Since the Beginning in Edge of Faith Magazine

A while back, Michael Porter at Edge of Faith magazine interviewed me about Since the Beginning. The interview appeared in the February edition. You can read a portion of the interview here. (Unfortunately, the remainder of the interview is behind a paywall.)

EOF: Let’s just jump straight in. We are going to interview you about your book, Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages. You are the editor, but you are also a contributor, and it’s a collection of people’s papers. Those interested in the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2, what can they expect, at least at a high level, from reading your book?

Greenwood: If you don’t mind, I think I’ll just provide a little more background on the book for those who may not be familiar with it. As you said, it is a collection of essays and unlike some collected essay volumes, there is a rhyme and a reason and a method for each of the chapters that are included in the book. Basically, it is a history of the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 where each chapter looks at a particular era both from a Christian perspective and from a Jewish perspective. For example, there is an earlier Rabbinic chapter, a Christian medieval chapter, a Jewish medieval chapter — in other words, how have these texts that begin the scriptures, how have they been interpreted by Christian and Jewish interpreters over time? 

What it Means to "Train Up a Child"

Recently, I chaired a panel discussion on the topic of parenting at River Church FMC, where I serve as Family Ministries Director. We called it “Train Up a Child,” the first words of Proverbs 22:6 in the King James Version, which is followed by both ESV and NASB.[1]

The verse reads in full as follows:

Train up a child in the way he should go:

and when he is old, he will not depart from it. (KJV)

But the translations are not real clear on how to understand the Hebrew text behind these words (ḥănōk lanna‘ar).

NAB	NRSV	NIV (2011)
Train the young in the way they should go; even when old, they will not swerve from it	Train children the right way, and when old, they will not stray.	Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it.

The verse seems simple enough, right? But, when we start asking questions, it becomes less clear as to exactly what this adage is suggesting.

What does it mean to “train” a child?

An athlete trains by engaging in certain exercises that helps them reach their highest potential in performance. A soldier trains through physical and mental exercises, using their weapons, and mastering their specific skill—whether it’s flying a jet, driving a tank, or programming a computer. A musician trains by repeatedly rehearsing key strokes and finger placement, practicing the most difficult measures until they’re second nature.

But, what does it mean to train a child?

The Hebrew root behind verb “train” is ḥnk (חנךְ). Of the 49 times in which the root appears, 18 refers to the palate (ḥēk; חֵךְ), 15 pertains to the personal name Enoch (ḥănôk; חְַנוֹךְ), and twice with reference to the toponym Enoch (ḥănôk; חְַנוֹךְ). Of the remaining 14 uses, it is used as verb only five times, including Prov 22:6. In each of the other four instances, it clearly refers to a dedication. In fact it is the same word from which we get the word Hanukah, or Feast of Dedication. It is this sense of dedication, whether altars (Num 7:10, 2 Chron 7:9), walls (Neh 12:27), or the temple (Ps 30:1) that accounts for eight of the remaining nine occurrence of the root. The final occurrence is found in Gen 14:14, when Lot was taken captive by a coalition of kings. His uncle Abram led a group of ḥānîk (חָנִיךְ) men. Most translations say these men were “trained,” but since each of these men were born in Abram’s house, perhaps “dedicated” fits better. Moreover, Cain’s son Enoch was named after a city. It seems more likely that the city would be called “dedicated” rather than “trained.”

ḥēk; חֵךְ	ḥănôk; חְַנוֹךְ	ḥănukkâ חְַנֻכָּה	ḥānak חָנַךְ (verb)	ḥănōkî חְַנֹכִי	ḥānîk חָנִיךְ
palate 18x	Enoch (PN) 15x Enoch (TP) 2x	Dedication 8x	dedicate 4x ? 1x	Hanochite 1x	? 1x

In other words, it’s unclear what the training in Prov. 22:6 entails, and whether it’s training at all. Perhaps what the proverb has in mind is not a particular regiment, but a commitment on the part of the parents to present this child before the Lord as a dedication.

In what way should the child go?

There are three basic interpretations of the training of the child.

1. The training should be based on the child’s nature and personality; that is, according to the child’s way.[2]
2. The training should be in a matter appropriate for a child; that is, according to societal norms for child-rearing.^[3]
3. The training should be done the according to a specific method; that is, according to God’s way of doing things.[4]

Of these three options, interpretation #3 seems to fit best with the overall theme of Proverbs. The book opens with an outline for the collection’s purpose:

²For learning about wisdom and instruction,
   for understanding words of insight,³for gaining instruction in wise dealing,
   righteousness, justice, and equity;⁴to teach shrewdness to the simple,
   knowledge and prudence to the young—⁵let the wise also hear and gain in learning,
   and the discerning acquire skill,⁶to understand a proverb and a figure,
   the words of the wise and their riddles.⁷The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;
   fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Moreover, the book is set out as a set of instructions for wise living, passed down from instructor to student, from parent to child.

[source: Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii 

Collection (Library of Congress), WikiCommons]

So, in the scope of the book of Proverbs it seems that the parents are dedicating themselves to the faithful teaching of the fear of the Lord.

What does Prov 22:6 promise?

Too often I have heard various proverbs cited as promised from God. But that’s not how proverbs operate. Proverbs are common expressions used to express a universal truth in broad, but memorable strokes. Proverbs are sometimes contradictory, like Prov. 26:4–5.

⁴Do not answer fools according to their folly,
  or you will be a fool yourself.⁵Answer fools according to their folly,
  or they will be wise in their own eyes.

So, it takes wisdom to know when to apply proverbs to various situation. Proverbs are based on observation and experience. They are not legal guarantees from God. 

If parents dedicate themselves to raising children who fear the Lord, experience shows that these children will likely continue to walk with God throughout life. The book of Proverbs is a guidebook for providing the best opportunities to succeed in doing that, but it doesn’t guarantee it.

---

[1] The similarity between KJV, ESV and NRSV are unsurprising due to their shared pedigree. For a helpful chart of the English Bible family tree, see https://findingrightwords.wordpress.com/2016/05/26/english-bible-chart-2-0/.

[2] This view was promulgated as early as the 9^th century CE by a the Jewish scholar Saadia.

^[3] Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, The New American Commentary 14 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 187–188. See also Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament. vol 6 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 324. “The instruction of youth, the education of youth, ought to be conformed to the nature of youth; the matter of instruction, the manner of instruction, ought to regulate itself according to the stage of life, and its peculiarities; the method ought to be arranged according to the degree of development which the mental and bodily life of the youth has arrived at.”

[4] See, for example, W. McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach, Old Testament Library (London, SCM, 1970), 564. “There is only one right way – the way of life – and the educational discipline which directs young men along this way is uniform.”

Review: Heartbeat of Old Testament Theology by Mark Boda

It is in vogue these days to abandon the notion that the Old Testament has a theology. The evidence is pretty clear on that matter, given the diverse library of books found in the OT canon. Nonetheless, this hasn’t stopped the proliferation of books dedicated to the subject of Old Testament theology.

Mark Boda is aware of the tension and recognizes that another book on the topic requires justification. In The Heartbeat of Old Testament Theology: Three Creedal Expressions (Baker, 2017), Boda asks rhetorically, “Can we speak any longer of a theology that lies at the core of the OT? Are our claims of theology merely perspectival projections, or can we identify something in these ancient texts that witness to some form of unity in the biblical corpus?” (p. 6)

Boda does not argue against the reality that the Old Testament portrays a multifaceted theological framework. Rather, Boda follows the lead of Gerhard von Rad who highlighted three creedal recitations (Deut. 6, 26, and Josh. 24) as Israel’s “underlying theological expression”(p. 11). For Boda, the three creedal recitations are not three biblical passages, but three biblical ideas: the narrative rhythm, the character rhythm, and the relational rhythm. These are detailed in chapters 2–4. 

The narrative rhythm represents God’s activity in history. “In this creedal tradition in ancient Israel, theology is expressed as God’s redemptive story described through finite verbs expressing past action” (p. 15). The basic elements of the narrative creed include the following: ancestors, exodus, wilderness, conquest, land, and exile. Exod. 20:2 exemplifies this creed: “I am Yahweh your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt.”

The character rhythm emphasizes God’s being versus God’s acting. Boda defines it this way: “Instead of speaking of God as One who did this or that at a particular time (e.g., in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; at the Reed Sea God delivered Israel), this tradition speaks of God as One who does this or that (e.g., participles: God is the one who creates, God is the one who delivers; or nonperfective finite verbs: God will deliver) and by extension as One who possesses these characteristics (e.g., nouns: God is the Creator, God is the Deliverer)” (p. 29). Exod. 34:6–7 typifies this creed: 

The Lord, the Lord,a God merciful and gracious,slow to anger,and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation,forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,yet by no means clearing the guilty,but visiting the iniquity of the parentsupon the childrenand the children’s children,to the third and the fourth generation.

The relational rhythm refers to how God interacts with humanity relationally, primarily with covenant or familial language, or “by utilizing copular syntactical constructions (היה as copula, verbless clauses, third-person pronoun copula), usually translated into English as ‘I am/you are,’ ‘I will be/you will be’ or ‘He is/they are,’ ‘He will be/they will be’”(p. 55). Lev. 26:12 is a fair representation of this creedal expression: “And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.”

In chapter 5, Boda looks at Exod. 5:22–6:8 and Neh. 9 as case studies to show how the three rhythms are integrated into the whole of the OT theology. Chapter 6 demonstrates how the three creedal rhythms are expressed in OT creation language. Chapter 7 illustrates how the three rhythms carry over into the NT. In chapter 8, Boda argues why Christians should be concerned with these three rhythms. After a brief postscript, Boda concludes with a thirty-two page appendix, “Biblical Theology and the Old Testament.”

For Christians, especially evangelical Protestants, chapter 8 shines a bright light into some dark corners. I suspect that some will read this chapter with skepticism and some will start to read but be turned off by his sharp criticisms of the church. Hopefully, though, many will read Boda’s commentary on the evangelical church and heed his exhortations.

For example, in response to an individualistic ecclesiology inherent in evangelical Protestant churches, Boda writes:

“The narrative creed in OT theology reminds us that salvation is defined in communal rather than individual terms. God saves and transforms a community in order to bring transformation and salvation to the entire cosmos. This is intimated from the outset in God’s promises to Abraham, promises that spoke of the creation of an entire nation through whom the nations of the earth would be blessed. These same promises are communicated to the church in the NT, and through this new humanity God will transform the cultures of the world” (p. 125).

This is a much different, and more vibrant faith, than one in which salvation is about saving my own hide from the fires of hell. As I understand the gospels, this is what it means to have life and have it abundantly (Jn 10:10).

Review: The City in the Hebrew Bible

Here's a brief excerpt of my forthcoming review in the Bulletin for Biblical Research of James K. Aitken & Hilary F. Marlow (eds), The City in the Hebrew Bible: Critical, Literary and Exegetical Approaches.

Citizens of the West, and virtually all of the world’s population, have some concept of the idea of a city. It is the central hub of commerce, employment and entertainment. It is marked by densely placed housing units in relatively close proximity to said ventures. However, the word “city” carries a wide array of connotations, depending on one’s point of reference. For a rural farmer, “the city” might be the town of 500 where he buys seed and delivers grain. For the obstetrician at the county seat, “the city” might be the municipality where she delivers babies at the regional hospital. For the aspiring actor, “the city” might mean nothing other than New York City’s Broadway. In short, the term “city” is rather subjective even to the modern ear, as one’s definition of “city” is filtered through their personal experiences. 

If you are curious about what the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament has to say about cities, divorced from whatever modern conception of the idea you might have, the eleven essays (plus introduction) will give you plenty to think about. The contributors employ a variety of methodologies in their approach to the topic, providing a rich scope of perspectives.

Unfortunately, as a T&T Clark publication, this 248 page hardcover will set you back over $2.18/page, if you want your own personal copy! Or, you can check it out at your university library, which is what T&T Clark, Brill, de Gruyter, Routledge, and their ilk are counting on. But, that's another topic for another day.

Rowing Coaches and Bible Teachers

In my collegiate days I took up rowing and “walked on” the University of Cincinnati crew team. I had been an avid runner in high school, but got burned out mentally and physically. But, I hadn’t lost the desire to compete, so I took up rowing.

It’s not an easy sport to just “pick up.” Besides the physical demands on the body—virtually every muscle and organ in the body is taxed to the max—it requires precise technique that must be in complete sync with every other oarsman in the boat. There’s not a lot of room for individuality.

My local rec center has a few Concept-II ergometers, or rowing machines, which I will occasionally take for a spin for a full body workout. Not surprising, it’s not one of the more popular pieces of equipment in the gym.

Despite the instruction sheet pinned to the wall next to these machines, I’ve never seen anyone take the kind of stroke that would propel a boat of eight down the course with any measure of efficiency. Most would be fortunate not to capsize.

Yesterday, I observed an instructor teaching a group of novices. Her coaching wasn’t horrible. In fact, most of what she said was solid advice. She rightly told her students to keep their chins up and shoulders square, how to properly use the stirrups, and to avoid bending too far forward or backward. But, there was no instruction regarding leg drive, hand placement, the “catch”, or the “finish,” among many other finer details. Nonetheless, her  students were much better off than those who only read the instruction sheet, and far better off than those who were just winging it.

Watching this instruction got me thinking about teaching the Bible. People have a wide range of access to instruction on how to study the Bible: a graduate degree, a survey course at a university, classes through their local congregation, online, or none at all.

It should go without saying, that the more qualified the teacher the better off the student. A rookie rower who jumps into a boat with no training could hurt themselves or sink the boat (and everyone on board). Only after years of training under expert supervision is the student rower in the position to teach other rowers.

The same is true for teaching the Bible. Sure, anyone can read the Bible—and I suggest everyone should! But, unless you’ve studied under a qualified expert to the point where you have also mastered the material, you might want to think twice about passing on your limited skills to others.  After all, it would be tragic to capsize someone's faith or shipwreck their life due to irresponsible teaching (see James 3:1). It's true that a little knowledge can be dangerous.

* Photos courtesy of Wikipedia

"Three Dimensions of a Complete Life" by MLK, Jr.

On April 9, 1967, almost exactly one year before Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, King delivered a sermon at New Covenant Baptist Church in Chicago titled "Three Dimensions of a Complete Life." Those three dimensions are length, breadth, and height and refer to loving oneself, loving others, and loving God.

Dexter Ave. Baptist Church, MLK's church in Montgomery, AL

Here's an excerpt from that sermon dealing with the third dimension: love of God.

Now a lot of people have neglected this third dimension. And you know, the interesting thing is a lot of people neglect it and don’t even know they are neglecting it. They just get involved in other things. And you know, there are two kinds of atheism. Atheism is the theory that there is no God. Now one kind is a theoretical kind, where somebody just sits down and starts thinking about it, and they come to a conclusion that there is no God. The other kind is a practical atheism, and that kind goes out of living as if there is no God. And you know there are a lot of people who affirm the existence of God with their lips, and they deny his existence with their lives. (That’s right) You’ve seen these people who have a high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds. They deny the existence of God with their lives and they just become so involved in other things. They become so involved in getting a big bank account. (Yeah) They become so involved in getting a beautiful house, which we all should have. They become so involved in getting a beautiful car that they unconsciously just forget about God. (Oh yeah) There are those who become so involved in looking at the man-made lights of the city that they unconsciously forget to rise up and look at that great cosmic light and think about it—that gets up in the eastern horizon every morning and moves across the sky with a kind of symphony of motion and paints its technicolor across the blue—a light that man can never make. (All right) They become so involved in looking at the skyscraping buildings of the Loop of Chicago or Empire State Building of New York that they unconsciously forget to think about the gigantic mountains that kiss the skies as if to bathe their peaks in the lofty blue—something that man could never make. They become so busy thinking about radar and their television that they unconsciously forget to think about the stars that bedeck the heavens like swinging lanterns of eternity, those stars that appear to be shiny, silvery pins sticking in the magnificent blue pincushion. They become so involved in thinking about man’s progress that they forget to think about the need for God’s power in history. They end up going days and days not knowing that God is not with them. (Go ahead) 

And I’m here to tell you today that we need God. (Yes) Modern man may know a great deal, but his knowledge does not eliminate God. (Right) And I tell you this morning that God is here to stay. A few theologians are trying to say that God is dead. And I’ve been asking them about it because it disturbs me to know that God died and I didn’t have a chance to attend the funeral. They haven’t been able to tell me yet the date of his death. They haven’t been able to tell me yet who the coroner was that pronounced him dead. (Preach, preach) They haven’t been able to tell me yet where he’s buried.

You see, when I think about God, I know his name. He said somewhere, back in the Old Testament, "I want you to go out, Moses, and tell them ‘I Am’ sent you." (That’s right) He said just to make it clear, let them know that "my last name is the same as my first, ‘I Am that I Am.’ Make that clear. I Am." And God is the only being in the universe that can say "I Am" and put a period behind it. Each of us sitting here has to say, "I am because of my parents; I am because of certain environmental conditions; I am because of certain hereditary circumstances; I am because of God." But God is the only being that can just say, "I Am" and stop right there. "I Am that I Am." And He’s here to stay. Let nobody make us feel that we don’t need God. (That’s right) 

As I come to my conclusion this morning, I want to say that we should search for him. We were made for God, and we will be restless until we find rest in him. (Oh yeah) And I say to you this morning that this is the personal faith that has kept me going. (Yes) I’m not worried about the future. You know, even on this race question, I’m not worried. I was down in Alabama the other day, and I started thinking about the state of Alabama where we worked so hard and may continue to elect the Wallaces. And down in my home state of Georgia, we have another sick governor by the name of Lester Maddox. (Yes) And all of these things can get you confused, but they don’t worry me. (All right) Because the God that I worship is a God that has a way of saying even to kings and even to governors, "Be still, and know that I am God." And God has not yet turned over this universe to Lester Maddox and Lurleen Wallace. Somewhere I read, "The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof, and I’m going on because I have faith in Him. (Oh yeah) I do not know what the future holds, but I do know who holds the future. (Yes) And if He’ll guide us and hold our hand, we’ll go on in. 

The entire 40 minutes sermon is worth reading, or watching.  

Best Bible Translation - Part II

Last week, I wrote about translation theory. That can be a boring and somewhat tedious subject, but I felt it was necessary background before talking about Bible translation. After all, we can’t really talk about a “best” translation unless we have some idea of what the goals of the translation are.

Recall, that there is a spectrum of translation methods. On one end of the spectrum is the “formal equivalence” translation method, a stilted, mechanical rendering of the source language into the target language, but gives the audience a good sense of how the original was spoken. On the other end of the spectrum is the “free” translation method, a smooth, conversational rendering of the source language, but remotely distances the audience from the original style.

Before Bible translators begin the process of translating Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English, they need to decide how they will do it. Will their version be more formal, more free, or somewhere in-between? Here’s a chart of where several modern English Bible versions fit on the scale of translation method:

There is a common misunderstanding regarding the nature of the formal equivalent and free translation methods. These are often mislabeled as “word-for-word” and “thought-for-thought,” respectively. But, this doesn’t adequately describe the process. In fact, both methods are “thought-for-thought,” since words only have their meaning in a context.

Let’s look at two examples.

The Hebrew text of Prov 7:2 literally reads, “Keep my commandments and live, and my law like the little man in your eyes.” Both the formal equivalent translations and the dynamic equivalent translations recognize that the phrase “the little man in your eyes” is a Hebrew idiom that is equivalent to the English “apple of your eye,” which in itself requires some interpretation. Rather than leave the Hebrew idiom intact, even the formal equivalent translators decided that “little man in your eyes” was too foreign for an English audience. By contrast, translators on the right end of the spectrum determined that “apple of your eye” was, itself, too idiomatic and would leave some readers in the dark, so they translate it with the idea that the command in the second half of the verse is to guard the law with “your own eyes” (e.g. NLT, NCV).

Another example helps illustrate the various positions on gender-inclusive language. In John 3:19, the Greek says “men loved darkness.” The NASB, which is the most formal of the modern English translations, translates it exactly that way. However, most other translations, including the ESV, NIV, CEB, and NLT, recognizes that John not only meant the male population, but all of humanity, so it translates anthropoi (men) as “people.” These translations are not adapting “the truth of the Bible to man’s fickle and sinful ways,” as I’ve heard some say about gender-inclusive language. Rather, they are accommodating the intent of the text with the appropriate English translation.

While discussing his own translation of Hebrew into German, Martin Luther said, "What is the point of needlessly adhering so stiffly and stubbornly to the [Hebrew] words, so that we can't understand it at all?...Once he has the German words to serve the purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows" (Luther’s Works 35:213–14).

Or, more recently, Douglas Moo (Wheaton College) echoed these sentiments, saying, "The principle that meaning resides in larger clusters of words means that we should no longer talk in terms of ‘word-for-word’ as a translation value. To suggest in our discussion of translations among a general audience that ‘word-for-word’ is a virtue is to mislead people about the nature of language and translation." [Douglas Moo, We Still Don’t Get It: Evangelicals and Bible Translation Fifty Years After James Barr (Zondervan, 2014), p. 10].

In short, for Luther and Moo, the best Bible translations would be anything to the right of formal equivalent on the spectrum. However, for students who want to dig more into the original languages or the history and culture of the ancient world, formal translation might be preferred as they can “see” or “feel” the original language behind the translation and it gives them the freedom to ask questions and draw their own conclusions based on their own study.

Addendum:
I should add, that no translation is perfect. The late-18th century/ early-nineteenth century Jewish poet Hayyim Nachman Bialik wrote, "He who reads the Bible in translation is like a man who kisses his bride through a veil." Of course, few people have the time, energy and resources for the years-long investment of learning a biblical language, let alone three! So, the next best option is to read from many Bible translations. Don't just pick the one that you like or has the same theological bent as you. Mix it up. Compare translations and ask why version X goes in one direction, while version Y goes another. Let the different translations inform you of the complexities of the biblical world. Let their languages expand your vocabulary. Let their theological diversity allow you to appreciate the Bible's theological nuances. In other words, let the word of God speak to you, rather than the other way around.