toledoth

Since it will probably be a while before I start preaching on a regular basis, I’ve committed myself to doing a little bit of translation work everyday, switching off between Hebrew and Greek.  The original languages are my primary source for writing sermons; I do very little with commentaries or listening/reading other sermons.  It’s not that I think I’m smarter than the commentaries, I just feel like the text offers all the material a person needs to write a good sermon.  Commentaries are a last resort for me and only when I get really stuck.  In translating, I’m starting at the beginnings: Genesis in the OT, and Matthew in the NT.  My work in Matthew is doubling as “church work” since this is where I’m planning to start with the future Bible study group(s).  It’s a great book for addressing the Jewish roots of Christianity, presenting an overview of Jesus’ life and the meaning/purpose of what happened, and providing an example of the importance of being a follower of Jesus.

Last week I “worked” on the first several verses of Matthew 1 – not exactly the most challenging Greek in the NT since there’s a lot of repetition.  Matthew 1 is a toledoth – a genealogy – of Jesus.  I’m wrestling with a number of thing here:

1. My convictions regarding Scripture require me to assume that everything in Scripture is there for a reason.  Likewise, each author and book has a rather specific purpose or goal in writing what they do and presenting the information the way they do.  The differences between the various toledoths (Ruth 4; 1 Chronicles 3; Matthew 1) are well-documented.
2. If a major thrust of Matthew’s gospel is discipleship, then what in the world is the purpose of his toledoth?  Perhaps somewhat selfishly, I would love to preach a sermon on this passage.  But if I can’t figure out Matthew’s purpose, I’m a little S-O-L.

Filed under: Apologetics, Bible Study, Discipleship, Theology

Objection to Christianity

I recently came across a blog post in which the author presented his list of 20 reasons why he “de-converted” from Christianity.  Many of his reasons are fairly common, no big surprise.  My goal is to periodically post an objection with my response.  I don’t expect to convert anyone through this, but my prayer is that followers of Jesus and others would see these posts as a good resource for another way of thinking about the issues.  Ultimately, I want people to realize that just because you don’t understand or like something on the surface, doesn’t necessarily mean you should outright reject it.  Ordinarily, we reject something because we don’t see a rational explanation for why certain things happen/exist.  I see that as motivation for seeking out answers to questions I don’t have answers to; if it’s big enough to cause us to change the way we live or affect how we live, it’s big enough and important enough to do some serious searching.  The objections are cut and pasted straight from the original blog; I have not altered the wording in any way.

So I invite you to read through my responses and the issues at stake, and even discuss the issues here…

—————–

Objection:

God is wrathful, jealous, hateful, and kills nations of people like it is a bodily function. He is certainly not just or “holy” in nature.

First things first, the basic issue needs to be clarified – what exactly is the objection.  I tend to assume that in blog posts like this, people write what they mean.  Therefore, I’m going to address the vocab. and statements actually used.  Although there are two sentences here, the second is contingent upon the first.  In other words, what this person is saying is that, because “God is wrathful, jealous, hateful, and kills nations of people, he is certainly not just or ‘holy’ in nature.”

Filed under: Apologetics

Holtz Response, Pt 4

This is the final part of my response to Holtz.  This post covers “Problems 5-8″ and the Conclusion.

Response

PROBLEM #5:

JESUS’ FAILURE TO COMPETENTLY REVEAL HIS DOCTRINES IN HIS OWN WRITTEN ACCOUNT OR THAT OF AN EYE-WITNESS

This is a classic case of the “historian’s fallacy” in which Holtz is imposing modern ideals and expectations upon near eastern culture 2,000 years ago.  Specifically, Holtz is accusing Jesus and his witnesses of not recording historical events and propounding teachings in the same way and with the same values that 21^st century Americans desire.

Holtz attempts to defend this “problem” by attacking the authorship of the Gospels.  While he is correct in stating that we really do not know who authored each Gospel, our lack of knowledge does not affect the truth contained within their pages.  Some Christians may be threatened by such a reality, but then they fail to take into account the contents of these books.  Holtz is making an “appeal to authority” which, for a moderate, reformed Christian like myself, does nothing to shake my confidence in these books.

Simply put, the lack of documentation at the hand of Christ or an eye-witness to the Gospel events has absolutely no bearing on the factuality of these events.  Nor does it negate the divinity of Jesus.  To conclude otherwise – as Holtz has done – is to ignore the reliability of the oral tradition in near eastern culture and assume the testimony of eye-witnesses – as Luke has done – cannot be trusted.

Filed under: Apologetics, Bible Study, Christianity, Culture, Faith, Ministry, Philosophy, Theology

Holtz Response, Pt 3

This is the first half of my formal response to Holtz.  Here, I address “problems” 1-4…

Responses 1-4

Before responding to the eight “problems” that Holtz insists need to be resolved in order to affirm the plausibility of Jesus’ divinity, I need to respond to Holtz’s general use of Scripture.  Throughout his eight-part argument, Holtz frequently cites Scripture to reinforce his point.  While the verses cited may generally be acceptable citations related to the issues at stake, it is his interpretation of those events that is problematic.

As a brief example of what I mean, when Holtz presents his case for Problem #1, he cites Mt. 5:18 ["Truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."] as Jesus’ “endorsement.”  However, what Holtz is failing to do is recognize the difference in context.  He frequently uses “Torah” to refer to the first five books of the Jewish Scriptures, which is in some sense accurate (Jews refer to these books as the Torah).  But in Mt 5, Jesus’ words are directed toward the actual Law – the Decalogue ["nomoj." Theological Dictionary of the Greek New Testament (Abridged), eds. Gerhard Kittel & Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985), vol. 4, 1061-65.].  While the difference may seem rather minor, the implications are rather large.  Matthew 5:18 is not a valid proof-text for Holtz’s argument; Jesus is endorsing Torah, but in this particular passage, Jesus’ endorsement is of the Law, not the actions for God within the five books known as the Pentateuch.

If Holtz’s desire is to use Scripture to defeat Christian notions of Jesus’ divinity, he must use Scripture in a way that Christians would consider acceptable; otherwise, all Holtz is able to achieve is deterring those with little to no knowledge of the Bible or how to study literary works of any sort.

Proper use of any literary source requires an understanding of its intended use and purpose [I am unable to cite this "principle" because this is something I was taught in a high school literature class; I have since "misplaced" my notes and textbook .].  Stray outside those boundaries, and one’s use of a source becomes highly suspect.  Involved in this is consideration and consciousness of context, immediate context and a passages context within the larger work [Fee, Gordon D. & Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All it's Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), 22.].  Regarding use and purpose, Scripture is not to be taken as a history along the same lines of Josephus and Philo.  Nor is it concerned with presenting a scientifically accurate account of the beginning of the material universe.  The Bible is to be considered an account of the workings of God in the lives of His people from Adam and Eve until the expansion of the early church, yet containing timeless truths for God’s people in all ages [Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 144ff.  Baker, David L. Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of the Theological Relationship Between the Old & New Testaments (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 267-68.].  The Christian Scriptures are redemptive history – the story of God working out His redemptive plan in history.  Therefore, it is difficult for one to cite specific verses accurately without taking into consideration the effects of other passages.

Filed under: Apologetics, Bible Study, Christianity, Culture, Faith, Ministry, Philosophy, Theology

Holtz Response, Pt 2

In this post, I offer an initial analysis and evaluation of Holtz’s argument…

Analysis & Evalutation

Holtz is a committed naturalist.  Philosophical and methodological naturalism reject the existence of anything beyond the natural world within which we live and can observe.  In other words they deny the reality of all things supernatural.

Christianity – as with most religions – rely on the existence of the supernatural for their legitimacy.  As such, naturalism and religion are inherently opposed to one another.  In recent years, prominent naturalists have attempted to offer natural explanations for religious belief, usually taking aim at Christianity as the “poster-child” of supernaturalism.

This is exactly what Holtz attempts to do in his “Arguments Against Christianity.”  What he offers is his own naturalistic explanation of some common defenses of the divinity of Christ.  Holtz’s assumption is that, if he can show that biblical accounts of the supernatural actions of Jesus have perfectly rational, naturalistic explanations, then Jesus’ divinity is in question and the legitimacy of Christianity as a whole begins to unravel.

Filed under: Apologetics, Bible Study, Christianity, Culture, Ministry, Philosophy, Theology