It's Time to Dance!

I have the most wonderful news! Briercrest is now offering a new degree in the Seminary, and it makes my spine tingle. What is it, you ask?

MA Biblical Languages and Exegesis
Download the program sheet. Do it.

Let the heavens rejoice!
Let the students be glad (and enroll)!

‘Love’ and Discipleship in the Gospel of John

Here’s a question for you: Does the use of “love” in John match the use of “hate” in Luke?

That is far too broad (and probably inaccurate) a question to ask. My question is specifically about John 21:15-17, in which Jesus asks Peter three times, “Do you love me?”

As explored in my last post, in Luke 14:26 μισέω (“hate”) is used as a term of renunciation, renouncing one’s family as the foundation of security, belonging, and living and taking on Jesus as that foundation instead. In this sense, to hate my family means not that I harbor psychological hostility toward it, but that I no longer belong to/with my family, but belong to/with Jesus.

With this in mind, my question is: Since “love” is usually regarded as the opposite of “hate,” does Jesus’ question in John 17 have anything to do with the call to discipleship? Is this three-fold question of love a way of reinstating Peter as a disciple after he denied Jesus three-fold? Does “love” in this context mean the opposite of what “hate” means in Luke 14? In other words, does “love” in John 17 mean “proclamation of loyalty and belonging” while “hate” in Luke 14 means “renunciation of loyalty and belonging”?

‘Hate’ and Following Jesus in Luke 14

When it comes to his teachings about discipleship, Jesus says some pretty difficult things. In Luke 14, Jesus says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters -- and even himself -- he is not able to be my disciple” (14:26).

This statement seems to contradict 'nicer' things said by Jesus, such as: "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you" (Luke 6:47), or "And just as you would wish that others would do to you, do so to them" (Luke 6:31).

Why this talk of hating? Μισέω is typically translated as “hate.” According to BDAG, μισέω can also mean, to "disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment" (BDAG 653 §2; cf.Matt 6:24, Lk 16:13, John 12:25, Rom 9:13). (LSJ doesn't give any sources in support of this un-preferential treatment.) In I. Howard Marshall’s opinion, μισέω “is usually said to have its Semitic sense, ‘to love less’” (Marshall, 592; cf. Gen 29:31-33, Deut 21:15-17, 2 Sam 19:7, Prov 13:24, Isa 60:15, Mal 1:2, Rom 9:13, 1 John 2:9). This is detectable in Matthew’s parallel: “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me” (Matt 10:37-38).

In this way, μισέω isn’t a psychological hostility, but a renunciation, a disowning, or rejection (Marshall, 592; TDNT IV, 690). As a person chooses to follow Jesus, to become his disciple, he or she must sever the natural connections and obligations he or she has toward father, mother, spouse, children, brothers, sisters, and to renounce even himself/herself. According to Bonhoeffer, “By calling us [Jesus] has cut us off from all immediacy with the things of this world. He wants to be the centre; through him alone all things shall come to pass” (Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 95). Such a separation would be extremely disorienting. As Carson Brisson comments,

These words enter a cultural setting in which an individual was primarily defined, from birth through death, by her or his family. In such a milieu, this saying sounds a call for individuals and the community of faith to embrace discipleship to Jesus as their new and ultimate basis for personal and corporate identity (cf. 8:19-21). Such a call would have presented a radically impractical choice, not simply an emotionally difficult one, and a nearly impossible act in a cultural setting in which contemporary definitions of freedom as individual self-assertion and many contemporary forms of economic support outside one's family system did not exist. . . . If God’s invitation is so urgent and so absolute that an individual’s family ties no longer form the basis of her or his identity, what is left that discipleship may not require? (Brisson, Carson. Luke 14:26-27.Interpretation, 61 no 3 Jl 2007: 311)

The answer is, of course, "nothing." There is no more to give after a disciple renounces even his/her own life. To make this ominously clear, Jesus states, “Whoever does not bear his own cross and comes after me is not able to be my disciple” (Luke 14:27). Luke uses this language elsewhere, in 9:23 in which Jesus says, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”

The cross is, of course, and ultimately, a death sentence. Here, though, the cross also communicates the manner of life those who follow Jesus can expect – namely, one of shame and suffering. Just imagine, if we find it difficult today in our own time and culture to step outside the bounds of what our family members expect from us, how much more difficult would this task be within the bounds of the shame-honor culture of first-century Judea? But Jesus doesn't call us to an easy life. He calls us to a life submitted completely to him. This is why the apostles refer to themselves as δοῦλος τοῦ Ἰσοῦ Χριστοῦ, "slave of Jesus Christ." The life I live is not to be my own. In following Jesus' call, I give up my right to direct my own life. It's a total submission, an absolute resignation of self-sovereignty. If I declare that Jesus is Lord (κύριος), then that declaration has something to say about me too -- that I am his servant, his slave. Jesus becomes the anchor of our new reality. He is the mediator through whom we relate to the world and other people. No longer am "I" the lowest common denominator, but Jesus instead.

Ultimately, this order to "hate" is a declaration of where life is found. Am I so certain that there is more life to be found in my familial relations than in Jesus, or more life in wealth or in the other forms of security this world can offer? Or am I willing to let go of absolutely everything to which I previously clung to cling singularly to the one who offers life like no other can?

Grammatical Diagram of Luke 14:28-30

As promised, I went through Luke 14:28-30 and completed a grammatical diagram. Click here to see the PDF. (I used unicode with SBL Greek font, so hopefully it will show up properly for you! If you don't have SBL Greek, you can download it here. It's free, and is fun to type in.)

The Grammatical Structure of Luke 14:29

Another quandary brought to you by Greek Tutorial. This week I was reading through Luke 14:25-30 with a couple of students, and verse 29 proved to be, shall we say, especially interesting. I'd like to examine the grammatical structure of the pericope to get a feel for what's going on in Luke 14:29. Here's 14:28-30:

[28] Τίς γὰρ ἐξ ὑμῶν θέλων πύργον οἰκοδομῆσαι οὐχὶ πρῶτον καθίσας ψηφίζει τὴν δαπάνην, εἰ ἔχει εἰς ἀπαρτισμόν; [29] ἴνα μήποτε θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον καὶ μὴ ἰσχύοντος ἐκτελέσαι πάντες οἰ θεωροῦντες ἄρξωνται αὐτῷ ἐμπαίζειν [30] λέγοντες ὅτι οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἤρζατο οἰκοδομεῖν καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν ἐκτελέσαι.

In verse 28, τὶς (nom masc sg) is matched by the participle θέλων (nom masc sg pres act ptc), and is modified by the genitive phrase ἐξ ὑμῶν to read, "For, who among you desiring". The participle θέλων belongs to the infinitive οἰκοδομῆσαι which gives us the content of the desire, "to build." The direct object of οἰκοδομῆσαι is the accusative masculine singular πύργον, "a tower."

This phrase so far: "For anyone from among you desiring to build a tower".

Next, οὐχὶ negates ψηφίζει, "does he not calculate," which takes τὴν δαπάνην as its object, "does he not calculate the cost." ψηφίζει is modified by the attendant circumstance participle καθίσας, which describes the action that goes on as the person calculates the cost: "does he not, sitting down, calculate the cost". The next clause, εἰ ἔχει εἰς ἀπαρτισμόν, appears to be a purpose clause (though this verse is missing an infinitive like "to see" or "to determine" to nicely shape this into a recognizable purpose clause), indicating why he calculates: "if he has [what is needed] for completion".

This whole first verse is a question, noted by the interrogative form of τίς (which is anarthrous when it functions as an indefinite pronoun), and the Greek question mark ; at the end: "For who among you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down [and] calculate the cost [to determine] if he has [what is needed] for completion?" (Feel free to quibble with these conclusions; there is lots of room to move here in my understanding of the syntax!)

Moving on to verse 29. ἴνα starts this verse, which always introduces the subjunctive mood. The arrangement of this verse is a little odd, though, because the subjunctive verb, ἄρξωνται, is almost at the end of the verse. Immediately after ἴνα, the clause μήποτε θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον καὶ μὴ ἰσχύοντος ἐκτελέσαι is inserted before the ἴνα is completed. However, this arrangement may not be so strange, considering that ἴνα and μήποτε can function together as "a strengthened form of ἴνα μή" (Marshall [1978], "The Gospel of Luke," 594). And according to BDAG, this ἴνα μήποτε combination is often used for denoting purpose, "(in order) that . . . not, often expressing apprehension" (BDAG, 648-2b).

With this in mind, verse 29 looks a little friendlier. (If I had thought to look at BDAG last night with those Greek students, I could have been a little more helpful!) After the ἴνα μήποτε construction we find a genitive absolute θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον, "he placed a foundation," followed by the participle ἰσχύντος, negated by μή, "not being able," and its complementary infinitive ἐκτελέσαι, which completes the thought, "not being able to complete [it]".

So far in verse 29 we have: "In order that he does not place a foundation, and, not being able to complete it".

The consequence of this ill-conceived plan is that "all who see it should begin to mock him." πάντες is modified by the adjectival participle οἰ θεωροῦντες, "all who see," and is the subject of ἄρξωνται. ἄρξωνται takes ἐμπαίζειν as its complementary infinitive, "begin to mock." αὐτῷ likely refers to the uncompleted tower, rather than the builder.

This verse all together states, "In order that he does not place a foundation, and, being unable to complete it, all who see it should begin to mock him".

Verse 30 tells us the content of their mocking, "This man began to build and was not able to finish." (You can hear Nelson from The Simpsons in the background saying his customary, "Hah hah!")

I was going to do a grammatical diagram of this as well, but I've run out of time! Tune in next time for that.

There are many details I didn't focus on -- again, time being the issue. There is just never enough time for exegesis!

Luke 14:18, πάντες ἀπὸ μιᾶς

In Jesus' story in Luke 14:18, a servant is sent to invite the guests for a feast, but none of them want to come. In response, Luke writes, καὶ ήρξαντο πάντες ἀπὸ μιᾶς παραιτεῖτσθαι ("and all unanimously began to make excuses"). The use of the feminine singular genitive μίας is confusing. There is no syntactical reason for it. According to I. Howard Marshall, "ἀπὸ μιᾶς is probably a Greek phrase (sc. γρώμης) meaning 'unanimously' . . . rather than a literal translation of [the Aramaic] min hada, 'all at once, immediately'" (p. 588 from Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978).

At Greek tutorial last night, students were asking about μίας, and I had no clue what to say other than, "Check BDAG and see if πάντα or ἀπό works with μία in any idiomatic ways." If Marshall is write, that appears to be the case.

Pocket Paradigms for Biblical Greek

It's been a few weeks, and I'm finally finished. In my spare time I've been putting together a little book of Greek paradigms to aid me in reading through the Greek New Testament. For a few years I've been looking for a pocket handbook for paradigms, similar to Mark Futato's Pocket Paradigms for Biblical Hebrew, but haven't found anything comparable. And since it's annoying to lug around textbooks all the time, I compiled charts from a few standard textbooks, and with the magic of Microsoft Publisher, produced a Pocket Paradigms for Biblical Greek. (This confirms my descent into extreme nerdom.) If anyone has come across a paradigms book for Greek, I'd be very interested to take a look at it, to compare what it includes, and all that.

Luke 14:12-14, Dinner Invitation Etiquette and the Grace of God

Last night while reading through Luke 14 with some Greek tutor students, I was struck by something Jesus said to the host of the dinner he attended. Jesus told him, "Whenever you should hold a meal or dinner, don't invite your friends, brothers, relatives, or your wealthy neighbours since they might invite you in return, and you might be repaid" (v. 12). Instead, Jesus tells him to invite the crippled, the maimed, the blind, and the poor -- those who have no means to repay the gift of hospitality (v. 13). Jesus declares to him that "you will be blessed because they do not have [the means] to repay you, for you will be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous" (v. 14).

This resembles exhortations Jesus gave elsewhere, such as Luke 6:32-36,

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them.And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that.And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Or like Jesus' instruction on acts of righteousness in Matthew 6:1-4,

Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

From Jesus' words in Luke 14, it seems that there is no repayment (from God) for giving to those who have the means to give back to you. Repayment is received from the friend or relative or neighbour who does for you what you did for him. But God repays those who give out of grace with no hope of repayment. From the contexts of Luke 6 and Matthew 6, it is also clear that God rewards those who do these good things in secret rather than in plain view for the sake of a pat on the back, or the elevation of one's status among his/her peers.

This is a big deal. Jesus wants us as his followers to be looking out for those who are truly down and out, to get our love working and acting in the real world. Inviting such people means also that your time is spent with them, and not only your food consumed by them. This isn't just food-bank-filling. This is ministering truly and personally to those who have real need.

And in a very real way, this action is a picture of what God, in Jesus, already has done, and does each day, for us. He has given the gift of his love, his grace, his Fatherhood, his Son, the promise of his enduring presence -- all things we can never repay. In this way in all of these passages, Jesus calls us to imitate the way the Father gives to us: out of grace.

Participial Fun

Tonight was the first of many Tuesday nights that I will spend with aspiring Greek students as a Greek tutor. This evening I had a great deal of fun (I'm actually being serious!) explaining the differences between adjectival (specifically substantival) and adverbial participles. I remember when the world of Greek participles was opened to me, and so I felt very purposeful in trying to clear some of the fog looming over the students' heads. "Look for the article," I told them. And by the end of the hour and a half, they were looking, and, I hope, to a slightly increased degree, understanding. Greek Syntax is definitely the most challenging semester of the first four. Hopefully by Christmas these students will look at syntax with some measure of confidence rather than despair. That is my mission.

Greek Prose Composition

I have begun to work through North and Hillard's Greek Prose Composition. It's a great little book, published over 100 years ago, that was once commonly used in schools for teaching children to write Greek. It offers exercise-by-exercise vocabulary lists, a English to Greek vocabulary list, and 175 composition exercises, beginning with simple sentences and working toward the composition of long paragraphs. This book teaches composition in what appears to be Attic Greek, which precedes Koine. Some forms are different, but for the most part it is easy enough to transfer over from Koine to Attic.

Greek composition is challenging (and humbling!), but a lot of fun! I suggest at least downloading this treasure, or getting your hands on a hardcopy.

Textkit - Greek and Latin

This is a great resource I came across lately. I'm sure it's not new to some of you, but if it is, do check it out! There are all sorts of downloadable resources for learning Greek and Latin. Most significant, in my opinion, are the composition workbooks. These workbooks, such as North and Hillard's andSidgwick's, have been in use for over 100 years, going back to a time when kids learned Greek and Latin in elementary school. Where's a Delorian when you need one?! I've taken plenty of Greek classes while at Briercrest College, but I still find my recall of vocabulary and verb forms to be a touch dodgey. I figure that learning to write, instead of just to read, Greek will help it all along. Do check out Textkit. It's a candy store for nerdy academic kids!

Matthew 5:2, Jesus opens his mouth

During Jesus' temptation in the desert, the devil says to Jesus, "If you are the son of God, say that these stones should become bread." And replying, Jesus said, "It is written, 'Not upon bread alone does man live, but upon every word that comes from the mouth of God'" (Matthew 4:3,4).

Interestingly, the next time that "mouth" (στόμα) appears in Matthew is in 5:2, in which he writes, "And opening his mouth he [Jesus] taught them," which precludes the Beatitudes. Perhaps this is reading too much into the significance of word occurrence, but could this be a subtle indication that the words Jesus opens his mouth to say are in likeness to the words that come from the mouth of God? (See also Matt 13:35 for another instance of the opening of God's mouth.)

Matthew 3:12, Asbestos

Just a funny fact. Our word "asbestos" comes from the Greek word, ’ασβεστὸς. In the Greek, when this word is used with fire or laughter, it is translated as "inextinguishable, unquenchable." When used with the ocean, it describes the oceans "ceaseless flow." Interestingly, asbestos was used in construction of buildings for years because it is completely fireproof. I can see why English took a word that means "unquenchable" to name an unburnable substance. But the connection between the Greek adjective and the building material isn't perfect... I don't think Jesus was talking about what we call asbestos, since asbestos can't burn, and it's deadly to people.

Matthew 3:11-12, Fire of Baptism and the Unquenchable Fire

In verses 11 and 12, Matthew uses πὺρ ("fire") twice in very striking ways. In verse 11 John the Baptist says of himself, ". . . I baptize you with water for repentance," and in contrast he says of Jesus, "but the one who is coming after me is greater than me . . . who will baptize you in (with/by means of?) the Holy Spirit and fire."

In the very next verse John continues on about Jesus, saying, "His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will purge his threshing floor and will gather together his grain into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up completely in unquenchable fire."

What is so striking to me in these two verses is the double use of πὺρ. In verse 11, fire is part of the means by which Jesus will baptize (‘υμᾶς βαπτίσει ’εν πνεύμα ‘αγίῳ καὶ πυρί). In verse 12, the chaff is burned in unquenchable fire (τὸ δὲ ’άχυρον κατακαύσει πυρὶ ’ασβέστῳ). The proximity of the two occurrences of πὺρ suggest there is a connection between the fire with which Jesus baptizes and that which burns up the chaff.

Perhaps it is possible that the Holy Spirit and the fire of Jesus' baptism work in us to burn the chaff, or the unfruitful parts of us, so that he may gather together the good in us as we are transformed into his likeness. Or is this a picture similar to John 15 in which the unfruitful branches are thrown away and burned? I am hesitant to see a direct connection between these passages because their focus seem to be distinct. In John 15, those who remain in Jesus are described as fruitful, and those who do not remain in him are thrown out. Here in Matthew 3, fire is used (along with the Holy Spirit -- or is the καὶ epexegetical, "he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit, namely, fire"?) on those who are baptized by Jesus, so I would assume this is not a separation of the faithful and unfaithful.

Maybe this is the work Jesus does in us as we follow him; he does away with the unhealthy parts of us in suffering or in the situations we encounter, and nurtures the parts of us that are healthy and pleasing to him.

Obviously, there are holes I need to fill in. If I had the time (and maybe I'll just take the time some time soon), it would be interesting to see if there are any notable connections between John the Baptist's words here and areas of the New Testament that speak of working out our salvation, or growing, or becoming conformed to the likeness of Jesus. Oh grad school, maybe you will provide me the time for all of these things!

More to come on Matthew 3.

Matthew 3:3, εὐθυς and the way of the Lord

Chalk this one up to presuppositions lingering from first year Greek.

In Matthew 3:3 I came across an occurrence of εὐθυς that surprised me. In verse 3, Matthew quotes Isaiah 40:3, "A voice crying in the desert; prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths."

"Straight" in both Matthew 3:3 and Isaiah 40:3 (LXX) is εὐθείας. In my early Greek training I memorized εὐθύς as "immediately." But it turns out, εὐθύς is very commonly used to mean "straight" when pertaining to the condition of a line or road (cf. BDAG, 406; LSJ). With this in mind, εὐθύς is the unsurprising translation of the Hebrew ׳ַשְׁרוּ, "make straight."

Just a quick note. It's past midnight. More to come on Matthew 3.

Matthew 2, Jubulant Magi and the Use of Dreams

In Matthew 2, the Magi from the East arrive in Jerusalem, and inquire of Herod where they can find "the one born king of the Jews" (2:2). When they arrive in Bethlehem and see the star stand above where the child was, the Magi celebrate. "And seeing the star, they rejoiced with great and exceeding joy." The words Matthew uses makes this intense manner of celebration apparent: ’εχάρησαν ("they recoiced") χαρὰν ("with joy") μεγάλην ("great") σφόδρα ("exceeding"). They understood that this child bore great significance, so it is no wonder that they fell down to worship him, and presented him with gifts.

Another interesting thing in Matthew 2 is the reoccurrence of dreams and warnings from God. Chapter 1 told of Joseph's dream, in which he was commanded not to be afraid, but to take Mary as his wife and to name the child Jesus (1:20-21). In Chapter 2, the Magi are warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod, but to return to their land by another route (2:12). And Joseph receives two more dreams, one telling him to flee to Egypt to save the child from Herod's ill-begotten search (2:13), and one to inform him of Herod's death, and that they may now safely return to Israel (2:19).

The significance of Joseph in Jesus' early life cannot be overrated. Though he was not Jesus' real father, God sent his angel to speak to Joseph to inform him of what must happen with the child. Obviously there are cultural reasons for why God would speak to a man rather than to a woman in the first century, but it is interesting that Joseph disappears from the story shortly after. I will have to pay close attention to the last mention of Joseph for any last comment on his role.