• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Geoff's Miscellany

Miscellaneous Musings

Translation Tuesday: Matthew 5:33-37

August 14, 2015 by Geoff 1 Comment

Text
33
Πάλιν ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις· οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, ἀποδώσεις δὲ τῷ κυρίῳ τοὺς ὅρκους σου. 34 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως· μήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ, 35 μήτε ἐν τῇ γῇ, ὅτι ὑποπόδιόν ἐστιν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ, μήτε εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, ὅτι πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως, 36 μήτε ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ σου ὀμόσῃς, ὅτι οὐ δύνασαι μίαν τρίχα λευκὴν ποιῆσαι ἢ μέλαιναν. 37 ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ· τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστιν.[1]

Translation
33
Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, “You [singular] will not break your oath, but you will fulfill your vows.” 34 But I am telling you all to not make oaths at all. Not by heaven, because it is the throne of God, 35 nor by the earth, because it is his footstool, nor for the sake of Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great king, 36 nor by your head shall you swear because you do not have power to make one hair white or black. 37 Instead, let your word be Yes or No. Anything more than this is from the evil one.

Reflection
Two of the most important ideas to keep in mind when reading the Sermon on the Mount are that:

  1. Matthew wrote it because he thought Jesus really wanted us to put it into practice.
  2. There are exceptions to many of the commands that are simply assumed without elaboration. So the point is probably not merely that all oaths are bad (Jesus answered under oath in court in Matthew 26:63). There is likely to be something else going on.

There is some evidence that ancient persons were not future oriented in the same way that modern Americans are (note how often Paul cancelled his travel plans in his letters). In this way, it is possible that people would make lofty oaths to gain honor and trust in the present even though they had no intention to keeping their vows in the future. In fact, in 2 Corinthians, Paul notes that he wasn’t a man who broke oaths, but that his vacillation between visiting or not was not dishonesty but legitimate frustration with the Corinthians that kept him from visiting (2 Cor 1:16-24).
What Jesus seems to be saying is that grand gestures of fealty and integrity are unnecessary for God’s people. We simply need to say, ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ Oaths taken for honor’s sake in the Old Testament never turned out well. Jesus even tells people to consider whether they will follow him and to weigh the options carefully (Luke 14:26-35). This is a message that is greatly needed in our present culture because lofty promises are made by politicians and millennial types often never show up to things they claimed they would intend. In a real way, Jesus’ teaching here appears to be moving integrity to the locus of personal consistency rather than the external locus of group rapport.

Translation Reflections
There is no reason for the phrase, “μήτε εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα” to be translated “nor by Jerusalem.” It carries the force, “nor for the sake of Jerusalem.” In other words, don’t even take oaths for the city.  I’ll have to look more deeply into this expression, but my instinct is that it is related to political zealotry, perhaps oaths to attack Rome when the moment is right. But the point is not the oaths, (which are prohibited with the infinitive, not the imperative), but the point is that that Jesus commands us to simply say yes or no and to do what we say we’ll do.

[1] Kurt Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), Mt 5:33–37.

Share:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Matthew's Gospel, translation, discipleship

Music Monday: Thrice and the Sands of Time

August 12, 2015 by Geoff Leave a Comment

Back in the days of “the myspace” I had a roommate who was in a hard core band and a significant number of friends on myspace I met at his concerts or through another friend who went to a lot of evangelism conferences and such. I still remember when one of them messaged me and said, “You’ll really like this album by Thrice.” She was right. I’ve loved this album for a decade. My favorite song on it probably changes from year to year, but Of Dust and Nations is fantastic. The main theme is the sands of time continue to trickle through the hourglass of history and that anything that isn’t eternal that we put our trust in will be destroyed by time.

The writer is a bit of a Christian-Platonist (this isn’t a bad thing, so was C.S. Lewis), and this can be seen in the line, “We live in but a shadow of the real.” Do enjoy the song and read the lyrics below:

the towers that shoulder your pride
the words you’ve written in stone
sand will cover them, sand will cover you
the streets that suffer your name
your very flesh and your bones
sand will cover them, sand will cover you

so put your faith in more than steel
don’t store your treasures up, with moth and rust
where thieves break in and steal
pull the fangs from out your heel
we live in but a shadow of the real

step out from time, see the dust of nations
step out from time, hear the stars ovation

Saturn will not sleep, until the sand has made us clean
still we stack our stones and bury what we can
but it all will be undone, and nothing built under the sun
will ever stand before the endless march of sand

so put your faith in more than steel
don’t store your treasures up, with moth and rust
where thieves break in and steal
pull the fangs from out your heel
we live in but a shadow of the real

so put your faith in more than steel
don’t store your treasures up, with moth and rust
where thieves break in and steal
pull the fangs from out your heel
we live in but a shadow of the real

Share:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: music

Translation Tuesday: Matthew 5:31-32

August 9, 2015 by Geoff Leave a Comment

Text

31 Ἐρρέθη δέ· ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον. 32 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ, μοιχᾶται.[1]

Translation

31 Now, it was said, “If any should divorce his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. 32 Now, I am telling you that anybody who divorces his wife, except in a matter of fornication, makes her to be an adulteress and if any should marry a woman who has acquired a divorce, he is made to commit adultery.

Reflections

This, in many ways, is pretty weird. But here are my thoughts in list format:

  1. Jesus’ point seems to be that a man who puts his wife into an economic hard spot by divorcing her (putting her away from his household) has not dissolved the marriage covenant on a theological level. But, the man who put her away is held morally responsible for the ‘adultery’ committed by her and the man to whom she becomes married if such a remarriage occurs. This is in keeping with Jesus’ teachings on adultery in 5:27-30 (see my thoughts on that here).
  2. I follow Glen Stassen and take the Sermon on the Mount to be organized into several triads from 5:21-7:11[2]. The third element of the triad is missing here. But I think that the implication is no different from Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 5:21-26, “Go be reconciled to a spouse with whom you would rather not live.”
  3. “if any should marry a woman who had acquired a divorce” is Jesus applying the principle to women who have gotten divorced without the proper exception (the matter of fornication). Mark’s gospel references women having the capability of acquiring a divorce in the ancient world in chapter 10:12. In this case, a woman who remarries after acquiring an immoral divorce is responsible for the adultery committed by the man she later marries (he’s not culpable, he can’t be…he didn’t damage the first marriage).
  4. That being said, Paul reflects on Jesus’ teachings here in 1 Corinthians 7 and he notes that while one ought not leave their spouse, if their spouse leaves them, they are free (in context, free to remarry). One is not obligated to be reconciled to somebody who is actively being unfaithful to their marriage vows by literally living as though unmarried to them.
  5. It is worth noting that “except in a matter of fornication” probably carries a wider connotation than the words denote. The idea appears to be anything the breaks the commitment to monogamy made in the marriage vows (adultery, leaving, and probably extensible to physical abuse). Jesus is disagreeing with a school of Rabbis who claimed that divorce could occur for any reason including finding a prettier woman to marry.
  6. It would seem that the “greater righteousness (Matthew 5:19-20)” Jesus is talking about here includes the virtues of interpersonal fidelity and reflexive reconciliation (I made the name of that virtue up, but I’m sure it’s a real one).

Translation Comments

Translating ἀπολελυμένην as “a woman who has acquired a divorce” makes the most sense to me. I’m only aware of one scholar who reads it this way (John Nolland), but I’m pretty sure he’s right.[3]

I also got the idea for point 1 above from the passive tense in “to commit adultery.” The idea is that the divorcer is morally culpable for the negative consequences faced by the divorcee. This is also the case for the man who marries a woman who acquires a divorce, he is “made to commit adultery.”

Footnotes:

[1] Kurt Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), Mt 5:31–32.

[2] Glen H. Stassen, “The Fourteen Triads of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21–7:12),” ed. Gail R. O’Day, Journal of Biblical Literature 122 (2003): 267.

[3] Nolland John, “Preface,” in The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2005), 246.

Share:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Music Monday: Saturday Foo Fighters Edition

August 9, 2015 by Geoff Leave a Comment

I’ve always liked this song and meant to post about it Monday, but my other job started back up this week. I’ll be back into writing soon. But I think this is a challenging song about dealing with difficult relationships and trials in general. I hope you find it encouraging.

Favorite line: “I swear I’ll never give in, I refuse.”

Share:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Space Lance Saturday: Translation, Preaching, and Explanation

August 1, 2015 by Geoff Leave a Comment

As a child I watched a movie called “Tekka Man: The Space Knight” with my brother. It’s a completely ridiculous piece of pop-culture. I liked it (we weren’t very cultured). Anyhow, I was reflecting on the best way to translate the word αρετε into English for the past few days and I was reminded of that show and of the Italian version.

Watch these two videos. In the first (an Italian translation): Tekka Man is a stoic soldier whose stalwart attitude toward battle leads him to destroy a supposedly invincible alien fleet single-handedly. He and his robot sidekick are strangely colored, but utterly intimidating and unstoppable.

Now for the second (I won’t explain it, except to say that it’s in English):

The main character in the second video with the same visuals and music is a buffoon whose need to explain everything he does in the vacuum of space defies explanation or reason. There is almost nothing redeeming about Tekka Man. Sure, he defeats an invincible alien force, but who would want to be friends with such a self-conscious guy?

Conclusion
Anyhow, translation matters. Not only that, but too little and overmuch explanation can ruin a story, sermon, or lecture.

Share:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Space Lance

Theology Thursday: Thoughts on Evolution

July 31, 2015 by Geoff Leave a Comment

One of the current boundary markers for Christians is the biological doctrine of evolution by (we think) natural selection. Some Christians think that others aren’t Christians if they believe it happened. Some Christians think other people are idiots for not thinking it happened.

I suggest a three step algorithm similar to my thoughts on Christianity and politics.

  1. Recall what it is specifically that makes a Christian, Christian.
    It is not an interpretation of this or that Old Testament passage (Romans 14), it is not perfect moral behavior (1 John 1:8-2:2), it is not strict accuracy concerning theological ideas (1 Corinthians 13). Rather, it is “the obedience of faith (Romans 1:5).”
  2. Look into why you accept a theory or interpretation of Scripture
    Many Christians do not have time to A) master the literary/historical background to Genesis or B) master the state of the field in modern biology. Thus they are at the mercy of either their church’s confession of faith or what experts say. The problem with experts in either of these two fields is that they are often not writing for the normal person. But nevertheless, a human being is obligated not to trust experts, but to go with what they think is true. An expert can help you get to the truth, but in general, I would think that the average Christian will find the question to be ultimately indifferent and simply go with what sounds true based on their other beliefs of the level of trust to which they hold experts. The Christian who is a biologist or an Old Testament scholar will end up having wildly different views from the average Christian just as a physicist or engineer understands the world in ways that are opaque to the average person outside of these fields.
  3. Remember your own predilections when it comes to fields outside of your realm of expertise 
    Based on your own interest in science (not the method, nor the practice thereof, but the expressed consensus of the field) you’ll either talk to be about your point of view or not. Many people, because they don’t know that the word science has three senses (the method, the actual work in the lab, and the body of knowledge produced), think that because they know some of the body of knowledge, that they are good at science. In reality, science can involve writing boring computer programs, counting seeds, or watching the same instruments measure the same things for 12 hours a day. Thus they talk about “science” in a sort of tiresome droning about how dumb people are who do not accept this or that theory. On the other hand, many people are perhaps overly skeptical of all science because they find a particular body of knowledge (think: Evo Psych) objectionable and thus think that all such science talk is anti-Christian or anti-God. I would challenge somebody in either of these two groups to take some actual science classes and determine the differences between hard sciences and social sciences, models and data, experimentation and result, and method and practice. Either way though, if Christians would go back to step one of the algorithm, they would remember that being a Christian is not a matter of science, but a matter of commitment to the risen Christ.

In conclusion,  I would challenge Christians who do not buy into evolution (whether for religious or scientific reasons) to look into whether or not the Bible says that this or that scientific theory makes it impossible to be justified by faith in Christ (see Romans 10:8-13). For Christians who do buy into evolution, I would challenge you to think through whether or not accepting this or that scientific theory makes somebody more scientifically minded with respect to the scientific method (remember, accepting a theory on authority, even good authority, is not the scientific method). In other words, does accepting evolution disqualify anybody from Paul’s doctrine of justification or does rejecting (or not knowing about or caring about) evolution have some special capacity to take away somebody’s logical abilities?

For any non-biologist who says, “But we need people to believe in science,” I challenge you to think of one tangible benefit besides social acceptance with very limited crowds that accepting any evolution by natural selection has achieved for you. Btw, it hasn’t helped me in any engineering, physics, or programming class I’ve taken.

Share:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket

Filed Under: Uncategorized

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 81
  • Go to page 82
  • Go to page 83
  • Go to page 84
  • Go to page 85
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 118
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • 2020 Has Been a Big Year or I Finally Quit
  • Steps to Open a Bible College
  • You Have No Power Here, This is a Library
  • What is true wealth?
  • What’s Wrong with Conservatives?

Recent Comments

  • Sharon on Whether we live or die, Aslan will be our good lord.
  • Alishba lodhi on Effort Habit: Keep the Faculty of Effort Alive in You
  • Geoff on Why is Covetousness Idolatry?
  • Geoff on 2020 Has Been a Big Year or I Finally Quit
  • Kelly Jensen on Why is Covetousness Idolatry?

Archives

  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • May 2013
  • March 2013

Cateories

WordPress · Log in