Points of Interest

I thought today I would just post about a couple of things which interested me:

(1) Apparently Hendrickson Publishers has just released the fascicle of Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Judges.  I still need to start ordering my copies of BHQ, but it seems each volume is taking longer to publish.  It will certainly be a tremendous contribution to Hebrew Bible studies once it is completed.

(2) Renowned Greek scholar and linguist, Dr. Stanley E. Porter (President of McMaster Divinity School) has begun blogging about McMaster, Seminary education, Koine Greek and the New Testament.  I've already added it to my blog-reader...how about you?

(3) My two alma-maters have each just announced new presidents: Trinity Bible College will be receiving Dr. Paul Alexander (currently Principal of Mattersey Hall in the U.K.) and I trust this will prove a positive academic direction for TBC.  In other news, I discovered that Dr. David Johnson (Professor of NT, Executive Vice-President and Provost of PTS) has been accepted as the interim president of Providence Theological Seminary.  Congrats to Dr. Johnson on the new opportunity!

"Fourteen" Generations?

This week I preached from Matthew 1:1-17 on the genealogy of Jesus.  Talk about a fun text!  Needless to say, one of the elements of this text that is troubling (at a certain level) is the emphasis by Matthew on "fourteen generations" from Abraham to David, then David to the exile in Babylon, then the exile to the Christ.  When one counts the names in each list it becomes readily apparent that there are not fourteen in all three.  The first is fine, but the other two are not. 

There have been a number of proposals for resolving this and I'll just mention them briefly followed by my own proposal.
1) At least one of the names should be counted in both lists.  For instance, David or Jeconiah.
2) The three groups of fourteen are meant to refer to six groups of seven (which is considered a number of completion).
3) Fourteen should be understood as gematria (where the letters of the alphabet represent numbers) and David in the Hebrew (דָּוִד dawid - only the consonants have numeric value) is 4+6+4 which equals 14.  Thus, David and Jesus connection to him as the Christ is the central point.

The first should be rejected because there is actually no clear indication of adding only one name twice.  It fails to work out intelligibly in any counting.  The second proposal fails because Matthew emphatically notes "fourteen" and not seven.  This would also place Jesus within the groups and fails to actually count the names.  The third (being the leading preference for interpreting this passage) falls short (in my opinion) because it requires a Hebrew gematria reading of a Greek text, which seems overly complex.  The use of a name being equal to the number is also not noted (as elsewhere in Scripture - cf. Rev.13:18).

My own proposal is simply to consider the "fourteen" generations for each of the groups as referring to the fulness of time.  This is then taken to point to Jesus as the Christ coming in the line of the promise to Abraham to bless all the nations, and to king David to have a son who would sit on the throne forever.  Thus, making this text a wonderful fit for Advent season (on which also see the post by Dan Thompson concerning "hope").  To be certain, the number "fourteen" in this context is ambiguous at best.  One can only guess that Matthew's original audience understood what was meant.  So what are your thoughts?

Why I Love the Hebrew Bible

In my first semester at Bible college I had to take a course on Old Testament Survey. I was expecting it to be boring and obscure. Up till that point I mostly thought the Old Testament was in the Bible to just provide some interesting stories for Sunday School until we got to "the more important stuff" in the New Testament. However, my professor for this class demonstrated from the very beginning his deep passionate enthrallment with the Hebrew Bible (in case you didn't realize the "Hebrew Bible" is another way of referring to the Old Testament :-). His hair would begin combed neatly and by the end of class it would be completely disheveled because of his excited lectures and discussions...and his hands and sleeves would be covered in chalk from all his writing. He made the Old Testament come alive for me.

The next semester was my first real introduction to the Hebrew language (which was nothing more than learning the alphabet, some discussion of tenses and sentence structure, and how to use basic research resources for it). One of the things that most strikes me as I remember the professor who taught this class was when he wept while reading the apocryphal "Prayer of Manasseh" (which is not a part of the Protestant canon of the Old Testament, but is in the Catholic canon and still belongs to the overall genre of Old Testament studies). His passion for original languages was contagious and I had never seen anyone weep while reading from the scriptures (sorry...I don't actually think of the "Prayer" as Scripture in the same sense--note the little "s"--, but it certainly is a wonderful piece of literature based upon other recognized Scriptures).

Then somewhat later in college I took an Intro to Hebrew with a brilliant professor of the Hebrew Bible (who had rather "interesting" ways of teaching...to say the least). More than anything else I took away from that class an appreciation biblical Hebrew culture (and a little modern Jewish culture mixed in). Playing dreidel (here's a very brief description) for Hanukkah as we discussed the history of the game and various other aspects of Hebrew culture. FWIW...I won LOTS of candy that night. :-)

Now nearing the end of my graduate studies where I'm trying to focus on Hebrew Bible (and hopefully some day earn a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible)...I've had opportunity to study with some very gifted Hebrew scholars who have continued to impress their love for the Book (but more importantly their love for the God of the Book) upon me.

I am truly grateful for the amazing men and women who have shared their passion with me over the years.  Most of them will never know the impact they have made in my life.  It has enriched my love for the LORD beyond measure and I only pray that I continue to pass on that same passionate love through my preaching, teaching and living.  I look forward to as many days as the LORD may give me to draw deeply from the depths of this wonderful life-changing Book.

 ברוך השם

Another Post On Learning Biblical Languages

Elizabeth Groves (a recently hired Lecturer of Old Testament and Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary) posted several practical presentations on why we should take the time to learn Biblcal languages.  I enjoyed them (but then again I love learning languages...as painful as that can be).

Best of all is this music video about learning Koine Greek ("All Things Are Better In Koine" -- for those who also consider themselves to be Greek-Geeks).

Maacah the "mother" of Abijah and Asa

The Problem
Recently I was chatting with a fellow who proposed that there may be an error in the Scriptures.  So in the course of the conversation he shared what he thought was the error and I've worked through what I think are some possible solutions to the apparent error (being someone who loves a challenge, believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, and just plain old loves to study the Bible).  So I thought I'd blog my thoughts about this...for whatever its worth.

Here is the problem: 1 Kings 15:2 says Maacah was the "mother" of Abijah and 1 Kings 15:10 says Maacah was the "mother" (depending on what English translation you look at because some say "grandmother") of Asa--Abijah's son.

Now in the eighteenth year of King Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, Abijam became king over Judah.  He reigned three years in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was Maacah the daughter of Abishalom. (1Ki 15:1-2 NAS) 

So in the twentieth year of Jeroboam the king of Israel, Asa began to reign as king of Judah.
And he reigned forty-one years in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was Maacah the daughter of Abishalom. (1Ki 15:9-10 NAS)

Option 1- The term for "mother" may also mean "grandmother" since there are no other words available for referring to a grandmother.

The term in the Hebrew (אֵם) for 'mother' has a wider possible meaning than simply 'mother', it can also be applied to the matriarch of the family (grandmother, etc.), just as the Hebrew for "father" can also be applied to an ancestor that stands in the lineage of the family without being the specific/anatomical birth-father of the individual named (immediate context and the wider Scriptural context will normally shed light on which it is).

Besides of which, there does not appear to be a Biblical Hebrew word for "grandmother" besides אֵם which means just means "mother", but has (only in this immediate context) the wider meaning of "grandmother". So unless it can be demonstrated that the Hebrew of the Old Testament era has another specific word for "grandmother" I would say that אֵם is the appropriate term to refer to each -- mother and grandmother.  This works just the same as אָב means "father" "grandfather" "great-grandfather" etc. There is only this one word for "father", "grandfather" in the OT Hebrew (so far as I can tell). So context is the only possible aid in helping to know just what is being meant by the single word which appears to have been the ONLY word possible.

Thus, there are translations which reflect "grandmother" in 15:10 (NIV, NLT, NET) -- understanding אֵם to mean "grandmother" in this context.  But there are others (KJV, NAS, NRSV, ESV) that retain the reading as "mother" and choose to not try to resolve the possible difficulty posed by Maacah being the "mother" of both Abijam and Abijam's son Asa.  So perhaps other options should be considered as well.

Option 2 - The name of Asa's "mother" was Ana and not Maacah.

The Greek Septuagint (LXX) in 1 Kings 15:10 actually lists the 'name of his [Asa's] mother' as "Ana daughter of Abishalom" instead of "Maacah daughter of Abishalom" which is what the Hebrew Masoretic text reads.  All the English translations (ESV, KJV, NIV, NRSV, NAS, NET, NLT) I've looked at take the former (Maacah) reading for 1 Kings 15:10...thus believing that the Masoretic text (being the more difficult reading and therefore the easiest to explain the smoothing towards changing the name to "Ana" found in the LXX) is the preferred reading...whether they chose "mother" or "grandmother" the idea would be that the Masoretic text preserves the original text here (which is most likely and would also be in agreement with the Masoretic and LXX reading of 2 Chronicles 15:16 with the name 'Maacah' as the "mother" of Asa).  The fact that the LXX only changed the name in 1 Kings 15:10, but not in 2 Chronicles 15:16 speaks more to questions (at least for me) about the texual tradition of the LXX than it does about the dilemma at hand.  So I would say that the suggestion that "Ana" was the mother of Asa is to be rejected and we are still left trying to resolve Maacah being the "mother" of both Abijam and his son Asa.

Option 3 - Maacah actually raised Asa as her son (even though he was her grandson by birth) because the mother was out of the picture for some unexplained reason. 

This is actually not a strange option, since everyone would agree that even a child who is not biologically a son or daughter may be adopted by someone and therefore have a new "mother" or "father".  Joseph being the "father" of Jesus is a perfect example.  So perhaps Maacah acted as the "mother" of Asa and therefore held the rightful name of "mother".  all adoptive parents understand that being a "mother" or "father" of a child is far more than biological.

Option 4 - Maacah was his birth mother, thus the writer of Kings would be implying that Abijam (Asa's father) slept with his own mother, got her pregnant and she ended up giving birth to Asa. 

Thus, she would physically/anatomically be the "mother" of each of them. Often the writer of Kings records activities without offering any specific critique of the rightness or wrongness, but simply reports certain incidences and allows the light of the Torah (Lev.18:6-7) to declare the rightness or wrongness of something.  This may indeed be one of those cases.

Conclusions

Option 2 seems to betray a difficulty in the text of the LXX concerning the transmission of Kings (since Chronicles retains the reading of Maacah as "mother" of Asa) and therefore should be rejected out of hand.  Options 1, 3, and 4 are actually--in my opinion--viable options given the nature of the text and authors and the lexicography (semantic possibilities) of words.  I did at one point leans towards option one (with option 3 as slightly less likely), but currently find option 4 to be the most probable...given the way that the author of Kings has again and again offered the readers a story reflecting the sinful ways of Judah and Israel (and may give further justification for the removal of his "mother" Maacah from a place of prestige and authority beyond her public support and financing of idolatry -- see 1 Kings 15:13).

Perhaps there are even other options which I've over-looked.  If so please feel free to comment on that.  Also, I'd be interested in any thoughts on this subject whether positive or negative.  Or perhaps you don't care and you are thinking, "Rick has WAY too much time on his hands"... :-)

Why Are You Learning Greek and Hebrew?

I've been asked this question numerous times (by some family, friends and my church), "Why would you want to learn Hebrew/Greek?" There have of course been times I've wondered the very same thing. It's hard work that requires tremendous amounts of time, energy, focus and just plain type A personality giftings (or would it be better to say a little OCD doesn't hurt :-)). I've taken a couple of years of Greek and Hebrew now at both the undergrad and now the Grad level and while I've learned alot, it seems the more I learn the more I realize that I don't know. The complexities of not only learning a language, but of learning a dead language that you are incapable of chatting with anyone in, that there is no new literature being written in, etc.

But them I'm reminded of why I do this when I begin to study the Scriptures in the original languages and soon realize all the things that are missing by only reading a translation. Not to mention it aids in memorizing the Scriptures in English and understanding the translations you read that much more clearly. I find that when I'm able to read something in the original language suddenly I feel that I can hear the voice of the Lord a little clearer and as if the words come to life.

Over the last few years I have grown to love learning languages more and more (while still struggling day in and day out) and to realize that to know Christ is not always an easy matter. Discipleship requires discipline and there is no easy path for following Him. The shortcuts to discipleship tend to water down the disciple.

While I don't think its necessary to learn Greek and Hebrew in order to follow Christ, yet there is inestimable advantage in reading what was originally written and thereby drawing closer to Christ and walking in faithfulness with His Spirit. The admonition of Paul to Timothy to "study to show yourself approved to God" is not the call to a casual study of Scripture and the following of the Lord, but a call to work hard at knowing the revelation of God and to walk in faith-filled obedience to it. I pray the Lord help us as His body (and myself as a servant to His glorious Church) to offer ourselves in obedience, to work as to Him and to bring Him greater glory through the process.

"I now studied much, about 12 hours a day, chiefly Hebrew . . . [and] committed portions of the Hebrew Old Testament to memory; and this I did with prayer, often falling on my knees . . . I looked up to the Lord even whilst turning over the leaves of my Hebrew dictionary." – George Mueller, 1829

"For the devil smelled a rat, and perceived that if the [biblical] languages were revived a hole would be knocked in his kingdom which he could not easily stop up again. Since he found he could not prevent their revival, he now aims to keep them on such slender rations that they will of themselves decline and pass away. They are not a welcome guest in his house, so he plans to offer them such meager entertainment that they will not prolong their stay. Very few of us, my dear sirs see through this evil design of the devil." —Martin Luther, 1524

Oh, for more George Muellers and Martin Luthers! Lord, help me in my weakness to study faithfully that I may be approved in the Last Day as a worthy Son and Disciple!