2 Corinthians 3:16-18.... AGAIN!

It sometimes seems that I was born to tango with this passage. I’m trying to be as rigorous and as consistent as I can be with applying my methodology to Kyrios translation to the New Testament and am finding some more subtleties than I originally was able to treat back on my original post on this passage. Rather than updating that older post for the second time, I thought it better to put here where the translation process is up to on this passage. I needed to write down some comments on this too, so here we go:

But whenever anyone turns to GODthe Lord, the veil is taken away.

  

Now GOD the Lord the is synonymous with his Spirit, and where the GOD’s Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

  

And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate GODthe Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing gloryfrom one degree of glory to the next, all of which comes fromis fuelled by GOD’sthe Lord, who is the Spirit.

  Here “God’s Spirit” is a different Greek construction to that which is given in the preceding verse, which has a more classic form (pneuma Kyriou/tou Theou). As can be seen, NIV currently draws attention to this particular form here by creating a clause: “, who is the Spirit”. In Greek, all we have is three super-dense words:

1) from (‘apo’)

2) God/Lord (‘Kyriou’)

3) Spirit (‘Pneumatos’)

 It seems like NIV could be correct in connecting, it would seem, the grammar of verse 17 with the context of Paul’s wider correspondence with the church in Corinth. The Spirit had become something quite other than the Spirit of God in 1 Corinthians (see 1 Corinthians 2:10-16, 3:16-17, 6:11, 10:3-4, 14:1-17 and especially 12:1-12).

So here in 2 Corinthians 3:18 we can go three ways.

We can go with the current NIV idea, adding the “who is” padding.

Secondly, we can recognise that both Kyriou and Pneumatos are on level pegging with relation to the action of transformation of believers from one degree to the next. Grammatically, this time, it is neither from-the-Spirit-belonging-to-God nor from-God-belonging-to-the-Spirit. This makes sense since Paul has already pointed out that God and the Spirit are synonymous. But applying such rigorous attention to the grammar, while looking for alternatives to the wordy “who is”, seems to lead us to something like a hyphenated “God-Spirit” or with an ugly forward slash “God/Spirit”. A usable revision to NIV would probably need to discard this second option entirely.

A third option is to consider, as I have done, that for the modern reader, Paul’s point about the synonymity of ‘Kyrios’ and ‘to Pneuma’ in verse 17 has been made by supplying the “is synonymous with his” in that verse. Now, the language can move back to “God’s Spirit” for ‘Kyriou Pneumatos’ in verse 18, which returns us to familiar English in a unified way that still remains faithful to Paul’s point in the Greek.

Scripture taken and adapted from The Holy Bible, New International Version® (Anglicised), NIV®. Copyright © 1979, 1984, 2011 Biblica, Inc. Used by permission of Hodder & Stoughton Limited, a division of Hachette UK.

Philippians 2: drawing out the active dynamic in Jesus' title KYRIOS

Brace yourselves, today's post is actually going to be SHORT!

Let's move on from this "first" instance of Jesus' Cosmic rule we examined in Acts 2 to another. 

One obvious place to turn is Philippians 2, an early Christian hymn cited by the apostle Paul:

⁹ Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
    and gave him the name that is above every name,
¹⁰ that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
¹¹ and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is ΚΥΡΙΟΣ,
    to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:9-11 NIVUK

We have already seen in Mark that dynamic and non-systematic options for ΚΥΡΙΟΣ have been really helpful to draw out the multiple layers of meaning and usage of ΚΥΡΙΟΣ. In keeping with our work on Acts 2 (the one God anointed and crowned to rule as KING) and given this appeal to more dynamic translation options alongside the need to retire outdated Lord language, I would prefer the verb “reign” in this instance. Thus, the confession may read:

Jesus Christ reigns, to the glory of God the Father”.

This reign is broad, covering both spheres previously perceived to be held by God alone - the heavenly realm and, within some self-imposed restrictions, the earthly realm as well. In the next post, we can see this fleshed out in some later Pauline vocabulary in Colossians 1.

Related posts:

• Did Jesus Pre-exist for Paul?
• Worshipping Christ and God the Father, Philippians 2:11 bringing correction in paradoxical places

Scripture taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version® (Anglicised), NIV®. Copyright © 1979, 1984, 2011 Biblica, Inc. Used by permission of Hodder & Stoughton Limited, a division of Hachette UK.

1 Corinthians 10: To Whom Does This Cup Belong?

Gathering some translation principles from Kyrios in Mark's gospel, I have been working hard at a coherent set of solutions for Kyrios equivalents in English throughout the rest of the New Testament. It's a lot of work (Acts, in particular, was a slog) but I am making good progress, now nearing the end of 1 Corinthians (I also did most of the prep work already for Jude and Revelation on the blog over here, Obstacle 4).

Of course, the process speeds up as decisions for certain contexts are made. Take for instance how we have developed our methodology through the five obstacles faced by the GOD solution to Yahweh, adopted by Peterson and myself. We started with the apparently awkward "GOD, our god," and justified the usage of the little "g". Since this same Yahweh is specifically cited throughout the New Testament, it makes good sense to carry the same translation through too. Hereby, all citations of the LXX by New Testament authors that include explicit references to a translation of Yahweh ("KYRIOS") can receive GOD instead of the confusing "the Lord", most frequently attributed to Jesus.

HOWEVER, the Jesus attribution may be slightly less frequent than you think. I have often referred back to a passage in 2 Corinthians 3:16-18 where the 2 key criteria line up for identifying Yahweh references outside direct citation:

• Israelite/historical context
• Primarily anarthrous Kyrios (nom.) or Kyriou (gen.)

I now note that Peterson's The Message translation picked up on this and throughout that passage in 2 Corinthians, he uses "God", not the more widely known "The Lord".

Today we are going to zoom in on another similar passage that I suspect we Christians may experience greater reticence to relinquish as referring to one other than the Lord Jesus: 1 Corinthians 10:21-22. Maybe that is why Peterson stuck with "the Master", who knows. Anyway, let's look at the text in its wider context v14-33: 

14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

18 Consider the people of Israel: do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19 Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. 22 Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

23 ‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say – but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’– but not everything is constructive. 24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.

25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, ‘The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.’[f]

27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, ‘This has been offered in sacrifice,’ then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God – 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

Based on Scripture taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version® (Anglicised), NIV®

How then do I propose we translate this passage? Thankfully, my "call" is not to retranslate everything but to focus on bringing the early distinctions on KYRIOS back to light and to make the language of "lordship" more understandable again for today's readers. So I'm only focussing on verses 21-22 and 26.

1 Corinthians 10:21

You cannot drink the God’s cup of the Lord  and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the LordGod’s table and the table of demons.

    

1 Corinthians 10:22

Are we trying to arouse the Lord God’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

    

1 Corinthians 10:26

for, ‘The earth is the Lordbelongs to God’s, and everything in it.’

---

It must first be conceded, perhaps, that neither God's cup, table or jealousy are established LXX lexical units. This has no incidence on the power of the passage to fulfil the criteria asserted above. Some reasons for believing so:

Paul is certainly aware of the anarthrous tradition in the version he cites from. This is provable from the multiple times he refers to the Israelite divine Name for their god in explicit citations from the LXX, such as in verse 26 of the present passage. Paul is also arguably not bound to the anarthrous rule in citation alone, as demonstrated in the 2 Corinthians 3:16-18 passage, but also I'd now argue Romans 14:8-9 and maybe a couple of other Pauline places too, not to mention scores of such occurrences in the writings of his colleagues, such as Luke.

Secondly, while an LXX lexical unit (such as "before the LORD") would have added still greater weight to the argument for the Yahweh reference, it is hardly representative or necessary in the Old Testament to always place Yahweh in some pre-agreed lexical formation - most, indeed, are not. Sometimes, the translators of the LXX may even have inserted references to Yahweh, perhaps for clarification. Lamentations 4:21 in the LXX either inserts or is a witness to a Hebrew version that had the cup of Kyriou. 

Thirdly, Kyrios fulfils both the criteria above in 1 Corinthians 10:21-22. As already stated, Paul is aware of the anarthrous tradition in the version he cites from. His repetition is conspicuous and free from contextual constraint to Jesus via Paul’s invitation in v18 to “Consider the people of Israel”. 

The indication here, as confirmed in verse 26, is that in verse 21-22 the referent is Yahweh, God the Father of our Kyrios (Master, King, Leader, Captain, Boss, Ruler,...), Jesus Christ.

So can you see whose cup Paul is probably describing now? :)

NO CONDEMNATION FOR YOU

ROMANS 7:25-8:1 reads (NET translation):

Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.  

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

What brings this passage of Scripture to my mind this morning? After 8 years of intensifying suffering in my gut, increasing allergies and intolerances, I seem to be experiencing some miraculous release in reaching out and trusting in Jesus. I was so disappointed with God's results, I had begun to see prayer as really God's powerful way of uniting us and working through us without any real agency held back for himself (see fascinating Unbelievable episode, Do we need to rethink petitionary prayer? Mark Karris & Steve Jeffery). Any further trust in the wrong theology, would simply leave me more disillusioned and mistrustful and I had long stopped praying for this. Even now, I still find God's agency and suffering an utter mystery, maybe more so than ever! It's utterly "unfair" if it does exist.

So I'm on a positive faith high, which is pretty wonderful to be honest. This verse came me to as I considered another burden I have shouldered for a shorter time, depression, and pondering its roots as I see the vulnerability from within my side of the family. An old pointing finger got itself ready to point accusingly from within my mind. That's when the verse came.

I've always read this passage in the sense that we don't need to feel guilty about failing to keep the standard. God's standards are even higher, but Jesus met it for us, so there is no condemnation left over us. But today I'm excited to see it and apply it a stage further: we have no part in condemnation, we have been separated from the very principles of condemning people. The freedom I have received I reciprocate. I wonder how many people struggling under feelings of insecurity, fear, guilt or shame also struggle with condemning other people? Perhaps if we see this coin as the double-sided one I think Paul may in fact have discovered it to be (at least I think the text is not being abused too much to say so!), then maybe we can see even greater transformative power contained in it. Unleash it!

Blessings :)

"The Kingdom of Heaven"

The Gospel of Matthew is fairly well known for its particularity of speaking of "the Kingdom of Heaven" as opposed to the more classic expression found elsewhere in the New Testament of the kingdom of God. A common reason given concerns the Jewish nature of Matthew and his purposes for ensuring there is a special respect reserved for the name of God implied by the writer. Have you heard that theory? Or do you simply think that these gospel accounts vary in ways similar to different people describing different perspectives, like blind-folded people describing an elephant by its various parts? Sorry, both of these views are unlikely in this case.

I have been studying now the characteristics of Yahweh, the name of the Israelite deity, for some time now. I have also had a special interest in the Gospel of Matthew. Something needs to be clarified in these explanations (I am focussing on the first one here) which really do not satisfy, in my view, the actual biblical data available to us. Here's why.

First, although Matthew doesn't use the expression Kingdom of God very much, he still does do so, five times in fact! Secondly, he uses the word "God" just as much as any other gospel writer. Compare Matthew's usage with that of Mark for example. Matthew uses the word
God 56 times, including the 5 occurrences I just mentioned of the Kingdom of God. Mark mentions the word god 52 times. So that is, for instance, less than the author who supposedly has drawn a ring of fire around the name of God. Thirdly, the issue of pronouncement of God's name is not about saying or not saying G-O-D (or T-H-E-O-S), but rather the name of Yahweh.

So why did Matthew substitute quite often the words kingdom of God with the Kingdom of Heaven? I believe an alternative explanation can be grounded in Ephesians 5:5 in the context of what we know of Matthew more generally. Let's read this remarkable passage now, then return to it after looking at some of that "first-gospel"-context:

Among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: no immoral, impure or greedy person – such a person is an idolater – has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

As we have seen before, "the Gospel of Matthew", or whatever it was originally known as, is most likely a late first century text that is deeply reverent and devoted to a hellenised Jewish proclamation, confirmation and clarification of the Good News concerning God's sent, annointed, crucified, resurrected and exalted Messiah-Son. The author is careful to clarify and develop a number of things, such as "the fulfilment" of the stories already circulating about Jesus as fulfilment of Jewish Scripture (sometimes to the extreme), the certainty that Jesus outlived John the Baptist, the truth contained in Mark and Luke's accounts, and most significantly for my own journey over the last three years, quite what being baptised meant over and above John's baptism (in the name of the trinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit), all of which is set in ordered teaching blocks more accessible to excommunicated Jewish-Christian groups with a desire to learn and share. That sentence was getting a bit long, but on this understanding, let us stress there is also the Matthean desire to not forget the Jewish homeland in which the Christ story took place. Just because Paul's (and others) efforts to retake the nations for God and Christ has had a very outward focus these last few decades, those Judean and Samaritan (=northern Israelite tribes) lands and inhabitants mustn't be forgotten in the missional endeavour.

This endeavour has always been, despite Paul's general reluctance on its usage, about the Kingdom of God. However, the authority of the one in charge of said kingdom is understood to have been entrusted in its entirety to the exalted Messiah, God's very own Son and Heir. Thus Paul describes the Kingdom as in joint ownership in the above passage. It's not like God has washed his hands of this great work of his - he nearly did this in Noah's day! - rather the Project is shared perfectly, and still extended further to the saints through their annointing and baptism in the Holy Spirit. But like everyone else writing and teaching (and thinking and praying and....) in the first century, no-one had yet devised this trinitarian action in terms of a "Triune God" - that was a later "clarification". Hence, for me, it is very plausible that "the Kingdom of Heaven" is a widening of the viewpoint about whose Kingdom this is - thus imputing still more divine status to Jesus via this incredible kingship appointment and sonship.

Matthew's contribution to the eventual development of the doctrine of the Triune God never ceases to amaze me and should be considered a huge stepping stone.

Fatscript Episode 10, Joel 2 and the New Testament Connection

In today's episode, we arrive at last in Joel 2 at the key points in Joel's description of "the day of Yahweh" that in light of the earliest Christians' experience, pushed all their buttons.


With respect to my own hypothesis of the Triune Hub, Joel draws into light the third key mutation of the nature of the arrival of the Kingdom of God in first century Christianity, as developed by John Dominic Crossan (https://www.johndominiccrossan.com/).

Apologies for some of the truncation in the audio today in the second half. This was due to me holding the mic too far from my mouth and general incompetence.

A few other links:
1. Unbelievable? Episode: Debating science and spiritual practices – Rupert Sheldrake vs Susan Blackmore

https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Debating-science-and-spiritual-practices-Rupert-Sheldrake-vs-Susan-Blackmore

2. From Peter in Acts 2 on "all men", to his bizarre revelation in Acts 11 about "clean" foods, to Paul's fullest understanding of the gospel in Galatians 2:
http://faithandscripture.blogspot.fr/2017/08/ljc-s2-part-6-hurray-they-can-become.html

3. Download my sample chapter for free at https://www.academia.edu/34726445/Trinitarian_Interpretation_Mutated_Faith_and_the_Triune_Hub_Re-examining_the_Foundations_Chapter_1_

Thanks so much for following!
By the way I am running out of completely free options to host the Fatscript podcast/Faith&Scripture family. If you'd like to make a small contribution to help cover these costs, then you can do it soon.