Saturday, December 29, 2012
Pastor CJ Bowen of Christ Reformed Evangelical Church in Annapolis, Maryland has written a very good article on Christmas carol theology. Check it out at:
Monday, December 24, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
(Matt. 1:3, 5-6)
We note that two women are mentioned in this fifth verse: a Canaanite and a Moabitess. The Gentile blood mingled with the Hebrews strain. Our King has come to break down the partition wall. As Gentiles we rejoice in this.1
Matthew's genealogy also shows the work of God's grace in His choosing to include four former outcasts in Messiah's pedigree. In a genealogy otherwise dominated by men, these women are exceptional illustrations of God's grace. ... [T]he genealogy of Jesus Christ is immeasurably more than a list of ancient names; it is even more than a list of Jesus' human forbears. It is a beautiful testimony of God's grace.2
Most notable in its details is the lengthy commentary offered by D.A. Carson:It is for this reason that in this genealogy the Evangelist mentioned in his list even those who had shocking carnal relations that were in appropriate and outside the law. For Matthew wrote with due deliberation. ...These were women with whom they became united by fornication and adultery. By this means the genealogy revealed that it is our very sinful nature that Christ himself came to heal. ...Christ therefore took upon himself a blood relationship to that nature which fornicated, in order to purify it. He took on that very nature that was sick, in order to heal it. He took on that nature which fell, in order to lift it up. All this occurred in a charitable, beneficial manner wholly appropriate to God.3
Inclusion of these four women in the messiah's genealogy instead of an all-male listing (which was customary) -- or at least the names of such great matriarchs as Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah -- shows that Matthew is conveying more than merely genealogical data. Tamar enticed her father-in-law into an incestuous relationship (Gen. 38). The prostitute Rahab saved the spies and joined the Israelites (Josh 2, 5); ...Ruth, Tamar, and Rahab were aliens. Bathsheba was taken in to an adulterous union with David, who committed murder to cover it up. Matthew's peculiar way of referring to her, "Uriah's wife," may be an attempt to focus on the fact that Uriah was not an Israelite but a Hittite (2 Sam. 11:3; 23:39)...
Several reasons have been suggested to explain the inclusion of these women. Some have pointed out that three were Gentiles and the fourth probably regarded as such. ...Others have noted that three of the four were involved in gross sexual sin; but it is highly doubtful that this charge can be legitimately applied to Ruth. As a Moabitess, however she had her origins in incest (Gen. 19:30-37)...
A third interpretation holds that all four reveal something of the strange and unexpected workings of Providence in preparation for the Messiah and that as such they point to Mary's unexpected but providential conception of Jesus.4
But the four mothers selected for mention form a striking group. Probably all four were non-Jews (Tamar was a local girl, so presumably a Canaanite, Gen. 38:11, 13-14; Bathsheba was the wife of a Hittite), indicating Matthew's interest in the universal relevance of Jesus' coming; and in each case there were at least suspicions of some form of marital irregularity, though all four form an impressive precedent for Jesus' birth of an unmarried mother from an obscure background.5
1. Charles Spurgeon, The King Has Come [New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1987] p. 16
2. John MacArthur, The Genealogy of Grace, Notes from a sermon preached on Oct. 14, 2009. http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A287/the-genealogy-of-grace
3. Thomas Oden, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Matthew 1-13 [Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press 2001] p. 6
4. D.A. Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984] p. 66
5. R.T. France, Tyndale Commentary Series: Matthew [Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1985] pp. 73-74
Thursday, December 13, 2012
I recently started studying John Milton's classic work, Paradise Lost, in detail, and today I came across that famous depiction of the Serpent tempting and deceiving Eve to eat of the fruit forbidden by God in the Garden. Perhaps there is no more vivid scene in the history of poetic literature which portrays the subtlety of Satan at his best; and so I had to share:
...the Tempter, all impassioned, thus began:
O sacred, wise, and wisdom-giving Plant, mother of science, now I feel thy power within me clear; not only to discern things in their causes, but to trace the ways of highest agents, deemed however wise. Queen of this universe, do not believe those rigid threats of death: ye shall not die. How should you? By the fruit? It gives you life to knowledge; By the threatener? Look on me; me who have touched and tasted, yet both live, and life more perfect have attained than Fate meant me, by venturing higher than my lot. Shall that be shut to Man, which to the Beast is open? Or will God incense his ire for such a petty trespass? And not praise rather your dauntless virtue, whom the pain of death denounced, whatever thing death be, deterred not from achieving what might lead to happier life, knowledge of good and evil; Of good, how just? Of evil, if what is evil be real, why not known, since easier shunned? God therefore cannot hurt ye, and be just; Not just, not God; not feared then, nor obeyed: Your fear itself of death removes the fear. Why then was this forbid? Why, but to awe; Why, but to keep ye low and ignorant, His worshippers? He knows that in the day ye eat thereof, your eyes that seem so clear, yet are but dim, shall perfectly be then opened and cleared, and ye shall be as Gods, knowing both good and evil, as they know. That ye shall be as Gods, since I as Man, internal Man, is but proportional meet; I, of brute, human; ye, of human, Gods. So ye shall die perhaps, by putting off Human, to put on Gods; Death to be wished, though threatened, which no worse than this can bring. And what are Gods, that Man may not become as they, participating God-like food? The Gods are first, and that advantage use on our belief, that all from them proceeds: I question it; for this fair earth I see, warmed by the sun, producing every kind; Them nothing: if they all things, who enclosed knowledge of good and evil this tree, that whoso eats thereof, forthwith attains wisdom without their leave? And wherein lies the offense, that Man should thus attain to know? What can your knowledge hurt him, or this tree impart against his will, if all be his? Or is it envy? And can envy dwell in heavenly breasts? These, these, and many more causes import your need of this fair fruit. Goddess humane, reach then, and freely taste!
He ended; and his words, replete with guile, into her heart too easy entrance won: Fixed on the fruit she gazed, which to behold might tempt alone; and in her ears the sound yet rung of his persuasive words, impregned with reason, to her seeming, and with truth: Mean while the hour of noon drew on, and waked an eager appetite, raised by the smell so savoury of that fruit, which with desire inclinable now grown to touch or taste, solicited her longing eye; yet first pausing a while, thus to herself she mused:
Paradise Lost by William Blake, 1808
Great are thy virtues, doubtless, best of fruits, though kept from man, and worthy to be admired; Whose taste, too long forborn, at first assay gave elocution to the mute, and taught the tongue not made for speech to speak thy praise: Thy praise he also, who forbids thy use, conceals not from us, naming thee the tree of knowledge, knowledge both of good and evil; Forbids us then to taste! But his forbidding commends thee more, while it infers the good by thee communicated, and our want: For good unknown sure is not had; or, had and yet unknown, is not had at all. In plain then, what forbids he but to know, forbids us good, forbids us to be wise? Such prohibitions bind not. But, if death bind us with after-bands, what profits then our inward freedom? In the day we eat of this fair fruit our doom is we shall die! How dies the Serpent? He hath eaten and lives, and knows, and speaks, and reasons, and discerns, irrational till then. For us alone was death invented? Or to us denied this intellectual food, for beasts reserved? For beasts it seems: yet that one beast which first hath tasted envies not, but brings with joy the good befallen him, author unsuspect, friendly to man, far from deceit or guile. What fear I then? Rather, what know to fear under this ignorance of good and evil, of God or death, of law or penalty? Here grows the cure of all, this fruit divine, fair to the eye, inviting to the taste, of virtue to make wise: What hinders then to reach, and feed at once both the body and mind?
So saying, her rash hand in evil hour forth reaching to the fruit, she plucked, she ate. Earth felt the wound; and Nature from her seat, sighing through all her works, gave signs of woe, that all was lost. Back to the thicket slunk the guilty Serpent.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. (ESV)
16 For where a covenant is, it is necessary that the death of the covenant-ratifier be brought forward. 17 For a covenant is confirmed upon dead bodies, otherwise it is not valid at all while the covenant-ratifier is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. (My translation)The differences ought to be apparent right away. The ESV assumes that the author has shifted away from his previous discussion in verse 15 about a "covenant" and is now interested in toying with a bit of word-play by introducing the concept of a "will" into the discussion before reverting back to the discussion of a "covenant" in verses 18 and 19. As I mentioned in previous posts (here and here), my translation assumes that the author has not shifted away from the discussion of a "covenant" at all, and is not talking about a "will" or "testament" at all either.
Also, based on the assumptions of the ESV translators, verses 16 and 17 are interpreted as though Jesus is the "one who made" this alleged "will", and therefore, in order for the "will" to go into effect, Jesus has to "establish" it by dying. But my translation does not speak about "establishing" (phero) the death of Jesus at all. Instead, my translation offers the more common and literal interpretation of the verb phero as meaning "to bear", "carry", or "bring forward" a thing. This is why my amplified translation in previous posts inserts the words "be carried." As David Allen has noted, the meaning of phero in Hebrews 9:16 "can be interpreted in three different senses: (1) in the sense of "offering" within a sacrificial context; (2) "to be represented," or (3) in the sense of "bringing something forward."1 After this, Allen notes carefully that the Greek word phero is never found extra biblically in relation to "will" or "testament."
Also, the clause in verse 16 which mentions "the one who made it" (ESV) is translated less literally than my version. The Greek is tou diathemenou, which uses the possessive definite article alongside a person who is literally "covenanting" or "ratifying a covenant". The same exact words in Greek are used in verse 17 (but with a different conjugation) where we find the ESV mentioning (again) "the one who made it" (ho diathemenos). David Allen comments on the significance of this repetition:
That the articular participle ho diathemenos can be translated as "covenant-sacrifice" or "covenant-ratifier" rather than the "one who makes a will/covenant" would open the door for the meaning of a covenant being inaugurated by means of a sacrificial death.2What we see then is that it's certainly plausible, if not probable, that the author was expressing a very common fact about priestly service and worship in the old covenant tabernacle, namely that the "death" of the "covenant-ratifier" must be "carried" or "brought forward" into the presence of God. Under the old covenant law, the worshiper brought animal sacrifices forward. And after the worshiper died representatively through means of animal sacrifices, those dead victims were then carried on behalf of the worshiper by a mediating priest into the very presence of God.
The next point of difference between translations is in verse 17, where we find the ESV talking about a "will" that only "takes effect" at "death". My own personal opinion is that this is a horrendously inaccurate translation of the original Greek text. First of all, there is no word for "only" in the Greek text. Therefore, to talk about something taking effect "only" under certain circumstances is to exaggerate the author's point. Secondarily, I don't believe the author is talking about a will again. He's talking about a "covenant." Thirdly, the text does not mention a time of "death" at all. The Greek is epi nekrois, which literally says "upon dead [bodies]". The word for "dead" here in Greek is plural in number. Again, Allen's comments are helpful:
The Greek phrase epi nekrois, "when somebody has died," is difficult to interpret. Literally the entire clause reads: "for a covenant/testament is confirmed upon dead [bodies]." The phrase epi nekrois should not be translated "at death" as is often the case since there is no evidence for this..."3In conclusion, it is plausible, if not probable, that the author is describing a theological fact taught by the Law itself, namely that "a covenant is confirmed upon dead bodies." This is why he can follow that statement with further clarification about the worshiper failing to ratify the covenant in a valid manner if he does not confirm his own death upon dead animal victims slain and "carried" on his behalf. The worshiper cannot draw near to God without a sacrifice for his own sins, and if he does not offer what the laws of the priesthood prescribe, then he must present himself spotless before God (which is an impossibility). His covenant is not valid if he does not do what the Law prescribes and illustrates.
"Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood." What follows verse 18 is an example from Exodus 24:1-2, where Moses sprinkles the blood of a slaughtered animal on behalf of Israel at the very beginning of their inauguration into covenant with God as a priestly nation. Is it merely a coincidence that the author continues the connection between Israel as a nation of priests and God inaugurating his covenant with them?
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Again, my own formal equivalency translation is as follows:
For where a covenant is, it is necessary that the death of the institutor be carried. For a covenant is established upon dead victims, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the institutor is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
A more literal translation would be as follows:
For where a covenant is, it is necessary that the death of the covenant-ratifier be brought forward. For a covenant is confirmed upon dead bodies, otherwise it is not valid at all while the covenant-ratifier is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
My own amplified translation is as follows:
For where a covenant is, it is necessary that the death of the institutor [of the covenant] be carried [by a priest].1 For a covenant is established over dead [animal] victims, otherwise [the covenant] is of no strength at all while the institutor is alive. Therefore not even the first [covenant/priestly ministry] was inaugurated without blood.
Saint Augustine once commented on these passages, and his interpretation was that the "likeness" of "Christ's death for us" is presented here. But this "likeness" to which he was referring was "the old covenant, in which the death of the testator was prefigured in the sacrificial victim."2 No scholar to my knowledge denies that in these passages (i.e. Heb. 9:16-18) the author of Hebrews is leading his audience to see "Christ's death for us". All scholars interpret these passages in a way which illustrates Christ as the one who dies as a sacrificial victim in order to bring about the change of law "necessary" (Heb. 7:12) for the old covenant to become obsolete (Heb. 8:13). But instead of interpreting Heb. 9:16-18 as an illustration of the priestly ministry and it's essential sacrificial system which must necessarily fade away once Christ offers himself as a living sacrifice for sin in the the "true tabernacle" (Heb. 8:2; 9:11), many scholars treat these passages as a direct reference to the literal death of Jesus. Allegedly, Jesus had to literally die (as a sacrifice for sin) in order for some figurative "will" or "testament" to go into force.
But is this really what is going on? And what does it even matter if it's not?
As I have argued in previous posts, a "will" or "testament" is not in view at all in these verses. Instead, I contend, the author is illustrating the way in which a covenant was ratified under the old priesthood and ministry, which foreshadowed both the work of Jesus as a sacrificial victim and the Priest who mediates between God and man (i.e. God and the covenant-ratifier). At first glance the difference might appear to be too nuanced, leaving the bottom-line of the author's argument to be that someone needs to die in order for the covenant to be ratified (or the "will" to go into force). But I am arguing that there is a major difference between the two arguments. And I'm not quite sure why many scholars consider the translation of this passage to be a moot point.
Why should we not consider it to be a big conceptual difference if the old covenant Scriptures, especially God's Law given to Moses (which is what the author of Hebrews is using throughout chapter nine to illustrate his point), don't ever describe priestly duties or sacrificial requirements in terms of a "will" or "testament"? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no theology of "will-making" or "will-keeping" in the Mosaic law. But there are a lot of illustrations about "covenant-making", "covenant-ratifying", and "covenant-keeping". My own personal view is that if the theology of "covenant making" and "covenant ratifying" is understood within it's old covenant context of priesthood and sacrifice, this will help broaden our understanding of the "covenant" in the book of Hebrews. I do not personally believe that the bottom-line of the author's argument in Hebrews 9:16-18 is that Jesus died to inaugurate a necessary transition from an old "covenant" to a new "covenant." I do adopt that basic terminology, but I do not adopt many modern conceptions about the author's own use of that term. My understanding is that the bottom-line of 9:16-18 is that worshipers under the old covenant were required to ratify their covenant with God by offering the death of an animal as a substitutionary sacrifice, and that the earthly ministry of the Levitical priesthood was the only mediator between the death of that substitutionary victim and the worshiper. This is what the Law of God prescribed, and so this is what I believe the author of Hebrews is utilizing to prove his point. And so, by extension, because the Law required an earthly priesthood to bring forward the blood of animal victims into the presence of God, once Jesus enters the "true tabernacle" with His own blood (of which the earthly tabernacle was just a "shadow" and it's priestly ministry a "parable" according to 8:5 and 9:9), and offers it, and is received by God as satisfactory, there must of necessity be a transition from an old covenant priestly ministry to a new covenant priestly ministry. But it is precisely at this point that modern translations of Hebrews 9:16-18 are not able to make a direct connection between priesthood and covenant, which is what I firmly believe the author of Hebrews is describing all throughout chapters 8 and 9.
All throughout the book of Hebrews, the author is not addressing some broad, sweeping change to God's "covenant" as it pertains to the means by which sinners "get saved" (e.g. the old covenant was salvation by law, but the new covenant is entirely of grace; the old covenant was based on works, but the new covenant is based on faith, etc.,). Instead, upon closer examination, what we find is that the author is addressing a specific change to God's "covenant" as it pertains to it's essential identification with Israel as a kingdom of priests. In other words, the author is addressing a specific change of priesthood and the essential ministry with which it is identified. Moreover, he is arguing that the Law itself anticipated this and taught this inevitable change in various ways, teaching the eventual necessity of changing from a continual sacrificial offering to the once-for-all-self-sacrifice of Jesus, from priests after the order of Levi to Jesus after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. chs. 5-7), from Moses and Aaron, Israel's Apostle and High Priest, to Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession (Heb. 3:1). In summary, this letter of Hebrews is about the royal priesthood of Israel as God's adopted "son" being lead to Jesus, the true Son of God, of which their priestly ministry and "sonship" was but a foreshadow. Unfortunately this necessary connection between "covenant" and "priestly ministry" becomes skewed in Hebrews 9:16-18 once the translation of a "will" or "testament" is applied.
As a matter of fact, as soon as the word diatheke (which is the Greek word for "covenant", but translated as a "will" or "testament" in 9:16-18) enters into this letter of Hebrews, it functions within a context that is completely oblivious to the need for a "will" or "testament" to come into force. And as the author's discussion of diatheke continues from one thought to another, from chapter to chapter, the context still remains oblivious to any need for a discussion about a "will" or "testament." The first place diatheke is used in Hebrews is in 7:22, and the author begins a discussion about Christ becoming the guarantee of a "better covenant". But notice carefully that the context refers to a change in the law pertaining to the old covenant priestly administration. In the very next verses of chapter 7, verses 23 and 24, the author argues that "The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he [Jesus] holds his priesthood permanently because he continues forever." The discussion of a "better covenant" never shifts away from that contextual understanding of priestly administration.
Modern translations insert the word "covenant" in eleven places between 7:22 and 9:16, and yet the actual word diatheke (i.e. "covenant") is only found in eight of those places in the original Greek text. In the remaining three places (Heb. 8:7,13; 9:1), we find the beginning of an intentional conceptual parallel between the "first" covenant and the "first" priestly administration, between the "new" covenant and the "new" priestly administration. As I mentioned a moment ago, the author's first mention of a diatheke (i.e. a "covenant") is in 7:22 and it is speaking about a change of law pertaining to the old covenant priestly administration (i.e. "ministry"). The next occurrence of diatheke ("covenant") is in 8:6, which says that "Christ has obtained a ministry (i.e. a priestly ministry) that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises." Notice carefully that in the following verse, verse 7, the author begins the intentional conceptual parallel mentioned moments ago. Hebrews 8:7 says, "For if that first _______ had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second." Here, after the word "first", I have left a blank line for the purpose of showing where the author omits the word "covenant" found in modern translations. I believe the author has allowed this ellipsis, and is beginning a series of three successive ellipses, in order to help his audience make the conceptual connection themselves. In the larger context of Hebrews 8, the author has already begun a discussion about a "better covenant" in 7:22, referring to a change in priestly administration. Here in 8:6, he is discussing Christ as obtaining a priestly ministry through which which He mediates for those under the new covenant. The "first" that "had been faultless" was not simply a covenant. The author is talking about a priestly ministry under the old covenant. The first priestly ministry was "faulty," which is why the author can use the laws pertaining to it to illustrate a necessary change once the Messiah accomplishes redemption once for all.
The same is true for the other two elliptical examples. In 8:13, the author says, "In speaking of a new ______, He makes the first ______ obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Again, one can just as easily insert the word "ministry" in each of the underlined areas, because the context of chapter eight, including the quotation from Jeremiah in verses 8-12, is describing the Lord's adoption of Israel as a royal priesthood by establishing a covenant with them at Sinai. What I am not saying dogmatically is that the word "ministry" should be inserted in those blank spaces. The word "covenant" is the proper syntactical insertion. My point, again, is simply that the author is intentionally associating the old "covenant" with the old priestly "ministry". Beginning at 7:22, the change in covenant is conceptually parallel with a change in priestly ministry. This becomes even more obvious when we consider the way he follows 8:13 with a description of the priestly administration in 9:1, which is the third and final example of intentional ellipsis: "Now even the first ________ had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness."
Clearly, by omitting the word "covenant" in this third illustration, the author is not talking about a "covenant" in some abstract sense of "getting saved," but rather a specific covenant administration that regulates "worship and an earthly place of holiness". It's especially interesting to note that the Greek word translated here as "worship" is latreia, which refers to public priestly duties within the tabernacle.3
At the end of the last post I briefly mentioned my desire to explain the peculiar insertion of the words "be carried" and "over dead victims" into my translation (above). I will save that explanation for the next post. But for now, assuming that my translation is defensible, I hope I have shed enough light upon this subject for others to consider whether my translation of 8:16-17 (above) fits better into the broader context of Christ obtaining a priestly ministry that is better than the old one.
1. An alternative would be to take the literal translation of "be brought forward" as a reference to the worshiper bringing his own representative animal sacrifice to the priest, who would then draw near to God by presenting the dead animal as an offering to Him. The worshiper has to bring an animal before the Lord and slaughter it representatively, because the law required the death of a substitute to "be brought forward" into the Lord's presence.
2. Thomas Oden, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Hebrews [Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove, Il; 2005] p. 141
3. Latreia is used throughout the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (LXX) as a reference to the public ministry of priests. Some examples of latreia include Joshua 22:27 and I Chron. 28:13. Joshua talks about performing the "service (latreia) of the Lord in His presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and peace offerings." The Chronicler talks about "the divisions of the priest and of the Levites, and all the work of the service (latreia) in the house of the Lord." In Hebrews 9:6, the author says that "the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties (latreia)."
Monday, November 26, 2012
The first will come directly from the ESV translation, along with the rest of its larger context, starting at 9:15 and ending at verse 20. The second translation will be the central verses in question, but with one word translated consistently the same way: the word "covenant" (diatheke in the Greek, from which the English word for "covenant" is translated). The third translation will be my own, along with some support for why I truly believe it was the original intent of the author. Of course, if anyone would like to offer some suggestions as to why my translation is not accurate enough, or just plain incorrect, feel free to comment in the box below. First things first (Heb. 9:15-20; ESV):
Therefore he [Jesus] is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats... saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you."First, notice carefully that this translation is arguing about a new covenant, not a new will and testament. A will and testament are synonymous terms, and they are legal documents which detail the wishes and desires of the author to be enacted and provided upon the author's death. A covenant, on the other hand is something different according the Bible and in the mind of the author of Hebrews everywhere else in this letter, even though technically a will and testament is a type of covenant. A covenant, theologically speaking, is "a mutually binding compact between God and His people sovereignly transacted by the Lord wherein a promise is made by God which calls for trust on the part of His people and entails obligations of submission which are sanctioned by blessings and cursings"1 In the context of Hebrews, the author is describing the necessary change of the old covenant in matters pertaining to its laws of priesthood, and by extension its sacrificial system. And so, the sudden transition from "covenant" to a "will" or "testament" seems completely out of place and unnecessary. My own personal opinion is that not only is it unnecessary, but the author committed a blatantly logical fallacy of equivocation -- not simply a conveniently random use of word-play -- if he was indeed shifting from "covenant" to "will" within the premises of his argument, before reaching his conclusion about the blood of calves and goats as "the blood of the covenant that God made for you".
But perhaps I'm getting a little ahead of my audience. Perhaps further explanation about the fallacy of equivocation is needed to understand this point of mine. The fallacy of equivocation is when a premise within an argument utilizes a word with more than one meaning, but then utilizes that same exact word in a following premise of the same argument in a different sense or with a different meaning than its use in the first premise, and all for the purpose of reaching a certain conclusion. For example, if I wanted to show that a certain feather cannot be dark in color, I might present an argument like this:
The feather in my hand is light.
And we all know that whatever is light cannot be dark also.
Therefore, the feather in my hand cannot be dark.
Would anyone seriously consider this to be a valid method of argumentation? Of course not, because the word "light" is used equivocally. In the first premise, "light" is being used to describe the feather's weight, not it's color or brightness, even though "light" can carry both meanings. Sure, it's word-play too, but it's also a fallacious way of reasoning. And this is how I see modern translations of Hebrews 9:16-17 when they use the word diatheke. The author of Hebrews uses diatheke with a very clear meaning of a "covenant" throughout his letter. But supposedly the author has a good reason for shifting away from that meaning and to argue with that same exact word (diatheke), but with a different meaning instead: the meaning of a "will" or "testament". Then, of course, within the very next sentence, the author goes back again to using diatheke in the sense of a "covenant", which is used everywhere else in the letter except 9:16-17. In context, it seems obvious that the author begins by mentioning a "first covenant (diatheke)", and then he follows through with a few more details about this diatheke (i.e. "covenant", or allegedly a "will") before reaching a conclusion about "the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you." This sudden shift from covenant to will to covenant again smacks of something very odd every time I look at modern translations.
And so, with this in mind, I would like to offer an alternative translation. But first, before we get to the alternative translation, we need to view the exact same translation with a consistent use of the same word, the word "covenant". What I hope to show is that by translating the word diatheke consistently as "covenant" (instead of changing it to a "will") we get a little closer to the author's actual intent:
For where a covenant is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a covenant takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. (Heb. 9:16-18)Now, some scholars have suggested that this translation makes no sense because we know that Israelites made covenants all the time under the old covenant. In fact, every time they went to offer a sacrifice they were renewing their covenant obligations with God, and none of them died or were even required to die! But here the author of Hebrews teaches that those acts of covenant renewal were not in force as long as the one who made it was alive. Therefore the conclusion has been that "the one who made the covenant" must not be describing the worshiper, because he remains alive while renewing his covenant. Instead, the author is performing word-play with diatheke, knowing that the same word can mean both "covenant" and "will" or "testament". And so, where a "will" is involved, the "death of the one who made it" can be viewed as the death of Jesus, not the worshiper.
But is this really a reasonable charge against this translation?
Even if my translation (below and in the previous post) appears at first glance to be unrealistic, I am going to argue that it is very realistic within a context about the old covenant model of priesthood and animal sacrifice, which I believe the author also had in mind (as is obvious from the context itself). If the author is describing the temporary, old covenant administration of worship in which animals represented the worshiper, as well as the priesthood which mediated between God and the worshiper, this consistent translation of "covenant" makes perfect sense.
Below, I am going to present what I believe to be a correct translation of Hebrews 9:16-18. I welcome any healthy criticism, but my request is for the reader to look carefully at how well this new translation fits within its larger context:
For where a covenant is, it is necessary that the death of the institutor be carried. For a covenant is established upon dead victims, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the institutor is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.With the sacrificial system in mind, this translation seems natural. A worshiper under the old covenant ministry and priesthood would enter the tabernacle with an animal to represent him. He would lay his hands on the animal representing him, and then he would slaughter the animal. The priest would then carry the dead body of the animal (representing the worshiper) and it's blood into areas which the worshiper himself was not allowed. And it was because the worshiper presented an animal before God to die in his place (representatively, as prescribed by the Lord), and that there was a priest (as prescribed by the Lord) present to carry his dead body into the presence of God, that the worshiper was able to renew his covenant with God. The whole purpose of priests carrying dead animals into God's presence and sprinkling their blood for atonement was to teach the worshiper what they deserve, as well as their need for a priest to mediate between themselves and God.
This brings us to the amplified translation that I offered in the previous post:
For where a covenant is, it is necessary that the death of the institutor [of the covenant] be carried [by a priest]. For a covenant is established over dead [animal] victims, otherwise [the covenant] is of no strength at all while the institutor is alive. Therefore not even the first [covenant/priestly ministry] was inaugurated without blood.In order to provide further support for this translation, I will need to present more evidence in its favor in a future post. I still need to discuss why I include the phrases "be carried" and "over dead victims" in my translation. But like I just mentioned, I'll be saving that for a future post.
To be continued...
1. Greg Bahnsen, Outline of Systematic Theology, http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/system.pdf
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
In a previous post I discussed the central chiastic structure to the book of Hebrews as follows:
- (v. 3) "It is necessary..."
- (v. 4) "if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all...[to] offer gifts according to the law"
- (v. 5) "they [the earthly line of Levitical priests] serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary"
- (v. 23) "It was necessary..."
- (v. 24) "Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, but into heaven itself, nor...as the hight priest enters the holy place year by year"
- (v. 23) "the copies of the heavenly things [need] to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than [earthly ones offered by Levitical priests]"
- (v. 7) "For if that first [covenant/priestly ministry] had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second"
- (v. 8) "I will make a new covenant..."
- (v. 13) "When [God] said 'a new', he makes the first [covenant/priestly ministry] obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
- (v. 16-18) "For where a covenant1 is, it is necessary that the death of the institutor [of the covenant] be carried [by a priest]. For a covenant is established over dead [animal] victims, otherwise [the covenant] is of no strength at all while the institutor is alive.2 Therefore not even the first [covenant/priestly ministry] was inaugurated without blood"
- (v. 15) "[Christ] is the mediator of a new covenant... to set them free from the transgressions committed under the first covenant"
- (v. 28) "Christ, having been offered once to carry the sins of many, will appear a second time... to bring salvation to those who are eagerly waiting for him."
- (v. 2) "For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place"
- (v. 6) "[Levitical] priests go continually into the first section, performing their ritual duties, but into the second only the high priest goes... The Holy Spirit showing by this that the way into the Holy Place was not disclosed as long as the outer tabernacle was still standing."
- (v. 11-12) "But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things things to come... [he entered] through the greater and more perfect tent... having obtained eternal redemption."
With this chiastic framework in mind, two things seem apparent:
1) The "covenant" in these passages centers upon the priestly ministry: one earthly and one heavenly, one first and one second, one old and one new, one renewed continually year by year and one obtained for all eternity.
2) There does not seem to be a place within the close context of 9:16-18 or even the broader context of 8:1 through 9:14 for the theme of covenant-keeping to shift from away from the sacrificial setting of the earthly priestly ministry and toward the more abstract concept of a "will" or "testament" as is found in many English translations.
Monday, November 19, 2012
A. Hebrews 8:1-5
- Transition from a temporary ministry of redemption to Jesus having obtained eternal redemption
- Transition from an old covenant ministry to a new covenant ministry
- And most importantly (by way of the central illustration), the laws pertaining to Levitical priests to enter through the first tent continually, with the high priest only entering the second tent once a year, was symbolic (literally "a parable" in Greek) of the unsatisfactory nature of the first (or "old") covenant ministry and the eventual need for a transition into a second, truly satisfactory ministry. Jesus entered through the greater tent to obtain, once for all time, eternal redemption, which the continual offering of Levitical priests could never accomplish. Therefore, Jesus accomplished a truly satisfactory ministry, and is truly the High Priest.
The most meaningful subdivisions are those of the center, for they treat the main subject matter: the sacrificial activity itself. The author recalls the old system of ritual separations… A sacred place has been established. It consists of a holy part, the “first” tent (9:2), and a “most holy” part (9:3), thought to be the dwelling place of God or “sanctuary”. The people are not allowed to enter in either for they do not have the “holiness” needed. The priests may enter into the “first tent” (9:6) which is like the way of access to the “sanctuary”, but they may not enter in to the latter. Only the high priest is authorized to do that, by reason of his special consecration, but even he functions under severe restrictions: he must limit his entrance to once a year, and the condition for entering is a sacrificial offering (9:7). The ceremony to which the author alludes is that of the Day of Expiation (Yom Kippur, Lev. 16), the high point of the Jewish liturgy.
The question which suggests itself is the mediation value of this solemn liturgy. From this depends the judgment to be given about the system as a whole. If an authentic relation is established with God, then the system is excellent. But if the contrary is true, then it can only constitute a provisional solution, one to be set aside as soon as a better one is found.
The “first tent”, unfortunately, was unable to provide access [to the dwelling of God]… A conclusion follows: “the way of the sanctuary was still not manifest as long as the first tent existed” (9:8).5
1. Albert Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews [Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico; Roma Italia, 1989]p. 33
3. He has two great books on the subject of Hebrews: Albert Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews [Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico; Roma Italia, 1989] pp. 36, 63-69, 92-95; and Albert Vanhoye, A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews [Convivium Press; Miami, Fl, 2011] pp. 225-258
5. Ibid. pp. 63-64
Monday, November 12, 2012
Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins... For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself. (Acts 2:38-39)
And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised." (Gen. 17:9)