiah 61:1-2, which Jesus quotes, Bruno argues that most likely Leviticus 25 is the background for some of the terminology here, especially as seen in the third and fourth items the Messiah is supposed to accomplish: the proclamation of liberty (Heb. drvr, a key word from Leviticus 25) and the proclamation of both the Lord's favor and vengeance. Ultimately, in the context of Isaiah 61, the "liberty" that is to be proclaimed to the captives "is, like Leviticus 25 and subsequent references to it, a proclamation of release or liberty for the oppressed members of the covenant community," and this is "part of a more general proclamation of Israel's restoration" (Bruno, 93).

Jesus, then, in Luke 4 takes this task upon himself. The Messiah is to "bring good news of aphesis [Gr. "liberty/release"] to the poor, blind, captives, and oppressed" (Bruno, 97). Ultimately, "Jesus' claim to 'fulfill' Isaiah 61 must be seen as a claim to inaugurate the eschatological Jubilee of God's people the time when their freedom from captivity and oppression would be permanent. . . . Therefore, it seems that the fulfillment of Jubilee through Jesus' ministry was an inauguration, but not completion, of the eschatological Jubilee" (Bruno, 98).

Nevertheless, there is something more going on here. Jesus' proclamation of liberty is inextricably linked first and foremost to his forgiveness of sins (Bruno, 98-99; this becomes the basis for Bruno's even-handed critique of other treatments of the Jubilee on pp. 99-100). Thus Bruno declares, "In the NT, the economic aspects of the Jubilee, although not altogether absent, are of a piece with the forgiveness of sin" (99) and "we cannot disconnect the forgiveness of debt from the forgiveness of sin and call it 'Jubilee'" [as some  do] (100). Furthermore, Jesus' proclamation in Luke 4 constitutes an inauguration of the Jubilee for the church age; no new "proclamations" of a Jubilee are needed (Bruno, 100-101).

So, what does this have to do with us today? What follows is a couple things that I take away from Bruno's article (if I've interpreted him correctly). First of all, even if the Jubilee is not observed in a technical sense like it was in the Old Testament, it is still a paradigm of living for the Christian today in the sense that we are still to show mercy, including economic mercy, to others as we are able (because this is what God has done to us through Christ). Too often a large portion of evangelicals has allowed liberal churches and theologians to be the ones focusing on helping the poor, etc., when in fact this should go hand-in-hand with the living out of the Gospel. This is not Walter Rauschenbusch's "Social Gospel," for we are not replacing Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, or the need for personal salvation, with economic "salvation"; rather, we are simply saying that true Gospel living manifests itself in helping those in need, as Christ did.

Secondly, as Bruno aptly emphasizes, the Jubilee concept of "proclaiming liberty" cannot be taken apart from the forgiveness of sins. One can and should help the poor (and done regardless of whether or not they are believers or whether or not we think they will come to Christ), but this should not be done apart from a concern for their spiritual well-being or for the proclamation of Christ's saving power. In light of this, I believe Bruno does a good job of summing up his overall point on p. 101--we are "to proclaim the Jubilee in the way that the NT teaches: striving for an economic and social justice that points to the reality of forgiven sin and the reconciliation of God, his people, and the world" (emphasis added).

Conclusion
Though I have had the privilege of preaching from OT texts to my church family, I am woefully unqualified to write on either OT theology or OT homiletics. Nevertheless, both Thomas' and Bruno's articles impressed me because I believe they show clearly how specific Old Testament texts do indeed apply today to the Christian church, and I believe Thomas and Bruno's observations hold true regardless of whether one is a dispensationalist, covenant theologian, or something in-between (e.g., "progressive inter-mil Reformed kingdom covenantalist"). As for Christological significance, we see both that (1.) true Lament is exemplified by Jesus himself on the cross, and it is to his relationship with the Father that we can look to for comfort, and that (2.) the Jubilee is taken up in Christ himself and his mission; consequently no true "Jubilee" can exist without forgiveness and faith in Christ.

Bibliography

Bruno, Christopher R. "'Jesus Is Our Jubilee' . . . But How? The OT Background and
Lukan Fulfillment of the Ethics of Jubilee." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53 (March 2010): 81-101.

Thomas, Heath A. "'My God! My God! Lament and the Christian Life." Miqra 7 (Summer 2008): 11-15.

For a more technical discussion on the genre of Lament and misuse of its terminology, see my friend D. Keith Campbell's article "NT Scholars’ Use of OT Lament Terminology and Its Theological and Interdisciplinary Implications" in Bulletin for Biblical Research 21.2 (2011). Now that I think of it, I hope I haven't committed any of the mistakes in terminology Campbell discusses in his article! :) (it's been awhile since I read it)

Congratulations to Joseph Greene on his successful dissertation defense!

My friend and fellow student at Southeastern, Joe Greene, has successfully defended his dissertation. It was entitled "The Realization of the Heavenly Temple in John's Gospel: Jesus and the Spirit." Dr. Greene's doctoral adviser was Dr. Andreas J. Köstenberger, his secondary reader was Dr. David Beck, and his outside reader was Dr. Paul Hoskins (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary).

For those interested in this topic, Dr. Greene has a forthcoming article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theoligical Society entitled "The Spirit in the Temple: Bridging the Gap Between Old Testament Absence and New Testament Assumption." Look for it within the next year or so.

Dr. Greene's abstract of his dissertation is as follows (posted with permission):


[beginning of abstract]

This dissertation seeks to demonstrate that the Gospel of John’s “temple replacement” theme is more accurately described as a “temple realization” theme. When examined through the lens of Johannine pneumatology, Jesus comes into focus as the realization of the heavenly temple.

Many first-century Jews believed that the true temple was located in the heavens. The Jerusalem temple was considered an earthly focal point of that heavenly reality. The eschaton would realize the heavenly temple on earth and from this new temple would flow a world-wide restoration. In the post-A. D. 70 shadow of the destroyed temple, the Fourth Evangelist described Jesus as the embodiment of the heavenly/eschatological reality. While the destruction of the second temple removed a man-made gateway to heaven, Jesus’ removal to heaven (or “glorification”) was a return to his original heavenly habitation. From heaven, the eschatological Spirit would flow from the exalted Jesus to the people of his name. Jesus embodied the more transcendent reality of the heavenly temple and his return to heaven occasioned an expanded and internalized realization of God’s presence through the renewing Spirit.

In order to substantiate the above position, this dissertation adopts a biblical-theological approach to the Fourth Gospel and treats the canonical text in its final form as the primary source. Although the presence of the temple and Spirit themes will be demonstrated from the text itself, many secondary works will also be utilized as stepping stones from which these recognized themes will be given greater definition. Such a reading will not read greater definition “into” the text but rather read the themes in light of the religious/cultural context of the literary work.

The literature of the Second Temple period will serve as the primary-source window into the religious/cultural context of John’s Gospel. From the OT and Second Temple literature, this dissertation will establish: 1) The ubiquity of the concept that an earthly temple was a gateway to the true heavenly temple. 2) The expectation for Yahweh’s renewed presence with an eschatological temple from which restorative waters would flow throughout the earth. In addition, the eschatological temple was expected to realize something of the true heavenly temple. 3) The Spirit was a common depiction of Yahweh’s presence among his people, in the temple, and in the eschaton. 4) Many expected the Spirit to accomplish an intensified and expanded eschatological renewal in God’s people that would spread to the nations. 5) The Spirit-filled Messiah would usher in this eschatological age.

By establishing the widespread occurrence of the above antecedents, John’s utilization of these concepts becomes more historically probable. In his presentation, the Fourth Evangelist combined these antecedent notions and made implicit connections explicit. John’s ultimate goal in utilizing these concepts was to urge belief in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God (John 20:31). For John, all the eschatological promises were focused upon Jesus the Messiah. Jesus is the eschatological center in heaven, from whom flows the living water of the Spirit.

In addition to the OT and Second Temple literature, John’s temple realization theme shares affinity with other NT writings. Revelation 21:22 describes the Lamb himself as the new temple in the eschaton. Other NT texts demonstrate the early and prevalent belief in the Messiah seated at the right hand of God’s heavenly throne as well as the belief that the Messiah would be the one who pours out the Spirit. The Fourth Evangelist simply pulls the eschatological promise of the new temple into the Messiah’s résumé since the eschatological temple was expected to be the source of renewing waters.

When the Fourth Gospel is read in light of these recognized concepts, John’s literary presentation argues that he incorporated and developed the above ideas into a heavenly temple realization theme.

A careful reading of John’s Gospel demonstrates the validity of the thesis. In the Book of Signs, the framework for a heavenly temple realization theme is set in the prologue, which prepares the reader to understand the Jesus story within a heavenly framework. Within this heavenly framework, John’s presentation progresses from Jesus as the tabernacle (John 1:14), to the new Bethel (John 1:51), to the temple (John 2:21), to Jerusalem and Gerizim being obsolete (John 4:21), and to Jesus as the eschatological temple from whom flows the promised Spirit (John 7:37–39). The Spirit-streams do “not yet” flow until Jesus returns to his heavenly glory. At that time, the eschatological water of the Spirit would be given—the efflux of the heavenly temple would flow throughout the earth via “those who believed in him.” John 11:48–52 provides a final ironic treatment of the Jerusalem temple, reinforcing that Jesus has fulfilled the temple and its cult. Those who believe in Jesus will be gathered together as the messianic children of God with the Messiah himself as the new cultic center.

John weaves his story such that Jesus fulfills the temple in the first half of his Gospel and the corollaries of that are spelled out in the second half as Jesus prepares the community for his departure. In the second half of John’s Gospel, the temple theme recedes because it is a type that supports Jesus’ identity. The type has given way to reality and that heavenly reality is the personal presence of the glorified Son. The reality of the personal presence of the Father and Son is mediated to the community through the Spirit. For this reason, the Spirit grows more personal and significant in the Book of Exaltation.

From heaven, the Son sends the Spirit-presence who is no longer a cultic manifestation as much as a realization of the familial presence of Father and Son. Temple imagery has been eclipsed by relational imagery signaling a true realization of the Father’s personal presence to his children. This language dominates the Farewell Discourse and its Paraclete passages. The Spirit Paraclete is sent from the glorified Jesus to realize the heavenly realities in the community. The messianic community is then tasked with testifying and spreading these heavenly truths throughout the world (John 20:21–22).

Throughout John’s Gospel, several interwoven themes and terms support a heavenly realization theme. For instance, the Fourth Evangelist applies “glory, presence, and name” terminology to Jesus throughout his Gospel, first in temple imagery and then in personal imagery. In the Farewell Discourse this terminology is used to describe the glorified Jesus realizing the divine presence in, and through, the disciples. The occurrence of this terminology supports a heavenly temple realization theme, especially in combination with the themes related to Jesus’ origin and return to heaven. Jesus’ return to heaven, “from above/heaven,” “ascending/descending,” and “sending” themes consistently set Jesus’ identity and origin in the heavens. Because these themes also assume that Jesus will continue a ministry that spans from heaven to earth, they offer collaborating support for Jesus realizing heavenly realities.

Johannine dualism and eschatology also cohere with a heavenly temple realization theme. Jesus bridges the spatial dualism to realize presently eschatological blessings. These blessings include the renewing waters of the Spirit flowing from Jesus, the heavenly temple.

[end of abstract]

If I may be allowed to put in a plug for our school, let me point out that there are a few things Southeastern excels at for doctoral studies, and on the top of the list is Johannine studies. Dr. Köstenberger has not only written the Baker Exegetical commentary for John, but also has recently produced a Johannine theology. In addition, Dr. L. Scott Kellum has also specialized in John, and his dissertation on the farewell discourse in John 13-16 has been published in the prestigious T&T Clark "Library of New Testament Studies" monograph series.

My own advisor, Dr. David Alan Black, has done a lot of work on a lot of topics but has especially made academic contributions in Greek, textual criticism, Synoptic studies, and Pauline studies (his dissertation on the concept of "weakness" in the Apostle Paul's writings was recently revised and re-published with Pickwick Publications). In addition, Dr. Maurice Robinson (the professor for whom I grade) is an expert on textual criticism and co-editor of the 2005 Byzantine Greek New Testament; he has just finished collating every single manuscript that contains the pericope adulterae. Look for a major forthcoming work by him on that topic.

And that's just a few of the many fine scholars at Southeastern! At least SEBTS should be strongly considered an excellent option for any readers considering doctoral or Th.M. work.