Fall Forward in Women's Ministry
Related MediaFall is the perfect time for a change of seasons in Women’s Ministry. A fresh approach may be in order. Let’s not just fill the church calendar with “stuff” and “fluff,” but strategically plan for a meaningful year of ministry. If you have been doing the “same ole, same ole” for years, i.e.…a ladies retreat, fall Bible studies and a Saturday Special, just the status quo -- then STOP! It’s time to re-evaluate the ministry. Ask yourself and your Leadership Team some important questions:
1. Is this ministry having a significant spiritual impact?
2. Are women growing in their relationship with the Lord?
3. Are women sharing Christ with others?
4. How can we improve and expand?
5. Are there new ministries that need to be developed?
Perhaps your ministry is offering “things” that no one needs or answering questions that no one is asking. As you plan to minister to women this fall consider some new ideas, fresh perspectives, and a different approach. Challenge women to move to the next level. Most women will gladly stretch to the higher place and a deeper walk with the Lord. Your Women’s Ministry should be loaded with opportunities and avenues for them to accomplish just that.
SO LOAD 'EM UP!
Some suggestions for a thriving ministry this fall might include some of the following…and don’t say “we’ve never done that before”…. (That’s the whole point!)
Meet with the Lord and the Leadership Team
- PULL AWAY – Take the team away for some extended time with the Lord. (This could be for a retreat, an overnight meeting, or in your home for a morning or afternoon – no interruptions. The Lord will need your undivided attention.)
- PRAY! Ask the Lord what He would like to accomplish. What do you think He wants to do with the women in your church? Beseech Him to make His plans and desires known.
- PASSION – Revive it! Renew your commitment to the Lord and to the ministry. No longer settle for status quo. Good enough is NOT good enough any more.
- PRIORITIZE – Organize revelations, instructions, thoughts and ideas to prepare for meaningful ministry. What’s most important? What can be implemented immediately?
- PLAN – Brainstorm -- Find ways and plan events that set in motion the direction the Lord wants to go. Is there a new ministry that needs to be launched, i.e., Widows' Ministry, Nursing Home, Mentoring, Ladies' Retreat, Community Outreach, Evangelism Effort, Marriage Emphasis, Missions, Prayer Ministry, a new Bible study that teaches women "How To Study God’s Word."
Meet with the Women
- COMMUNICATE – Ask women what is the greatest need in their lives at present. A survey or Saturday brunch would be a great way to find out what the needs are; then offer ministry efforts to meet the needs. Be sure they know you are serious about improving and expanding ministry. Your newfound energy and enthusiasm will be contagious. Be excited about the days ahead. They may be the best days of ministry you’ve ever experienced.
- CONNECT – Give women opportunities to build meaningful relationships with one another, but more importantly with their Lord. If you have a fall retreat, be sure the purpose is much more than fun and fellowship. Teach the women something they did not know.
- CHALLENGE – Always, always, always stretch and reach for new heights. Provide opportunities for women to grow. Encourage them to make the necessary changes in priorities, help them find their God-given passion and purpose, help them know the Lord better; they will love you for it! All of these things have a significant spiritual impact and can be done successfully through the events you plan. So Fall Forward in Ministry!
Some new ideas and themes for ministry events might be:
- Friday Night Friendship Connection – Help assimilate new members and build relationships. It’s a perfect opportunity to invite neighbors and friends from work. Plan something fun, like creative icebreakers. LifeWay has a helpful book by Serendipity House entitled Icebreakers and Heart Warmers.
- Common Grounds Café – Teach women how to find “common grounds” with others to share Christ effectively and naturally. Serve flavored coffee and dessert.
- Pool Party: Dive into Bible Study – Use the summer to promote and encourage women to attend the fall Bible study. Display the resources, meet the teachers, have some testimonies. Serve hamburgers and hotdogs at the swim club. It’s a great outreach/community event.
- “If The Shoe Fits…” Ladies Retreat – Teach women 2 or 3 basic Bible study techniques; ensure they know how to walk with the Lord.
I could go on an on about ministry events and places to get ideas. But you need to know the VERY BEST place to get great ideas and creative themes … get your pen … you need to know this …. IT’S THE LORD! He has the best thoughts about ministry to women. Ask Him!
Now, not only have you begun a new season of ministry, you have just launched a new season of life for women. I think the Lord is pleased, don’t you?
Related Topics: Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership, Women's Articles
Piety, Patriotism, and Politics
Related MediaWas the American Revolution biblically supported?
This is a very legitimate question, and one that poses special problems for Christians. For one thing there is a strong desire to demonstrate that our country was “founded by Christians, on Christian principles.” If one were to conclude that our nation began by a rebellion against authority that was not biblical, it might show us to have feet of clay in this matter.
Let me seek to lay out some principles which relate to the question, starting with this one in Proverbs 24:21:
NAU Proverbs 24:21 My son, fear the LORD and the king; Do not associate with those who are given to change,
NET Proverbs 24:21 Fear the LORD, my child, as well as the king, and do not associate with rebels,
CSB Proverbs 24:21 My son, fear the LORD, as well as the king, and don’t associate with rebels
This proverb seems to set down a general principle that one should fear God (first), and the king, and should not associate those who are intent upon revolt. If one were to protest by saying that this is an Old Testament text, then I would point them to the text you suggested – 1 Peter 2:12-15 and Romans 13:1-2.
In this same light it is probably good to recall that even though David had been designated (and even anointed) as Israel’s next king, David would not seize that kingdom by force. He waited for God to remove Saul (1 Samuel 24; 26).
Also in the Old Testament we see men like Joseph and Daniel, both of whom served pagan kings. In neither instance (Egypt or Babylon) is the king a godly man, nor is the nation anything close to a democracy. The people were enslaved, and often dealt with cruelly. In the case of Joseph he actually proposed and implemented a plan which ultimately deprived people of their possession of land (Genesis 41:33-36; 47:13-26). Daniel served several kings, and these men were far from godly. It is also evident that Daniel’s faith made a significant impact on them, especially Nebuchadnezzar. Both Joseph and Daniel strongly supported men whom they could have opposed.
When we come to the New Testament, I believe that we cannot find any justification, either in principle or by example, for rebelling against a government in an effort to replace it with another. As evil as the governments of Jesus’ day may have been, He did not seek to overturn them (much to the dismay of some, including His disciples), nor did He spend much time speaking against them. The same is true of Paul and of the other apostles, most of who died at the hand of government (or at government’s willful failure to protect them). Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; and 1 Peter 2:11-17 all teach us to submit to the government that is in authority over us, and that to resist that our government is to resist God. We know, of course, that we must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29), and thus there will be times when we must disobey government and accept the consequences. So far as I can see in Scripture, civil disobedience is justified when government requires what God forbids (or vice-versa), but in none of these instances is it our duty to attempt to overthrow the government. In the days of Hitler, there were those courageous, godly, folks who broke the law by hiding the Jews, accepting the risks for doing so. But they did not seek to overthrow the government (there may be some exceptions, but these are not found in Scripture, nor do we hold such folks to be heroes). They left that to God.
So, the short answer is that no Scripture requires or directly supports the American Revolution. Gratefully, our God can turn what men mean for evil into something good. This was true, for example, in the case of Joseph’s treatment at the hands of his brothers (Genesis 45:5; 50:20). I believe it was true with regard to the American Revolution.
Now let’s take the question to the next level. What does the Bible have to say about our participation and involvement in government, since we live in a democracy?
We should begin by remembering that we are strangers and pilgrims in this world (Hebrews 11:13; 1 Peter 2:11). Our “great” commission is to be witnesses of Christ (Acts 1:8) and to make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). In order to do this we must be in the world, even though we are not of it. Politics is one avenue of involvement. Since politics is all about compromise, one must exercise great caution. We need to be careful not to be unequally yoked in the process (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). By this I believe Paul means forming alliances with unbelievers in doing the work of Christ. There is a great deal of darkness in the political arena, and thus the need for “light.”
I find that American Christians seem to equate their faith with patriotism. We need to be careful here. As thankful as I am to be an American, my faith and my government are two different entities. As time passes and our nation drifts farther from God we may experience persecution at the hand of our government.
Related Topics: Cultural Issues
"Step by Step" Mentoring Ministry
Related MediaDebbie Stuart, Director of Women’s Ministry at Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, TX, shares her training handout used in the women’s mentoring ministry. She has it printed out in booklet form using attractive fonts and formatting. After the training session, the booklet is kept as a reference by the ministry participants.
Purpose:
Spiritual growth through friendship
Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work.
Ecclesiastes 4:9
What is the Mentoring Ministry?
It is a ministry for women of all ages based on Titus 2:3-5. It is a ministry that intentionally develops friendships among women of different generations. Women invest in the lives of each other through encouragement, guidance, listening, laughing and loving. The goal is to form strong and lasting relationships that are a source of support, growth and strength.
What is a Mentor and what does she do?
- A mentor is a wise woman who is mature in faith and consistent in godly conduct.
- She is willing to listen, share skills, and provide a positive perspective for life experiences.
- She provides wisdom and offers a spiritually sound, safe and fun friendship to a younger woman.
- “One leads simply because she knows the path a little better.”
What is a Merea and what does she do?
“Merea” is a Hebrew term that means "young friend." A merea is a woman who welcomes the insight and knowledge of a more mature woman. She desires to develop certain skills and/or strengths for her personal, spiritual journey. She is looking for a woman who has dealt with the struggles she now faces.
Why have a Mentoring Ministry?
- The Lord commands us to tell the next generation – Psalms 145:4, 48:13, 71:18, and 78:4.
- Teaching what we’ve learned is the Lord’s plan for growth and maturity – Titus 2:2-5.
- Spiritual friendships are extremely valuable in a woman’s life - Proverbs 27:9and17.
What commitment does the Mentoring Ministry require?
- Your commitment is from _________ to _________ – about ____ months.
- You agree to make contact once a week, i.e., email, calls, card, etc.
- You agree to meet once a month, i.e., church, Bible study, fun activities, etc.
- You agree to pray for each other regularly.
What are the important Mentoring dates and deadlines?
- You can join the Mentoring Ministry from __________ until __________.
- The Mentoring Prayer Team will pray over all profile sheets from __________ until __________.
- Mentoring Matches will be made on __________.
- The Mentors will be called by someone on the Mentoring Prayer Team.
- You will be contacted by your Mentor the week of __________.
- You and your partner attend the “Meet Your Match” covered dish dinner on __________.
How will I be “matched” with my partner?
It is a two-step process:
STEP 1: You must complete the profile sheet in the back of this booklet, and turn it into the Women’s Ministry office by __________.
STEP 2: Your profile sheet will be prayed over for 10 days. On __________ the Mentoring Prayer Team will determine the partners and begin calling the Mentors. Mentors will then call their new Mereas.
Can I choose my Mentoring partner?
Sorry, but no. We are allowing the Lord to make that choice. We choose best when we leave the choice to Him.
Do I have to be a member of the church to participate?
No, membership is not required; however, you must have evidence of faithfulness.
That we might be mutually encouraged by each others faith, both yours and mine.
Romans 1:12
Mentoring Ministry Special Events
Meet Your Match on __________, from _____ to ____ p.m.
Bring your favorite potluck dish to share with a new friend.
No cost or childcare.
Dallas Arboretum – __________, 2:00 to 5:00 p.m.
An Evening with Vicki Kraft – __________, 7:00 p.m.
Canton Trade Days – __________, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
The Benefits of Friendship
1. Emotional
A. Love
Proverbs 17:17 A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.
Ask not, “Do I receive this type of friendship, but do I give this type of friendship?”
Romans 12:10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. A great friend is ready to stand by at great personal expense.
B. Acceptance
Romans 15:7 Accept one another, then just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.
Acceptance is not permissiveness, but responsibility with the goal of maturity.
C. Support
Romans 12:15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.
Proverbs 25:20 Like one who takes away a garment on a cold day or like vinegar poured on soda is one who sings songs to a heavy heart.
D. Freedom of Expression
James 1:19 My dear brothers take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry. (someone to share deeply with)
Proverbs 17:9 He who covers an offense promotes love, but whoever repeats the matter separates close friends. (A friend overlooks an offense; does not betray a confidence.)
E. Consideration
Proverbs 25:17 Seldom set foot in your neighbor’s house- too much of you, and he will hate you.
Proverbs 27:14 If a man loudly blesses his neighbor early in the morning, it will be taken as a curse. (A friend respects your schedule so she does not frustrate you.)
2. Spiritual
A. Counsel
Proverbs 27:9 Perfume and incense bring joy to the heart, and the pleasantness of one’s friend springs from his earnest counsel. (Spiritual counsel from the word.)
Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. (A good friend stimulates and sharpens you).
Proverbs 13:20 He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fool suffers harm.
B. Speaking the Truth in Love
Ephesians 4:15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is Christ.
Proverbs 27:6 Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.
C. Encouragement
Hebrews 3:13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness.
Hebrews 10:24-25 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.
Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another.
Philippians 2:4 … look out for the interest of others (attitude of Christ).
3. Physical
A. Help in Work and Trouble
Ecclesiastes 4:9-10 Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work. If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But, pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up!
B. Health to Your Body
Proverbs 16: 24 Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones.
Proverbs 17:22 A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. (A discontent and a bitter heart in a friend dries up the vitality of a relationship.)
Creative Ideas for Building Relationships
(How to Mentor and be Mentored)
1. Share a time when you were aware of God’s presence, help or timing in your life.
2. Read a chapter in the Bible every day; share once a week what the verses said to you.
3. Read the same book, a chapter a week, and discuss what you have learned.
4. Keep a daily journal describing how you have seen God in your life that day. Share some highlights with your partner each week.
5. What concerns have been on your heart lately?
6. Pray daily for your partner. Initiate praying together.
7. As you pray about specific problems, discuss how God has been answering your prayers.
8. Write a simple note or poem expressing your love or appreciation for your partner’s being willing to be your friend.
9. Give a heart-felt hug or touch.
10. Could you give an encouraging word? (Proverbs 17:22)
11. Drop off a surprise gift of two mugs you have made or bought.
12. Give a simple green plant – to grow as your friendship grows.
13. Call to sing or wish “Happy Birthday.”
14. Simple call to ask, “How are you?”
15. What is your talent? Could you make a simple memento for your partner?
16. Give a bookmark you made or bought.
17. Share a favorite dessert.
18. Meet for coffee, tea, breakfast, lunch or dinner (don’t forget going for dessert).
19. Share a normal activity: a walk, sporting activity, errand, meal, etc.
20. Attend a Bible study together.
21. Can you make an apple pie, balance a budget or make bread together?
22. Go to the Extreme Monster Truck Nationals together.
Resources on Mentoring
Becoming a Titus 2 Woman: A Bible Study with Martha Peace by Martha Peace (Can be done as a study for one or a group)
Between Women of God: The Gentle Art of Mentoring by Donna Otto Based on Titus 2
A Garden Path to Mentoring: Planting Your Life in Another & Releasing the Fragrance of Christ by Esther Burroughs
The Influential Woman: How Every Woman Can Make a Difference in the Lives of Other Women by Vickie Kraft
Women Connecting with Women: Equipping Women for Friend-to-Friend support and Mentoring by Verna Birkey (Comes with a study guide)
Spiritual Mentoring: A Guide for Seeking and Giving Direction by Keith R. Anderson and Randy D. Reese
Spiritual Mothering: The Titus 2 Model for Women Mentoring Women by Susan Hunt
Women Encouraging Women by Lucibel Van Atta About mentoring and discipling women, with practical applications at the end of every chapter. (Out of print, but worth trying to find at the library.)
Woman to Woman: Preparing Yourself to Mentor by Edna Ellison and Tricia Scribner (A Bible study for mentors)
Becoming a Woman of Influence: Making a Lasting Impact on Others by Carol Kent
Gifts of Gold: Gathering, Training, and Encouraging Mentors by Betty Huizenga
As Iron Sharpens Iron: Building Character in a Mentoring Relationship by Howard Hendricks
Divine Secrets of Mentoring by Carol Brazo
Guardians of the Gate – Enriching your Life Through Spiritual Mentoring by Ann Platz
The Heart of Mentoring by David Stoddard
p Mentor p Either p Merea (young friend)
2005 Step by Step Mentoring Ministry Profile Sheet
Please fill out all the information. Use the back or another sheet if necessary!
Personal Information:
Name: ______________________________ Age: _________ Birthday: ____________________
Address: _______________________________________________________________________
City, State, Zip: _________________________________________________________________
E-mail: ________________________________________________________________________
Phone: Home: _________________ Cell: ___________________Work: ___________________
Marital Status: S M W D Blended family
Profession: __________________________ Spouse’s Name: ___________________________
Children’s/Grandchildren’s Name(s) and Age(s): _______________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Prestonwood Information:
Attended Since: ________ Bible Fellowship Class: _____________________________________
Other Church Activities Involved In: __________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Tell us about you!!
Briefly describe your salvation experience. ___________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Interests, hobbies, talents, desires, needs, hopes and passions! _____________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
What are you looking for in a mentoring relationship? ___________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
What do you feel you can give to a mentoring relationship? _______________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
What situations has the Lord allowed in your life that you could share in this relationship?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Please add any other information which will help us match you with the best partner.
Continue on the back if necessary.
Note: Please consider time restraints that would prevent a positive, successful relationship.
Two are better than one, for they have a good return for their work; if one falls down his friend can help him up. Ecclesiastes 4:9
“Step by Step” Mentoring Covenant
We will make a nine-month commitment to our mentoring relationship.
We will contact each other once a week and meet a face-to-face a minimum of once a month.
We will pray for each other and ask the Lord to deepen our bond of friendship.
We will spend time together, walking together through spiritual disciplines, involvement in various ministry events, or enjoying other activities together.
We will make an effort to keep our relationship ongoing, consistent and fun; we will always ask God to be a part of it and bless it.
We will make our relationship a priority, sharing openly and honestly, and set aside time for it in our schedules.
We will keep our sharing confidential – just between the two of us – unless we agree that it is OK to share with someone else. We will talk only about ourselves and our personal journeys.
Other promises we are making to each other:
We are committed
____________________________
(Mentor)
_____________________________
(Merea – young friend)
Related Topics: Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership, Women's Articles
Matthew 16:20 among the Manuscripts: A Case Study in Scribal Habits
23 March 2003
“Then he instructed his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ” (Matt 16:20, NET Bible).
Immediately after Peter’s confession of Jesus as the “Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16), the Lord blesses Peter, telling him that his insight was not due to his own mental prowess but was brought to his consciousness by divine aid. Then, the Lord warns his disciples not to tell anyone that he is the Christ. This is a common refrain in the Gospels, given especially to the disciples and demons (cf., e.g., Matt 12:16; Mark 1:34; 8:30; Luke 4:41; 9:21).
But there is a curious textual problem in v. 20. Most manuscripts (ͦlt;2 C W Ϡlat bo) have “Jesus, the Christ” (jIhsou'" oJ Cristov") here, while one (D) has “Christ Jesus” (oJ CristoV" jIhsou'"). On the one hand, this is a much harder reading than the mere Cristov", because the name Jesus was already well known for the disciples’ master—both to them and to others. And a standard principle of textual criticism is that, all other things being equal, the harder reading is to be preferred as most likely going back to the original wording. The question here is whether all other things are equal; that is, were there other forces at work that may have influenced scribes to add “Jesus” to “Christ”?
Whether he was the Messiah is the real focus of the passage. But the addition “Jesus” (either before or after “Christ”) is surely too hard a reading: there are no other texts in which the Lord tells his disciples not to disclose his personal name. And why would he? He was well known everywhere as “Jesus of Nazareth.” Frankly, the addition of “Jesus” here is so contrary to the context, both literary and historical, that it has nothing to commend it. Further, it is plainly a motivated reading in that scribes had the proclivity to add jIhsou'" to Cristov" or to kuvrio" (“Lord”), regardless of whether such was appropriate to the context. In this instance it clearly is not, and it only reveals that scribes sometimes, if not often, did not think about the larger interpretive consequences of their alterations to the text. Further, the shorter reading is well supported by ͦlt;* B L D Q ˦lt;1,13 565 700 1424 al it sa. These witnesses date from the early fourth century, and include representatives of all the early texttypes. Both externally and internally, the reading without “Jesus” is almost surely the original.
So, what lessons can be learned from this test passage? Three especially come to mind.
1. The discipline of textual criticism simply cannot be done by a mere examination of manuscripts, regardless of what theory one adopts. An integration of the external data with internal considerations is absolutely necessary and vital if we are going to recover the original text.
2. Both the literary context (one aspect of what is called intrinsic evidence) and known scribal habits (a.k.a. transcriptional evidence) are often at odds. Scribes did not always think through the macro-interpretive issues of their alterations. They often wrote in semi-conscious genuflective notations, especially when it came to descriptions of the Lord. And once these got into the text, they had a way pervading most manuscripts that would follow.
3. Liturgical and devotional motivations had a much larger impact on the transmission of the text than some are willing to admit. This especially impacted the Byzantine manuscripts, but others were not immune. The Western text, and even to some degree, the Alexandrian, also suffered from liturgical pressure. The growth of the text was the natural result. Still, the New Testament is one of the most stable documents of the ancient world. Reading a manuscript from the fourth or fourteenth century reveals the same God and the same gospel. For this, all Christians can be truly grateful.
Related Topics: Textual Criticism
متى 16 : 20 فى المخطوطات
متى 16 : 20 فى المخطوطات
دراسة حالة للعادات النسخية
دانيال ب. والاس
ترجمة: عاطف وجيه
"حينئذ أوصى تلاميذه أن لا يقولوا لأحد أنه كان المسيح" (مت 16 : 20 بحسب الترجمة الإنجليزية الحديثة).
بعد اعتراف بطرس مباشرةً بيسوع أنه "المسيح ابن الله الحى" (متى 16 : 16)، يبارك الرب بطرس قائلاً له أن إعلانه هذا ليس من براعته العقلية، و إنما أدركه بمساعدة إلهية. ثم يحذر الرب تلاميذه أن يقولوا لأحد أنه هو المسيح. هذه قطعة مكررة شائعة فى الأناجيل، أُعطيت بالأخص للتلاميذ و الشياطين (مت 12 : 16، مر 1 : 34، 8 : 30، لو 4 : 41، 9 : 21).
و لكن هناك مشكلة نصية مثيرة للإهتمام فى عدد 20. غالبية المخطوطات (ͦlt;2 C W Ϡlat bo) نجدها تقرأ "يسوع المسيح"، بينما تقرأ مخطوطة بيزا "المسيح يسوع". و من الناحية الأخرى، فإن هذه قراءة أصعب جداً من الغالبية التى تقرأ "المسيح" فقط، لأن الاسم يسوع كان قبلاً معروفاً جداً لتلاميذ السيد و للآخرين أيضاً.
و هناك مبدأ قياسى أساسى فى النقد النصى، أنه إذا تساوت القراءات فإن القراءة الأصعب تُفضل على أنها القراءة الأصعب تُفضل على أنها القراءة الأصلية بنسبة احتمال أكبر. و السؤال الآن هو هل كل الإحتمالات هنا متساوية؟ أى هل كانت هناك دوافع أثرت على النُساخ لإضافة كلمة "يسوع" إلى "المسيح"؟
إن هدف هذه القطعة فى الأناجيل أساساً هى تبيان ما إذا هو المسيا المنتظر أم لا. لكن إضافة كلمة يسوع سواء قبل أو بعد المسيح، هو بالتأكيد قراءة صعبة جداً: لا يوجد نص آخر يخبر فيه السيد تلاميذه ألا يعلنوا عن إسمه الشخصى. و لماذا يأمرهم بهذا؟ لقد كان هو معروفاً فى كل مكان بإسم "يسوع الناصرى". ببساطة نقول أن إضافة كلمة "يسوع" هنا مضادة جداً لسياق الكلام حرفياً و تاريخياً، ولا يوجد شىء يُمتدح فيها.
و الأكثر من هذا، أن هذه الإضافة هى ببساطة مدفوعة بميل النساخ أن يضيفوا كلمة "يسوع" إلى "المسيح" أو إلى "الرب" بغض النظر عما إذا كان هذا ملائماً لسياق النص أم لا. و فى هذه الحالة من الواضح أن هذه الإضافة غير ملائمة، و هى توضح أن النساخ أحياناً، أن لم يكن فى كثير من الأحيان، لم يفكروا فى التبعات الترجمية الأكبر لتغييرهم للنصوص.
أما القراءة الأقصر فتدعمها جيداً المخطوطات (ͦlt* B L D Q ˦lt;1,13 565 700 1424 al it sa). هذه المخطوطات يعود تاريخها بدايةً من القرن الرابع و تحتوى على ممثلين لكل أنواع النصوص المبكرة. داخلياً و خارجياً، فإن القراءة بدون يسوع هى القراءة الأصلية بنسبة شبه مؤكدة.
لذلك، ما هى الدروس التى نتعلمها من هذا المقطع؟
أولاً: أن الفرع المعرفى "النقد النصى" لا يمكن ببساطة أن يهتم بدراسة المخطوطات فحسب بغض النظر عن النظرية التى يتبناها الفرد. إن عملية ربط البيانات الخارجية جنباً إلى جنب مع الإعتبارات الداخلية، هى عملية مهمة تماماً و حيوية او أننا نحاول إحياء النص الأصلى.
ثانياً: إن كلاً من السياق الحرفى للكلام (أحد إتجاهات ما يُسمى بالإحتمالية الإسلوبية) و العادات النسخية المعروفة (المعروف أيضاً بإسم الدليل النسخى) هما عادةً فى نزاع مع بعضهما البعض. لم يفكر النساخ دائماً فى المشكلات الترجمية الأكبر الناتجة عن تغييرهم فى النصوص. فلقد كانوا عادةً يستخدمون بشكل شبه واعى عبارات مفعمة بالإحترام، خصوصاً عندما كان الأمر يتعلق بوصف الرب. و ما أن دخلت هذه التغييرات فى النص حتى بدأت تنتشر فى المخطوطات المتتالية.
ثالثاً: لقد كان للدوافع الليتورجية و التعبدية أثراً أكبر على إنتقال النص مما قد يعترف به البعض. و لقد أثرت هذه الدوافع على المخطوطات البيزنطية خصوصاً، كما لم تكن المخطوطات الأخرى محصنة أيضاً من هذه التعبيرات. و لقد عانى النص الغربى، و إلى درجة ما النص السكندرى، من الضغط الليتورجى. لهذا، كان نمو النص هو النتيجة الطبيعية. و لكن مازال العهد الجديد واحداً من أكثر الوثائق فى العالم القديم إستقراراً. إن قراءة مخطوطة من القرن الرابع أو مخطوطة من القراءة الرابع عشر، سيكشف لنا عن نفس الإله و نفس الإنجيل. من أجل هذا، فإن كل المسيحيين لابد أن يكونوا بالحقيقة شاكرين!
Related Topics: Textual Criticism
متى 16 : 20 فى المخطوطات
متى 16 : 20 فى المخطوطات
دراسة حالة للعادات النسخية
دانيال ب. والاس
ترجمة: عاطف وجيه
"حينئذ أوصى تلاميذه أن لا يقولوا لأحد أنه كان المسيح" (مت 16 : 20 بحسب الترجمة الإنجليزية الحديثة).
بعد اعتراف بطرس مباشرةً بيسوع أنه "المسيح ابن الله الحى" (متى 16 : 16)، يبارك الرب بطرس قائلاً له أن إعلانه هذا ليس من براعته العقلية، و إنما أدركه بمساعدة إلهية. ثم يحذر الرب تلاميذه أن يقولوا لأحد أنه هو المسيح. هذه قطعة مكررة شائعة فى الأناجيل، أُعطيت بالأخص للتلاميذ و الشياطين (مت 12 : 16، مر 1 : 34، 8 : 30، لو 4 : 41، 9 : 21).
و لكن هناك مشكلة نصية مثيرة للإهتمام فى عدد 20. غالبية المخطوطات (ͦlt;2 C W Ϡlat bo) نجدها تقرأ "يسوع المسيح"، بينما تقرأ مخطوطة بيزا "المسيح يسوع". و من الناحية الأخرى، فإن هذه قراءة أصعب جداً من الغالبية التى تقرأ "المسيح" فقط، لأن الاسم يسوع كان قبلاً معروفاً جداً لتلاميذ السيد و للآخرين أيضاً.
و هناك مبدأ قياسى أساسى فى النقد النصى، أنه إذا تساوت القراءات فإن القراءة الأصعب تُفضل على أنها القراءة الأصعب تُفضل على أنها القراءة الأصلية بنسبة احتمال أكبر. و السؤال الآن هو هل كل الإحتمالات هنا متساوية؟ أى هل كانت هناك دوافع أثرت على النُساخ لإضافة كلمة "يسوع" إلى "المسيح"؟
إن هدف هذه القطعة فى الأناجيل أساساً هى تبيان ما إذا هو المسيا المنتظر أم لا. لكن إضافة كلمة يسوع سواء قبل أو بعد المسيح، هو بالتأكيد قراءة صعبة جداً: لا يوجد نص آخر يخبر فيه السيد تلاميذه ألا يعلنوا عن إسمه الشخصى. و لماذا يأمرهم بهذا؟ لقد كان هو معروفاً فى كل مكان بإسم "يسوع الناصرى". ببساطة نقول أن إضافة كلمة "يسوع" هنا مضادة جداً لسياق الكلام حرفياً و تاريخياً، ولا يوجد شىء يُمتدح فيها.
و الأكثر من هذا، أن هذه الإضافة هى ببساطة مدفوعة بميل النساخ أن يضيفوا كلمة "يسوع" إلى "المسيح" أو إلى "الرب" بغض النظر عما إذا كان هذا ملائماً لسياق النص أم لا. و فى هذه الحالة من الواضح أن هذه الإضافة غير ملائمة، و هى توضح أن النساخ أحياناً، أن لم يكن فى كثير من الأحيان، لم يفكروا فى التبعات الترجمية الأكبر لتغييرهم للنصوص.
أما القراءة الأقصر فتدعمها جيداً المخطوطات (ͦlt* B L D Q ˦lt;1,13 565 700 1424 al it sa). هذه المخطوطات يعود تاريخها بدايةً من القرن الرابع و تحتوى على ممثلين لكل أنواع النصوص المبكرة. داخلياً و خارجياً، فإن القراءة بدون يسوع هى القراءة الأصلية بنسبة شبه مؤكدة.
لذلك، ما هى الدروس التى نتعلمها من هذا المقطع؟
أولاً: أن الفرع المعرفى "النقد النصى" لا يمكن ببساطة أن يهتم بدراسة المخطوطات فحسب بغض النظر عن النظرية التى يتبناها الفرد. إن عملية ربط البيانات الخارجية جنباً إلى جنب مع الإعتبارات الداخلية، هى عملية مهمة تماماً و حيوية او أننا نحاول إحياء النص الأصلى.
ثانياً: إن كلاً من السياق الحرفى للكلام (أحد إتجاهات ما يُسمى بالإحتمالية الإسلوبية) و العادات النسخية المعروفة (المعروف أيضاً بإسم الدليل النسخى) هما عادةً فى نزاع مع بعضهما البعض. لم يفكر النساخ دائماً فى المشكلات الترجمية الأكبر الناتجة عن تغييرهم فى النصوص. فلقد كانوا عادةً يستخدمون بشكل شبه واعى عبارات مفعمة بالإحترام، خصوصاً عندما كان الأمر يتعلق بوصف الرب. و ما أن دخلت هذه التغييرات فى النص حتى بدأت تنتشر فى المخطوطات المتتالية.
ثالثاً: لقد كان للدوافع الليتورجية و التعبدية أثراً أكبر على إنتقال النص مما قد يعترف به البعض. و لقد أثرت هذه الدوافع على المخطوطات البيزنطية خصوصاً، كما لم تكن المخطوطات الأخرى محصنة أيضاً من هذه التعبيرات. و لقد عانى النص الغربى، و إلى درجة ما النص السكندرى، من الضغط الليتورجى. لهذا، كان نمو النص هو النتيجة الطبيعية. و لكن مازال العهد الجديد واحداً من أكثر الوثائق فى العالم القديم إستقراراً. إن قراءة مخطوطة من القرن الرابع أو مخطوطة من القراءة الرابع عشر، سيكشف لنا عن نفس الإله و نفس الإنجيل. من أجل هذا، فإن كل المسيحيين لابد أن يكونوا بالحقيقة شاكرين!
Loving God with All Your Mind: Discipleship in the Christian Empire
Related MediaIntroduction
It seemed to be a typical day in Israel and Jesus as he often did was teaching while a group of scribes and religious leaders looked on. While we don’t know exactly what the weather was like on that day–whether it was cool or hot, if there was a breeze or the wind was dead– we do know one thing. We know that the atmosphere was hot as the spiritually dead religious leaders sought to test Jesus and catch him in a trap. A scribe asked, “What commandment is the foremost of all? “
Jesus answered, “ The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. ‘ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ‘ There is no other commandment greater than these. “
It is clear that this is a call to love God with our whole being and this morning we will be investigating one specific aspect of Christ’s command this morning. But before we do, the second commandment is clearly a call to love others in service. Therefore, Keith Johnson is going to come and make you aware of an opportunity to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength by serving others.
Jesus answer to the scribe’s question, Love the Lord your God … would have been familiar to the hearers because Jesus did not come up with this answer on the spot. Instead, he quoted from one of Israel’s greatest passages referred to as the Great Shema. Yet, his answer would have sounded slightly different to his hearers because it s not identical to the great Shema. You see Jesus in all three of the synoptic gospels adds one way which we are to love God that is not mentioned in Deuteronomy 6. He inserts the word mind. He makes it explicit that our minds are an integral part of loving our God. Today we will begin to think about what it means to love God with our minds and look back in history to see some individuals who loved God with their minds as they followed Christ in discipleship. But before we do so, let us engage in worship and in so doing love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.
The Text
We as twenty-first century evangelicals live in a unique time that influences our understanding of Christianity and the Bible. Since we are so influenced by the in which we live, the only way we can evaluate our understanding of Scripture is to look at Scripture and look back at our past. When we do this we become aware of the things that we are doing well and we become aware of places where we may be falling short of the commands of Scripture and that we are out of step with our Christian heritage.
One of the things that I believe is unique to our place in God’s story of his church is that for some reason much of evangelical Christianity has a propensity to devalue the mind because they see the mind as something at odds with true faith and belief in God.
While there are historical and cultural factors that play into this current state, we will not be venturing into them today. Instead, I want to focus our attention on one primary passage and then look back in the history of God’s working in his church for us to see one time where loving God with all our minds was critical for the survival of his church. Open your Bibles to Romans 12 as we look to the Lord in prayer.
As we have already seen today, Jesus states that we are to love God with all our mind, just as we do our heart, soul and strength. Jesus is saying there is something about our mind that is essential for us following him in discipleship. So much so that he explicitly added the word mind to the words of Dt 6.
In light of that I want to take a look at one passage in particular this morning. Romans 12:1-2calls us to give our whole self to God as does the greatest commandment. Let us read it together,
Therefore I exhort you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a sacrifice – alive, holy, and pleasing to God– which is your reasonable service. 12:2 Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God – what is good and well-pleasing and perfect.
The Background of the Call: “Therefore”:
The passage starts with therefore, which encourages us to look back for the basis of the coming argument. Cranfield, summarizes the previous chapters as follows
“The first eleven chapters of Romans have already made it clear that the life, which … is the destiny of the man who is righteous by faith, is a life of obedience to God … But obedience required of Christians is not just an obedience in principle. It is rather an obedience of thought and attitude, of word and deed, wrought out in the concrete situations of life.” Cranfield 592-594
In fact, these two verses serve as an introduction to all the things Paul is going to tell us about how we should live. Since God calls us to obedience of thought and attitude, word and deed, lived out in life, Paul exhorts us.
The Nature of the Call: “I exhort (urge) you brothers and sisters”
We have to understand what Paul means by exhort or urge. This is not a light exhortation it denotes the authoritative summons to obedience issued in the name of the gospel. It is a call to live for what we have been called and the basis of that call is seen in the next words. But what is the basis for such a call?
The Basis of the Call: “By the mercies of God”
Because of all an infinite God has done for us in salvation we should have a response. If the nature of the call and background of the call did not tip us off that the call is going to be a large one, the basis should be it is in the very nature of salvation.
“Which is your reasonable service”
The Call: “To present your bodies as a sacrifice”
The core of this passage is its call for us to present our bodies as sacrifice to God as stated in verse 1. But what does it mean to present our bodies as sacrifices? At its most basic idea being presented as a sacrifice meant we were no longer own just as a sacrifice that was given no longer belonged to its owner. In addition, a sacrifice was not given partially but wholly. Here Paul uses the word body to depict the whole of our being. The point is that we are no longer our own but belong to God!
The Nature of the Sacrifice: “Alive, holy, and pleasing to God”
Alive most likely refers to life but also to spiritual life–new life in Christ; holy refers to our living; that which God desires.
Summary
We are exhorted because of God’s mercy to have the reasonable response of offering our whole beings to Him as living holy pleasing sacrifices. But that is not all, how do we go about making ourselves pleasing sacrifices? There is a first a negative command and then a positive one.
Negative Command: “Do not be conformed to this present world”
The negative command is not to be conformed. This is a passive verb which means we are not doing anything to cause the conforming, but also carries with it the idea that we are not doing anything to stop its conforming influence. It is allowing it to happen to us.
Positive Command: “But be transformed”
Passive Imperative again, it is something God can do in us but it is also something we join with him in just like the being conformed to the world. How do we keep from conforming to the world? How do we be transformed?
The Means: “By the renewing of your mind”
It is interesting that the means of the renewing of our whole being is stated to be the mind.
As J.P. Moreland writes, “He could have said, “Be transformed by developing close feelings toward God,” or “by exercising your will in obeying biblical commands,” or “by intensifying your desire for the right things,” or by “fellowship and worship,” and so on.” 65
Just as Romans 1 has already demonstrated at the beginning of this book, what we think influences everything. It influences our actions.
SO OUR MINDS ARE A KEY FACULTY OF OUR BEING DISCIPLES
Therefore, it is important to understand what the word renewed means. God is not telling us to not use our intellect but that our intellect needs transformation, it needs change, it needs cleaning.
Ephesians 4:23 links renewing with washing of the spirit. It is a change in what is not a recreation. Our mind is not destroyed, it is cleaned to think well and see things the way they were intended to. It is a reversal or Romans 1.
The Purpose: “So that you may test and approve … will of God is”
Some of your bibles today may only say approve, they may leave out the word “Test”. The Greek word here clearly denotes an approval that has come from the process of testing and that is why it is translated this way in our translation. Do you see the connection, our minds have to be renewed so that we can use them properly to understand and test and approve God’s will!
Summary:
The proper use of our minds is key to discipleship! Understand who God is is key because discipleship is following or imitating him. Let’s look to our past to see one such time that the proper use of our minds was essential for the life of Christ’s church.
Historical
Some of the earliest struggles in the church came from how to understand certain biblical truths. In fact, one of the earliest struggles is linked to Jesus’ response to the scribe about the greatest commandment in Mark. If you remember Jesus began his answer by saying, “Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord.” This statement of the oneness of God led to the need for some deep thinking in regard to God is one Lord since Jesus claimed deity, received worship, and stated he was separate from the Father.
So how are we to synthesize these truths and speak accurately about them? And does the way we speak about them matter? There were two groups that began wrongly proposing how we were to understand the existence of God and Jesus yet one Lord. One focused on the unity, the other on the separation. The tension eventually led Constantine to call together a council at the town of Nicea in 325 both to solve this and a few other church issue and in hopes of doing so bringing peace to the Empire. But before we look at the solution, let’s see the problem.
The first group that was wrongly proposing a solution have come to be known as Modalists. They claimed that God exists in the forms, or modes, of Father, Spirit, and Son but he only exists in one form at a time. In other words, there was one God who reveals himself in three modes or forms but never exists in all three simultaneously. The goal of the modalists was to stress the unity of the Father and Son by saying they were the same person.
The second group followed the teaching of a man named Arius and emphasized the separateness of the persons. Arius was a presbyter in Alexandria. He was a student of Scripture and I believe someone who was trying to follow God’s teaching. Based on passages like Proverbs 8:22, John 1:14 (only-begotten), and 1 Cor. 1.24 (Christ is called the wisdom of God) he began teaching that Christ was not equal with the Father but was his first creation.
Arius’ ideas spread because he was a good marketer. One of his most famous slogans was, “There was, when he was not!” He was careful not to use the word “time” because it happened before creation and Jesus was involved in creation. Therefore, the creation of Christ occurred before the creation of time.Arius and his followers not only created slogans but also wrote songs. In fact, in the midst of the council when defending himself Arius broke into song:
The uncreated God has made the Son
A beginning of things created,
And by adoption has God made the Son
Into an advancement of himself.
Yet the Son’s substance is
Removed from the substance of the Father:
The Son is not equal to the Father,
Nor does he share the same substance,
God is the all-wise Father,
And the Son is the teacher of His mysteries.
The members of the Holy Trinity
Share unequal glories.
If Arius’ position was true Mark Noll notes, “He [Jesus] would not have known the inner-most recess of the divine mind. Moreover, as a creature made by God, Jesus was liable to change and … to sin … Jesus was subordinate to the Father, not only in the functional sense that he came to earth to do the Father’s will, but in the metaphysical sense of being a creature subordinate in his essence to the Father.” (52-53 Noll, Turning Points)
A defense of the Christian effort was offered by Athanasius who saw Arius’ teaching for what it was, an assault on the essence of God and the Christian message. Arius’ view was an attack on the nature, person and work of Christ which are key to our faith! Athanasius’ main concern was how could someone other than God pull humanity up to God? How could anyone less than God become sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God as 2 Corinthians 5:21 points out?
This was the question to be decided at the Council of Nicea. 318 bishops or pastors showed up for the meeting. After much discussion they nearly unanimously affirmed the point of Athanasius in a creed.
The creed reads:
We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, CONSUBSTANTIAL with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead.
And in the holy Spirit.
And those who say “there once was when he was not”, and “before he was begotten he was not”, and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.
This creed was expanded on at the Council of Constantinople in 381 and has become know as the Nicene Creed which many still recite today because of it’s importance in Christian discipleship. Let’s read the creed together
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
This statement of Christian Orthodoxy has continued to inform centuries of Christians on how we understand the Trinity as one man allowed his mind to be transformed and actively sought to develop the gift that God had given him.
Conclusion
We could continue to trace this path throughout God’s work in his church. In fact, less than 100 years after Constantinople we see the church using it’s renewed mind to wrestle through the question of how we understand that Jesus was both human and divine. If we went further we would see God using the hard deep study of Luther to start the Reformation. If we went even farther, we would see the deep thinking about the person of God institute awakening through the Puritans, and finally we would see in the 60’s and 70’s an new vigor in evangelicalism in men like C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer.
If nothing else, we should learn from this as the Bible teaches, that our thoughts always determine our actions and our thought life is key for our sanctification and walk of discipleship. Because of this, I am concerned at the lack of a deep nurturing of our intellect within the church in America. While some may argue that we are able to think as well as our surrounding culture, that is not much encouragement when we consider words like these of R.C. Sproul as quoted by J.P. Moreland:
“We live in what may be the most anti-intellectual period in the history of Western civilization … [we] must resist with intensity the anti-intellectual spirit of the world.” (19, Love Your God with All Your Mind)
Is not using God-given minds the way they were intended to be used being conformed to this world? Not thinking deeply on the person of God and all the truth he reveals to us? And I think we are feeling the effects of it.
Evangelism and the Christian Mind
Let me share one example and demonstrate how this lack of cultivating our mind impacts our ministry to others. This is an election year and as such we are hearing lots of speeches that are meant to give us information about candidates and what they will do. However, in our culture much of what is said in politics seems to be nothing more than emotional rhetoric and buzzwords. I watch and know I am supposed to be feeling something but leave not being able to articulate anything meaningful about what the candidate will do. I leave feeling uninformed and unable to come to any true conclusions and therefore, unable to engage in meaningful conversation about the candidates and issues.
I believe it is the same with our faith. According to a 1980 Gallup Poll, in America “We are having a revival of feelings but not of the knowledge of God. The church today is more guided by feelings than by convictions. We value enthusiasm more than informed decision.” 19, Love Your God with All Your Mind
This lack of knowledge leads to a lack in confidence. When we have a lack of confidence, we fail to engage in talk about anything other than emotion or opinion. When we relegate all thought to emotion or opinion or make it a personal thing, why share the gospel? Yet 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to always be able to give a defense for the hope that is in us?
Have you ever wondered why true following after Christ seems to be at an all time low? Maybe one of the reasons is our lack of cultivation of our minds. If evangelical Christianity is as influential as we like to think, why does the world look the way it does? Why do we have trouble offering a defense for our hope? Maybe we need to cultivate our renewed God given minds so that we can trust God to speak through us after we have sought to honor him with our minds.
But evangelism isn’t the only place I see the dangers of our lack of cultivating our minds. I see it in our worship, the books we read, and our prayers.
Worship and the Christian Mind
Our prayers.
I can not tell you the number of times I have heard good Christians pray to God in modalistic ways. They begin their prayer, “Dear heavenly Father, we thank you for …” and then a few sentences later say, “I thank you for dying on the cross.” The Father did not die on the cross. The Son did. While, this most often is not an intentional act of proposing heresy, it shows a lack of loving God with all our mind even in the way we address Him
Our bookstores (the shack, modalist books and songs)
If we were to take a walk in a Christian bookstore–the place where we should be able to go for trustworthy resources, we would many books that are written by those who espouse such heresies as modalism. In fact, there is a current Christian best-selling book that makes statements that clearly allow people to come to the conclusion that God presents himself in three modes (modalism) and that the Father has died on the cross.
Vocation and the Christian Mind
One last place that I see the danger of lacking to develop our renewed Christian mind is in the false dichotomy that has been created between that which is secular and sacred. If all truth is God’s truth, we should seek to grow in our understanding of all areas of truth. And God’s truth impacts our vocation. Not our job. As Moreland has pointed out, a job is something we do to supply for ourselves and others. However, a vocation it is the specific role God has given us to play in life and we should honor God with it as we use our renewed minds. And we much teach our children to do the same.
If we look at our vocation as just a job to get through to supply wants, we conform to the world and fail to honor God with our minds. If we look at college as only a means to get a get a good job, we conform to the world and fail to honor God with our minds. If we look at high school as a way to get into a good college, we are conformed to the thinking of the world and we fail to love God with our minds!
God did not give us the vessel of the mind to keep it empty. He gave us a mind to fill it. To fill it with things properly understood. To fill it with his truth. To see him in our daily lives as we understand our world and see his reflection in it.
Love the Lord your God with ALL of your renewed mind!
Related Topics: Discipleship, History
Luke 1:34 in Old Latin b
Related MediaThe Greek text of Luke 1.34 reads, εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον· πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;
In English: “And Mary said to the angel, ‘How shall this be since I do not know a man?’” This is in response to the angel’s statement in v 31: “You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus.” A fifth-century Latin manuscript, Italab, however, has a unique reading in v 34. Instead of Mary denying that she has had sexual relations with any man, she instead says, “Behold, I am the Lord’s servant; let this happen to me according to your word” (ecce ancilla domini; contingat mihi secundum verbuntuum).
In his book, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Robert M. Price argues that “without this verse there is nothing in Luke that even implies a supernatural conception or birth.”1 He goes on to argue that this manuscript alone follows the original text of Luke 1.34.
Recently, in Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture,2 a book I co-authored with J. Ed Komoszewski and M. James Sawyer, I discussed Price’s argument that Italab by itself reflected the original wording in Luke 1.34. After considering the internal evidence (what the author would likely have written, judging by coherence in the context; what the scribes would likely have written, based on their known alterations due to intention or accident) and showing how it does not support Price’s conclusions (Reinventing Jesus, 98-99), I then examined the external evidence. I introduced that section with these words:
Perhaps the external evidence is stronger for the omission. If so, it would have to be nearly unanimous in order to overcome such strong opposition from the internal evidence. But Price acknowledges that external evidence is terribly weak—one Latin manuscript! Basically, there is no external evidence to support his claim. One fifth-century Latin manuscript involves no geographical distribution, no genealogical solidarity, and only minimal date and character credentials. The rest of the Latin manuscripts have this verse, as well as all the Greek manuscripts. And patristic writers have commented on this verse from early times.
Price is entirely too generous in his assessment of the omission when he gives it equal billing with the inclusion. His conclusion that “the evidence is too meager for us ever to be able to settle the question” sounds as if we need to suspend judgment because the evidence is so evenly balanced. Rather, the evidence for the omission is too meager to take Price’s suggestion seriously.
… The evidence for the lack of Luke 1:34 is so palpably weak that it is not even entertained by any serious New Testament scholar. How is it possible for one lone Latin manuscript to have gotten the wording right when all the other thousands of manuscripts—many of which are significantly earlier and with far better credentials than this one manuscript—let it slip through their nets? Price offers no plausible way in which the transmission of the text could have occurred so that the true text somehow was missed through more than four hundred years of copying but was caught by this one scribe. A good historian must at least offer some plausible explanation for such a unique anomaly. And he should also give evidence that, elsewhere in the text, a versional manuscript—or even a group of versional manuscripts—can contain the original wording when all the others produce an error.3
All of this is a matter of record. The evidence is very clear that Italab is in error here. I will discuss this more in a moment. For now, however, I need to note an error that was made not by this scribe but by me. After this point in Reinventing Jesus, I charged Price with inadvertently mixing up the data. The full statement is below:
Furthermore, Price got his facts mixed up. It is not Old Latin manuscript b that lacks this verse, but Old Latin manuscript β. That is a later manuscript than b by two centuries (seventh century vs. fifth century). It lacks Luke 1:34 because the manuscript is a fragmentary manuscript that contains only Luke 1:64–2:51. But Price does not tell us that the manuscript is fragmentary; he gives the clear impression that the scribe was unaware of this one verse and thus did not include it in his copy of Luke. If we were to apply that kind of logic to other manuscripts, we would have to say that the scribe of Codex Vaticanus thought that Hebrews ended in the middle of 9:14 because there is no more text after that—in fact, the page breaks off in the middle of a word.
The reality is that manuscripts suffer the ravages of time. Hundreds of them are missing a leaf or two or are mere fragments of a larger manuscript that is no longer extant. Price bases his argument on absolutely no evidence at all—no external evidence, no internal evidence. Rather, his philosophical presuppositions are driving his decisions. How then can he say, “The evidence is too meager for us ever to be able to settle the question”? The evidence, on the contrary, is absolutely solid that the Gospel of Luke never lacked 1:34. As William Lane was fond of saying, “An ounce of evidence is worth a pound of presumption.”
In this case, we have a pound of evidence versus an ounce of presumption. Even scholars who deny the virgin birth know that the texts that speak of it are not in question. It is a mere grasping at straws to even entertain the possibility that this is not the case, and it unmasks a wholesale agenda of destroying the faith of Christians by playing fast and loose with historical data. This is not the way any bona fide textual critic applies his trade. The most charitable thing we can say is that Price was sloppy and irresponsible in handling the data. And again, scholarly judgments can never properly be a matter of the will to disbelieve.4
Recently, I rechecked the data and discovered that, though it is true that Itala β does indeed lack Luke 1.1-63, Price was correct about Italab lacking Mary’s self-description as a virgin (the reading of this MS is noted at the beginning of this paper). In this case, I was in error about the data and I owe Robert Price an apology for charging him with being sloppy and irresponsible. In this instance, I was the one who was sloppy and irresponsible! I have alerted the publisher to fix the comments for the next printing. I have written to Dr. Price directly. And I have posted this apology on three different websites. Although I may strongly disagree with Dr. Price’s views, I was wrong in my assessment of the actual MS that he had in mind.
It should be mentioned, however, that this point came at the end of the discussion. The conclusions about Luke 1.34 were already solidly made. The evidence is so overwhelmingly against the reading of b that it doesn’t even register a blip in the apparatus of Nestle-Aland27 (the standard Greek New Testament used today, which records over 10,000 textual problems).
How is the reading of b in v 34 to be explained? The first thing that a textual critic must do when such an anomaly occurs in the text is to ask if there is any way to explain it by way of unintentional alteration on the part of the scribe. If it can be explained that way—especially if the reading finds no support in any other witnesses—then that is the most probable solution. In this case, an unintentional error seems evident.
Both v 34 and v 38 begin with exactly the same introduction: εἶπεν δὲ Μαριάμ (‘and Mary said’; or, in Latin, dixit autem Maria). The scribe’s eye could easily have skipped down to v 38 and he could have written Mary’s response in that verse and placed it in v 34. The editors of The Gospel according to St. Luke, vol 1, IGNTP, note at 1.38, “Lvt (b) places these words after verse 34”—indicating that b does not place them instead of v 34. This comment, however, may be overgenerous, for the evidence is that b simply replaces Mary’s response in v 34, not the whole of v 34.
It seems that the reading of b is to be explained as a case of haplography (writing once what should have been written twice) in which the scribe’s eye skipped to v 38 when reading dixit autem Maria. After he wrote the response from v 38, he continued reading from v 35. (It would require the scribe to look ahead at one line of text in his exemplar [i.e., the ‘master’ copy he was copying from], write that down in his copy, then return to the exemplar to the verse that followed the one he skipped originally. Anyone who has copied texts knows how easy it is make this sort of mistake.) When he got to v 38, he recognized that he had written this text already and so he omitted the entire response in this location. The reading of b in v 38 is simply et disces sit ab illa angelus (‘and the angel departed from her’). Thus, Mary’s response in v 38 has been removed and placed in v 34. That there are no other MSS—Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, etc.—that do this is instructive.
Further, there is internal evidence that this is an error of sight on part of b’s scribe rather than a reflection on a primitive tradition that denied Mary’s virginity at the time of the conception: in v 27, b agrees with the rest of the manuscript tradition in calling Mary a virgin (virginem; Greek παρθένον) at the time of the angel’s visit. This seems to contradict what Price says: “without [verse 34] there is nothing in Luke that even implies a supernatural conception or birth….”5 But v 27 indicates that Mary was a virgin at the time of the angel’s visit, and in v 35 the angel answers ( ἀποκριθείς) that Mary would become pregnant by divine intervention. (Further, the fact that the angel answers Mary suggests that Mary asked a question. In Italab the question is removed, leaving the structure of the dialogue somewhat unnatural. But if the question that is found in all other witnesses in v 34 is retained, then the response of the angel is perfectly fitting.)
It also seems confirmed by those Latin MSS that are closest to the text of b (such as ff2 and q, from the fifth and seventh6 centuries, respectively). Old Latin ff2 and b “in St. Luke have certain common renderings—some of them blunders—which cannot have arisen independently.”7 And q had “a far stronger resemblance to b than to any other Old-Latin MS” according to its editor.8 Yet neither of these manuscripts—nor any others—lack Mary’s response in v 34.
All in all, the evidence is rather overwhelming that Luke 1.34 did indeed contain Mary’s question to the angel: “How shall this be since I do not know a man?” I know of no other textual variant that is found in a single versional witness that ought to be regarded as authentic. And the fact that this particular variant can be explained as an accidental alteration, and is not corroborated in b’s closest allies—not to mention any other witnesses—is convincing. And this probability is hardly lessened by my misclassification of Itala β as the manuscript that Price was writing about. Whether there are no Latin manuscripts or only one, the external and internal evidence against such a reading is securely grounded. That even the Jesus Seminar recorded Mary’s question in Luke 1.34 as the original text—as much as they collectively would like to expunge it from the biblical record—speaks volumes.9
1 Robert M. Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2003) 70.
2 Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006.
3 Reinventing Jesus, 99-100.
4 Ibid., 100-101.
5 Price, Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, 70.
6 However, Bonifatius Fischer, Die lateinischen Evangelien bis zum 10. Jahrhundert, vol 3: Varianten zu Lukas (Freiburg: Herder, 1990), 13*, dates Italaq as sixth-seventh century. He also dates as late fifth century (ibid.).
7 E. S. Buchanan, editor, The Four Gospels from the Codex Veronensis (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911) xx-xxi.
8 Henry J. White, editor, The Four Gospels from the Munich MS. (q) Now Numbered Lat. 6224 in the Royal Library at Munich (Oxford: Clarendon, 1888) li.
9 Their fresh translation, based on examination of the original languages, renders Luke 1.34 as “And Mary said to the messenger, ‘How can this be, since I’ve not had sex with any man[?]” Although textual variants are regularly listed in the footnotes, there is none here for Luke 1.34. See The Complete Gospels, revised and expanded version, ed. Robert J. Miller (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1994) 119.
Related Topics: Textual Criticism
Prayer: This week on the Facebook page of bible.org
Foreign and Translated Studies
The Great Commission
Do you realize there are over 6 billion people with 6700 different languages on our planet? The vast majority have no Christian materials in their language and this is our job as Christians . . . to fulfill the Great Commission.
Biblical Studies Press
We are going to break the model on publishing where books typically sell for seven times the actual cost of printing. Our overseas brothers can’t and shouldn’t need to pay huge profit margins to publishers. This will allow Bible students in all countries to get good materials at low, in-country prices, while at the same time provide a needed source of revenue to the Biblical Studies Press (BSP) partner publishers overseas.
Sponsorship
Perhaps you can't translate, but would like to consider sponsoring a translation project by way of providing equipment, donation or other material support.
If you are interested, please contact us via e-mail.
Thanks in advance,
BSF Staff
Need Fonts?
