Pisteuomen

An Interview About My Book "Entering The Fray"

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Tue, 27 May 2014 14:26:00 -0400

Hi Friends, I just wanted to point you in the direction of a recent interview I did about my book Entering the Fray. Thanks to Matt Montonini for doing the interview on his "New Testament Perspectives" blog and encouraging others to dig into the book. Check it out HERE. If you'd like to get a print or digital copy of the book you can do so on Amazon.com.

"Start Here!" - A New Grammar Resource For Students

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Mon, 5 May 2014 09:38:00 -0400

I am pleased to announce today, the release of a new language resource for students. The title of the project is:

Start Here! Grammatical Foundations for Students of New Testament Greek (A Student-Friendly Video Series). As the title suggests, this resource is video-oriented. It is divided up into 6 main lessons and contains around 5+ hours of grammatical instruction (see image to the left - click an image to enlarge it). Each lesson consists of a number of short, user-friendly / student-friendly videos and takes note of nearly 200 grammatical concepts that English learners / speakers who want to venture into learning Koine Greek should find helpful. The videos are available for purchase ($80) HERE. Once the purchase has been confirmed, buyers will be sent a download link. I hope that these videos will assuage some of the fears that students, especially beginners, have when journeying into learning Koine Greek.

The UK Game Delays School In KY

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Mon, 7 Apr 2014 12:51:00 -0400

In Kentucky, school gets called off, delayed, or ends early for many weather related events. My kids have missed more school this year than I think I ever missed in one year during my time as a student in K-12. It has been a crazy winter for KY and my kid's school has actually extended each day by 15 minutes to make up the lost time! I also saw just last week that the school in my hometown was put on a 1-hour delay because of a rainstorm (which presumably caused some roads to flood). But today I witnessed another first, that is, delaying school tomorrow (Tuesday) because of the UK Wildcats game tonight (Monday)! Check out the note to the left, which I just received from my kid's principal/school! (No, this is not a joke!) Yeah, the rumors are true, we're pretty hardcore about our college basketball around here! Go cats! #bbn

Ancient Greek Honor Society: Gamma Rho Kappa (GRK)

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Thu, 3 Apr 2014 10:51:00 -0400

Recently I had an opportunity to sit down with a friend and colleague, J. Klay Harrison, to discuss the newly launched (International) Ancient Greek Honor Society. The name of the society is Gamma Rho Kappa (GRK; see the logo to the left). In the interview we discuss the purpose of GRK among other things. You can listen to it for free HERE (scroll to the bottom of the page to download it for FREE). You can also learn more about GRK and read some relevant documents HERE. Chapters are already forming in academic institutions. Why not bring a GRK chapter to your school? Download the audio and click the above link to learn how.

5 Simple Ways To Be A "Missional" Family

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Tue, 1 Apr 2014 16:29:00 -0400

Before too long we will be celebrating the birthday of one of our children. We look forward to birthdays in the Halcomb household for several reasons, including the ones that most people enjoy: We celebrate each other and with each other, we get to play with family and friends, and we give gifts to the birthday boy/girl. But there's another reason that we enjoy birthdays in our family: We get to be missional!

As is the case with many American children, our kids have more toys than they need. Birthday parties tend to compound this problem. So, beginning with our daughter's third birthday, my wife and I decided that we would begin being missional by, instead of asking those coming to the birthday party to bring presents for the child, they would help us do mission work locally. Now, I'm not saying that we forbid our kids from receiving gifts on his/her birthday or that we, as parents, don't even give gifts--we do. But what I am saying is that on a day where most of the focus is on one of our kids, we also want our kids to make the most of that opportunity to help others. It is really nothing more than teaching kids at a young age to use what they have to make a difference for God's Kingdom in our local context.

So, for example, on our daughter's third birthday, the invitations asked guests to bring school supplies for a local school that desperately needed them and had children who needed them. After the party, I took our daughter to the school and she, a mere 3-year old gave the principal 3 loaded gift bags of school supplies. The principal welled up with tears and embraced our daughter with a big hug, and gave her very encouraging words. In recent years we have also had guests bring animal food/toys, etc., to the party for the local animal shelter, basketballs/baseballs and sports equipment for an inner-city YMCA, board games and toys for children of African refugee families, and this year blankets, sheets, and bedding materials for a local rescue mission/homeless shelter. Every time we go, we have the children give these gifts! We do all of this missionally, in the name of Jesus. It is a great way for a family to practice together making the most of opportunities and what they have, leveraging it for God's Kingdom. Give it a try! Your kids will learn how fulfilling it is to serve and give.

Another way that we are missional as a family, which is closely related to this, is by helping families during the holidays by participating in programs like the Heifer Project. The Heifer Project aims to end poverty and hunger and one of the ways it does so is by allowing folks to purchase and donate animals (such as chickens, cows, etc.) to families in other parts of the world that rely on them for sustainability. At Christmastime, for example, we have made donations in the names of family members and they have always been grateful. Our interaction with the Heifer Project has been a positive one and we'd encourage others to participate.

A third way that we are missional as a family is through sponsoring families and children in need. My wife and I have both worked very closely with one child sponsorship program, which we helped start, and have been involved with Compassion International for over a decade now. Two Ethiopia organizations we've really come to love are Transformation Love and EmbracingHope Ethiopia. We currently sponsor a few children through these ministries. Our kids really enjoy learning about Ethiopia (we have adopted and are adopting again from there) and my wife and I have even been able to meet our sponsored family in person.

Related to the previous paragraph, another way to be missional as a family is to sponsor families in the mission field. These ministers can be local or non-local (overseas). On our refrigerator door right now we have a few photos of missionaries that we think about and can pray for. We sponsor one missional family whose goal is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ in India.

Another way to be missional as a family, which not every family will likely be able to participate in, is through one's family business. When I launched the Conversational Koine Institute one of my goals was to leverage the educational process itself for those who need education. One way that I do that is to give a portion of the tuition that comes into CKI to a ministry that aims to do this. It has been wonderful, even in my first year of business, to be able to offer financial gifts to missionaries and ministers who seek to bring education and educational opportunities to those who traditionally have not had access to them. This is but another way to begin being missional as a family.

There are other ways that my family serves and shares in order to advance the Kingdom of God but these are five very concrete, practical ways. I share them because often times families are eager to be missional but lack the know-how to do so. Thinking about the upcoming birthday also got me thinking that these things might encourage others to be missional, whether in the same or different ways. Regardless, I think it is a great thing for Christian families to be showing their children how to be Kingdom-minded, Kingdom-aware, and missional at a young age. What neat and encouraging things does your family do to be missional?

2 SBL Papers Accepted

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 12:16:00 -0400

I just got word that my second paper (which is the limit for presenters) was accepted for the 2014 annual Society of Biblical Literature meeting in San Diego. This paper will be presented in the "Applied Linguistics for Biblical Studies" section and is titled "Setting Students Up To Fail Biblical Languages: An Assessment of Assessment." My other paper, which was accepted in the Global Education & Resource Technology section, is titled "ἡ καινὴ σχολή· Communicating Ancient Greek Via Modern Technologies." The Greek here (ἡ καινὴ σχολή) means "The New School," which is actually how it will appear in the SBL program because their platform, interestingly enough, is not able to handle Greek characters. Anyway, this is good news and I look forward to participating in both of these fine sections!

Free: 2 Videos & 1 Article

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:39:00 -0400

Hi friends,

I want to draw your attention to two FREE good videos, one of N.T. Wright and one of Greg Boyd, which you can see below. In addition, I want to draw your attention to a free article by Steve Runge which you can download HERE. Hope you find these resources helpful.

Are They Still Using The Criteria Of Authenticity?

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:34:00 -0400

Yesterday I started reading a book that I'm reviewing for a journal, a book that I'm already finding quite interesting. This new (2013) work by Michael J. Thate is published by Mohr Siebeck in their WUNT series and is titled Remembrance of Things Past?: Albert Schweitzer, the Anxiety of Influence, and the Untidy Jesus of Markan Memory. What I've read thus far is very well-written and thought-provoking. I am keen to continue reading the rest of the volume.

Before I get to Thate's thoughts on Chris Keith's work (as well as those who contributed to the anti- or post-criteria work he edited), two things should be mentioned. First, the end-goal of Thate's work should be noted. He says that this volume of his attempts "to (re)situate the historische Jesu Frage within the wider discussion of secularization both in terms of its history of interpretation as well as its contemporary constructions" (14). Further, it is an "experimental critique in the formation and reception of discourses and a theorizing of reception criticism" (14). The book is divided into two parts and the first of these focuses heavily on Albert Schweitzer's work. This leads me to the second point, that is, that Thate frames the whole discussion of historical Jesus studies in relation to Schweitzer, whom he (correctly) describes as one if its most influential and strongest voices, perhaps even "the strongest" (20).

In Thate's view, scholars have basically been attempting to break out of Schweiter's mould for centuries. In separating from him, they might believe that they can make a long-standing name for themselves. Scholars have longed to "escape his influence" and "'clear imaginative space' for new and exploratory approaches" to ancient Jesus materials. The attempt to escape, an attempt often made by striving to get out of Schweitzer's straightjacket and free from historical criteria, is something Thate says is actually a "tip-of-the-cap" to "Schweitzer's enduring genius" (20). That, I think, is a word on target.

Now, what's really important to note is that this attempt to escape criteria, what Chris Keith and others are attempting to do, is what Thate, drawing on Ward Blanton and Jacques Derrida, describes as "outbidding" (16). The attempt to escape from criteria is also an attempt to escape from the Quest for the Historical Jesus, which is characterized as unfounded and misguided by some scholars, including Morna Hooker, Scot McKnight, and others says Thate. But what is outbidding exactly?

Outbidding occurs when an interpreter of a tradition presents themselves, as Blanton (Displacing Christian Origins, 8) notes, "as outdoing the religious communities or traditions in view" so that they might then present "their own thought as a kind of 'purified' or 'originary' version of the religious tradition they criticized." In short, Thate is arguing that Chris Keith et. al., are outbidding when they attempt to overthrow Schweitzer and offer their own "pure" or "originary" alternatives; they see themselves as "doing Christianity one better" as it were, than their predecessor(s).

Thus, those like Keith, with their outbidding statements "entrench themselves against the history of interpretation as being misguided and operating within the wrong set of rationality" (16). But, says Thate, what really happens when those who issue calls "to terminate the use of the 'traditional methods employed by Jesus historians' is that without analyzing the doxa of these 'traditional methods'", they simply "change into something more comfortable" (16). Therefore, Thate contends that when Keith argues "if the historical-Jesus enterprise wishes to step out of its 'methodological quagmire' its only hope is through 'media criticism and memory theory,'" all he is really doing is taking the same old argument, that is, the "criterion" argument, and putting it in new dress. Or to cite Thate, "Though certainly promising on many counts, the purported 'post-criteria' approach adopted here (i.e. by Keith et. al.) cannot escape the erotics of 'authenticity' or the gaze of the originary. This is a Quest for the pure genre; the authentic genre; the real genre. As such, this amounts to little more than the criterion of authenticity in drag" (17).

In the end, according to Thate, "A 'post-criteria' approach" is really a type of re-aestheticizing and re-racializing "of the very criteria which they think they have left behind" (17). Readers of these anti- or post-criteria works, then, should not turn a blind eye to the processes of outbidding that are taking place and the redressing of old ideas; readers should beware.

Since I just started working through the volume, I still have some ground to cover. But I look forward to engaging what already seems to be a very learned, informative, and well-written, study. When I was writing my book Entering the Fray and writing my chapter on the the so-called Quests for the historical Jesus, or the history of historical Jesus research, one of the most enjoyable parts was reading and researching Schweitzer. So, I'm glad to read up on this influential man once again and Thate's work is already proving an enjoyable entree. I'm grateful for the opportunity to review this book.

PS: You can also get the .pdf version of Thate's dissertation HERE.

On Being Bold And Humble As A Bible Scholar

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:34:00 -0400

In the first post of this series, which you can read HERE, I talked about the notion of being wrong as a Bible scholar. In my discussion I considered the dangers of feeling like one always has to be right as well as the fears of being wrong. I noted that these fears can sometimes causes learners to freeze up, to stop in their tracks, and to not just "go for it" and put themselves and their work out there. This leads into today's post, which is concerned with being bold as a Bible scholar.

From the start, I should say that when I think about boldness I do so in relation to humility. One can be both bold and humble at the same time; these two things are not necessarily in opposition to one another. Being bold is not the same thing as being cold or being a jerk. Being bold has to do with finding the courage to maintain and share one's values without compromising in the face of pressure. It is not bandying to the whims or views of others so one is not left out of the "in crowd."

Within the academy there are at least two factors that scholars, especially young, budding, up-and-coming scholars, can easily fall prey to: 1) Buying into the so-called "majority views" at the fear/risk of being pegged as one of the non-majority; and 2) Compromising one's beliefs and views because some of those who are perceived to be thought leaders or the intellectually elite do not espouse such views. Both of these things are very much alive and well in the academy! I've experienced the pressure myself and I've seen my peers face the same.

But there comes a time in a scholar's life when they must decide that they will think through things critically, especially those things that seem to be popular at the moment. Fads, as in any sphere, come and go. People who buy into fads tend to be very easily influenced. Yet, a backbone is needed, a theological backbone especially. One must be bold enough not to be influenced in undue ways while at the same time being bold enough to change when the evidence (and Spirit!) calls for it.

Boldness is also needed to break new ground in this field. It is easy to go along with so-called "majority views" but that seldom leads to any new ground being tilled. When one has a new view, it is quite easy to suppress it out of fear. Some fear that they will be ousted, mocked, ridiculed, trampled over, etc. There is, in fact, good reason for such fears because these things do happen. The internet and social media has simply made it much easier to do. Now, anyone can start a blog, facebook, or twitter account and drag another person through the mud. So, a certain level of boldness is needed to not only deal with such things but to put oneself out there.

Now, when I speak of putting oneself out there, I do not simply mean starting a blog or twitter account and spouting off about whatever you want. Instead, what I'm talking about is putting one's research out there, one's work out there, and one's well-formulated ideas. Again, anybody can blog and much of the stuff on blogs, or the internet in general, does not meet the criteria of being well-formed or rooted in solid research. It is the deep research that exudes scholarly boldness, not mouthing off about something when the requisite study has not been undertaken. You see, when someone takes to writing on social media or blogs without the proper level of studiousness, what they'll tend to do is overcompensate; what they lack in scholarliness, they will often (more than) try to make up for in put-downs, name-calling, sarcasm, etc.

It takes no boldness to approach things this way. In fact, as we all know, these things are usually masks for deep insecurities. I know this personally. What does take boldness, however, is to have done deep research and to submit that research to the scholarly community for peer-review. Of course, people can bypass the peer-review process in this day and age and can basically even pay to do so. It takes some guts to go through this process!

So, to make it in this field part of what is needed is an appropriate amount of boldness coupled with humility. In my own life I know that when this equation becomes lopsided, I will most certainly say or write something I might just regret down the road. But all of this is part of the learning curve; it's all part of the process. As I move forward in my own scholarly journey, I will continue to examine where I'm at in this regard and strive to strike a fine balance. That takes some guts too, I think.

On Being Wrong As A Bible Scholar

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 16:53:00 -0400

Today I'm starting a series built around the theme "On Being A Bible Scholar." In each post of this series I am basically going to use some noun or adjective to help describe certain types of Bible scholars or certain characteristics of Bible scholars. I write these posts, of course, from the perspective of being "in the know" or within the circle; I also write as one who has often observed some of the traits in myself, so, when there are critiques, I'm definitely not exempt. So, to start the series off I want to talk about being "wrong" as a Bible scholar.

Being wrong is not something any of us, scholar or not, tends to aim for or to enjoy. Indeed, it would be rare to embark upon a goal with the hopes or intentions of being wrong. That, of course, is different than embarking on a goal with the realized possibility of being wrong. But there is a sense within the field of biblical studies that being wrong is to lose face, to lose social prestige or standing. Thus, it is in one's best interest to be right, even though that's not really possible all of the time (and we all know that).

Again, nobody sets out to be wrong but there are some dangers that come along with feeling like one has to be right all of the time. I have felt this pressure. One of those dangers is that it is easy to become closed-off or closed-minded when it comes to additional data, especially data that may call one's own view or hypothesis into question. Closely related to this is the danger of stunted intellectual and spiritual growth. The converse of this, however, is not necessarily true, that is, that to accept every idea that comes down the pipeline means you are intellectually superior or spiritually advanced. In fact, those types of actions can, in my view, be signs of weakness because they show an inability to reason through arguments and think for oneself. In addition, the fear of being wrong can truly inhibit the creative process and can even cause one to stall (whether temporarily or permanently) and never produce or put their work out. Recently, one of my students was expressing this sentiment to me, so, it is definitely real! But there is a sense in which we just have to go for it and put ourselves and our work out there.

Moving on, I might also say that when a Bible scholar always has to be right, another danger they can run the risk of is always being defensive. Now, being defensive is different than defending one's views. Being defensive is to hold a posture that listens to nobody, that responds to non-personal criticisms personally, that puts false words in the mouths of critics to slight or misrepresent them, and that isn't willing to entertain with any real seriousness counter-arguments. Offering a defense, however, is to hear a person out fully, with the intention of seeing if what they have to say can sharpen or better your own view (e.g. you may be bettered by allowing a certain view to be done away with).

In my own journey, I have had to relinquish views I once held dearly and I have adopted views I once called into question. This experience, however, was (and continues to be) formative. There are also times when I have found myself coming off to others as a know-it-all, an arrogant scholar. This has happened typically without me being aware of it. Thankfully, I've been blessed by a few honest people in my life who were willing to be truthful with me, and to point that out to me. So, I have been striving toward such self-awareness for a while now. I do not desire to to be the kind of scholar who must always be right and who resorts to belittling others if they call me or my views into question.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that being wrong is, in and of itself, virtuous. But I am saying that a posture of humility, which is a posture that leaves space to be wrong, is needed; such a posture, I do think is virtuous. Years ago, when I was very much into apologetics, I walked around with the former mentality while these days, more and more I aim for the latter. I always find it something of an admirable thing when reading a journal article or commentary and the author says, "In a former writing I held this view ___, but since then my understanding has changed." Such comments are encouraging and, as a newly minted PhD entering this field, I find that they help relieve some of the stress of always having to be right.

Should we strive to be right? Yes, I think so. But we should also strive to be humble. I love what Abraham Heschel once said, "When I was young, I admired clever people. Now that I'm old, I admire kind people." That remark has really been convicting in my life in the last few years. I have come to truly admire clever people who can advance scholarship while being kind and humble. The ability to mix cleverness with kindness is something rare, I think. Cleverness often breeds arrogance, which is at odds with kindness. Cleverness also often blinds one to the fact that they can be wrong.

While I think things like spirited debate and civil arguments are good and can even be edifying, I've also found that the danger of surety can often lead a Christian to step out of who they are in Christ, all in the name of scholarship, to prove they are either a) more clever, or b) more right than others. I'm the first to raise my hand in guilt. It is so easy, especially as a young scholar trying to rise in this field, to feel the need to have to prove oneself, establish oneself, and make a name for oneself, and in the process, to fall prey to always having to be right. Perhaps it's something we all need to be more aware of and reminded of with greater frequency.

Theological Educators Forum On Orality: Why Pronunciation Matters!

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:14:00 -0400

Here's a portion of the flyer for the upcoming "Theological Educators Forum on Orality" that I'll be participating in. In this presentation, which comes on the heels of one I gave at a conference last week titled "Never Trust a Greek...Professor: Revisiting the Question of How Koine Was Pronounced," I will really focus in on the so-called "Erasmian pronunciation" and the damage it has caused both inside and outside of the academy. The paper at the Forum on Orality is titled "Erasmian's Role in Linguistic Genocide: Issues Concerning Morality, Orality, and the Pronunciation of Koine Greek." There will be an audio version of this presentation available in an upcoming episode of the "Get Greek! Podcast" hosted by the Conversational Koine Institute. (The previously mentioned presentation will also be available in a forthcoming episode of the podcast.) In addition, Asbury Theological Seminary will be making a 7-minute follow-up video. I look forward to getting more of my research on the pronunciation of Koine out there and I hope it can be a catalyst in shifting the tides of pronunciation in Western colleges, universities, and seminaries.

New Book: "Speak Koine Greek: A Conversational Phrasebook"

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Mon, 3 Mar 2014 10:11:00 -0500

Hello friends, I am pleased today to announce the release of my newest book, co-authored with Dr. Fred Long, titled Speak Koine Greek: A Conversational Phrasebook. Speak Koine Greek contains over 240 sayings, expressions, phrases, idioms, and figures of speech from ancient (Koine) Greek. This work has been strategically arranged into simple categories (Getting in the Conversation, Staying in the Conversation, Ending the Conversation) with each entry ordered alphabetically by English glosses and followed by both a phrase that is similar or comparable in Koine as well as a source citation. Speak Koine Greek is a user-friendly compilation of expressions meant to help learners progress in fluency and knowledge of Koine while having fun doing so. You can purchase the book on Amazon.com HERE or HERE. As a further add-on, companion audio files for this book are available for purchase and download at the GlossaHouse website HERE.

Here are a couple of blurbs from the back cover:

"Michael Halcomb and Fred Long treat us to a smorgasbord of Koine Greek expressions for conversation. By learning how to speak in the language of the New Testament, which is what this book helps us do, one's reading ability of the Greek Bible can grow exponentially. I commend this book to students, teachers, or anyone interested in learning to converse in Koine Greek."

Wyatt Graham
Ph.D. Candidate, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

“As a busy Church planter I am always looking for fun and fresh ways to sharpen my understanding of Ancient Greek. This book does just that, helping the reader to speak, and so to think, Greek.”

Chad Graham
D.Min. Candidate, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

New Book On Sale Today!

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:18:00 -0500

I'm pleased to announce today that my newest book, Ποῦ Οἱ Σταφυλῖνοι Εἰσιν; (Where Are The Carrots?) is on sale for $7.65 HERE at Amazon.com. Ποῦ Οἱ Σταφυλῖνοι Εἰσιν; is a short story written in Koine Greek by Dr. T. Michael W. Halcomb and some of his family members. The story revolves around two horses and their missing carrots. Where did the carrots go? Did someone take them? Read and/or listen this fun tale to find out!

This is the first story in the new διήγημα ἐν τῇ Κοινή διαλέκτῳ (A Story in Koine) series, which is part of the "Conversational Track" in GlossaHouse's "AGROS" curriculum suite. In addition to the print version of the book a listen-along audio file is also available for purchase below. The audio file contains a 6-year old female child reading the story and also an adult male reading the story.

In addition, there is a watch-along video (in an animated flip-book/page-turn style) of the book available for purchase below. Purchase the audio and video files together an save (see below)!

The print version of the book is sold separately from audio/video companion files.	The print version can be purchased HERE (Amazon) or HERE.
Audio Only ($5.99)
Video Only ($7.99)
Audio + Video ($11.99)

A Live Performance of Philemon

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:03:00 -0500

Here is a performance that I recorded of Dr. David Rhoads performing Philemon at the 2013 SBL pre-conference Performance Criticism event in Baltimore, MD. Enjoy!

Upcoming Conference Papers/Presentations

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:17:00 -0500

Despite having finished the Ph.D., life has not slowed down; indeed, I'm still just as busy as ever...maybe even more so. In addition to teaching 8 classes at the Conversational Koine Institute this semester and launching the CKI podcast, among other things, I am preparing to deliver several papers. As a well-known presenter once said, "I'll keep doing it until I die or the audiences die." Hopefully, neither will be the case this time around but on the off-chance that you might be interested in what's on the horizon, here are some of the titles (with at least two more, which are not listed here, waiting to be confirmed):

* "Never Trust a Greek...Professor: Revisiting the Question of How Koine was Pronounced" (Stone-Campbell Journal Conference, Knoxville, TN - March 14-15)

* "Acknowledging an Overlooked Element in Markan Christology: 'Preparing the Way' for a Reconsideration of Mk 1:1-4" (Stone-Campbell Journal Conference, Knoxville, TN - March 14-15)

* "Erasmian’s Role In Linguistic Genocide: Issues Concerning Orality, Morality, and the Pronunciation of Koine Greek" (Theological Educators Forum on Orality, Wilmore, KY - April 3-4) - *Note: This essay will be collected for publication.

* "ἡ καινὴ σχολή· Communicating Ancient Greek Via Modern Technologies" (Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Diego, CA - November 22-25) - *Note: This essay may be collected for publication.

FREE Koine Greek Reading of Genesis 1:1-5

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:55:00 -0500

A FREE dramatic audio recording of Genesis 1:1-5 in Koine Greek has been posted over at the Conversational Koine Institute. Check it out and even download it. While you're there, have a look around the site and come learn to speak biblical Greek with us!

46 Reasons Why You Don't Want To Pastor A Church

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:14:00 -0500

As many of you know, I have been serving in some capacity in a church for over a decade now. I love the church. I'm an advocate of "church renewal," which we good Methodists talk a lot about. Not only do I think church renewal is needed, I believe it can happen. I think it begins with education, specifically a robust theological education. So, as you read this, know that I love the church. If you don't keep that in mind, you'll certainly misread me.

I have served in the children/youth pastor role, sr. pastor role, assistant pastor role, worship leader role and Bible study and Sunday school teacher role. I've sat in board meetings and voted, I've led mission trips, I've planned events...I've worn many hats and assumed many roles in the church. I love the church! In spite of the many times I've been burnt, mistreated and criticized, I still love the church. In spite of the fact that my wife was once mugged during a church service by a couple of street thugs, I still love the church. I've written books for the church and I continue, with the Conversational Koine Institute, to teach ministers and pastors Koine Greek.

I'll say it again, just to be clear, "I love the church."

I have been teaching the last three years (almost) at the same church as a Sunday school teacher. I love doing it. I love not being paid to do it. I think that my class is probably the most unique class in any United Methodist church anywhere; they are a great group of people. Did I tell you, "I love the church"? I do!

But I, personally, didn't love being a pastor. Sure, there were great times and times that I enjoyed. But I didn't love it. And there were many reasons for that. I left the pastorate over 5 years ago and honestly, I haven't looked back. And honestly, I don't have any intentions of doing so. But I teach (and probably always will teach) people who are either in or considering being pastors. I love them too! I care deeply about them. I know firsthand many of the things they will struggle with or are struggling with. I've been there; I can relate. I want to help them and I also want to educate them, not just in educational types of subjects but also in regards to ministry- and pastor-related things. I've had many friends, Bible college friends, leave the ministry. And some of the reasons for that can be found on my list below.

When I was in Bible college, all I wanted to do was be a pastor. Once I got into it, however, I realized that there were many dynamics, variables and matters that I simply had no desire to be part of. So, why am I saying all of this? Well, this post was prompted, in part, by a blog post that Dr. David Murray of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary wrote titled "21 Reasons Why You Don't Want To Be A Seminary Professor." I think he made some okay points but, in fact, I think he overstated his case quite a bit (especially with all of his definitive "you will" statements). In conversation with a friend about this, I was asked if any of the things on this list were or were not experienced that led to me moving away from desiring to be a pastor. So, I wrote this post.

Basically, what I did was take Dr. Murray's 21 reasons "not to be a seminary professor" and pretty much in a "word for word" manner (except I changed his "you will" to "you may"), simply added on to them. Thus, in the list you'll find below, there first 21 "reasons" are his, except I've added the material after the periods of ellipsis ("..."). In short, I've taken his reasons "not to be a seminary professor" and used those same exact responses, all the while giving more explicit details, about why you might not want to be a pastor of a church. In addition, I've added 25 additional reasons (totaling 46). I could've come up with more, for sure, but I decided to push the pause button there. So...

I want to preface this list again by reiterating, one last time, that I love the church. I'm not bashing the church. All I'm attempting to do here is to give a list of reasons why folks who might be considering the pastorate, should question such considerations. So, please, don't make me "lose my faith in you" because you want to distort or misread what I say here, as if I'm bashing the church or pastors/ministers in general. That's simply not the case!

46 Reasons Why You Don't Want To Pastor A Church

You may lose the joy of seeing souls saved through your preaching...when you later see them fall away.
You may lose the joy of helping people in the toughest life situations...because they don't help you in yours.
You may lose the joy of feeding and edifying God’s people...because they never feed and edify you (or are even concerned with this).
You may lose the joy of shepherding children through teenage years and into adulthood...because you realized that, at the same time, you neglected your own children.
You may lose the joy of preaching evangelistic sermons...because you realize nobody really, truly wants to do evangelism.
You may lose the joy of building long-term spiritual relationships...because people often move away.
You may lose the joy of taking responsibility for your own flock...when they bash, criticize and badmouth you over Sunday lunch and to others during the week (and sometimes to your face)
You may lose the joy of developing and working with a team of leaders...because you'll realize they're not really leaders in their homes, communities or the church.
You may lose the joy of helping people make massive life decisions...that can backfire and come back to haunt you.
You may lose the joy of seeking a fresh word from the Lord for His people...who don’t really listen to that word; it just goes in one ear and out the other.
You may lose the joy of preaching to a people you know intimately...and who, because they know those deep things, may hold what they know about you against you or for blackmail.
You may lose the joy of seeing long-term spiritual maturity...because people in the church often just do not want to become spiritually mature; it's just too much work.
You may lose the joy of seeking and recovering lost sheep...because you'll eventually be the only one in the church with that burning desire; it's just too much work.
You may lose the joy of seeing God miraculously provide for the church’s financial needs...because the wealthy in the church may take care of it and when they do, gain some political power.
You may lose the joy of being loved by young, middle-aged, and old Christians...because only one of those groups can really relate to you at a time and vice versa.
You may lose the joy of learning from the least educated and gifted of saints...and they may hold that over your head, warning you of the dangers of (your) education.
You may lose the joy of identifying and growing people’s gifts...because they may use those gifts to try to manipulate you for their own gain.
You may lose the joy and privilege of bearing the scars of pastoral ministry...because we all know earning and bearing scars from those in your flock is a joy.
You may lose the joy of winning over enemies in your congregation...because they may make your life hell and try to divide the church if it comes down to it.
You may lose the joy of helping Christians die...even though in the years after the funeral, the family may forget all of the ways you helped and served them.
You may lose the blessing of God if you are pursuing a calling God did not give you...and your congregants may remind you, maybe even often, that this might not be your calling.
You may lose the joy of developing theologically because the church doesn't want you to change your views.
You may lose the joy of deep, intensive Bible study because so many other things may demand your time.
You may lose the respect you once had for elders because you see how they really speak, think and carry themselves both in meetings and in life.
You may lose the respect you once had for deacons because you see how they really speak, think and carry themselves both in meetings and in life.
You may lose the respect you once had for the church when you see its dark, political underbelly.
You may lose respect for other ministers when you uncover their real motives and experience their frequent power trips.
You may lose the respect you once had for congregants when you see how they treat your spouse and children.
You may lose the fire you once had because everybody in the church expects you to do the work.
You may lose time watching your kids grow up because every night of the week something's going on at church and you're expected to participate.
You may lose your sense of self-worth because you feel pressured into taking sides with people to keep your job.
You may lose the joy of ministry you once had because now that money is involved it is a job, not a ministry.
You may lose out on family time because you can never really go away for the weekends.
You may lose your patience with the hypocrisy of congregants when they consistently judge themselves by their motives but judge you by your actions.
You may lose respect for your fellow brothers and sisters in the faith when you see and hear how they treat others both inside and outside the church.
You may lose the desire to teach because you may realize that people don't want to mature spiritually and really don't care about the Bible.
You may lose hope in people when they "switch churches" because they were too immature to deal with an issue.
You may lose close friendships when people move away.
You may lose your sense of awe for the Gospel because church becomes about numbers and statistics rather than spiritual growth.
You may lose respect for yourself when you cave to the demands of others.
You may lose your sense of pride and allegiance in God's Kingdom when you see everyone mixing it with nationalism and patriotism.
You may lose the love you had for people when, after you leave, nobody reaches out to you, keeps in touch with you or continues ministering to you and your family.
You may lose your desire to preach when people stand up during your sermons and challenge you in front of everyone (yes, this happens!).
You may lose your desire to see the youth ministries grow because you realize that this so-called ministry actually perpetuates spiritual and intellectual immaturity.
You may lose the friends you once made because once you go to another church the so-called "friends" now want nothing to do with you and have no time for you.
You may lose heart because you will be criticized for being lazy and only working 1 day per week...and working a non-laborious job at that.

Hmm... and this list doesn't even include mention of scandals really, like the one I experienced as a member of the high school youth group where the pastor's teen daughter had an affair with the youth pastor. The youth pastor eventually left and divorced his wife, with whom he had two children, and married the girl. Sadly, he's still a music minister and his wife is involved in such capacities from time to time too. Yes, these sorts of things are real and disorienting and if you're going into the pastorate, you should not only be aware of them but ready for them.

If the pastorate is for you, that's great. If not, that's fine too. As I said above, "I love the church. I'm not bashing the church. All I'm attempting to do here is to give a list of reasons why folks who might be considering the pastorate, should question such considerations. So, please, don't make me "lose my faith in you" because you want to distort or misread what I say here, as if I'm bashing the church or pastors/ministers in general. That's simply not the case!" I wish pastors didn't have to face any of these things but that's simply not the reality.

Colossians Remixed: A Review, Pt. 2

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:24:00 -0500

This week I made it into chapter 1 of Colossians Remixed and I must say, it was a bit more amenable to me than the preface. Here, the authors do some of what they forecasted in the preface with regards to allowing the types of persons/students they engage to raise questions, particularly about Christianity and more specifically about the Bible. The chapter is bracketed between the beginning and ending of a narrative about a fellow named William, a thorough-going postmodernist. Although this book is a over a decade old and some have declared that we are currently in a Post-postmodern era (or metamodern, pseudo-modern, etc.), Walsh and Keesmaat offer an inviting overview and foray into the concept of postmodernism. In fact, I was quite a bit surprised by the fact that they critiqued it as they did.

For example, they describe postmodernism’s “grand tale of progress” as a “myth that requires faith,” whose “story’s foundational assumptions themselves require faith” (30). They ask, “And on what basis, other than a perversely blind, self-interested faith, can we justify the assumption of global capitalism that is permissible to ruin one place or culture for the sake of another?” (30) These comments stem from their views that “the progress of autonomous humanity” (30), is driven by capitalism more than anything else. Yet, for Walsh and Keesmaat, capitalism, a social structure intimately linked to militarism, is both the base and catalyst for imperialism. Put differently, perhaps more into layman’s terms: A lust for money and (military) power makes up the DNA of empires.

In their view, America is an empire. But the irony, at least for postmodernists, is that “While postmodernity wants to celebrate diversity and otherness, empires are all about hegemony and sameness” (31). Yet, the American empire, they say, has no reason to fear because when one’s goal is autonomous humanity, that is, self-ruled existence, then one’s goal is to ask, knock and seek for things that please the self. So, persons go searching for what they think will make them happy; they are searching for things, or “commodities” to use a bit of a fancier term. Eventually, everything becomes a commodity, a thing to be had. This includes religion.

The problem with postmodernism is that there are no guidelines for figuring out which commodities or things are best, true, moral and ethical. There is no framework, there is no undergirding story, there is no metanarrative that guides one in decision-making. Thus, in the face of resisting absolutes, persons become confused, or to use another fancy term, they become “fragmented.” As they say, “The fragmented self does not need to buy into any metanarrative of progress or make her choices according to any coherent or rational system of values” (32).

Interestingly, Walsh and Keesmaat contend that the promotion of Christian absolutes is unbiblical and something that they find problematic and unhelpful, something that they themselves will argue against later in the book (34). So, at one and the same time, the authors critique postmodernism but also side with it in their rejection of absolutes. How can they do this? They do this by claiming that places like America should be viewed as empires (that is, places where a lust for money and power are the driving forces). Postmodernism itself actually props up such empires because it simply plays into the empire. How? Well, if money and power is what the empire seeks, postmodernists give that very thing to the empire when they treat everything like a commodity. In short, they spend their time shopping and their money shopping and thus, they buy into and help stabilize the empire.

Thus, the question that Walsh and Keesmaat seem to be raising for postmodernists is this: Which empire do you want to be part of? By buying into the Western (American) socio-political empire, you ultimately become a pawn; you are not actually autonomous, that is simply a lie you are telling yourself, a lie the media is reiterating and a lie the government/empire aims to perpetuate. But…

…Christianity is actually an anti-empire movement, it is a movement that challenges the very authorities and structures that you are suspicious about (but unwittingly participate in and sustain). The unfortunate reality is that Christianity has been painted as the empire. So, which empire do you want to be part of? The one that you’ve been told by everyone else is an empire, or the one that actually is the empire and has, almost unbeknownst to you, lured you into it? But Walsh and Keesmaat say that this isn’t really a matter of simply trading one absolute for another (34). Their goal in moving forward, then, is to show that Colossians “is seriously misread if approached as an Absolute Text…” (34).

Admittedly, the authors do not talk much about Colossians in this chapter. So, it remains to be seen where their engagement with Colossians will go. Little was said in this chapter that I take much issue with. I think their analysis of postmodernism was fair. I find their equation with America quite interesting, especially as they are both Canadians. Although I do not consider myself a patriot or patriotic, neither am I sure that I would classify America as an empire; America has not established world dominion or a global rule and America, for all of its foibles, still touts and (to some degree) practices democracy. Further, America’s citizens are for all intensive purposes “free” and not under a strained and severe dictatorship. I could go on about this but I do think it is something of a misnomer. Yes, America’s drive is often for money and power and the stories it creates to accrue, maintain and advance these things are seductive and prominent. Yet, to boil it down to these things is, I think, a bit simplistic. Again, I say that as one who is often very critical of this country and who resists its metanarrative(s) and myths.

So, we’ll see where this book takes us in the next chapter; hopefully, it will take us to Colossians.

Colossians Remixed: A Review, Pt. 1

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:33:00 -0500

A number of years ago I came across a book by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat titled Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire. At the time, I didn't pick it up or give it much thought. Recently, however, I was invited to be part of a very small reading/discussion group that plans to read through this work. So, now I have the volume and am reading it and I plan to blog my way through it as far as time allows. I will strive do this in a way that comports with the schedule of our group's meetings, that is, once a week toward the end of every week. This morning we had our first meeting and we just spent a little bit of time discussing the preface, thus, that's where I begin my review.

The preface of this book, which spans only five pages, raised a number of questions for me. Walsh and Keesmaat, who are spouses, begin by exploring the idea of a "remix," which is a word used in the main title. They consider "remixing" to be, at its best, a "revoicing" (7) of an original song in a new context. Applied to Colossians, the idea is that they will help "revoice" Colossians so that it might be heard in new ways for today's readers. The idea of "remixing," I think, is a creative one but the whole notion of revoicing the text actually raises some questions and concerns for me: 1) Does the text really need to be given a new voice? 2) Might a recovery of the original voicing of Colossians be a more worthwhile endeavor? 3) Related to the previous question, at some points it does seem that Walsh and Keesmaat will actually aim to recover the original voice of Colossians, which raises the question of why there needs to be a revoicing at all? For example, they contend that Colossians was "an explosive and subversive tract in the context of the Roman empire" and that "Paul's letter...engenders a similarly alternative way of life in our midst" (7). To the novice reader there are scholarly buzzwords that may go unnoticed here, which are quite important to be aware of. For example, "subversive," "Roman empire" and "alternative way of life" all carry important connotations.

The notion that Paul was subverting the Roman empire with this letter is obviously a clue that we are dealing with a post-colonial hermeneutic. The problem with many such readings, however, is that those who use them tend to find at every corner and under every rock in the New Testament, some relation to imperial subversion. Most of the time these inferences are quite implicit and some exegetical gymnastics must be done to try to draw out such meanings. I'm not sure if Walsh and Keesmaat will take this route but a quick glance at the table of contents seems that this may well be the case. Just as well, the language of "alternative way of life," which is equated with "alternative lifestyle" in today's culture, is often more than a generalization of anti-government but more specifically a reference to the acceptance, embracing and promoting of the gay agenda and lifestyle. It is hard to think that the authors use such language accidentally. Thus, one expects this phrase to function as a "preview of coming" attractions for the rest of the work. We'll see.

In the preface the authors refer to their this work as an "anti-commentary" (7), a descriptor they use to try to distinguish this book about Colossians from other (i.e. traditional commentaries) works on Colossians. Yet, there is more to this term than might initially meet the eye. It seems to me that the "anti-commentary" remark functions also as a means of critique, especially of the academy and academics. They, after all, aren't writing for "religious people like pastors and professors" (8). In short, they attempt to distance themselves and in doing so, seem to treat today's religious institutions and academic institutions as empires that need to be subverted. The irony is that, as they are both products of religious establishments and academic institutions, they are striving to find a way to bill their own work as a critique of these entities; out of the gate they portray themselves as empire subverters. This is their worldview; this is the framework they operate out of. In fact, they go on to say that their own "Christian household" is the "testing ground" for anything they say in this book (9). So, they make it abundantly clear from the beginning that they are on Paul's side and that, like him, they are empire subverters. Perhaps the irony at this point is that many have actually criticized Paul of being pro-Roman empire. After all, isn't Christianity, especially Christianity in the West, much indebted to Paul? Hasn't Protestant Christianity relied on Paul? Isn't Christianity, then, an empire of its own to be subverted? Do Walsh and Keesmaat acknowledge this or does it go unrealized? I suppose I'll have to keep reading to figure that out but I do think that it would be interesting to find them siding with Paul so much, when it is Paul who, in large part, has been a foundation stone for the so-called empire of modern Western Christianity. Again, we'll see.

My biggest concern with the preface, however, is with the authors' comments on page 8 where they repeatedly refer to the "questions that we (Walsh and Keesmaat) bring to the text." They say just after this, "Ours is a cultural, political, social and ecological reading of this text because these are the kinds of questions that our friends and students ask" (8). Now, I'm all for authors laying their cards on the table and contextualizing themselves, I think there is merit in that. However, these types of comments raise major red flags for me. In my view, the work of being a good reader and interpreter of the Bible comes not by bringing one's questions to the text and attempting to mine the text for answers (we call this eisegesis - reading into the text what we want to read into it) but rather going to the text and discovering, wrestling with and attempting to answer the questions that the text raises. You see, there is a major difference between those two things! Going to the text in order to ask very specific questions of it almost always means that one's reading of the text will end up being slanted; it will almost always end up being bent to fit one's agenda. Given the comments by the authors, I worry that in reading this text I will find it to be light on good exegesis and heavy on slanting Paul's words to fit modern agendas. And this, I think, is dangerous. In fact, it is in my view a form of colonialism in and of itself. It can be no different than using the text the way that slave owners did to support slavery in early America. The only difference is that it is working in the other direction. That, however, is not meritorious in and of itself because in the end, it almost always does damage to the text, its interpreters and the church...maybe even society and society's impression of the church.

There is another thing that worries me about this book given the remarks of the preface. In their effort to "seek to hear Colossians anew in our cultural context" (8), the author's say, "Might the Pentagon or IBM or the International Monetary Fund be contemporary parallels to the rulers and authorities that put Jesus on the cross?" This question is very revealing and makes me question the hermeneutical/interpretive foundations of the authors. I wonder if their approach is what I might call "The New Dispensationalism" or maybe "The New Literalism." Why? Well, one of the biggest problems with the Dispensationalist approach to Scripture is that it goes to biblical texts and looks for parallels between what's on the page and today's world (this, as I noted already, is the problem with making the starting point one's own presuppositions, ideologies, questions, etc.). Thus, Dispensationalists find in Scripture references to helicopters and army tanks and governments implanting chips, etc; they draw wild parallels. When Walsh and Keesmaat draw such parallels, it is, in some ways, similar. However, because "empire studies" are the "in-thing" right now, their suggestions don't seem as far-fetched or crazy. I wonder if, in a decade or two from now, such works and their questions will be looked at with the same suspicions that many Dispensationalist readings are today? The search for parallels and one-to-one correspondences, this type of literalism, is typically quite dangerous and damaging to the text. (As you can tell, preventing damage to the text is a chief concern of mine.)

So, when the authors get around to saying that "we would not propose a way of life that we ourselves were not living out" (9), at this point, I'm a little reluctant to be following both their proposals and their ways of living; I'm just not sure at this point that they are the folks I want to be my guides in such matters. Yet, I'm willing to engage their work and give them an ear but I do have concerns. It seems that in the introduction there is quite a bit about N.T. Wright, a friend and mentor to the authors. I think that an acknowledgement of one's influences is a good thing. Yet, it almost seems that there's a little too much about Wright and that this is used to give validity to the book; he receives probably a page and a half of five pages. Wright himself does recommend the text on the back cover and for many, this likely carries a bit of weight. Wright, of course, is a prominent figure in biblical studies and has become something a household name for academics in the field. It is interesting to me, again, that the authors can be so invested in subverting the academic empire and at the same time, borrowing its prestige to lend credence to their work. Again, there's a tension here that just makes me as a reader uncomfortable.

Despite the closing remarks that the authors both long to be part of the empire of Jesus, which "liberates" rather than "enslaves" (11), one has to wonder how self-aware the claims of such folks are when they've been a part of and climbed the ladder(s) of the so-called empire(s) they are critiquing all along? I think that's where negotiating the whole anti-imperial hermeneutic gets quite tricky. It is usually those who've been raised in the so-called empires they are supposedly critiquing that benefit from said empires by selling books, giving public (and oftentimes paid) lectures, etc. How does this balancing act work?

I want to say, as I close this portion of my review, that I realize that this review is probably seen as somewhat negative. I don't like writing negative reviews. But these are all genuine questions and concerns that Walsh's and Keesmaat's preface raise for me. And perhaps the questions and concerns would be welcomed by them. After all, would it be right or just to live in an empire-like context where such a (re)voicing was silenced or muted? So, while I have my concerns and cautions moving ahead with this book and while I think I can anticipate some directions in which they are headed, I will say, as an author myself, that writing a book is no small feat and that these two were able to do so while maintaining a strong devotion to their children is something I do, in fact, find admirable. Kudos to them on that front. I look forward to the possibility of reading and discussing the book in the weeks ahead.

God-Man Talk At Christmas: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 7 (A Repost)

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:00:00 -0500

During Christmastime, in the Christian tradition, we hear over and over that Jesus is God made flesh. To put it differently, Jesus is the "God-man". The traditional teaching in Christianity is that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, she miraculously conceived a child as a virgin and gave birth to Him. Thus, He was "God's Son" or "The Son of God". In the opening verses of Mark's Gospel, the nomenclature is used: Jesus the Messiah, "Son of God" (Grk: υιος θεος). It also appears in Mk. 5 (Gerasene Demoniac story) and Mk. 15 (story of the Roman Soldier at the cross).

Interestingly, this title is not unique to Christendom and it is certainly not unique to Jesus. Nearly 50 years before Jesus stepped on the scene, Octavian was already referring to himself as the divi filius (the Latin of υιος θεος). For the 30 years prior to Jesus' birth Augustus was also being called this. During the rule of Tiberius, we know that his ruling son, Germanicus, also referred to himself (and had others refer to him) this way too. Elsewhere in Greek writings, we find that followers of Asklepius, Dionysius and Zeus, among other so-called deities, were referred to as the "sons" of that god.

In Jewish literature we find "son of God" language in Dan. 7 and Psa. 110. A. Y. Collins has also written an article that shows where this phrase can be found in Dead Sea Scroll literature. Among Hebrew persons, this phrase seems to have been a reference to a coming Messiah. The fact is, in scores of documents and inscriptions, all dated before Jesus, this label is used. It is found in both the biblical texts and in extra-biblical texts; it is found in Jewish lit. and Graeco-Roman lit. as well.

So, what do we make of this? How might it affect the language we use at Christmas? To answer the first question, I would suggest, along with A. Deissmann, that even if the "Son of God" characterization originated in Hebrew circles, by the time it came to be applied to Jesus, that is, in a predominantly Graeco-Roman society and culture, Gentiles were hearing and understanding it in a bit of a different light than their Jewish counterparts (and vice versa). Not only was this a "messianic" reference, it was also a socio-politically subversive title (e.g. there is a new King / Ruler on the empirical playing field now!). Moving on to answer the second question: What this means for us at Christmastime is that while this title is not unique to Jesus, it still has significant meaning. Probably, it is not a title that refers specifically to the "virginal conception / birth" but rather, to Jesus as the coming Messiah, again, the "new" Ruler. In other words, at Christmastime, during Advent, when we use the phrase "Son of God" it is probably more correct for us to use it in terms of focusing on the "coming" or "arrival" of the Messiah and not necesarrily on the notion that He was "virgin born". It would have resounded in the ears of the first believers as a type of subversive political mantra too: You don't have to submit to evil authorities, follow Me, I am your King.

All I am suggesting here is that when we use the title applied to Jesus by the first Christians, we use it to reflect on Jesus' advent, not necesarrily the way that advent happened. I realize it may seem like I'm splitting hairs here because reflecting on His advent leads to reflecting on His conception. However, many times the great theological truth of His arrival or coming simply gets overshadowed by how it happened. So, I am simply contending that this holiday season, we focus not only on the "how" but also, and maybe even moreso, on the "why" and "who" of Christmas. I am also suggesting that we do some socio-religio-political reflection; let us consider how Jesus affects and penetrates all of these spheres of our lives today. Also, think about how being a Christian during this season may cause you to be subversive to all sorts of evil and oppressive "empires"...even your own! But most of all, make sure you give Jesus the praise and honor that is due to Him, the Son of God, the Messiah, our King. Merry Christmas!!!

Was Mary Scandalous? Was She Raped?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 6 (A Repost)

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:21:00 -0500

What better time than Christmas to resurrect old arguments about the birth of Jesus, right? Let's take, for example, the dated notion that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was raped by a Roman soldier named Panthera. This, actually, is a viewpoint that the modern filmmaker (and member of theJesus Seminar), Paul Verhoeven, is attempting to make in a movie and write a book about. The title of the book is Jesus Of Nazareth: A Realistic Portrait. But is the notion that Mary was raped, actually realistic? Or better yet, is this an argument we can place any stock in? Not so much because it troubles me theologically but because I can find no good evidence that would cause me to subscribe it, leads me to say "No" to both answers. More on this in a moment!

Let me digress a little bit here and ask another question, one that has also been around a while but also seems to get brought up at Christmastime: Did God rape Mary? Was the miraculous conception an act of interpersonal violence? Did God force Himself on the young Jewish girl? Is God some type of serial rapist? Could this story only work in a culture where patriarchy silenced women and left them with no voice? Well, let's start with the last question, to which I would answer "No". For one, this story has persisted through the ages. For two, women were not totally silenced (even when raped) in antiquity, as the OT story of Tamar attests. Further, the society (dominated by males) actually developed laws to protect women from rape and to punish men who carried out such acts. See Ex. 22.15-6 and Dt. 22.25-9. On a side note, the OT is replete with links to rape (Gen 20, 26, 34; Ex. 22.15-6; Dt. 22.25-9; 1 Kgs. 1, Jer. 20.7, Ezk. 16, 23; Jdg. 19-21; 2 Sam. 13, etc.). Even Tamar, who was raped, is mentioned in Jesus' lineage. Realizing that women had a "right" to say "no", when we read birth narratives about Jesus, we actually find Mary saying "yes" (e.g. "I am your bondservant..."). She is choosing to proceed with the event.

I wish I could go more into this (and perhaps I will at a later time) but from a narrative point-of-view, Mary is not raped by God. As odd as it seems to say it, the act appears "consensual". So, did they have sex? Was there some kind of "divine hookup"? Well, not really. The Gospels say (and Christian tradition affirms) that it was through the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary that she became pregnant. In Christian theology, the belief is that the Holy Spirit never forces Himself upon persons but that only enters their life upon invitation. Clearly, the Gospel story / stories depict Mary as inviting God to work in her life. So, did God rape Mary? If we take the point-of-view of the Gospels--written by males in a patriarchal culture, who, if they had wanted to show "male dominance" could have easily made it seem like "divine rape"--we can say "No".

Now, back to the Roman soldier named Panthera. Where did this story even come from? Well as best as I can tell, it pops up in a 2nd-century document written by the Christian philosopher named Origen (who, perhaps, recieved it from Ambrosius). In a work he titled Against Celsus, he notes that another philosopher, named Celcus, was promoting this idea. Now, I have included all of chapter 32 of Against Celsus below so that you can read it for yourself. But if you read it, and do that in context, you will see that Origen is not all that concerned with defending a theology of a virginal conception or birth. Instead, what he is concerned with doing--and this fact bears out through the entirety of the work--is to argue, against Celsus, that Christians aren't simplistic thinkers (or stupid). To be able to do this, oddly, Origen feels like he has to prove that Jesus was not born from an ignorant Roman soldier but that His birth was legitimate. As Origen says at the end of chapter 32: "It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men (to avoid prejudice, I do not say all), stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities." For Origen, it is important that Jesus be "superior" and have "excellent" qualities. In other words, to prove that Christians are great thinkers, Origen felt like he had to show first that Jesus was great. This is an odd approach to say the least.

Before leaving Origen, I should also point out that elsewhere, Origen is not hesitant to tie the incarnation of Jesus to the Pax Romana (Roman Peace). Origen thought Jesus' incarnation was God's way of proving that the Pax Romana was the way to establish world peace. The Graeco-Roman guild of NT scholarship argues the opposite of this view across the board; indeed, Origen would not find welcome in those circles today!

What I find most interesting about Origen's work is that it is not a defense of the virginal conception, in the main. In fact, he does not seem all that concerned with the theological concept. Of course, neither do any of the apostle Paul's writings point to the virgin birth (some have argued that Gal. does), nor do any of the other NT documents. Only Matthew and Luke mention it directly (though the saying in Mk. may be another allusion). There is little even in the NT dealing with this matter. Though Paul's letters were highly occasional, one wonders why he never drew any theological concepts from the conception if it were so significant? What about the other writers?

While there is little said about the virginal conception, it goes without saying that the Gospel writers aim to be clear on the matter: Mary was not raped and she was not the victim of scandal, neither was she scandalous herself. What took place was an act between Mary and God. If a rape consists of violating personal consent, taking advantage of a vulnerable person, misusing power and authority (as happens with so many ministers today!!!), then the Gospel story cannot be found guilty and as such, neither can God. Just as well, Mary is presumed innocent (as the Early Church's end-view attests to).

Origen, Against Celsus (chp. 32)

But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera; and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions. Is it at all agreeable to reason, that he who dared to do so much for the human race, in order that, as far as in him lay, all the Greeks and Barbarians, who were looking for divine condemnation, might depart from evil, and regulate their entire conduct in a manner pleasing to the Creator of the world, should not have had a miraculous birth, but one the vilest and most disgraceful of all? And I will ask of them as Greeks, and particularly of Celsus, who either holds or not the sentiments of Plato, and at any rate quotes them, whether He who sends souls down into the bodies of men, degraded Him who was to dare such mighty acts, and to teach so many men, and to reform so many from the mass of wickedness in the world, to a birth more disgraceful than any other, and did not rather introduce Him into the world through a lawful marriage? Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions? It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men (to avoid prejudice, I do not say all), stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities.

The Magi: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 5 (A Repost)

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Mon, 23 Dec 2013 18:26:00 -0500

Throughout Christian history, the magi (Grk: μαγοι) have become a central part in Jesus' birth narrative. Yet, there are some good reasons for us to step back, survey their roles in the story, and ask some new questions. We shall start with questions that challenge some of our presuppositions: Why have they been referred historically to as "kings"? Why have people suggested that they are "wise"? What makes us think that they were "men"? Why do we only include three in the episode? How do we know they traveled by camel? Is there any reason for us to believe that they were wealthy? Why do we assume that they were intelligent stargazers and that they could read the heavens? Is there evidence to suggest that they were from Babylon or Persia? Why do they give the gifts they do?

Now, answering all of these questions could lead to the writing of a book. But, I want to ponder them, so, I'll have to do so in a more brief manner than a tome. So, let me just explore the above questions one-by-one.

1. Why have they been referred historically to as "kings"? The proper answer to this, I think, is that to be seen as "fulfilling" OT texts like Isaiah, they must be viewed as kings. Isaiah says that kings will worship the Messiah. So, to "fulfill" predictions, people have connected the μαγοι with kings (even their gifts correlate with those mentioned in Isa.). But the truth is, every piece of ancient literature that we have never suggests that magoi were kings. Instead, all of the extant literature contends that they were indeed, servants to kings. (In the 2nd century, however, we do have a Christian writer who links them to kings, though he doesn't say they themselves are kings, he merely links them to them). When we read Matthew's account of the birth narrative we see this too. The μαγοι visit a king, take orders from him and proceed to find Jesus. Never are they depicted as the kings. What has happened then is that through prooftexting and making false scriptural connections (in hopes of prediction/fulillment) we have flipped Matthew's writing on its head: these μαγοι are not to be presented as kings but as servants to kings.

2. Why have people suggested that they are "wise"? The easy answer is that they were interpreted as stargazers, readers of the heavens. Yet, in antiquity, stargazers were looked on with suspicion and ridicule. Their jobs were seen as absurd; they were learned in nonsense. Mark Alan Powell has shown numerous examples of this. He contends that the "star" they were supposedly following is nothing complicated but rather, it was simple, right in front of them; anyone could have followed it. Notice that when they get to Jerusalem the first thing these guys do is ask "where is the one born king of the Jews?" Ever noticed that they came from the East only to ask a question? Ever noticed that they traveled to Jerusalem unsure of where they were going? Wise? Not so much. Ever noticed that had the angel not appeared to them, they probably would have gone back to Herod? The fact is, stargazers in antiquity were viewed as the opposite of wise: they were fools. Notice in Matthew that it is the "foolish" whom God chooses to reveal things to, not the "wise". So, we should see these μαγοι in their proper ancient social contexts as fools.

3. What makes us think that they were only "men"? Well, this is probably due to the fact that in antiquity, men were viewed as workers and travelers while women stayed at home. But the fact is, the text never suggests that they were only men. I must admit, however, that I have not read any ancient passages that depict them as women. Still, this should give us pause when we think about how to identify them.

4. Why do we only include three in the episode? The most likely answer to this is that there are "three" gifts that are given (gold, frankincense and myrrh). Yet, we can't say with confidence that one person gave all three gifts or that ten did, maybe even twenty, let alone three. It is reading way too much into the story that has led us to both identify the μαγοι as kings, wise, male and numbering three.

5. How do we know they traveled by camel? We don't! They could have traveled by boat (depending on where they were coming from; it could have been included part of their journey!), by foot, by donkey, etc. We have no clue. It is the late reworking of the nativity story that has led us to presuppose that camels were in the mix.

6. Is there any reason for us to believe that they were wealthy? No. Indeed, they gave great gifts but we don't know how much they gave. It could have been a small pouch full or an abundance. They could have brought the gifts from home or bought them on the way there. They could have sold their own goods to get the gits, they could have traded for them, purchased them or already owned them and just gave them up. We have no hard evidence to be in a position to say a lot about their social status. But the fact is, if μαγοι were typically despised and if they were generally servants, they probably weren't wealthy.

7. Why do we assume that they were intelligent stargazers and that they could read the heavens? The obvious answer is: They followed the star from wherever they were coming. But does Matthew seem to suggest that anyone could have followed this star? Or what if we consider the ancient view that stars were also considered celestial beings? Could they have been following an angel (of the Lord) then? Would this comport with other dreams, visions and appearances where angels are involved? Question #7 also relates to the next question.

8. Is there evidence to suggest that they were from Babylon or Persia? The phrase "from the east" (Grk: ανατολη) has led people to believe that they came from areas where astrology was popular in antiquity. This may well be the case but we just don't know. Perhaps they had only traveled twenty or fifty miles instead of coming from Babylon or Persia. If we are going to glean anything from "East" we have to presuppose and imply a lot. One may be able to offer a possible reconstruction as has been done in the past (e.g. astrologers lived in Babylon, traveled to Jerusalem following solar guides, etc.). But the truth is, it seems that Matthew wants to suggest that it is God who does the guiding in the story. Would reading the heavens suggest that it wasn't God who was leading them?

9. Why do they give the gifts they do? It would seem to me that the gold, frankincense and myrrh are gifts, as the song says, are fit for a king. But is there more going on here than just that? I could be terribly wrong here but it seems so. If gold is fit for a king, fankincense for a prophet, and anointing oil (myrhh) for one who is facing death, the point could be: This baby is a king/prophet who has been born to die. Or, we could simply argue that all three gifts are worthy of a king. Bearing this in mind, we see something interesting, something ironic going on here: In Matthew's story, it is not the actual kings that worship Jesus (indeed, Herod wants Jesus dead) but rather, servants of kings. Indeed, scripture is not "fulfilled" but inversed, flipped on its head. Matthew is using irony. It is not kings who come to Jesus (though kings should) but rather, servants of kings, foolish servants at that!

What does all of this mean for the Christmas story as we tell it today? Well it means that we should try to keep it in context so that we can get across what was really trying to be said and what was really trying to be focused on: That Jesus is the King of kings! Further, Jesus is a King of fools, a King whose servants are not wise by worldly standards but yet are privvy to the ways and voice of God. We should not try to read too much into this story so that the heart of it gets over-sentimentalized and lost. We must strive to retain the core of the story that focuses on Jesus' kingship and the fact that we are to be servants, even foolish servants for Him. During this Advent, I can hardly think of a greater truth!

Was Jesus' Birth Unique?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 4 (A Repost)

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Mon, 23 Dec 2013 12:52:00 -0500

In my previous post on this series (A Miraculous Conception?), I raised a number of questions that Christians must ask and attempt to answer when thinking about Jesus' birth in its ancient context. I also showed a number of ancient accounts of the births of prominent persons in antiquity. Those narratives had many elements in them that were similar to the story of Jesus' birth (dreams, visions, natural phenomena [stars, etc.], deities impregnating women, persons called 'son of god', etc.). *Note: If you have not read that post, please click the above link and do so, it will really, really help you draw out a fuller meaning from this post.

So, I should remind us here that in Jesus' day (both before, concurrent with, and after His time on earth), there were birth narratives of others that were considered "miraculous". Historically, we are not in a position to really ask whether any of these things "really" happened. Nobody in antiquity probably would have asked that question or one similar to it, so, maybe we shouldn't focus on it either. They knew that the "signs" or "miracles" in the stories were at the very least, narrative markers, meant to point to things beyond the supposed event itself. All of this should lead us to ponder whether or not and how or how not, Jesus' birth might be considered unique. This question, in my view, takes us beyond debating whether or not Jesus was born (let's just say, for the sake of argument, that He was and so were the others...e.g. Plato, Augustus, etc.) and gets us talking about what the first Christians understood His birth to be about and to mean!

In other words, I am asking here: If we move beyond the issues of historicity to theology, what, to the first Christians, was theologically significant about Jesus' birth? What were they attempting to say by mentioning the traveling star, the magi, the singing angels, the attendant shepherds, etc.? And I would want to ask another question here too: If Jesus was still conceived of a virgin but the Gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke were embellished (perhaps, like the accounts of Plato, Heracles, Alexander the Great, etc.), does this affect your view of the importance of Jesus' birth at all? Also, just how central is a "virgin conception" to having a healthy Christian theology? Though Paul's (and other NT letter writers') correspondences were / are highly audience-contextualized, comprising 2/3 of the NT, why do they never ever mention this birth at any length? It seems to me that if it were so central they could have surely drew some theo-ethical principles from it. But perhaps there are contextual reasons for that.

I want to do two things at this point: 1) share a very short personal story, and 2) point you to a modern storybook. The personal story comes from an encounter with the book I'm going to mention in a moment. I stumbled across this book last Christmas and after reading it was floored. For the last year, I have thought repeatedly about this text and what it might suggest about Jesus' birth narrative. Now, the text I'm referring to is a children's book by Nancy Tillman titled On the Night You Were Born.

Last year, during Christmas, I found myself reading this book to my daughter, who had just been born a few months earlier. As I read it to her, there arose a tension inside of me. On the one hand, I felt like I was lying but on the other hand, I felt like I was conveying to my daughter, with broken language and images, just how wonderful I thought she was. If you do not own this book, order or buy it. If you do own it, read it again. Either way, I want to supply you with some of the text here. And as you read this, please, put yourself in my shoes and imagine reading this to your newly born child:

"On the night you were born, the moon smiled with such wonder that hte stars peeked up to see you and the night whispered, 'Life will never be the same.' Because there had never been anyone like you...ever in the world. So enchanted with you were the wind and the rain that they whispered the sound of your wonderful name. The sound of your name is a magical one, let's say it before we go on (you are the one and only ever you). It sailed through the farmland high on the breeze (Who in the world is exactly like you, who, who, who), over the ocean (you are a miracle), and through the trees until everyone heard it and everyone knew of the one and only ever you. Not once had there been such eyes, such a nose, such silly, wiggly, wonderful toes...When the polar bears heard they danced until dawn. From faraway places the geese flew home. The moon stayed up until the morning the next day and none of the ladybugs flew away..."

Now, there's more to this great story but I will not reproduce it here (again, go buy it!!!). If you were sitting next to me while I was reading that to my daughter, what would you think, do or say? Would you call me a liar? Would you think less of me? Would you say I was ridiculous? Probably not! Why? Because you know that the story is not meant to have every single detail read wooden literally!!! Because your know that nature and animals do not actually react like that when a child is born. But because the birth of a child is so special, you know that using these images and metaphors to express it is not wrong! It is merely one way to convey to your child that they are of the utmost significance. This type of poetic licensing isn't a problem and it isn't "untrue". It is simply one way to talk about a great moment in time or the wonderful experience of childbirth.

In light of the fact that scores of ancient birth accounts from antiquity exist, accounts full of natural phenomena, miracles, grand imagery, etc., I don't think we have to debate over whether Jesus was born or whether or not certain events transpired "wooden literally" as they are spoken of. In fact, I wonder if we could read an account like Luke's, in a fashion similar to the way we read Tillman's book? The truth is, Jesus' birth account isn't all that unique; indeed, the Gospel writers' accounts are strikingly similar to those I mentioned above and in the previous post of this series. The other truth is, the Gospel writers (Matt and Luke) did think Jesus' birth had something unique about it. That's what we should focus on!!!

So, what did they think was so unique? It might well be the case that when it comes to Jesus' birth, we can't quite say. It seems to me that the point of the birth accounts are there mainly to, at the very least, put Jesus on par with, in the category of, or to surpass the births of other prominent people. In other words, all they are meant to do, from a literary standpoint, is to make it clear that Jesus is signficant, important and unique. Yet, where the significance comes to the fore and where it is found to be unique is not in the birth but rather, in the resurrection and ascension. Perhaps this is why the first Christians didn't really focus on Jesus' birth like we do during Christmastime or Advent but rather, on Him being buried, raised and ascended! To be sure, those are the things that, in the eyes of the Early Church, made Jesus unique. And those are the things that make Him unique still today!

Other Posts (to date) In This Series:
* A Miraculous Conception?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 3
* Jesus & Prophecy: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 2
* Born Of A Virgin?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 1

A Miraculous Conception?: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 3 (A Repost)

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Mon, 23 Dec 2013 08:29:00 -0500

For a great majority of Christians, the "virgin conception / birth" of Jesus is a cherished belief. In fact, I recall stumbling across a poll a couple of years back which said that something like 91% of Americans believed that Jesus was conceived of a virgin (even though 91% of Americans aren't Christians). Of course, this teaching, doctrine, belief or whatever you want to call it, has, since its inception, not been without its critics. As early as the 2nd century, just a few decades after Jesus' death, we already have persons and groups denying that Jesus' birth was "miraculous". Some even suggested that Mary was raped. The rumor also flew around that Mary was promiscuous (perhaps, even sleeping with or cheating on Joseph).

Rarely discussed, especially in evangelical or conservative circles (perhaps liberal ones too), are some interesting pieces of literature. I don't know if it is because of the fact that persons have no idea that these texts exist, that they have purposefully been suppressed, or that they are irrelevant. I can't say for sure if the previous two answers have any bearing to them but I can say that the third one isn't correct. So, what texts am I talking about?

Well, I'm talking about the birth accounts of Plato, Alexander the Great, Augustus, Pythagoras, Heracles, etc. (by the way, David Dungan, a great scholar who passed away recently, wrote a book titled Documents for the Study of the Gospels, which should be consulted on this matter). It is intriguing to me (not scary!) that in Mediterranean antiquity, the birth accounts of prominent persons, typically had what we could consider "miraculous signs" attached to them.

For example, Diogenes Laertius speaks of a vision surrounding the birth of Plato and also says that the philosopher was born of the deity "Apollo". Origen, in his "Against Celsus" (I.37) says (most likely to persons of Christian identity): "It is absurd not to use Greek stories (historia) when talking to Greeks in order that we might not seem to be the only ones using such an incredible story (paradoxes historia) as this one (e.g. Jesus' birth)."

If one reads about Alexander the Great's birth, as mentioned in Plutarch's "Lives", they find all kinds of "miraculous" things. There are visions (by both mother and father) accompanying the birth, strikes of thunder, lightning bolts hitting his mother's womb as well as a seal engraved on it, a great fire, encounters with animals (via dreams / visions), etc.

As for Pythagoras, like Plato, he was believed to be the product of Apollo. In Iamblichus's "The Life of Pythagoras", Pythagoras is said to have "sent down from heaven to be among men...having great wisdom in his soul". Iamblichus says that he was considered by many to be a "son of God". On a similar note, Diodorus says that Herakles was born of the great Greek god Zeus, who slept with Alkmene one night. Power and might were to go before and accompany this great being known as Herakles. Seutonius says that with Augustus's birth, there were natural phenomena like lightning, shooting stars, and odd actions of the sun. Out-of-place things also happened in the temple and there were also visions and dreams. As Christians, I would submit that we must take such accounts seriously when thinking about the birth narratives of Jesus. When we do, suddenly, Jesus' conception begins to look a little differently...perhaps because it "looks" a little more contextual.

I would also point out here that in antiquity, the language of "son of God" wasn't uniquely applied to Jesus. Instead, it was applied to great persons, especially emperors. Thus, using it to attempt to draw some totally unique theory about Jesus is probably not the best way for us to go, especially in regards to the birth account(s). Instead, we should ask how the first Christians were using it and how they were understanding what they meant by it.

So, we have to ask the question now: Was Jesus' birth considered uniquely miraculous in antiquity or were the NT authors attempting to (as Origen alludes to) cast and tell it in such a way that Greeks could easily relate to and understand it? To answer that question, however, I think one must first answer the following query: How, in light of the other birth accounts of great personages in antiquity, is Jesus' birth similar or different, more legitimate or less legitimate, more contextually and culturally shaped or not?

In closing, I want to ask you, if you read this post in its entirety, to please read the next one all the way through too. In that forthcoming post, I am going to make a connection between the evidences I offered here, which are from antiquity, and a very important modern example. I do hope that you will read the next post in conjunction with this one. Blessings to you and yours this holiday season!

Jesus & Prophecy: Jesus' Birth In Context, Pt. 2 (A Repost)

halc.40dp@mailcity.com (Michael Halcomb) — Sun, 22 Dec 2013 12:45:00 -0500

A few years ago, I attended one of Ron Luce's "Acquire The Fire" events and quite enjoyed myself. I was a youth minister at the time and had taken my students to the event mainly because the renowned apologist, Josh McDowell, was speaking. Prior to attending, I had read through and referenced a variety of McDowell's books. I admired what he was doing; he helped me through some tough, searching and trying times. At the conference, he came out and just blew everybody away with this bit he did on biblical prophecy. He claimed that there were hundreds of thousands of OT prophecies that had "come true" in the NT. He even showed this great little video that argued that the statistical analysis of the number of fulfilled OT prophecies should leave nobody with any doubts about the veracity of the Bible.

I got into this for a while, I must admit. But there came a point in time when, through a different, more critical approach to the biblical texts, I began to realize Mr. McDowell's approach was erroneous. Indeed, the cherished "messianic prophecies" view that I once clung to, now had to be relinquished or better yet, remodified. This was scary on the one hand but freeing on the other. What was freeing about it was that now I could read the Bible without attempting to force interpretations out of it and with more ability to be able to encounter it on its own terms. I know why so many evangelical Christians are so reluctant to let their cherished views be dropped and/or modified: they feel like a turncoat or they realize they were wrong and/or they sometimes feel threatened or embarrassed by it all.

I say all of that to say that when I read the Scriptures today, particularly things like NT passages where authors say "it was fulfilled", I no longer understand that the way that I used to. You see, before reading contextually, I was coming to verses like Mt. 1.22: "And this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet" and reading that quite wooden-literally. In the comments section of a previous post (HERE), someone asked me how I could see such a verse as not being "messianic prophecy". Well, there are a few things that contribute to my view:

1. As I have written about before, persons in antiquity did not think of time like we do today. For starters, they thought in more of a circular fashion and not such a linear (timeline) way. Just as well, as persons in an agrarian civilization, they had little time to be preoccupied with the future. For them, the emphasis (as the Lord's Prayer suggests) was on "this day". While looking ahead was not totally out of question or view, looking further than the next season or two was a rare thing. So, understanding how the ancients thought about and lived in light of "time", really forced me to reconsider some of my views.

2. In addition to understanding time differently, I also had to understand things in their proper contexts. For example, when I read in Isa. 7, as I pointed out HERE, I must read in light of the context of Ahaz's socio-political situations. Then, when I read of something similar in Mt., I must also read in light of his socio-political situations too. Even more importantly, I must consider how Isa. 7-9 influences Mt. 1-4. As I have shown, the issue of "naming" there is incredibly important. Thus, we begin to see that there is a reinterpretation and reuse of situations going on in Mt. This leads directly into my next point.

3. I realized that if I have to try to see things from an ancient, agrarian point-of-view, a non-linear view, I must relinquish my "linear" view of prophecy and fulfillment. Indeed, I would now suggest that thinking in those modes or categories is not all that helpful, in fact, it is quite distracting.

4. If I'm not thinking in terms of prophecy / fulfillment, then I must think in terms of reuse / re-application or re-implication. The truth seems to be that the NT writers often found similar situations to theirs in OT texts and then reused them. Paul's use of the muzzled ox in Lev. for instance, originally had nothing to do with paying missionaries. However, in Corinthians, Paul draws that analogy through creative interpretation. There is no fulfillment there, yet, there is reuse.

5. The Greek word for "fulfilled" is πληροω (pleroo). It has multiple meanings: to make full, to fill fuller, to be filled, to complete, etc. Now, when Mt. says in 1.23 (and this goes for those other places he says it too!), that the "prophet said...and it was fulfilled", what he's really saying is: "the prophet said ____ in his context and now, in my context, I'm reusing it, attaching new implications and applications to it, and thereby imbuing my current situation with a fuller meaning." There is no sensus plenoir reading or interpreting going on here! Matthew is simply filling out the meaning of his present context more than he already had, by injecting it with more meaning. The example of Civil Rights leaders quoting Scripture at rallys is something very similar. By invoking the Bible, they were filling the present situation even more full with meaning...namely, social and spiritual meaning!

6. It has taken me some time to own up to it, but at this point, as an honest interpreter, I must acknowledge that there were predictive items in the Bible that never came to pass (see Goldingay's commentary, which Greg Boyd recently mentioned and ingeniously expounded on HERE) and that sometimes, the prophets themselves disagreed (which I have written about HERE).

So, what does all of this have to do with the context of Jesus' birth? Well, a lot, really. It has a lot to do with it because in places like Mt. 1.22, we are now able to see what Matthew was actually doing (and what some have suggested he was doing, but wasn't). Matthew wasn't suggesting that "messianic prophecy," in the strict sense of the term, was being fulfilled! (And by the way, it is high time for Christians to stop making people-groups like Jews feel stupid because they don't believe in messianic prophecy! Why should they when that's not what the NT writers believed either!?) What he was suggesting, however, was that the contexts and situations surrounding Jesus' birth can be imbued with more ethical, social and spiritual meaning when some imagery and language from Isaiah's text is borrowed. You can read about that in the previous post, or HERE.

So, when it comes to Jesus and prophecy in light of the infancy narratives, let us read the texts anew and with more clarity. Indeed, let us be "filled" with more meaning than we have ever been filled with and let us see things we have never seen before. If that is accomplished, then this nativity story is truly one that can be life-changing and prophetic! More on Jesus' birth in context to come, stay tuned!!!