Modern readers who understand the Lord’s Prayer within its linguistic and cultural context gain a new, profound understanding of Jesus, His faith, and what He expects of His followers.
Jesus’ world shaped Him and defined Him. He was a first-century Jew1, and as such, His message and faith grew out of the soil of first-century Judaism. When Jesus taught His disciples to pray (Matthew 6:9–13; Luke 11:2–4),
He did so within the contemporary context of Jewish prayer, communicating through this prayer His view of God and humanity. Although Christians have prayed “The Lord’s Prayer” since the beginning of the Church2, few have sought to place the prayer within the cultural, historical, and linguistic context of Jesus and first-century Judaism. Among the various voices of Christian interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer, we often overlook the voice of Jesus of Nazareth.
Understanding the complexities of Jesus’ simple words is not about spiritual insight or revealed wisdom. Rather, by listening to it in its linguistic and cultural context, we gain greater insight into the faith of Jesus, His view of God, and how He taught us to approach God.
The goal of this essay is to serve as a mouthpiece for Jesus, and allow the reader to sit at the feet of Jesus and let Him teach us, gaining insight into the original utility and profound theology of the Lord’s Prayer. Perhaps by entering into His world and hearing His voice, we can allow Him to enter ours and better communicate His message today. Read more
He lost me at "Jesus’ world shaped Him and defined Him." I can't get my head around God being shaped by the world. I thought it was the other way round.
ReplyDeleteEric,
ReplyDeletePoor choice of wording. His basic premise, I think, is sound, that is, understanding the culture in which Jesus taught is helpful in understanding what he taught.
Jesus made frequent references to what was familiar to the Jews--what was a part of their experience--and which may be lost on us due to our unfamiliarity with the culture of the time. For example, when Jesus refers to "pornia" in his teaching, the Jews whom he was addressing would have understand him to be referring to a wide range of forms of sexual immorality.
The New Testament in its accounts of the Last Supper and the institution of the Lord's Supper refers to Jesus as blessing the bread or giving thanks over the bread and then breaking it and giving it to the disciples--a reference to the Jewish practice of taking the bread at the beginning of the meal, blessing God as form of table grace, breaking the bread, and then passing it around.
Nowhere in the Bible do you find any example of the invocation of God's blessing on inanimate objects, only people. To someone unfamiliar with the Bible and the Jewish forms of table graces of the time and the alternate use of "gave thanks" instead "blessed" in the accounts of the Last Supper, it might appear that Jesus was blessing the bread. This in turn would lead to erroneous ideas about what Jesus did at the Last Supper and what the minister does at the Lord's Supper.
Jesus would give new meaning to a familiar Jewish practice with the Words of Institution, transforming the giving of thanks over the bread at the beginning of the meal and the giving of thanks over a cup of wine at the end of the meal into something more than the blessing of God's holy name for the fruits of the earth and the fruits of the vine.
Mr. Jordan,
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting idea about invoking God's blessing on inanimate objects. Seems like anointing the temple comes close though.
The point though, is about the value of the grammatical-historical approach as a means to know the Author's mind. Ain't it more about knowing the first recipients' minds?
You and I are pretty adamant that all the Words show God's mind. And so we'd probably agree that whatever it is He wrote, it's fundamentally not entirely accessible to my puny thinkolator.
Was it intended to be understood? Yes and no. Ears to hear and all that, plus even the best of us can plumb too far I think.
You could then make the argument that we can guess what the original hearers thought of the wordly ideas. And then say much of what He said matched their understanding. But that's giving me the heeby jeebies to think that if I were one a them ridginal hearers, I could have any authority as to what He meant.
I feel pretty safe taking the sum of all His Words we got and using them as the primary dictionary.
Your thoughts?
Eric,
ReplyDeleteIn the 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles account of Solomon's dedication of the Temple we read that Solomon invoked God's blessing upon the people at least twice and many animal sacrifices were offered to God. However, there is no mention of any anointing of the Temple.
In Exodus we find a set of instructions for the dedication of Aaron and his sons as priests in God's service and for the dedication of the altar upon which animal sacrifices would be offered. But we find no account of any invocation of God's blessing upon the altar. What we do find is directions for the ritual anointing of the altar for seven days as a part of its dedication. It is a real stretch to take these directions and make them a proof text for the blessing of inanimate objects.
Some knowledge of the original languages, literary forms of the Bible, cultural context of a particular book, common ways of Scripture misinterpretation, and the like are useful in better understanding a text. At the same time I believe that the Scriptures are perspicuous and self-interpreting in what matters the most. I would not base teaching on passages that are obscure or unclear.
Article XX sets out an important hermeneutic principle for Anglicans: "...neither may it (the Church) expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another." In other words, we should not expound one passage of Scripture in such a way that it disagrees with another. A great deal of error can be traced to the ignorance or deliberate ignoring of this principle.
Article VII articulates another important hermeneutic principle for Anglicans: "...the Law given from God by Moses as touching Ceremonies and Rites...do not bind Christian men...." A great deal of error can also be traced to the failure to respect this principle.
Mr. J,
ReplyDeleteIt might help to know better why God had Moses anoint the temple in Numbers 7. Maybe connected is that it is a type of Him and us?
You are more of a real Anglican than I. I like that vein of our Christian heritage. But I hesitate to use it as my flag. I want to carry the flag of Bible & Christ at the head of my church's procession, but I'm hesitant on the Anglican thing as my identity. So when I read you saying about these hermeneutical principles for "Anglicans," I immediately substitute "Christians" in my mind. Sure, it IS true for Anglicans. And we should be all be proud of what God clarified through these Godly folks of the thirty nine!
Eric,
ReplyDeleteIn Exodus 40 Moses receives directions to dedicate the Tabernacle (not the Temple) and its equipment by anointing and to dedicate the altar and its equipment in the same manner. We are told that upon the completion of this ritual the Tabernacle and its equipment and altar and its equipment will be holy. In Number 7 Moses carries out the directions that God has given him. In Exodus 40 we also read that God directs Moses to anoint Aaron and his sons after they have taken a ritual bath and been dressed in priestly garments. We are told that this anointing consecrated them and made them priests for all time. To dedicate something, to consecrate somebody, is to set the thing or person apart for a special purpose, in this case the service of God. It is not necessary to know exactly how this happens--only that a particular ritual marks the transition from ordinary use to special use.
Bear in mind God prescribed these particular rituals for the dedication of the Tabernacle and its equipment, the altar and its equipment, and the Aaronic priesthood. There is nothing in these passages that infers that God intended similar rituals to be used for communion tables and ministers. Christ's death on the cross brought all this to an end. The communion table is not an altar of sacrifice nor are ministers sacrificing priests.
In my experience a number of folks who identify themselves as "Anglicans" do not pay any attention to the two principles to which I drew attention, hence the stress upon Anglican. I would agree that they are true for other Christians. To my way of thinking those who does not put Christ and the Bible first really ought not to refer to themselves as Christians or Anglicans.
The dedication of the Tabernacle and its equipment, the altar and its equipment, and Aaron and his sons can be looked at three different ways. One way is that the anointing infused them with something akin to "mana" (not the "mana" of the Bible but the "mana" of Polynesian and Melanesian religious beliefs) - "a supernatural force or power that may be ascribed to persons, spirits, or inanimate objects." We find this kind of thinking among Christians as well as animists.
A second way is that they underwent some kind of change in the spiritual realm - what is sometimes referred to as "the heavenlies."
A third way is that as a result of the ritual of anointing they underwent a change in the way they were perceived and categorized with corresponding changes in attitude and behavior. The Tabernacle and its equipment and the altar and its equipment went from being seen as ordinary objects to being viewed as objects given over to a particular purpose. Aaron and his sons went from being seen as ordinary men to being viewed as men given over to a particular purpose.
Mr. J,
ReplyDeleteI'm all for anointing anything that moves. Or sits still. I'll take this as close to your third way.
Some say baptism, for example, is a sign and seal of blah, blah, blah. I'm down with the sign part. As you say, it does inform everybody as to how the person should be seen.
The question is: Why should we now differently perceive the thing anointed? We could fall back on the two errors you cite. But we still need to offer the truth as to why we should see me differently.
I say we see the anointed as set apart for connection to godliness, because we intend to be godly with it, or with ourselves. See me as holy on my way to holiness because you see something of the Spirit blowing in me. Or at least, you have reason to believe He is quietly blowing.
My son died as an infant. I say to myself that he was anointed here because I saw how God put him in my home -- into the family of believers in this household. I see that as tangible evidence that God had His hand on him, and that He set him apart to be washed fully soon.
Anyway -- baptism is a signpost to that washing. But it isn't a seal. A seal is reserved to the irrevocable act of God. God alone seals. But I digress.
As I say, I'd anoint everything and everyone in my church circle if it claims and shows evidence of faith or in the use of the faithful. I want my folks to see it all and all of themselves as His to do with what He wants.
Your thoughts?
Eric,
ReplyDeleteAnointing with oil in the New Testament is limited to the injured and sick. We read in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) that the Samaritan poured oil and wine onto the wounds of the man attacked by robbers. The application of oil to sores and wounds was a common remedy in New Testament times, as was rubbing a sick person with olive oil. In James 5 we read that the sick should send for the church elders so they may pray for him and rub olive oil on him in the name of the Lord. We are told that prayer made in faith will heal the sick person. James 5 is quite clear that the rubbing with olive oil is ancillary to the prayer. It must be pointed out that pagans as well as believers rubbed their sick with olive oil in New Testament and post-apostolic times.
Since that time all kinds of erroneous beliefs have sprung up around the practice. This includes the Roman Catholic doctrine of Extreme Unction. James 5's reference to the church elders has been interpreted to mean priests and bishops only and what was a common form of medical treatment in New Testament and post-apostolic times elevated to a sacrament. Due to the crop of erroneous beliefs associated with the practice I am disinclined to encourage it. In James 5 the emphasis is upon prayer, not rubbing with olive oil. The message of James 5 is that sick persons should seek the ministrations of the church elders, primarily in the form of prayer. This includes the ministrations of senior members of their church or fellowship and small group, and not exclusively the sacramental ministry of a priest.
As for the Old Testament ritual anointing with oil Christians are not bound by such practices. We find no support in the New Testament for the use of what Roman Catholics call "sacramentals" - blessed salt, "holy oil," and so on. We do, however, find two ordinances or sacraments - baptism and the Lord's Supper. We also find an emphasis upon what may be described as "anointing" with the Holy Spirit. This may but does not invariably accompany baptism. It may precede or follow baptism or not occur at all.
We must not forget that God is not a genie. We cannot perform an act and by performing it command him to do our bidding. Some notions of baptism come dangerously close to magical if they are not entirely magical. Baptizing someone or anointing someone cannot force God to accept them. Jesus himself points out that a tree is known by its fruits. Those desiring assurance that they are numbered among God's elect should look for evidence of the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
Beggin' your pardon, Mr. J.,
ReplyDeleteBut could you tell me what you think about that post baptism ceremony common in the Anglican and I think also Catholic circles -- what is it? Oh yes, I've got it -- confirmation. What is the origin of that? As an Anglican sympathizer, I just can't see a place for that. But I'm sure I'm missing something.
Eric,
ReplyDeleteFor a comprehensive view of the origin of the rite of confirmation and its development, may I suggest that you read my 4/2/2008 article, "An Anglican Prayer Book (2008): The Catechism and the Order of Confirmation," which is posted on my web journal, Exploring The Book of Common Prayer. The URL is: http://exploringananglicanprayerbook.blogspot.com/2008/04/anglican-prayer-book-2008-catechism-and.html.
I also posted the article on Anglicans Ablaze on 9/27/2010. The URL is: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2010/09/anglican-prayer-book-2008-catechism-and.html
Mr. J,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comprehensive read! Such good detail.
So I am not a fan of confirmation, and you confirmed that for me. Next question related:
Has there been any history of paedocommunion advocacy in the Anglican church, way back or now?