David Scholer on Hebrews Part 5: Pilgrimage of Believers

While the Revised Common Lectionary continues its triennial journey through the book of Hebrews, I'm working through a series of lessons from 2001 taught by the late David M. Scholer.

This week's lesson: "The Pilgrimage of the Believers in Hebrews" (File uploaded by Larry Harnisch)

My observations:

• Dr. Scholer mentions during his introduction that some of what Hebrews has to say about salvation may make many Baptists uncomfortable, because it sounds at times like one can lose his/her salvation.  It is important to remember that Scholer, an American Baptist, is teaching a group from his home church.  Since Scholer notes that Baptists have been more or less "Reformed" since 1660, I expect the issues would pertain equally well to Presbyterians (my own tradition).
• If Christians are said to be on a journey (emphasized often during this lecture), Christ can be said to have made that journey, as well.
• Scholer suggests that the message "delivered through angels" is the giving of the law itself.  There was apparently a tradition that Moses was surrounded by angels, referenced in other New Testament works, as well, but I don't see any references to angels in the Mosaic texts, even in Deuteronomy, which Scholer specifically cites.  I can only assume that there is a translation issue, here, and that the word translated "angel" in some English versions is translated as some other word in the version I'm consulting.
• Scholer relates an account that he had shared with some reporters in then-recent past, reflecting on the significance of the 9/11 terrorist attacks (barely more than a month previously).  He suggested that the attacks could be seen as a "wake up call" to return to God.  Hebrews seems to arguing something similar to that audience.
• Hebrews 11 gives a long list recounting examples of people who lived by faith.  People who endured while on "the journey" before the coming of Christ.  The author suggests that Abraham (and, perhaps less explicitly, the other figures mentioned) was looking forward to God's eternal city.  This is not explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament text, but Abraham is depicted as a person who "believed God," and thus is suggested to have taken part ("deep down") in promises of God that have been made known in the centuries since.
• Scholer counts 32+ figures mentioned in Chapter 11.  Hebrews says that none of them got the promises God had made to them, but that they would get them when the Christians get them, too.  ("So don't let them down!" Scholer suggests the author is saying)
• Five characteristics that should be true of people on the journey:  
1. The pilgrim believer is not to neglect the salvation offered by Christ (the price of neglect is high).  That's why there are so many strong warnings in Hebrews.  (Next week, we'll get to how serious this warning is.  Can you lose salvation?)
2. A believer ought to grow toward maturity.
3. Pilgrim believers must engage in mutual support.  You don't care just for yourself, but try to make sure that everyone else makes it.
4. The pilgrim believers are encouraged to accept discipline and suffering, because Jesus did.  This is difficult, not just because we don't like to be disciplined, but also because we know about issues of abuse and oversimplification when this teaching is cited.  But the fundamental idea of this teaching holds--God will make us stronger, and more able to cope.
   
5. Believers must have perseverance and a clear focus on Jesus.  Related to this is the call to "go outside the camp," a reference to Christ's death on the cross (which could not be done within the city itself for religious reasons.  Sacrificial animals were slaughtered outside the city walls, as well, and the blood then brought inside for offering in the temple).
   
• In the question and answer session at the end of the lecture, Scholer is asked how he might apply some of the lessons of Hebrews discussed in this lecture (specifically, the call to "go outside," mentioned above) to their congregation.  I expect some of these ideas will work for other congregations, as well, and I appreciate Scholer's suggestion that people need to learn about cultures and ways of living that are different from one's own.
  

Next Week: salvation and perfection

David Scholer on Hebrews Part 4: Christology (Part 2)

While the Revised Common Lectionary continues its triennial journey through the book of Hebrews, I'm working through a series of roughly hour-long lessons from 2001 taught by the late David M. Scholer.

This week's lesson: "The Christology of Hebrews: Part 2" (MP3 file uploaded by Larry Harnisch)

My observations:

• The priesthood of Christ is the major discussion in Hebrews, taking up more space than any other single topic in the book.  Scholer calls this method of describing Christ to the audience of Hebrews "clever."  The author of Hebrews argues that Jesus is a priest of a different order than the order of the priests of Israel (that is, the Levitical order).  Since Christ is a priest of a different order, the author of Hebrews is able to argue that Christ's priesthood is different than, and superior to, the traditional Levitical priesthood.  More on this "clever" usage later.
  
• The author of Hebrews is arguing less with the literal practices of Judaism of the time, and more with the theological heritage of that perspective.  Scholer notes how Hebrews tends to discuss the "tabernacle," and not the "temple."
• After some introductions, the first real area where Hebrews discusses Jesus as high priest occurs in 4:14-5:10.  The identity of Jesus with humanity is emphasized--"in every way," with one exception: Jesus was without sin.  Jesus can represent the people because he himself was subject to the weaknesses that people are subject to.  Likewise, Hebrews paints Jesus as a priest by noting that Jesus was called by God, and that Jesus made sacrifice for the sins of the people.  It is at the end of this section that the author identifies Jesus' priestly order as being the order of Melchizedek. 
  
• As Scholer notes, "Hebrews is replete with Old Testament passages."  In particular, Hebrews uses two Psalms: Psalms 2 and 110.  These are sometimes called "Royal Psalms," and were originally addressed to the leader of Israel (perhaps King David).  So when the Psalm says "you are My Son. Today I have begotten you," or (paraphrasing) "you're in the priesthood of Melchizedek," this was originally understood as being God's word to the ruler of Israel.  When the early church read these Psalms, they saw them as applying to Christ in a special way, and this is how Hebrews uses them.
• If the author of Hebrews wants to describe Jesus as being a priest, there's one major hurdle to overcome.  Jesus is not a Levite, and all Jewish priests were Levites.  This is where the author's argument is "clever" (in Scholer's terms).  The only other priesthood alluded to in the Old Testament is that of Melchizedek in Genesis 14 (the only other time Melchizedek is even mentioned outside of Psalm 110:4).  Not only is Melchizedek described in Genesis as a priest, but he is also a King.  The King of Salem (believed to be the same as Jerusalem).  And not only all this, but Abraham himself pays the tithe to Melchizedek (Abraham is basically paying for safe passage through Melchizedek's land).  The author of Hebrews can then use this fact to suggest that, since Abraham is the father of the Jewish people, all Jews have paid the tithe to Melchizedek through Abraham, including Levi (and thus all Levitical priests).  Thus, if Jesus is a priest of Melchizedek's order, his priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood.
• After Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, the next time we hear about Melchizedek is in the Qumran community (the folks who created the Dead Sea Scrolls).  The Qumran community percieved of Melchizedek as an almighty, divine person--in essence, as one who sat at God's right hand (as in Psalm 110).  The people at Qumran even suggested that Melchizedek, as God's divine agent, had the authority to forgive sins.  Scholer reads from a passage about Melchizedek, written before Jesus' birth (perhaps 100-50 BC), which uses language we today would associate with Jesus.  Perhaps the author of Hebrews was aware of this tradition?  (This can't be proven)
• Some of the argument from Hebrews regarding the Melchizedekian priesthood's superiority over the Levitical priesthood sounds a lot like Plato's Forms.  This development of thought seems to be one of the reasons that Scholer supposes that the author of Hebrews might have been from Alexandria (see also the second lecture in this series), as other thinkers from Alexandria (the academic center of the era)--notably the Jewish scholar, Philo--have demonstrated similar concepts.
• The concept of a "new covenant" wasn't unique or original to Christianity.  The Qumran community used a term like this to refer to themselves, as well.  They wanted to express that the "old" covenant was corrupt and that they had the "truth."  Indeed, this sounds to me quite a lot like what a lot of religious sects and cults claim....
• The emphasis of Hebrews on Jesus' humanity has historically made the Church (which tends to stress Jesus' divinity) uncomfortable.  Scholer especially notes how Hebrews says that Jesus "learned obedience."  Jesus is "not a fake human being."  For an example of how difficult it was for the Church to grasp this concept, Clement of Alexandria (a 2nd century theologian who actually spent a lot of time defending Jesus' humanity) suggested at one point that Jesus only ate and drank "for appearances sake" and never defecated.

Next week: The pilgrimage journey of the believers

David Scholer on Hebrews Part 2: Purpose and Structure

While the Revised Common Lectionary continues its triennial journey through the book of Hebrews, I'm working through a series of lessons from 2001 taught by the late David M. Scholer.

This week's lesson: "The Purpose and Structure of Hebrews" (File uploaded by Larry Harnisch)

Some highlights:

• Although Hebrews is collected with the epistles (letters), Hebrews doesn't have the salutation/blessing pattern that opens all (Scholer's emphasis) letters of this era.  Hebrews does have an ending that is similar to letters, however.  Scholer explains this by suggesting that Hebrews is, in fact, an early sermon (the book refers to itself as an "exhortation").
• Dr. Scholer's lecture last week gave brief mention about the encouragements and warnings contained within Hebrews.  He elaborates on that considerably here.  Apparently the warnings become more and more intense as the letter progresses.  It seems clear that the writer of Hebrews was deeply concerned about the people being written to.  The encouragements serve to help soften the blow of those warnings.  The letter follows a pattern of Christology, warning, encouragement throughout.
• I was especially impressed by a story Dr. Scholer told about an experiment his wife Jeannette conducted as part of a Bible study she was leading.  Having gotten a letter from a long-time friend, she read the letter to the rest of the group without telling them anything about the friend (who none of them already knew) to provide context.  The group was then able to reconstruct a considerable portion of the friend's background just from what was contained within the letter.  This is very much the same kind of thing that modern scholars have to do with ancient texts (such as those of the Bible) to try to determine their context and purpose.  Naturally, some of this depends on speculation and cannot be proven, and some texts provide more information than others, but this nonetheless provides a considerable amount of insight into the letter once this exercise is completed.
• Best clue to the context of Hebrews comes in Chapter 10 (starting in verse 32).  The author hints at persecution, but indicates (in a later passage) that this persecution has not yet resulted in loss of life.  We can't tell what particular persecution is being referred to here, but there's plenty of evidence of local persecutions in the first century.  The author of Hebrews seems concerned that the people being written to are in danger of falling away from the faith out of fear of persecution.
• Pliny the Younger describes male and female deacons in Christian worship.  I need to look this bit up....
• One clue as to the location of congregation is at the very end, where it is written that some Italian friends of the author send greetings.  Perhaps the author was in Italy, but it seems more likely it was the congregation that was in Italy.  
• Scholer argues that the author was most likely a Jew living in Alexandria, Egypt, based on the pattern of the author's argumentation.  Alexandria was the 2nd-largest city in the entire Roman Empire, and it contained the largest Jewish community in the entire Empire (even more than in Jerusalem).  We know a lot about this era and community through the writings of Philo, a Jewish scholar who lived in Alexandria.
• Guesses as to the identity of the author:
  
  1. Luke - because Luke/Acts has very sophisticated Greek, as does Hebrews
  2. Paul - suggested more strongly around the 3rd century, based mostly on the fact he wrote so many of the OTHER books.  Origen said "only God knows who wrote Hebrews" at about the same time, but suggested that "if by saying Paul wrote it, people will read it, let's say Paul wrote it."  Indeed, Hebrews almost didn't make it into the New Testament, and seems only to have included in the canon on the belief that Paul wrote it, even though this is now known to be almost certainly incorrect.
  3. Apollos - originally posited by Martin Luther, noting that Apollos came from Alexandria.  A lot of scholars think this may be right.
  4. Priscilla - originally suggested by Adolf von Harnack, who thought there were some "feminine touches" in Hebrews.
• We don't know when Hebrews was written, as the internal clues don't help much.  Some scholars argue that it has to be before AD 70 because it fails to mention the destruction of the temple, although Scholer dismisses this reasoning because the relevant arguments in the text discuss the tabernacle (i.e., referencing a far earlier period of Jewish history) and thus the temple wouldn't be a reference point either way.  It was almost certainly written within the later half of the first century, but greater specificity is difficult, if not impossible.

Next Lecture

David Scholer on Hebrews Part 3: Christology (Part 1)

While the Revised Common Lectionary continues its triennial journey through the book of Hebrews, I'm working through a series of lessons from 2001 taught by the late David M. Scholer.

This week's lesson: "The Christology of Hebrews: Part 1" (File uploaded by Larry Harnisch)

My observations:

• Scholer opens by introducing his friend, Father Robert Karris.  I've met Father Karris on a number of occasions.  Last I heard, Karris was working on a book detailing Scholer's teachings on "Women, the Bible, and the Church."  I wonder how that's coming along? 
• Although Hebrews contains quite a lot of comment about the person and work of Jesus Christ, the author did not sit down to write thinking "the church needs a good Christology, so I'm going to write one."  Rather, Hebrews was written in response to pastoral concerns, specifically, concern that the audience of the letter might fall away from the faith.  The Christological material of Hebrews is merely the framework in which the exhortation addressing these concerns took place.  First and foremost, people can have hope because of who Jesus Christ is, and what Jesus Christ does.
  
• The concept of the "last days" was closely tied to the concept of God acting, specifically for the salvation of God's people.  Since God was clearly acting in this way through the coming of Jesus Christ, the idea that Christians were living in the "last days" was a natural conclusion.
• The conviction that Jesus was God was a difficult thing for the early the church to wrestle with.  In the midst of a generally polytheistic world, the Jews accused the early Church of having two Gods, and therefore not being truly monotheistic, as they were.  Even today, the concept of the trinity (including the Holy Spirit as God, as well) remains one of the most difficult concepts of the Christian faith to understand.
• There are some parts of the apocryphal book of Wisdom (written in the first century before the birth of Christ, according to Scholer) where Wisdom is described in practically divine terms that sound a lot like how Jesus is described in the book of Hebrews.
• There is an interesting "rabbit trail" in the middle of the discussion whereby Scholer discusses feminine imagery for God (stemming from the discussion of "Lady Wisdom").  14th century mystic Julian of Norwich (a woman, the "male" name notwithstanding) even describes Jesus as a "mother."
• The discussion in Hebrews of Jesus as superior to angels may reflect a concern that people were giving too much attention to angels.
• There were three pivotal figures in Judaism: Abraham (father of the Jewish people), Moses (the liberator), and David (the great king).  Jesus is, at various points, compared to each one of these to demonstrate Jesus' superiority to them all.  Scholer specifically mentions how Hebrews deals with Moses in relation to Jesus.  The author of Hebrews is very careful never to criticize Moses.  Jesus, however, is worthy of "more glory" than Moses.

Next week: Jesus as "the great high priest"

David Scholer on Hebrews Part 6: Salvation and Perfection

While the Revised Common Lectionary continues its triennial journey through the book of Hebrews, I've been working through a series of lessons from 2001 taught by the late David M. Scholer.

The final lesson: "Salvation and Perfection in Hebrews" (File uploaded by Larry Harnisch)

My observations:

• There is strong language in Hebrews that appears to say that believers are in danger of losing their salvation.  This caused theological problems even in the early church, let alone for those of us in Reformed traditions today.  These early discussions also led to concerns about whether or not Hebrews should be considered part of the Biblical canon.  Probably erroneous assumptions that the book was written by Paul may well have given Hebrews enough "status" to make the cut (see points on authorship in Week 2).
• The idea that a person once saved, would remain saved, was articulated by John Calvin as arising out of God's omnipotence and omniscience.  If God saves a person, it must be permanent. Reformed believers often refer to this concept of salvation as "the perseverance of the saints" or "eternal security."  Arminians, by contrast, emphasize personal security, and thus allow for the possibility of losing salvation through disobedience or turning one's back on God.  The debate between these camps has raged for a long time, and Hebrews has often been a battleground for these arguments.
• Scholer recounts the various "warnings" in Hebrews that imply the ability to lose salvation.  These must be taken seriously, and not too quickly dismissed as mere rhetorical devices.  They're not just "mild cautions."  Scholer cites Hebrews 6:4-12 and 10:26-39 as perhaps the two most central to this discussion.  The language in these verses cannot be dismissed as merely "trying" salvation, but refer to real participation (note, for example the language in chapter 6 of  having "tasted the heavenly gift," and consider alongside Hebrews 2:9, which uses "taste death," to indicate that Jesus actually died).  Likewise it seems clear that the author of Hebrews is actually talking about salvation, and not something else.  However, these passages also end with words of reassurance, where the author indicates his confidence that the readers will indeed persevere.  So, to what degree are these warnings rhetorical, given the intensity of the concern that the audience not fall away, yet followed by such conviction of perseverance?
• In Hebrews, salvation is actually described as a future reality.  Hebrews 9:28, for example, references salvation in the context of the Second Coming, and specifically speaks of "saving" as distinct from dealing with sin.  This contrasts with the tradition of a lot of our theological training, where we are taught to think of salvation as something that has happened in the past.  "Remember the day you were saved."  (I think that this is less true for mainline Presbyterians, but it's certainly a reality for many evangelicals.)  In the New Testament in general, salvation is described in past, present, and future terms, so there's plenty of precedent for the evangelical concept, but it's important to note that Hebrews focuses almost entirely on salvation as future.  This perhaps explains some of Hebrews' apparent emphasis on the possibility of losing salvation.  If Jesus only had to die once, and the salvation secured through that death was for forever, then anyone who "drops out" could not be part of that.  If you are to "complete" the journey, you have to go the whole way.  If you don't "complete" the journey, you weren't really on it in the first place.
• Scholer also shares some thoughts on the doctrine of "divine election" and how this might be reconciled with human choice.  I'm not sure that some of my Presbyterian professors would agree with Scholer's formulation ("Only God knows who will make it" sounds a bit too much like God is basing the election on human choice, which most Calvinist scholars I know would be quick to refute, but I hasten to add that Scholer doesn't quite claim that God chooses on the basis of human choice.  He seems content to leave this as a "paradox."), but it's worth reflecting on.  Whatever else is true, God remains sovereign, and human responsibility remains important, too.
  

David Scholer on Hebrews Part 1: Context

For the past year or so, I've been doing weekly lectionary reflections on the unofficial Presbyterian Bloggers site (we use the word "ruminations" over there, mostly because I've never bothered to change the title I inherited from the guy who did such reflections before I took the job).  The idea is that people can have a chance to look at the readings suggested by the Revised Common Lectionary to be used in the following Sunday's worship.  The actual day of posting has changed a few times over the past year, but we've settled into a Wednesday slot for the past few months that seems to work pretty well.

This coming Sunday will be the first of a total of seven weeks in a row that the lectionary suggests a reading from the book of Hebrews.  Having just listened recently to a lesson on Hebrews, done at First Baptist Church of Pasadena by the late Dr. David M. Scholer back in 2001, I thought that it might be appropriate to spend some time with those messages here, as well.  Dr. Scholer's series lasted for six weeks, not quite long enough to cover the same time span that the lectionary will cover the book, but pretty close.

Here's a link to the first lesson: "The Context of Hebrews" (File uploaded by Larry Harnisch)

Some quick observations:

• Contrary to whatever you may have heard in church, this book was almost certainly not written by the apostle Paul.  I'm not talking about the same kind of controversy that surrounds the idea that Paul didn't write, say, the letters to Timothy and Titus.  Those letters at least claim to have been written by Paul within the letters themselves.  The letter of Hebrews contains no mention of who actually wrote it.
• Hebrews was written with specifically pastoral intentions, attempting to deal with issues of faith and faithfulness.  It both encourages people to "hang in there" in terms of faith, but it also provides warnings of the consequences of failing to do so.
• Especially since the announcement that the TNIV will no longer be published in a couple of years, there's been a lot of debate about how to translate Scripture properly.  Listening to Dr. Scholer talk about how the word translated in most versions of Hebrews as "perfection" might better be translated as "maturity" (despite having a literal meaning of "perfection" as well) reminds me of these modern debates.
• The Romans of this period honored things that were ancient: "If it was old, it was good!"  This partly explains widespread Roman toleration of Judaism, despite distaste of the "strange" religion.  (A brief mention is made that the Romans destroyed the temple in AD 70 "for other reasons," but this isn't elaborated on in this lesson.)  This tolerance was not extended to the "new" religion of Christianity.
• Hebrews is considered by some the most "Jewish" book of the New Testament.  It certainly uses the Jewish Scriptures (our Old Testament) very frequently, but this is also seen in how the book handles certain topics (priesthood and sacrifice, for example).
• There's a section where Dr. Scholer likens Jesus' clearing of the temple to a person coming into a sanctuary on Sunday during morning worship, running up front, knocking the pulpit over, and then proceeding to tear the organ out of the wall.  I appreciate such reminders of the sometimes angry Jesus.
• Just like people today, even the early Jewish Christians apparently needed some prodding to move out of their "comfort zones."  Despite Jesus' instructions to bring the gospel to the entire world, it took some time for Jewish Christians to make real overtures to Gentiles.  (This prodding came in the form of the vision to Peter and subsequent events)
• The question of whether or not Gentiles should have to keep the Jewish law became "the single biggest fight in the early church."  The very question of how "Jewish" Christianity (a word not used until the 2nd century, but you get the idea) was to be was a major point of contention.  Hebrews both tries to highlight Christ as kind of an "ideal" Jew while at the same time setting the up Christ's work as a "new" thing separate from Judaism.  Although Christianity would eventually separate completely from Judaism, even to the unfortunate point of full-blown antisemitism, that's not what Hebrews is doing, although perhaps the seeds of that later separation are planted here.

Next Lecture

A Case Against "Masculine Christianity"

What says "masculine"
better than the
Old Spice guy?

In what is only the latest in a long series of comments by Christian leaders advocating for the supremacy of men over and against women, John Piper has recently explicitly said that he believes that "God has given Christianity a masculine feel." Now, when he says such a thing, I do not imagine that he would actually say that he believes men are "superior" to women. The usual complementarian line, which I understand Piper to embrace, says that the genders are equal, but that they merely have different God-given roles. That said, it's difficult to read a belief in a "masculine Christianity" without feeling like a belief in male superiority is actually at play, whether Piper acknowledges it or not.
Read more »

Honoring David and Jeannette Scholer

Yesterday we held a luncheon honoring New Testament professor Dr. David Scholer and his wife Jeannette, who serves as the Director of Academic Programs here at Fuller, as both will be retiring in the coming months. I've mentioned Dr. Scholer a couple of times before, usually in relation to some issue related to gender equality within Christianity, and especially as the person from whom I got a particularly popular Top Ten list a number of years ago (although this particular link comes from a time before I announced my identity and those of my friends and colleagues publicly on the blog).

David, whose career spans nearly five decades, has become well-known for his work in the areas of gnosticism and in demonstrating a biblical defense for the full participation of women in all forms of church ministry. In more recent years, he has received notoriety as much due to his now-over-six-year struggle with cancer as he has for his New Testament scholarship. Doctors consider this cancer "incurable," but David has not treated this diagnosis as a death-sentence. David has continued to teach throughout this period, both at Fuller and at various churches in Southern California, although he has had to do so around his medical schedule, and often while fighting increasing fatigue, a side-effect as much from the continuing medical treatments as from the cancer itself. But David has always kept fighting on, and his endurance despite his illness has been an inspiration to many. A Los Angeles Times article from last year entitled "'Rejoice Always': A Lesson in Dying," details David's life since being diagnosed with an incurable disease. It was the most-e-mailed article from the Times' web site at the time.

Jeannette is an impressive woman in her own right, and in addition to several important positions over the years before coming to Fuller (including leadership in the Chicago chapter of Christians for Biblical Equality), has shepherded the teaching of courses in Fuller's School of Theology for over a decade. When members of Fuller's faculty are on sabbatical, or if we do not have enough professors on hand to teach a certain subject, it is Jeannette's job to locate and hire adjuncts to fill the gaps. She has continued to do this work throughout some of the most difficult times of David's struggle with cancer, including an extended hospital stay almost a year ago. Knowing that her attention was being divided, and knowing that she needed to make caring for David a priority, an assistant director was hired a couple of years ago, and it is this person who will be assuming Jeannette's position upon her retirement. Not enough leaders know how to lead well enough to pass along those skills for the time after they are gone, and Jeannette's ability to do this speaks well not only of her talent, but also of her character.

Many testimonials were given during the luncheon. Although much was made of David and Jeannette's contributions to biblical scholarship and to the greater well-being of the church, one theme came out again and again: the Scholers' commitment to hospitality. As their daughter Abby said during her own testimonial, although there is a sense in which one speaks of a person as having "the gift of hospitality," hospitality is something that takes work, and it has been an active priority for David and Jeannette. The Scholers actively maintain a list of their friends (this active list itself numbers in the several hundreds) that they send Christmas letters to each year. They actively keep tabs on birthdays and anniversaries, and send out cards (often with hand-written notes, as I can personally attest) for such occasions. Former student Kirk Winslow commented on how he learned how to live the Christian life from the Scholers and their hospitality:

I think the Scholers have that extraordinary gift of osmosis. They simply... 'pass on' the great Christian virtues.... I don't remember ever having a lesson in ethics or wisdom, per se. I just had a lot of dinner.

That sense of hospitality (often around food) extends to our working environment here at Fuller, as well. The Scholers are the ones most responsible for establishing the tradition of a weekly break-time every Monday afternoon, whereby those of us who work in the School of Theology can meet for simple refreshments and fellowship.

I have been proud to consider both David and Jeannette close friends since shortly after my tenure working at Fuller began nearly eight years ago. While my wife and I were still dating, we took David's course, Women, the Bible, and the Church, together (my wife for credit, myself as an auditor, having already completed my degree). When we got married, it was David who officiated at our wedding. When I got a draft of a recent note informing me that Michelle was being approved to go further in the ordination process, Jeannette was the first person I was able to share it with. Nearly once a month, we have been invited into the Scholer's home for regular "hymn-sing" events (Jeannette was on the board for at least one major hymnal used in many churches). We have been very thankful for this friendship, and although the Scholers will be retiring (and therefore not at Fuller as much as we've been used to), we trust that it will continue.

Free David Scholer Resources

I've had David Scholer on my mind a lot lately. No surprise, I'm sure, given his passing less than a week ago. It turns out that the funeral will be held on Saturday, which also happens to be the 5th anniversary of Michelle's and my wedding (a wedding that David officiated). We all find our own ways to grieve and deal with the loss of a dear friend. For me, I've been spending a lot of my "online time" looking for items written by or about David. Besides the bits that I've written already, a lot of other folks have been sharing their own reflections, as well. Fuller PhD student Pat McCullough has shared not only his own thoughts, but also a list of many such reflections on his own blog. Included in that list is a link to the Baccalaureate address David preached just a few months ago.

Here are some other resources (all free!) of David Scholer's legacy that I've found while surfing the Internet. Enjoy!

• A couple of sermons David preached at First Baptist Church of Pasadena, where he was a member, are linked via the Internet Archive, in MP3 format.
• Some more sermons from First Baptist Church. These are linked via a website dedicated to sermons preached there. This one is from March 19, 2008, on Hebrews 10:14-18. Here's one from May 4, 2007. This one is from July 30, 2006. And this one from February 5, 2006 discusses the importance of families spending time together, specifically around the dinner table. (UPDATE: 9/30/08 - Larry found a sermon of David's from August 22, 2004, preaching from Galatians 5:1-26)
• A written transcript from an interview where David discusses the nature of translation, and why there are so many different English versions of the Bible.
• An article on Gnosticism (one of David's specialties) written for Christian History and Biography. (A couple other articles of his from the same site are linked here)
• A loosely connected set of "remarkable facts about the history of the Bible"
• A personal reflection by David regarding his history with the topic of women in ministry.

EDIT: 8/28/08 - Last night (it's dated today, though), the Los Angeles Times released an obituary article on Dr. Scholer. My wife Michelle was interviewed as part of the preparation for the writing of this piece. Although she is not quoted directly, it's pretty easy for me to see ways in which she influenced the direction in which the article ultimately was written.

Reflections on Worship: Scholer Memorial and Other Special Gatherings

I'm currently auditing a course on Presbyterian Creeds in an effort to prepare to retake the ordination exam that gave me trouble over half a decade ago. There are several reasons why I'm getting back into this now, but that's a subject for another time. I bring it up here to mention that one of the aspects of Reformed theology (and specifically that of John Calvin) that has been emphasized in the course is the fact that the primary purpose of worship is to give God what God is due--what God is worth (The word "worship," itself, comes from an Old English word that is, essentially, "worth-ship"). We gather together for worship because, put simply, God deserves it. This is the primary consideration, well before any attention is to be given to what we, as humans "get out of" the service.

This reality can be obscured even at the best of times, but I expect that it's a particularly difficult thing to keep in mind for worship gatherings clearly scheduled for some obvious "other" purpose. An example may be drawn from the memorial service Fuller had for David Scholer last week (Despite David's passing more than a month ago, the memorial service had to wait for classes to begin on campus, and for a few other items to be taken care of first). I had a unique window into the planning of this service, as my wife is Assistant Director of Chapel at Fuller, and was specifically charged with planning out and executing the details of this event (on top of all that, she also was asked to give the homily! Needless to say, she was pretty exhausted when it was all over Thursday afternoon!).

A funeral or a memorial service has the obvious purpose of providing a space for remembering the person who has died, and to provide an outlet for grief. Allowing these purposes to take priority is an obvious temptation, and as positive and beneficial as they are, it would still be the wrong thing to do. This is still a worship gathering. A worship gathering's primary purpose must always be to give glory to God.

When the person being remembered was such a strong Christian as David Scholer, a person who let God be seen in his life in so many ways, it becomes much easier to keep those priorities straight. God is glorified through the actions of David's life and ministry, and such a service may draw attention to this with little difficulty. (Fuller has put up an article describing the service, with several quotes from the various speakers, here.)

But I wonder about how giving glory to God may be given priority when the subject of a funeral may not have been a Christian, or when the course of the person's life is more ambiguous. I also wonder about how giving God glory may be given properly central attention in other "special" services, such as a wedding (especially if the couple has a less-than-clear Christian commitment), or if the more mundane Sunday gatherings actually pose the most difficulty of all simply because of the day-to-day "sameness" to it all.

I welcome your thoughts and comments.

The Legacy of Dr. David Scholer

The following is an expanded version of an article written for this week's SEMI (Fuller's weekly student newsletter), which has devoted the issue to remembering Dr. David Scholer.
---
When I joined my then-girlfriend Michelle in enrolling in David Scholer's course, "Women, the Bible, and the Church," I didn't realize that it would end up changing my life.

It may come as a surprise to some to learn that I had never given the matter of whether or not women were allowed to be pastors and ministers a second thought until I was in college. To at least some extent, this is undoubtedly because, as a male, I have had the luxury of never having had my own potential ability to become a church leader challenged. But it’s also due to the fact that, having grown up in the PC(USA), I was accustomed to seeing women in such positions from time to time, if admittedly nothing like as often as I’d seen men in those positions.

But when I went to college, I went to a small Christian school in the mountains of North Carolina, and I soon learned that this was an issue of major controversy among some of the students and professors there. Apparently there’s this passage in I Timothy that explicitly prohibits women from such positions of church leadership. Having identified a call to church ministry by this time, I was committed to learning more about the Bible and taking its teachings seriously. This new revelation was a bit disturbing, and I knew that I would have to work at understanding how churches such as the one I’d grown up in could justify what appeared to be gross violations of such teachings, but knew that there must be more to the passage than what appeared at first glance. After all, “she must be silent”? Even at my college, no one really seemed to be arguing for that. Most were talking instead about church leadership.... And how did these admittedly more conservative believers reconcile Paul’s teaching that he didn’t “permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” with the fact that some of our professors at college were, themselves, women?

Of course, I’m fully aware now that those who argue that God does not permit women to positions of church leadership have answers to questions like these. And I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that I'd become a bit skeptical of more “liberal” denominations such as the PC(USA) while in college, and even when I first came to Fuller to work on my MDiv. But I never was fully convinced by those answers. Something just didn’t seem right about it all.

Several years into my studies, I met Michelle Baker, and we began to date. If anything, it seemed that the church that she attended in high school was even more conservative in regard to their teachings on women in ministry than my college was. But whereas I, being male, had the luxury of taking my time to explore the ramifications of these teachings, Michelle was attacked at her very core. Indeed, to this day she often says that this church “made her into the feminist she is today.” And while I had found myself under the influence of teachers more conservative than those I’d grown up under, Michelle was now in an environment with teachers more progressive than her former leaders, and was desperate to be told that it was okay to be who she was, with the gifts and talents that she believed God had given her.

It was almost a year into our relationship when Michelle enrolled in “Women, the Bible, and the Church.” I was nearly done with my own degree, but being a full-time employee of Fuller, I took advantage of the free audits granted to employees in order to attend the course with her. While in college, I heard quite a bit about why women shouldn't be ordained, but I was anxious to hear how a scholar who believed that women could serve in all forms of church ministry dealt with the biblical texts. Would he just “throw out texts he disagreed with,” as many conservatives seemed to accuse such scholars of doing, or would he be able to explain how certain texts perhaps might not mean what they seemed to at first glance?

This isn’t the place to get into the teachings themselves, but suffice it to say, I came out of the course satisfied that Dr. Scholer did take the teachings of the Bible seriously, and that God was perfectly fine with women serving in leadership positions within the church. I also came out of the course having impressed Michelle, having taken her concerns on this issue seriously.

We happened to be taking the course during the time that David first found out that he had prostate cancer, and the announcement of his condition to the class near the end of the quarter was one of the first times he had "gone public" about it. Immediately after the quarter ended, David went on medical leave to begin a round of chemotherapy designed to eradicate the cancer. Several months later, he returned to his office duties on campus, weakened from the ordeal, but with every reason to believe that the problem had been taken care of. In the meantime, Michelle and I had gotten engaged, and with the assurance that David was feeling better, we asked him to officiate at the wedding, an offer he was happy to accept.

Shortly after we got married, we found out that the doctors had discovered that small amounts of David's cancer remained, and that it was considered "incurable." If the timing had been just a bit different, we probably wouldn't have imposed on David by asking him to officiate a wedding while fighting cancer. I think he would have considered that a loss as much as we would have, and we thank God that the timing worked out like it did.

It is a statement of the obvious to say that David left a legacy felt by many people. Michelle, who served as a TA for David on three separate occasions, and is currently in the process to be ordained as a priest in the Episcopal Church, joins the legions of women who have been given encouragement and strength to follow their calling into ordained ministry. But on a more personal level, David and his wife Jeannette have left a legacy of friendship. In the six years that David lived following his initial diagnosis, Michelle and I were able to enjoy "hymn-sings" in their home, got to hear many stories of David's experiences in ministry and in academia, and enjoyed talking about other shared interests, such as a mutual love of books. There were hard times, too, such as time spent with David in the hospital during the recovery from his most recent surgery just over a year ago, a time David himself described as "going through Hell." But when David told us during one such visit that he was not embarrassed for us to see him even at these lowest of times, we knew that we really were accepted as an informal part of the Scholers' extremely large "family" of friends. Even in the midst of such suffering, David gave us an amazing gift. We will always be thankful for that.

REPOST - The Legacy of Dr. David M. Scholer

The following is an expanded version of an article originally published in the SEMI (Fuller's student newsletter) in October, 2008, which had devoted the issue to remembering Dr. David M. Scholer. I have revised and updated it somewhat to reflect a few changes in my wife's and my lives in the past four years.
---
When I joined my then-girlfriend Michelle in enrolling in David Scholer's course, "Women, the Bible, and the Church," I didn't realize that it would end up changing my life.

It may come as a surprise to some to learn that I had never given the matter of whether or not women were allowed to be pastors and ministers a second thought until I was in college. To at least some extent, this is undoubtedly because, as a male, I have had the luxury of never having had my own potential ability to become a church leader challenged. But it’s also due to the fact that, having grown up in the PC(USA), I was accustomed to seeing women in such positions from time to time, if admittedly nothing like as often as I’d seen men in those positions.
Read more »

Remembering Dr. David Scholer

If you have at least one or two friends on Facebook connected to Fuller Theological Seminary, you've probably already learned that Dr. David Scholer passed away Friday morning. I've already written a fair bit about David (and his wife Jeannette) a few months ago, on the occasion of his retirement. I'm not sure that I have much to add now, and would encourage everyone to click the link. In any event, such a passing simply must be acknowledged. Please remember Jeannette, his daughters Emily and Abigail, as well as their families, in your prayers in the coming days.

Goodbye, David. You will be deeply missed.

Rebellious Streak

Among the many different hats I wear from time to time is the hat of a proofreader for the seminary's weekly newsletter, called "the SEMI." Next week's issue will focus on the issue of abuse (many different forms thereof). An article on spousal abuse was written by Dr. David Scholer, who teaches regularly on the issue of women in ministry, and who I consider a close friend. The following is an excerpt from the upcoming article:

...of course, I know of virtually no Christian male leader who talks publicly in support of spousal abuse, but there are (far too) many who teach a submission that never takes account of this reality and who counsel women who receive abuse that it is their biblical duty to endure it. I remain struck by the fact that John Piper and Wayne Grudem’s 1991 book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism barely addresses the issue of the abuse of wives. Given the Fourth Affirmation in the official statement of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood about the way that men have abused their God-given authority over women (according to that view), one could expect that their magnum opus might have a chapter on spousal abuse. Alas, there is none. There are three isolated pages in the over 500 page book that briefly mention the abuse of wives. The book has just been reprinted (2006) with a new preface, which comments on what complementarians (formerly traditionalists) need to be concerned with now fifteen years after the book’s original publication. There is not a single word about spousal abuse.

A bit of context: Dr. Scholer is what we like to call an "egalitarian." That is to say, he affirms the rights of both men and women to all roles within the Christian church. Piper and Grudem consider themselves "complementarians." They argue that God calls men and women to different, but "complementary," roles within the Christian church, based upon the natural differences between men and women. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is considered the quintessential text of their organization, the "Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" (CBMW).

But this blog entry isn't really about the evils of spousal abuse. I'm certainly not looking to accuse "complementarians" of advocating spousal abuse, even if I might suggest that they (as with so many of us in our society) turn a blind eye to it too often. But I'm sure that Piper and Grudem are as opposed to abuse as anyone else with a sane mind.

But my work on the SEMI issue on abuse led me to a related topic when it comes to gender issues. What actually struck me about Dr. Scholer's article was his comment about an "Affirmation" of CBMW against such spousal abuse. I got curious to see the actual text of the affirmation, and finally found it. The affirmation in question reads:

The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).

• In the home, the husband's loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife's intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.
• In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.

Very affirming of "proper gender roles," to be sure, but likewise clear that abuse is wrong. I reject that assertion that for women to "resist limitations on their roles" is a sin, but that's the egalitarian in me talking, and gets a bit more to my point (yes, I do have one!).

I did a bit more research, and found an exposition on this statement (note: the link is to a PDF file). In talking about that last point, it repeats the assertion that the "root problem" is "a sinful resistance to biblically prescribed roles." I've often heard the suggestion that anyone who disagrees with the CBMW does so out of "sinful resistance." It should be no surprise that I find the suggestion more than a little offensive. In my conversations with "complementarians," I often try specifically to make the case that we believe what we do, not out of a sense of "rebellion" against God's word, nor out of a desire to make God's word say something other than what it really does, but because we truly believe that God's word, rightly interpreted, means something far more open than what people like the CBMW think it does. In regard to the issue of spousal abuse, it gets us nowhere if a complementarian affirms that abuse is a sin, but refuses to listen to an egalitarian's suggestion that a wife has the right to do something about that sin, accusing the egalitarian of rebelling against God's will for submissive wives.

A recent post on the blog for "Christians for Biblical Equality" (CBE, an organization that might be described as the Christian polar opposite of CBMW) says it this way:

If I were to talk to the most ardent of the hierarchalists, I might hear that I’m an evangelical egalitarian simply because I’m rebellious or I might be accused of rejecting the authority of Scripture or I might have been “feminized” (whatever that actually means). As a matter of fact, I’ve heard these very accusations time and time again. In some cases, it is believed that evangelical egalitarianism is simply a disguise for the conspiracy of liberalism among evangelicals.
I don’t like those broad labels and accusations which have no basis in reality, at least, for me. Perhaps I’m an egalitarian because I’ve seen it in God’s Word after years of struggling with the idea and after years of seeing abuses in the church and in our seminaries. At any rate, if the hierarchalist is willing to get to know me a little better as a person before making up one’s mind about me, I am willing to get to know him or her as well.

I should be clear here that I believe that the writer refers to other kinds of abuse (i.e., non-spousal) when he uses the term "abuse" in the above quote. His point is simply trying to keep an open mind, and trying to get past the knee-jerk labels. I have attempted to be as fair in my own dealings with "complementarians" (I think few people would call themselves "hierarchalists," and so I avoid that term), no doubt with varying degrees of success. I don't really expect to "convert" too many such people from interpretive views they've held for most of their lives (in most cases). But if I can at least convince them that I'm not exercising a "rebellious streak," then at least we can agree to disagree with intellectual integrity.
And that's really my point: there are some serious issues to be discussed, and I'm not foolish enough to think that everyone will agree on such substantive issues. But if we can at least avoid the accusations and accept that there's an honest attempt to follow God's will, maybe we can work together to reach some solutions.

The New Testament in a Year: 1 Timothy 1-5

For my own personal study, I am using a combination of tools. These include listening to an audio version of the Bible (TNIV) and a series of commentaries in addition to the text itself. I recognize that not everyone will have access to these materials. I can at least provide a link to the Biblical text itself. For this purpose, I've found that BibleGateway.com is a very useful tool. Not only does it include the TNIV, which enables me to link to the same text as what I'm listening to with the audio version, but one can easily switch to another translation (if one so desires) simply by using the drop-down menus. I hope that this is helpful.

This week, I am working through 1 Timothy, chapters 1-5.

Chapter 1

• Verse 1 - This letter, along with the two that follow it (2 Timothy and Titus) are often referred to collectively as "The Pastoral Epistles," because of the particular "pastoral" concerns addressed within them.  There are a number of differences between the Pastoral Epistles and other letters that appear to be written by Paul.  These differences are sufficient for many scholars to argue that Paul was not the actual author of these letters, but were written instead by a follower of Paul (or of Paul's teachings) claiming his authority by using his name.  This phenomenon, sometimes referred to as "pseudepigraphy," was not at all uncommon in the world into which these letters were written.  Many Christians reject this theory on the grounds that it is dishonest to write under an assumed name in this way, or by arguing that if Scripture cannot contain any errors, the claim of a letter to be written by Paul must therefore be accurate.  I see no need to be dogmatic one way or the other about this, but would wish to point out that if these were in fact written by someone other than Paul, the original readers would almost certainly have known this from the start.  Pseudepigrapha was simply not treated as "dishonesty" in the ancient world in the same way as we might treat such a letter today.  These letters were accepted by the early church, and thus eventually made their way into our biblical canon.  For the sake of expediency, I will refer to the author as "Paul," even though I know that if Paul really wasn't the author, that would of course have implications for the interpretation of this letter (although probably not as many, or as significant, implications as many Pauline-authorship defenders would have people believe!).
• Verses 3-4 - As with other letters, we see pretty quickly that there was an issue that Paul wanted to address within the church, specifically said here to be in Ephesus.  Unlike other letters, this wasn't addressed to the whole community, however, but rather to a particular person in leadership over that community.
• Verse 7 - I daresay this is a common problem, today, too.  Some might say that I'm guilty of it, myself.
• Verse 15: "of whom I am the worst" - Hanson (who believes that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudepigrapha) notes that the use of the present tense (I am) rather than the past tense (I was) is "a truly Pauline touch."¹

Chapter 2

• Verse 7: "I am telling the truth, I am not lying" - A similar interjection was also used in Romans 9:1.
• Verses 11-12 - It would be irresponsible of me not to comment on these verses, given how often I advocate for the right of women to all forms of ministry on this blog.  For many Christians, these verses are considered indisputable proof that God does not permit women to ordained office.  Even these Christians will admit that ordained office isn't explicitly mentioned here, but many consider this to be implied by Paul's words.  In any event, nothing I say is likely to change those whose minds are already made up on this issue, but very briefly, I should at least note my comments on the similarly-themed verses in 1 Corinthians,² and that, noting the frequent references to false teachers, some scholars believe that Paul is here addressing a particular situation in Ephesus.³ It might be further noted that Ephesus is where the temple of Artemis was a prominent fixture (see also Acts 19).⁴  Paul's words here, then, would not have been intended as a for-all-time injunction against women in leadership, but were rather intended to give instruction to particular women falling prey to a particular heresy in a particular context.

Chapter 3

• Verses 2, 12: "faithful to his wife" - This phrase, translated as "the husband of one wife" in more traditional translations, has been the source of a fair amount of debate.  The interpretive options include 1) if a spouse has died, the remaining person may not remarry, 2) spouses may not commit adultery, 3) polygamy is prohibited, 4) the would-be leader may not have divorced and remarried.  The last of these is Hanson's view for this particular context.⁵

Chapter 4

• Verses 1-5 - Paul seems to be arguing against (an early form of?) Gnosticism here.  Gnosticism was a common form of heresy that gained prominence in the 2nd century, and which held that physical things were evil.

Chapter 5

• Verse 2 - The Greek word rendered here as "purity" is `αγνεια. It also occurred in chapter 4, verse 12, where Hanson suggested that it was probably intended to convey "sexual purity" (as opposed to the other potential meaning, "ritual purity.").⁶  It seems extremely likely to me that the same sense is intended here in this context of how Timothy should treat young women, even though Hanson doesn't comment on the use of the word here at all. 
• Verses 3-8 - An interesting window into how the church commits to help those in need, while acknowledging proper spheres of responsibility.
• Verse 6 - This verse seems strange.  As Hanson notes: "this can hardly apply to a destitute widow, who would not have the means for self-indulgence."  He suggests that the verse "probably has a sexual overtone," but admits to a lack of certainty.⁷
• Verse 23 - The reference to wine seems out of place.  Hanson refers to other scholars to suggest that the line of thought here is (in keeping with the context of the passage) "Do not put yourself in a position where you may be held responsible for another man's sins.... By this I do not mean the pseudo-ascetic purity of the false teachers.  On the contrary, use wine occasionally, since it is good for your health."⁸

---

¹A. T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles (The New Century Bible Commentary), Eerdmans, 1982, p. 61.
²Although, as David M. Scholer notes in his article, "1 Timothy 2:9-15 & the Place of Women in the Church's Ministry" (p. 193, see below for full reference), the 1 Corinthians passage "is not cited as frequently or as forcefully" because of the obvious reference to women prophesying, and therefore speaking, in that same epistle.
³See David M. Scholer, "1 Timothy 2:9-15 & the Place of Women in the Church's Ministry", in Women, Authority & the Bible, edited by Avera Mickelsen, InterVarsity Press, 1986, p. 199.
⁴Although in his footnotes to p. 199, Scholer points out that "there is no clear or particular evidence that connects this heresy with any pagan worship in Ephesus and its sexual activities and connotations," and thus cautions against building a case solely on this evidence. It is enough to argue that Paul is writing against a heresy particular to the context in which the epistle is intended.
⁵Hanson, pp. 75, 77-78.
⁶Hanson, p. 92.
⁷Hanson, p. 97.
⁸Hanson, p. 104.

Previous Week

Next Week

REPOST - Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained

This post is the final one I'll be doing to tie in with "A Week of Mutuality," hosted by Rachel Held Evans this week (the week of June 4-10) at her blog, rachelheldevans.com. You can head to this link to learn more about the project. I had to think long and hard about this one, since I've already posted this list twice previously on the blog, and was reluctant to post it for a third time, as I don't think just posting and reposting the same material is a good way to keep a blog fresh and interesting. However, this week has already proven to be an exception, and I ultimately came to the conclusion that I needed to post the whole thing one more time, taking the opportunity to put the list in some context while providing a fitting closure to the week.
Read more »

The New Testament in a Year: Hebrews 7-11

For my own personal study, I am using a combination of tools. These include listening to an audio version of the Bible (TNIV) and a series of commentaries in addition to the text itself. I recognize that not everyone will have access to these materials. I can at least provide a link to the Biblical text itself. For this purpose, I've found that BibleGateway.com is a very useful tool. Not only does it include the TNIV, which enables me to link to the same text as what I'm listening to with the audio version, but one can easily switch to another translation (if one so desires) simply by using the drop-down menus. I hope that this is helpful.

This week, I am working through Hebrews, chapters 7-11.

Chapter 7

• I'm again reminded of Dr. Scholer's comments on Melchizedek. 
• Verse 17 - Psalm 110:4 is quoted again.  I wonder what the people of God prior to the time of Christ thought of this passage.

Chapter 8

• Verses 7-12 - Jeremiah 31:31-34

Chapter 9

• Verses 1-5 - Scholer points out that the fact that Hebrews references the tabernacle (as opposed to the temple, which would have been more relevant to the era) is a sign that the author is concerned less about religious abuses of his Jewish contemporaries, and more with the tradition itself.
• Verses 16, 17 - The TNIV uses the word "will" to translate the same Greek word previously translated as "covenant," presumably because "will" connects better to the point the author is making in reference to death (and, indeed, we know of covenants the don't require either of the parties making them to have died, despite what verse 17 would sound like if "covenant" were used there).  But it's probably worth remembering that the same word previously translated "covenant" is being used here, and not some new term.
• Verse 26 - I imagine that this verse (and parts of Chapter 10 that follow it) is one of the reasons some Protestants have trouble with the idea that of communion as a "sacrifice" (not a term Presbyterians tend to use, anyway) in which the real body and real blood of Christ are present (in the bread and the wine, as in beliefs that argue for transubstantiation).

Chapter 10

• Verse 1 - Sounds like Plato's Forms....
• Verse 25 - The author clearly intends that Christians should keep meeting each other regularly.  Today we talk of "going to church" in this vein.  Besides the admonishment to do so, I do feel that people need to be given reasons why continuing to go to church is important.  The author gives at least one such reason right here: so that believers may encourage one another.
• Verse 26 - This verse must be a source of great anxiety for many.  After all, who among us can claim to have not "deliberately" sinned at some point after becoming Christians?

Chapter 11

• Why does the author mention the particular people he does, in his litany of "faith"?

---

Previous Week

Next Week

My First e-Book: Women's Speaking Justified With Modern English

About 7 years ago, when I audited David Scholer's "Women, the Bible, and the Church" class at Fuller Theological Seminary, I was actually somewhat surprised to learn that the debate about whether or not women should be ordained in Christian churches wasn't an entirely 20th century phenomenon. I had always assumed that it arose out of women's rights movements such as the suffrage movement that gave women the right to vote in 1920 (in the United States, that is).  In fact, the question of whether or not women have the right to be church leaders (especially in ordained positions) has been going on for many centuries.

Indeed, I suppose that I shouldn't have been so surprised.  Why would some of the ancient church "fathers" (and, let's face it, the earliest church leaders were primarily men) have engaged in such aggressive attacks against women as church leaders if there weren't in fact women who were arguing for their rights to such positions?

One example that Dr. Scholer mentioned in class was a work by the so-called "mother of Quakerism," Margaret Fell.  The work had the full title Women's Speaking Justified, Proved, and Allowed of by the Scriptures, All such as speak by the Spirit and Power of the Lord Jesus.  (Actually, there's a subtitle, too: And how Women were the first that Preached the Tidings of the Resurrection of Jesus, and were sent by Christ's own Command, before he Ascended to the Father, John 20. 17.)  Long, fully descriptive titles like this weren't at all uncommon at the time, but it should be no surprise that most people today simply refer to the work as Women's Speaking Justified.

I didn't actually have a chance to read Women's Speaking Justified at the time, but about a year later, it was included as required reading for another professor's course, and since I'm the person that usually assembles course readers, I had access to the material.  Since the work was written in 1666, and is thus in the Public Domain, I made an electronic copy for myself, and tried to read it.

I say "tried to read it" because, at the time, I found the 17th century English too difficult to read on a casual basis.  It took a later commitment to work through the difficulties of archaic styles and fonts (which use that strange "s" that looks more like an "f" that seems to show up in works of the 17th and 18th century.  Anyone who's seen a copy of the original Declaration of Independence will know what I'm talking about), and Fell's tendency to jump right into a scripture quote without informing the reader by using quotation marks (which weren't in consistent use yet in 1666).  I eventually decided to take it upon myself to create a "modern language" version, so that others who might be interested in this historically significant document (besides Margaret Fell's own notoriety, the work is significant if only because it proves that people were making biblically-based arguments for women's ordination earlier than the 20th century).  Some months later, after I had finished the project, the professor who had been using Women's Speaking Justified asked if he could use my version for his class, rather than the version he had used previously.  I agreed, and the project was praised for helping several of the seminary students understand Fell's work much more readily.  In fact, because I had gone to the trouble of including the original text in an opposing column alongside my "updated" version for comparison, some of the students were able to help me fix a couple of small typographical errors that remained at the time.

And that was it for a few more years.  I recently have decided to try my hand at e-publishing, and this work seemed to be a good place to start, since I believe that it has a natural audience of people interested in issues related to women's ordination, not to mention the work's place in Protestant history, and hopefully my efforts will remove some of the barriers to reading Fell's writing that have historically prevented more people from doing so.  The file may be purchased and downloaded at Lulu.com via this link.

The New Testament in a Year: Hebrews 2-6

For my own personal study, I am using a combination of tools. These include listening to an audio version of the Bible (TNIV) and a series of commentaries in addition to the text itself. I recognize that not everyone will have access to these materials. I can at least provide a link to the Biblical text itself. For this purpose, I've found that BibleGateway.com is a very useful tool. Not only does it include the TNIV, which enables me to link to the same text as what I'm listening to with the audio version, but one can easily switch to another translation (if one so desires) simply by using the drop-down menus. I hope that this is helpful.

This week, I am working through Hebrews, chapters 2-6.

Chapter 2

• Verses 6-8 - The author seems to be quoting Psalm 8:4-6, but there are alterations significant enough that the footnotes to the TNIV linked here go to the unusual step of quoting the Psalm version rather than simply referencing it.  Are these alterations significant?  (I should note that the shift from singular to plural seems to be present in the TNIV, but not in other translations.  I'll leave this to others to determine what liberties were taken at what level of interpretation.)
• Verse 12 - References Psalm 22:22, again with changes (although not so significant that the footnotes spell this out so definitively)
• Verse 13 - Referencing Isaiah 8:17-18, if fragmentarily.  The author of Hebrews references the Hebrew Scriptures quite a lot, and I'll be pulling back from mentioning each example.  However, the question of why these particular Scriptures are use remains important to understanding the book of Hebrews.
• Verses 14-18 - While I don't think for a minute that the writer of Hebrews wants to ignore Jesus' divinity (see verse 9), he especially wants to emphasize both the fact of Jesus' humanity, and the reason why it was important that Jesus be human.

Chapter 3

• Verse 1: "our apostle and high priest" - It's interesting to see Jesus called an "apostle" here (usually I hear "apostle" as a person "sent" by Jesus himself.  I assume here it is intended to point to the fact that Jesus was "sent" by God the Father).  The "high priest" association grows in importance as Hebrews continues, and while I am confident that this term had huge significance to the original audience, I fear that some of this is lost on Christians today.  Especially in Protestant denominations (which tend not to have leaders called "priests"), the natural tendency (it seems to me) is to equate "priest" with "pastor" or "minister" (the kind of leader we do recognize).  But "priest" carries connotation specific to acts of sacrifice (especially for repentance) which don't connect so specifically to ministers in our Protestant churches  (This is especially apparent in denominational differences of how the Lord's Supper is observed, but I don't really want to get into those distinctions here).
• Verses 7-19 - As David Scholer points out, Hebrews seems to be written out of pastoral concerns that believers might fall away from the faith.  Illustrations like this one from Jewish history would have had particularly profound impact in making such a point.

Chapter 4

• Verse 12 - What does the author of Hebrews mean when writing about “the word of God”? We use that term about Scripture, including this passage, but the person writing Hebrews almost certainly had no idea that this letter would become Scripture when it was being written. What other kinds of “word of God” might have been in the author's mind?

Chapter 5

• Verses 6, 10 - The first of several references to Melchizedek, who outside of Hebrews only appears in Genesis 14:18-20 (and is referenced in Psalm 110:4, which is what verse 6 here is quoting).  Comments on David Scholer's lecture on the significance of Melchizedek in Hebrews may be found here.

Chapter 6

• Verse 9 - Having said some fairly pointed things to the Hebrews, the author now turns to words of reassurance that he (and those with him?) "are convinced of better things" for them.  I can't help but wonder how much of this is a rhetorical device, and how much the author really is convinced of such good things.  If he were, why write the letter?
• Verse 10: "God is not unjust" - When I hear some people talk about God being "good" or "just," in apparent defense against those who might argue that God is not good or just, their defense often comes off as sounding like "if God does something, that makes it good or just, because God is the arbiter of what is good or just."  I find such defenses unsatisfactory.  I also get the impression that this is not the kind of definition of justice that the author of Hebrews is using here.  The author isn't defending apparently unjust actions as being just because God did them, so as to change the definition of justice to "what God wants."  Rather, the author is appealing to God's nature.  God, being the kind of God that God is, cannot do something unjust.  God is a fair God (more than fair, we might argue, but that gets ahead of ourselves), and will reward the good work that God's people are said here to have done.

---

Previous Week

Next Week