Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
Passive Imperative
A question arose for me when I was working on 2 Cor 5:20: "Be reconciled to God." The verb for "be reconciled" is a passive imperative. To the English-language mind this is not possible. How can one be commanded to be passive? But even worse how can a person be commanded to passively do something? What is God telling us here?
Then I ran across the fact that the creation story in the LXX in Gen 1 is full of passive imperatives. When light is created, the LXX uses the passive imperative in God's command. When vegetation is created the passive imperative is used in God's command. Gen 1 in the LXX is full of passive imperatives.
It struck me that the passive imperative in the Greek is simply God's way of telling that he is the one who brings these accomplishments to fruition. God commands it and it is done. "When God speaks, everything listens." God, merely by his word, brings great and wonderful blessings into being for us.
And please notice that before St Paul tells us to be reconciled to God he tells us that God has reconciled the world to himself in Christ. This is God's work, not ours. This fits very well with St Paul's comment in 2 Cor 4:6: "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ." God makes his light shine in our hearts by commanding it to be: "Be reconciled to God."
What an awesome thought. God provides everything we need.
But what do we do then? Do we do nothing?
What?!!! Do nothing?!!!! Come on! God has commanded, invited, asked us to do many things for him. And after all he has done, we are going to sit around and do nothing. What kind of irresponsible, irreverent, unthankful thought is that?!
But whatever we do is fruitless. God is the one who accomplishes all good. Anything we may accomplish is vain, empty or worse, sinful.
So what?! Even if we just ran in place for the rest of our lives because God wanted us to do that, after what he has done for us, so what! As Martin Luther supposedly said: "Even if God should ask me to stand on my head in the corner and eat straw, after what he has done for me, I would do it." Thankfulness for what he has done makes us willing to do anything he commands.
But everything we do is sinful. Aren't we doing more harm than good by trying to do what God wants us to do?
If it were not for Christ that would be so. Left to ourselves, we cannot serve God no matter how wonderful our gifts and abilities are.
But we are not left to ourselves. In Christ, God turns all our sinful deeds into marvelous works. In Christ, He uses our sin to do his work for his glory.
So, you see, God wants us to be hard at work for him, NOT because we can in our own strength accomplish anything, but because in Christ God uses our sinful tasks to accomplish great and mighty works.
But doesn't that give us an excuse for sin? What?! How could we dare to use God's grace for an excuse for sin? Such a thought simply shows how corrupt and sinful our human nature is. We do not use God's grace as an excuse for sin, but as a cure for our sin.
So, we strive with all our might to serve God in everything we do even though we know and believe that everything we do is corrupt and sinful. We strive to serve God in everything because we also believe that in Christ, God uses all those efforts to accomplish his work for his glory in Christ.
What a marvelous God we have! Thank you, thank you, thank you God. How can I show you my praise and thankfulness for what you have done and are doing and will do for me?
Then I ran across the fact that the creation story in the LXX in Gen 1 is full of passive imperatives. When light is created, the LXX uses the passive imperative in God's command. When vegetation is created the passive imperative is used in God's command. Gen 1 in the LXX is full of passive imperatives.
It struck me that the passive imperative in the Greek is simply God's way of telling that he is the one who brings these accomplishments to fruition. God commands it and it is done. "When God speaks, everything listens." God, merely by his word, brings great and wonderful blessings into being for us.
And please notice that before St Paul tells us to be reconciled to God he tells us that God has reconciled the world to himself in Christ. This is God's work, not ours. This fits very well with St Paul's comment in 2 Cor 4:6: "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ." God makes his light shine in our hearts by commanding it to be: "Be reconciled to God."
What an awesome thought. God provides everything we need.
But what do we do then? Do we do nothing?
What?!!! Do nothing?!!!! Come on! God has commanded, invited, asked us to do many things for him. And after all he has done, we are going to sit around and do nothing. What kind of irresponsible, irreverent, unthankful thought is that?!
But whatever we do is fruitless. God is the one who accomplishes all good. Anything we may accomplish is vain, empty or worse, sinful.
So what?! Even if we just ran in place for the rest of our lives because God wanted us to do that, after what he has done for us, so what! As Martin Luther supposedly said: "Even if God should ask me to stand on my head in the corner and eat straw, after what he has done for me, I would do it." Thankfulness for what he has done makes us willing to do anything he commands.
But everything we do is sinful. Aren't we doing more harm than good by trying to do what God wants us to do?
If it were not for Christ that would be so. Left to ourselves, we cannot serve God no matter how wonderful our gifts and abilities are.
But we are not left to ourselves. In Christ, God turns all our sinful deeds into marvelous works. In Christ, He uses our sin to do his work for his glory.
So, you see, God wants us to be hard at work for him, NOT because we can in our own strength accomplish anything, but because in Christ God uses our sinful tasks to accomplish great and mighty works.
But doesn't that give us an excuse for sin? What?! How could we dare to use God's grace for an excuse for sin? Such a thought simply shows how corrupt and sinful our human nature is. We do not use God's grace as an excuse for sin, but as a cure for our sin.
So, we strive with all our might to serve God in everything we do even though we know and believe that everything we do is corrupt and sinful. We strive to serve God in everything because we also believe that in Christ, God uses all those efforts to accomplish his work for his glory in Christ.
What a marvelous God we have! Thank you, thank you, thank you God. How can I show you my praise and thankfulness for what you have done and are doing and will do for me?
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Ordination
What is ordination? Does ordination transfer power to do certain things such as consecrate the elements in the sacrament? And what does consecration do? What is consecration since someone has to be ordained in order to be able to consecrate?
Dictionary.com defines "ordain" as 1. to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions; confer holy orders upon; 2. to enact or establish by law, edict, etc.: to ordain a new type of government; 3. to decree; give orders for: He ordained that the restrictions were to be lifted; 4.(of god, fate, etc.) to destine or predestine: Fate had ordained the meeting; verb (used without object) 5. to order or command: Thus do the gods ordain; 6. to select for or appoint to an office; 7. to invest someone with sacerdotal functions.
So, do we in the LCMS believe that we invest someone with sacerdotal functions? Do we order or command? Do we destine or predestine? No, I don't believe we think that way? Do we confer holy orders upon someone in ordination? Do we enact or establish something or someone by law or edict? Do we give orders or decrees by ordination? I don't believe we think that way, that we describe ordination that way.
Then what do we mean by ordination? Why is it that we seem to think that only someone who has been ordained can consecrate the elements in the sacrament?
Dictionary.com defines "ordain" as 1. to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions; confer holy orders upon; 2. to enact or establish by law, edict, etc.: to ordain a new type of government; 3. to decree; give orders for: He ordained that the restrictions were to be lifted; 4.(of god, fate, etc.) to destine or predestine: Fate had ordained the meeting; verb (used without object) 5. to order or command: Thus do the gods ordain; 6. to select for or appoint to an office; 7. to invest someone with sacerdotal functions.
So, do we in the LCMS believe that we invest someone with sacerdotal functions? Do we order or command? Do we destine or predestine? No, I don't believe we think that way? Do we confer holy orders upon someone in ordination? Do we enact or establish something or someone by law or edict? Do we give orders or decrees by ordination? I don't believe we think that way, that we describe ordination that way.
Then what do we mean by ordination? Why is it that we seem to think that only someone who has been ordained can consecrate the elements in the sacrament?
Friday, July 29, 2011
Gentive Usage in Biblical Texts
"It is the case of genus...The genitive does indeed resemble the adjective...the case does not of itself mean all that one finds in translation. The case adheres to its technical root-idea. The resultant idea will naturally vary greatly according as the root-conception of the case is applied to different words and different contexts...What the genitive says is that it is a 'Babylon-removal.' That is all...At every stage one needs to recall the root-idea of the case (genus or kind) and find in that and the environment and history the explanation...In simple point of fact it is not necessary to see any particular inner connection between the many uses of the genitive with substantives other than the common root-idea of the case...After all it is the context that varies rather than the genitive...In itself the genitive is neither subjective nor objective, but lends itself readily to either point of view...Take Ro. 1:17 where dikaiosuna theou means the righteousness which God has and wishes to bestow on us...Thus in Mk. 11:22 ekete pistin theou we rightly translate 'have faith in God,' though the genitive does not mean 'in,' but only the God kind of faith. Cf. Ro. 3:22." (A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research, A T Robertson; Broadman Press, 1934; pp 493, 494, 495, 496, 499, 500)
Robertson claims that the genitive is the specifying case and nothing more. It merely specifies what kind of item the modified noun is. So he writes that "pistin theou" just simply means the "God kind of faith", nothing more than that. Is this genitive an objective or subjective genitive? We could easily say that it is both. It could be objective: God is the object of the faith. But it could also be subjective: the faith is given by God. It is a God kind of faith.
Trying to nail down whether it is objective or subjective narrows too much the discussion and description found in the Greek. Allowing the Greek the freedom to just designate the relationship without making the delineations that some scholars would require of us adds much color to the text.
What the delineations found in different grammars does for us is give us many colors and hues that can be found in the genitive. If we allow ourselves the freedom to use all the different distinctions found in the grammars, it can add so much to the discussion in the text.
After all, those distinctions found in the grammars are only lists created by the grammarians in their attempt to describe all the ways the genitive can be used. And so some grammarians say there are 8 types of genitives and some say there are 20 types. These are not God-given distinctions, but attempts by the grammarians to shed light on the many ways God can and does use various words to create the impression and relate the truth He wants related. And allowing ourselves the freedom to describe the various examples of the genitive usage can help us reach for the description God is creating by the various uses of words.
Robertson claims that the genitive is the specifying case and nothing more. It merely specifies what kind of item the modified noun is. So he writes that "pistin theou" just simply means the "God kind of faith", nothing more than that. Is this genitive an objective or subjective genitive? We could easily say that it is both. It could be objective: God is the object of the faith. But it could also be subjective: the faith is given by God. It is a God kind of faith.
Trying to nail down whether it is objective or subjective narrows too much the discussion and description found in the Greek. Allowing the Greek the freedom to just designate the relationship without making the delineations that some scholars would require of us adds much color to the text.
What the delineations found in different grammars does for us is give us many colors and hues that can be found in the genitive. If we allow ourselves the freedom to use all the different distinctions found in the grammars, it can add so much to the discussion in the text.
After all, those distinctions found in the grammars are only lists created by the grammarians in their attempt to describe all the ways the genitive can be used. And so some grammarians say there are 8 types of genitives and some say there are 20 types. These are not God-given distinctions, but attempts by the grammarians to shed light on the many ways God can and does use various words to create the impression and relate the truth He wants related. And allowing ourselves the freedom to describe the various examples of the genitive usage can help us reach for the description God is creating by the various uses of words.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Confessing The Pure Doctrine
Can a person perfectly confess the perfect doctrine? Can one purely confess the pure doctrine? Does anyone ever purely confess the pure doctrine?
Having the pure doctrine is very important. It is through the pure doctrine that God works faith in us and saves us. The truth is essential for us. It is life-giving for us. And without it we could not have life---any life. God's word gave us life in the first place. It is by his word that the world and everything that exists including us came into being.
It is also by his word that we have true life---life to the fullest. That word the center of which is forgiveness and righteousness is what brings us joy and thrill and anticipation and hope in this life. It is what makes life worth living. That word is what fills us with life in this world.
That pure doctrine is also what gives us eternal life. That word brings us forgiveness and righteousness so that we can someday live a life that has none of the ills and evils of this life. This pure doctrine creates faith in us so that we can receive that which God created for us in Christ.
But now, are we ever in this life able to purely confess this pure doctrine? And what happens to us if we are not able to do this? Or what happens to us if we should be able to do this?
We admit and confess that we are not perfect in any way in this life, except in the perfection that God covers us with in Christ. If we should claim we can purely confess this pure doctrine, then is there one sector of our lives in this world that does not need cleansing in Christ? Does this mean that it is not true that we are totally corrupt? If we should claim we can purely confess this pure doctrine in this life, does that make us more God-pleasing than those who do not? Would this be called self-righteousness, holier-than-thou attitude? Or is our ability, the reality of purely confessing our pure doctrine a gift in Christ---a gift in the sense that even our speech, our confession, is dressed in the righteousness of Christ.
This would not necessarily be work righteousness, unless, of course, we claimed we were saved by purely confessing the pure doctrine. Do some who claim orthodoxy make this mistake? Sometimes it seems they get very close to this or maybe are actually guilty of this error.
But what if we admit, confess that we are do not, in fact, are not able to purely confess this pure doctrine? Does that mean we are condemned?
Well, are we condemned? Do we stand before God condemned because of our sin, our shortcomings, yes even shortcomings in our confession of our pure doctrine? What does that mean? I believe it means that we escape that condemnation not by our pure confession, but by Christ's redemption. We are saved by God's grace alone in Christ alone by faith alone.
Yes, we are to constantly strive to purely confess our pure doctrine. And part of that confess involves confessing that we never purely confess that pure doctrine. And we ask for forgiveness in Christ and we keep striving with all we have to purely confess our pure doctrine. This is a life time struggle, striving for us. All of us are constantly striving to mold our confession to the pure doctrine God has given us.
So, what does that say about closed communion? Some would say that we should not commune with someone who does not confess the pure doctrine. But if none of us purely confess the pure doctrine, then how do we decide with whom we should commune?
This whole question is a life-long question for us. We are always striving to purely confess our pure doctrine. And we are constantly striving to encourage others to do the same as they are doing for us. And so we are constantly asking ourselves and others if what we are doing is destroying our fellowship or edifying, building it up. Unorthodoxy always destroys fellowship. Orthodoxy always edifies it, builds it up. So even this part of our lives is under constant construction in this world. The only time we will finally have a permanent, perfect fellowship is when we get to heaven.
In the meantime, we are constantly working to create a pure fellowship here in this life also although we believe and confess that we will never reach perfection in this respect anymore than we will in other aspects of our lives.
Having the pure doctrine is very important. It is through the pure doctrine that God works faith in us and saves us. The truth is essential for us. It is life-giving for us. And without it we could not have life---any life. God's word gave us life in the first place. It is by his word that the world and everything that exists including us came into being.
It is also by his word that we have true life---life to the fullest. That word the center of which is forgiveness and righteousness is what brings us joy and thrill and anticipation and hope in this life. It is what makes life worth living. That word is what fills us with life in this world.
That pure doctrine is also what gives us eternal life. That word brings us forgiveness and righteousness so that we can someday live a life that has none of the ills and evils of this life. This pure doctrine creates faith in us so that we can receive that which God created for us in Christ.
But now, are we ever in this life able to purely confess this pure doctrine? And what happens to us if we are not able to do this? Or what happens to us if we should be able to do this?
We admit and confess that we are not perfect in any way in this life, except in the perfection that God covers us with in Christ. If we should claim we can purely confess this pure doctrine, then is there one sector of our lives in this world that does not need cleansing in Christ? Does this mean that it is not true that we are totally corrupt? If we should claim we can purely confess this pure doctrine in this life, does that make us more God-pleasing than those who do not? Would this be called self-righteousness, holier-than-thou attitude? Or is our ability, the reality of purely confessing our pure doctrine a gift in Christ---a gift in the sense that even our speech, our confession, is dressed in the righteousness of Christ.
This would not necessarily be work righteousness, unless, of course, we claimed we were saved by purely confessing the pure doctrine. Do some who claim orthodoxy make this mistake? Sometimes it seems they get very close to this or maybe are actually guilty of this error.
But what if we admit, confess that we are do not, in fact, are not able to purely confess this pure doctrine? Does that mean we are condemned?
Well, are we condemned? Do we stand before God condemned because of our sin, our shortcomings, yes even shortcomings in our confession of our pure doctrine? What does that mean? I believe it means that we escape that condemnation not by our pure confession, but by Christ's redemption. We are saved by God's grace alone in Christ alone by faith alone.
Yes, we are to constantly strive to purely confess our pure doctrine. And part of that confess involves confessing that we never purely confess that pure doctrine. And we ask for forgiveness in Christ and we keep striving with all we have to purely confess our pure doctrine. This is a life time struggle, striving for us. All of us are constantly striving to mold our confession to the pure doctrine God has given us.
So, what does that say about closed communion? Some would say that we should not commune with someone who does not confess the pure doctrine. But if none of us purely confess the pure doctrine, then how do we decide with whom we should commune?
This whole question is a life-long question for us. We are always striving to purely confess our pure doctrine. And we are constantly striving to encourage others to do the same as they are doing for us. And so we are constantly asking ourselves and others if what we are doing is destroying our fellowship or edifying, building it up. Unorthodoxy always destroys fellowship. Orthodoxy always edifies it, builds it up. So even this part of our lives is under constant construction in this world. The only time we will finally have a permanent, perfect fellowship is when we get to heaven.
In the meantime, we are constantly working to create a pure fellowship here in this life also although we believe and confess that we will never reach perfection in this respect anymore than we will in other aspects of our lives.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)