Paul says it best:
Moreover brethren, I declare unto you the godpel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preafhed unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures;
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was see of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present [ca. some time in the latte 50's or early 60's A.D.--Uncle Cephas], but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
(I Corinthians 15:1-8)
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen:
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be it that the dead rise not...
If in thie life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
(I Corinthians 15:12-19)
Uncle Cephas urges his readers to go to the Scriptures and read the whole of the Pauline letters. They're worth it.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is therefore fundamental to the Christian faith. Without it, Paul says, we might as well go home. Indeed, the naturalism of 19th and 20th century liberal theology caused many to join that group which Paul rebuked in Corinth so long ago. The result was the weakening of the churches, the near-suicide of Protestantism, and its replacement by a host of violent "isms" which spilled more blood in the 20th century alone over the right interpretation of Marx than was spilled over wrong theology in the 15 centuries between the conversion of Constantine and the shutting down of the Spanish Inquisition in 1804.
The resurrection of Christ also signals a new beginning for our human race, that there is indeed salvation. So sure were the first apostles of their message that most of them died martyrs proclaiming it. It also tells us that Jesus Christ is indeed the holder of all authority in heaven and on earth, for even death and Hell are subject to him who conquered them--and now witnesses that he is able to save those who trust him from those final horrors.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ also explains the use of Sunday as the day of rest and worship for Christians. Just as the original Sabbath proclaimed the original creation, so the day of resurrection proclaims the new creation (Acts 20:7ff.).
May this, and all other Sundays, be blessed and joyous to you.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Sunday, March 24, 2013
A Genuine Epistle of Barnabas? Part II
(III) The Theme of Hebrews
In addition to presenting Jesus Christ as fully divine and fully human, the Bible also presents him in terms of his threefold office of prophet, priest, and king. The Epistle to the Hebrews focuses chiefly on Jesus' priestly ministry.
The Epistle describes Jesus as our "great high priest" who ministers not in an earthly temple or sanctuary, but in Heaven (Heb. 4:14). This is perhaps one of the most radical teachings of the New Testament. The letter to the Hebrews seems to have been written to a congregation of Messianic Jews, possible living in 'Eretz Yisrael, who are reminded that the believers in Jesus the Messiah have a share in an altar to which their contemporary levitical priests have no share (Heb. 13:10), who need to be encouraged by the examples of the Patriarchs and Moses who were uprooted from the places where they had been born (Heb. 11:8-19), and who seem to be about to be sent "without the camp" (13:13). Given that the Epistle gives no hint that the Second Temple had been destroyed, it is likely that its addressees were had been accustomed to access to the Temple but were now being cut off from that former fellowship. Hence, a congregation of Jewish Christians in or near Jerusalem during the 60's of the first century seems the most likely audience.
Today, it is easy for us to lose sight of what a wrenching experience this would have been for a group of first century Jews. The function of a modern Jewish rabbi (who is generally not of priestly descent) is radically different from that of the Kohen of biblical times. Whereas modern and Rabbinical Judaism stresses ethical action, that of Moses laid great stress on sacrificial rituals of atonement. This is the burden of much of Exodus and Leviticus. The needs of this cult called forth the building of the original Israelite sanctuary at Shiloh, and then, under Solomon, the building of the first temple. The Second Temple, rebuilt after the Babylonian exile and greatly expanded under Herod the Great, was the spiritual center of the Jewish world. It remained the place of atonement, and the focus of pilgrimage by Jews from all over the world. To be denied a share in its cult would thus have been tantamount to being cut off from the Jewish people.
Hence, the writer to the Hebrews seeks to re-assure his hearers that they are gathered about the Messiah himself; and that this Messiah is a priest.
But how can one who is of the kingly lineage of Judah serve as a priest? Is not the priesthood given to Aaron, the brother of Moses, and descendant of Levi? The writer to the Hebrews thus goes to some length to note how Jesus could be a priest, even though he was of the kingly tribe of Judah rather than that of Levi, by comparing him to the mysterious Melchizedek of Genesis, to whom Abraham offered a tithe long before either Levi or Judah had been born. He then goes on to remind the readers of how the Levitical rituals were performed, and of the design of the Temple.
But where is the sacrifice Jesus offers? He offered himself once and for all, and then sat down at the right hand of God the Father (Heb. 1:3, 10:12). This is spoken of as the purging of our sins, and a sacrifice for our sins in language reminiscent of the book of Leviticus.Hebrews 9 speaks of how the priests of old sprinkled the sacrificial blood of bulls and goats for the purifying of men and things; then noting "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (9:14).
Jesus' sacrifice of himself on the cross is likened to the High Priest's annual entry into the Holy of Holies, which occurred on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. However, whereas the High Priest needed to continually offer sacrifices, Jesus' sacrifice was a unique, one-time event, and complete. This sacrifice of Jesus is the very thing on which the believer may stake his soul.
Hence, for those who follow Jesus and enjoy the fruits of his atoning work, being sent "without the camp" can be borne. The believers may have been cut off from their older fellowship, but they are now pilgrims, as were Abraham and the patriarchs, en route to the City of God (Heb. 11:10). As for the sacrifice of Jesus in which they have trusted, it is complete, final, and in no need of repetition. Hence,while on earth, these exiles and wanderers outside the camp are
in fact worshiping in the heavenly Jerusalem above.
This theme is not alien to the rest of the New Testament. Paul often speaks of the reconciliation of sinners with God through Jesus' death on the cross. Peter speaks most clearly of substitutionary atonement when he notes that Jesus' death is that of the just for the unjust to bring us to God (I Pt. 3:18), and in bearing our sins in his own body on the tree (I Pet. 2:24). Jesus himself speaks of how he has come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mk. 10:45). Perhaps the uniqueness of Hebrews, though, lies in it comparison between Jesus and the High Priest.
(IV) Barnabas the Levite
Perhaps, then, the priestly theme in Hebrews suggests that the author was either a priest or Levite himself. Clearly, the author was familiar with the Old Testament, especially its sacrificial ritual. This ritual informs the bulk of his work.
Acts mentions that a number of priests became believers (6:7). Yet little more is said of this group of men. Certainly no name from among them stands out; although it would not be surprising if some went on to proclaim Jesus following the persecution following the stoning of Stephen.
Yet one man of the tribe of Levi, of which the kohanim were a subgroup, does stand out. This is Joses Barnabas (Joseph Bar Naba), a Levite of Cyprus (Ac.4:36). Apparently, he had settled in Jerusalem, where he joined the church.
Luke tells us in the Acts that the apostles themselves named Joses Barnabas, meaning "son of consolation" or "son of encouragement" (Bar Naba). The name is also connected to the Hebrew and Aramaic word for prophecy. Barnabas is also identified as the maternal uncle to Mark (Col. 4:10), who in turn was so close to Simon Peter to be called the latter's "son" (I Pt. 5:13).
Barnabas became one whom the apostles sent out to proclaim the Gospel and to visit new churches established in Cyprus, Phonecia, and Antioch (Ac. 11:19-26). He is there when the believers in Jesus were first called "Christians", and introduces the newly converted Saul of Tarsus, later to be known as Paul, to the original apostles.
(V) Similarities Between the Author to the Hebrews and Barnabas
Barnabas' Levitical background and closeness to the apostles makes him a good candidate for the authorship of Hebrews. But, more importantly, his rare position as a "second generation" Christian and closeness to both the Jerusalem apostles and to Paul make him a good candidate for authorship of a book or written sermon that while not strictly apostolic, nonetheless was accepted as New Testament Scripture.
Contrary to popular belief, the formation of the New Testament canon was not a late, once-for-all act of the Council of Nicaea or other ecclesiastical council of the early Christian centuries. The canonization of the New Testament (the Old had been received complete from Judaism) was an obscure process that begins with the apostles themselves, and was more a matter of exclusion than inclusion. The chief canon for acceptance of a New Testament book was its apostolic authorship was, apart from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, apostolicity, or coming from an apostle. None among either the early church fathers or their heretical and semi-heretical opponents expressed any doubt about the genuineness of the Four Gospels, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, James, First Peter, or First John. Questions were raised about several shorter epistles, and, most notably, Hebrews and Revelation. There was also some discussion about The Shepherd of Hermas; and the letters of Clement were accepted in some circles as canonical down to the fourth century (1). The Epistle of Barnabas that appears in collections of post-New Testament Christian writings appears to have gained currency in some circles during the second century; the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, of which much is made by the Jesus Seminar and its mass media shills, also appears to be of second century provenance,and remained lost until the dry Egyptian climate allowed it to be rediscovered by modern archaeologists (2).
Perhaps someone might raise the question of why Luke-Acts and Mark were included, since their authors were not apostles. The reason is that Mark was known to be closely associated with Peter, while Luke was closely associated with Paul. This close association with one or more apostles may hold the key to the question of why the letter to the Hebrews could be treated like Scripture as early as the late 60's of the first century by Clement of Rome, whose First Letter is perhaps the oldest Christian writing from outside the New Testament.
In Hebrews 2:3-4, the author of Hebrews describes himself as hearing the Gospel from those who heard it from the Lord, and notes that those first hearers received divine attestation through the signs and wonders they wrought--the "signs of an apostle" which Paul mentions in Second Corinthians 12:12. This position of "second generation" believer who witnessed apostolic signs and wonders by no means excludes people like Luke or Apollos, yet it would certainly include someone like Barnabas.
A further indication that Barnabas may have been the author of Hebrews lies in its language. The Greek of Hebrews is elegant and polished, which was one of the arguments raised since ancient times against its Pauline authorship. Like that of Luke-Acts, it approximates the educated standards of Hellenistic and Roman times. This is one reason why Luke, in collaboration with Paul, has also been put forward as a possible author for Hebrews.
Some have questioned whether a priest or Levite would write in educated Greek. Yet the history of the Jews in the last three centuries before Christ and the evidence of the New Testament itself answers this objection, showing that a Jewish education in the Greek language was entirely within the range of possibilities for many people in the first century.
Since the conquest of the Middle East by Alexander the Great in the 4th century B.C., Greek had become the lingua franca of all lands around the Mediterranean, and was known as far afield as the Punjab and the Pamirs by persons of many ethnicities. The city of Alexandria in Egypt was the center of a widespread Greek-speaking Jewish diaspora. The book of Acts speaks of synagogues of Alexandrians, Cyrenians, and Cilicians in Jerusalem, doubtlessly founded by Greek-speaking Jews who had moved to Jerusalem from primarily Greek-speaking lands. Even persons born in Judaea and Galilee often bore Greek names, as those of the apostles Andrew and Philip attest, as well as that of the Rabbinical sage Antigonus of Socho, whose pupil Tzadok is seen in Rabbinical literature as the founder of the Sadducaean sect.
The Jews of the Mediterranean world--including, apparently, some in 'Eretz Yisrael itself--took to the Greek language to the point where the Scriptures had to be translated into that language. The Septuagint, so-named because it was traditionally ascribed to seventy scholars assembled by King Ptolemy Philadelphos at Alexandria in 200 B.C., while uneven in quality as a translation, has many parts that reveal both a high degree of skill and a sensitivity to the Hebrew from which it was translated. This indicates that by the time it was produced, there were sufficient numbers of Jews who both required its production and who possessed the necessary linguistic and exegetical skills to produce it. This work both instructed synagogues and informed inquiring Gentiles for several centuries. Throughout the New Testament, when the Old is cited, it is usually in the Septuagint version. In Hebrews, virtually all Scriptural citations are from that version. The Septuagint became the official Bible of Mediterranean Christians early, and its use by this community caused non-Christian Jews to abandon the Septuagint in favor of later versions by Theodotion and Symmachus.
If Barnabas was indeed the author of Hebrews, he would not have been the only Jewish author to fluently master the Greek language. Apart from the other authors of the New Testament, other Jewish writers who used Greek included the philosopher Philo of Alexandria, the historian Flavius Josephus, Jason of Cyrene who chronicled the history of the Maccabbees, and Ezekiel the Tragedian. His birth and upbringing in Cyprus would have increased the likelihood that he had a greater familiarity with Greek than with either Aramaic or Hebrew, and would increase the likelihood that his biblical education featured the Septuagint.
The author of Hebrews must have had a close association with the Apostle Paul; and, once again, Barnabas fits. The ascription of Hebrews to Paul stems from the clear affinities between its teachings and that of Paul, noted even by ancient writers who challenged its Pauline authorship. The argument against Pauline authorship stresses that the author of Hebrews admits he received the Gospel from those who had heard Christ rather than through revelation (Heb. 2:3-4, comp. Gal. 1:11-12), and notes signs and wonders as attestation to that earlier group of the Lord's hearers, rather than claiming such works for himself, a clear contrast to Paul's claim of having exhibited the miraculous "signs of an apostle" (II Cor. 12:12). The evidence of another of Paul's associates, Clement of Rome, has been cited above.
This admittedly does not rule out Apollos, the Alexandrian Jew instructed by Paul at Ephesus, whom Martin Luther put forth as a possible author for Hebrews. Adolf von Harnack's suggestion that Priscilla was the author cannot be completely ruled out either, although the linguistic usages of the book more strongly suggest a male author. Barnabas is more likely chiefly because of the book's use of Temple ritual to illustrate the atoning work of Christ.
But, there is perhaps one other witness to possible authorship by Barnabas, and that is the second century work that bears his name--and has also been recognized as pseudepigrapha from ancient times.
Hebrews compares the finished work of Jesus Christ to the Temple rituals followed prior to Jesus' coming. The later so-called "Barnabas" stresses "two ways", that contrast Christianity and Judaism, stressing the superiority of the former, for a time when the two faiths had become increasingly distinct. Perhaps this self-conscious making explicit some themes that are implicit in Hebrews and then ascribing them to the first century associate of Paul could reflect and earlier tradition that Hebrews is Barnabas' work--which was explicitly stated by the African church father Tertullian shortly after the pseudepigraphal Barnabas appeared.
(VI) Conclusion
Granted, the identification of Barnabas as author of Hebrews is at best a possible conjecture based on the epistle's use of levitical ritual as a tpe of Christ's work, knowledge of Scripture, mastery of Greek, and likely association with Paul--all of which suggest the Hellenistic Levite Joses Barnabas of Cyprus. Admittedly, it answers a question that cannot be answered save by God Himself, as many others have noted. Yet the possibility that Barnabas wrote Hebrews is a defensible position, and should be kept open for all who value the New Testament.
NOTES:
(1) The possibility that some regarded Clement as canonical is chiefly attested to its inclusion in certain ancient codices of the Bible. Yet some caution should be exercised here. Other medieval codices, dating from times when the canon was set and unquestioned, may also hold other non-biblical material. What will later archaeologists think of English-speaking Christians' canon when they find tattered copies of the Authorized Version bearing the Epistle Dedicatory to King James? Will they argue that the question of canon was not settled by the 17th century? I have seen Korean believers with their Bibles and hymnals bound as a single volume. Will our hypothetical future archaeologists wonder if a certain collection of Korean hymns was also a latter-day inspired Psalter?
(2) While some make much of "lost books of the Bible" and charge church leaders of times past with "suppressing" these works, the fact is that such "lost books" were never truly "lost"; and many were respected as orthodox rather than condemned. Some, such as the letters of Clement, were known, read, and preserved by literate Christians from the time they were first penned. Some, like the writings of Papias, and associate of John the apostle, seem to have been lost by accident, save for fragments preserved by later authors. Many of these books were always valued highly by orthodox believers, yet never granted the same regard as the apostolic writings that became the New Testament. Hence, something like the Shepherd of Hermas was probably originally seen as an edifying novel, much as highly biblicist heirs of the Puritans honor Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. A work like the letters of Clement, Polycarp, or Papias would be honored the way modern Christians might respect the theological or ethical works of modern authors. Some, like various apocryphal and pseudepigraphical Gospels, Acts, and epistles of the second and third centuries were always recognized for what they were, and, in the words of F.F. Bruce "excluded themselves".
In addition to presenting Jesus Christ as fully divine and fully human, the Bible also presents him in terms of his threefold office of prophet, priest, and king. The Epistle to the Hebrews focuses chiefly on Jesus' priestly ministry.
The Epistle describes Jesus as our "great high priest" who ministers not in an earthly temple or sanctuary, but in Heaven (Heb. 4:14). This is perhaps one of the most radical teachings of the New Testament. The letter to the Hebrews seems to have been written to a congregation of Messianic Jews, possible living in 'Eretz Yisrael, who are reminded that the believers in Jesus the Messiah have a share in an altar to which their contemporary levitical priests have no share (Heb. 13:10), who need to be encouraged by the examples of the Patriarchs and Moses who were uprooted from the places where they had been born (Heb. 11:8-19), and who seem to be about to be sent "without the camp" (13:13). Given that the Epistle gives no hint that the Second Temple had been destroyed, it is likely that its addressees were had been accustomed to access to the Temple but were now being cut off from that former fellowship. Hence, a congregation of Jewish Christians in or near Jerusalem during the 60's of the first century seems the most likely audience.
Today, it is easy for us to lose sight of what a wrenching experience this would have been for a group of first century Jews. The function of a modern Jewish rabbi (who is generally not of priestly descent) is radically different from that of the Kohen of biblical times. Whereas modern and Rabbinical Judaism stresses ethical action, that of Moses laid great stress on sacrificial rituals of atonement. This is the burden of much of Exodus and Leviticus. The needs of this cult called forth the building of the original Israelite sanctuary at Shiloh, and then, under Solomon, the building of the first temple. The Second Temple, rebuilt after the Babylonian exile and greatly expanded under Herod the Great, was the spiritual center of the Jewish world. It remained the place of atonement, and the focus of pilgrimage by Jews from all over the world. To be denied a share in its cult would thus have been tantamount to being cut off from the Jewish people.
Hence, the writer to the Hebrews seeks to re-assure his hearers that they are gathered about the Messiah himself; and that this Messiah is a priest.
But how can one who is of the kingly lineage of Judah serve as a priest? Is not the priesthood given to Aaron, the brother of Moses, and descendant of Levi? The writer to the Hebrews thus goes to some length to note how Jesus could be a priest, even though he was of the kingly tribe of Judah rather than that of Levi, by comparing him to the mysterious Melchizedek of Genesis, to whom Abraham offered a tithe long before either Levi or Judah had been born. He then goes on to remind the readers of how the Levitical rituals were performed, and of the design of the Temple.
But where is the sacrifice Jesus offers? He offered himself once and for all, and then sat down at the right hand of God the Father (Heb. 1:3, 10:12). This is spoken of as the purging of our sins, and a sacrifice for our sins in language reminiscent of the book of Leviticus.Hebrews 9 speaks of how the priests of old sprinkled the sacrificial blood of bulls and goats for the purifying of men and things; then noting "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (9:14).
Jesus' sacrifice of himself on the cross is likened to the High Priest's annual entry into the Holy of Holies, which occurred on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. However, whereas the High Priest needed to continually offer sacrifices, Jesus' sacrifice was a unique, one-time event, and complete. This sacrifice of Jesus is the very thing on which the believer may stake his soul.
Hence, for those who follow Jesus and enjoy the fruits of his atoning work, being sent "without the camp" can be borne. The believers may have been cut off from their older fellowship, but they are now pilgrims, as were Abraham and the patriarchs, en route to the City of God (Heb. 11:10). As for the sacrifice of Jesus in which they have trusted, it is complete, final, and in no need of repetition. Hence,while on earth, these exiles and wanderers outside the camp are
in fact worshiping in the heavenly Jerusalem above.
This theme is not alien to the rest of the New Testament. Paul often speaks of the reconciliation of sinners with God through Jesus' death on the cross. Peter speaks most clearly of substitutionary atonement when he notes that Jesus' death is that of the just for the unjust to bring us to God (I Pt. 3:18), and in bearing our sins in his own body on the tree (I Pet. 2:24). Jesus himself speaks of how he has come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mk. 10:45). Perhaps the uniqueness of Hebrews, though, lies in it comparison between Jesus and the High Priest.
(IV) Barnabas the Levite
Perhaps, then, the priestly theme in Hebrews suggests that the author was either a priest or Levite himself. Clearly, the author was familiar with the Old Testament, especially its sacrificial ritual. This ritual informs the bulk of his work.
Acts mentions that a number of priests became believers (6:7). Yet little more is said of this group of men. Certainly no name from among them stands out; although it would not be surprising if some went on to proclaim Jesus following the persecution following the stoning of Stephen.
Yet one man of the tribe of Levi, of which the kohanim were a subgroup, does stand out. This is Joses Barnabas (Joseph Bar Naba), a Levite of Cyprus (Ac.4:36). Apparently, he had settled in Jerusalem, where he joined the church.
Luke tells us in the Acts that the apostles themselves named Joses Barnabas, meaning "son of consolation" or "son of encouragement" (Bar Naba). The name is also connected to the Hebrew and Aramaic word for prophecy. Barnabas is also identified as the maternal uncle to Mark (Col. 4:10), who in turn was so close to Simon Peter to be called the latter's "son" (I Pt. 5:13).
Barnabas became one whom the apostles sent out to proclaim the Gospel and to visit new churches established in Cyprus, Phonecia, and Antioch (Ac. 11:19-26). He is there when the believers in Jesus were first called "Christians", and introduces the newly converted Saul of Tarsus, later to be known as Paul, to the original apostles.
(V) Similarities Between the Author to the Hebrews and Barnabas
Barnabas' Levitical background and closeness to the apostles makes him a good candidate for the authorship of Hebrews. But, more importantly, his rare position as a "second generation" Christian and closeness to both the Jerusalem apostles and to Paul make him a good candidate for authorship of a book or written sermon that while not strictly apostolic, nonetheless was accepted as New Testament Scripture.
Contrary to popular belief, the formation of the New Testament canon was not a late, once-for-all act of the Council of Nicaea or other ecclesiastical council of the early Christian centuries. The canonization of the New Testament (the Old had been received complete from Judaism) was an obscure process that begins with the apostles themselves, and was more a matter of exclusion than inclusion. The chief canon for acceptance of a New Testament book was its apostolic authorship was, apart from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, apostolicity, or coming from an apostle. None among either the early church fathers or their heretical and semi-heretical opponents expressed any doubt about the genuineness of the Four Gospels, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, James, First Peter, or First John. Questions were raised about several shorter epistles, and, most notably, Hebrews and Revelation. There was also some discussion about The Shepherd of Hermas; and the letters of Clement were accepted in some circles as canonical down to the fourth century (1). The Epistle of Barnabas that appears in collections of post-New Testament Christian writings appears to have gained currency in some circles during the second century; the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, of which much is made by the Jesus Seminar and its mass media shills, also appears to be of second century provenance,and remained lost until the dry Egyptian climate allowed it to be rediscovered by modern archaeologists (2).
Perhaps someone might raise the question of why Luke-Acts and Mark were included, since their authors were not apostles. The reason is that Mark was known to be closely associated with Peter, while Luke was closely associated with Paul. This close association with one or more apostles may hold the key to the question of why the letter to the Hebrews could be treated like Scripture as early as the late 60's of the first century by Clement of Rome, whose First Letter is perhaps the oldest Christian writing from outside the New Testament.
In Hebrews 2:3-4, the author of Hebrews describes himself as hearing the Gospel from those who heard it from the Lord, and notes that those first hearers received divine attestation through the signs and wonders they wrought--the "signs of an apostle" which Paul mentions in Second Corinthians 12:12. This position of "second generation" believer who witnessed apostolic signs and wonders by no means excludes people like Luke or Apollos, yet it would certainly include someone like Barnabas.
A further indication that Barnabas may have been the author of Hebrews lies in its language. The Greek of Hebrews is elegant and polished, which was one of the arguments raised since ancient times against its Pauline authorship. Like that of Luke-Acts, it approximates the educated standards of Hellenistic and Roman times. This is one reason why Luke, in collaboration with Paul, has also been put forward as a possible author for Hebrews.
Some have questioned whether a priest or Levite would write in educated Greek. Yet the history of the Jews in the last three centuries before Christ and the evidence of the New Testament itself answers this objection, showing that a Jewish education in the Greek language was entirely within the range of possibilities for many people in the first century.
Since the conquest of the Middle East by Alexander the Great in the 4th century B.C., Greek had become the lingua franca of all lands around the Mediterranean, and was known as far afield as the Punjab and the Pamirs by persons of many ethnicities. The city of Alexandria in Egypt was the center of a widespread Greek-speaking Jewish diaspora. The book of Acts speaks of synagogues of Alexandrians, Cyrenians, and Cilicians in Jerusalem, doubtlessly founded by Greek-speaking Jews who had moved to Jerusalem from primarily Greek-speaking lands. Even persons born in Judaea and Galilee often bore Greek names, as those of the apostles Andrew and Philip attest, as well as that of the Rabbinical sage Antigonus of Socho, whose pupil Tzadok is seen in Rabbinical literature as the founder of the Sadducaean sect.
The Jews of the Mediterranean world--including, apparently, some in 'Eretz Yisrael itself--took to the Greek language to the point where the Scriptures had to be translated into that language. The Septuagint, so-named because it was traditionally ascribed to seventy scholars assembled by King Ptolemy Philadelphos at Alexandria in 200 B.C., while uneven in quality as a translation, has many parts that reveal both a high degree of skill and a sensitivity to the Hebrew from which it was translated. This indicates that by the time it was produced, there were sufficient numbers of Jews who both required its production and who possessed the necessary linguistic and exegetical skills to produce it. This work both instructed synagogues and informed inquiring Gentiles for several centuries. Throughout the New Testament, when the Old is cited, it is usually in the Septuagint version. In Hebrews, virtually all Scriptural citations are from that version. The Septuagint became the official Bible of Mediterranean Christians early, and its use by this community caused non-Christian Jews to abandon the Septuagint in favor of later versions by Theodotion and Symmachus.
If Barnabas was indeed the author of Hebrews, he would not have been the only Jewish author to fluently master the Greek language. Apart from the other authors of the New Testament, other Jewish writers who used Greek included the philosopher Philo of Alexandria, the historian Flavius Josephus, Jason of Cyrene who chronicled the history of the Maccabbees, and Ezekiel the Tragedian. His birth and upbringing in Cyprus would have increased the likelihood that he had a greater familiarity with Greek than with either Aramaic or Hebrew, and would increase the likelihood that his biblical education featured the Septuagint.
The author of Hebrews must have had a close association with the Apostle Paul; and, once again, Barnabas fits. The ascription of Hebrews to Paul stems from the clear affinities between its teachings and that of Paul, noted even by ancient writers who challenged its Pauline authorship. The argument against Pauline authorship stresses that the author of Hebrews admits he received the Gospel from those who had heard Christ rather than through revelation (Heb. 2:3-4, comp. Gal. 1:11-12), and notes signs and wonders as attestation to that earlier group of the Lord's hearers, rather than claiming such works for himself, a clear contrast to Paul's claim of having exhibited the miraculous "signs of an apostle" (II Cor. 12:12). The evidence of another of Paul's associates, Clement of Rome, has been cited above.
This admittedly does not rule out Apollos, the Alexandrian Jew instructed by Paul at Ephesus, whom Martin Luther put forth as a possible author for Hebrews. Adolf von Harnack's suggestion that Priscilla was the author cannot be completely ruled out either, although the linguistic usages of the book more strongly suggest a male author. Barnabas is more likely chiefly because of the book's use of Temple ritual to illustrate the atoning work of Christ.
But, there is perhaps one other witness to possible authorship by Barnabas, and that is the second century work that bears his name--and has also been recognized as pseudepigrapha from ancient times.
Hebrews compares the finished work of Jesus Christ to the Temple rituals followed prior to Jesus' coming. The later so-called "Barnabas" stresses "two ways", that contrast Christianity and Judaism, stressing the superiority of the former, for a time when the two faiths had become increasingly distinct. Perhaps this self-conscious making explicit some themes that are implicit in Hebrews and then ascribing them to the first century associate of Paul could reflect and earlier tradition that Hebrews is Barnabas' work--which was explicitly stated by the African church father Tertullian shortly after the pseudepigraphal Barnabas appeared.
(VI) Conclusion
Granted, the identification of Barnabas as author of Hebrews is at best a possible conjecture based on the epistle's use of levitical ritual as a tpe of Christ's work, knowledge of Scripture, mastery of Greek, and likely association with Paul--all of which suggest the Hellenistic Levite Joses Barnabas of Cyprus. Admittedly, it answers a question that cannot be answered save by God Himself, as many others have noted. Yet the possibility that Barnabas wrote Hebrews is a defensible position, and should be kept open for all who value the New Testament.
NOTES:
(1) The possibility that some regarded Clement as canonical is chiefly attested to its inclusion in certain ancient codices of the Bible. Yet some caution should be exercised here. Other medieval codices, dating from times when the canon was set and unquestioned, may also hold other non-biblical material. What will later archaeologists think of English-speaking Christians' canon when they find tattered copies of the Authorized Version bearing the Epistle Dedicatory to King James? Will they argue that the question of canon was not settled by the 17th century? I have seen Korean believers with their Bibles and hymnals bound as a single volume. Will our hypothetical future archaeologists wonder if a certain collection of Korean hymns was also a latter-day inspired Psalter?
(2) While some make much of "lost books of the Bible" and charge church leaders of times past with "suppressing" these works, the fact is that such "lost books" were never truly "lost"; and many were respected as orthodox rather than condemned. Some, such as the letters of Clement, were known, read, and preserved by literate Christians from the time they were first penned. Some, like the writings of Papias, and associate of John the apostle, seem to have been lost by accident, save for fragments preserved by later authors. Many of these books were always valued highly by orthodox believers, yet never granted the same regard as the apostolic writings that became the New Testament. Hence, something like the Shepherd of Hermas was probably originally seen as an edifying novel, much as highly biblicist heirs of the Puritans honor Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. A work like the letters of Clement, Polycarp, or Papias would be honored the way modern Christians might respect the theological or ethical works of modern authors. Some, like various apocryphal and pseudepigraphical Gospels, Acts, and epistles of the second and third centuries were always recognized for what they were, and, in the words of F.F. Bruce "excluded themselves".
Sunday, March 17, 2013
A Genuine Epistle of Barnabas? Part I
(I) Introduction
Students of early Christian literature know of an Epistle of Barnabas written, most likely, some time in the early second century A.D. Its date makes it highly unlikely that it was written by the Joseph Barnabas, the "son of encouragement", mentioned in Acts 4:36-37. A so-called "Gospel of Barnabas" has gained currency in Islamic circles, but it is clearly a medieval forgery, most likely produced by an educated apostate Latin Christian who was utterly unfamiliar with the geography of 'Eretz Yisrael.
However, it is possible that Barnabas has left us a genuine literary monument in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This work is in the form of a sermon rather than a letter, and does not identify its author save that he is associated with Timothy and certain persons from Italy. Its author is rightly said to be known only to God, but scholars ancient and modern have suggested a number of authors, especially Paul. This essay, however, seeks to make a case that Barnabas may have been the author of Hebrews.
Virtually all we know of the Barnabas to whom these works are attributed is found in the Book of Acts and Epistles of Paul in the New Testament. His introduction in Acts 4: 36-37 reads:
And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, Con of exhortation), a Levite, a man of Cyprus by race, having a field, sold it, and laid it at the apostles' feet (ASV).
Later, he appears as he brings the newly converted Saul of Tarsus (Paul), the former persecutor of the church, into the circle of the disciples at Jerusalem. When Paul is sent out to preach the Gospel to the nations--the true meaning of "Gentiles"--Barnabas accompanies him from Antioch to Cyprus and southern Asia Minor before returning to their base at Antioch. However, Paul and Barnabas fall out with each other over Barnabas' wanting to take his nephew Mark on the next missionary journey; for Paul apparently decided that Mark's having earlier left them in Pamphylia meant that he was unreliable.
Barnabas also gets some mention in Paul's letters of First Corinthians, Galatians, and Colossians. The last-mentioned is perhaps the most significant, for there Mark is described as Barnabas' nephew, and, apparently, reconciled to Paul prior to Paul's imprisonment.
(II) The Problem of the Authorship of Hebrews
Readers of the King James Bible are familiar with the superscription to the epistle, which identifies it as having been written by Paul. Further, numerous others have supported its Pauline authorship. But writing in the fourth century, but dependent on a wide range of earlier sources, Eusebius of Caesarea states:
...And the fourteen letters of Paul re obvious and plain, yet it is not right to ignore that some dispute the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was rejected by the church of Rome, as not being by Paul, and I will expound at the proper time what was said about it by our predecessors (1).
Clearly, Eusebius accepted the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, but nonetheless noted the doubts which placed it among the Antilegomena, those books of the New Testament whose apsotolicity was questioned. Of Origen's (184/85-253/54 A.D.) opinion, he writes:
...he discusses the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it: "That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle's [Paul's] rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences in style. but again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this everyone will cocnsent as true who has given attention to the reading of the apostle...But as for myself, if I were to state my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle's, but that the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostles teaching..."(2)
Questions about the authorship of Hebrews, then, have been around for about as long as it has been read.
During the Reformation,Calvin writes:
As to its author, we need not be greatly worried. Some think that the author was Paul, others Like, others Barnabas, and others Clement, as Jerome says...I can adduce no reason to show that Paul was its author; for those who say that he designedly suppressed his name because it was haateful to the Jews, make no relevant case (3).
Calvin wrote as a careful student of New Testament Greek and the early church fathers. In his opinion, he follows Desiderius Erasmus, Cardinal Cajetan, and Martin Luther, other 16th century writers representing respectively Renaissance humanism, Roman Catholicism, and the Reformation in reviving ancient doubts about Paul's authorship of Hebrews. Luther went so far as to suggest Apollos, a learned Jewish Christian of Alexandrian associated with Paul, as the author.
However, a point that stands out among all the doubts cast on the Pauline authorship of the letter is that its thought is close to that of Paul and the other apostles as expressed elsewhere in the New Testament. While such other antilegomena (as opposed to the notha, or spurious works) such as the Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas were excluded from the canon, Hebrews came to occupy an important place. Edgar Goodspeed notes that it is listed as second of the Pauline epistles in a recently discovered canon dated to roughly 200 B.C. But, more importantly, the First Letter of Clement, probably the earliest Christian writing outside those that make up the New Testament, echoes its thought and language in its thirty-sixth chapter. This work includes numerous echoes of other works of the Old and New Testaments, although its direct citations from the New Testament are few. Clement's echoing of Hebrews suggests that by the end of the first century (or, perhaps, even before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.),Hebrews was held in high esteem, and probably recognized as coming from someone within the apostolic circle.
Tertullian (160-225 A.D.), the North African Latin lawyer who was among the first important Christian authors to use Latin, was an early witness to Barnabas' being the author of Hebrews (On Sexual Modesty/Pudicity), albeit only in passing, mentioning that Paul and Barnabas were examples of sexual abstinence.
However, the information about Barnabas himself and the character of the Epistle to the Hebrews are perhaps the most important hints that Barnabas may have been the author. These include his Cypriot origins, levitical background, and the attention which Hebrews pays to the Temple cult.
(to be continued)
NOTES:
(1) Eusebius,1975. Ecclesiastical History. ed. and trans. Kirsopp Lake. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, vol. I, 193.
(2) ibid., II,77.
(3) Calvin, Jean. 1974. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. trans. William B. Johnston. Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans. 1.
Students of early Christian literature know of an Epistle of Barnabas written, most likely, some time in the early second century A.D. Its date makes it highly unlikely that it was written by the Joseph Barnabas, the "son of encouragement", mentioned in Acts 4:36-37. A so-called "Gospel of Barnabas" has gained currency in Islamic circles, but it is clearly a medieval forgery, most likely produced by an educated apostate Latin Christian who was utterly unfamiliar with the geography of 'Eretz Yisrael.
However, it is possible that Barnabas has left us a genuine literary monument in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This work is in the form of a sermon rather than a letter, and does not identify its author save that he is associated with Timothy and certain persons from Italy. Its author is rightly said to be known only to God, but scholars ancient and modern have suggested a number of authors, especially Paul. This essay, however, seeks to make a case that Barnabas may have been the author of Hebrews.
Virtually all we know of the Barnabas to whom these works are attributed is found in the Book of Acts and Epistles of Paul in the New Testament. His introduction in Acts 4: 36-37 reads:
And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, Con of exhortation), a Levite, a man of Cyprus by race, having a field, sold it, and laid it at the apostles' feet (ASV).
Later, he appears as he brings the newly converted Saul of Tarsus (Paul), the former persecutor of the church, into the circle of the disciples at Jerusalem. When Paul is sent out to preach the Gospel to the nations--the true meaning of "Gentiles"--Barnabas accompanies him from Antioch to Cyprus and southern Asia Minor before returning to their base at Antioch. However, Paul and Barnabas fall out with each other over Barnabas' wanting to take his nephew Mark on the next missionary journey; for Paul apparently decided that Mark's having earlier left them in Pamphylia meant that he was unreliable.
Barnabas also gets some mention in Paul's letters of First Corinthians, Galatians, and Colossians. The last-mentioned is perhaps the most significant, for there Mark is described as Barnabas' nephew, and, apparently, reconciled to Paul prior to Paul's imprisonment.
(II) The Problem of the Authorship of Hebrews
Readers of the King James Bible are familiar with the superscription to the epistle, which identifies it as having been written by Paul. Further, numerous others have supported its Pauline authorship. But writing in the fourth century, but dependent on a wide range of earlier sources, Eusebius of Caesarea states:
...And the fourteen letters of Paul re obvious and plain, yet it is not right to ignore that some dispute the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was rejected by the church of Rome, as not being by Paul, and I will expound at the proper time what was said about it by our predecessors (1).
Clearly, Eusebius accepted the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, but nonetheless noted the doubts which placed it among the Antilegomena, those books of the New Testament whose apsotolicity was questioned. Of Origen's (184/85-253/54 A.D.) opinion, he writes:
...he discusses the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it: "That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle's [Paul's] rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences in style. but again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this everyone will cocnsent as true who has given attention to the reading of the apostle...But as for myself, if I were to state my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle's, but that the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostles teaching..."(2)
Questions about the authorship of Hebrews, then, have been around for about as long as it has been read.
During the Reformation,Calvin writes:
As to its author, we need not be greatly worried. Some think that the author was Paul, others Like, others Barnabas, and others Clement, as Jerome says...I can adduce no reason to show that Paul was its author; for those who say that he designedly suppressed his name because it was haateful to the Jews, make no relevant case (3).
Calvin wrote as a careful student of New Testament Greek and the early church fathers. In his opinion, he follows Desiderius Erasmus, Cardinal Cajetan, and Martin Luther, other 16th century writers representing respectively Renaissance humanism, Roman Catholicism, and the Reformation in reviving ancient doubts about Paul's authorship of Hebrews. Luther went so far as to suggest Apollos, a learned Jewish Christian of Alexandrian associated with Paul, as the author.
However, a point that stands out among all the doubts cast on the Pauline authorship of the letter is that its thought is close to that of Paul and the other apostles as expressed elsewhere in the New Testament. While such other antilegomena (as opposed to the notha, or spurious works) such as the Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas were excluded from the canon, Hebrews came to occupy an important place. Edgar Goodspeed notes that it is listed as second of the Pauline epistles in a recently discovered canon dated to roughly 200 B.C. But, more importantly, the First Letter of Clement, probably the earliest Christian writing outside those that make up the New Testament, echoes its thought and language in its thirty-sixth chapter. This work includes numerous echoes of other works of the Old and New Testaments, although its direct citations from the New Testament are few. Clement's echoing of Hebrews suggests that by the end of the first century (or, perhaps, even before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.),Hebrews was held in high esteem, and probably recognized as coming from someone within the apostolic circle.
Tertullian (160-225 A.D.), the North African Latin lawyer who was among the first important Christian authors to use Latin, was an early witness to Barnabas' being the author of Hebrews (On Sexual Modesty/Pudicity), albeit only in passing, mentioning that Paul and Barnabas were examples of sexual abstinence.
However, the information about Barnabas himself and the character of the Epistle to the Hebrews are perhaps the most important hints that Barnabas may have been the author. These include his Cypriot origins, levitical background, and the attention which Hebrews pays to the Temple cult.
(to be continued)
NOTES:
(1) Eusebius,1975. Ecclesiastical History. ed. and trans. Kirsopp Lake. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, vol. I, 193.
(2) ibid., II,77.
(3) Calvin, Jean. 1974. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. trans. William B. Johnston. Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans. 1.
Friday, March 15, 2013
A Fascinating Story
This is a book I tracked down online. I first encountered the title while reading Al-Shamir's _Republic of Fear_:
sawdayee.com
It is an online edition of Max Sawdayee's _All Waiting to be Hanged_, which is essentially one man's chronicle of the very last days of Iraqi Jewry, a community which dates back at least to the 6th century B.C.
sawdayee.com
It is an online edition of Max Sawdayee's _All Waiting to be Hanged_, which is essentially one man's chronicle of the very last days of Iraqi Jewry, a community which dates back at least to the 6th century B.C.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
An interesting Memoir of the Southeast Asian Tsunami
Here's an interesting assessment of one of the major icons of the modern world.
http://thediplomad.blogspot.com/2013/01/another-january-re-run-vulture-elite.html?showComment=1357397896410#c3233966842639893899
The author is a former Foreign Service Officer (although Uncle Cephas has no idea about his real identity).
The author puts down some reasons why Uncle Cephas, while accepting and aware of how we live in "one world", is nonetheless a convincced skeptic when it comes to the UN as the possible nucleus of a world government.
http://thediplomad.blogspot.com/2013/01/another-january-re-run-vulture-elite.html?showComment=1357397896410#c3233966842639893899
The author is a former Foreign Service Officer (although Uncle Cephas has no idea about his real identity).
The author puts down some reasons why Uncle Cephas, while accepting and aware of how we live in "one world", is nonetheless a convincced skeptic when it comes to the UN as the possible nucleus of a world government.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Merry Christmas! Thoughts on Jesus' Genealogy
One of the portions of Scripture I look over at least once every year--and sometimes at Christmas--is the genealogy of Jesus Christ given in Matthew 1:1-17. Since I tend to prefer the King James Version more as I get older, it's a passage that is full of "begats", so I'm sure people will wonder why I value it so much.
Now, don't get me wrong. I believe the nativity narratives of Matthew 2 and Luke 2 are glorious, whether read in English, Greek, Chinese, or French, to list my own reading languages. As for the Prologue to the Gospel of John, which is often read on Christmas, I can only bow before the majesty of its message, that God Himself took on our flesh and dwelt among us. But the genealogy of Christ given in Matthew is a strong reminder of how Jesus is not only truly God and truly man in one person, but how fully he identified with our humanity. "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren" (Hebrews 2:11). Indeed, the opening chapter of Matthew gives us the message of the whole Bible on a single page.
What sort of brethren does our Lord confess?
Jesus Christ has a history as do all other men. By placing Jesus in the context of a long family history, the Gospel shows us Jesus as a real, flesh-and-blood human being living among other men and taking his place among them. Yes, I confess the Virgin Birth as showing how Christ offers a new beginning for our human race, but I think that Matthew's purpose in his first chapter is to stress that Jesus comes with a family and a history. There is a clear time-and-place context into which he comes. He is not merely a myth of some distant dreamtime or a fictitious "everyman". He has called another man his father, and that father Joseph had others whom he called father. He has a mother named Mary who is a wife.
And, as a man, Jesus is as unique as any other; indeed, more so. He bears his name, and had we lived in the Judaea and Galilee of the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate, and asked for one Jesus son of Joseph son of Jacob son of Matthan, people might have turned us around in the road, pointed to one of the neighbors, and told us, "that's him."
By no means is the confession of Jesus' humanity a sin or the preserve of the scornful or the scoffer. The ancient creeds that tell us he was truly and fully man as well as truly and fully God based themselves not on late corruption, but on the testimony of the Gospels. So, in this season of the year, let us be thankful for the King of glory who took on and knew our very human woe.
Jesus Christ identifies with his own Jewish people. People are historical, cultural, and social animals. Indeed, when Aristotle spoke of man as a "political animal", he meant that man is a creature who finds his place as part of a defined community--the city, or polis, of ancient Greek thought.
The Bible says the same of Jesus by placing him squarely in the stream of Jewish history. Matthew's genealogy not only lists the illustrious names of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that of the kings David and Solomon, but also points out how Jesus' family history was marked by the rise of the patriarchal family, the growth of the Israelite kingdom, and even the great chastisement of the Babylonian captivity.
And this should cause us to pause and consider. How often are the great narratives of political movements, nations, companies, and families no more than the dreary recounting of how great the publicist's clients are; how splendid their triumphs; how worthy they are on their own achievements to rule over and direct us lesser mortals. How much our modern stories reinforce our cynical view that history is written by winners in order to justify themselves.
Yet the Biblical history with which Jesus identifies is one that is written by losers, who admit their own failing.
Often, especially in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, in which awareness of Islam in all of its ugly triumphalism became more widespread, the foes of the Gospel were quick to point out that the Books of Moses and Joshua called for the wholesale extermination of the Canaanites and record the divine wrath against the whole cities of Sodom and Gommorah. But these critics too often missed the fine print. The Torah warns the Israelites that if they fell into the same abominations practiced by the nations in the land of Canaan, they, too, would meet a similar fate. The historical books of the Old Testament record for us not the pleasant tale of conquest, but the cautionary tale of a heedless nation that periodically ignored the divine warnings, and so came to exile by the rivers of Babylon. The books of the prophets, while full of hope in the future Messiah, are at the same time divine indictments of an unbelieving people. Yet by God's grace that failure of the Hebrew kingdoms was the backdrop for the late coming of the Messiah, which Matthew announces.
If you are an ambitious student of the Scriptures--which I pray that all may become, read the Gospel of Matthew after a reading through of the entire Old Testament, especially the Torah, historical books, and prophets. The life of Jesus which Matthew presents is that of the Messiah recapitulating in his own individual life the life of the nation, from an infancy in Egypt (perhaps he there learned the Greek of teeming Alexandria, the language in which the New Testament was written?) to an exile on the eastern side of Jerusalem, the Mount of Olives, perhaps on the same spot over which the prophet Ezekiel observed the Shekinah glory departing some centuries earlier, to an atoning death fulfilling all those of the Levitical cult, to a resurrection presaging that promised in Psalm 16, Daniel 12, and Ezekiel 36.
But before we pass from this Israelite history to other lessons given by Jesus' genealogy, let us pause to consider some of the people listed.
Jesus Christ, although sinless, identifies with sinners. Our Lord belongs to the tribe of Judah, begun in an illicit coitus between the patriarch and his daughter-in-law Judah. Of most of the kings in the genealogy, the Bible gives a negative judgment of how they led their people in sin. We see a refutation of the proud doctrine of salvation by race rather than grace in the Gentiles Rahab and Ruth; showing how indeed the house of Abraham was starting to be a blessing to the nations (cf. Gen. 12:1-3) even before the final, great blessing God brings in the Messiah. Yet one of these women who contributed to our Lord's heritage was, the Bible tells us, the harlot Rehab.
So, if Jesus Christ is not ashamed to list such people as his kin, let us learn a humility in dealing with others, and let us not think better of ourselves.
We are rightly concerned with the decay of the American family and the widespread "immoral revolution" sweeping our land. Yet some of the people whom Jesus took as his kinsmen were themselves caught up in very similar failures and sins. These, however, were embraced by the Word of God to be forgiven and remade.
Yes, our Lord rebuked sin. Even before he became man and dwelt among us, he rebuked sin through the Law and the Prophets. But his coming was not to merely judge sin--and if thou, O LORD, shouldst mark iniquities, who could stand? (Psalm 130)--but also to work atonement, through which sinners might be reconciled to God. And this is the great work which Christ calls us to continue. I hear from many the complaint that we Christians are often sanctimonious and judgmental. Perhaps it has some justice. We should remind our hearers that the point of having a church and continuing the witness is so that more fallen and sinful people might, through Jesus Christ, be reconciled to God.
So, in this season, let us humbly accept the gift of salvation which God has given us in Jesus Christ, and Confess him before men.
Now, don't get me wrong. I believe the nativity narratives of Matthew 2 and Luke 2 are glorious, whether read in English, Greek, Chinese, or French, to list my own reading languages. As for the Prologue to the Gospel of John, which is often read on Christmas, I can only bow before the majesty of its message, that God Himself took on our flesh and dwelt among us. But the genealogy of Christ given in Matthew is a strong reminder of how Jesus is not only truly God and truly man in one person, but how fully he identified with our humanity. "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren" (Hebrews 2:11). Indeed, the opening chapter of Matthew gives us the message of the whole Bible on a single page.
What sort of brethren does our Lord confess?
Jesus Christ has a history as do all other men. By placing Jesus in the context of a long family history, the Gospel shows us Jesus as a real, flesh-and-blood human being living among other men and taking his place among them. Yes, I confess the Virgin Birth as showing how Christ offers a new beginning for our human race, but I think that Matthew's purpose in his first chapter is to stress that Jesus comes with a family and a history. There is a clear time-and-place context into which he comes. He is not merely a myth of some distant dreamtime or a fictitious "everyman". He has called another man his father, and that father Joseph had others whom he called father. He has a mother named Mary who is a wife.
And, as a man, Jesus is as unique as any other; indeed, more so. He bears his name, and had we lived in the Judaea and Galilee of the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate, and asked for one Jesus son of Joseph son of Jacob son of Matthan, people might have turned us around in the road, pointed to one of the neighbors, and told us, "that's him."
By no means is the confession of Jesus' humanity a sin or the preserve of the scornful or the scoffer. The ancient creeds that tell us he was truly and fully man as well as truly and fully God based themselves not on late corruption, but on the testimony of the Gospels. So, in this season of the year, let us be thankful for the King of glory who took on and knew our very human woe.
Jesus Christ identifies with his own Jewish people. People are historical, cultural, and social animals. Indeed, when Aristotle spoke of man as a "political animal", he meant that man is a creature who finds his place as part of a defined community--the city, or polis, of ancient Greek thought.
The Bible says the same of Jesus by placing him squarely in the stream of Jewish history. Matthew's genealogy not only lists the illustrious names of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that of the kings David and Solomon, but also points out how Jesus' family history was marked by the rise of the patriarchal family, the growth of the Israelite kingdom, and even the great chastisement of the Babylonian captivity.
And this should cause us to pause and consider. How often are the great narratives of political movements, nations, companies, and families no more than the dreary recounting of how great the publicist's clients are; how splendid their triumphs; how worthy they are on their own achievements to rule over and direct us lesser mortals. How much our modern stories reinforce our cynical view that history is written by winners in order to justify themselves.
Yet the Biblical history with which Jesus identifies is one that is written by losers, who admit their own failing.
Often, especially in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, in which awareness of Islam in all of its ugly triumphalism became more widespread, the foes of the Gospel were quick to point out that the Books of Moses and Joshua called for the wholesale extermination of the Canaanites and record the divine wrath against the whole cities of Sodom and Gommorah. But these critics too often missed the fine print. The Torah warns the Israelites that if they fell into the same abominations practiced by the nations in the land of Canaan, they, too, would meet a similar fate. The historical books of the Old Testament record for us not the pleasant tale of conquest, but the cautionary tale of a heedless nation that periodically ignored the divine warnings, and so came to exile by the rivers of Babylon. The books of the prophets, while full of hope in the future Messiah, are at the same time divine indictments of an unbelieving people. Yet by God's grace that failure of the Hebrew kingdoms was the backdrop for the late coming of the Messiah, which Matthew announces.
If you are an ambitious student of the Scriptures--which I pray that all may become, read the Gospel of Matthew after a reading through of the entire Old Testament, especially the Torah, historical books, and prophets. The life of Jesus which Matthew presents is that of the Messiah recapitulating in his own individual life the life of the nation, from an infancy in Egypt (perhaps he there learned the Greek of teeming Alexandria, the language in which the New Testament was written?) to an exile on the eastern side of Jerusalem, the Mount of Olives, perhaps on the same spot over which the prophet Ezekiel observed the Shekinah glory departing some centuries earlier, to an atoning death fulfilling all those of the Levitical cult, to a resurrection presaging that promised in Psalm 16, Daniel 12, and Ezekiel 36.
But before we pass from this Israelite history to other lessons given by Jesus' genealogy, let us pause to consider some of the people listed.
Jesus Christ, although sinless, identifies with sinners. Our Lord belongs to the tribe of Judah, begun in an illicit coitus between the patriarch and his daughter-in-law Judah. Of most of the kings in the genealogy, the Bible gives a negative judgment of how they led their people in sin. We see a refutation of the proud doctrine of salvation by race rather than grace in the Gentiles Rahab and Ruth; showing how indeed the house of Abraham was starting to be a blessing to the nations (cf. Gen. 12:1-3) even before the final, great blessing God brings in the Messiah. Yet one of these women who contributed to our Lord's heritage was, the Bible tells us, the harlot Rehab.
So, if Jesus Christ is not ashamed to list such people as his kin, let us learn a humility in dealing with others, and let us not think better of ourselves.
We are rightly concerned with the decay of the American family and the widespread "immoral revolution" sweeping our land. Yet some of the people whom Jesus took as his kinsmen were themselves caught up in very similar failures and sins. These, however, were embraced by the Word of God to be forgiven and remade.
Yes, our Lord rebuked sin. Even before he became man and dwelt among us, he rebuked sin through the Law and the Prophets. But his coming was not to merely judge sin--and if thou, O LORD, shouldst mark iniquities, who could stand? (Psalm 130)--but also to work atonement, through which sinners might be reconciled to God. And this is the great work which Christ calls us to continue. I hear from many the complaint that we Christians are often sanctimonious and judgmental. Perhaps it has some justice. We should remind our hearers that the point of having a church and continuing the witness is so that more fallen and sinful people might, through Jesus Christ, be reconciled to God.
So, in this season, let us humbly accept the gift of salvation which God has given us in Jesus Christ, and Confess him before men.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
A Paean to the Good Life 矶法伯伯变为土包子
This morning, my daughter-in-law treated us all to baozi, a steamed bun stuffed with pork and vegetables. She has done this before, and while a think her former baozi were excellent, the ones she made were better.
My introduction to baozi came when I taught in Taiwan way back in the late 1970's. A small shop stood outside the place where I entered the campus, and every morning it sold baozi--either pork, cabbage, or a mixture. Now, a lot of Americans, especially those from urban areas, know the char siu bao, a Cantonese delight made with honey-glazed, red-colored roast pork made in the char siu (叉烧）style. However, the more "homestyle" pork baozi I encountered in Zhongli, Taiwan (台湾中坜）captured my taste buds. Char siu bao are a good snack every so often, but the sweetness is just a little too much for me, and jaunts to the Chinatowns of New York and Washington have warned me that I can often get more sauce than meat (I had that unhappy experience in Guangzhou itself, too). But if you find a place that makes the more ordinary baozi, and get the right mix of pork, scallion, garlic, and ginger, and two such delicacies make just about the best breakfast ever, at least for my money.
写给读中文的朋友的故事 A little joke for Chinese readers:
矶法伯伯的太太与媳妇都是台湾人，所以我的孙女为四分之三的华人。今天早上，媳妇为我们做肉包。
矶法伯伯原来是美国华府郊外地区的人，也是犹太，挪威，苏格兰血统的白种人也。据我所了解，我娶台湾太太之前， 我家没什么华夏传统。‘可是台湾的肉包把我变为中国乡下佬。这是怎么能够可能的事呢？
我第一次在台湾中坜市私立中原大学（那时候，还是私立中原技术学院）教书与帮助校牧室，小渊阁必有一家小店。那店买早餐，包括油条，豆酱，烧饼，与包子，都是台湾学生与老师们所爱的食物。我第一次去，我买两个肉包。那点调和的猪肉，大蒜， 茺，与别的东西完全和与我所喜欢的味道。两个肉包或一个肉包一个菜包就会让我很满足。因此，我平常的早餐就是两个包子。 可是，两个包子，英文怎么讲？Two Baozi.(土包子）。 后来，我的两个华人室友就开始喊我“土包子”。
For English readers:
The upshot of the story is a kind of bad pun which even now brings groans to my long-suffering wife and adult sons. When I lived in Taiwan, I foundd that two baozi (steamed buns stuffed with cabbage and/or pork) made an excellent, excellent breakfast, which even now brings back a sigh of longing. Well, the English "two baozi" sounds like the Chinese word for "hick" or "country bumpkin" (tu baozi--土包子). In those high and far off days of youth, my two roommates at the time, both ethnic Hua (one American, the other Taiwanese) started to jocularly call me "the Hick", or "tu baozi" over my preferred breakfast.
My introduction to baozi came when I taught in Taiwan way back in the late 1970's. A small shop stood outside the place where I entered the campus, and every morning it sold baozi--either pork, cabbage, or a mixture. Now, a lot of Americans, especially those from urban areas, know the char siu bao, a Cantonese delight made with honey-glazed, red-colored roast pork made in the char siu (叉烧）style. However, the more "homestyle" pork baozi I encountered in Zhongli, Taiwan (台湾中坜）captured my taste buds. Char siu bao are a good snack every so often, but the sweetness is just a little too much for me, and jaunts to the Chinatowns of New York and Washington have warned me that I can often get more sauce than meat (I had that unhappy experience in Guangzhou itself, too). But if you find a place that makes the more ordinary baozi, and get the right mix of pork, scallion, garlic, and ginger, and two such delicacies make just about the best breakfast ever, at least for my money.
写给读中文的朋友的故事 A little joke for Chinese readers:
矶法伯伯的太太与媳妇都是台湾人，所以我的孙女为四分之三的华人。今天早上，媳妇为我们做肉包。
矶法伯伯原来是美国华府郊外地区的人，也是犹太，挪威，苏格兰血统的白种人也。据我所了解，我娶台湾太太之前， 我家没什么华夏传统。‘可是台湾的肉包把我变为中国乡下佬。这是怎么能够可能的事呢？
我第一次在台湾中坜市私立中原大学（那时候，还是私立中原技术学院）教书与帮助校牧室，小渊阁必有一家小店。那店买早餐，包括油条，豆酱，烧饼，与包子，都是台湾学生与老师们所爱的食物。我第一次去，我买两个肉包。那点调和的猪肉，大蒜， 茺，与别的东西完全和与我所喜欢的味道。两个肉包或一个肉包一个菜包就会让我很满足。因此，我平常的早餐就是两个包子。 可是，两个包子，英文怎么讲？Two Baozi.(土包子）。 后来，我的两个华人室友就开始喊我“土包子”。
For English readers:
The upshot of the story is a kind of bad pun which even now brings groans to my long-suffering wife and adult sons. When I lived in Taiwan, I foundd that two baozi (steamed buns stuffed with cabbage and/or pork) made an excellent, excellent breakfast, which even now brings back a sigh of longing. Well, the English "two baozi" sounds like the Chinese word for "hick" or "country bumpkin" (tu baozi--土包子). In those high and far off days of youth, my two roommates at the time, both ethnic Hua (one American, the other Taiwanese) started to jocularly call me "the Hick", or "tu baozi" over my preferred breakfast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)