On Knowing Magic Languages

I have been going back and forth on posting this for a variety of reasons, so allow me to start with a comment and then a couple disclaimers.

First, let me remind y’all of my own credentials. I have earned my BA and MA in Biblical Studies, and am half-way through an MA in Biblical Exegesis at Wheaton; along the way I have completed more than thirty credit hours in Biblical languages. I am still no expert, but neither am I the village clown when it comes to the Biblical languages—I only say that to say that I am speaking from experience rather than ignorance.

Second, I do not mean to offend anyone. This may very well not be my place to say anything. However, I felt that it was necessary to share some advice with my compatriots. If I do offend you, I am sincerely sorry.

Third and finally, since I am speaking from my own experience, it is entirely possible that I am reading my own experience onto others. If that is the case, I sincerely apologize and applaud you for succeeding where I failed.

Now, to the core of the issue. I recently started noticing that a bunch of us are enjoying our new found knowledge of the Biblical languages, and show it on Facebook by quoting from the Greek or Hebrew, sometimes with an English translation, sometimes not. From my own experience as a budding academic—and later as a churchman—I think that this can be problematic for a couple reasons.

An honest question that we should all ask ourselves (in other matters as well!): does the post build up our fellow believers? That is, does seeing the Greek/Hebrew letters explain something to our sisters that they would otherwise be unable to understand from reading the English? If yes, then it is probably a fairly complex exegetical problem, in which case, will your three sentence post be able to sufficiently explain to them what they are missing? Or, does posting the foreign text tear down our brothers by reminding them that they are theologically uneducated? Does your post of a text that they cannot read bring them closer to Christ, or can it move them farther away by reminding them that they can’t read the “real” Bible?

Facebook is public so the purpose of posting on Facebook is for others to see. So what is the purpose of posting in a language that the majority of your friends cannot read?

I won’t presume to answer that question for you, but I will answer it for my own case publicly. In years prior, I never would have admitted it, but in retrospect I feel fairly certain that at least one of my motivating purposes in such things was to show my friends and family how much I had learned. The true focus was not on God and what he had done by communicating to us; rather, the focus was on me and what I knew. After all, if it was the message of the text that I was wanting to communicate to my friends, then doing so in a language that they don’t understand would be a pretty odd way of communicating.

So, perhaps the question I should ask myself: who is being built up when I post in a language that only those of us in the secret club can read? Me? Or the church?

I continually have to be reminded that if my function is to be a servant to the church, then my ultimate aim should always be to build up the church. If I harm those in the church in a display of my linguistic prowess, am I serving them? Ultimately, do my words remind them of the fact that God has written in human language so that they can understand Him, or am I reminding them that they have to go through me to find out what God “really” said?

College Church

This Sunday, I visited College Church, in Wheaton. The facilities themselves are a beautiful red brick in a classic look for a church. As the service started, there were still a dozen people on the steps of the church finishing their conversations (apparently this is a common thing in this congregation).

When I went into the sanctuary an usher whisked me to the front and squeezed me into a pew. The sanctuary is nearly standing room only, so this is one of the few places I have been where the ushers do more than hand out bulletins. However, no more than thirty seconds later, a Wheaton student who had met me the previous day was at my side bringing me to sit with the “Exegetes.” I am not sure whether this is a statement on the quality of students at Wheaton, or if it is a statement on the quality of member at College Church; nonetheless, whichever group it reflects on, it made me feel very welcome and like I was already at home with a group of friends.

The worship service has a high church feel to it, complete with communal reading of Scripture, recited prayers, and employing an organ. The church only sings hymns, which is an interesting choice since a large portion of the congregation is comprised of college students. Another facet of the music that is unusual is that they have no worship leader. The organist will play the opening line to a song, then will hold the last note to signal that it is time to start singing.

Though the church is rather large, they prayed by name for members who were sick or undergoing other serious troubles. The prayer time lasts for several minutes as the minister worked his way through the list.

As a side note, I noticed that there were quite a number of younger people who would make noise at inappropriate times in the service, but that no one in the congregation seemed bothered. I learned that the church had a vibrant disabilities ministry, and they are very welcoming of people who have disabilities, or families who have children with disabilities. In fact, the church has a staffer whose entire area of responsibility is this ministry.

This was Dr. Josh Moody’s first day back in the pulpit, as he had apparently been traveling over the summer. The sermon was very thorough, and focused more on the context of the passage than perhaps any sermon I have heard. It was obvious that the congregation was well educated in biblical studies. For instance, this was one of the few (at best) times I have heard a pastor use Greek in order to minimize its importance (“Now, regardless of how you understand the kat’ oikon, this still means…”) rather than use it to strengthen his point. That is, rather than assuming that his audience was unaware of the Greek text, he was assuming that they were aware of it, and was thus answering a potential exegetical difficulty arising from the text. As another example, his sermon illustration came from seventeenth century puritanism. However, given his personal education (PhD, Cambridge) and the demographics of the church, this highly intellectual approach made perfect sense.

Reflecting its non-denominational roots, there was no altar call, only another song followed by everyone standing and leaving while the organist played a postlude.

While many people would not be impressed with the high church style and intellectual nature of this church, I felt as though I had arrived at home.

A Tale of Two Communities

Last night, an elderly gentleman fell down outside of my apartment complex. I spent about ten minutes trying to help him up, but he was two to three times my weight and the physics were not in my favor. Every time I would get his weight off the ground, my feet would start sliding towards him, and he was not strong enough to provide any help. So, I explained that I had only been here for one week and did not know anyone at the complex yet, and asked him if he knew anyone I could call to come help. “I have been here for seven years, but no, I don’t know anyone.”

After a moment of shock, I went into my apartment to call a fellow Wheaton student I had met the day before. Within five minutes, this near stranger had dropped everything and was on his way to help me on behalf of a complete stranger.

The whole episode reminded me of why believers are supposed to live in community (both within our Christian community and within our broader community): there are things in life that are too big for one person to handle, whether that is learning to seek Christ better, or finding accountability with a sin you are struggling with, or lifting someone off the ground who is many times your size. We need other people. And most people recognize this need, though many do not know how to fulfill it (for instance, this man undoubtedly recognized the need for a community, except his community was himself).

In the church today, community is something that is hard to attain, and is often defined as thirty seconds of awkward conversation with the person next to you while the worship band keeps playing. However, Paul dedicates much of his time to explaining how the community should work together (Gal. 6, much of Eph., etc.). In Acts 2, as soon as people came to follow Christ, they immediately entered into true community (sharing meals, in that context). When community truly exists, it is an extremely attractive thing. For instance, though I had not had time to integrate into my broader context, I had fellow believers who I could already lean on, even though I had only spent a whopping one hour with them over lunch.

How is your community? Are you participating in both your secular community and your Christian community? Or are you preferring to live as a community of one?

Wilcrest Baptist Church

As you have all probably noticed, it has been quite some time since I posted a blog about a church visit. I settled down at First Baptist Dallas, and I am now partnering with Hickory Tree Baptist Church. However, over the past couple weeks I have been visiting my family in Houston over the holidays. This past Sunday, I attended Wilcrest Baptist Church with my brother and his family.

To avoid burying the lead, of all the churches I have written about, this one is “The One.” Obviously this is just a preliminary assessment, but this is the church I would be most interested in going under the hood and seeing what they do to bring in people, to build the people who are there, and to send out people.

The first thing that struck me is the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural dynamic of the church. In fact, the church describes itself as a multi-ethnic congregation that trains missionaries. Back in the late 80’s and early 90s, the church was primarily white and was dwindling as the neighboring communities underwent white-flight. But they called Rodney Woo (Ph.D., Southwestern Seminary) as pastor, and he led the church through a transformation: the church more than doubled in size, and now represents more than 40 nations. (Woo wrote a book on the experience, titled The Color of Church.)

The flavor of the worship was quite varied: the first song had a Jamaican jive, the next had a sort of Zydeco feel, the next had a contemporary praise-and-worship sound. Our pew was the only non-integrated pew in the building since my family alone took up the entire row. There were songs I didn’t know, and there were songs I did. But over-all, it felt different. It is hard to describe that exactly: it didn’t feel like anyone was being pushed into a mold. It seemed like there was a specific attempt at having something for everyone.

While I really appreciated the multi-cultural character of the church, the deal was sealed when their pastor (Jonathan Williams) began to preach. He was preaching over the Great Commission, He asked all the typical, general questions (what are the reasons to participate in missions) at the beginning of his sermon, but when he moved to the text, his sermon was structured according to the participles—love at first sight. This is the first of my blogged-about-church-visits where the sermon was structured around the syntax and structure of the Greek.

No church is perfect (and if it were, it wouldn’t be after I joined!), but this church definitely caught my attention. If you are ever in Houston, I would highly suggest visiting this church.

An Army at Christmas?

This is a re-post from a couple years back. I really enjoyed this project, and so I revised and expanded it for this Christmas, adding some more details and such. However, the general point of it is the same. Enjoy!

“Angels we have heard on high, sweetly singing o’er the plains…” Christmas songs like this—along with stories, nativity scenes, paintings, and numerous other media—have seemingly permanently engrained a certain approach to the Christmas story on our minds; so much so that we gloss over what is right in front of our eyes, and instead we read into the text what we believe it to say. However, there is much more depth to what is actually happening in the Christmas story than what is seen in the more popular conceptions of the event. I will not be trying to tackle all the various imagery that is in this narrative, but rather I will be focusing on the appearance of the Heavenly Host and related terminology and imagery.

The first thing to notice when looking at the entire section of the narrative is the remarkable similarity between the appearance of the angels to the shepherds and the story of the man throwing a feast in Luke 14:23, where the invited guests made excuses to not come, and eventually the master had his servant compel people in the highways and hedges to come in: the lowest of the low—this is especially intriguing since the master was most likely an extremely rich person: the ultra-rich inviting in the lowest in society. Similarly, those in the katalyma, or guest room, could have witnessed the birth of the greatest king, but instead had decided to shun their own kin—and in response, the master sent his servants (angels) to compel some of the lowest in society (shepherds) to go see the birth of the Messiah.

After the birth of Jesus, a character who is only described as ἄγγελος κυρίου appears in the sky outside Bethlehem. In the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), this is the phrase used to translate the Hebrew phrase “the Angel of the Lord.” Most English translations translate this phrase as “an angel of the Lord,” to reflect the fact that there is no definite article on either word. However (those who have not studied Greek syntax, bear with me for a moment), Apollonius’ Corollary dictates that in genitive constructs that are anarthrous, the two nouns will share the same semantic force, making “an angel of the Lord,” the least defensible option available. The most likely would be either, “the Angel of the Lord,” or “an angel of a lord.” In the context of the passage, it seems fairly clear that the former is to be preferred (see Dan Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, 250-252). This then attaches a special significance to this messenger, as the Angel of the Lord was His special messenger who spoke throughout the Old Testament, often with the power of God Himself.

When the angel “appeared” to them, the Greek word that is employed (ἐπέστη) almost always carries a somewhat aggressive connotation, such as coming to rebuke or argue with  (Lk 4:39; 10:40), defend true doctrine against heresy (1 Tim 4:2), coming to someone to arrest them (Ac 4:1; 6:12), or outright attacking someone (1 Th 5:3; Acts 17:5). While there are a few more passages that employ the term differently, they are the clear minority for this item. In addition, this connotation could help explain another item that is coming up shortly.

The phrase, “the glory of the Lord,” is an important part of understanding this passage. The Old Testament showed glory as something associated with God’s awe and power. It “combines awe and terror, and it simultaneously invites approach and distance.”[1] The term is used to describe the splendor of a king (such as in Mt. 4:8, 6:29; Rev. 21:24, 26). This makes it clear that these angels are not just apparitions; they are the messengers from the King, announcing a royal birth.

The next thing that deserves mention is that the shepherds were in fear. If the angel in question is the spokesman for some type of Heavenly Choir, as we often picture it, then there would be no reason for the shepherds to fear! I have never in my life had a choir director have to tell me to not be afraid of the choir, nor do I know of anyone who was terrified by a choir. Obviously, something in our picture is missing. However, most people would be terrified by having the king’s direct messenger appear to them, especially if the way in which the messenger was coming didn’t seem like the most friendly of appearances. Anyone would be terrified by that!

“And the angel said to them, ‘Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy…unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”[2] This phrase presents all kinds of opportunities for shedding light on Christmas, as well as the theme of the Gospel. Why is this? Because the Greek verb used, εὐγγελίζομαι, is frequently translated in the New Testament as “I preach the gospel.” So, if the gospel is only that Christ died for our sins so we can have eternal life, then how could the gospel be preached at Jesus’ birth, before He had an opportunity to sacrificially die?  Again, something is most probably missing in our understanding of the terminology. However, the text provides the answer for us!  A savior, who is the Christ, is the message of the gospel being preached by the angel. In the shepherds’ minds, what connotation does the Christ, or Messiah, bring?  The connotation was that the Messiah would be the one who would establish The Kingdom— the one without end, and without borders (that would also do away with sin and correct the nation’s standing with God).  Israel’s long awaited King was being born that very night! As presented in Luke 2, this is the Gospel!  So, what is the connotation of the term, “Lord?”  Calling someone Lord was a very simple way to make everyone angry. The Caesars were often called Lord (although this usage became more standard after the time of Jesus’ birth).  But in the Septuagint, the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is translated as Lord. So, when this baby is declared to be Messiah and Lord, He is most probably simultaneously being declared the King of all, as well as having His own divinity confirmed.

“And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God…” This is the central idea in the passage that is probably most often overlooked. Whenever modern Christians read the Christmas story, they most probably envision a large choir in the sky with white robes, halos, and harps, such as we sing about in our Christmas carols. However, the imagery at play here is militaristic, not “angelic” in the common understanding of the word. The Heavenly Host is almost always associated with being the Army of God. The word used here, στρατιᾶς, is frequently translated as “army,” in other passages. In fact, in the Septuagint, στρατιᾶ is used twenty-eight times, and nineteen of those times are referring to earthly armies; the other nine are all attached to “heavenly” and most of them refer to an army, with a few possibly referring to the stars.[3] “This heavenly host is a vast number of angelic beings, mighty and noble, who relate to Yahweh as knights related to feudal kings: in homage, in service and in battle. They are a vast army, loyal to the purposes and desires of God.[4]” A new King had just been declared as such by the chief royal messenger of the High King who was then surrounded by the Military of that King, who are there to insure that there is no question as to the validity of the proclamation of the baby’s Messianic responsibilities. 

Furthermore, the fact that it is a multitude of angels that appears further illustrates the fact that this is God announcing a new King. A multitude insures that no one thought a lone angel had gone off the reservation and gotten lost on his way to announce the birth of some other king. A massive heavenly army shows without a shadow of doubt that God was announcing that this baby was the new King.

At the end of the earthly ministry of Jesus, He references to having this army at His disposal: “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53) We see here a “legion” which is another military term. The Heavenly Host is the army that the Messiah has at His disposal if He so chooses to make use of it.

“Saying, glory to God in the highest, and upon Earth peace, among men goodwill.”  This phrase is where I see the focus of the arrival of the Heavenly Army. This is the ultimate display of “Peace through strength.” With a background in politics, I am acquainted with the idea of peace through strength: this is usually tossed around when trying to increase defense spending by arguing that by building the most powerful army the world has ever seen, a nation will promote peace since no one would dare attack the nation—and if they did attack, then they could be quickly and efficiently destroyed by overwhelming force. This is the exact same thing at play in Luke 2, only magnified. Angels are many times invisible to the naked eye; they are never recorded as being killed by a human; and, they are devastatingly effective at wiping out an opposing army since a single angel can destroy 185,000 soldiers in a single night (2 Kings 19:35). In short, it is a force that no other army can even hope to be able to stand against.  But this army isn’t here just for show; they are here to back up the proclamation of the new King of Israel, showing that He had the most powerful military backing Him because He was the one appointed by God to provide redemption for the nation, and the entire world. When the fiercest fighter declares that a fight is over, it is over—even if he has to throw some more punches to actually finish it. Similarly, when the Heavenly Army, on mission from God, declares that there is a new King, and that peace has arrived, there is peace, even if the Devil, and his actions through the nations, needs to be defeated first. 

“Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” This illustrates the earlier discussion of using “Lord” for the name of God.  What I find interesting is that there is no question of whether they were dreaming this, or if someone had spiked their drinks; rather, they all know that this was from God, and they therefore go to see the new King.

“And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them.” Much like folks today, it was hard for whoever was around to believe that the army of God had appeared, and told these shepherds that this baby was the Messiah. I am sure that even if they did believe the shepherds, they were wondering, “Why didn’t He tell kings, or the richest of society, or at least some of the pillars of the community? How come we didn’t see the army?” But God had chosen to go to the outskirts of society, and bring in those who would most probably not be considered worthy of such an honor because those were willing to actually believe the message and obey without delay.

So, what is the point of all this? Simple: there is a new king who is to rule over the entire world, backed by Almighty God and the Heavenly Army. If He is an actual King, and we mean that in a more significant way than simply using the title in our songs and prayers, then that means that the Christian is actually a citizen of a new country—The Kingdom of God. As such, his first and foremost priority is to follow Christ and to be obedient to Christ’s commands.  However, the modern Christian often places allegiance to his country, or some other source, above his allegiance to his Messiah.  A good example of this misplaced allegiance is the Christmas Truce of 1914. On Christmas Day, the British and German forces stopped killing each other, celebrated the day together, and returned to their war the next day. These were obviously people who at least had a passing knowledge of Christ so that they wanted to celebrate His birth, but the very next day they were killing each other again. Imagine how Christ would have reacted to this! He who said to bless those who curse you, and return good for evil, and yet His own followers kill each other at the command of their government! These were brothers in Christ, citizens in His nation, killing each other for an earthly nation which will pass away (Psalm 2). 

Another example of misplaced allegiance is the allegiance to materialism. Christ repeatedly told His followers to sell what they have, and give to the poor. And instead, we have turned His birth into a day of receiving even more things than we already possess. And, yes, many will be more generous at this time of the year and give to the poor, but the commands to clothe the naked and feed the hungry are not things to be taken care of once a year, but should be a life long commitment of the believer.

Keeping Christ in Christmas means nothing if you do not recognize Christmas as the birth of the Christ, the birth of the true king whose Kingdom is the entire world, and respond as such.

---

[1] Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 330.

[2] This and all other Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version, unless otherwise noted.

[3] Verlyn D. Verbrugge. A Not-So-Silent Night: The Unheard Story of Christmas and Why it Matters (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009), 69.

[4] Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 373.