A reminder of our priesthood from Hebrews
As most of my readers know, one of my favorite passages of Scripture is Hebrews 10:19-25:
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:19-25 ESV)
One part of this passage is often difficult to interpret: “with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water”. Many commentators see a reference to baptism is this phrase, since the author talks of being washed with pure water.
However, there is another possibility.
This phrase is reminiscent of the cleansing and consecration rites of priests in the Old Testament. Consider these passages from Leviticus:
And Moses said to the congregation, “This is the thing that the LORD has commanded to be done.” And Moses brought Aaron and his sons and washed them with water. (Leviticus 8:5-6 ESV)
Then Moses took some of the anointing oil and of the blood that was on the altar and sprinkled it on Aaron and his garments, and also on his sons and his sons’ garments. So he consecrated Aaron and his garments, and his sons and his sons’ garments with him. (Leviticus 8:30 ESV)
If you read the the verses between what I quoted above, you’ll see that Moses also consecrated the altar and offered sacrifices. But these passages deal directly with the consecration (setting apart) of Aaron and his sons as priests.
Notice the difference: in the new old priesthood, the bodies are washed with water and the garments are sprinkled with blood. In the new priesthood, our hearts are sprinkled clean (probably by the blood mentioned in vs. 19), but it is still our bodies that are washed. However, in the new priesthood, our bodies are washed with “pure water”. This is a strange phrase, especially if we connect it to baptism. While some traditions have attached a cleansing power to the waters of baptism, we don’t find that attribute anywhere else in Scripture. Could there be another scriptural referent (besides baptism) for the “pure water”?
In fact, the phrase “pure water” (the Greek phrase, that is), shows up in one other passage in the Greek Bible. We find that phrase in the Greek translation of Ezekiel 36:
I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water (“pure water”) on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Ezekiel 36:24-27 ESV)
Notice that according to Ezekiel, God will cleanse his people with “pure water” under the new covenant. This washing with pure water is associated with removing all uncleanness, replacing a heart of stone with a heart of flesh, reception of the Spirit of God, and righteous living. So, here we come to another difference between the old covenant priests and the new covenant priests: the old covenant priests are washed and sprinkled by man, while new covenant priests are washed and sprinkled by God himself.
Remember that this passage begins in vs. 19 by reminding the readers that they have access to the “Holiest” (which is not an earth-bound, man-made sanctuary, but a “heavenly sanctuary” in the presence of God – Hebrews 9:24). This access is by a new way, which is also a living way. This now makes more sense if the author of Hebrews is talking to priests – and he is. While the old covenant priests (high priest only) entered the man-made holiest place through a man-made curtain, the new covenant priest (all of them!) enter God’s presence (an even more “holiest” place) through a different curtain (vs. 22) – that is, through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ – who is also our High Priest (vs. 21).
Our work as new covenant priest – consecrated by God himself through the work of Jesus Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit – includes drawing near to God (vs. 22), holding fast to hope because of God’s faithfulness (vs. 23), and considering how to bring out the best in one another and acting on that consideration (vs. 24-25).
Studying Philippians
Last week, we started getting together with some friends on Saturday evening. (We did this a couple of year ago, and we’re excited to start back.) When we get together, we start by eating. Last week, we had a mix of Italian and Oriental.
Then, after talking for a while, we’ve decided to have a Bible study together. We’re studying the book of Philippians – the whole book. We read through the book Saturday night – it only takes about 12 minutes. Then we talked about different aspects of Paul’s letter.
It is amazing how different the letter sounds when it is read as a whole instead of being read in bits and pieces. Several people noted how the meaning of some verses is much more clear when read together with the whole letter – and sometimes they mean something different than they appear to mean when read separately.
Last Saturday, we talked about considering others to be better than yourself – even those with different beliefs. We talked about the joys of giving and receiving. We talked about the disastrous effects of division and strife. We talked about having examples to learn from – that is, to learn from their lives as well as their teaching (words).
We had a great time reading Paul’s letter to the Philippians. This Saturday, we’re going to read Philippians together again – yes, the whole letter. And, once again, we’re going to talk about the whole letter again. If you’ve never tried reading and studying an entire book together, I would definitely recommend it!
Biblical theology and discourse analysis – Part 5
In this series, I’m examining how macro-structure analysis (specifically some of the tools of discourse analysis) can be used by the biblical theologian in order to find the themes and categories of Scripture. In previous posts, I’ve examine the relationship between biblical theology and exegesis and the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology. Also, I’ve looked at the methodologies used by several biblical theologians to determine themes in Scripture. Next, I introduced discourse analysis and discussed how several aspects of discourse analysis can be helpful to the biblical theologian. In this post, I examine the macro-structure of Romans 12-15 as a case study.
A CASE STUDY: ROMANS 12—15
Most commentators agree that Paul divides his letter to the church in Rome at the beginning of Chapter 12. This section begins with the apostle encouraging his readers to live in view of the teaching in the previous chapters. Paul uses cultic religious language (παÏαστῆσαι, θυσίαν, á¼Î³á½·Î±Î½, λατÏείαν – “to offer”, “sacrifice”, “holy”, “worship/service”) to introduce this section and tο set the tone for the remainder of the letter. As Cranfield explains, “[T]he true worship which God desires embraces the whole of the Christian’s life from day to day. It implies that any cultic worship which is not accompanied by obedience in the ordinary affairs of life must be regarded as false worship.” (C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans Volume II, in The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979, 601.) Thus, Paul uses language of cultic worship which would be familiar to both Jewish and Gentile readers, but he uses the language in a new sense.
This cultic language becomes even more important when the reader reaches 15:15—16. In this passage, Paul once again uses cultic religious language (λειτουÏγὸν, ἱεÏουÏγοῦντα, Ï€ÏοσφοÏá½°, ἡγιασμένη – “worship/service”, “serve as priest”, “offering”, “make holy”), but in this case the cultic language refers to Paul himself and his own work. As Peterson says, “In Romans 15:16, Paul again describes his work using transformed worship terminology… Indeed, he is engaged on Christ’s behalf in discharging a ‘priestly’ ministry.” (“Worship,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner; Downers Grove: IVP, 2000, 861) The concentration of priestly and sacrificial language in these two passages (12:1 and 15:15—16) seems intentional, since the only other possible concentration refers to Israel, not to Christians (9:4). Thus, these two passages probably form an inclusio around this section of Scripture (12:1—15:33). The commentators listed above unanimously disagree with this conclusion, choosing instead to limit this section of the letter to 12:1—15:13. However, none of the commentators notice the literary connections between 12:1 and 15:16, indicating a possible structural connection as well. This macro-structure, then, would form a semantic unit, centered on the λατÏεία/λειτουÏγὸς word group (worship/service) which Paul repeats at the beginning and end of the section.
As an example of paragraph analysis, consider the second paragraph of this section, found in 12:3—8. The first colon (sentence) begins with the verb λέγω (I say – 12:3), which gives the following infinitives an imperatival (command) sense. (James D.G. Dunn. Romans 9—16, in Word Biblical Commentary. Word Books: Dallas, 1988, 720) Thus, this colon (sentence) could be divided into two with the two imperatives μὴ ὑπεÏφÏονεῖν (“not to think highly” )and φÏονεῖν (“to think”). These two imperatival infinitives (along with the corresponding infinitives in the colon) build prominence. In this colon (or colons), Paul warns his readers about the way they think about themselves. The second colon (ἒχομεν – “we have” – 12:4a) and the third colon (ἒχει – “they have” – 12:4b) combine to form a complementary reason for the first colon. Paul’s readers should not think too highly of themselves because there are many of them and they do not have the same function. (Leon Morris. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988, 438-439) The fourth colon (á¼ÏƒÎ¼ÎµÎ½ – “we are” – 12:5—8) repeats Paul’s emphasis of unity among diversity in reverse order, spelling out the means of service through repetition that builds rhetorical prominence (three occurrences of εἴτε – “if” and four substantive participles – “the one teaching”, “the one encouraging”, “the one giving”, “the one showing mercy”).
Considering this paragraph, Paul sets the first colon and the last colon apart through the use of imperatival infinitives (the remaining verbs in this paragraph are present active indicatives) and repetition. Thus, Paul intends his readers to think correctly about themselves (not more highly than they should), and he says that they will demonstrate that they are thinking correctly about themselves by serving in the manner that God has graciously gifted them. By serving in the manner that God has gifted them (not in any other manner), they will also prove Paul’s reasoning: that there are many believers in the church in Rome, and they are all gifted differently, implying that all of their gifts are important.
Placed within the context of the macro-structure, Paul is telling his readers more than to think properly about themselves by serving each other through the grace gifts that God gives them. Since he centers the larger unit on service/worship, their prophecy, service, teaching, exhortation, giving, leading, and acts of mercy are forms of worship to God in the same way that the OT and pagan priests serve by offering sacrifices on altars. Similarly, Paul relates the Roman’s service to one another through their gifts to the manner in which he takes the gospel to the Gentiles: both are expressions of worship (priestly service) to God. When the Romans think rightly about themselves and others, and attempt to serve one another in the manner in which God gifts them (not attempting to serve in another way that may seem more important or valuable), they are worshiping God.
Certainly, the theologian could pull the theme of spiritual gifts out of the passage. However, in order to keep the theme within its context, it should remain in the realm of worship or service performed to God, not simply service to other people. Similarly, an analysis of the remaining paragraphs of Romans 12—15 reveals that Paul teaches the Romans about various ethical and life issues (hospitality, submission to government authorities, etc.). As long as the theologian remembers that Paul gives these instructions with worship as the central theme, he will keep the passages in their context. When the theologian analyzes the various sentences or paragraphs without considering the macro-structure, he is likely to miss the context as well.
Scobie does not mention Romans 12:3—8 in his section on worship, but he does refer to this section under the categories of the Spirit (especially related to “The Gifts of the Spirit”) (The Ways of Our God, 288) and service to one another (especially related to “Ministerial Functions”). (Ibid., 635) Marshall does group Romans 12:3—8 with the following paragraphs of Romans 12—15. However, he places them under the category of ethics (“Living the new life”) instead of worship. (New Testament Theology, 326) Again, it is true that this section of Romans deals with ethical issues, but the macro-structure reveals that these are primarily issues of worship. As the follower of Christ lives “ethically,” she is worshiping God. On the other hand, Peterson includes serving one another through spiritual gifts as a form of worship. He says, “Acceptable worship is the service rendered by those who truly understand the gospel and want to live out its implications in every sphere of life. In common parlance the word ‘service’ is so linked to Christian gatherings that the Bible’s teaching on the whole life as the context in which to offer ‘divine service’ is easily forgotten.” (“Worship,” 861. It is interesting to note that Peterson also recognizes the connection of Romans 15:16 and Paul’s use of “worship†terminology.) Depending on an author’s analysis (or lack of analysis) of the macro-structure of Romans 12—15, he either will or will not include spiritual gifts (and ethical living) as an act of worship to God.
CONCLUSION
Biblical theology begins in the realm of exegetical analysis. However, the exegesis must include analysis at the macro-structure level in order to determine an author’s theme. Discourse analysis adds tools and methods to traditional exegetical methods which can aid the theologian in interpreting the text above the sentence level. If the exegetical analysis remains at the sentence or even paragraph level, then the likelihood increases that the theologian will miss the biblical author’s main points and themes. Once the biblical theologian has determined the author’s theme by examining the macro-structure of the text, he is better able to organize the sub-themes.
As demonstrated by Scobie and Ladd and the case study from Romans 12—15, interpreters and theologians alike often miss the greater context of a passage. By using the tools and methods of discourse analysis, the theologian can better recognize that context and better organize his information according to the authors’ intentions. Certainly, discourse analysis will not solve all of the problems related to biblical theology. Similarly, discourse analysis will not guarantee that the theologian’s own tradition or interests will not drift into his analysis and synthesis. However, as the theologian analyzes the biblical material, including an analysis of the macro-structure will help him keep the information in biblical categories when he begins the synthesis step.
————————————————————
Biblical theology and discourse analysis series
1. Relationship between biblical theology and exegesis
2. Relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology
3. Methods of discovering themes in biblical theology
4. Discourse analysis in biblical theology
5. Case study from Romans 12-15 and conclusion
Biblical theology and discourse analysis – Part 4
In this series, I’m examining how macro-structure analysis (specifically some of the tools of discourse analysis) can be used by the biblical theologian in order to find the themes and categories of Scripture. In previous posts, I’ve examine the relationship between biblical theology and exegesis and the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology. Also, I’ve looked at the methodologies used by several biblical theologians to determine themes in Scripture. In this post, I introduce discourse analysis and discuss how several aspects of discourse analysis can be helpful to the biblical theologian.
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS TOOLS AND METHODS
In his discussion of issues related to biblical theology, Carson suggests that one challenge “is the daunting need for exegetes and theologians who will deploy the full range of weapons in the exegetical arsenal, without succumbing to methodological narrowness or faddishness.” (“Current Issues in Biblical Theology,” 34) He says that biblical theologians should utilize every exegetical tool, including grammatical and literary analysis. One set of “weapons in the exegetical arsenal” which may be helpful to biblical theologians are the tools of discourse analysis. As Carson says, these tools do not solve all of the problems encountered when the biblical theologian attempts to determine themes and categories for synthesis, but these tools can offer additional information on the structure and meaning of the passages at hand. Also, the methods and tools of discourse analysis are part of the exegete’s toolbox, to be used along side of morphological, grammatical, and syntactical analysis, as well as textual, literary, and rhetorical criticism.
Discourse analysis refers to “the linguistic analysis of naturally occurring connected spoken or written discourse.” (Michael Stubbs, Discourse Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983, 1) Guthrie defines discourse analysis as “a process of investigation by which one examines the form and function of all the parts and levels of a written discourse, with the aim of better understanding both the parts and the whole of that discourse.” (“Discourse Analysis,” in Interpreting the New Testament. Ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2001, 255) Discourse analysis provides tools and methods to assist in the interpretation of discourses, either spoken or written. Since each book of the New Testament is presented as a coherent discourse between an author and his recipients, the linguistic tools of discourse analysis may provide additional information for the interpretation of New Testament texts beyond the information available from traditional micro-level interpretive methods.
The tools and methods of discourse analysis interrelate well with the goals of biblical theology, especially when the biblical theologian seeks themes within the texts, because biblical theology often seeks to analyze the macro-level (sentence level and above) of the text. As mentioned above, the background and interests of the theologian can hinder his objectivity. As Louw says,
All people have their own cultural, political, religious, and psycho-personal convictions. These convictions reinforce each other to impose a set of presuppositions so deeply rooted that we hardly question their validity. Our understanding of a text is thus enlarged beyond the word level by reading a text from preconceived perspectives. Even though people may agree that it is important to be aware of not misled by their subjective opinions, sociological, marxist, capitalist, catholic, calvinist, pentecostal, evangelical, and other orientations do offer a framework for reading a Bible text. Such a reading may be called a secondary reading of a text since it entails semantic reinterpretation of the vocabulary, the discourse structure, and the pragmatics of the text. (“Reading Text as a Discourse,” in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation. Ed. David Alan Black; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1992, 17)
These “secondary readings” often remain undetected. Thus, tools and methods such as those offered by discourse analysis help theologians recognize “secondary readings.” As Louw continues, “Discourse analysis is not a recipe that can be applied to ensure a final reading of a passage, void of any subjective notions. It is rather a demonstration, a displaying or showing, first of all to oneself, how the text is being read, then giving account to others how the text is read and used to eventually come to an understanding of the text. In short, it is revealed reading; it charts the course of the reading process.” (Ibid., 18. This seems very similar to what Köstenberger describes as a “literary-theological reading” of the text.) Thus, analyzing Scripture as a discourse does not remove all subjectivity, but it does provide the theologian with a method of reading and analyzing the text which is one step removed from the theologian’s own background, tradition, and interest.
Discourse analysis depends upon the intrinsic coherence and structure of communication. (Peter Cotterel and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989, 230—31) This coherence and structure begins at the lowest levels of discourse: the phoneme, morpheme, and lexeme. Discourse analysis also depends upon grammar and syntax at the sentence (or colon) level, the paragraph level, the section level, and the level of the whole discourse. While introductory and intermediate grammars usually discuss phonemes, morphemes, lexemes, grammar, and syntax to some extent, few include details of coherence and structure above the sentence level.
Because most scholars study the language of the New Testament between the levels of the phoneme and the sentence, those who utilize the methods of discourse analysis primarily focus on the development of discourse above the sentence or clause level. (Stubbs, Discourse Analysis, 1) By studying the relationships between words and sentences, analysts can describe how the author developed his communication at the level of the paragraph, section, and even the discourse in its entirety. Therefore, the analyst must study the text in relation to the other parts of the discourse.
Louw suggests that discourse analysis begins with the colon. By definition, the colon represents a unit of thought that is characterized by certain grammatical structures, similar to a sentence in English. (Semantics of New Testament Greek. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1982, 95) Primarily, a subject and an independent verb delineate a colon, whether the subject and verb is explicit or implicit. The colon will also include all lexemes that are dependent upon or modify the subject and verb. Colons relate to one another by content and by various grammatical structures at an intermediate level in the discourse. These related colons are called paragraphs. (Robert E. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse. New York: Plenum Press, 1996, 101) Similarly, paragraphs link together to form sections, which in turn form the entire discourse.
While Louw recommends analyzing a discourse beginning with the colon, or sentence, he also suggests that meaning is found at the paragraph level. He says,
Though the colon is the basic unit employed in discourse analysis, the most relevant unit for explication of the semantic content of a discourse is the paragraph, since it is the largest unit possessing a single unitary semantic scope. The colon, however, is the most convenient starting point for the analysis of a text, since paragraphs are generally too large to handle from the outset. Though the colon is the most tightly structured syntactic unit, the paragraph is rhetorically more significantly structured than the colon, and since any text must be analyzed both from the standpoint of its syntactic as well as its rhetorical form, both the colons and the paragraphs are of fundamental importance. (Semantics of New Testament Greek, 98)
Tuggy agrees that writers and speakers organize their thoughts into paragraphs in order to communicate their meaning. (“Semantic Paragraph Patterns: A Fundamental Communication Concept and Interpretive Tool,” in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation. Ed. David Alan Black; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1992, 45—67) Outside the realm of biblical studies, but within the general field of linguistic analysis, Gee agrees that discourse should be analyzed beginning with the sentence level—which he calls “lines”—and that an author’s meaning is found at the paragraph level—which he calls “stanzas”:
The information embraced within a single line of speech is, of course, most often too small to handle all that the speaker wants to say. It is necessary usually to let several focuses of consciousness (which lines represent) scan a body of information larger than a single focus. This is to say that the speaker has larger chunks than single focuses of consciousness in mind, and that several such focuses may constitute a single unitary larger block of information… I will call such sets of lines devoted to a single topic, event, image, perspective, or theme a stanza. (An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Rutledge, 1999, 108—9)
Thus, we find that speakers and authors general form their themes and categories in paragraphs. By studying the paragraphs of Scripture, the biblical theologian can trace the themes of a book.
Meaning is also found above the paragraph level. Multiple paragraphs combine together to form sections (called units or macro-structures) or entire discourses. Just as sentences form the structure and argumentation for paragraphs, paragraphs form the structure and argument at the section and discourse level. Most exegetes (or commentators, at least) perform this type of analysis when they outline a book or section. As Guthrie says, “[W]hen, in processes of exegesis, we consider ‘literary context,’ for example, we are presupposing that thorough work has already been done on the macro-discourse level. Also, if we attempt to set a unit’s boundaries or outline a passage under consideration, we have engaged aspects of discourse analysis.” (“Discourse Analysis,” 260) The difference, however, is that discourse analysts find semantic information at the section or unit or discourse level, while exegetes sometimes only use their structural analysis as an outline for later exegesis, without considering meaning at the level of the macro-structure. Besides using boundary markers, authors also set apart different macro-structures using overt statements (such as the purpose statements of Luke 1:1—4, John 20:31, Hebrews 13:22, or Jude 3) or changes in content.
Sometimes, however, it is not enough to simply trace the themes found in the paragraphs or macro-structures of a document or discourse. Some sentences are more important than other sentences in a paragraph, and some paragraphs are more important than other paragraphs within a section, and some sections are more important than other sections within an entire discourse. Discourse analysts use the term “prominence” to indicate the relative importance of the sentences, paragraphs, and sections.
Determining prominence at the macro-structure level is important because it helps clarify an author’s focus and meaning. Reed describes prominence as follows:
One way to build thematic structure in discourse is by creating prominence (also known as emphasis, grounding, relevance, salience), i.e. by drawing the listener/reader’s attention to topics and motifs which are important to the speaker/author and by supporting those topics with other less significant material. (“Identifying Theme in the New Testament: Insights from Discourse Analysis,” in Discourse analysis and other topics in Biblical Greek. Ed. Stanley Porter and D.A. Carson; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995, 75—76)
Since the New Testament was not written with section titles or in outline format, the authors drew their readers’ attention to certain parts of their text using various grammatical and syntactical structures. Each of the grammatical and syntactical structures indicates a choice by the author. These choices represent elements of prominence included by the author for the benefit of his readers. The structures functioned to identify which parts of the text were more significant than other parts of the text.
Other terms often associated with prominence include focus, markedness, grounding, and theme. Westfall suggests that these terms are often used interchangeably, which causes confusion. (A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews. London: T&T Clark, 2005, 31) She suggests that analysts use the terms emphasis and focus to refer to prominence at the level of the colon. Markedness, according to Westfall, should refer to the amount of prominence associated with certain grammatical and linguistic structures such as verbal aspect, mode, tense, and voice. Finally, the grounding categories of background, foreground, and frontground refers to perceptual relationships in the text in relation to the standard pattern of grammar and syntax used by the author using Westfall’s categories.
The various aspects of prominence—focus, emphasis, markedness, grounding—work together to form zones of turbulence within the text. According to Longacre, the author marks a peak in his discourse by using various devices which are uncharacteristic of his normal patterns. (The Grammar of Discourse, 38) As the author stacks these uncharacteristic devices together, they function as zones of turbulence, identifying significant material within the discourse. By identifying these zones of turbulence, the analyst can identify the important material at the level of the colon, paragraph, section, and discourse.
Prominence functions at all levels of a text. However, prominence operates within a certain domain within the text. Thus, a prominent element within a colon may or may not be prominent within the paragraph, section, or discourse. Brown and Yule suggest that determining “relative prominence” helps the interpreter determine how the author “staged” his discourse. (Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, 134) As Westfall explains:
The level of prominence for marked clauses or clause complexes must be determined not only by the identification of emphatic indicators, but also by recognizing their scope: the units which serve as their domain of prominence and their function in those units. The domain of a prominent sentence or entity may be determined in part by the cohesive ties and bonds that are formed with the surrounding co-text. Words, phrases or sentences can be prominent at the level of paragraph, section or discourse. (A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews, 35)
Therefore, once the analyst has identified a prominent element, he must also determine the domain of prominence for that element: the phrase, colon, paragraph, section, or discourse level.
At the phrase or clause level, the author primarily indicates prominence by placing a particular phrase or clause in an emphatic location within a colon. For example, an author can emphasize a word or clause by fronting the word or clause, that is, by placing the word or clause before its presupposed position. The fronted text continues to function grammatically and syntactically within a clause or colon. However, since the author has chosen to front the word or clause, it also functions in a more pragmatic role such as indicating topic or theme. (Robert A. Dooley and Stephen H. Levinsohn, Analyzing Discourse. Dallas: Summer Institutes of Language, 2001, 66)
Above the phrase or clause level, other grammatical and syntactical structures indicate prominence between colons. For example, Porter concludes that verbal categories can be ranked with regard to aspect, tense, voice, and mood. (Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. New York: Peter Lang, 1993, 92—93) However, the markedness of the various verbal categories should be compared to the normal verb usage in the discourse, section, and paragraph. Thus, an author could mark a sentence as prominent within a paragraph if the aspect, tense, voice, or mood differs from the characteristic aspect, tense, voice, or mood used by the author within that paragraph or section. By using a different verbal category, the author could create a zone of turbulence that marks one colon as more significant within a paragraph.
Authors group paragraphs into sections that operate as a unit within a discourse. Just as paragraphs allow the author to develop his argument and theme within a section, the section itself allows the author to present his theme or themes across a variety of topics. Authors mark prominent paragraphs within a section using methods which are similar to the methods they would use to mark a prominent colon within a paragraph. Interpreters can identify prominent paragraphs by looking for extended zones of turbulence within the section.
As the first step in biblical theology, and as part of a complete exegesis of a passage, the theologian should analyze a particular text beginning at the sentence level, looking for prominent words or clauses within each sentence. These prominent words or clauses may give a clue to the author’s theme or argument. After analyzing the sentence, the theologian should analyze the paragraph, this time looking for prominent sentences, recognizing that the author may utilize different methods to mark a prominent sentence than the methods he used to mark a prominent word or clause. Finally, the theologian should analyze the paragraphs within a section in order to determine if one or more of the paragraphs are prominent.
Once the theologian has determined the prominent paragraphs, sentences, clauses, and words, he is better able to determine the author’s theme in that section. Plus, he has the added benefit of having a specific method of determining that theme, thereby reducing the likelihood that his own background, tradition, or interests will affect his decision. Also, by analyzing the text at this level, the theologian will be able to determine subthemes and how those subthemes relate to the main theme of the paragraph, section, or entire discourse. These subthemes may be synthesized with similar themes in other passages of Scripture, but the theologian should always keep in mind the greater context which is found in the section or paragraph level of the text.
In the next post in this series, I’ll examine the macro-structure of Romans 12-15 as a case study to demonstrate how the tools of discourse analysis can help the biblical theologian determine the themes of Scripture.
————————————————————
Biblical theology and discourse analysis series
1. Relationship between biblical theology and exegesis
2. Relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology
3. Methods of discovering themes in biblical theology
4. Discourse analysis in biblical theology
5. Case study from Romans 12-15 and conclusion
Biblical theology and discourse analysis – Part 3
In this series, I examine how macro-structure analysis (specifically some of the tools of discourse analysis) can help the biblical theologian determine themes and categories in Scripture. In the previous posts of this series, I’ve looked at the relationship between biblical theology and exegesis and the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology. In this post, I examine the methods used by several biblical theologians to find themes in Scripture.
THEMES AND CATEGORIES IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
The distinction between biblical theology and systematic theology does not intimate that one discipline is more important than the other discipline, but instead appreciates the complementary nature of the two disciplines. The theologian who distinguishes between the historical and descriptive nature of biblical theology and the contemporary nature of systematic theology should also recognize the importance of taking a different approach to categorizing the text. As Poythress points out, “[I]t is understandable that the difference in aims [between biblical theology and systematic theology] should sometimes result in different kinds of topical arrangements.” (“Kinds of Biblical Theology,” 139)
However, recognizing the distinction between biblical theology and systematic theology does not prevent contemporary or historical themes (i.e., systematic themes) from slipping into biblical theologies. Several scholars warn of this possibility. For example, Kaiser warns:
Systematic theology has traditionally organized its approach around topics and themes such as God, humanity, sin, Christ, salvation, the church, and last things. By contrast, biblical theology has, more often than not, been a discipline in search of a mission and a structure—often falling into the same topical and structural tracks gone over by systematic theology, even though it severely criticized and stood aloof from systematic theology, claiming it had imposed an external grid (derived from philosophy or the like) on its material. (The Promise-Plan of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008, 18)
Thus, even while biblical theologians recognize the importance of following the themes laid out in Scripture, they often fall into the trap of returning to “traditional” themes.
Likewise, Osborne says, “The interpreter must at all times be aware of the fallacy of reading subsequent theological issues into the text.” (Hermeneutical Spiral, 266) He later cautions that the problem is primarily one of language and hermeneutics. (Ibid., 276) Thus, for Osborne, the biblical theologian must ask questions concerning language and semantics as he gathers the biblical information into themes and categories. Only then can the biblical theologian synthesize those various themes.
Marshall also cautions that theologians tend to group biblical material into familiar and comfortable categories. He states, “This is to take over an existing plan such as is found in a textbook of systematic theology but without any firm evidence that this framework was in the minds of any of the New Testament authors.” (New Testament Theology. Downers Grove: IVP, 2004, 24) Instead of using an “existing plan,” Marshall urges the theologian to seek the plan of the New Testament author.
Similarly, Rosner says that the biblical theologian must allow the texts of Scripture to set the agenda:
The task of biblical theology is to present the teaching of the Bible about God and his relation to the world in a way that lets the biblical texts set the agenda. This goal is achieved by allowing them to serve as the very stuff of inductive study and by reading the books more or less in their historical sequence. In other words, biblical theology subscribes to the primacy of the text; the interpretive interest of biblical theology corresponds as closely as possible to what the text is about. (“Biblical Theology,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner; Downers Grove: IVP 2000, 5)
At this point, it seems that Osborne, Marshall, and Rosner are all talking about exegesis—the first step of biblical theology. Questions of language, interpretation of the thoughts of the author, and interpreting texts points to the importance of exegetical methodologies that will aid the biblical theologians in looking past “existing plans” in order to determine the New Testament authors’ frameworks. But, what methodologies can offer this aid?
When Scobie laid out the framework for his biblical theology, he also recognized the danger of following traditional schemes. He warns against “imposing an alien pattern” and concludes, “[S]o far as is humanly possible, the structure employed should be the one that arises out of the biblical material itself.” (The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003, 81) What methodology does Scobie utilize to ensure that his structure arises from the text of Scripture? He explains his methodology as follows:
The procedure that seems to offer the most promise and the least risk of distorting the biblical material is that of identifying a limited number of major biblical themes, grouping around them associated subthemes, and tracing each theme and subtheme through the OT, then through the NT, following the scheme of proclamation/promise: fulfillment/consummation. The selection of themes is obviously of crucial importance. In point of fact, the major themes that are proposed here were arrived at very largely through an extensive study of the numerous proposals that have been made by biblical scholars, especially for a so-called center or focal point of BT. (Ibid., 93—94)
So, while arguing that the best procedure is one that arises from the biblical texts, Scobie finds his themes by studying proposals made by other biblical theologians. Certainly all of those biblical theologians claim that their themes arise from the text of Scripture. In fact, most of them claim that their theme is the central focus of Scripture. Scobie himself recognizes that these claims often arise, not from Scripture, but from the theologian fitting the text into a predefined mold. Scobie says, “[T]he various proposals that have been made obviously have a lot of merit and, taken together, form the most useful guide to a multithematic approach.” (Ibid., 94) Scobie decides that while the themes do not have “a lot of merit” on their own, they do have merit when taken together. Unfortunately, his methodology does not aid the biblical theologian in ensuring that the themes and categories arise from Scripture instead of being imposed on Scripture.
In Central Themes in Biblical Theology, the editors, Hafemann and House, explain that the purpose of the book is to explore some of the biblical themes. They write, “We did not determine the seven most important themes in the Bible and assign them to one another. Individual interests were allowed latitude, but we nonetheless found that the themes the participants chose provided a solid sample of key biblical ideas.” (Central Themes in Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007, 16) The various authors chose to examine the themes of “The Covenant Relationship”, “The Commands of God”, “The Atonement”, “The Servant of the Lord”, “The Day of the Lord”, “The People of God”, and “The History of Redemption.” But, what methodologies were used to determine that these were “central” themes of biblical theology, and what methodologies were used to examine each theme across the corpus of Scripture? Those methodologies remain undetermined. As the editors explain, “Each contributor was allowed to pursue the chosen theme across the Scriptures in the manner they deemed best, but they all pursued that theme in a way calculated to demonstrate biblical wholeness.” (Ibid., 17) It is possible, and perhaps probable given the themes examined in this book, that different authors analyze the same passages of Scripture in order to synthesize their different themes across Scripture. It seems problematic to approach biblical theology without a methodical approach to determine the “central themes” (that is, each contributor choosing a theme based upon their own “individual interests”) and without a common methodology to examine these themes.
Ladd, on the other hand, uses a methodology in his New Testament theology. However, as Poythress points out, Ladd’s methodology is controlled by his interest in inaugurated eschatology. Poythress says,
[Ladd] saw inaugurated eschatology as a common theme through all the NT books. So, in imitation of biblical theology, should one organize systematic theology using the theme of inaugurated eschatology? But Ladd could equally have claimed that fellowship with Christ, or the resurrection of Christ, or Christ as God and man, or the doctrine of God, was a common theme. He made inaugural eschatology primary not because it was the only possibility, but probably because biblical theology in its historical orientation had a keen interest in NT conceptualizations of redemptive-historical epochs. And these compartmentalizations complement the traditional topical interests of systematic theology more than would an organization of the material by traditional topics. (“Kinds of Biblical Theology,” 139—40)
As Poythress points out, when a theologian has an interest in a particular area, this interest can manipulate how the theologian analyzes and synthesizes the biblical data.
Köstenberger also utilizes a more methodical approach for his theology of John. First, he recognizes that the structure of John’s Gospel and his Epistles reveal much of the theology and meaning contained in these writings. (A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Forthcoming, 296) Next, Köstenberger suggests a “literary-theological reading” of the Johnanine material which follows the author’s structural framework. He says,
By “literary-theological reading” is meant a careful reading… Engaging in this close narrative reading of John’s Gospel and Letters before attempting to present the major Johannine theological themes in Part 3 [the synthesis of the biblical material] is vital, because such a literary-theological reading ensures that the presentation of John’s theology is properly grounded in a contextual, narrative apprehension of the respective documents. Methodologically, biblical theology is inextricably wedded to a study of the writings in question in their historical and literary settings. (Ibid., 309)
Thus, unlike Scobie, Köstenberger does not determine his themes by reading other biblical theologies, but by reading the text of Scripture. He finds the themes of John’s Gospel in the author’s purpose statement (20:30—31), the introduction to the Gospel (1:1—18), and the introduction to part two of the Gospel (13:1—3). The benefit of this approach is that Köstenberger discovers themes in the prominent sections of the book, removing some of the subjectivity.
Without using the name specifically, Köstenberger follows the methods of discourse analysis by seeking prominent passages of Scripture and finding and author’s themes from those passages. The tools and methods of discourse analysis can aid the biblical theologian because they are exegetical tools focused on the structure and meaning of the text and because they help the theologian determine important macro-level information.
In the next post in this series, I will present an introduction to discourse analysis, and examine how some of the tools of discourse analysis can be utilized to help the biblical theologian determine the themes and categories of Scripture.
————————————————————
Biblical theology and discourse analysis series
1. Relationship between biblical theology and exegesis
2. Relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology
3. Methods of discovering themes in biblical theology
4. Discourse analysis in biblical theology
5. Case study from Romans 12-15 and conclusion
Prone to wander…
Last Sunday, as we gathered around the campfire with the church, we talked about several topics. At one point, we sang the hymn “Come Thou Fount”, which includes the following words:
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
prone to leave the God I love;
Singing this hymn led to a great discussion of sin, acceptance, and judgementalism.
It began with someone talking about sin – how we all sin and how we all wander from God. We talked about how Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and other believers help us when we wander away from God.
From there, we talked about the community aspect. If we understand that we all wander away from God from time to time and that we all sin, then the community of faith should be a safe place to confess our sin and to ask for help.
Now, at this point in the discussion, I realized how glad I am that I’m part of a community in which the people discuss the hard issues. Someone brought up that the reason she doesn’t talk about her sin is because she’s afraid of being judged. Someone else said that he always feels that other people are more spiritual than him. Someone else said that she realizes that she often doesn’t know people as well as she should, and so she doesn’t open up to them.
All of these issues are problems in the church – in every church, including our church. But, in most churches, these issues are not discussed. Now, we have a platform and a reason to begin addressing issues such as these. We can start asking one another why someone would be afraid of being judged. We could ask why some may be acting as if they are more spiritual than others. We can ask why we don’t know each other as well as we should, and what we can do to get to know one another better.
All of this started with a simple hymn… one that we’ve sung many times. But, because people had the freedom to talk with one another and to discuss this issue, we as a church are better off – we were helped – we are more healthy and more mature as a group. When the church matures together, we are then able to help one another as each of us is prone to wander…
Biblical theology and discourse analysis – Part 2
In this series, I’m examining how macro-structure analysis (specifically, several tools of discourse analysis) can help the biblical theologian determine the various themes of Scripture. In the last post, I wrote about the relationship between biblical theology and exegesis. In this post, I’m going to examine the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY AND SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
While recognizing several different (and sometimes competing) definitions of biblical theology, Carson also identifies several unifying aspects. One of these aspects is the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology. While there are many similarities between these two disciplines, Carson suggests one major difference:
[Systematic Theology] asks and answers primarily atemporal questions. In some measure it deals with the categories established by historical theology; at the same time its priorities and agenda are carefully constructed so as, ideally, to address the contemporary age at the most crucial junctures. This means, inter alia, that it often includes material at a second or third or fourth order of remove from Scripture, as it engages, say, philosophical and scientific questions not directly raised by the biblical texts themselves. These elements constitute part of its legitimate mandate.
Not so biblical theology. It is deeply committed to working inductively from the biblical text; the text itself sets the agenda… [A] biblical theologian, whether working on, say, the Pauline corpus, or on the entire canon, must in the first instance seek to deploy categories and pursue an agenda set by the text itself.(“Current Issues in Biblical Theology: A New Testament Perspective,” BBR 5 (1995): 29)
Thus, according to Carson, the primary difference between systematic theology and biblical theology lies in the locus of the themes and categories of the organization of its synthesis. Systematic theologians organize their information around historically traditional categories or around contemporary questions and concerns. On the other hand, biblical theologians attempt to organize their information around the categories found in the text of Scripture or around questions raised in the text.
Carson was not the first scholar to recognize this distinction between systematic theology and biblical theology. For example, over two hundred years ago, in his inaugural address, Gabler distinguished biblical theology from dogmatic theology. While his plan was different than Carson’s, Gabler did suggest that biblical theology described the views of the biblical authors while dogmatic theology used reason to propose present-day beliefs. (Vern Sheridan Poythress, “Kinds of Biblical Theology,” WTJ 70 (2008), 129—30)
Similarly, about a hundred years after Gabler, Schlatter encouraged the biblical theologian—the New Testament theologian, in particular—to express the theology of the biblical authors, not the theology of the scholar, nor the theology of his tradition, nor the theology of his time period. (The History of the Christ. Trans. Andreas J. Köstenberger; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997, 17—18) Schlatter was concerned that the theologian would begin with his own categories or questions. He said, “Our main interest should be the thought as it was conceived by them and the truth that was valid for them.” (Ibid., 18) So, for Schlatter also, the distinction between systematic theology and biblical theology lies primarily in the way the material is categorized or organized. The biblical theologian should appropriate his themes from the text, not from contemporary society or from traditional categories.
In his A Theology of the New Testament, Ladd denotes the distinction between biblical theology and systematic theology as a defining factor of biblical theology. He writes, “Biblical theology is that discipline which sets forth the message of the books of the Bible in their historical setting. Biblical theology is primarily a descriptive discipline. It is not initially concerned with the final meaning of the teachings of the Bible or their relevance for today. This is the task of systematic theology.” (A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974, 25) Analyzing and synthesizing biblical information in its historical setting and not for contemporary relevance is a difficult exercise. However, this distinction is important for defining biblical theology.
Fanning also explicitly clarifies the distinction between systematic theology and biblical theology. He says,
[B]iblical theology seeks to systematize the teaching of the Bible regarding God and his ways, but the organizing principles are different. Systematic theology consciously attempts to express the truth of God in ways relevant to and understandable by the contemporary culture. The categories and thought forms of biblical theology are often not readily grasped by present-day audiences. The job of systematics is to recast biblical ideas about God and his ways in terms that communicate these truths faithfully in today’s world and call people to respond in faith and obedience. (“Theological Analysis,” 284)
As Fanning also points out, the major distinction between systematic theology and biblical theology is the “organizing principles” behind each discipline. The biblical theologian must carefully navigate the biblical text in order to determine the categories and themes of this material. While the systematic theologian can “recast” the biblical material in terms and categories that communicate to people today, the biblical theologian does not have this luxury. He must remain with the patterns and categories of the biblical authors, even and especially if those themes are unfamiliar to the theologian or his audience.
Biblical theology plays an important role in the bridge between biblical exegesis and systematic theology. Beginning with the interpretation of passages, the biblical theologian must find his information and his categories in the text. Thus, exegesis is important for both content and organization, so that the theologian ensures (as much as possible) that he does not introduce foreign concepts into the analysis and synthesis of the biblical passages. The biblical theologian should look for exegetical tools and methods to help him locate biblical themes, because recognizing the distinction between systematic theology and biblical theology is not enough to guarantee that those foreign concepts do not drift into the biblical theologian’s work.
In the next article of this series, I’ll examine how several biblical theologians have identified scriptural themes.
————————————————————
Biblical theology and discourse analysis series
1. Relationship between biblical theology and exegesis
2. Relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology
3. Methods of discovering themes in biblical theology
4. Discourse analysis in biblical theology
5. Case study from Romans 12-15 and conclusion
Biblical theology and discourse analysis – Part 1
A few weeks ago, in a post called “Macro-structure analysis“, I said that I was researching a paper for a biblical theology seminar examining how discourse analysis could help biblical theologians. In this series, I’m going to present some of that research.
Biblical theologians often examine themes across a book, a group of books, or the entire corpus of Scripture. The selection of themes is therefore very important to the work of biblical theology. If the theologian chooses categories of organization that align with the authors’ themes, then his synthesis will be more in line with the biblical information. If, on the other hand, the theologian’s categories do not align with the themes of the biblical authors, then his findings will be suspect. Any tools or methodologies that help the theologian discover the themes from Scripture will prove beneficial.
Biblical theology begins as an exegetical discipline. Furthermore, the primary difference between systematic theology and biblical theology lies in the manner that the information is categorized. Discourse analysis offers exegetical tools and methods to help the theologian recognize important information at the macro-level of the text and, therefore, organize that information according to the text.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY AND EXEGESIS
In his groundbreaking monograph, Biblical Theology, Vos places the discipline of biblical theology within the framework of exegesis, or exegetical theology, as he calls it. He says,
Exegetical Theology in the wider sense comprises the following disciplines… d) the study of the actual self-disclosures of God in time and space which lie back of even the first committal to writing of any Biblical document, and which for a long time continued to run alongside of the inscripturation of revealed material; this last-named procedure is called the study of Biblical Theology. (Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954, 13)
Vos places biblical theology within the same discipline as exegesis, introduction, and canonical studies. Thus, biblical theology is connected to the study of the text of Scripture, while remaining a theological discipline. While the biblical theologian desires to move beyond exegesis of individual passages in order to synthesize the information in a theology of a book, or an author, or a corpus, he must begin with those passages.
According to Osborne, there is an interdependent relationship between biblical theology and exegesis. He says, “There is a two-way relationship between biblical theology and exegesis. The former provides the categories and overall scriptural unity behind one’s interpretation of individual passages, while exegesis provides the data collated into a biblical theology. In other words, the two are interdependent.” (The Hermeneutical Spiral. Downers Grove: IVP, 1991, 165) Furthermore, Osborne states that the biblical theologian remains within the “sphere of exegetical research” while taking a step away from the practice of exegesis. (Ibid., 263-64) Thus, the line between biblical theology and exegesis is often blurred since the two disciplines depend upon one another.
Vanhoozer also recognizes that biblical theology depends upon the task of exegesis. He explains, “The viability of biblical theology as a discipline depends on the ability to interpret the biblical texts ‘on their own terms’.” (“Exegesis and Hermeneutics,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner; Downers Grove: IVP, 2000, 52) Again, according to Vanhoozer, exegesis of the biblical texts begins the task of biblical theology. Without proper and complete exegesis, the biblical theologian cannot perform his task suitably. As such, the analytical work of the biblical theologian must remain with the “sphere of exegetical research” (to use Osborne’s phrase).
Fanning takes this process further by explaining that exegesis is the first step in the work of the biblical theologian. He explains, “Practical steps for doing biblical theology are difficult to lay out, since it pervades the whole process of exegesis in some sense. But we could break it down into two broad stages, the analytical and the synthetic. In the analytical stage we are probing and exploring the text’s theological significance and coherence throughout the exegetical process.” (“Theological Analysis: Building Biblical Theology,” in Interpreting the New Testament Text. Ed. Darrell L. Bock and Buist M. Fanning; Wheaton: Crossway, 2006, 287) While the biblical theologian must think “theologically” about the text throughout the process, the first step remains in the realm of exegesis. Fanning continues, “We must keep theological questions in mind at every step: textual criticism, background studies, grammar, overview and flow of the argument, lexical studies, use of OT in NT, genre considerations, and validation.” (Ibid.) While the biblical theologian thinks “theologically,” he does so in the beginning of his research while analyzing texts, backgrounds, grammars, structures, and other elements of exegesis. Of course, the biblical theologian desires to move beyond analysis in order to synthesize different texts into theological themes. So, again, biblical theology and exegesis remain inexorably linked to one another in an interdependent relationship. (Ibid., 281)
Gamble also concludes that biblical theology is intricately connected to biblical exegesis. He says:
Biblical theology as a separate discipline has tried to keep its theologizing based upon grammatical-historical exegesis. That means theology is within the historical, linguistic and social structure of Scripture. Thus, biblical theology is intimately bound to solid biblical exegesis. The biblical text is comprehended within its proper historic and literary framework. As hinted at earlier, without biblical theology, competent exegesis is impossible. (“The Relationship Between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology,” in Always Reforming. Ed. A.T.B. McGowan; Downers Grove: IVP, 2006, 223)
Thus, according to Gamble, biblical theology is not possible without proper exegesis, which includes understanding the text in its historic and literary context. In the same way, “competent exegesis†is not possible without a theological—specifically, a biblical theological—understanding of the text. Thus, there remains a complementary or interdependent relationship—between exegesis and biblical theology.
Therefore, when considering the relationship between exegesis and biblical theology, extreme care must be taken. It is difficult to separate the two disciplines cleanly. Biblical theology must begin with exegesis, and thus the biblical theologian must be cognizant of the grammar, syntax, structure, semantics, historical background, and literary framework of a text. In fact, this type of analysis (i.e., exegesis) is the first step of biblical theology, and should be completed adequately before the biblical theologian begins to synthesize the biblical information.
In the next article in this series, I’ll examine the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology.
————————————————————
Biblical theology and discourse analysis series
1. Relationship between biblical theology and exegesis
2. Relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology
3. Methods of discovering themes in biblical theology
4. Discourse analysis in biblical theology
5. Case study from Romans 12-15 and conclusion
The Jesus Paradigm
I’ve heard about this book for almost a year (but it was called The Downward Path of Jesus then). Now, Energion has agreed to publish Dave Black’s new book. Here is the publisher’s announcement, and the book’s web site (although there’s not much there yet).
This is what Dave Black (Friday, April 3, 2009 at 8:47 a.m.) says in the first chapter of The Jesus Paradigm:
What might this kingdom-focused church of the twenty-first century look like? It will be a serving church. Its organizational structure will be simple, unencumbered by bureaucrats and bureaucracies. Its financial priorities will reflect a commitment to missions, local and global. Capital expenditures will be reduced and the savings earmarked for discipleship. Most jobs that are currently salaried positions will be filled by volunteer help or eliminated. Denominations will make drastic reductions in funds spent on publications that are a waste of the church’s money (bulletins, glossy magazines, and Sunday School quarterlies – the Bible will be used instead). Church buildings will be used for primary and secondary Christian education. Believers will gladly work transdenominationally and cooperatively, especially at the local level. The church will proclaim the Good News of the Gospel as its first priority while not neglecting the cultural mandate. A full-fledged lay ministry will replace clericalism. Individual believers will be expected to assume specialized ministries according to their giftedness. Churches will provide regular lay training and build voluntary programs of education into their structures. Worship will no longer be confined to a single time or place. Preoccupation with church buildings will be seen for what it is – idolatry. The church will no longer cling to its prerogatives but take the form of a servant. It will refuse any longer to shun the secular. Trained pastors will become humble assistants to the “ministers” – every member. Disciples will take the going forth as seriously as they do the gathering. New believers will be asked to specify a regular community involvement (neighborhood council, PTA, volunteer library staff, nursing home visitation, etc.) in addition to their commitment to a ministry in the church.
Plus, Henry Neufeld, the publisher, has read the book and responded to it in his blog post here. Here are some of his remarks:
Normally, prospective authors inform me of the tremendous sales possibilities of their manuscript, how many people will love it, and why I ought to be willing to invest substantial sums in bringing it before a soon-to-be adoring public, certain to make them (and me) rich. Generally they’re very wrong.
But Dr. David Alan Black, author of more than 20 books, said: “Nobody will really be happy with my book.â€
And that is a book that I choose to publish. This is not because I object to selling books or want to make people unhappy. It’s because for me, Energion Publications is a ministry, and ministry means service.
The bottom line is that I think that every Christian, especially in America, would do well to read this book. I have just made my first complete run through the manuscript, and that conviction grew stronger with every chapter. Do I agree with everything said? No. Did each and every page give me a glowing feeling inside? No. Do I think you’re going to love every minute of the time you spend reading it? I don’t.
The fact is that this book hit the spot for me. Now “hit the spot†is an expression we use to refer to comfort. After a good meal, we might say, “That really hit the spot.†But there’s another kind of spot-the one you find in the center of a target. You know, that big red circle surround by all those concentric rings. The arrow of conviction hit the spot.
There are many reasons that I’m looking forward to this book. The publisher mentions several in his blog post. For me, there’s another one: I’m attracted to what I see God doing in Dave Black’s life. For those of us who know him, I think this book will be even more important and more challenging. Why? Because, we will read his book and his life.
Thoughts on community development
There was a reason for my two previous posts: “Speaking and Serving” and “Local and Itinerant“. The reason was to get to this post. In this post, I am going to talk about community development – specifically, Christian community development.
We see several Christian communities in the New Testament. Similarly, I think we see patterns for Christian community development. In fact, I suggest that we see four different groups working together to develop a single Christian community.
Itinerant Leadership
In Scripture, Christian community often begins with someone bringing the gospel into an area for the first time. These itinerant workers would move from place to place in order to announce the good news of the kingdom of God. As people became interested in their message, they would gather these people together in order to teach, serve, and help them develop into a Christian community. However, this was not the only reason for itinerant leaders. Often these leaders would return to an area specifically to strengthen a community, to help a community recognize their leaders, or to deal with community problems. But, while these itinerant leaders were very important for community development, they always recognized their role as temporary. They would only stay in an area for a short time (relatively short), either until that community was developing well, or until another community needed them more. These leaders relied on the Spirit of God to tell them when to move on to another location. We see several examples of these itinerant leaders in Scripture: Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, John Mark, Luke, etc.
Trans-Community Relationships
Second, community development was often enhanced through trans-community relationships. (I talked about this briefly in a post called “The trans-congregational church“.) The Christian communities in the New Testament recognized their interdependence on one another, and they developed and maintained relationships with believers in other communities. However, they did not develop these trans-community relationships simply to demonstrate their interdependence. They developed these relationships because they WERE interdependent, and they recognized the necessity of these relationships. In fact, they believed that the Gospel brought them all together into a single community (church), while this community was manifested in various local communities. We can see these trans-community relationships in the way that churches in one city would help churches in another city (i.e. the collection for the church in Jerusalem, or churches in one city sending support to Paul so he can work in another city). We also see trans-community relationships when the church in one city would send someone to another location for a short time. Similarly, we see these trans-community relationships in the way the believers in different churches were encouraged to greet one another (Romans 16, Colossians 4:15) and share correspondence with one another (Colossians 4:16).
Intra-Community Relationships
This is perhaps the result of community development. But, also, the internal relationships with one another within a community demonstrates the extent of community development. Furthermore, with Christian community, these relationships cannot be directed internally (toward one another) only. Christian community also reaches out to those outside the community in order to invite them and welcome them into the community. The Gospel is once again the basis for the relationships (love of God and love for others) as well as an explanation for how God is bringing different people together into one new people. Those within the community recognize that service and love for one another is actually service and love demonstrated to God. This aspect of Christian community development is perhaps the most prevalent in Scripture. For example, the “one another” passages point to this kind of relationship.
Intra-Community Leadership
Finally, intra-community leadership is important for community development. Notice, however, that in Scripture leadership comes after intra-community relationships. The communities are instructed how to recognize or appoint their leaders after living with them and examining their lifestyles. Leadership is important to a Christian community both as a mature member of the community and as a catalyst for further community development. In Scripture, intra-community leaders are recognized based on their maturity and ability to live in a manner worthy of the Gospel. Similarly, they demonstrate that they are worthy to be followed based on their service to the community. As Jesus told his disciples, their leaders should be servants. According to Scripture, recognizing and following community leadership is an important part of community development.
Further thoughts
The first aspect of community development, “Itinerant Leadership”, is a function of those who are gifted for itinerant work. As mentioned previously in this post and a previous post, this is a temporary role within the community, although it may be a permanent role for the leaders. The other three aspects of community development depend upon those who are gifted for local work. Similarly, both speaking and serving are necessary for each community development aspect.
As I look at these four aspects of New Testament community development, I see the church focusing on only one of the aspects: intra-community leadership. In fact, the church is often defined by its leadership. External, itinerant leadership and trans-community relationships are often non-existent, shallow, or even hindered by the church. Churches tend to live as if they are dependent or, perhaps, only interdependent within their own community. This tendency has hampered Christian community development.
Also, we often view community development backwards. “Churches” begin with the leaders – sometimes layers of leadership – before there are any other people involved. Recognizing leadership is no longer a part of community development. Instead, the community is expected to accept the leadership that its given, often with no questions asked. The “leadership” is the church, and the community is expected to form around the leadership.
Finally, when a community does recognize leadership, it often does so based on non-scriptural requirements: education, training, speaking ability, etc. Rarely is maturity or community service considered, primarily because this is unknown. I believe this is another symptom of our top down (backwards) view of Christian community.
So, what do you think? Do you see these four aspects of Christian community development in the New Testament? Am I missing an aspect? Do you agree or disagree with my thoughts on modern community development? What would you add?