Dave Black’s Resources for Learning NT Greek
Dave Black has a knack for making difficult subjects less difficult. (By the way, I thought this about Dr. Black before he was my PhD mentor.) He has written several “introductory” books that aid the student of New Testament Greek. Here are a few books that everyone learning NT Greek should have at their disposal:
Learn to Read New Testament Greek
In his introductory Greek grammar, Black introduces the student to the morphological method of NT Greek. He shows his reader how to identify the “building blocks” (i.e. morphemes) that make up Greek words.
It’s Still Greek to Me
In this book, Black “introduces” the reader to intermediate topics in Greek grammar and syntax. He discusses difficult topics in an easy-to-understand and humorous manner.
Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis
This book introduces the student to the field of linguistics and discourse analysis as it pertains to the New Testament. The essays in the first part of the book discuss various principles related to linguistics, while the essays in the second part of the book uses those principles to study various passages in the NT.
James D. G. Dunn on the Lord’s dinner
Judging from these quotes, I think James D. G. Dunn’s Beginning from Jerusalem will be work perusing:
We should not fail to note that ‘the Lord’s Supper’ was a complete meal, which would begin, we may suppose, in Jewish fashion, with the blessing, breaking and sharing of the bread. Paul’s own description is explicit that the sharing of the cup took place ‘after the meal’, at the close of the meal (11.25). The point is obscured by the fact that the term ‘supper’ in ‘the Lord’s Supper is an old fashioned term and now more misleading than helpfully descriptive. The term Paul uses in 11.20 is deipnon, which refers to the main meal of the day, eaten in the evening; ‘the Lord’s dinner’ would be a more accurate translation, however crassly it may ring in the modern ear. No doubt, a large part of the attractive the churches, as with associations generally, was the companionship (fellowship) and conviviality of these meals (not to mention a share in better food than many might be able to provide for themselves). The complete meal character of ‘the dinner of the Lord’ also carries an important theological corollary: to the extent that we can speak of the Lord’s Supper in Corinth as a sacramental meal – as we can (10.16) – a key consideration is that the sacramental character embraced the whole meal, beginning with the shared bread and ending with the shared cup. Integral to the religious character of the meal was its shared character; for Paul the whole meal was to be shared in conscious memory of Jesus’ last supper and, as in the earliest Jerusalem gatherings, probably in conscious continuation of Jesus’ own table-fellowship. (pg 645-646)
All this leaves unresolved the question whether unbelievers and outsiders were admitted to the Lord’s dinner. The implication of 14.23-24, that such could be present when believers came together as church, may apply only to gatherings for worship. At the same time, we should not assume that the shared meals had a specially sacred character that disbarred unbelievers and outsiders from sharing in them [cf. Rom. 14.6]. Was every shared meal ‘the Lord’s dinner’? Was the bread broken and the wine drunk at every meal ‘in remembrance’ of Jesus (11.24-25)? We have already noted the same ambiguity with regard to Luke’s references to the ‘breaking of bread’. And it would be unduly hasty to assume that the hospitality which a Christian couple like Aquila and Priscilla extended to fellow believers and others would have had a markedly different character (in their eyes) from the meals shared when the whole church gathered in one place. Whether or not the Lord’s table was seen as an evangelistic opportunity in these early years, we can be fairly confident that Christian hospitality did result in many guests and visitors coming to faith in the Lord of their hosts. (pg. 647)
(HT: Euangelion)
Suggested Readings in Biblical Theology
If you are interested in learning more about biblical theology, here are a few suggested books. (As with all books that I link to or recommend, this does not mean that I agree with everything in the book.)
New Dictionary of Biblical Theology edited by T. Desmond Alexander
Introductory articles about the various natures and methods of biblical theology, plus articles are various books of the Bible and themes in Scripture.
Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect edited by Scott J. Hafemann
Various authors views of the state and future of biblical theology.
Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping unity in diversity edited by Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House
Examples of studying various themes in Scripture.
Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments by Geerhardus Vos
Classic text on biblical theology of the Old and New Testaments.
Biblical Theology: A Proposal by Brevard Childs
Suggestion by Childs that biblical theology should begin with the canon.
There are other good books about biblical theology and other good biblical theologies. I’ll provide links to those in future posts.
Good Books about the Church or Biblical Theology?
So, in case you didn’t know, Christmas is coming up soon. And, I usually get money or gift cards that I can use to buy books. Since my family asks for book lists as gift ideas before Christmas, I often spend alot of time looking for other books to buy after Christmas.
So, I’m going to be lazy and ask you to help me. What are some good books that you’ve read about the church or about biblical theology? (And, if you have time, tell us why you liked the books.)
Not the gifts themselves
Here’s an interesting excerpt from Ben Witherington III (Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995):
The flow of the arguments in chs. 12-14 [of 1 Corinthians] is from the general to the more specific. Ch. 14 now focuses on two spiritual gifts in particular: prophecy and tongues. We learn how disorder and division was created not by the gifts themselves, but by the way in which they were used. Not wishing to quench the Corinthians’ zeal for spiritual gifts and expression, Paul tries to concentrate their focus on the speech gift that, because it uses intelligible language, has the greater potential to unify the congregation: prophecy (274-275)
How can the way we use spiritual gifts today (not the gifts themselves) cause disorder or division in a church meeting?
Witherington on the Table of the Lord
This quote is from Ben Witherington’s book Making a Meal of It: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord’s Supper (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007):
What have we learned in our examination of Paul’s discussion of meals, and in particular the Lord’s Supper? Firstly, the Lord’s Supper was taken in homes. This is clear not only from 1 Corinthians 11 but also probably from Acts 2, and furthermore, it was partaken of as a part of a larger fellowship meal. Secondly, Paul is trying to distinguish the Christian meal and its protocol from the usual socially stratifying customs of a pagan meal. The Christian meal was to depict the radical leveling that the kerygma proclaimed – whoever would lead must take on the role of the servant, and all should be served equally. This social leveling was meant to make clear that there was true equality in the body of Christ. All were equal in the eyes of the Lord, and they should also be viewed that way by Christians, leading to equal hospitality.
Thirdly, the Lord’s Supper was clearly not just a reenactment of the Passover meal, not least because of its prospective element, looking forward and pointing forward to the return of Christ. For that matter, the Last Supper itself was no ordinary Passover meal, for Christ modified both the elements and their interpretation so they would refer to him and his coming death. There seems to be no historical evidence that early Christians used the Lord’s Supper as an occasion to dramatize either the Passover or the Last Supper. Instead, the ceremony was incorporated into a larger and different context, that of the Christian fellowship, or agape, meal. (pg. 60-61)
What do you think of Witherington’s conclusions? Is it important that followers of Jesus continue to share the Lord’s Supper as the early believers did as described in Scripture? Why or why not? If so, then in what ways?
Proclaim, Teach, Serve
In my previous post, “The Birth of the Church Demonstrates its Purpose,” I commented on Graham H. Twelftree’s conclusion that the church was born in the ministry of Jesus when he called the twelve apostles. The church continued the ministry of Jesus (according to the Book of Acts) after his ascension again through the work of the apostles, then later through all followers of Jesus.
But, as I said, Twelftree’s conclusion affects more than the origin of the church. Instead, the church’s origin indicates its purpose (or mission). Thus, if the church began in the ministry of the Jesus and continued the ministry of Jesus through the apostles, then the church should be continuing the ministry of Jesus. What should this ministry look like? What does it entail?
If Twelftree is correct, then the church’s understanding of its mission should begin in the Gospels. In my previous post, I mentioned that I have been considering this over the last few months because of our study of Matthew. For example, consider these passages where Matthew describes Jesus’ earthly ministry:
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. (Matthew 4:23 ESV)
And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. (Matthew 9:35 ESV)
Each of these sentences are part of summary sections in which Matthew describes Jesus ministry. Between these two passages we see examples of Jesus teaching, proclaiming the kingdom, and healing.
Immediately following the Matthew 9:35, Jesus appoints the apostles and sends them out to do the same things that he had been doing:
These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. (Matthew 10:5-8 ESV)
Thus, the apostles’ mission was the same as Jesus’ earthly mission.
If Twelftree is correct that we are given the same mission, then we can see from these passages that our mission is three-fold: proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God, teaching, and healing. Note, I’ve changed “healing” to “serving” because we cannot control whether or not someone is healed. However, we can serve and care for people even when they are not healed. (For example, see Jesus’ positive expression of love expressed through service in the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37.)
There is a danger in listing a three-fold purpose like this. In our minds, its easy to categorize these three purposes and separate them. However, from the narrative of Matthew 4-9 especially (where we see Jesus modeling all three), we can see that the three-fold purpose must not be separated. We cannot separate proclaiming from teaching or serving, or separate teaching from proclaiming or serving, or separate serving from proclaiming or teaching.
Yes, there will be times when proclaiming is more prominent and times when teaching is more prominent and times when serving is more prominent. But, the mission remains three-fold, not separate. And we miss the purpose when only one or two parts of the three-fold are considered more important and given special emphasis.
Proclamation without teaching and service is not proclamation. Teaching without proclamation and service is not teaching. Service without proclamation and teaching is not service. The three go together and should be seen as interwoven and interlocked as the church’s purpose and mission.
Also, when I say “the church’s mission,” I also mean each Jesus follower’s mission. We cannot reduce the church’s purpose to an organizational purpose, but the purpose should be recognized as the purpose and mission of each believer. The question is not: is someone among the church carrying out each part of the mission. Instead, the question is: Am I carrying out each part of the mission.
The Birth of the Church Demonstrates its Purpose
In his book People of Spirit: Exploring Luke’s View of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), Graham H. Twelftree examines the church from the perspective of Luke through his Gospel and Acts. In the second chapter of this very interesting book, Twelftree asks when the church started. Is the origin of the church found at Pentecost with the coming of the Holy Spirit? Twelftree says, “No.”
In considering Luke’s view of the origin and purpose of the Church, two points can be made. First, an unavoidable conclusion to be drawn from this chapter is that from Luke’s perspective the Church has its origin in the ministry of Jesus and is recreated by the risen Jesus to be the renewed people of God. In the simple unaided call of the apostles and the collection of them around Jesus, the Church had its origins or birth..
We can say that Luke would not call Pentecost the birth of the Church. For him the origins of the Church is in the call and community of the followers of Jesus during his ministry. Perhaps Luke would say that what was born in hope in the ministry of the earthly Jesus was given the ‘breath’ (pneuma) of life and power in the promised coming of the ‘Spirit’ (pneuma). This means that, for Luke, the Church does not occupy a period in history separate from that of Jesus. Rather, the Church was called into existence by him and is a continuation of his ministry. (p 28)
Twelftree bases his conclusion on several pieces of textual evidence. First, Luke writes in Acts 1:1 that his previous work (the Gospel of Luke) was about “all that Jesus began to do and teach.” It follows, then, that the Book of Acts is about what Jesus continued to do and teach. Thus, one of the connections between the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts is found in the ministry of the earthly Jesus and its continuation in the life of the church.
Also, Twelftree demonstrates that Luke uses the twelve apostles as characters to connect his Gospel to Acts. In fact, as the first people who were called to follow Jesus in his earthly ministry, the apostles form the core of the church after Jesus’ ascension. However, not long into the Book of Acts, Luke demonstrates how the ministry of Jesus which had been continued by the twelve apostles, was then further continued by others.
Thus, while the twelve apostles connect the Gospel to Acts, and while the twelve represent the birth of the church and the continuation of Jesus’ ministry, the importance of the twelve soon diminished, being replaced by the importance of all believers as they continued what Jesus did and taught. Twelftree writes:
In eventually promoting Barnabas and particularly Paul to the rank of apostle, Luke is able to show his readers that the purpose of the Church portrayed in his Gospel and the early parts of Acts is to be the same as for the Church in the life of the readers. There is no closing of one age (the apostolic) and the initiating of another (post-apostolic) period. The kingdom, inextricably bound to the notion of mission, is conferred on the apostles, and experienced by them and expressed by them. The kingdom is also the subject of Paul’s attention as Acts closes. But this closing is the opening for the readers to continue experiencing and expressing the kingdom in their lives. (p. 29)
I’ve always considered Pentecost to be the birth of the church. But, I think that Twelftree’s arguments have merit, and that his conclusion warrants consideration. In fact, while studying the Gospel of Matthew in the last few months, I’ve recognized that Jesus called his followers to continue his ministry, especially when he sent the twelve out two-by-two in Matthew 10:5 (compare to Matthew 4:23, 9:35).
If the church’s origin is found in the ministry of Jesus, and if the church’s purpose is to continue the ministry of Jesus, what should we be doing today as the church? How should gathering together (the focus of this blog) aid in this purpose? How can gathering together distract from this purpose?
A Review of Megabelt by Nick May
When I first heard about the novel Megabelt by Nick May, I knew that I wanted to read it. Henry Neufeld and the people at Energion Publications were kind enough to send me a free review copy.
This is the publisher’s description of the book:
Megabelt is a fictional account of the South and its preoccupations with modern Christianity told from the point of view of a boy named Gil growing up in what is otherwise known as the “Bible Belt.”
The readers will find themselves steeped in the world of Gil whose experiences and questions lead him to unravel some of the Bible Belt’s many dominant and passively adopted messages as well as its numerous types of characters.
Gil is the quintessential mind of most inhabitants of the Belt. He is you. He is I. While his experiences greatly reflect those of the author, his encounters will never go unidentified with by the reader.
Now, you must understand, I grew up in the same Bible belt culture as Gil, the books main character. Because of my background, I readily identified with Gil and his friends and their lives. But, I’m getting ahead of myself.
Megabelt is a short book – barely over 100 pages. And, it is a quick read. As far as I can tell, the author’s purpose is simply to tell a story of a boy who grew up in the church culture of the southern United States. For the most part, the author does not comment on that culture; instead, he describes it.
As I said previously, I readily identified with the character and the background. I’ve been part of the small southern church (although Gil was part of a Methodist church and I was part of a Baptist church) and the large megachurch. I’m familiar with dinner-on-the-grounds, and gospel-sings, and church camps (and especially that desire to have some kind of God experience at church camp), and the myriad of characters who make up small southern churches and megachurches.
Because of my identification with the character and familiarity with the culture, I probably enjoyed the book more than some readers will. Why? Because the author does not always provide a great amount of detail when describing various events and persons. I understand what he means when he names one of the church attenders as “Everyman,” but will everyone understand that?
So, my own imagination (fueled by years of living in that culture) filled in many of the blanks left by the sparse style of the author. In fact, I think the fact that I often saw myself and people that I know in the story helped me enjoy the book even more.
This was one of the author’s desire. As he writes in the introduction:
You will never truly understand Gil’s personality, stance, or emotion – nor will you put this book down without identifying with him in one way or another. (XI)
I think the author accomplishes this goal through this writing style and sparse descriptions, as long as the audience is familiar with the background of southern church culture. Otherwise, the reader may have a hard time identifying with Gil or the other characters.
One of the most beneficial aspects of this novel to me was in examining southern church culture. As much as possible, the author provides a neutral description on that culture, although, for those outside the culture, the commentary may seem less than neutral at times. For example, consider this section about “backsliding”:
There was a popular term amongst Gil’s peers; one that had found its way into the pop-Belter vocabulary during the mid 90’s – “Backslider.” …
It was the kind of phrase that just rolled off the tongue like a slimy eel. The first time Gil heard it was at a revival. The evangelist (who is the person who delivers the revival in a tweed picnic basket from across the country) was referring to individuals who have not appeared in church for a long time.
“Friend, if you’re away from the family of believers, and you’re off doing your own thing – then you are backslidden and in need of repentance!” he would say with a sweating forehead and bulging eyes. If it isn’t clear by now, backsliding has to do with an individual falling away from grace, which Gil later determined to be the grace of the church rather than the grace of God. (25)
“Backslider” was a term used by any good church-going southerner to describe those who no longer attended their church. While this may seem like a negative portrayal of southern culture to those who are unfamiliar with it, his description is quite accurate.
I also enjoyed the interaction between Gil and the fundamentalists. In fact, in the southern church culture, every church can point to both “liberals” and “fundamentalists” who take things too far one way or the other. There is a comfort in pointing our fingers at others and proclaiming proudly, “We’re not like them or them.” (I think this is one aspect of church culture that goes beyond the Bible belt.)
While I wish I had been drawn into the story more by the story itself than by my familiarity with southern Bible belt church culture, I still enjoyed the book. (As a warning, for those who enjoy their stories to be nice, neat, and tidy with everything pulled together at the end, this book may frustrate you.)
The only thing remaining after reading this book is to honestly examine Bible belt culture (or whatever culture you may be living in) and recognize that “church culture” is not the same thing as church.
Defining Church
Last night, I read Dave Black’s new booklet Christian Archy. (I would highly recommend it.) This is not a book review. Instead, I wanted to mention his “definition” of church:
The church is… a people in community whose mission is to spread the rule of Christ. (18)
He then adds this:
The purpose of the Body of Christ is to make Jesus visible in the world. (18)
And, what is our responsibility as the church toward one another? Why do we meet together?
As members of Christ’s missionary Body, our purpose is to build up the community of the saints in mission to the world. (20)
I like this definition. In fact, I’ve almost convinced myself to write a series of posts unpacking the definition and the implications.
What do you think of Black’s definition of the church?