Showing posts with label bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bible. Show all posts

Thursday, April 22, 2021

The Story of Hosea

I'm now in the thick of Hosea; I decided to spend a term teaching this book, which is all good and well, except the exciting part of the story finishes after only three chapters. And the third chapter is only 5 verses.

It's fairly well known for the story of Hosea, a prophet, who is commanded to marry an adulterous woman, Gomer, as a symbol of God's commitment to the unfaithful Israel. They have three children together: Jezreel, Lo-Ruhamah and Lo-Ammi, with all their names having important meanings.

To start off with, there are three important questions to establish:

  1. What further use is made of the names after the initial naming?
  2. What is the story told in chapters 1-3? Is it one continuous story, or two, or three?
  3. How does the rest of the book (4-14) connect to the opening (1-3)?
I'll try to tackle these in order.

What further use is made of the names after the initial naming?

There are five names with meanings:
  1. Hosea. From the verb ישע (yasha', to save). Yhwh will save his people.
  2. Gomer. From the verb גמר (gamar, to finish). Yhwh is finished with his people.
  3. Jezreel. From the verb זרע (zara', to sow). God will sow.
  4. Lo-Ruhamah. From the particle לא (lo, not) and the verb רחם (racham, to have compassion). Yhwh will not have compassion.
  5. Lo-Ammi. From the particle לא (lo, not) and the noun עם ('am, people). They are not Yhwh's people.
Hosea as a name is only mentioned thrice, and only in the first two verses. Twice in 1:7 the verb 'to save' appears (referring to Judah), but thereafter only three more times in the final two chapters.
Gomer as a name or verb never appears after her single mention in 1:3. She is alluded to as a woman of harlotry, as "she", as a wife, as a mother, but not her name. 
Jezreel turns up three times in the opening verses (1:4a,4b,5), recalling not the verb 'to sow' but the valley of bloodshed known as Jezreel. However at the end of chapter 2 (2:23-23) the verbal meaning is played upon in terms of a reversal. Two further times it occurs, in the famous 'sow the wind, reap the whirlwind' quote (8:7), and then in the exhortation to 'sow righteousness!' (10:12)
Lo-Ruhamah sounds more like a name, but the connection to comfort/mercy/compassion is easily missed. However, while this comes up both as a name and verb and reversal of the name nine times in the first two chapters, thereafter it only returns in the very final chapter (14:3) as the reversal of judgement means the orphans will find compassion.
Lo-Ammi is easily the most prolific of the names, with 'people' being regularly used in the first two chapters (6x) but also thereafter (13x). Of course, in contrast to the other names, it is much harder to avoid saying 'people', especially when this book is about the people of Israel. 

To summarise, with the exception of 'people', the names which are so important in the first chapter more or less disappear, with the least frequent four verbal roots only occurring a combined 7 times in the rest of the book. This could lead someone one of two ways. It could make you think, "oh, there's no way that Hosea 1-3 is written by the same person as Hosea 4-14." But their absence makes them almost more conspicuous. The avoidance of the otherwise common verbs "to save, to have mercy, to sow" seems more noteworthy than their appearance. This makes me think that their occurrences in 8:7; 10:12 (to sow); 13:4, 10; 14:3 (to save) and 14:3 again (to have mercy) are not accidental but deliberate.

What is the story told in chapters 1-3? Is it one continuous story, or two, or three?

My default is to read in a linear fashion:
  1. God tells Hosea to marry Gomer.
  2. Hosea marries Gomer and has kids
  3. Gomer runs off
  4. God tells Hosea to win her back
  5. God instructs Hosea to purchase her 
  6. Hosea marries Gomer and they live together "many days"
But it doesn't have to be that way. In particular, I can't see the plot really advancing any in chapter 2. Rather, it restates much of what was already said in chapter 1, and the positive conclusion in chapter 2 seems like part 2 of the conclusion to chapter 1. That would mean we have chapter 1-2 telling the same story, while chapter 3 gives us the next step.

The third possibility is that there's only one story, told in three different ways, with each chapter supplying information the others omitted. This hinges in part with the fourth word in chapter 3, 'again' (עוד, 'od). This could go with the preceding words, "Yhwh spoke to me again," potentially meaning "God told me yet again to go and marry Gomer". Alternatively it could go with what follows, "Yhwh said to me, 'Again go and marry Gomer'", because she has run off. Either reading works, and in the long run I don't think it matters, but the ambiguity is certainly fascinating.

How does the rest of the book (4-14) connect to the opening (1-3)?

I ask this question because I'd like to know. They really do seem disconnected, but I haven't yet done enough work to determine whether there is one "voice" throughout the book, or whether the distinctive sections betray distinct authors. I haven't really come across anyone who has discussed this in depth. Ultimately it doesn't matter too much, because we have the one book preserved for us and that's what we have to deal with. But it would still be nice to have some ideas about which came first, and what connections we should be seeing. All that is to come!



Tuesday, November 10, 2020

Trying to preach through the Bible

 I've been at ND since 2012, and wanted to keep a record of how much of the Bible I've preached through (or had preached through by others). I've included proposed preaching for next year, but haven't included one-off guest spots or topical/doctrine talks.

I tend to follow the pattern of Term 1: Gospel, Term 2: OT, Term 3: Doctrine, Term 4: Epistle. I try to rotate through the major divisions of the OT (Law, Prophets, Writings), and alternate between Paul and non-Paul for the Epistles. 

Old Testament

Law
* Genesis - 2012 (5)
* Exodus - 2022 (22)
* Leviticus - 2018 (10)
* Numbers - 2012 (3)
* Deuteronomy - 2025 (9)
Prophets
Former Prophets
* Joshua - 2015 (13)
* Judges - 2020 (10)
* 1-2 Samuel
* 1-2 Kings
Latter Prophets
* Isaiah - 2024 (14)
* Jeremiah
* Ezekiel - 2017 (10)
The Twelve
* Hosea - 2021 (10)
* Joel - 2012 (3)
* Amos - 2014 (7)
* Obadiah
* Jonah
* Micah
* Nahum
* Habakkuk - 2021 (4)
* Zephaniah
* Haggai - 2023 (2)
* Zechariah - 2026 (11)
* Malachi - 2023 (3)
The Writings
Poetry
* Psalms - 2012 (4), 2019 (14) (120-135)
* Proverbs - 2023 (5), 2024 (5)
* Job
Scrolls
* Song of Songs - 2021 (4)
* Ruth - 2026 (4)
* Lamentations - 2019 (5)
* Ecclesiastes - 2016 (7)
* Esther
Others
* Daniel - 2013 (12)
* Ezra and Nehemiah  - 2023 (5)
* Chronicles

New Testament

Gospels & Acts
* Matthew - 2014 (15), 2015 (12), 2016 (13) (= 40)
* Mark - 2012 (4) (ch's 4-5), 2021 (10)
* Luke - 2013 (12) (9:51-18:30), 2023 (13) (1:1-5:11), 2024 (12) (5:12-8:25), 2025 (15) (8:26-11:32) 2026 (13) (11:33-15:32) (= 65); also most Christmases 
* John - 2017-18 (28)
* Acts - 2019 (28) (ch's 1-17)
Epistles
Pauline
* Romans - 2025 (17)
* 1 Corinthians - 2016 (5) (ch's 6-7), 2022 (22)
* 2 Corinthians - 2014 (12)
* Galatians - 2016-17 (11)
* Ephesians - 2023 (6)
* Philippians - twice through; one church camp and one preaching group (8)
* Colossians - 2012 (9)
* 1 Thessalonians - 2018 (8)
* 2 Thessalonians - 2018 (5)
* 1 Timothy - 2024 (11)
* 2 Timothy - 2026 (7)
* Titus - 2020 (5)
* Philemon - 2021 (2)
Catholic
* Hebrews - 2013 (13)
* James - 2017 (10)
* 1 Peter - 2015 (9)
* 2 Peter - 2023 (3)
* 1 John - 2021 (8)
* 2 John - 2019 (1)
* 3 John - 2024 (1)
* Jude - 2023 (3)
* Revelation - 2020 (19)

There are obviously some big gaps there; I really have to do another decent series from the Pentateuch (the two short ones were from before I had control of the preaching program), and there is a lot to fill in the writing prophets. I haven't touched the monarchy at all (1-2 Sam, 1-2 Kg, 1-2 Chron). It's a problem of the OT being 80% of the Bible and only having a term per year (although the Persia series allowed me to hit 4 books). I need to do a big Romans series, maybe for six months - breaking my system (again). That being said, I've hit every division of the Bible at least once and most a couple of times. 

Over all I think I'm pretty happy with the diet I've fed to people in terms of the breadth and depth, but it goes to show how even with an systematic, expository preaching approach, it still takes a long time to work through the Bible, and it could easily take me another nine years and I still wouldn't have got through it.

Saturday, August 08, 2020

Books of the New Testament by Title

Still thinking about Titus...

It's one of only four NT books which is entitled by its recipient: only Philemon and 1, 2 Timothy have that honour. 

Of course, by grouping the books/letters like this, I'm not making any definitive statements about authorship; only to say that's how we are supposed to understand them. Interestingly, Hebrews is the only book which we have zero idea about (wild guesses like Paul, Luke and Apollos not withstanding). 

Anyway, enjoy. I just thought it was interesting to sort them in this way.

Monday, June 04, 2018

The craziness of 1 Thessalonians 2:7

It's not often a verse is so confusing. Actually, there are lots of times this is the case. But there are two confusing things here; one is high level confusing but with low level impact, while the other is normal level confusing but with greater impact.

So the very weird thing: differing versification between Greek and English.

NIV (cf. ESV, CSB etc etc)
2:6 We were not looking for praise from people, not from you or anyone else,
even though as apostles of Christ we could have asserted our authority.
2:7 Instead, we were like young children among you.
Just as a nursing mother cares for her children,

NA28 (cf. USB5 etc)
2.6 οὔτε ζητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώπων δόξαν οὔτε ἀφ᾿ ὑμῶν οὔτε ἀπ᾿ ἄλλων,
2.7 δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι,
ἀλλ᾿ ἐγενήθημεν ⸀νήπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν.
ὡς ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα,

I guess it's not super-weird, but I can't remember seeing the versification being different within a verse. Normally it's a different chapter division (cf. eg. Eccl. 4.17MT = 5.1Eng.), which affects the verse counting, but this is the first time I've seen it change within a verse.

What's doubly weird is I can't find anyone who cares to speak on it. The critical commentaries I've looked at either don't mention it or just note it with no explanation or discussion. The reason for this is that it doesn't affect anything, but it's still weird, and it musses up the cross-highlighting in Accordance.

The less weird thing: textual variant: the dropped or added Ν
As you can see above, there is a text critical mark before νήπιοι, which tells us that in some manuscripts the reading isn't νήπιος (infant), but ἤπιος (gentle). It's a pretty straight-forward case: either someone added the N to ἤπιος because they liked the imagery - there's also mother in 2.7 and father in 2.11, plus Paul likes νήπιος, using it 15 times in his letters. The alternative is someone removed the N, because they didn't want to mix the metaphor, making this one of only two times Paul says ἤπιος (the other being 2 Tim 2.24).

I guess if you don't agree with Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Letters you would say it has to be νήπιος, as ἤπιος isn't a word Paul uses. Although you probably don't think he wrote the Thessalonian correspondence either, so whatever.

What's frustrating is in context it could really be either. But it does change how you structure the sentence. If you letter, rather than number, the clauses as follows, there are really only two ways to structure it, and it all hangs on your text critical decision.

NIV (cf. ESV, CSB etc etc)
A We were not looking for praise from people, not from you or anyone else,
B even though as apostles of Christ we could have asserted our authority.
C Instead, we were like young children among you.
D Just as a nursing mother cares for her children,

NA28 (cf. USB5 etc)
A οὔτε ζητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώπων δόξαν οὔτε ἀφ᾿ ὑμῶν οὔτε ἀπ᾿ ἄλλων,
B δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι,
C ἀλλ᾿ ἐγενήθημεν ⸀νήπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν.
D ὡς ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα,

Option 1: If you go with νήπιοι/infant, then you have to have one sentence = ABC. New thought: D...
Option 2: However if you decide it should be ἤπιοι/gentle, then your first sentence = AB. Next sentence: CD...

In the first option, infant is describing Paul's refusal to assert his authority. He asserted the same authority as an infant can, that is, none.
But in the second option, gentle is describing a nursing mother. The lack of authority is not further explained, but the character of a nursing mother to her child is: Paul & Silas became gentle among them, just like a nursing mother to her children.

Funnily enough a lot of ancient texts bear witness to both, with νήπιοι the original reading, later corrected to ἤπιοι. So on the weight of that, infant makes sense. But both work. The NA28/UBS5 went with νήπιοι, while the new THGNT has decided on ἤπιοι. Similarly NIV chose infant, while the ESV chose gentle.

Ultimately it's up to you, but hopefully this is a clear enough presentation of the options for you to make sense of.

Saturday, July 02, 2011

this is the word of the lord

the response is supposed to go, 'thanks be to God'.

i remember the Don getting a bit sermonic when, getting up to preach after the bible was read, chastigated the reader for not offering a 'this is the word of the lord', whereupon he said it, and all the good Anglicans in the room responded 'thanks be to God.'

this is definitely not having a go at the Don, and his point was well taken, and he was making a point rather than having a go at the bible reader.

but i am reading John Goldingay's, 'Models for Scripture' (Eerdmans, 1994), and he suggested this might not always be the correct response (p10).

so after Mark 14.1-12 was read, he wanted the reader to say 'this is part of God's story'. or after Job or Ecclesiastes, 'isn't is amazing the things you can say to God'.

after either you could still respond 'thanks be to God.'

perhaps after prophetic oracles such as Isaiah 5.1-7 they could say 'this is the word of the lord', but a more appropriate response would be 'God help us.'

now i love formal liturgy as much as the next guy, but i like the point Goldingay is making here - 'word of God' is a model for parts of scripture, not scripture as a whole. it is used by scripture to describe particular words (cf eg Heb 4.12; Isa 55.11).

an automatic response to the reading of scripture can imply an lack of genuine listening; it would be good if there were a flexibility in responses that recognised the diversity of scripture.

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

scripture sanctifies - stephen fowl

i'm still trying to work out what my project is about. it's still something to do with Paul Ricœur. and how we read the bible.

along the way i thought i'd share this gem from Stephen E. Fowl, who is obviously a fan of John Webster's 2003 Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch.

The Spirit's work in the operation of God's providential ordering of things sanctifies the means and processes that lead to the production of Scripture, turning them to God's holy purposes without diminishing their human, historical character. Thus, in calling Scripture "holy," Christians are not making a comprehensive claim about the purity of the motives of the writers and editors of Scripture. These may well have been decidedly unholy. Even in the face of such unholy motives and actions, Christians are committed to the belief that the triune God has revealed a passionate desire to have fellowship with them, even in the light of their manifest sin. Scripture is chief among God's providentially ordered gifts directed to bringing about reconciliation and fellowship with God despite human sin. Thus, Scripture is holy because of its divinely wiled role in making believers holy. [p12]
Stephen Fowl, Theological Interpretation of Scripture, Paternoster 2009.

i think i like the way the acknowledges potential historical-critical issues yet the importance of the Spirit. i'm not sure how far i'd agree with his 'decidedly unholy', but he could just be suggesting people didn't sit down with a view to writing 'Scripture'. which is surely true. but maybe (hopefully?) they did think they were writing true things about God?

Monday, March 14, 2011

how to read a narrative

here's a great list of 10 questions on how to read narrative (biblical or otherwise).

  1. who is the hero?
  2. what constitutes the quest?
  3. who are the helpers and the antagonists? (this can include people as well as factors)
  4. do you sense the presence of the narrator anywhere in the text?
  5. what does the narrator do with the chronology of the events?
  6. what happens with the narrated time? (does it speed up, slow down, stop, are there gaps?)
  7. is the plot clear on its own, or is it only understandable within a larger narrative? (if the latter, what is the macroplot?)
  8. what can you say about the dialogues?*
  9. what word choices or other style/structure characteristics strike you?
  10. how is the unit divided? are there further subdivisions?
* i don't think the order is important, yet it is interesting that this comes so far down.

This list is adapted from Jan Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide (Louisville, K.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999 ET), as quoted in Provan, Long and Longman, A Biblical History of Israel (also Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), p90.

I was reading aBHoI as I think some more about narrative and history.

my question is: to what extent is it necessary to pursue/argue for/maintain the historicity of the claims to make sense of the text, particularly as one seeks to live a godly life in response to scripture? They (ch4 is mainly V. Philips Long's) argue that because biblical narratives make historical truth claims, 'ahistorical readings are perforce false misreadings' (p81).

i want to think some more on this.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Mark 2 Chiasm

not sure if this post will work - blogger's doing some funky things tonight - if it starts behaving again i'll remove this and maybe add a picture if any buttons appear to allow me to do so!

this sunday at GBC* we're doing Mark 2.1-12, and believe it or not - i've realised it's a chiasm.
A 2.1-2a - the big picture, a crowd astonished at Jesus

      B 2.2b-5 - movement to Jesus, Jesus speaks

                  C 2.6-10 - opposition's negative reaction, Jesus' positive reaction

      B' 2.11-12a - Jesus speaks, movement away from Jesus

A' 2.12b - the big picture, a crowd astonished at Jesus

mark does this a heap, or at the very least sandwiches (A B A' - cf Mark 5.21-24a; 24b-34; 35-43)

it's not so much a theological comment as a narrative device, guiding you into and then out and onwards.



* if you're a german speaker, you may be interested in coming along to german bible cafe - check out our facebook or blog if you're keen.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Historical Fall in the key of B

so far i've narrowed my doctrine essay down to the following points:

  • Babes or bound (the historical debate - Pelagius vs Augustine)

  • Blocher or Barth (the current debate)

  • (Bavinck and Bloesch - minnows, relatively, yet helpfully starting with a B)

  • Bible (Romans 5 and Genesis 3)


and finally, inevitably, painfully:

  • Bibliography



i'll probably talk about Ricoeur also, but i may have to deliberately rename him Bicoeur for the purposes of this essay.

check here and also here for the background.

don't know why all this matters? this is why.

Monday, July 27, 2009

German Bible Café

[UPDATE :: new site :: germanbiblecafe.com]

last sunday was the last at my church. this sunday was the first at German Bible Café.

it was pretty exciting to read and pray in German, in our first steps to reach out to the 20,000+ German speakers in Sydney, 5,000+ of whom live in Sydney's east.

seven grown-ups met at St Matthias, Paddington, and we ate, drank and chatted through Ephesians 1:1-14.

needless to say, your prayers are appreciated. if you know of German-speakers (hint: if they're from Germany, Austria or the east of Switzerland, they more than likely speak some kind of German) who are Christians, or who are interested in finding out about God, do point them in our direction.

anyway, that's what's going on. hope you're well.
D5