For those who don't speak Hebrew...

As I start to prepare for my next essay - 'The Theme of the Old Testament' - I sit staring at Hebrew.

Along my travels, I've picked up the odd Greek word or two which helps with the New Testament study. Hebrew, however, is a total loss to me. For those in a similar boat, I want to point out an excellent and free resource.

I've used StudyLight for many years now. Amongst it's many features the one I've used the most is it's Interlinear bible. Which allows comparison between the greek/hebrew line by line with the English.

Upon clicking the word of interest a pop up window gives information about pronunciation, spelling, translations, and accepted definitions. Makes things quick and easy.

First century house churches

The canonised writings of the apostle Paul take the form of (traditionally) thirteen epistles. Nine were written to churches with which he had various relations. For example, Galatians (the earliest 49-52AD) was written to a church of Pauline converts he visited twice (Marshall, Millard, Packer, & Wiseman, 1996, pp. 392, 885), first and second Corinthians to a church Paul had spent eighteen months ministering with (Acts 18:1-18), and Romans to a church he had yet to visit (Romans 1:10). These churches were not abstract theological entities formed in a ‘social vacuum’ but complex groups of individuals of varying backgrounds meeting in rooms of people’s homes forming the house churches. Recognising the influences on and characteristics of the people within these churches gives a greater understanding of Paul’s letters to them.

During the time of Paul’s mission, as apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13; Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 54), the people of Mediterranean basin were undergoing change. Greco-Roman culture was progressively influential (Meeks, 1983, p. 15) in areas of politics, class status, philosophy, religion, and the household. This change was occurring most prominently within the cities – the focus of Paul’s mission.

A common language and well established trade routes coupled with personal mobility, both physical and social, facilitated the expansion of Christianity during its first 120 years (Meeks, 1983, p. 16). The faith’s landscape shifted from the Jewish rural Palestine to a Gentile urban environment (Tidball, 1993, p. 1). Conservative villages underwent the least change, demonstrated by the persistent use of traditional languages (such as Aramaic used in Galilee) in the face of Koine Greek becoming the dominant language elsewhere (Meeks, 1983, p. 15). After the dispersion of the ‘Hellenists’ until the time of Constantine’s rule the cities became the ‘dominant environment’ of Christianity (Meeks, 1983, p. 11).

By modern standards the cities were small but overcrowded. Cities would contain sizeable ethnic communities (Banks, 1980, p. 8). Rome’s population would have been close to one million (Banks, 1980, p. 7). Antioch held 250,000 people (Tidball, 1993, p. 1) with an incredible 200 per acre (Meeks, 1983, pp. 28-29) (49,400km²) compared with Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs (4,000km² (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004)). The housing density was made tolerable by a large portion (one quarter) dedicated to public facilities. Privacy in such conditions was rare (Meeks, 1983, p. 29). Involvement in early churches would have been noticed by the community.

Households were large inclusive communities consisting of extended family, slaves, friends, tenants, partners and clients involved in common commercial or agricultural enterprise. Housing would be shared by the extended kin often with individual rooms shared by nuclear groups (Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 84). The physical layout reflected it’s function with commercial (workshop and shop frontage) and residential areas (Tidball, 1993, pp. 3,8).

Status within community was shaped by ‘achieved status’/‘acquired honour’ (wealth, education, occupation) and ‘accredited status’/‘ascribed honour’ (race, gender, birth, legal status) (Tidball, 1993, p. 11; Spence, 2009, p. 4). Accredited status stratified society similarly to the way today’s society is segmented into economic class (e.g. lower-middle class) (Tidball, 1993, p. 9). A blurring of social distinctions was gradually taking place (Banks, 1994) with increasing ‘status inconsistencies’ (such as an educated slave or wealthy women) (Tidball, 1993, p. 10).

Roman society was pluralistic and polytheistic (Driscoll, 2009). Rome assumed that conquered people had religions and these were to be incorporated as acceptable beliefs (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 285). Iterant philosophers (Tidball, 1993, p. 3) and foreign settlers would gather and set up shrines to their native gods (Meeks, 1983, p. 18), temples or philosophical schools (Banks, 1980, p. 11). Influence and intermingling of religions led ‘people to think of the gods of other nations as similar or identical to those they already knew’ – a process known as syncretism (Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 44).

The Christian ‘religion’ started with political friction. New religions required political licence (Tidball, 1993, p. 6); Christians referred to themselves as ekklesia (assembly) which was a Greek political term (Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 138). Christians came from various classes and cultures, and were passionately monotheistic both of these characteristics were unusual in their socio-political context.

The house churches were groups of Christians that would gather together in private homes (Acts 2:46; 5:42; 12:12). These meetings were typically small, limited by the physical size of the premise (Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 55). Most often the meeting would be based around a meal and occur in the dining room. This practice followed in the tradition of Jewish practices with archaeological excavation demonstrating first century synagogues which were rooms in private homes (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 549).

Several households are mentioned in scripture: Nympha in Laodicea (Col 4:15), Philemon in Colossae (Philemon 2) and Lydia in Philippi (Acts 16) hosted gatherings of early Christians in their homes (O'Brien, 1993). The owner of the house would function as host and patron (Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 55). It is likely that these patrons were wealthy gentile God-fearers who had previously supported the synagogue (Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 55). Multiple house churches within the same town are implied in scripture (Romans 16:23, 1 Corinthians 14:23) (O'Brien, 1993) and confirmed by archaeological evidence (Tidball, 1993, p. 4).

In many ways these gatherings reflect contemporary Christian ‘services’. They would meet for fellowship (Hebrews 10:25), music (Ephesians 5:19), prayer and public reading of scripture (1 Timothy 4:13), teaching (Colossians 3:16) and conflict resolution (1 Corinthian 5).

The pattern of modern churches being based around a central public building is a clear point of distinction. Designated buildings owned collectively by the church for the purpose of worship were not seen until the middle of the third century (O'Brien, 1993). Emperor Constantine’s embrace of Christianity led to increased legal protection and the start of government sponsored buildings (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 549).

Another distinction is the social dynamic within the church. The church began as a community that ‘held all things in common’ (Acts 2:44). However private property continued to exist (private homes) and unloving class distinctions persisted (1 Corinthian 10). Early churches formed as communitas of anti-hierarchical brotherhoods with loose structure and strong sense of belonging (Tidball, 1993). Within the early decades social status was rejected such that freeman and slaves shared together (Stambaugh & Balch, 1986, p. 55; Banks, 1980, p. 26) – ‘neither Jew nor Greek...slave nor free...male nor female’ (Gal. 3:28). A common faith, rituals (particularly baptism and the Lord’s Supper) and common experience such as external persecution resulted in community identification within group. Contemporary Australian culture is much more individual (at personal and family level) with the tendency to gather at the church building and this disperse.

To accurate read and interpret Paul’s writings we must appreciate that he lived in and preached to a world very different from our own. Failure to recognise differences leads to the ethnocentric tendency to regard our own experiences (Klein, Blomberg, & Hubbard, 2004, p. 12) and world view (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 283) as the standard in which to interpret the texts. Conflict with the circumcision group (Galatians 5), the role of women (1 Corinthians 11:5, 1 Timothy 2:12) and food sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8) are examples of context bound issues that faced the House Churches. Careful study of the author’s contexts and ‘all conditions that surround the recipient’ provide important information about the author’s intended message and how the recipients would have understood that message (Klein, Blomberg, & Hubbard, 2004, pp. 10-11).

Bibliography

Achtemeier, P. J., Green, J. B., & Thompson, M. M. (2001). Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004, Janurary). Sydney Centre Has The Highest Population Density In Australia. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from Australian Bureau of Statistics: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/2032.0Media%20Release82001?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=2032.0&issue=2001&num=&view=

Banks, R. (1980). Going to Church in the First Century: An Eyewitness Account. Jacksonville: SeedSowers.

Banks, R. (1994). Paul's Idea of Community (Revised Editiion ed.). Hendrickson Publishers.

Barton, S. C. (1993). Social-Scientific approaches to Paul. In G. F. Hawhorne, R. P. Martin, & D. G. Reid, Dictionary of Paul and his letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Driscoll, M. (2009). Happy Birthday Mars Hill: Special 13th Anniversary Acts 17:16-34. Retrieved November 1st, 2009, from MarsHillChurch.org: http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/special/mars-hills-13th-anniversary

Klein, W. W., Blomberg, C. L., & Hubbard, R. L. (2004). Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Marshall, I. H., Millard, A. R., Packer, J. I., & Wiseman, D. J. (Eds.). (1996). The New Bible Dictionary (3rd Edition ed.). Leicester: IVP.

Meeks, W. A. (1983). The First Urban Christians. Binghamton, NY, USA: Vail-Ballou Press.

O'Brien, P. T. (1993). Chuch. In G. F. Hawhorne, R. P. Martin, & D. G. Reid, Dictionary of Paul and his letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Spence, S. (2009). Lecture 6: The Cultural World of Jesus. Adelaide: Tabor Adelaide.

Stambaugh, J. E., & Balch, D. L. (1986). The New Testament in Its Social Environment. (W. A. Meeks, Ed.) Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Theissen, G. (1978). The First Followers of Jesus: A Sociological Analysis of the Earliest Christianity. London: SCM Press Ltd.

Tidball, D. J. (1993). Social Setting of Mission Churches. In G. F. Hawhorne, R. P. Martin, & D. G. Reid, Dictionry of Paul and his Letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots

During the centuries either side of Jesus, Judaism formed several distinct factions. The most famous of these are Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots. Similar to modern day denominations, there are distinctions and areas of overlap (Wood et al., 1996, p. 914). Many Jews did not identify with any group (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 35). The distinctions between the groups are seen in four domains: human geography, political involvement, characteristic theology and sphere of influence.

While the Sadducees were found in Jerusalem maintaining the temple cult the Pharisees lived in villages and towns (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 34). The Essenes withdraw into isolated monastic communities (Shelley, 1995, p. 6), in many cities (Bealle, 2000, p. 2), the largest being in Qumran (Wood et al., 1996, p. 340). The Zealots formed late in the first century (Heard & Evans, 2000, p. 9) as a more turbulent group with various leaders, divisions and locations (Wood et al., 1996, p. 1263).

The Pharisees were committed to understanding Israel’s Law (Westerholm, 1992, p. 3) and had a general ambivalence towards Greco-Roman Society (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 34). The centre of the Sadducees’ world was the Temple in a Roman city which, combined with generations of prestige and privilege associated with the priesthood and control of the Sanhedrin, meant that life involved the urban elite and associated politics (Shelley, 1995, p. 5). The Essenes and Zealots took opposite approaches. The Essenes were separatists and avoided the political stage while the Zealots were ‘bent on armed resistance’ (Shelley, 1995, p. 5). The latter opposed the impurity of Roman interference (Heard & Evans, 2000, p. 9; Wood et al., 1996, p. 1263) and fought a class war of Jewish aristocracy (Heard & Evans, 2000, p. 9).

The Pharisees observed and taught strict observance to the Law (Shelley, 1995, p. 5). They taught immortality of the soul, resurrection of the righteous, and particular attention to ritual purity and tithing (Westerholm, 1992, pp. 1,3). They are criticized in the New Testament for holding ancestral traditions as binding (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 34; Westerholm, 1992, p. 1). The Sadducees differed in understanding of purity laws, human freedom over fate, and did not believe in the immorality of the soul (Wood et al., 1996, pp. 1044-1045; Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 33; Porton, 2000, p. 1). The Essenes believed in predestination (Wood et al., 1996, p. 915), apocalyptic eschatology (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 35), separation from Gentiles and Gentile influence (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 35), common property, clothing and food, and celibacy (Bealle, 2000, p. 2).

Despite lacking economic or professional influence (Achtemeier, Green, & Thompson, 2001, p. 34) the Pharisees were popular and powerful (Wood et al., 1996, p. 915), much more so than the Sadducees (Porton, 2000, p. 1) . They were the core of the rabbinic movement, supplanting the Priests (Mason, 2000, p. 1) because they interpreted the Torah (Wood et al., 1996, p. 915). The Sadducees controlled the temple but only had a small support base of the wealthy (Porton, 2000, p. 1). The Zealots’ guerrilla tactics had influence most notable for preventing ‘the nobilities plan to negotiate a settlement with the Romans’ (Heard & Evans, 2000, p. 10).

[removed - comment on modern day pharisees]

Epilogue

[removed subjective Information]

You may or may not believe it, but below is a true story.

In 2003 I attended [removed identifying information]

One evening the Minister spoke on Luke 18 – The Pharisee and The Tax Collector.

‘The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.’ (Luke 18:11)

From memory he was well prepared and spoke well. However, what will always stand out was how he concluded.

‘We thank you God that we are not like this Pharisee.’

Bibliography

Achtemeier, P. J., Green, J. B., & Thompson, M. M. (2001). Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Basser, H. W. (2000). Priests and Priesthood, Jewish. In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Intervarsity Press.

Bealle, T. (2000). Essenes. In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Intervaristy Press.

Heard, W. J., & Evans, C. A. (2000). Revolutionary Movements, Jewish. In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Intervarsity Press.

Mason, S. (2000). Pharisees. In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Intervarsity Press.

Porton, G. G. (2000). Sadducees. In Dictionary of the New Testament Background. Intervarsity Press.

Shelley, B. L. (1995). Churst History in Plain Language. (U. 2nd, Ed.) Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Westerholm, S. (1992). Pharisees. In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Intervarsity Press.

Wood, D. R., Marshall, I. H., Millard, A. R., Packer, J. I., & Wiseman, D. J. (Eds.). (1996). New Bible Dictionary (3rd ed.). Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

How do you read the Genesis Creation Account?

There are a number of different ways of reading the Genesis creation account (e.g. historical, mythological, theological, polemical etc.). Briefly survey at least three of these. Which approach do you favour and why?

The Genesis creation account (GCA) is one of the most familiar passages of scripture for both Christians and the general populace. The character of God, the nature of the world, the meaning of human existence, and the fall of humanity are themes it expounds (Drane, 1987, p. 240). Regardless of the attention given it, its interpretation has been broad, contentious and held close to heart. ‘Here the stakes are high and tempers rise: even mild-mannered scholars have been known to damn opposing interpreters of these chapters angrily’ (Wenham, 2003, p. 9). This emotion stirs from the assumption that how you interpret these passages shapes your world view and how you interpret the remainder of scripture.

The central issue to GCA is that of genre (Wenham, 2003, p. 9). Genre as a grouping of similar literary works provides a framework of interpretive presuppositions on how a text should be read. Just as the meaning of a comic, an instruction manual or a play cannot be expounded if their different genres are confused so it is with biblical texts of such as narrative, poetry, or apocalyptic. ‘Genre functions as a valuable link between the text and the readers’ (Osborne, 2006, p. 182) . The GCA is often thought of as: myth, polemic, science/history, or theology (Waltke & Fredriucs, 2001, p. 74). Which category you assign the GCA shapes your interpretation (Mckeown, 2008, p. 307).

Approaching the text as mythology contains several problems, the first being the lack of scholarly consensus on a definition (Hamilton, 1995, p. 57). Definitions of mythology include stories of Gods, parts of rituals, truth not explained by science, analogy, and embellished truths (such as King Arthur) (Drane, 1987, p. 244; Sarna, 1966, p. 6; Wenham, 2003, p. 13). Commonly myth is held to be fantastic and fictitious – similar to children stories. It is with this definition that the New Testament warns Christians to avoid mythology (Hamilton, 1995, p. 56, 1 Timothy 4:7, 2 Timothy 4:4, 2 Peter 1:16).

Varying definitions may explain varying opinions of Genesis as mythology (Hamilton, 1995, p. 58). The GCA can be understood as the actions of deity in primeval history to establish the ‘contemporary world order’ (Hamilton, 1995, p. 58). This allows a non-scientific approach that can still teach of the present day. In contrast it would be fallacy to claim that the GCA is fanciful (in league with Goldilocks & the Three Bears) (Waltke & Fredriucs, 2001, p. 74) thus robbing it of its value.

A polemic approach to reading the text was developed after George Smith noticed the parallel between the biblical GCA and the Gilgamesh Epic (Wenham, 2003, pp. 9-10). The text was formed in the historical context of the Ancient Near East (Walton, 2009, p. 13). The polemic approach states that the similarities between the biblical account and those of other Ancient Near Eastern creation stories (including the Babylonian Creaton myth the Enuma Elish) is more than co-incidence and in fact the biblical account was written to override and argue against the other stories.

This approach gains momentum as when the accounts are most similar the GCA ‘deliberately undermines the assumptions of the Babylonian story’ (Drane, 1987, p. 248). A pertinent difference is God’s relationship with man. In the Enuma Elish man is an afterthought, almost incidental (Sarna, 1966, p. 15; Wenham, 2003, p. 16), whereas in the biblical account people are central to God’s purpose (Drane, 1987, p. 249). However, some are uncomfortable with this approach as it is a response to other material rather than a totally original revelation from God predating all else (Drane, 1987, p. 247).

Holding the text as scientific and historical appeals to the desire to hold scripture in high esteem by accepting its teachings a literal (Proverbs 1:7, John 6:60). This approach is popular amongst modern day creationists (Mckeown, 2008, pp. 295, 301). However, the value of the text (2 Timothy 3:16-17) does not require it to be a scientific account. Additionally, this view is destined to conflict with science (Drane, 1987, p. 242). Calvin was clear that Genesis was never intended to be a book of science (Drane, 1987, p. 242). Sarna states that, ‘it is naive and futile to exercise to attempt to reconcile the biblical accounts of creation with the findings of modern science’ (Sarna, 1966, p. 3).

Genesis was written by people with a pre-scientific worldview to describe an event at which initially no human was present (Sarna, 1966, pp. 2-3; Hamilton, 1995, p. 56). Although it integrates secular knowledge and theology (Birch, Brueggemann, Fretheim, & Petersen, 2005, p. 30) it gives no indication that it seeks to be a scientific text. The text is more concerned with God and how God relates to man than the relationship of natural forces (Waltke & Fredriucs, 2001, p. 74; Sarna, 1966, p. 9). The moon appears as the ‘lesser light’ (Genesis 1:16) but does not in fact produce light (Mckeown, 2008, p. 295; Hamilton, 1995, p. 54). By genealogy Babel was 200 years prior to Abraham – not long enough for the spread and division of ethnic groups (Mckeown, 2008, p. 297). The risk of this literalistic approach is that attention is focused on details (time and place) with a loss of focus on the enduring theological message of the text (Sarna, 1966, p. 3).

After reflection of the GCA I believe it is first and foremost theological and kerygmatic – its message is about God (Drane, 1987, p. 242). It is fitting that the first chapters establish a biblical worldview and declare divine truths (Waltke & Fredriucs, 2001, p. 78). Genesis shows God as creator, God as ordered, God as loving, creation as good, God’s covenant with man and man’s rejection of God. The GCA is ‘an artistic, literary representation of creation intended to fortify God’s covenant with creation’ (Waltke & Fredriucs, 2001, p. 78).

The text’s polemic is used to teach theological truths. ‘Genesis retells familiar oriental stories about the origins of the world, [and] dramatically transforms them theologically’ (Wenham, 2003, p. 16). For example; theogomy (creation of god) and comsogomy (creation of the universe) are concepts which distinguish the GCA theologically. Unique to the GCA is that God predates creation (Genesis 1:1). If God were part of creation, there must be forces greater or outside God. This is the basis of pagan ritual appealing to these forces in order to control or influence god. The GCA proclaims ‘loudly and unambiguously, the absolute subordination of all creation to the supreme Creator.... it asserts unequivocally that the basic truth of all history is that the world is under the undivided and inescapable sovereignty of God’ (Sarna, 1966, p. 9).

Bibliography

Birch, B. C., Brueggemann, W., Fretheim, T. E., & Petersen, D. L. (2005). A Theological Introduction To the Old Testament (2nd Edition ed.). Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Drane, J. (1987). Thinking about the World. In Introducing the Old Testament (pp. 240-49). Oxford: Lion.

Hamilton, V. (1995). Problems in Interpretation. In Genesis 1-11 (pp. 53-59). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Mckeown, J. (2008). Genesis and Theology Today. In Genesis (pp. 294-317). Grand Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing.

Osborne, G. R. (2006). The Hermeneutical Spiral: a comprehensive introduction to biblical interpretation (2nd ed.). Downers Grove: IVP Academic.

Sarna, N. (1966). Creation. In Understanding Genesis (pp. 1-23). New York: Schocken Books.

Waltke, R., & Fredriucs, C. (2001). In Genesis: A Commentary (pp. 74-78). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Walton, J. (2009). Introduction. In The Lost World of Genesis One (pp. 9-15). Downers Grove: Intervasity Press.

Wenham, G. (2003). Genesis 1-11. In Exploring the Old Testament (Vol. Vol. 1: The Pentateuch, pp. 9-19). London: SPCK.