You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Uncategorized' category.
by Matt Larsen
The second section of the Didache that I want to consider in regards to the issues of sin and forgiveness in chapters 7-10 (see Part 1 of Examining Sin and Forgiveness in the Didache by clicking here). There are 3 points I want to make about sin and forgiveness, one that is explicit in text and two that are implicit.
First, in Didache 8.2, the Didachist stated the Our Father prayer as he has received. It bears a remarkable resemblance to Matthew’s version of the Our Father. However, there are 4 small differences. While many scholars conclude that these changes are are insignificant, I argue that little changes become of great significance when it involves a prayer that was memorized and prayed in community thrice daily. Thus, these difference must be analyzed scrupulously. Two of these differences involve both sin and forgiveness. The sixth and seventh line of the Our Father differ in the Didache and Matthew: (1) the Didachist used τὴν ὀφειλὴν ἡμῶν, using singular debt with a plural pronoun, whereas Matthew used τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, matching the plural debt with the plural pronoun, and (2) the Didachist used the present active ἀφίεμεν whereas Matthew used the aorist active ἀφήκαμεν. As stated earlier, while these are small difference, I believe they become significant in light of the fact that these were prayed in community thrice daily. I believe that two issues regarding sin and forgiveness in the Didache can be noted here: (1) Again, the Didachist hold a more communal view of sin. He sees that the community together has a debt that they communally owe to the Lord. The Didachist is thin on individual sin while he has much to say about communal sin. (2) The Didachist, based on his use of the present instead of an aorist, links divine forgiveness even closer with daily intra-communal human forgiveness than does Matthew. He sees forgiveness of sin as an issue that involves the community, in that the community was only entitled to ask for divine forgiveness to the extent that they were offering daily forgiveness to one another. In the Our Father of the Didache, we see that sin and divine forgiveness, for the Didachist, involved the whole community, not merely the individual.
Second, in Didache 9.6, it reads:
μηδεὶς δὲ φαγέτω μηδὲ πιέτω ἀπὸ τῆς εὐχαριστίας ὑμῶν, ἀλλ᾿ οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς ὄνομα κυρίου, καὶ γὰρ περὶ τούτου εἴρηκεν ὁ κύριος· μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί. // But let no one eat or drink from your [pl] Eucharist except those baptized in the name of the Lord, For the Lord has even spoken concerning this: “Do not give what is holy to the dogs”.
This reference implicitly teaches about forgiveness . It explicitly teaches that the central meal of this community (who prayed for and experienced daily forgiveness) was only for those baptized in the name of the Lord [i.e. Jesus]. When this passage is read light of the pseudepigrapha, other NT texts, and especially other AF reference, it seems likely that the Didachist saw baptism of the means of forgiveness of sins, acquiring entrance in the church, and gaining salvation. In Joseph and Aseneth, though no explicit reference is made to baptism/bath, Aseneth’s moment of conversion is associated with washing her hands and face in “living water” (14.12, 15, 17; see also 18.8-9. Didache 7.2 which states “living water” as the preferred mode of baptism). Everett Ferguson, in his new book Baptism in the Early Church (77-82), claims that this reference does not refer to proselyte baptism. While this may be true in the strictest sense of the terms (as it is not a full bath but a washing), it does refer to a washing in “living water” that is associated with conversion, which is of significance to our discussion on the Didache. A clearer reference is found in Barnabas 11.1, a document which has many conceptual parallels to the Didache. Barn 11.1 reads:
“But let us inquire whether the Lord took care to foreshadow the water and the cross. Now concerning the water, it is written with reference to Israel that they would never accept the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins, but would create a substitute for themselves.”
This is a clear reference from the AF that explicitly links baptism with the forgiveness of sins, which the church accepted but Israel never accepted. These passage along with 1 Peter 3.21 (which links baptism with salvation), Shep of Herm 11.15 (which links baptism with salvation) and 15.3 (which links baptism with entrance into the saved community) gives us a context within which to understand what the Didachist has in mind in 9.5 (and also in ch. 7). In sum, in light of Did 9.5 and these parallel passages, the Didachist likely understood baptism to be the thing which entered one in the community that experienced forgiveness and shared the Eucharist together.
Thirdly, the Didachist mentions nothing about forgiveness of sins in his/her section on the Eucharist in 9-10. This is significant because every student of the historical Jesus Movement knows that all 3 of the Synoptic Gospels and Paul explicitly, immediately, and repetitively link the Eucharist with the death of Jesus (see Mk 14.24, Mt 26.28, Lk 22.20, 1 Cor 11.26) as well as with forgiveness of sins (see Mt 26.28). Yet the Didachist in no way connects the Eucharist with the death of Jesus or the forgiveness of sins. Rather, it language reflects a community of hope with a future-oriented posture. My only point here is to help us understand what the Didache did not have in mind when he thought of the forgiveness of sins – namely, the Eucharist.
In light of these above observations, it must be remembered that Second Temple period thought of sin and forgiveness in very different terms than do Western Christians. Our culture hears sin and immediately thinks in individualistic terms. It hears forgiveness and immediately thinks of a cognitive event. This was by and large not the case among Second Temple Jews. In order to properly read the NT and its surrounding texts, we must bear in mind the large hermeneutical gaps that exist and must not read about culture’s view of sin and forgiveness into their minds – particularly in the area of sin and forgiveness.
An interesting discussion going on over at Reclaiming the mind with regard to the myth of theological liberalism and how many liberals are very closed-minded and even in some ways oppressive to students in conservative schools regardless of the content of a given student’s own beliefs. In other words, how a student at a conservative school is stereotyped by liberals. Click here.
As one who has many denominational sympathies (myself being raised Catholic, then Baptist, then Presbyterian, then Methodist, now with Anglican leanings), one of the core values that I have most appreciated of the Methodist Church is “open doors, open hearts, open minds.” In particular, I’m a very big advocate for “open minds.” Interesting, however, it was when I was in the Methodist Church that I asked the question, “Is littering really so bad?” I think this was in response to a woman’s story of the littering of some biodegradeable material that some boyscouts had left scattered on a camping trip. One devout Methodist woman responded in a bit of an angry way, “you can’t think like that, littering is just wrong!” So much for open minds I suppose.
In this way and similar ways, so called “liberals” really are fundamentalists at heart. They are intolerant to any anti-green thinking. Now, please make no mistake, I’m anti-pollution and anything that can hurt our environment. And for that matter, I’m willing to consider why littering is wrong outside of legal prohibition. Rather, what I am proposing is open thinking to the issue of littering. Should we be overly concerned about and feel bad about ourselves if we throw something out the window into the grass when driving on the highway, or look to discipline youth when we find them discarding that Snickers bar wrapper?
If all things come from the Earth, how is littering, littering? It’s not like we are adding matter or mass to the earth. Surely at this point something can be said about aesthetics, but what we define as beauty in the modern day does not neccessarily speak to a time-transcending opinion which declares the act of littering as unethical.
Therefore, I propose that littering is completely ethical if it were not for America’s laws against it. The Church should be less judgmental and lower its blood pressure when it sees an individual doing this act. Perhaps the Church (i.e. individual Christians who judge and look down on others for this act) can focus more on matters of pollution, poverty, and all other aspects of the Gospel.
I welcome your thoughts—perhaps you can sway me and correct my thinking.
Here’s a compilation of the Black Friday sales for some of the major stores within the US. Offers may vary depending on store location.
Best Buy
| HP – Laptop with Intel® Celeron® ProcessorModel: G60-507DX | SKU: 9617193Offer available In Store only. Minimum 5 per store. Limit 1 per customer. No rainchecks. |
$197.00 |
Sony VAIO Laptop with Free AntiVirus Software for 1 Year*Model: VGN-NW235F/W | SKU: 9999120500050072Minimum 10 per store. Limit 1 per customer. No rainchecks. See the details. *AntiVirus Software offer may vary In Store. |
$399.99 |
Dynex® – 32″ Class / 720p / 60Hz / LCD HDTV Model: DX-L321-10A | SKU: 9291777Save $80 InstantlyMinimum 10 per store. Limit 1 per customer. No rainchecks. |
$299.99 |
Walmart
| Emerson 32” LCD 720p HDTV | $248.00 |
| “ 42” “ “ “ | $448.00 |
| Sony 46” LCD 1080p HDTV | $798.00 |
| Magnavox Blue-ray Disc Player | $78.00 |
| Nintendo DS Lite | $98.00 |
| TomTom 1 125 SE GPS 3.5” touchscreen | $59.00 |
| Select movies | $3.00 |
Target
| Westinghouse 32” LCD 720p HDTV | $246.00 |
| Nikon Coolpix S203 Digital Camera | $88.00 |
| Tom Tom XL 340S GPS w/ case | $97.00 |
Sears
| Samsung 40” 1080p LCD HDTV | $599.99 |
| Kenmore Laundry PairKenmoreConventional 500 Series Electric Laundry Pair | $499.98 (save $440.00) |
| SamsungHE Electric Laundry Pair | $999.98 (save $700.00) |
Macy’s
| Sterling Silver Diamond Bracelet (2 ct. t. w.) | $99.00 (reg. $400.00) |
| Select Men’s Suits | 20% discount |
| Select Coffee, Tea, or Espresso Maker | 40% discount |
JC Penney
| Slow Cooker (6 qts), or 3 in 1 Grill, or 12 cup programmable Coffeemaker, or Griddle | 12.88 (on sale for 22.88, plus ten dollar rebate; reg. 49.99) each |
| Free mickey snow globe | Limited quantities, starts at store opening |
| Discovery Wonderwall Video Projector (projects up to 120” on a blank wall) | $68.88 (on sale for $88.88, $20 rebate included; reg. 169.99) |
| Women’s boots | $29.99 (reg. $65-90) |
| ½ ct t.w. diamond necklace, bracelet, or earings | $79.99 (reg. 226.99) |
| 1/5 ct. t.w. diamond studs: sterling silver or 14 K gold over silver | $49.99 pr. (reg $150) |
Bed Bath and Beyond
| Before 10am | 20% off entire purchase |
Apple
| I phone 3G | From $99 |
| I phone 3GS | From $199 |
| Macbook (new) | $999 |
| Mac mini | $599 |
Romans 6.1-2:
1 – What then shall we conclude? Should we continue to reside in the realm of sin so that grace might greatly increase? 2 – No way! How can people such as us who died with reference to the lordship of sin still behaviorally participate in it? (translation mine)
In approaching Romans 6.1ff, there is some debate over who exactly Paul has in mind when asking this question.
One view, based on similar classical Greco-Roman writings of the same period (1 c. e.), thinks Paul is using a method of argumentation known as a diatribe since he continuously poses rhetorical questions and answers throughout Romans (cf. 3.1, 9; 4.1; 6.15; 7.7; 9.14, 19, 30).[1]
Another possibility is that Paul may be addressing antinomian thought that could arise from the doctrine set forth in 5.20, thus also appeasing any Jew who might be reading the epistle.[2] Here an appeal is made to verses 6.15-23 which provide the wider context to understand verses 1-14.
Related to this is a third view that Paul’s question and answer routine is strictly pedagogical to teach on the implications of grace since he is not primarily interested in answering intellectual questions but rather with christian practice.[3]
To distinguish between these three views, however, I would humbly suggest, is a false disjunction and fails to understand the precise nature of a diatribe. The reason a diatribe was so often used in the Greco-Roman world was because it raised questions and answers that might inevitably be raised in objection to one’s assertions for academic and pedagogical purposes. Granted, the opponents in view are technically fictitious, but the fictitious opponent of a good diatribe would connect with a probable and likely objection from a genuine opponent.[4] Thus, it makes good sense to think of 6.1 as pedagogical, while addressing a potential objection by a Jew, and while also refuting antinomian conclusions; or, in short: a well thought out argument which covers all bases.
[1]So Wright, Romans, 437-48; and Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 394. For thorough discussion on a diatribe, see Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Chicago: Scholars Press, 1981).
[2]Charles E. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, vol 1, ICC, edited by J. A. Emerton (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975), 297n1.
[3]Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, edited by Gordon Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 356.
[4]Also on a diatribe, see “Diatribe,” in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament, edited by David E. Aune (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 71-84.
Took Johnny Oliff to the airport this afternoon, sat in on the David Peterson and Chris Seitz seminar from 1pm-330pm, and then out with the fellows for a bite shortly thereafter.
Much discussion on Exile within the book fo Isaiah. Though perhaps its providential setting, Seitz argued the fact that Exile is not on the forefront on account of the ascribed historical setting. Rather, the driving force of the message lies within its construal as evident by the stark differentiation between the two (that is the lack of reference to exile within Isaiah), and it is here that exile may be found, though on a more buffered level that say that of Tom Wright. David Carr of Union Theological Seminary in his follow up presentation rather prefers the Exile is unspoken as a result of post dramatic trauma on the exilic community. Now isn’t that an emotionally sensitive observation.
Had a meeting with Dennis Olson from PTSem, wonderful fellow and it went very well.
Dinner later with a bunch of friends and ran into Pete Enns (dang Yanks fan, but great guy).
Went on over to the Fortress Press reception with Dan Wallace and Company and ran into John Anderson who joined us for the rest of the night. That John Anderson is wicked smart and displays well that wonderful sense of humor we’ve all come to know and love.
Went to Johnny’s PoBoys for lunch. Waited about 30 minutes in line to order and then another thirty minutes to get my food. Good food but not worth the time and the heavy crowd. Seems to be a trend down here in NoLo, long lines, long wait for food, not worth the trade off in portions or taste. BTW, did I mention they charge for a glass of water (not bottled, just tap)?
I think I’ll stick with the Arby’s down the street here on out. Though perhaps I’ll find some Nolo Jumbalya before conference’s end.
Jim West is a super nice guy; John Anderson has a super deep voice; Mike Bird is super cool; and James Crossley superly looks like Richard from LOST.
Recent Comments