I'm beginning a series this week on the seven sayings of Jesus while on the cross. The first one is Luke 23:34, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do" [NKJV]. In the Holman Christian Standard Bible the verse is bracketed, showing that there is some doubt about its authenticity. The text is bracketed in UBS4 with an "A" rating, meaning the committee believes it likely is not original to Luke.
Both p75 and B omit the verse, as do a few other later Alexandrian and Western mss. Aleph includes the verse as does A C L Byz and some Syriac. When you get down to it, the external evidence is split.
What are the internal factors? Bock summarizes them well [1868].
· The parallel prayer of Stephen in Acts 7:60 argues for inclusion, since Luke frequently notes parallelism between events. Some have argued that the text was modeled on Acts but the other way around seems more likely.
· The absence of a parallel in the other Gospels speaks of inclusion here. There is no good reason to explain why a copyist would add such a remark.
· The motif of ignorance is common in Acts [3:17; 13:27; 17:30] and finds endorsement here [Epps].
· It is easier to explain the prayer's omission than inclusion. A scribe could have considered the remarks too forgiving of the Jews [R. Brown] or if he regarded the prayer as unanswered in light of A.D. 70 [Morris; Jerome, Letter 120.8.2 says it delayed the judgment].
· Each major subunit of Luke's crucifixion narrative contains a saying. If the prayer is omitted, then a saying is lacking from this subunit [23:28-31, 43, 46 Marshall, 868].
While certainly not overwhelming, the internal evidence suggests that the text is original with Luke [Ernst, Grundmann, Tiede, Ellis, Bock, Morris, Stein, Marshall (although he is a bit hesitant). As mentioned above the text is bracketed in UBS4 and given an "A" rating. The text is bracketed in WH as well.
Brown has a detailed summary of the discussion, including four options of how the prayer arose: (1) spoken by Jesus and preserved by Luke, (2) spoken by Jesus and inserted early on into Luke, (3) formulated by Luke, and (4) formulated after Luke. Bock prefers option 1, Brown option 3, and Metzger option 2.
Prudent text criticism takes both external and internal evidence into account. For Luke 23:34 it is the internal evidence that is the most persuasive.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Hoehner
It is sad to report the death of Harold Hoehner, the distinguished NT professor of Dallas Theological. The Dallas Morning News reports that Dr. Hoehner died Thursday. I've gained many insights from Dr. Hoehner's writings, especially his magisterial commentary on Ephesians. There is a tribute to Dr. Hoehner on the DTS website as well.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Language and the Pulpit
Baptist Press has a story this week which is critical of Mark Driscoll's use of sexually explicit langugage. You might know that Driscoll was once known as the "cussing pastor." This was something for which he apologized and repented, but it looks like he is still on the edge on his blog.
My kids came back this past weekend from an event held at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in which Driscoll preached. When I asked them how he did, my son made a few comments and then said, "At least he didn't cuss." I'm not sure that's the testimony a pastor should have. Should he not be attempting to live "above reproach?"
This is not a problem for Driscoll alone. I hear reports more often than I'd like on pastors who go over the line in a sermon. It is usually one that deals with sex. The Bible has much to say on that topic, but the Word of God is restrained in when sex is the topic. I think we should always take our cue from Scripture. Deal with the topic but do so with restraint.
In Col 4:6, Paul wrote: "Your speech should always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you should answer each person." This is the Apostle's word on how to engage the culture. Do so. But do so graciously, watching what you say and how you say it. Usually, pushing the envelope does more harm than good in the long run.
My kids came back this past weekend from an event held at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in which Driscoll preached. When I asked them how he did, my son made a few comments and then said, "At least he didn't cuss." I'm not sure that's the testimony a pastor should have. Should he not be attempting to live "above reproach?"
This is not a problem for Driscoll alone. I hear reports more often than I'd like on pastors who go over the line in a sermon. It is usually one that deals with sex. The Bible has much to say on that topic, but the Word of God is restrained in when sex is the topic. I think we should always take our cue from Scripture. Deal with the topic but do so with restraint.
In Col 4:6, Paul wrote: "Your speech should always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you should answer each person." This is the Apostle's word on how to engage the culture. Do so. But do so graciously, watching what you say and how you say it. Usually, pushing the envelope does more harm than good in the long run.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Chapel at NGU
I had the wonderful privilege this week to preach in the chapel service at North Greenville University. It was a blessing to preach the Word to this great student body. The message was from Romans 8:31-39--one of my favorite passages.
What You Won't Learn In Greek Class
I got this from Rod Decker's blog, but he got it from Dave Black.
Some things you will NOT learn in Greek class are:
1) Greek is the Abracadabra or Open Sesame of biblical interpretation. Hardly. Greek will not automatically tell you what the text says though it will limit your options.
2) Greek is inherently difficult to learn. Wrong. Greek is impeccably logical. It has mathematical precision. After all, God invented the language, and He does all things decently and in order. Anyone can learn it who is hardworking and motivated.
3) Greek is never abused by preachers and theologians. Wrong again. This happens all the time. This is one reason to learn Greek for yourself — so that you can check the accuracy of those who use Greek in their teaching. Greek is often (more often than we think) used to support one’s a priori conclusions as to what a text means. It’s what I call “evangelical Greek,” and no one, myself included, is immune from it.
4) Greek is strange and unique. Absolutely not! Greek is like a long-lost relative you’re meeting for the first time. Like English, it is an Indo-European language and thus shares many cognates and derivatives with your own mother tongue.
5) The New Testament had to be written in Greek because it is superior to other languages. (Sometimes this is phrased as follows: “The New Testament could never have been written in Hebrew because Hebrew lacks the complex semotaxis of Greek.”) True, Greek morphology and syntax are a bit complicated, but the real reason the New Testament was inscripturated in Greek (rather than, say, Hebrew) is a man named Alexander the Great.
6) Greek makes you a more spiritual person. Nonsense. Just remember 1 Cor. 8:1: Knowledge puffs up. Love builds up. Will Greek make you a more loving person? No. Will Greek help you learn truth that can change your life? Absolutely!
Oh how I miss teaching Greek, but I do love the language and attempt to work in it every day. I would agree, however, with all the above.
Some things you will NOT learn in Greek class are:
1) Greek is the Abracadabra or Open Sesame of biblical interpretation. Hardly. Greek will not automatically tell you what the text says though it will limit your options.
2) Greek is inherently difficult to learn. Wrong. Greek is impeccably logical. It has mathematical precision. After all, God invented the language, and He does all things decently and in order. Anyone can learn it who is hardworking and motivated.
3) Greek is never abused by preachers and theologians. Wrong again. This happens all the time. This is one reason to learn Greek for yourself — so that you can check the accuracy of those who use Greek in their teaching. Greek is often (more often than we think) used to support one’s a priori conclusions as to what a text means. It’s what I call “evangelical Greek,” and no one, myself included, is immune from it.
4) Greek is strange and unique. Absolutely not! Greek is like a long-lost relative you’re meeting for the first time. Like English, it is an Indo-European language and thus shares many cognates and derivatives with your own mother tongue.
5) The New Testament had to be written in Greek because it is superior to other languages. (Sometimes this is phrased as follows: “The New Testament could never have been written in Hebrew because Hebrew lacks the complex semotaxis of Greek.”) True, Greek morphology and syntax are a bit complicated, but the real reason the New Testament was inscripturated in Greek (rather than, say, Hebrew) is a man named Alexander the Great.
6) Greek makes you a more spiritual person. Nonsense. Just remember 1 Cor. 8:1: Knowledge puffs up. Love builds up. Will Greek make you a more loving person? No. Will Greek help you learn truth that can change your life? Absolutely!
Oh how I miss teaching Greek, but I do love the language and attempt to work in it every day. I would agree, however, with all the above.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Bush's Last Days
I've beeninterested in various interviews done by President Bush in these the final days of his watch. What I've appreciated most about him these eight years and was reinforced in the last several days is his unshakeable convictions regarding freedom and keeping America safe. His convictions did not change even when his popularity began taking severe hits. On a recent edition of "Hannity," the President talked about this very thing. Thank God for a man who doesn't change with every political poll!The American Way and Evangelism
Al Mohler has a great entry today concerning evangelism and the "American Way." In essence, Mohler writes that because of Americans' belief in fair play, equality, etc., we really don't believe people who fail to accept Christ will go to hell.
Mohler asks, "Is God subject to the American way?" The answer, of course, is no. We are, however, very much subject to His. We'd better get out and tell people about Jesus!! American Christians must be influenced more by the Bible than the Constitution.
Mohler asks, "Is God subject to the American way?" The answer, of course, is no. We are, however, very much subject to His. We'd better get out and tell people about Jesus!! American Christians must be influenced more by the Bible than the Constitution.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
You Know You're a Reckneck Preacher When-
10 Signs that You Know You're a Redneck Preacher:
10. If your Sunday School bus is on blocks.
9. If you've ever canceled church because your cows got out.
8. If your belt buckle's bigger than your Bible.
7. If you're skeptical of preachers who wear robes and clerical collars.
6. If there's a sign over the church that reads, "Protected by Smith and Wesson."
5. If you've ever taken deep-fried possum to a church dinner.
4. If you've ever made change in the offering plate.
3. If you've ever shown slides from your trip to Graceland.
2. If you "work up lather" when you preach.
1. If your altar call is longer than your sermon
[This from Dave Black's Blog]
10. If your Sunday School bus is on blocks.
9. If you've ever canceled church because your cows got out.
8. If your belt buckle's bigger than your Bible.
7. If you're skeptical of preachers who wear robes and clerical collars.
6. If there's a sign over the church that reads, "Protected by Smith and Wesson."
5. If you've ever taken deep-fried possum to a church dinner.
4. If you've ever made change in the offering plate.
3. If you've ever shown slides from your trip to Graceland.
2. If you "work up lather" when you preach.
1. If your altar call is longer than your sermon
[This from Dave Black's Blog]
Church Hopping
This week a good friend of mine and his wife spent the night. He is a missionary in Brazil and as we were renewing our fellowship he asked me what was different about serving in South Carolina as compared to other places I've been. It only took a moment for me to answer. It is the "church-hopping" mentality of many people here. On any given Sunday, we'll have 5 to 10 people visiting our church who are members of other churches. Those folks are discontent for whatever reason with the church they're in. The sad thing is just the opposite is likely true. It is a fact that most churches grow around here by swapping sheep.
I've never seen so many discontented people in one area, and I've tried to put my finger on why that is true. I'm sure I'll keep working on the answer, but here are some preliminary observations:
I've never seen so many discontented people in one area, and I've tried to put my finger on why that is true. I'm sure I'll keep working on the answer, but here are some preliminary observations:
- There is the need for a religious experience. Some people need an emotional high all the time. After attending a church for a while the new wears off, the high become more middle, and they're off to some other place.
- There is lack of spiritual maturity. Some people are simply not growing in the Lord and do not have the spiritual maturity to handle any "pot-hole" that inevitably shows up in any church. At the first sign of a problem in the church of when they themselves have a problem with someone else, they're gone.
- There is a general lack of commitment to any institution. This is a sign of the post-modern era in which we live. Some simply do not want to live by any one's rules, including God's.
- There is the need to be entertained. Of course this hits at the lack of knowledge about true worship.
- There is a "me" mentality. Some who hop around are looking only to be served and not to serve.
There may be many other reasons but these are starters. In my opinion, if God leads an individual to a church there are only two reasons why He would lead them out. The first is a theological problem. If the church does not stand on the Word, then there is a need to move. Second is moral. If there is a terrible moral problem that the church will not address, there is the right to move. That's it!
How can a church be strong and accomplish God's will if a good number of the members are wondering whether they should go somewhere else?
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Succeeding a Moses
I'm studying Joshua 1 in preparation for a sermon and was struck again at the magnitude of succeeding a giant. Just read the few verses that end Deuteronomy and see what kind of man Moses was. One writer calls him, "Moses the Incomparable." No wonder Joshua was a bit fearful.
Yet there is one truth that jumps off the page of Joshua 1. Dale Ralph Davis writes, "Moses may die; God's promise lives on. There is a passing of an era yet the endurance of the promise. Yahweh's fidelity does not hinge on the achievements of men, however gifted they may be, nor does it evaporate in the face of funerals of men."
He is so right. When someone passes off the scene God always has another to take his place. Moses was dead, so God used Joshua. That thought humbles me. God will use me today, but tomorrow He will use somebody else. God's work goes on. Thus I should never think the church can't get by without me. It can and will. In the meantime, I am simply to be faithful. I'm standing on the shoulders of others. One day others will stand upon mine.
Yet there is one truth that jumps off the page of Joshua 1. Dale Ralph Davis writes, "Moses may die; God's promise lives on. There is a passing of an era yet the endurance of the promise. Yahweh's fidelity does not hinge on the achievements of men, however gifted they may be, nor does it evaporate in the face of funerals of men."
He is so right. When someone passes off the scene God always has another to take his place. Moses was dead, so God used Joshua. That thought humbles me. God will use me today, but tomorrow He will use somebody else. God's work goes on. Thus I should never think the church can't get by without me. It can and will. In the meantime, I am simply to be faithful. I'm standing on the shoulders of others. One day others will stand upon mine.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Scientology
The recent tragic death of John Travolta's son brings Scientology back to the news. An informative overview of Scientology can be found at 4TruthNet. You might want to check it out. Scientologists believe that human beings are divine. They also believe in reincarnation.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
One More with the Grands
Mamaw with her grands at our annual Christmas Eve get together in Kennett. From left to right, Susan, Rob, Mamaw, Steve, John, and Dave. This is the only night of the year the Patton kids are together in one place. We miss Mom and Dad still but they're forever with us in memory.
Great-Grands and Great-Great-Grands
Here is "Mamaw" Hogue with her great and great-great grand children. When you're 91, the family gets pretty big!!
Christmas 2008
Happy New Year from the Pattons!!
"Forgetting the past and looking forward to what lies ahead, I press on to reach the end of the race and receive the heavenly prize for which God, through Christ Jesus, is calling us" [Phil 3:13-14 NLT].
Friday, December 19, 2008
Christmas Devotionals
I've written a week's worth of Christmas devotional thoughts for the folks at Fairview. This is probably the last entry before Christmas so from my family to yours--May the Christ of Christmas be real in your hearts!!
Joseph the Carpenter
Joseph figures prominently only in a couple chapters of Matthew's Gospel, but he obviously left a legacy in Jesus' life. Part of his legacy was his occupation. But what did Joseph do for a living? Matthew 13:55 [NASB] says that he was a carpenter. In Mark 6:3, Jesus is called a "carpenter." Most English translations agree with the NASB and use the word carpenter as well.
The Greek word is transliterated tekton [pronounced with a long 'o' sound]. What does it mean? It likely means more than just the idea that most folks have in their minds when they think 'carpenter.' In an excellent article a few years ago in JETS, Ken M. Campbell surveyed the use of the word in a variety of sources and concluded that a tekton was a general craftsman who worked with materials such as stone, wood, and sometimes metal in large and small building projects. A tekton would be involved in a variety of building projects including but not limited to houses, wine-presses, millstones, olive press stones, tombstones, cisterns, farm terraces, vineyards, watch towers, house extensions, etc. He rejects using the term "carpenter," and prefers "builder." That is more of a catch-all term and likely more descriptive of Joseph's and later Jesus' occupation.
My Dad would often say he was a "Jack-of-all-trades". Perhaps that colloquialism describes both what Joseph and later Jesus did for a living.
[Ken M. Campbell, "What Was Jesus' Occupation?" JETS 48 (September 2005): 501-19.]
The Greek word is transliterated tekton [pronounced with a long 'o' sound]. What does it mean? It likely means more than just the idea that most folks have in their minds when they think 'carpenter.' In an excellent article a few years ago in JETS, Ken M. Campbell surveyed the use of the word in a variety of sources and concluded that a tekton was a general craftsman who worked with materials such as stone, wood, and sometimes metal in large and small building projects. A tekton would be involved in a variety of building projects including but not limited to houses, wine-presses, millstones, olive press stones, tombstones, cisterns, farm terraces, vineyards, watch towers, house extensions, etc. He rejects using the term "carpenter," and prefers "builder." That is more of a catch-all term and likely more descriptive of Joseph's and later Jesus' occupation.
My Dad would often say he was a "Jack-of-all-trades". Perhaps that colloquialism describes both what Joseph and later Jesus did for a living.
[Ken M. Campbell, "What Was Jesus' Occupation?" JETS 48 (September 2005): 501-19.]
Friday, December 12, 2008
Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1
As I mentioned earlier, I'm spending a lot of time these days on Matthew's birth narrative. Several things in Matthew make these passages interesting study, not the least are the OT quotations.
After Joseph is told to leave Bethlehem, he takes Jesus and Mary to Egypt. Matthew writes that this is in fulfillment of Hosea 11:1: "Out of Egypt I called my son." Some scholars see that Matthew saw in this passage a prediction of Jesus' journey to Egypt, however, the original context is clearly a reference to the exodus. As Turner points out in his commentary, those who think Matthew saw a prediction of Jesus in Hos 11:1 usually state that Matthew has insight into the sensus plenior of Hosea.
A better approach is taking Hos 11:1 typologically [following Turner, Blomberg, and others]. Hos 11:1 alludes to a theological motif that Matthew cherishes: divine sonship. The exodus shows Israel's status as God's firstborn. What was true of Israel is even more true of Jesus. Quoting Turner: "In Hos 11:1 the exodus provides a historical pattern of God's loving preservation of his son Israel from Pharaoh's wrath. From a Christian perspective, this past event is recapitulated by God's loving preservation of his Son, Jesus, from Herod's wrath" [91].
Blomberg is surely correct when he writes: "Just as God brought the nation of Israel out of Egypt to inaugurate his original covenant with them, so again God is bringing the Messiah, who fulfills the hopes of Israel, out of Egypt as he is about to inaugurate his new covenant--Jesus recapitulates the role of Israel as a whole" [67].
The typological approach to Matthew's use of the OT in chapters 1-2 is surely the correct one. Matthew sees in Hos 11:1 and other OT passages with respect to Jesus parallels in the way God worked in the past that cannot be contributed to coincidence. Again quoting Turner, "Matthew looks at biblical history with the conviction that it is organically related to Jesus the Messiah as the seed is to the harvest." Well said.
After Joseph is told to leave Bethlehem, he takes Jesus and Mary to Egypt. Matthew writes that this is in fulfillment of Hosea 11:1: "Out of Egypt I called my son." Some scholars see that Matthew saw in this passage a prediction of Jesus' journey to Egypt, however, the original context is clearly a reference to the exodus. As Turner points out in his commentary, those who think Matthew saw a prediction of Jesus in Hos 11:1 usually state that Matthew has insight into the sensus plenior of Hosea.
A better approach is taking Hos 11:1 typologically [following Turner, Blomberg, and others]. Hos 11:1 alludes to a theological motif that Matthew cherishes: divine sonship. The exodus shows Israel's status as God's firstborn. What was true of Israel is even more true of Jesus. Quoting Turner: "In Hos 11:1 the exodus provides a historical pattern of God's loving preservation of his son Israel from Pharaoh's wrath. From a Christian perspective, this past event is recapitulated by God's loving preservation of his Son, Jesus, from Herod's wrath" [91].
Blomberg is surely correct when he writes: "Just as God brought the nation of Israel out of Egypt to inaugurate his original covenant with them, so again God is bringing the Messiah, who fulfills the hopes of Israel, out of Egypt as he is about to inaugurate his new covenant--Jesus recapitulates the role of Israel as a whole" [67].
The typological approach to Matthew's use of the OT in chapters 1-2 is surely the correct one. Matthew sees in Hos 11:1 and other OT passages with respect to Jesus parallels in the way God worked in the past that cannot be contributed to coincidence. Again quoting Turner, "Matthew looks at biblical history with the conviction that it is organically related to Jesus the Messiah as the seed is to the harvest." Well said.
Preaching and Authority
Al Mohler has an excellent post today on the preacher's authority.
I believe the preacher's authority comes from three places. First and foremost is the Bible. The Word of God is the authoritative book of the preacher. We have no authority outside it. Second is the call of God. God's call gives the preacher authority to proclaim, "Thus says the Lord." One who preaches must be one who is called. Third is the preacher's character. The preacher loses all credibility with a congregation once his character is proven to be suspect. Thus a preacher must protect his integrity.
I agree with Mohler. God's people are crying for a word from the Lord. The preacher must give it to them and with all the authority God has given! Preachers must throw thunderbolts on Sunday not give nice religious platitudes that mean nothing and change no one.
"For since, in God's wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of preaching" [1 Cor 1:21]. Let's be fools for Christ's sake. Let's preach the Word!
I believe the preacher's authority comes from three places. First and foremost is the Bible. The Word of God is the authoritative book of the preacher. We have no authority outside it. Second is the call of God. God's call gives the preacher authority to proclaim, "Thus says the Lord." One who preaches must be one who is called. Third is the preacher's character. The preacher loses all credibility with a congregation once his character is proven to be suspect. Thus a preacher must protect his integrity.
I agree with Mohler. God's people are crying for a word from the Lord. The preacher must give it to them and with all the authority God has given! Preachers must throw thunderbolts on Sunday not give nice religious platitudes that mean nothing and change no one.
"For since, in God's wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of preaching" [1 Cor 1:21]. Let's be fools for Christ's sake. Let's preach the Word!
Deaton
Our friend and member of Fairview, Todd Deaton, has been named the editor of The Western Recorder, the second oldest Baptist paper in the country. Todd, Michelle, Laura, and Caleb will move to Kentucky after the first of the year. Our loss is Kentucky's gain.
Congrats to Todd; he'll do a great job.
http://www.baptistcourier.com/2997.article
Congrats to Todd; he'll do a great job.
http://www.baptistcourier.com/2997.article
Scrooge Lives
It seems that Scrooge is alive and well and sitting in the pews of our churches. In an excellent commentary in The Baptist Courier, Don Kirkland reports on a recent article in Christianity Today entitled, "Scrooge Lives." In it, researchers discovered that more than one in four American Protestants give away no money at all, "not even a token $5 per year." Only about 27% of evangelicals tithe.
Kirkland also reports that the CT article confirms what I've known throughout my ministry--only a small percentage of church members cover the bills for everyone else. As Kirkland aptly puts it, "Small groups of Christians who are generous are 'covering' for the vast majority of Christians who give away nothing or very little of their earnings."
This is not new information but it is still alarming. The Bible is clear. God's people are to give. The NT is clear that the giving should be sacrificial. Paul, for example, commends the church of Macedonia as one that gave sacrificially in spite of their poverty [2 Cor 8:2]. Christians are to give no matter the economic times.
Again quoting Kirkland, "All church members must carry their own weight. It is wrong to continue to allow a small percentage of generous Christians to shoulder the load of the Lord's work with little or no help from their fellow believers." Amen!
I wonder if all of us would give, how much more could be done for the Kingdom?
Read Kirkland's commentary; it is worth the time.
http://www.baptistcourier.com/2962.article
Kirkland also reports that the CT article confirms what I've known throughout my ministry--only a small percentage of church members cover the bills for everyone else. As Kirkland aptly puts it, "Small groups of Christians who are generous are 'covering' for the vast majority of Christians who give away nothing or very little of their earnings."
This is not new information but it is still alarming. The Bible is clear. God's people are to give. The NT is clear that the giving should be sacrificial. Paul, for example, commends the church of Macedonia as one that gave sacrificially in spite of their poverty [2 Cor 8:2]. Christians are to give no matter the economic times.
Again quoting Kirkland, "All church members must carry their own weight. It is wrong to continue to allow a small percentage of generous Christians to shoulder the load of the Lord's work with little or no help from their fellow believers." Amen!
I wonder if all of us would give, how much more could be done for the Kingdom?
Read Kirkland's commentary; it is worth the time.
http://www.baptistcourier.com/2962.article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)